"It is a collection of rules to help jihadists avoid violating Shariaa during their conduct of jihad."

...like they really care....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 9, 2007 9:15 AM

"Jihad in the cause of God has been the continuous duty of the nation of Islam since God instituted it as a law and it will persist until the last of the Muslims fight alongside Christ, may God's peace be upon him, against the False Messiah at the end of times.

This "fighting alongside Christ" does strongly suggest that Islam is not anti-Christian, and may be seen as a call to partnership between Islam and Christianity. For the information of the general public (who are not experts in these matters), it would be good to know who the specific targets of the jihad are- if it is just Israel, atheists and moral degenerates. Perhaps this might open up some co-operative dialoge between the Islamic world and its common values with the traditional Christian West.

Certainly the 'False Messiah' (by which I assume they mean secularism) has been condemned strongly by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

Posted by: Barnaby at May 9, 2007 9:26 AM

"I am not pretending to be qualified to issue religious edicts or that I am deducing new rules of jurisprudence. I am merely a transmitter of religious knowledge."

And what would that religious knowledge he is transmitting be concerned with? Why it would be JIHAD.

Funny how, though, we are told by many, many speaking in the name of islam (and sadly by our own political leaders) that there shall not be any mention of the relationship between islam and jihad or violence or war or anything nefarious for that matter.

"Islam is a religion of peace!" they say. Except when it's not.

From now on, my refrain is, "Prove it!"

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at May 9, 2007 9:28 AM

Barnaby, no the false messiah is not secularism. See

http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Authors/JR/Future/index.htm

for a study of the end-times from both a Christian and islamic perspective.

Jesus second coming has nothing at all to do with the islamic belief of the coming of Issa....in fact they appear to diametrically opposed. Issa will come claiming to be Jesus (second coming) but is to come and bring an end to Christianity (or break the cross).

Another site that I haven't looked at as much is

http://al-mahdi.atspace.com/

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at May 9, 2007 9:38 AM

I don't know precisely who the "Anti-Christ" is, but, rather than being an individual, it seems more likely to be a metaphor for a social trend of extreme liberalism, or a morality of "Do What Thou Wilt".

But, it certainly seems that it cannot be far off (figuratively, of course, not literally), when it is now more socially acceptable to murder one's children (through abortion), or to be a homosexual, than it is to smoke cigarettes.

I guess this is why we all (whether Christian or Muslim) must be prepared to "fight alonside Christ".

Posted by: Barnaby at May 9, 2007 10:08 AM

Barnaby,

If you, as a Muslim, are really prepared to fight alongside Christ, then why don't you follow His precepts?

Christ said to love your neighbor as yourself. Are "atheists and moral degenerates" not your neighbor?

He also said "judge not, lest ye be judged". What gives you or Muhammad or Omar or anyone else the right to decide which lives are of value and which aren't?

You obviously know nothing about Christianity. Christ taught us to hate the sin, but love the sinner and trust God to deal with him. Islam says the sinner does not deserve to live.

Where is the basis for a partnership when Muslims believe that anyone who doesn't follow their "prophet" doesn't deserve to live?

Posted by: PMK at May 9, 2007 10:29 AM

"There are no "common values" between islam and Christianity, you deluded pagan Moon-god worshipper.

You make me sick. You are not worthy to let the name of Jesus pass your lips."

Darcy, if you are not sure of the true Christian position, please write to the Pope, the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic (Universal) Church, and ask His opinion on whether there are any common values between the Christianity and Islam, and whether dialogue is consistent with Christian principles or not.

Posted by: Barnaby at May 9, 2007 10:35 AM

'when it is now more socially acceptable...to be a homosexual, than it is to smoke cigarettes.'

Of course it is! After all, cigarettes are the instruments of Shaitan (it says so on the box), whereas homosexuals, like women, Jews, pigs, apes, and yes, even Muslims, are the creations of Allah.

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

Posted by: Dane at May 9, 2007 10:41 AM

Translated:

If you do not permit Islam to dominate the world, you are being "aggressive".*

Which makes you a "non-innocent".

