The eternal flame of Muslim outrage

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Ok, then let's look at the situation from a different perspective, and put the proverbial shoe on the other foot.

Let's say there's a fundamentalist two-bit imam in Afghanistan who has decided he's fed up with Christians and Christianity, so he decided he's going to burn a copy of the bible. Would there be rioting in the streets anywhere in the world? Chants of "Death to Afghanistan"? Journalists decrying the insensitive intolerance of a "radical"? National leaders, prominent politicians, and military generals pleading with the imam to abstain lest he put Afghanis abroad at great risk?

Any of this?

No.

First, you'd have a little difficulty even finding a bible in Afghanistan. Christians are not permitted to openly practice their faith under Islamic law. Bookstores have been burned to the ground for even selling the bible, since selling it is considered tantamount to proselytizing, which is banned. It's no longer as severe as it was under the Taliban, so Christians won't be summarily executed for attempting to enter the country with a bible, but they will be admonished to keep the book covered and read it only in privacy. However, the punishment for giving a bible to a Muslim is still death.

Second, it is contrary to the fundamental tenets of Christianity to react violently when they perceive that their religion has been insulted. Nowhere does the bible encourage Christians to go on a rampage and wage holy war against anyone who insults their religion, their prophet, their god, or their holy book. Christians largely believe that these punishments are reserved for God to dole out. Nowhere in the decidedly biased accounts of the life of Jesus given in the bible do we find any examples of Jesus waging war against unbelievers, ordering the murder of people who would not submit to his brand of religion, or demanding that people of other faiths be treated differently. In fact, about the only violent act that could be attributed to Jesus is knocking over merchant's tables in a temple. Can the same be said about the Quran or the Prophet of Islam? No. Muhammed was not only a prophet, he was also a military leader who waged numerous campaigns against the "enemies of Allah". The compulsion for Muslims to fight is made clear in the Quran.

Tolerance is a two-way street. It can't be practiced on a single lane road. Muslims who live in the west are largely tolerant of other religions. The overwhelming majority WANT to live in peace with their neighbors. The relatively few "radicals" don't have any choice because they are bound by western secular law. Muslims who live in Islamic countries do not have this luxury. Intolerance is mandatory. The Quran requires it. Christians and Jews don't have to convert, provided they accept dhimmi status and pay the jizzyah tax. Polytheists and atheists have no choice but to convert or die.

I'm not at all surprised by the reaction of Muslims in Afghanistan. This is endemic in their religion, and what this two-bit pastor in Florida wanted to do is deeply offensive to them. I am, however, amazed at the degree to which our national political leaders are humiliating themselves and our nation in response. I'm still looking for the clause in the first amendment that limits free speech and free expression when that expression might actually offend someone. I'm coming up empty.

Well said.

[twowls 217]

Then find some evidence that what she wrote is untrue.

This is like an insane person producing some insane rant, having someone disagree with those insane rantings, and then putting the burden on them to disprove all that insanity. No such obligation exists. You (not you, Pooky, but You/One) can assert anything you want in as twisted and myopic and manipulative a way as you want, but nobody is required to begin at a premise of legitimacy and work backward.

Michelle Malkin is widely regarded as a hateful lunatic. Let's disprove that first and then we can talk about her frothings.

[Boiler 45,904]

This is like an insane person producing some insane rant, having someone disagree with those insane rantings, and then putting the burden on them to disprove all that insanity. No such obligation exists. You (not you, Pooky, but You/One) can assert anything you want in as twisted and myopic and manipulative a way as you want, but nobody is required to begin at a premise of legitimacy and work backward.

Michelle Malkin is widely regarded as a hateful lunatic. Let's disprove that first and then we can talk about her frothings.

Maybe a trip back to the UK?

See it with your own eyes?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

See what?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

It's an op-ed opinion piece that uses scattered factoids to advance a typically inflammatory false premise.

Why dont you head on over Afghanistan and do a little window shopping in Kabul?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

It's an op-ed opinion piece that uses scattered factoids to advance a typically inflammatory false premise.

Sometimes the whole is indeed made up of the sum of its parts. These scattered factoids are parts of a whole, united by a single thread, outraged Islam. They are not a false premise, they are a pattern of facts, Islam is easily offended and the response violent or calls to violence.

For MC the fact there are Muslim terrorists being stated is an implication of stating all Muslims are terrorists. No Muslim Terrorists are simply a part of Islams whole.

Edited September 12, 2010 by ready4ONE

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sometimes the whole is indeed made up of the sum of its parts. These scattered factoids are parts of a whole, united by a single thread, outraged Islam. They are not a false premise, they are a pattern of facts, Islam is easily offended and the response violent or calls to violence.

