| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
So, for the past several months, I (Greg) have been affirming to those unfortunate enough to find themselves in a checkout line with me or waiting at a taxi stand that, however bleak things might seem, I have detected a slight wavering of the needle in the right direction. Of course, nobody in the halls of power will admit that Islam is at war with the rest of the world, but, on the other hand, there have been fewer speeches positively affirming that Islam is -- as the saying goes -- a "religion of peace." "In fact," I recently heard myself remark, "President Bush himself no longer refers to Islam as peaceful."
Well, me and my big mouth. Just when I thought that the administration might have gained some -- a little -- clarity on the issue, we are dealt the following remarks from the Big Kahuna himself that makes one wonder whether the "dream team" of Rice, Cheney, and all the rest in fact possess the collective intelligence to sit the right way on a toilet seat.
From our comrades-in-arms at World Net Daily. Thus Spake Zarathustra:
"That's what I believe. I believe Islam is a great religion that preaches peace."
Well that's just super.
President George Bush has repeated his belief all religions, "whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God" –- an assertion that caused outrage among evangelical leaders when he said it in November 2003.
And would rightly scandalize any halfway seriously religious person from Alabama to Nepal.
Bush made the statement Friday in an interview with Al Arabiya reporter Elie Nakouzi.Al Arabiya is Al Jazeerah's top competitor in the Mideast.
As the president and Nakouzi walked from the Oval Office to the Map Room in the White House residence, Nazouki asked, "But I want to tell you -– and I hope this doesn't bother you at all – that in the Islamic world they think that President Bush is an enemy of Islam –- that he wants to destroy their religion, what they believe in. Is that in any way true, Mr. President?"
"No, it's not," said Bush. "I've heard that, and it just shows [sic {their sic not mine!}] to show a couple of things: One, that the radicals have done a good job of propagandizing. In other words, they've spread the word that this really isn't peaceful people versus radical people or terrorists, this is really about the America not liking Islam.
"Well, first of all, I believe in an Almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace. And I believe people who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives aren't religious people, whether they be a Christian who does that –- we had a person blow up our -– blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City who professed to be a Christian, but that's not a Christian act to kill innocent people.
"And I just simply don't subscribe to the idea that murdering innocent men, women and children -– particularly Muslim men, women and children in the Middle East -– is an act of somebody who is a religious person."
"And I just simply don't subscribe to the the idea". Well, congratulations, Mr President. Ladies and gentleman, it is this sort of blind faith upon which rests the grand strategy of the world's sole superpower. Now would be a good time to check your parachutes.
In Friday's interview with Al Arabiya, Bush emphasized his outreach to Muslims."We are having an Iftaar dinner tonight –- I say, 'we' –- it's my wife and I," Bush told Nakouzi. "This is the seventh one in the seven years I've been the president. It gives me a chance to say 'Ramadan Mubarak.' The reason I do this is I want people to understand about my country. In other words, I hope this message gets out of America. I want people to understand that one of the great freedoms in America is the right for people to worship any way they see fit. If you're a Muslim, an agnostic, a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, you're equally American.
What I want to emphasize above all, is that we -- me and Laura and the twins -- and poppy -- no longer possess any serious convictions of any kind. Instead of affirming what makes America distinctive and great -- what has kept her from the cycle of tyranny and war that has marked the Islamic world for thirteen centuries -- we have cast all that aside in favor of a warm and pleasant idea of "oneness" with the rest of the world. We're all one now. One big, happy, global family. Really, Christ the selfless martyr and Muhammad the conquering warlord were on the same mission of brotherly togetherness. Don't you see? Peace is war and freedom is slavery. It all makes perfect sense now. Just let me remove a piece of your brain with these scissors and you'll feel so much better.
"And the value – the most valuable thing I think about America is that – particularly if you're a religious person – you can be free to worship, and it's your choice to make. It's not the state's choice, and you shouldn't be intimidated after you've made your choice. And that's a right that I jealously guard.
Ooh. He jealously guards it. Well, no need to worry then.
"Secondly, I want American citizens to see me hosting an Iftaar dinner."
Sir, we see. But what we see, we don't like. Capisce?
"That's a strong message for the Americans," said Nakouzi.
Alas, yes.
Last year, WND reported criticism of Bush from Wafa Sultan, a native of Syria, who said the president was empowering terrorist leaders whose ultimate aim is for Islamic law to govern the world by proclaiming Islam a "religion of peace.""I believe he undermines our credibility by saying that," said Sultan. "We came from Islam, and we know what kind of religion Islam is."
Preach it, Wafa. Georgi Porgi won't.
Posted by Greg at October 7, 2007 1:39 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Allah is a false god,
I do believe the bible says;
"Thou shall not put strange gods(allah moon god) before ME(God).
Gee, Are the 10 commandments even in the Quran?
Oh yea, I think they are but the "not" is left out.
Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 7, 2007 2:41 AM
Allow me to be the one who says 'I told you so'. Not to _you_ Greg, obviously, but in general. I have been seriously worried that having religious leaders in government may result in terminally stupid actions taken 'on faith'. Well, here we go:
>>"And I just simply don't subscribe to the the idea". Well, congratulations, Mr President. Ladies and gentleman, it is this sort of blind faith upon which rests the grand strategy of the world's sole superpowerv
Posted by: Fanusi Khiyal at October 7, 2007 2:41 AM
Allah is a false god,
I do believe the bible says;
"Thou shall not put strange gods(allah moon god) before ME(God).