And an "oppressor".

The rest of the smokescreen is immaterial.

__________________________________________________

* -Not to bow is "aggression". Not surrender to Islamic domination and pay the "submission tax" is "aggression". To try to proselytize your own religion is "aggression".
Know the code. Spread the dread.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 9, 2007 10:49 AM

Darcy,

It's not a total waste of time. Just posting the questions and watching Barnaby remain silent is enough. He or his partner (forget which) came back with a totally ridiculous comment a few days ago that just made me laugh out loud. They show the vacuity of their arguments. It's good to make them squirm. We shouldn't give up posting just because they won't answer.

PMK

Posted by: PMK at May 9, 2007 11:25 AM

[jihad] will persist until the last of the Muslims fight alongside Christ, may God's peace be upon him...

Barnaby,

Why didn't you say Jesus? That's His earthly name. "Christ" denotes the divinity of Jesus. So Muslims really do believe that Jesus is God? Well, well, well. You learn something new every day.

Posted by: PMK at May 9, 2007 11:33 AM

Barnaby,

"For the information of the general public (who are not experts in these matters), it would be good to know who the specific targets of the jihad are- if it is just Israel, atheists and moral degenerates. Perhaps this might open up some co-operative dialoge between the Islamic world and its common values with the traditional Christian West."

Would it suprise you that even Christians have been targeted by Muslim jihadists? So your answer would be Isreal, atheists, moral degenerates, and Christians.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 9, 2007 11:43 AM

"..if you are not sure of the true Christian position, please write to the Pope, the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic (Universal) Church, and ask His opinion on whether there are any common values between the Christianity and Islam, and whether dialogue is consistent with Christian principles or not."

Barnaby,

And what Muslim would give any credence to what the head of the Catholic (Universal? Of course that's what it means, but not to Muslims.) Church says about anything related to Islam?

We saw already how Muslims reacted when the Pope quoted a fifteenth century emperor's views on Islam. The Muslim reaction to a five-hundred-year-old quote was to call for the pope's head and to insist that the only dialogue that Muslims would accept was one where the rest of the world converted to Islam. Why would you accept the views of Benedict now?

Again, where is the partnership possibility when Muslims believe anything that remotely questions the tenets of their faith must be answered with violence and murder?

Posted by: PMK at May 9, 2007 12:18 PM

Barnaby said he is a Catholic. Why are people calling him a Muslim? Unless I've missed him saying the shahada recently...

Have patience with Barnaby, do not attack him or attribute ill will unless absolutely impossible to do otherwise. We need every potential ally we can get. Bat Ye'or has well recorded how disunity among non-Muslims led to their domination by Muslims.

And if I don't misrecall, Robert Spencer said debate with someone on this site is not a waste of time or something to get all angry about when someone doesn't understand quickly enough what you think should be understood.

Even if the one you argue with really is not capable of dialogue, others observing our debates are, so if you have the facts and logic, those observers will learn, even if your interlocutor can't. But observers won't be impressed at all, most of them, by impatience. Spencer also recently pointed out that these debates should not end up being about mere clashes of personalities, but about ideas. (I hope I'm not mischaracterizing what he said.)

Posted by: traeh at May 9, 2007 2:23 PM

regarding Barnaby:

I do not know enough about him yet. He appears to be willfully ignorant on the issues of Christianity versus Islam, more intent on coercing a response rather than analyzing the content of the response itself, but I could be wrong.

Through his words, his position will be revealed, eventually.

Darcy,

As a fellow poster in the community, I must interject and ask that you calm down and think a bit more before you continue to post responses. You may be having a bad day, but the number of your posts that have been wiped today is alarming.

Your input is valid and welcome here, but you must maintain a modicum of self-control when choosing your words.

Posted by: awake at May 9, 2007 2:40 PM

Robert Spencer quotes a paragraph from the article:

Dr Fadl, also known as Sayyid Imam Abdulaziz al-Sharif stressed that his call is now necessary because of the rise in new forms of un-Islamic fighting and killing in the name of jihad that violate Shariaa law, like the of killing people based on their nationality, skin or hair color, or being affiliated with a certain sect, and also the killing innocent Muslims or non-Muslims.

