Pakistani foreign minister: Islam is the most misunderstood religion in the world

Boo hoo indeed, It's all our fault!

And by the way, speaking of female Genital Mutilation...which is recommended and customary in Dar al Islam, and apparently, now, in America.
_______________

Here is my Thesis and Argument:

Female genital Mutilation is an Abomination against God.

God created women the way they are. God created men the way they are.

Any attempt to alter the Natural Course of God in the name of religion is an Abomination against God, itself.
___________

If we are to alter the genitalia of females under a religion, then we had better alter the male genitalia, as well, in order to be pious, because God (whoever it is) most certainly created us EQUAL.

Very witty George !

GEO:

"Ohhh, I understand the difference, alright. The difference between islam and the rest of humanity, that is. And I'm not the least bit responsible for it, so she can lose the guilt-trip."
____

Yeah, that's what "pisses" me off to no end.

How was the hugging fest?

Rand K, you got me laughing out loud with that one! I even paid extra for the industrial-strength BS-O-Meter(TM)--and she exploded that poor thing like a bomb in a turban!

Hi, Dowse! Well, I went out & borrowed a Prius with a "Hillary in 08" bumper sticker, hoping to impress them. And it worked! Except they all looked and sounded like Janet Reno. And that was just the men! I was hoping for a Michelle Bachmann type, you know, someone I'd ENJOY hugging. I'm going back to only hugging conservatives now...

London Jim, come on over to America and Dowse will give you a ride in his "Taliban Truck!"
After he checks it for IED's of course...

No one who got it right ever lived long enough to tell the tale, more likely?

Battle of Tours, democracy and Islam mix very well where democracy facilitates the rise to and exercise of power by mass Islamist parties as is happening not only in Egypt but across the Muslim world.

The founders of the relatively secularist regimes being displaced by these rising Muslim devotees of majority rule did their best to prevent such developments by constitutional provisions outlawing religious parties and otherwise attempting to preclude clerical control of the power of the state.

In cases like Turkey it was the army that put those secular regimes in place to begin with and, over the decades through successive anti-democratic coups, did their best to keep the Islamists out of power.

A similar coup saved Algeria from such a democratic takeover by the Islamic Salvation Front in the 1990’s, at the cost of many years of horrific civil war the gains of which may yet easily be lost.

Democracy in that part of the world in our time is the easiest road to clerical, Islamist domination and in these countries where mass Islamist parties enjoy overwhelming popularity the Islamists have no reason to oppose it and every reason to appeal to it.

Their hands once on the levers of power they will certainly use it as illiberally as you can imagine, making the states they control impose and even help export the most barbaric, savage, and evil features of Islam and Islamic law.

And meanwhile, Muslims have become a large enough and powerful enough minority in Holland to begin to exploit democracy there for the very same purpose, agitating to further suppress free speech and further exploit the power of the state to support and spread Islamism and working to bring a daily more Islamized Turkey into the EU in order to strengthen the hand of Islam in Europe.

In Europe democratic resistance to the rise of Islamic power is still possible and to be encouraged and pursued.

But in the Islamic world, though cases vary from one country to the next, often only un- and anti-democratic methods can possibly keep Islamism at bay.

Between the Second World War and the end of the Cold War it was widely hoped and even believed that under Western patronage and tutelage, native regimes of undemocratic modernizers were firmly in power and would sufficiently change their countries, weakening the ancient stranglehold of Islamic backwardness with the help of Western-educated elites, that eventually they would smoothly give place to stable, secular, and secularist democracies.

That was an illusion.

It is unclear how much we Americans can or should do to resist the rise of Islamism in the Muslim world.

The risks we face there are due almost entirely to our support for Israel, which we could and should re-think.

But we in America can and should support efforts of Europeans to resist Islamization.

And while we are at it we should do what we can to prevent our own Muslim minority getting much larger and more dangerous.

The problem is religious supremacist bigotry...All religions have an abundance of that...At the moment however, it is Mahoundian religious supremacists bigots who are killing people over it...There are two basic elements to this bigotry, a profound belief in scripture, and a huge ego...

'That statement is probably true considering that millions of peaceful Muslims do not engage in Jihad against the enemies of God as commanded in the Qur'an'.

Maybe, but they are all obligated to jihad as a duty to Allah, so even if they are not active jihdists they owe it to Allah to support it...So peaceful for them has a different meaning than peaceful for us...