Gee, Are the 10 commandments even in the Quran?
Oh yea, I think they are but the word "NOT" is left out.
Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA at October 7, 2007 2:42 AM
What do you expect from an interview with the Lebanese Nakouzi? It's the same Lebanese political correctness that ought not to hurt the relation between the Lebanese communities. If you speak the truth the Muslims of Lebanon will get angry and the Christians would be in risk of migrating.
Posted by: Berytius_Libanicus at October 7, 2007 3:44 AM
What do you expect from an interview with the Lebanese Nakouzi? It's the same Lebanese political correctness that ought not to hurt the relation between the Lebanese communities. If you speak the truth the Muslims of Lebanon will get angry and the Christians would be in risk of migrating.
Posted by: Berytius_Libanicus at October 7, 2007 3:44 AM
From the article:
President George Bush has repeated his belief all religions, "whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God"
So, Bush thinks that praying to the Christian God is the same as praying to Camazotz, the Guatemalan bat-headed vampire god? Or Hanuman, the Hindu monkey god? He thinks all the hundreds of deities in the world are all interchangeable, that they all teach the same values?
Even within a single religion, the gods are very different. The Hindu Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are not "the same God". As Robert said, this idea that "all Gods are the same" or "all religions are the same" is an insult to all religions; it is a denial of all the different cultures and religious concepts that have developed over time all over the world. Only the laziest of minds, with no knowledge of history or sociology whatsoever, could make such a statement.
This is not the first time Bush has stated this idea, and more importantly, Bush is not the only one stating this idea. Once this idea, that "we are all the same", is examined, it will be discarded for the obvious falsity that it is. And when that idea is discarded, we will take an honest appraisal of Islam. And when we take an honest appraisal of Islam, we will start to act appropriately. Finally.
Posted by: special_guest at October 7, 2007 4:24 AM
Oops, sorry, it was Greg not Robert that said "And [Bush's statement of the equality of all Gods] would rightly scandalize any halfway seriously religious person from Alabama to Nepal."
Posted by: special_guest at October 7, 2007 4:29 AM
President Gump ought to stop talking religion, he doesn't have any idea of what he's talking about. The Hindus, according to Hindu friends of mine, pray to more than one creator. Buddhists recognize the three jewels, and so on.
The President should just stay out of this altogether until he has knowledge of what he is saying.
Posted by: Prickzilla at October 7, 2007 4:35 AM
But then again, what does it matter if I attribute the statement to Robert rather than Greg, or to Hugh or Marisol for that matter, since all JW/DW editors are the same? They all share the same values and have the same personal background. We are all one, in the oneness of onenessism.
Posted by: special_guest at October 7, 2007 4:41 AM
"We had a person blow up our -– blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City who professed to be a Christian, but that's not a Christian act to kill innocent people.
Didn't McVeigh claim to be agnostic?
"That's what I believe. I believe Islam is a great religion that preaches peace."
Have someone read the Koran to you, Forrest.
"One, that the radicals have done a good job of propagandizing. In other words, they've spread the word that this really isn't peaceful people versus radical people or terrorists, this is really about the America not liking Islam.
Check the polls. They indicate that much of America DOESN'T like Islam, and Americans don't like it being crammed down their throats.
"I want American citizens to see me hosting an Iftaar dinner."
What?
at October 7, 2007 4:55 AM
Well were it not for the gains muslims get from his diminishing presidential clout I doubt they would stand to be around someone so stupid.
Posted by: GrennBeck at October 7, 2007 6:24 AM
Just because islam, Christianity and Judaism all have one God, why do these idiots assume it is the same one?
England, the USA and Russia all had one leader during World War II, but they quite clearly were not the same in name or outlook.
Posted by: Celsius at October 7, 2007 8:34 AM
Go ahead George, keep talking -- your doing fine.
Posted by: witness at October 7, 2007 9:29 AM
"Well, first of all, I believe in an Almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace. And I believe people who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives aren't religious people, whether they be a Christian who does that –- we had a person blow up our -– blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City who professed to be a Christian, but that's not a Christian act to kill innocent people."
-- George Bush, answering the leading question of a reporter from Al Arabiya just the way that reporter wanted him too
The credo of George Bush:
1. I was lost (a cutup at Andover and at Yale, who never studied a thing, much less history, and a cutup and failure constantly rescued by my father's friends, but now I'm found -- thanks to Religion.
2. Thanks to Religion, and that I, I, I was Lost and now am Found, Religion must be always and everywhere a Good Thing.
3. Islam is one of the World's Great Religions. That's what I've read. That's what I've heard. I don't know any other way to talk about it or think about it. So it just must be true.
4. If Religion is Good, and Islam is one of the World's Great Religions, and if a billion people believe in it, or call themselves Muslims, well then -- who am I to disagree?
5. So Islam, you see, is a Good Thing. I don't have anything against Islam. How could I?
6. And that's why I, George Bush, can confidently keep 160,000 troops in Iraq because my entire policy is based on this notion of not seeeing Islam as the threat, not ever using the word "Jihad" (and promptly backing away, when I once used it, from that insufficient and even misleading concoction "Islamofascism").
7. And that's why I, George Bush, am engaged in Muslim Outreach,constantly assuring Muslims of how wonderful I think, we in America all think, they are. It wins no friends, no hearts, no minds. But at least it does prevent the Western world from coming to grips with the real ideology of Islam, and the permanent threat -- a perfectrly containable threat, by the way, that requires no large-scale invasions or any invasions at all of parts of Dar al-Islam -- of an ideology that divides the world uncomrpromisingly between Believer and Infidel, and mandates a permanent state of war (but not necessarily open warfare in the qitaal-sense) between them.