So only non-innocent Muslims and non-Muslims can lawfully be killed.

Spencer is saying here, is he not, "So only non-innocent Muslims, and non-Muslims whether innocent or not, can be killed." This looks like a minor misreading by Spencer of the paragraph, unless I'm missing something. What the paragraph states is that Fadl believes that

"killing innocent Muslims or non-Muslims" is "un-Islamic."

How does Spencer get from that to the idea that the paragraph says that Fadl believes that any non-Muslims but only guilty Muslims can lawfully be killed?

The language of the paragraph does not, at least on its face, mean what Spencer here says it means, as far as I can see. The paragraph, taken literally, can logically mean only this: Fadl believes killing innocent Muslims and innocent non-Muslims is un-Islamic. (I'm not talking about whether Fadl really believes what the paragraph attributes to him. Nor am I talking about the slippery meaning of "innocent" in Islamic terms. I'm only talking about what the paragraph literally says, which I think is all Spencer was talking about.)

The only other remotely possible logical interpretation makes no sense: the words could be read literally to mean that Fadl believes killing innocent Muslims is un-Islamic, and also killing any non-Muslims, whether guilty or innocent, is un-Islamic. Of course it seems very unlikely that the writer intended the paragraph to mean that, so my first interpretation seems the only accurate one here.

Posted by: traeh at May 9, 2007 3:04 PM

Barnaby, we all know what "dialog" means when dealing with moslems. In Germany we even have a new word for it. Dialog with moslems is called Dialüg which translates to diaLIE.

We've got your number, mahometans.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at May 9, 2007 4:17 PM

"Jihad in the cause of God has been the continuous duty of the nation of Islam since God instituted it as a law and it will persist until the last of the Muslims fight alongside Christ, may God's peace be upon him, against the False Messiah at the end of times. Jihad, as our prophet Muhammad informed us, is the pinnacle of the Islamic faith..."

Hi Traeh,

If Barnaby is a Cstholic then his apparent lack of knowledge of Christian doctrine is even more appalling.

These are his exact words:

"This "fighting alongside Christ" does strongly suggest that Islam is not anti-Christian, and may be seen as a call to partnership between Islam and Christianity. For the information of the general public (who are not experts in these matters), it would be good to know who the specific targets of the jihad are- if it is just Israel, atheists and moral degenerates. Perhaps this might open up some co-operative dialoge between the Islamic world and its common values with the traditional Christian West."

1. Does Barnaby really think that Jesus would sanction our determining who is a good Christian and who isn't? Israel, atheists and moral degenerates? He won't answer but maybe you will, what makes a moral degenerate? What gives any of us the right to decide who is and who isn't just before God?

2. There was nothing even remotely friendly toward Christianity in the Muslim world when Pope Benedict made his remarks at a conference last year in which he quoted a Byzantine emperor's remarks about Islam - the Islam he experienced - the Islam that was riding roughshod over Europe.

3. Baranaby infers that Israel, atheists and moral degenerates are valid targets for jihad. Anyone with any knowledge of Christianity would know that Jesus never sanctioned killing one's enemy.

4. If Islam wasn't completely anti-Christian it wouldn't be referring to Jews as apes and pigs when Jesus was a Jew.

Traeh, do you know what this sheik was referring to when he spoke of the "false Messiah"? Jews are still waiting for the messiah. Christians believe Jesus was the messiah. Where in Islamic literature did Muhammad or any of his contemporaries speak of "fighting alongside Christ"?

Barnaby may or may not be a Catholic but his refusal to respond to direct questions about his posts makes his word suspect. He comes across as a flame-thrower. I refuse to ignore his posts because I believe they need to be confronted. Barnaby's refusal to answer direct and specific questions, as opposed to personal attacks, speaks volumes about him. If he were really a Catholic (as I am) he would be able to respond to specific questions. Instead he throws out generalizations. That's not dialogue.