For MC the fact their are Muslim terrorists being stated is an implication of stating all Muslims are terrorists. No Muslim Terrorists are simply a part of Islams whole.

Michelle Malkin's articles are united by a single thread: outraged Michelle. She is a shill.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You guys are so damned easy to pwn because you don't bother to read about the subjects you speak of. You just post errors you regurgitate from other ignorants.

Actually, the Bible is replete with violence. You can deny that but, well, you never read it. You once claimed to have read the Quran, but I doubt that because, if you had, you would know that the Quran also doesn't condone killing people for insulting Islam. In fact, it says that we should talk to disbelievers about Islam with beautiful words, then leave them alone if they are not interested.

The Quran also says there will be Christians and Jews who will enter heaven. The Bible says we will all go to hell if we don't accept Jesus as our Lord and Saviour. That's not two way street tolerance.

There are many flawed heroes in the Bible. One of them, David, had a man sent into battle to be killed so he could have his wife. Lot sent his daughters out to be raped by his Sodomite neighbors. There are plenty of beheadings in Bible, too. Muhammad isn't proclaimed as God; he was a prophet of God, in a line with others in the Bible. Waging war was part of his destiny. He wasn't the first prophet of God to do so.

As far as military references go, in Luke, Chapter 19, Jesus tells a parable explaining his mission, and declaring that his enemies should be slain before him. I say unto you, that every one that hath shall be given; but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away from him. But these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Other war inspired quotes from or about Jesus in the Bible:

Matthew 10:34

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Luke 12:51

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Luke 22:36

He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Revelation 19:11-16

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

Tolerance? Depends on how you define it. Maybe Americans don't riot because they just don't give a damn about the Bible, not because they are peaceful Christians.

Ok, then let's look at the situation from a different perspective, and put the proverbial shoe on the other foot.

Let's say there's a fundamentalist two-bit imam in Afghanistan who has decided he's fed up with Christians and Christianity, so he decided he's going to burn a copy of the bible. Would there be rioting in the streets anywhere in the world? Chants of "Death to Afghanistan"? Journalists decrying the insensitive intolerance of a "radical"? National leaders, prominent politicians, and military generals pleading with the imam to abstain lest he put Afghanis abroad at great risk?

Any of this?

No.

First, you'd have a little difficulty even finding a bible in Afghanistan. Christians are not permitted to openly practice their faith under Islamic law. Bookstores have been burned to the ground for even selling the bible, since selling it is considered tantamount to proselytizing, which is banned. It's no longer as severe as it was under the Taliban, so Christians won't be summarily executed for attempting to enter the country with a bible, but they will be admonished to keep the book covered and read it only in privacy. However, the punishment for giving a bible to a Muslim is still death.

Second, it is contrary to the fundamental tenets of Christianity to react violently when they perceive that their religion has been insulted. Nowhere does the bible encourage Christians to go on a rampage and wage holy war against anyone who insults their religion, their prophet, their god, or their holy book. Christians largely believe that these punishments are reserved for God to dole out. Nowhere in the decidedly biased accounts of the life of Jesus given in the bible do we find any examples of Jesus waging war against unbelievers, ordering the murder of people who would not submit to his brand of religion, or demanding that people of other faiths be treated differently. In fact, about the only violent act that could be attributed to Jesus is knocking over merchant's tables in a temple. Can the same be said about the Quran or the Prophet of Islam? No. Muhammed was not only a prophet, he was also a military leader who waged numerous campaigns against the "enemies of Allah". The compulsion for Muslims to fight is made clear in the Quran.

Tolerance is a two-way street. It can't be practiced on a single lane road. Muslims who live in the west are largely tolerant of other religions. The overwhelming majority WANT to live in peace with their neighbors. The relatively few "radicals" don't have any choice because they are bound by western secular law. Muslims who live in Islamic countries do not have this luxury. Intolerance is mandatory. The Quran requires it. Christians and Jews don't have to convert, provided they accept dhimmi status and pay the jizzyah tax. Polytheists and atheists have no choice but to convert or die.

I'm not at all surprised by the reaction of Muslims in Afghanistan. This is endemic in their religion, and what this two-bit pastor in Florida wanted to do is deeply offensive to them. I am, however, amazed at the degree to which our national political leaders are humiliating themselves and our nation in response. I'm still looking for the clause in the first amendment that limits free speech and free expression when that expression might actually offend someone. I'm coming up empty.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Danno 1,228]

You guys are so damned easy to pwn because you don't bother to read about the subjects you speak of. You just post errors you regurgitate from other ignorants.

Actually, the Bible is replete with violence. You can deny that but, well, you never read it. You once claimed to have read the Quran, but I doubt that because, if you had, you would know that the Quran also doesn't condone killing people for insulting Islam. In fact, it says that we should talk to disbelievers about Islam with beautiful words, then leave them alone if they are not interested.