8. And finally, that is the explanation for my remarks. Which remarks? Oh, these remarks:
"Well, first of all, I believe in an Almighty God, and I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God. That's what I believe. I believe that Islam is a great religion that preaches peace. And I believe people who murder the innocent to achieve political objectives aren't religious people, whether they be a Christian who does that –- we had a person blow up our -– blow up a federal building in Oklahoma City who professed to be a Christian, but that's not a Christian act to kill innocent people.
"And I just simply don't subscribe to the idea that murdering innocent men, women and children -– particularly Muslim men, women and children in the Middle East -– is an act of somebody who is a religious person."
And that is all George Bush knows on earth, and the fact that those pointy-headed scientists don't know what they are talkiing about when they warn about anthropogenic climate change, and the rate of that change, and when every economiset notes that the country is spending like a drunken sailor -- which reformed drunken sailor would that be? -- because no-new-taxes-and-especially-less-taxes-on-the-very-rich free-market fundamentalists are in the saddle, and ride, if not mankind, then Americans, who are now, in the apotheosis of our degradation, almost inevitably gooing to vote in the second little dynasty (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton) that we, in our own unimaginative poltical wretchedness, are apparently intent on inflicting on ourselves.
Posted by: Hugh
at October 7, 2007 10:47 AM
The terrorists would never bother GWB because he's doing such a good job for their cause, as is.
Their most effective disinformation spokesman.
Mr. "Religion of Peace", undermining our security with every silly syllable.
Is Allah interchangeable with the Jews' Yaweh or The Lord of the Christians?
Only Muslims say so.
Or George W. Bush.
Posted by: profitsbeard at October 7, 2007 11:14 AM
"I believe he undermines our credibility by saying that," said Sultan.
Yes, but first, he exposes his true ignorance. I'll wager he has not read a single verse of the Koran.
Posted by: tsarbomba29 at October 7, 2007 11:17 AM
Here is what Wafa Sultan thinks of Bush's "stratergy" of praising Islam and attacking only those "extremists" who have "hijacked" and "misunderstood" a great religion:
"Last year, WND reported criticism of Bush from Wafa Sultan, a native of Syria, who said the president was empowering terrorist leaders whose ultimate aim is for Islamic law to govern the world by proclaiming Islam a "religion of peace."
'I believe he undermines our credibility by saying that,' said Sultan. 'We came from Islam, and we know what kind of religion Islam is.'"
I know what Ibn Warraq thinks of Bush. I know what Ayaan Hirsi Ali thinks of Bush. I think I know what all the most intelligent apostates think of Bush, and his understanding of Islam, and the way he chooses to defend American and the West -- Tarbaby Iraq -- against the permanent threat of Jihad, its Money Weapon, its carefully-targetted and well-financed campaigns of Da'wa, its inexorable, and in Western Europe not exactly slow, demographic conquest, its constant undremining, through demands, political agitation, violence, and other means, to undermine the security and the self-assurance of the Western world, and the stability of its own legal and political institutions and social understandings that are now under an unprecedented internal assault.
So who are you going to believe? Bush, or what Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan and Nonie Darwish and Walid Shoebat and Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina and many others who know the world of Islam intimately? Who are you going to believe, Bush, or what you read, here or elsewhere, about the texts, tenets, attitudes, atmospherics of Islam, and about the 1350-year history of Jihad-conquest and subjugation of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, and all the other, smaller groups (think of the Mandeans in Iraq today, now disappearing as Islam reappears with renewed vigor, and better technology for killing and, as with the Bamiyan Buddhas, wiping out any visible signs of a pre-Islamic or non-Islamic past).
Who are you going to believe? Bush, or your lying eyes?
Posted by: Hugh at October 7, 2007 11:18 AM
GWB holds hands with a Saudi at his ranch. Think about what this means. And it doesn't mean he's gay. He will be given large sums of Saudi money for his 'library' when he leaves the presidency, along with fat fees for speaking in Oman and Dubai and other oil rich places in the ME, along with various other 'deals' he's brokered. And Muslims helped elect him to his first term so he owes them many favors.
GWB serves the gods of greed and power first before his serves the God of Creation and His Son of Love. That is why he appeases and submits to his Islamic masters and denies their doctrine of evil.
Posted by: the poetess at October 7, 2007 11:45 AM
January 20, 2009 cannot possibly get here fast enough.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 7, 2007 11:55 AM
After reading these statements, I don't understand how anyone can worry about GWB's supposed fundamentalist or evangelical Christianity.
Posted by: Josephine at October 7, 2007 12:18 PM
All truth is relative. Unfortunately, the statement 'all truth is relative' is an absolute statement and is itself relative. This is the philosophical quicksand on which our entire civilization now rests.
at October 7, 2007 1:31 PM
I think the endless Muslim slanders against us serve a manifold purpose.
1. Muslims attempt to pre-empt appropriate responses to their sedition and treason by placing those responses out of bounds before they've ever happened -- the non-existent warnings and condemnations against "backlashes" and endless claims of "Islamophobia" and victimhood (when they're the perpetrators) are examples of this...