Oh please, Ole Hartling, knock it off on the moral equivalency front. One knows or should knows that Christianity poses a virtual zero threat to democracy, freedom and equality under the law. Additionally, the term "Christian terrorism" is just about as good of an oxymoron as you're going to find.

Respecting Anders Brevik, you're simply wrong to maintain that he killed in the name of Christianty. He did invoke the "Judeo-Christian ethic" but he also invoked a lot of other things in a contradictory and convoluted statement and is a total loon who was immediately and unconditionally repudiated by Christians aplenty. To my knowledge he didn't even think of himself as a Christian. Frankly, I think you're desperate for trying to, in any manner, equate Christianity with Islam respecting the proclivity of each religion to produce violent adherents. Christianty is not a threat to free peoples. Islam is. The gap between these two religions in so many ways is enormous. Knocking down Christianity while fighting Islamic supremacism is counter-productive if not downright stupid.

"Ole, you have completely misinterpreted that hymn.
May I point out the following:
"marching as to war . . ."
If you need it explained further, let us know."

I am not the only one!

Why do I have a feeling that you sound just like those slimy Muslims who explain to the infidels that Jihad means an inner spiritual struggle to do the right thing?

The problem is not how I understand the hymn, because I am not a Christian, but how Christians understood it and the inspiration for it taken from references in the New Testament to the Christian being a soldier for Christ, for example II Timothy 2:3 (KJV): "Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ."

Pope Urban II was also inspired from the Bible when he spoke at Clermont in 1095:

"Christian warriors ... go and fight against the barbarians, go and fight for the deliverance of the holy places. ... Armed with the sword of the Machabees, go and merit an eternal reward. If you triumph over your enemies, the kingdom of the East will be your reward. ... This now is the time to prove that you are animated by true courage, the time to expiate the violence committed in the bosom of peace, the many victories purchased at the expense of justice and humanity. If you must have blood, bathe in the blood of the infidels. I speak to you with harshness because my ministry obliges me to do so. Soldiers of Hell, become soldiers of the living God!"

Writes Robert Payne in "The Crusades":

"His words were intented to shock, and also to heal. Christ's words sustained his arguments . In the mythology he was developing throughout his sermon, he was relaying on all those cryptic and well known words where Christ demands that his followers should abandon their fathers, mothers, wives, and children, and for this abandonment they should be rewarded a hundredfold and enter eternal life. Significantly, it was when he was reciting these words that the crowd suddently roared back at him: "God Wills it!", "Dieu li volts!", cried the northerners, and the southerners cried, "Diex le volt!" It was at that very moment that the crusade came into existence.

Yes indeed", Urban II answered. "Yes, it is the will of God. You today see the accomplishment of the word of our Saviour, whi promised to be in the mist of the faithful, when assembled in his name; it is He who dictated you the words that I have heard. Let them be your war cry, and let them announce everywhere the presence of the God of armies!"

The great warrior and war monger Winston Churchill just loved the hymn. When Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt met in 1941 on the battleship HMS Prince of Wales to agree the Atlantic Charter, a church service was held for which Prime Minister Churchill chose the hymns. He chose "Onward, Christian Soldiers" and afterwards made a radio broadcast explaining this choice:

"We sang "Onward, Christian Soldiers" indeed, and I felt that this was no vain presumption, but that we had the right to feel that we serving a cause for the sake of which a trumpet has sounded from on high. When I looked upon that densely packed congregation of fighting men of the same language, of the same faith, of the same fundamental laws, of the same ideals ... it swept across me that here was the only hope, but also the sure hope, of saving the world from measureless degradation."

The song has been sung at many funerals, including at the funeral of American president Dwight D. Eisenhower at the National Cathedral, Washington, DC, March 1969. Apart from its obvious martial associations, the song has been associated with protest against the established order, particularly in the case of the civil rights movement.

An attempt was made in 1986 to strip "Onward, Christian Soldiers" from the United Methodist Hymnal due to perceived militarism. Outrage among church goers caused the committee to back down.

The hymn still inspire to killing and terror in the name of the Christian God. Latest example is the Norwegian terrorist and mass murderer of innocent young socialists and children - Anders Breivik - who believed himself to be a Christian Crusader. "Onward, Christian soldiers!" Breivik said in a July 12 video. And: "Celebrate us, the martyrs of the conservative revolution, for we will soon dine in the Kingdom of Heaven."

You go and tell Breivik that he completely misunderstood the hymn and the peaceful tenets of Christianity, and tell also the leaders of IRA that they misunderstood their religion of peace when they used terror to achieve a political goal.