The Quran also says there will be Christians and Jews who will enter heaven. The Bible says we will all go to hell if we don't accept Jesus as our Lord and Saviour. That's not two way street tolerance.

There are many flawed heroes in the Bible. One of them, David, had a man sent into battle to be killed so he could have his wife. Lot sent his daughters out to be raped by his Sodomite neighbors. There are plenty of beheadings in Bible, too. Muhammad isn't proclaimed as God; he was a prophet of God, in a line with others in the Bible. Waging war was part of his destiny. He wasn't the first prophet of God to do so.

As far as military references go, in Luke, Chapter 19, Jesus tells a parable explaining his mission, and declaring that his enemies should be slain before him. I say unto you, that every one that hath shall be given; but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away from him. But these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Other war inspired quotes from or about Jesus in the Bible:

Matthew 10:34

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Luke 12:51

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Luke 22:36

He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Revelation 19:11-16

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

Tolerance? Depends on how you define it. Maybe Americans don't riot because they just don't give a damn about the Bible, not because they are peaceful Christians.

Sofiyya if this were a simple debate over- which faith is without passages... that could inflame followers.. you would have a point.

This debate is about the actions of people .

To make your case you will need to show that there are extremist Christians..... from every corner of Christianity (wherever it is found) which cause disruption and even death to others as well as those of their own faith.

The fair truth is, two hundred years from now, it might be another faith which is at war with so many across the globe, but for today .....and at this time. That faith is coming from a segment of Islam.

Even in this country which has had only isolated attacks since 9/11,... had terro-rings not been broken, plans not been thwarted and plotters not arrests arrested thousands more would have been killed.

One could say, the FBI and other agencies have been the best friend of Moderate Muslims by preventing so many of these attacks.

There is no parallel at this time between the acts of mislead Christians and mislead Muslims.

[Peikko 1,575]

Sofiyya if this were a simple debate over- which faith is without passages... that could inflame followers.. you would have a point.

This debate is about the actions of people .

To make your case you will need to show that there are extremist Christians..... from every corner of Christianity (wherever it is found) which cause disruption and even death to others as well as those of their own faith.

The fair truth is, two hundred years from now, it might be another faith which is at war with so many across the globe, but for today .....and at this time. That faith is coming from a segment of Islam.

Even in this country which has had only isolated attacks since 9/11,... had terro-rings not been broken, plans not been thwarted and plotters not arrests arrested thousands more would have been killed.

One could say, the FBI and other agencies have been the best friend of Moderate Muslims by preventing so many of these attacks.

There is no parallel at this time between the acts of mislead Christians and mislead Muslims.

That's not the truth. The terrorists are not faith driven any more than any geopolitical struggle has ever been about faith.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

You guys are so damned easy to pwn because you don't bother to read about the subjects you speak of. You just post errors you regurgitate from other ignorants.

Actually, the Bible is replete with violence. You can deny that but, well, you never read it. You once claimed to have read the Quran, but I doubt that because, if you had, you would know that the Quran also doesn't condone killing people for insulting Islam. In fact, it says that we should talk to disbelievers about Islam with beautiful words, then leave them alone if they are not interested.

Nobody said the Bible didn't contain violence. It contains a LOT of violence. What it doesn't contain is a general everlasting call to arms for it's believers. The Bible, specifically the Old Testament, tells the stories of people whom Christians and Jews believe to be prophets, and in some of these stories these prophets were directed by God to wage war. No rational Christian or Jew believes that God's personal commands to Joshua or David applies to them. The Quran is different because it contains contemporary directives which Allah gave to Muhammad, and Muhammad relayed those directives to Muslims, and those directives were never countermanded, withdrawn, or abrogated.

The Bible was not written by any of the prophets portrayed in it. The Quran was.

The Quran also says there will be Christians and Jews who will enter heaven. The Bible says we will all go to hell if we don't accept Jesus as our Lord and Saviour. That's not two way street tolerance.

Does the Bible call on Christians to send non-believers to hell, or does it say God will send them there?

There are many flawed heroes in the Bible. One of them, David, had a man sent into battle to be killed so he could have his wife.

And this differs from Muhammad marrying Safiyya bint Huyayy after ordering her husband tortured and killed after the battle of Khaybar... how?

As far as military references go, in Luke, Chapter 19, Jesus tells a parable explaining his mission, and declaring that his enemies should be slain before him. I say unto you, that every one that hath shall be given; but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away from him. But these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

It was a parable. Jesus was telling a story, and he was quoting the king in the story.