2. They are projecting onto us what THEY would do to US if the tables were turned. If Muslims were in a position of dominance today rather than we, rest assured they'd have no qualms with waging all-out genocide against us as "infidels". Why do we treat them with such respect and forebearance? I say -- "Let's act while we've still got the muscle" as Frankie Five Fingers famously once quipped. (And how right he was!)
3. They are deliberately gaming us to keep us off balance and in the fog while they wage Jihad to spread Islam and roll back all "infidels" before them. We're already severely compromised by allowing them onto our soil -- though this need not remain a permanent arrangement. At the very least, why not take the path which harms them the most in such a scenario? If we appease them and make endless concessions -- we see how this is interpreted by them not as largesse, but as weakness -- and Muslims thereby gain momentum and encouragement for their vile Jihads. We lose in this scenario without scoring a single point against them. In this appeasement game, they remain unharmed and gain tactical Islamic advantage, and we lose commensurately. But if we respond with severity and harshness towards them, then sure, they gain solidity for their claims of victimhood against us -- but they suffer great harm in the process. They already extract most of the "victimhood" leverage whether we are nice or nasty, so why not be nasty? If we lose something in either scenario since they are already here waging Jihad, why not harm them greivously rather than letting them off the hook without any cost whatsoever for their unlimited treasons?
Conclusion: Since most evidence indicates that complimenting Muslims makes them hate us more, pandering Muslims makes them hate us more, and appealing to them makes Muslims hate us more, I suggest we stop being so nice to them. They tell us how "Islamophobic" the West is -- they tell us how unwelcome they feel here -- yet they keep coming to the West in droves... It's a veritable stampede of Muslims to the House of War. Why is that?
We send billions to them when devastating earthquakes destroy their gutter civilizations -- we send them billions when tsunamis inundate their ramshackle nations -- we shed our blood to help liberate them -- we send our treasure to help lift them from the iron grip of their vile Muslim leaders -- we kill their enemies for them -- and they still accuse us of every crime in the book, and blame all their infinite failures on us.
Let's simply treat them the way they accuse us of treating them anyway. Let's make it all true. We get slimed by them when we help and sacrifice for them -- how much worse could it be if we simply acted towards them in a manner consistent with their endless scrurrilous accusations? It surely cannot be worse, and we at least would be finally operating with some level of sanity and clarity towards them.
at October 7, 2007 2:17 PM
If Bush truly believes that basically all gods are the same then the man really is an idiot. That's fine-he can believe in anything he wishes (even though it isn't making the war against Islamania any easier). However, it would be nice if he keeps his crackpot ideas to himself at least-every time he publicly grovels before the master race mentality of Islamania he makes himself look ridiculous to both the Islamaniacs and those who oppose them. The appalling ignorance on Islamania by Bush and all government bigwigs is simply nauseating and we're all sick to death about hearing and seeing that ignorance day after day on the news. This ignorance is at best disappointing and at worst dangerous.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 7, 2007 3:02 PM
... all religions, "whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God"
I don't generally rub my atheism in the noses of the folks here, as there are a lot of good folks on this site who I figure can live without the irritation -- and for my own part, I'm not seeking anybody's approval anyway. But I have to comment on this from that perspective.
Do you have any idea how bizarre that statement looks from an atheist perspective?
It would be one thing if GW were kidding, being arch, and was actually crossing his fingers behind his back and thinking "they all pray to the same god becuase there's nothing there to pray to, they're all praying to an empty space".
But he claims, and I believe him, to be a sincere believer.
But then I think, what would that statement mean to a believer? What if I took it seriously and tried to give it some real objective meaning?
What would it mean for several religions to "pray to the same god" without necessarily realizing it?
Now, it's worth noting here, that a lot of the world's people, civilized people at that, hold to religions that don't assert any god or gods at all. And those people would look at GW's statement and just scratch their heads, and ask, "is this guy so parochial that he thinks we're all just like him and his people?".
And to people who hold with religions that assert many gods, Hinduism being prominent on that list, the statement must cause equal puzzlement and dismay "what does this silly guy mean by all religions??? Just within my own, Shiva and Kali are nothing at all like Lakshmi and Ganesh! And that's leaving out all those other religions."
To me personally, as an atheist of course, it makes me think of the childhood rhyme, "yesterday upon the stair I met a man who wasn't there ...", and poses the question of whether the man who is not there on all the different children's stairs is the same absent man.
But if the statement has real meaning to GW, what could that meaning be?
I have come to the decision that it is actually quite bad, from any point of view, unbelieving or devout. It is something worse than the mere opinion (mistaken) that all religions are equally good or bad. It is a form of idolatry -- an idolatry of religion as such -- a belief that religion, qua religion, has divine virtue simply because it is religion.
And that, idolatry, in the sense of faith in false gods, is something that actually is almost universally condemned by all faiths (whatever they may conceive a false god to be).
It is to say that the divine power of religion is so potent, that once you place your faith in any religion whatsoever, that you will inevitably be led to the author and origin of all that exists and all that is good. It may be quick or slow, easy or difficult, but as long as you're sincerely praying, your prayers will lead you to the right place sooner or later.
And that is based on a faith, not in God as conceived by the Jews and Christians, but faith in religion and prayer, which is an altogether different thing.
===================
Now don't get me wrong, I don't think that GW has become some kind of crackpot theologian, nor do I think he is really addressing all religions anyway.
He's just blowing kisses to the mohammedans.
Really nobody else demands such constant flattery and stroking.
The Buddhists of the world really show no sign of interest in outsider's opinion of Buddhism. I've never heard of Hindus demanding that everybody else start learning the differences among their pantheon of Gods.