By the way. I have nothing against Christianity. It sounds like a really good idea. I just wish someone would try it. ;-)

"I went out & borrowed a Prius with a "Hillary in 08" bumper sticker, hoping to impress them."
_______________________________

Oh yeah? I hear those quasi-rice-burners have unbelievable acceleration! Like 0 to 60 in 1 minute, or something.

Good shot, ole h, in adition to islam, you oviously have a problem with Christianity, that is your problem.

"The problem is not how I understand the hymn, because I am not a Christian, but how Christians understood it and the inspiration for it taken from references in the New Testament to the Christian being a soldier for Christ, for example II Timothy 2:3"

Instead of fixating on a nuanced point based mostly on you subjective perspective and analysis and a flimsy suspicion regarding the possibility of a vague and subtle influence of a hymn on the mind , consider the actual preponderant circumstances griping the people of Europe as they faced the scourge of both islam and the Nazis The sound track running inside peoples heads heard most loudly where perhaps the sermons warning them of the real impending doom coming their way from the murdering, liberty denying invading hordes of rabid sword wielding islamists, or in the later case, the goose stepping hitler zombies .

The fact is ole h. islam would have stretched all the way to the north pole by the turn of the first millennium be it not for a resistance lead by Christians and united and motivated by their Christianity.
From Irish monks to Christian noblemen to Christian Kings to Popes and to heroic knights, for centuries resisted fought and sacrificed much fighting against islams and aggressions. It was the kings Christian kings of Spain which lead and fought the battles finally removing the remaining bastions of islam in the Iberian peninsula in 1492.
The questions is if now the anti-Christians can contribute and help in this battle we all face, or will the likes of Rosie O, foolishly undermine even their beloved interests by running interference for the jihadists.

Never mind *sigh*

I was just pointing out a semantic issue. The hymn literally means "marching as though to war".

It refers to an existential battle, Ole. Perhaps because you are not a Christian raised in the faith, you do not understand how the hymn is taught. I learned it in Catholic School as a child and we were firmly taught the reference to a spiritual, not physical battle.

Good vs. Evil? Ring a bell?

To use one hymn to characterize a militaristic movement, hystrically citing Breivik, is a bit over the top.

"...how Christians understood it and the inspiration for it taken from references in the New Testament to the Christian being a soldier for Christ, for example II Timothy 2:3 (KJV): 'Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.'"

You cited only part of that passage. Here, lets read the entire passage below to understand the context of this entire passage ...

II Timothy 2:1-:

"You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. You therefore must endure hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier. And also if anyone competes in athletics, he is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules. The hardworking farmer must be first to partake of the crops. Consider what I say, and may the Lord give you understanding in all things."

The context of this passage is clearly explained as the "affairs of this life". There is no mention of being on a literal battlefield in this passage, so you're missing the whole point of this passage. This passage is focusing ones attention on not getting spiritually and/or emotionally weighed down by the everyday affairs of this life; affairs that we all have to deal with: earning a living, raising a family, health issues, etc.

You are totally twisting this passage and that song, btw.

correction: II Timothy 2:1 - 7

Good points, champ.

In reference to champ's point above, Christians, unlike muslims, do not claim that the NT is a document commanding them to physically conquer the world through violent warfare through commandments valid for all time.

"It's a common strategy by those against Christianity to take a verse from the Bible and build an entire incorrect interpretation based upon one verse without first reading the context of the passage."

I would'nt know, not being against Christianity. But you propably mean like pope Urban II did when he copied the best weapon from Islam - Jihad - and created an army of holy Christian warriors fighting the enemies of God by using the most cryptic words of the gospel taken out of its peaceful and spiritual context, and called it the Will of God?

No wonder Martin Luther called the Vatican for Anti-Christ.

Gosh, Ole, what's got into you? Do we need to remind you that this is Jihad Watch, not Crusades Watch? As a clue, the first is a clear and present danger, while the latter is history.

Have you even read Robert's book on the defensive nature of the Crusades?

"Good shot, ole h, in adition to islam, you oviously have a problem with Christianity, that is your problem."

Thank you. But no, I have no problems with Christianity, but it seems that a lot of Christians have had a lot of problems with their religion through the ages.

I don't blame the Europeans for taking up arms against the Muslims in a defensive war to reclaim the wast Christian territories lost to Islamic Jihad almost 400 years earlier. It was a just war by Western definition and a necessary war to stop or slow down Muslim aggression against Europe.