Posted by: PMK at May 9, 2007 4:25 PM

Certainly the 'False Messiah' (by which I assume they mean secularism) has been condemned strongly by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.
Posted by: Barnaby

The false messiah is mahomet, you idiot. The Pope speaks slightly more veiled than the ilk of mahometan imams, but he is very clear on what he thinks of islam.

it is the devil's cult and it cannot be reformed.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at May 9, 2007 4:29 PM

Allahfanculo,

Forget Barnaby.

The imam spoke of the "false messiah". What did the IMAM mean by that? Why would Muslims refer to Mohammad as the "false messiah"?

If they're speaking of Jesus then the whole sentence is one of conflicting clauses.

Barnaby won't answer my question, but maybe you can. Thanks

PMK

Posted by: PMK at May 9, 2007 4:40 PM

jihadists want to restore the caliphate.

there are no islam nations that want to openly declare a "caliphate" to engage in open warfare as a state against any "non muslim" country. after soundly being defeated by little ol Israel, they are too fearful of being openly losers. Therefore country's like Iran, Syria use surrogates ie, Hizbollah and Hamaas boyz to do their dirty work. muslims equals cowardice.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 9, 2007 5:56 PM

I guess this is why we all (whether Christian or Muslim) must be prepared to "fight alonside Christ".

Posted by: Barnaby

Barnaby you are defintely not a "Christian" as no Christian would say a Muslim must be prepared to fight alongside Christ.
that is muslim thinking. Jesus said what belongs to Rome (governing, armies, the "State") belongs to Rome, but that what belongs to God (Jesus) is your
soul. There is a separation of "Church" and "State", and Jesus was ahead of his time, and allowed you to follow him or not, your choice. He did not dictate that you would die as an aposate if you left your Christian church, as compared to Muhuammud who has apposates killed for leaving Islam. so Barnaby your not even close to thinking like a "Christian" as your Muslim thinking is showing real easy.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at May 9, 2007 6:04 PM

"Barnaby may or may not be a Catholic but his refusal to respond to direct questions about his posts makes his word suspect. He comes across as a flame-thrower. I refuse to ignore his posts because I believe they need to be confronted. Barnaby's refusal to answer direct and specific questions, as opposed to personal attacks, speaks volumes about him."

Dear Sir or Madam,

The reason I did not answer your questions (which appear principally rhetorical in nature anyway), is that I am not constantly attending to such matters. Since you feel it makes me appear suspect, here are answer to your questions:

1. Does Barnaby really think that Jesus would sanction our determining who is a good Christian and who isn't? Israel, atheists and moral degenerates? He won't answer but maybe you will, what makes a moral degenerate? What gives any of us the right to decide who is and who isn't just before God?

We, of course, do not have the right. People judge themselves. But one can quote the words of Christ:
"Those who refuse to believe are condemned already".

What makes a moral degenerate is a systematic refusal to obey the teachings of Christ and His Church. "Those who love me will obey my commands".

As I have been soundly insulted here, when my approach to try to introduce a more concilliatory perspective, I will not be visiting this site again.

Posted by: Barnaby at May 9, 2007 6:34 PM

Darcy (and others who are indignant with Barnaby):

Take it easy on Barnaby. Some of his statements are naive and poorly informed but I would agree with Traeh that he needs some space. Assuming that he's not a troll, and he reads this site honestly and open-mindedly he'll learn and many of his positions will gradually shift and become better informed. My own views have evolved in this way. They are not the same as when I first started posting here. I have often posted things that, with hindsight, I realized missed the point or were misinformed, short on facts, or informed by near or outright falsehoods. Some of my comments may have irritated other posters, and perhaps some still irritate those who are better informed. Many other posters at times irritate me too, and some of what Barnaby has said is in that category, but this is a huge topic. All any of us can do, is keep doing what we can to learn and become better informed about our subject matter. In the meantime, we all post with what we know or think we know about these topics, but no one among us has the whole picture. I agree with Traeh that we should not drive away another potential ally.