I suppose the Jews have lobbied for public recognition in their own local neighborhoods, but outside of that I've never heard them demanding any recognition from the Christian heartlands, and frankly the most public minded Jews all seem to be liberals. The more religiously conservative a Jew is, the less interested they seem in external acknowledgement.
And pretty much everybody else just shrugs.
No GW is just blowing kisses to the testy demanding mohammedans again.
And that's primarily the ones overseas, the guys living next door to the oil wells, and the one's with multi-billion oil-dollar bank accounts. The mohammedans here are too few to sway an election.
Dhimmitude in action!
==============
But really, unless I miss my guess, (and my knowledge is severely limited in these matters) the theological doctrine he is promoting is anathema.
Posted by: joeblough at October 7, 2007 3:10 PM
This does not suprise me at all. President Bush is on his way out, he is all washed up.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at October 7, 2007 3:39 PM
I have had this question that has bothered me for some time and hopefully someone has an answered for me. I am Jewish and every Sat. we have a prayer for the US, for our troops and for Israel. I want to know if Muslim Americans pray for our country and our troops.
Posted by: vyaduck at October 7, 2007 4:42 PM
News flash!!!
bush says muhammad is not a prophet & islam is not a religion!!! well, he didn't say so in so many words. but consider the clear implication of what he did say:
"And I just simply don't subscribe to the idea that murdering innocent men, women and children -– particularly Muslim men, women and children in the Middle East -– is an act of somebody who is a religious person."
We know for a fact that muhammad murdered or ordered the murder of innocent men, women & children. therefore, according to bush's belief, muhammad can't be a religious person, and the movement that he founded can't be a religion.
I swear, bush often doesn't even understand the meaning of the words that come out of his mouth. Oh, and one more thing. why did bush say, "particularly muslim men, women & children in the middle east?" is he saying that the taking of innocent muslim lives is a greater offence go God than the taking of innocent Infidel lives?
Posted by: sheik yer booty at October 7, 2007 5:11 PM
"It is to say that the divine power of religion is so potent, that once you place your faith in any religion whatsoever, that you will inevitably be led to the author and origin of all that exists and all that is good. It may be quick or slow, easy or difficult, but as long as you're sincerely praying, your prayers will lead you to the right place sooner or later.
"And that is based on a faith, not in God as conceived by the Jews and Christians, but faith in religion and prayer, which is an altogether different thing." Posted by: joeblough
Well said. Very interesting.
Posted by: Josephine at October 7, 2007 6:51 PM
I do not worship allah.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMu79XbYJwc
at October 7, 2007 7:09 PM
Josephine:
Thanks.
I suppose the doctrine enunciated could be called religionism.
Posted by: joeblough at October 7, 2007 8:03 PM
Religious lies may get us all killed ...
Posted by: Syndic Nuruodo at October 7, 2007 9:27 PM
This is what intrigues me: People who deny that Mohammedans, Christians, and Jews worship the same god, probably do not really understand just how similar they are.
I will list some passages concerning an attitude toward unbelievers and let you all guess where they came from.
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
Posted by: Pelayo at October 7, 2007 9:56 PM
Pelayo --
Christians believe:
- Jesus Christ was the Son of God, both fully man and fully God, who died on the cross, paying the price for the sin of the world, who was resurrected from the dead three days later, and who ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of God.
- The Trinity consists of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
- Therefore Jesus is also God.
Muslims believe:
- God didn't have a son.
- Jesus didn't die on the cross.
- The Trinity doesn't exist, so Jesus is not also God.
Therefore, the Christian God is vastly and fundamentally different from the Muslim god.
It has been pointed out that Mohammed cribbed parts of the Old and New Testaments, as well as the Jewish and Christian oral traditions, for his Koran; this would explain certain similarities.
Posted by: Josephine at October 7, 2007 10:13 PM
Josephine, I said similar, not just alike, gimme a break. I do not need an explanation about what Christians believe.
Mohammed was a unique figure; he and he alone invented Islam over a twenty-three year span. I believe that Judaism was built over a much longer time by many, many people.
After studying Islam, I soon realized that Mohammed could not possibly have been the first person capable of starting a religion.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 7, 2007 10:42 PM
"Well, congratulations, Mr President. Ladies and gentleman, it is this sort of blind faith upon which rests the grand strategy of the world's sole superpower." by Greg
Blind Faith, is the foundation of most religions, especially Christianity. It is no surprise that George B. would say what he said if he is in fact afflicted with blind faith.
I am reminded of a former holy-roller neighbor who believed that Jesus and his desciples drank grape juice before it fermented into wine. According to the neighbors, Jesus just called it wine, but it wasn't really, ya know.
Perhaps George "Bind Faith" Bush is relying on prayer circles to solve our problems.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 7, 2007 11:00 PM
Blind Faith, is the foundation of most religions, especially Christianity
As a non-Christian, I beg to differ. Christian faith is not based on blind anything; there are good grounds for believers to hold the faith that they do.
Blind faith is what bush has for the man's delusions are based on suppositions wafting about in his own empty head and have no basis in reality outside of himself.
Christian faith has a historical reality outside the believer and a creed based on shared principles with another faith which has a rich and wonderful history.
bush is both blind and stupid; Christianity is neither.
Posted by: witness at October 7, 2007 11:37 PM
"Blind Faith, is the foundation of most religions, especially Christianity."
You just love to cross the line.