I even think that it was a brilliant strategy to copy the concept of Holy War - Jihad - and use it against the Muslims in the form of a Christian Crusade with free looting and eternal life for the brave 'soldiers of the living God'.

The problem is that the whole idea of fighting in the name of God is just as anti-Christian as Islam is. Martin Luther was probably the first influential Christian to completely denounce Crusades, an idea still alive among his Catholic opponents at the time. To Luther it is an insult of the name of Christ and a perverse mixing of the task of the Church and the secular authorities. For Luther it is impossible that the Church or the Christian congregation can constitute an army who should fight against the enemies of Christ - the Muslims - with weapons. The church becomes only church by preaching the gospel in faith. If a "Christian" army carries the name or symbol of Christ in its banner, it commits a greater sin than any Turk.

Says Luther:

"The war against the Turkish aggressors should be fought under the banner of the emperor or the secular political authority. Anyone who are called to fight can do so and in good conscience on the command of the secular authorities."

You can ask yourself if Jesus ever took up arms against the Roman occupation force of his country or asked his followers to do so? Jesus did not even allow one of his followers to defend him with a sword against the Roman soldiers when he was arrested on false charges. How can an army be build upon the obligation to love your enemy and turn the other cheek? How can any political entity or secular power be build upon the preachings of Jesus? It can't, and the first three hundred years Christianity spread by the Word and not the Sword and accepted persecution. It was corrupted when it gained political power as state religion in the Roman Empire. Christianity was not 'designed' to have political power, it was meant to be preached behind the back of any political power, and give to the emperor what belongs to him and to God what is his. Politics and war definitely belongs to the secular regiment and not the spiritual.

It think the hymn gives the wrong ideas about the peaceful tenets and nature of Christianity and has a ring to it not very different from the Turkish poem 'The soldiers prayer': “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers..." I am sure Muslim apologists would also point out that the poem is not about bloody war but Jihad as an inner struggle, and taken out of context. It's a prayer for Gods sake!

The immediate association by the words of the hymn is not to the spiritual struggle or The Salvation Army but to bloody war against the foes of Christ, as in Crusade. Churchill and Eisenhower were not generals in the Salvation Army.

A June 2, 1944 message to Allied troops before the Normandy landings, began with General Eisenhower stating, "Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force! You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months." His later bestselling memoir was entitled Crusade in Europe.

George W. Bush in 2002 described his anti-terrorism campaign as a crusade but was compelled to repudiate the term when it was pointed out that the word, because of the historical events to which it referred in the Middle East, was regarded as offensive by some Muslims and Jews.

Excellent question, CGW ...

Here's a review from one reader regarding Robert's book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam And The Crusades:

"Sweeping away the politically correct myths about a tolerant, peaceful Islam brutalized by demonic Christian Crusaders, Robert Spencer in this powerful, important book lets the facts of history speak for themselves. The truth he recovers is simple: an aggressive, violent Islamic creed for fourteen centuries has waged war against the infidel West, a scourge of conquest and persecution that roused the Crusaders to restore the Near East to the Christian and Hellenic culture devastated by the armies of Islam. Spencer’s rousing, straight-talking book is a much-needed antidote to the poisonous propaganda that compromises our current battle against jihadist murder."

— Bruce S. Thornton, author, Greek Ways: How the Greeks Created Western Civilization

**And here's another review on Robert's book, Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is And Islam Isn't:

"Robert Spencer’s meticulously researched and powerfully argued book counters the moral equivalence arguments that attempt to excuse or divert attention from the actions of radical Islamic jihadists by attacking Christianity, Judeo-Christian civilization, and the West. In Religion of Peace? Spencer critically examines the history and teachings of Islam, the history of Muslim anti-Semitism, and Muslim views of Christianity, and in so doing helps us better understand the ideological background of the anti-Semitic and anti-Western hatred and violence that the Islamic jihadists espouse. Spencer’s thought-provoking book persuasively demonstrates the ways in which Western civilization, rooted as it is in the Judeo-Christian tradition, is profoundly different from the model of society dictated by Islamic sharia. Rich in its insights and analysis, this is a book that should be read and appreciated by Christians and Jews alike."

— Rabbi David G. Dalin, author of The Myth of Hitler’s Pope

Both reviews on each book can be read here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/recommended-books-to-understand-jihad-dhimmitude.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ole Hartling, at the very least you need to read these two reviews. Also, stay focused on the real threat: islam and company.