Matthew 10:34

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Luke 12:51

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Luke 22:36

He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Revelation 19:11-16

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

Tolerance? Depends on how you define it. Maybe Americans don't riot because they just don't give a damn about the Bible, not because they are peaceful Christians.

The first two are metaphorical. Jesus often used metaphors, as well as parables, to teach lessons. Neither of these qualify as a call to fight, in the manner of "fighting is prescribed for you".

The last is a prophecy which most Christians believe was written by the apostle John after Jesus was dead. There are similar prophecies of the end times in the Quran.

[sara535 15]

Tolerance is a two-way street. It can't be practiced on a single lane road. Muslims who live in the west are largely tolerant of other religions. The overwhelming majority WANT to live in peace with their neighbors. The relatively few "radicals" don't have any choice because they are bound by western secular law. Muslims who live in Islamic countries do not have this luxury. Intolerance is mandatory. The Quran requires it. Christians and Jews don't have to convert, provided they accept dhimmi status and pay the jizzyah tax. Polytheists and atheists have no choice but to convert or die.

so arent you saying right there that the intolerance is in fact influenced by culture and political ideology? if the Muslims in the west are tolerant and want to live in peace??

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

so arent you saying right there that the intolerance is in fact influenced by culture and political ideology? if the Muslims in the west are tolerant and want to live in peace??

Yes, of course it is. Christians have a history as bloody as the Muslims. There was a time when Christian leaders believed that God called them to war against "heathens". Christians have largely been able to come out of the dark ages and adapt to more humanist thinking by reinterpreting their scriptures. Most Muslims in the modern world are trying to do the same with the Quran. The problem lies with Muslims in predominantly Islamic countries who are forced by fundamentalist religious leaders to adopt a literal interpretation of the Quran. The seriously dangerous ones are the those who feel compelled to act on that literal interpretation. These are the guys, like OBL, who can commit the most heinous acts and quote Quranic verses that justify them. No doubt there are Christians who also quote the Bible for their behavior, like the nut job in Florida, but these Christians don't constitute more than a tiny minority in any predominantly Christian country. That's why a handful of people in a church in Florida can threaten to burn a Quran, or why a fringe Baptist group can stage protests at the funerals of US soldiers, and the majority of Christians think they're fruit cakes.

Guys like Jim Jones and David Koresh have a hard time recruiting followers who buy into their interpretation because a rational person could just as easily interpret the Bible the way most Christians do. Guys like OBL have it easier because of the way the Quran is written. Because many of the directives were contemporary at the time Muhammad received them, there is a lot less "he did" and "they did", and a lot more "you shall".

[sara535 15]

Yes, of course it is. Christians have a history as bloody as the Muslims. There was a time when Christian leaders believed that God called them to war against "heathens". Christians have largely been able to come out of the dark ages and adapt to more humanist thinking by reinterpreting their scriptures. Most Muslims in the modern world are trying to do the same with the Quran. The problem lies with Muslims in predominantly Islamic countries who are forced by fundamentalist religious leaders to adopt a literal interpretation of the Quran. The seriously dangerous ones are the those who feel compelled to act on that literal interpretation. These are the guys, like OBL, who can commit the most heinous acts and quote Quranic verses that justify them. No doubt there are Christians who also quote the Bible for their behavior, like the nut job in Florida, but these Christians don't constitute more than a tiny minority in any predominantly Christian country. That's why a handful of people in a church in Florida can threaten to burn a Quran, or why a fringe Baptist group can stage protests at the funerals of US soldiers, and the majority of Christians think they're fruit cakes.

Guys like Jim Jones and David Koresh have a hard time recruiting followers who buy into their interpretation because a rational person could just as easily interpret the Bible the way most Christians do. Guys like OBL have it easier because of the way the Quran is written. Because many of the directives were contemporary at the time Muhammad received them, there is a lot less "he did" and "they did", and a lot more "you shall".

I agree.

I would just point out my own personal theory, in that I am not at all convinced that a lot of these 'leaders' even beleive what they say from a religious standpoint. Its all about the power, baby, and whatever it takes to stay on top...

and the closed nature of many of these countries, particularly in regard to freedom of information and differing opinons, just helps to further their cause.

[twowls 217]

Maybe a trip back to the UK?

See it with your own eyes?

Huh? I didn't address her assertions. I'm just explaining why it's not cool to present a rant made by a deeply questionable figure with an agenda almost entirely comprised of intolerance and as*holery and then demand everybody proceed as if it's just an innocent list of musings by a neutral figure. I will question the source, the motivations of the source, the prejudices of the source, before I consider the points being made. It's just your garden variety critical thinking.

It's possible for Malkin to make individual points that can be defended, I'm sure. But I don't go to her for thoughtful discussion on Muslims just as I don't go to homophobes for discussion of gay people.