Easy things first:
George W., idiot.
Your ex-neighbor, idiot.
"For by grace have you been saved through faith; and that not of your selves, it is the gift of God, lest any man should boast."
Now we could debate all night on what the proper antecedents of "that", "it", and "gift". Let's not. But, the unmerited favor of propitiation by substitutionary atonement is mentioned here to humble the believer as to his agency in the transaction. Granted, Jesus did say, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe", but begs the question, not seen what?
I've never met George W., but I've read text, and heard audio. I believe that he really exists. From prior experience, I have learned the sound of his voice and his peculiar abuse of the English language, and I know his message and can recognize it. Therefore, I believe he is an idiot.
On the other hand, I've never (physically) met Jesus, but I've read text of things he's said. He was a well documented historical figure. I know his message and can recognize it. I believe this message because it is profound, moving, compelling, consistent and life-changing. I had no opportunity to see miracles myself, but his contemporaries who hated him didn't deny them. Such stipulation would survive a court challenge.
Therefore, I fail to see why this is "blind".
I also fail to see why the mods permit your blatant provocations and mocking of the historical, orthodox Christian faith. This is not a site for this type of dialogue. God grant me the serenity to ignore this buffoon next time.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at October 8, 2007 12:13 AM
Concerned Citizen, it's OK to critically analyse (mock?) Islam but not Christianity?
Jesus is well documented in the Bible and that is just about the only source. There are writings from secular authors and historians, but these were mostly written many years after the fact.
I used the word blind because faith sometines requires one to ignore more accutate explanations for certain religious events.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 8, 2007 7:06 AM
#1 "just about" doesn't cut it. You're right, it's not the only source, and that makes a lot of difference. "[M]any years after the fact". Keep studying.
#2 this isn't the "criticize all religions" site. Note the vertical sidebars to the left of the main pages if you are confused.
#3 what is your issue that you bring this crap here to alienate natural allies? Get therapy.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at October 8, 2007 7:47 AM
Contemporary historical tracts that mention Jesus are practically not found. I should have said that there was no evidence of Jesus' existence outside the Bible.
The Gospels were not written during Jesus' life time.
All this started over the false statements that Jews Christians and Musims worship the same god.
Since I doubt the existence of any god, especially one named Allah, in my view it's all irrelevent anyway.
Therapy?
Posted by: Pelayo at October 8, 2007 9:12 AM
Jesus is well documented in the Bible and that is just about the only source. There are writings from secular authors and historians, but these were mostly written many years after the fact.
These claims are not correct.
There are ample contemporary texts from Jesus' time affirming his historical existance; the existance of his followers; and a central creed up which the faith is firmly established. Many of the texts such as the Talmund, give hostile testimony, but testimony nonetheless to the existance of Jesus.
As for the time-frame as in "many years after the fact;" you most likely are referring to the Gospels written some 90 years after the historical events and have been trained to believe that this is a "big issue," because all kinds of doctrinal errors, myths, etc could have been introduced in those 90 - 100 years.
In that case, apply the same standard to mohammad. No formal writtings were in place for 500 years after the actual events -- yet, no one questions the accuracy of those events or thinks to question whether mohammad was a historical figure.
How about Alexandar the Great and his conquests? Nothing was written about him for several hundred years after the actual events; yet who would question that Alexandar the Great existed or conquered much of the ancient world?
How about the ancient Greek philosiphers -- Socrates, Plato and all the rest; no one really questions that they existed or doubt what they have taught.
And these are only openers -- the list is endless.
Now, going back to Jesus -- the 90 - 100 years for the Gospels to have been written are not really an issue.
First of all, they were written by different authors, to different audiences, at different times. Yet all agree on the essentials or central tenets of the Christian faith, while emphasising either prophesies fulfilled, chronological claims to significant historical figures of Jewish ancestary, or appeals to the hostile overlords of the day -- the Roman populace.
You don't see any thing like in islam for example where there exists sharp disagreements in the essentials of islam and basic historical claims as can be seen between sunni and shite.
Yet, if you read Acts in the New Testament, you run across a Saul of Tarsus, who at once persecutes the Christians because he is a high ranking religious zealot who "converts" on the "road to Dimascus."
The interesting thing here is that Saul of Tarsus was a verifiable historical figure who existed within three years of the actual events and is taught the basic creed of the Christians according to Acts. That means the actual claims about Jesus can be historically traced to within three years of the events they describe -- but there is more that I won't go into here.
So, in the first place the two claims "Jesus is well documented in the Bible and that is just about the only source. There are writings from secular authors and historians, but these were mostly written many years after the fact" are inaccurate from a purely secular point of view; and most importantly, applies an unfair standard for "accuracy" to the written documnets due to time that simply is not applied to any other literature -- be it religious, philisophical, or historical.
If you insist on imposing that standard, go ahead; but then impose the same standard on everything else from history and you will find that NOTHING should be believed to exist, unless you personally experience the event.
at October 8, 2007 9:30 AM
"People who deny that Mohammedans, Christians, and Jews worship the same god..."
Pelayo -- That is the statement I was responding to.
"People who deny that Mohammedans, Christians, and Jews worship the same god probably do not really understand..."
I deny it and I do understand. My comment explained why I deny it (based on Christian tenets) and the historical, factual reason why the religions have similarities.
You wrote: "Mohammed was a unique figure; he and he alone invented Islam over a twenty-three year span."