"Do we need to remind you that this is Jihad Watch, not Crusades Watch? As a clue, the first is a clear and present danger, while the latter is history."

And let me remind everyone here, that the war against Islamism and Jihadism is not a religious war but a secular war, and that no justification for this war can be found in Christianity, unless you twist it and put it on its head.

For Muslims all wars are of course holy wars fought in the defense of islam whether offensive or defensive. But we are not Muslims but first of all defenders of secular democracies and its values and principles. We defend political equality and religious freedom - let us never forget that whatever else we believe in.

"And let me remind everyone here, that the war against Islamism and Jihadism is not a religious war but a secular war, and that no justification for this war can be found in Christianity, unless you twist it and put it on its head."

Who here suggested that this war is anything BUT secular? You're the one who did that with your post about the hymn.

Are you a pacifist?

According to Webster’s dictionary, a pacifist is someone who is opposed to violence, especially war, for any purpose, often accompanied by the refusal to bear arms by reason of conscience or religious conviction.

BTW, Jesus was not a pacifist ...if you think so, then you have a very false impression of our LORD. Jesus not only spoke in favor of protecting oneself individually, but nationally, as there is nothing unlawful about national defense. Jesus instructed Chritians to follow the law, and according to the law, we can bear arms for our own protection - which I fully support. Hey I used to shoot trap 'n skeet with my Dad years ago, so I know how to handle a 12 gauge shotgun. I currently don't own one now, and I might be a bit rusty, but I'm sure that it's like riding a bike. Anyway, Jesus was not a pacifist as you allege.

"Here's a review from one reader regarding Robert's book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam And The Crusades: ..."

Thanks champ, I read the book, and also "The Truth about Muhammad" and "Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't".

In the last mentioned book Robert seems to agree with me:

"Thus again, the imitation of Christ and the imitation of Muhammad are very different affairs. Large-scale Crusades haven't recurred in the Cristian world over the last eight hundred years because there is no imperative in the teaching of Christ to justify warfare in the name og religion. ..." (page 102).

Exactly! And that is why Urban II misused the Scripture as I claimed he did.

champ, I seem to recall a certain episode with the moneychangers at the Temple . . . ;-D

Here, here, dumbles . . . to every word!

That said, I am not advocating that Christians lock 'n load and go on shooting sprees, not at all.

"Anyway, Jesus was not a pacifist as you allege."

I am not a pacifist and I never said that Jesus was a pacifist in the normal meaning of the word. We can fight all we want in just wars on the command of the political authorities, but we cannot use 'the teaching of Christ to justify warfare in the name of religion' (as Robert says), or fight under the banner of Christ, as Martin Luther said.

Who's doing that, Ole? Certainly not Robert nor we here at JW. Why are you chastising us?

"Who here suggested that this war is anything BUT secular? You're the one who did that with your post about the hymn."

I referred to the former President Bush with his nonsence about the war on terror being a "Crusade". But why do most debaters here compare Islam and Christianity when it is a secular war?

"Turning the other cheek" was not advice for submission, but of defiance."

Yes, just like love your enemy really means resist him. ;-)

No wonder there is more than 38,000 Christian sects.

I saw that hymn post as coming entirely out of the blue. You didn't mention Bush until much later. And in his case, he was using a figure of speech that has come about in common parlance to mean "one heckuva fight", NOT specifically for religious reasons.

It's like saying "Paris is a Mecca for fashionistas". That's obviously not meant to be interpreted literally.

I don't think that debaters here typically do compare islam and Christianity when it is a secular war. Can you give a concrete example? I myself have not noticed this trend.

"Why are you chastising us?"

I am not. Just trying to make you think, and think rationally and selv critically. That is what made Western man and civilization strong.

Don't you understand what I mean by defiance? Instead of submitting, you turn the other cheek in defiance, as if to say, "Do what you will, you shall not break me."

That is what is meant by that expression. Perhaps as a non-Christian you are misunderstanding the meaning of our various traditions.

There seems to be somewhat of a language barrier here.

It's not an invitation to let yourself be abused, IOW.

"Pakistani foreign minister: Islam is the most misunderstood religion in the world." Very funny."

So don't say there is no fun in religion:

"Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious." (Ayatollah Khomenei).

I am sure to Khomenei it was no fun having sex with his 10-year old wife. And I am quite sure it was even less fun for the girl. ;-)

How about this story:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/videos-features/khomeini-sexually-assaulting-crying-and-screaming-4-year-old-girl-with-parental-consent/

http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/01/ayatollah-khomeinis-fling-with-four.html

Wakingwest, you're so diplomatic!