I would also point out that Barnaby, if he is a Catholic, may presently be under the influence of the Islamophile "Palestinian" theology that is rampant in the Christian world at present and is tied in with the politically correct pro-Arab, pro-Islamic views of the MSM and the Islamifying dhimmi currents in the Church. When I started posting here some of my positions were still in the thrall of this movement but I've shaken it off. Barnaby might do the same eventually, but he's more likely to do it if you calmly respond to his incorrect comments in a serious, rational way than if you browbeat him and insult him. Doing the latter will make fools of you instead.

Posted by: templar at May 9, 2007 6:49 PM

Two things, Barnaby:

First, hoever we judge to be the enemies of God (for the sake of the argument, Israel, atheists, moral degenerates or whomever else you might identify), resistance to their evil is to be carried on on the plain of reason, persuasion, good example and the like. The historic and present day reality is that Jihadists, all their rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, have reduced primarily to brute physical violence, usually carried out in a way that more or less self-conscientiously serves the specific interests of the Islamic community at the expense of all others.

Secondly, do not assume a moral or theological affinity between Christianity and Islam, at least not at the expense of Israel and the Jews. Christianity is based on a solid Jewish foundation as is clearly evident from the direct, clear continuity between Christian ritual and the Jewish liturgical patterns that it is based on, and every other type of historical and anthropological evidence that one could name.

An apocalyptic that envisions the followers of Islam fighting alongside Christ in the events of the final judgement against, of all things, the Jewish people whence Jesus Christ arose, is the patent, self-serving propaganda of an insidious, violent, chauvinistic, supremacist cult.

Posted by: templar at May 9, 2007 7:08 PM

PMK:

You said the following about Barnaby:

"He won't answer but maybe you will, what makes a moral degenerate? What gives any of us the right to decide who is and who isn't just before God?"

I don't defend Barnaby's pro-Islamic assumptions, but both the Christian and Jewish communities (and their respective spokesmen) have always claimed, by the authority of divine revelation as they respectively understand it, the right to rule as to what - and who - is right and/or not right, even with God. You might disagree that they have that prerogative, but to discredit his position on the basis of what constitutes a Christian view of morality and moral authority doesn't work, and in fact, PMK, it goes against your own claims of Catholic affiliation.

Barnaby's irenic position toward Islam is wrong, but trying to fault him as you do in the quote I provide above is the weakest part of your argument.

You also say:

"Anyone with any knowledge of Christianity would know that Jesus never sanctioned killing one's enemy.

Not directly, but the Church has constructed elaborate arguments over the ages in favour its "just war" doctrine allowing this under certain conditions.

Actually, I don't think we know enough of Barnaby's position to know that he was defending that kind of Jihadist violence. Many are under the impression, though mistakenly, that Jihad is primarily the spiritual struggle of the soul against evil. Naive, but sincere enough in a lot of cases. Barnaby's position might have been of that persuasion. Now we may never know.

Posted by: templar at May 9, 2007 7:33 PM

PMK,
I have only vaguest information about what that sheik said of Christ fighting alongside Muhammad -- stuff you probably know already, about how Muslims think Christ comes back at the end of the world and sort of goes to war against the bad guys in a Muslim style.

As for Barnaby, I wrote a very long post hoping I could explain the differences between Christianity and Islam, but I don't think he ever got to see it. Even though he makes some mistakes, and says some appalling things (such as you quoted where he groups jews with -- what was it? devils and some other dastardly category?), I very much doubt that he is Muslim, because he said some things on another thread that I very much doubt a Muslim would say, things that are particularly Christian -- for example, when people started reprimanding him with anger and insult, he didn't fight back, but kindly asked people to gently correct him if he's wrong, not attack him. It's not impossible he was a Muslim who knew how to fake what in a way is a rather complex spiritual maneuver of meeting harshness with kindness and humility -- but I doubt it was fake.