That is incorrect. Mohammed lifted parts of Christian, Jewish and pagan teachings, mixed them up, then added commandments to suit his own purposes. He did not create Islam out of whole cloth.
You wrote: "...gimme a break. I do not need an explanation about what Christians believe."
I presented a few basic facts explaining why I disagreed with your statement and I've done the same in this comment to address your response to me.
Posted by: Josephine at October 8, 2007 11:28 AM
Hugh: Islam is baloney. We agree there. I don't recall Bush saying that he disbelieved in climate change generally, or the anthropogenic kind in particular. He, like Clinton, simply won't push the Kyoto agenda.
Since he has recently spoken out on climate change/global warming and how best to stop it without damaging the economy, I think that it's fair to say that he, like so many others, has been deluded into beliving in some form of anthropogenic climate change.
I doubt that he is a regular reader of JihadWatch. Just as he is ignorant of what goes on here, you apparently haven't been reading anything about the hoax that is anthropogenic climate change.
One of the chief voices arguing in favor of action to stop anthropogenic climate change is NASA's James Hansen, who has taken $750,000 from George Soros to push his stalinist agenda on the climate front. Another voice you migiht have heard of, Al Gore, has just had his film Inconvenient Truth labeled as a myth full of inaccuraies by some British educrat, who wants disclaimers to accompany any mandatory viewing of the film by students. See also http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=8f5c9829-c459-4d17-89bb-3e3b04d8d444&Region_id=&Issue_id= by James Inhofe for starters.
Do we even need to address your apparently advocacy for "taxing the rich"?
See what happens when you go off topic to pile on?
Posted by: ChristianRepublic at October 8, 2007 12:04 PM
I have tried to state that there are no contemporary secular sources that actually support anything written in the Gospels. All everyone has done to counter my statements is to cite the Bible. I have heard that argument all my life. It must be true; it's in the Bible. That is what Christian faith is all about. Mohammed rode a strange creature and visited heaven; it's in the Quran, so, it must be true.
I have never heard Alexander used in this argument; that is a good one. I give you credit; you are smart enough not to use Julius Caesar as others have. Here is a site that disputes the assertion that the Talmud contains references to Jesus.
http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesus.html
Josephene, Yes, Mohammed copied things and cobbled together two religions and made a third. A General Motors engineer cobbled together a motor a gear plus a spring and made the electric starter. They were both new and were inventions.
at October 8, 2007 12:25 PM
Regardless of what Jesus said or didn't say, or the reliability of sources on the subject, or whether or not any of the stories about him or his existance are true ... Christians are not the problem!
So past a certain point, all that stuff is completely irrelevant.
Unless one can show that the sum total of what Jesus and mohammad said especially about God were preponderantly the same AND that they said the same things about all the essential questions, the whole tu quoque "what about Jesus" is a just distraction.
And I believe that RS has more than adequately covered that subject.
If there is some SUBSTANTIVE issue with RS' arguments, let's see it!
============
In any case this thread has nothing to do with doctrines or sayings or the life of the divine man, "prophets", saints or demi-gods.
It is about whether 'all religions pray to "same God"', and also what GW intends by saying so.
So far what I've seen here adds up to a resounding NO.
1) Not all religions have gods.
2) Some religions have several gods that are firmly asserted to be very different from each other.
3) Monotheisms do not attribute the same names, commands, actions, desires, pronouncements or instructions to the god they assert.
=====================
The only real, reasonably demonstrable commonalities (that I know about) between various religions are:
-- The Jews and Christians share a common set of openly acknowledged identical sacred texts.
-- Some few of the Hindu gods appear to share enough common attributes as to suggest that they are in fact basically the same ideas called by different names. (And I believe Hinduism has a history of uniting similar gods into single larger, more complex entities).
-- The same phenomenon can be observed among various anamist ideas.
-- The ancient Romans and Greeks shared pretty much a common pantheon called by different names (partly for reasons of language), and appear to have shared much overlap with other local groups.
-- Various Buddhists groups may regard various Buddhas or Bodhisatvas as having more than one name or "manifestation". (Although it is generally argued, reasonably, that Buddhas are not Gods).
=================
Everything else I've seen on the subject here or elsewhere is either theology (good, bad or indifferent), or plain old baloney.
And I'm convinced that GW is spouting baloney.
Posted by: joeblough at October 8, 2007 1:14 PM
"That's what I believe. I believe Islam is a great religion that preaches peace."
-- -- -- --
Well, for a long time there, people believed the world was flat. "Believing" didn't make it true then, and still doesn't make it true now.
Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at October 8, 2007 8:42 PM
Pelayo,
Might want to read up a bit more on "Gil Student" before you go quoting him so much ("Rabbi Student will allow heresy if money is involved.". "I will never allow kefirah on my site because I could never allow anyone to see anything anti Torah." Ask yourself, why is the angelfire article #2 on the "Jesus in the Talmud" search (costs money, you know).
Interesting reads:
A Jewish site:
http://www.noahide.com/yeshu.htm
notably quite consonant with the conclusions of the following, let's say "non-Jewish" site (this not being an endorsement of Hoffman, but you do have to deal with what he wrote on the topic at hand, particularly the criticisms of the Soncino and Artscroll editions of the Babylonian Talmud):
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/wire1.html
and from the agenda driven ADL:
The Talmud in Anti-Semitic Polemics
Copyright 2003, anti-defamation league
"In the opinion of most scholars, the Talmud only refers to Jesus in a handful of places, and though these references may not reflect the courteous ecumenicism of the modern world, neither are they particularly inflammatory."