I agree, sticking to the task at hand - the counter-jihad - is the best course to follow on these threads.

"It's and endless circular task when out of courtesy you allow someone to postulate a series of broad generalities such as “Jesus just like Buddha” and then after responding with your own clarifications and refutals, they go on to their next usually not so factual postulation."

Who said anything about Buddha or postulated broad generalities?

I referred to what was actually said at Clermont in 1095 by Urban II (according to historian Robert Payne), what Robert Spencer said about the Crusades and what Martin Luther said.

Your posting is a postulation and a series of broad generalities concluding what is relevant and not for this discussion, but giving no quotes and no arguments about anything. Sad story!

"I agree, sticking to the task at hand - the counter-jihad - is the best course to follow on these threads."

The best course to follow is the counter-jihad AND the counter-Crusade AND to counter anybody who tries to justify a war of aggression or terror on his religious belief.

Someone once said: "Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?" I don't care who said it, even if a carpenter said it, it is pointing in the right direction - to where the problem lies.

G. K. Chesterton wrote:

"The publisher said of somebody, "That man will get on; he believes in himself." And I remember that as I lifted my head to listen, my eye caught an omnibus on which was written "Hanwell." I said to him, "Shall I tell you where the men are who believe most in themselves? For I can tell you. I know of men who believe in themselves more colossally than Napoleon or Caesar. I know where flames the fixed star of certainty and success. I can guide you to the thrones of the Super-men. The men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic asylums."

(G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (1908) Chapter II. The Maniac).

Now Buddha is mentioned he said:

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”

So who is right? The carpenter, Chesterton or Buddha?

"How about this story:"

I have seen the video before. Hard to tell if it is anti-shi'ite propaganda or the truth. However, in "THE LITTLE GREEN BOOK - Selected Fatawah And Sayings of The
Ayatollah Mosavi Khomeini", he said:

"Any girl who is of age, that is, capable of understanding what is in her own best interest, if she wishes to get married and is a virgin, must procure authorization of her father or paternal grandfather. The permission of her mother or brother is not required.

If a man who has married a girl who has not reached puberty
possesses her sexually before her ninth birthday, inflicting
traumatisms upon her, he has no right to repeat such an act with her."

At least ayatollah Khomenei did not repeat the traumatism of the five your old girl, so he is in the clear according to his own interpretation of the Islamic Law.

Christianity never went that far. No minimum age of marriage is mentioned in the gospels but according to Catholic dogma the girl must be 12 years old or had come to puberty to enter into holy matrimony. Dispensation could be given to an 11 year old girl who was pregnant. No blame seems to be put upon her or the husband in spe:

"The marriageable age is fourteen full years in males and twelve full years in females, under penalty of nullity (unless natural puberty supplies the want of years). Marriages void because of the absence of legal or natural puberty are held as sponsalia, inducing thereby impediment of "public decorum" (Cap. 14, tit. de despon. impub., X, 4, 2). Civil codes generally require a more advanced age than the canonical."

(Quoted from Catholic Encyclopedia (1917).

An age of consent statute first appeared in secular law in 1275 in England as part of the rape law. The statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age.

A 1576 law making it a felony to "unlawfully and carnally know and abuse any woman child under the age of 10 years" was generally interpreted as creating more severe punishments when girls were under 10 years old while retaining the lesser punishment for acts with 10- and 11-year-old girls. Jurist Sir Matthew Hale argued that the age of consent applied to 10- and 11-year-old girls, but most of England's North American colonies adopted the younger age. A small group of Italian and German states that introduced an age of consent in the 16th century also employed 12 years.

"Don't you understand what I mean by defiance? Instead of submitting, you turn the other cheek in defiance, as if to say, "Do what you will, you shall not break me."

Again, I am not the only one. There are at least three schools of thought in regard to this passage.

The most straightforward reading of the passages in Matthew and Luke, however, suggests that the phrase has a more radical meaning: a command to respond to aggression by willingly exposing oneself to a further act of aggression rather than retaliating, retreating, or ignoring it.

Since the passages call for total nonresistance to the point of facilitating aggression against oneself, and since human governments defend themselves by military force, they have led some to Christian anarchism, including the notable Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, author of the nonfiction book The Kingdom of God Is Within You.

As I don't think you should turn the other cheek because it is irrational not to defend oneself, I have no way of chosing between the different interpretations.