Bottom line: suppose he was a Muslim. I'd like to try the argument that he should nevertheless be treated as the Catholic he presents himself to be. If someone here directly insults others or makes chaos, we should not mix anger with argument, in my view. In my view perhaps one person in a hundred, if that, is mature enough to know how to mix argument and anger in a wholesome way. I certainly mishandle anger often enough. The other ninety-nine, and that means most of us, most of the time besmirch the integrity of our arguments and sully our own integrity when we mix in anger. Better to ignore someone if they become obnoxious, or send a private email to Spencer asking Spencer to ban the offender, if you think you have a rock solid case. Otherwise I think we should be resolutely polite and assume the good will, even against a fair amount of circumstantial counterevidence, of those we debate with. Anyway even if they don't have good will, we still need to be able to argue with them objectively. I am not against all anger. I just think that very, very few people are angry in a way that is beneficial to this site. Therefore we should restrain our anger as much as we possible can, or better yet, simply learn to let it go. Repression ain't the only option. If someone is poor at dialogue, and you feel you want to strike back in anger, just ignore him instead. Otherwise, if you are going to continue talking with him, keep your cool and stick to facts and logic and don't let emotion make you close your ears to his arguments however bad or feeble they may be. Anyway, that's how I see things at the moment.

Posted by: traeh at May 9, 2007 8:17 PM

"I agree with Traeh that we should not drive away another potential ally."
Posted by: templar

With that said, I hope you stick around Barnaby. I've been posting here on JW for nearly two years, so I know how hard the 'initiation' into this forum can be.

Hang in there, because this is a great place to learn and to grow.

Posted by: champ at May 10, 2007 2:20 AM

Templar,

Of course we look to our religious leaders for guidance. They can say what we do is sinful and they can even excommunicate us if they wish. However, the final decision will be made by God.

Barnaby said:

"Those who refuse to believe are condemned already".

What makes a moral degenerate is a systematic refusal to obey the teachings of Christ and His Church. "Those who love me will obey my commands".
------
Once again he is giving himself a right Christ never gave him or even the Pope: the right to judge how others obey the will of God. (In Christ's words: judge not, lest ye be judged)

That's why I say he is not true to his faith. It doesn't mean I will condemn him or stone him. It means I think he is wrong. We have a right to disagree.

As for the "just war" theory, Christ said to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's. War is a power of the state, not of the individual. The church hierarchy can look at a war and say it's just or not just, but that's all they can do. They can exercise moral leadership, but they have no power to change it. If, for instance, we had a draft to get people to fight in Iraq the people wouldn't be excused simply because a church leader said this war was wrong and they would not escape the legal consequences of draft evasion.

Christ spoke of how we, as individuals, should treat one another. The Israelites had been involved in many wars to defend their lives and culture. Christ was not a pacifist. He recognized the need to fight evil and sometimes, as when it takes the form of a state with a huge army, war is the only way.

I draw from Barnaby's posts that he believes his view of morality is what gives him, as a person, the right to decide who is and who is not a moral degenerate. Maybe he's thinking of things like sexual promiscuity, I can't be sure.

I asked him where was the potential for partnership with people who believe your faith makes you unworthy of living.

You said we don't know enough about Barnaby's position to know whether or not he was defending jihadist violence. That's the whole point. He intimated that Christianity and Islam had more in common than we realized and there might be areas where we had a common goal. The problem is he won't state his views succinctly. We're trying to draw him out, but he considers any challenge to his statements as a personal attack. (That's the Muslim way!)

I was asking him not rhetorical questions, but very real ones. He ducked them and then he ran away. I had previously said his posts needed to be answered, but now I see no reason to. It's pointless. If he won't engage in a real give and take then what is there to be done but ignore him?

Posted by: PMK at May 10, 2007 9:10 AM

Traeh,

The problem with Barnaby is that he won't explain what he means and he won't answer direct questions.

Attacking someone's viewpoint is not anger. Challenging his statements is not coming from anger and it should not be construed as an insult, but that's how Barnaby took it.

It's impossible to have any meaningful dialogue with someone who will consider any challenge to be an insult.

Posted by: PMK at May 10, 2007 10:01 AM