6 For an exhaustive analysis of the references to Jesus in the Talmud, see Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Rabbinic
Essays (Cincinnatti: HUC Press, 1951; reprinted by Ktav, 1973), pp. 473-570.
http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf
Notice the endorsements of the Soncino and Artscroll editions at the end.
And good luck finding the original "Rabbinic Essays"; seems the work "Jesus in the Talmud" was republished as "Jewish Expressions on Jesus (an Anthology)", edited by Trude Weiss-Rosmarin, expanded from 100 to 421 pages.
Alibris ID: 9128429953
at October 9, 2007 12:31 AM
"Jesus is well documented in the Bible and that is just about the only source. There are writings from secular authors and historians, but these were mostly written many years after the fact"
---------------------------------
Actually, the earliest COPY of the Gospel of Mark dates to around 60AD, a mere thirty years after the crucifixion and this was an eyewitness account. The fact that this document is a copy shows that the original was written even earlier. Beyong the gospel accounts we also have the epistles which are letters written by people who knew Jesus personally. There are also early accounts by non-Christians such as Josephus, who mentions Jesus as an aside in his account of James.
There is also the accounts of Pliny and Tacitus who were bitter opponents of Christianity. From the historical evidence alone, absolutely no reputable historian doubts the fact that Jesus was a historical individual who was one of the many hundreds of people executed by Pontius Pilate.
As for the role of religion in society, the historical evidence is that, despite the crimes committed in the name of God, a religious society is far more humane than an atheist one. Compare the societies buit by Christians, Jews, or Buddhists to the failed social order buit by atheists in the Soviet Union. In fact, during the 20th Century, more people were enslaved and brutally murdered in the name of atheism than in any other political order in history.
Posted by: Provoslavni at October 9, 2007 10:54 AM
. . . absolutely no reputable historian doubts the fact that Jesus was a historical individual who was one of the many hundreds of people executed by Pontius Pilate.
Here is a list of Historians who have questioned the existacance of a man named Jesus.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/scholars.html
Scroll down unitil the big white box appears; however, I'm sure they are despicable and disreputable men who have no scholarship and hate Christians.
I will admit that no Roman records of a Crucifiction of anyone who could remotely be Jesus, does not mean that there was no execution and therefore no Jesus. Pontius P. could hardly be expected to file a report evey time someone war put to death. Judea was considered a backwater as far a Rome was concerned.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 9, 2007 11:41 PM
A sample from the list:
Thomas Paine
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Francois Marie Arouet(Voltaire)
Albert Schweitzer
at October 10, 2007 12:08 AM
"A sample from the list"
Nice grab at name recognition. And which of those was a Jewish, Greek, Roman, Mediterranean, etc., historian? Excellent authors, physician-missionaries, rabble-rowsers granted, but arcaeological historians?
"I have tried to state that there are no contemporary secular sources that actually support anything written in the Gospels."
Not true. See above.
"All everyone has done to counter my statements is to cite the Bible."
Not true, you're not paying attention. But let's keep the burden on you so you don't have the easy job. Why not start your own anti-Christian blog, put up your arguments, and we can come there and take pot shots at them at our leisure, and keep JW out of it.
"I have heard that argument all my life."
Possibly true. It is a crappy argument, but it simplifies the life of simple folk.
"It must be true; it's in the Bible."
Not true, there are scribal, manuscript, translational, and certainly interpretative errors. Paul urges us to be like the Bereans and to check out to see if what he says is true.
"That is what Christian faith is all about."
Not true, see above. "Even the demons believe and shudder". Belief gains you squat. That is what Christianity is all about. Reading assignments: Book of James, 2 Corinthians 7:1, Ephesians 2:10, Hebrews 12:14
"Mohammed rode a strange creature and visited heaven; it's in the Quran, so, it must be true."
Not true either. It is not verifiable, so one must evaluate the veracity and historicity of the canon. But if in the end one found it to be historically indisputable, and internally consistent (which it is not), one would finally have to ask the question, "if THIS is God, do I accept him for what he is and do what that conclusion requires, or not". In the case of Allah, I find him so despicable that I would skip to hell giving him the finger. However, I believe in the case of the JudaeoChristian scriptures and deity, you've started there and worked backwards. You didn't like its God so much that you've decided to impune its sources.
at October 10, 2007 7:58 AM
Thomas Paine
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Francois Marie Arouet(Voltaire)
Albert Schweitzer
I agree these guys are a bunch of worthless malcontents.
The problem is there is almost nothing written at the time outside of the Bible that confirms the existence of Jesus. This is my final entry.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 10, 2007 11:06 AM
Pelayo,
There is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than for the existence of Muhammed, Gautama Buddha, Lao Tsu, Confucius, Moses, or Akhenaten. I don't doubt they were real people either. The arguments against Jesus' existence fall in the same category as those who hold that they were all space aliens. In fact I could argue that Thomas Paine never existed but was a literary creation of Jefferson. That would be no more or less absurd.
Sigmund Freud tried to disprove that Moses existed but few would consider his attack valid. Your list includes many German "higher critics" who wrote that Old Testament figures such as David were also myths. However, in the 20th Century thare have stelae uncovered proving the existence of David. So nobody has to believe in the teachings of Jesus or Buddha or any other religious figure, but that doesn't mean they didn't actually live.
By the way, I don't exist either but am simply a creation of your computer.
Posted by: Provoslavni at October 11, 2007 12:11 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)