You like the dd-army interpretation but to my knowledge there are no prophets in Christianity. Martin Luther did not exactly say "we are all priests" but close enough:

"That the pope or bishop anoints, makes tonsures, ordains, consecrates, or dresses differently from the laity, may make a hypocrite or an idolatrous oil-painted icon, but it in no way makes a Christian or spiritual human being. In fact, we are all consecrated priests through Baptism, as St. Peter in 1 Peter 2[:9] says, "You are a royal priesthood and a priestly kingdom," and Revelation [5:10], "Through your blood you have made us into priests and kings."

There is of course a reson why Christianity disintegrated into more than 38,000 congregations - this is just one of them.

The difference, mein herr, between marriageable ages in islam and Catholicism is the same as the one I referred to above.

You are comparing contemporary and scripturally-sanctioned practice in islam with historical practice in Christianity.

I repeat that this is not the forum for your moral-equivalencing. Go to a Christianophobic site to get that $hit out of your system, then come back here and fight the real battle against religious fascism.

"There is of course a reson why Christianity disintegrated into more than 38,000 congregations - this is just one of them"

Another dud by the resident "critical thinker". Christianity has grown indeed, note he sneaks in the word "disintegrate", a rather poor word choise having a meaning closer to braking down, his transparent attempt to inject his little sneakish venom into our discourse here at JW.
The significance of there being a multitude of approaches does not reflect negatively by logic nor example. For instance,there are thousands of textbooks on the subject of physics differining in things such as approach, language, level of skill and also there are almost as many different schools teaching physics not quite identicaly. Therby thus this fact invalidateNewton, Science or physics? in ole h's lower abdomen. it may.

"...his transparent attempt to inject his little sneakish venom into our discourse here at JW."

I agree. Ole Hartling hates Christians, but then he'll turn around and claim that he doesn't, as if no one has noticed his slights. Gosh, he and poster "Gaius" should become penpals; since they each make contradictory statements here about Christians. Perhaps they can write one another privately and then spew their hatred towards Christians to their hearts content, and without censor.

From the beginning of your post you repeatedly made several now routinely used assertions made by muslims who are brainwashed to reaspond with in order to
to elevate islams claim over Christianity, at least in argument.
You, more than once, droped the bomb;
"There is of course a reason why Christianity disintegrated into more than 38,000 congregations"
To your point I responded with:
The significance of there being a multitude of approaches does not reflect negatively by logic nor by example. For instance,there are thousands of textbooks on the subject of physics differing in things such as approach, language, level of skill and also there are almost as many different schools teaching physics not quite identically. Thereby thus this fact invalidate Newton, Science or physics?
To this you responded with 0, so either you learned somethig or are incapable of refuting this fact.

So now considering this evidence, why would it be unreasonable to conclude you are behaving as an anti-Christian and who fails to accept having made a faulty conclusion , and who is the actual person thus poroved to be engaging in "ad hominid arguments".
One thing I agree with you, you are seeing "shadows" whilst in the forest ignoring the conflagration about you.

By now I had expected for the malaise to have run it's course, but as you can tell, a bit is left at the very end of the alimentary canal, perhaps a little Gasx would help that poor ole' chap.

A few posters have observed that you hate Christians, so that should tell you something. Also, stating that you hate Christians is not by definition an "ad hominem" attack; note its definition:

1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Observing that you hate Christians is based upon some your comments and the overall tone of them here, and on other threads as well; whereas ad hominems are generally baseless and unwarranted. Stating that you hate Christians is based upon observations made by a few others from some of your own comments, and not out of an emotional response out of thin air. BIG difference, pal.

You wrote:

"Pointing out some belligerent aspects in the way the Scriptures historically have been interpreted and misused is not done to condemn or weaken Christianity, but because the best way to make things better is learning from mistakes."

Make WHAT things better? You have dragged down this thread by going on a tear for what? Others have asked you the same question but all you've done is dodge the question. What needs to improve? You still haven't clarified your position by being more specific. But one thing is very clear, you do hate Christians, and you aren't fooling anyone here.

...lol, yeah and he needs to take his beef with Christians elsewhere; since no Christians here are advocating what he's blathering about.

The only question I am concerned with is whether my arguments are sufficiently strong to support my conclusion. That may not always be the case, and that is why I appreciate relevant critique.

I don't care if some Muslim or atheist made a similar critique. I am not a politicians and I am not on a crusade against Christianity.

I am sorry to have overlooked your questions to my statement: "There is of course a reason why Christianity disintegrated into more than 38,000 congregations". I am using the word "disintegration" as an objective and neutral description of a process moving from general agreement about the dogmas towards a more individualistic interpretation, or from one center to many closely related centers.

I should have specified the reason for this process but I thought it was self evident. I did quote Luther for basically saying: We are all priests, but you did not get the hint. Christianity is not a collectivist religion like Islam. The preaching of Jesus cannot be made into laws that could regulate a society. The ethical obligations are directed at the individual and he should strive to meet them on his own behalf and not on others or society's behalf.

So the individualistic principle is inherent in Christianity and it broke out when the Bible became available in the folk languages after the invention of moveable types for printing books at low cost. More common people became literate and could study the Scriptures for themselves and interpretate the text in a way that satisfied their hearts and minds. Many previous attempts to deviate from the dogma were put down using brutal force against the heretics and the Inquisition was formed for this purpose; but with Protestantism the Church lost political power and soon sectarianism flourished. Most of the 38,000 sects are Lutheran-evangelical and they differ very little but sufficiently to wish to form their own congregations. This 'explosion' is also a consequence of the religious freedom democracies guarantee their citizens.

I don't think the many sects weakens Christianity. On the contrary it make it stronger paying respect to diversity within some broad limits. Remember the question here was the number of misunderstanders of their religion. That question cannot be answered because who the true believers are people cannot know, only God knows, as Luther said.

The above summary is in essence what I meant by saying "There is of course a reason why ..." There is also good reasons why Islam did not split up into a large number of different sects but only a handful. The main reasons are, that Muslims believe every word in the Qur'an comes directly from God and is true and valid for all times. And of course the death penalty for apostasy, and not to forget that only a special class of scholars could interpretate the Scriptures and that the gates for new interpretation (ijtihad) was closed almost a millennium ago. Add to that wide spread illiteracy among the Muslims and the power of the clergy, plus extensive social control and you understand why Islam is so uniform.

So it is no problem that Christianity cover a rather wide range of beliefs centered upon the preaching of Jesus Christ and mixed up with conflicting Old Testaments verses and people being more or less fundamentalistic. That is an 'explosive' cocktail which in principle opens op for as many different interpretations as there are Christians.

You compare the Christian diversity with hard science:

"For instance,there are thousands of textbooks on the subject of physics differing in things such as approach, language, level of skill and also there are almost as many different schools teaching physics not quite identically. Thereby thus this fact invalidate Newton, Science or physics?"

The answer is simple. Science and the scientific method is based upon logic, language and empirical facts. There is only one scientific method and revelation is not a part of the process. Theology is based upon logic and language and a concept of God, but whatever you say about God or the will of God cannot be tested against reality because God is not an empirical object. That is one of the main differences between a scientific theory and a claim about the nature of God. The theory can be falsified but a claim about God cannot. (At least not by science). You can believe what you want and nobody can gainsay you and prove you are wrong. In principle a scientific theory must be falsifiable, otherwise it is not a scientific theory but pure metaphysics.

In physics all scientists agree upon one standard model, but they know it is not perfect because the theory of relativity is incompatible with the quantum theory - among other things.

But in religion there is nothing similar - no 'standard model' about the nature of God and the will of God that all believers are in agreement about. And there is no method to overcome the differences, as there is in the hard sciences.
Religious beliefs are subjective truths and you have no way of proving that your subjective truth is more true than what somebody else believes about God.

An if you feel or believe that I am an anti-Christian nothing I say can make you change your mind. If what a Christian is cannot be defined, or can be defined in 38,000 different ways, that applies also to an anti-Christian. So why discuss the matter at all? That is the only thing you rightly can blame me for, but I am prepared to take the blame, and let you keep your belief. I have no problem with that.

One thing for sure, your assertions and summary convey great confidence in your beliefs and you appear to at least skim relevant quotations and factual historical potpourri into your conclusions.
It is easy to get caught up in a game of light philosophical "ping-pong" exchange but i shan't.

I will however offer a perspective which differs from your accustomed differentiation of the science vs religion argument
Seek a text on geography when dealing with questions of territories and land masses. Seek the Bible and God, Judeo-Christian version, when dealing with spiritual issues.
Not to say the Bible does not speak of other things sometimes, for instance, it's description of Genesis as compared to the present day concepts of Cosmology, let there be light.., to God one day is as a thousand (special relativity), the curtains of space (general relativity) etc.