Vatican Renews Commitment to a war on Islam

[warner]

Vatican Renews Commitment to a war on Islam
by Abid Ullah Jan
(Saturday 18 December 2004)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Vatican’s renewed commitment to a war on Islam came to light in an editorial in the newspaper of the Italian bishops’ conference, Avvenire, written by Vittorio Parsi, a professor at the Catholic University of Milan and the newspaper’s foreign policy expert."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It was around November 2003 that Vatican publicly admitted to intellectually joining the war on Islam. One year later it has clearly approved the military war which could eliminate the rise of an Islamic State in the Muslim world.

One year later, Julian Coman and Bruce Johnston of British Daily Telegraph report from Rome on October 10, 2004: “Vatican buries the hatchet with Blair and Bush over Iraq.â€Â

Joseph D'Hippolito celebrates it as yet another victory in the war on Islam. Writing in Front Page Magazine (November 09), he exclaims how dramatically Catholic Church has shifted its approach to Islam: “The Telegraph, Britain’s leading conservative newspaper, reported October 10 that Vatican officials now support a multinational military presence led by NATO to restore order and protect Iraq’s nascent democracy.â€Â[1]

It must be dramatic in the sense that Vatican approved military adventures and continued bloodshed against the possibility of Muslims establishing an Islamic government. It was, however, not so dramatic for the matter that it has already joined the ranks of intellectual warriors in 2003.

A Jesuit magazine, La Civilta Cattolica, thought of as the semi-official voice of the Vatican, published an article in 2003, apparently to highlight the “desperate plight†of Christians in Muslim countries, but in reality its objective was to criticize the main concepts of Islam in which Jihad clearly stood out.

The article noted, “for almost a thousand years, Europe was under constant threat from Islam, which twice put its survival in serious danger.†The article reduced the concept of Jihad in Islam to just a “precept of Jihad†as if it entails nothing other than a blind order to fight all non-Muslims and conquer their lands irrespective of any circumstances.

Vatican’s renewed commitment to a war on Islam came to light in an editorial in the newspaper of the Italian bishops’ conference, Avvenire, written by Vittorio Parsi, a professor at the Catholic University of Milan and the newspaper’s foreign policy expert.

According to D’Hippolito, the paper “bluntly outlined Vatican policy: ‘What (the terrorists) want is, in fact, not “Iraq for the Iraqis,†but “Iraq for the assassins.†Thus all of Iraq will become a colossal common area for fundamentalist terrorism, for the brigands of Ba’ath, and for the most extremist Shiite mullahs. The international community and the West, which objectively holds within this community the greatest share of power, culture and responsibility, have the duty of blocking the realization of this plan.â€Â

Earlier on Oct. 2, 2004 Civiita Cattolica linked Islam to “terrorism,†which is the now well-known way of widening the last crusade. It says: "There is a tragic conceptual connection beginning from New York on September 11, 2001, and reaching Beslan, in North Ossetia, on September 1, 2004. It is the connection of terrorism of Islamic origin, which in three years has sown death in many places all over the planet.â€Â

Linking the problem to the roots of Islam, the Vatican magazine continues: "In reality, Islamic terrorism has not changed the goals that it has pursued since its origin until the work of Osama bin Laden.â€Â

Many a Pipeses and Friedmans are busy making such links to demonize the roots of Islam. Sam Haris went to the extent of pursuading others not to call it a war on terrorism, but to openly call it a war on Islam (Washington Times Dec 02, 2004).

However, according to D’Hippolito, the latest attack from Vatican “is significant not only for its intensity but also because of its source. The Vatican’s secretary of state – and by extension, the pope – personally approves all of Civilta Cattolica’s unsigned editorials.â€Â

Political, “intellectual,†and military circles in the West take inspiration from such attacks on the core of Islam from Vatican.

Another magazine of Philadelphia Church of God, Trumpet, apparently denounces Catholics for the earlier crusades, but towards the end of its editorial in December 2004 issues concedes: “This is why the world should be so alarmed when it hears the Vatican today talking about its next great adversary being Islamism. They are right: This Middle Eastern power is rising and becoming a serious threat. But for the Catholic Church to speak out about the problem is to bring the specter of the Crusades to life once again!â€Â[2]

Don’t speak; do the job, seems to be an indirect message which Bush and Blair are carefully following under the cover of fighting “Islamic terrorism,†or the rancid notion of “Islamism.â€Â[3]

In the political circles, Rome can hardly conceal its actions as a result of the inspiration it takes from Vatican. This is how Vatican now takes the lead on political front. Establishing Islamic States in countries under direct and indirect US occupation are out of question any way. However, to address the “green menace†in any other potential land, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state, suggests a role for the UN in his interview to La Stampa.

He hoped that the United Nations would add a new principle to its charter: "the possibility, even the duty of ‘humanitarian intervention’ in extreme situations in which human rights are trampled upon within a country." Interestingly, the same person and the institute behind him approve the US butchery in Iraq. Where else can be the situation worse than what we witness in Iraq?

Following the lead, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s permanent observer to the U.N., reinforced Sodano’s remarks in an address to the UN’s refugee committee in early October. Ignoring the light of Iraqis, Afghans and Palestinians  not to speak of the thousands suffering in Guantanamo kind of US run concentration camps around the world  Tomasi proposes: "International human rights and humanitarian law oblige governments to provide for the security and well-being of all those under their jurisdiction. If, however, a state fails to or cannot take this responsibility … then the international community can and should assert its concern, step in and take on this obligation." Where is this “international community†now to save Iraq, Afghanistan and other occupied lands from the barbarism of occupiers?

To see how the church and military are now on the same wavelength compare General Boykin’s remarks to Monsignor Cesare Mazzolari, the bishop of Rumbek in southern Sudan. The US Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence the war on terrorism, General Boyking believes the US war is a battle between a "Christian army" and Satan and that Muslims worship an "idol' and not a "real God".

Similarly, when asked whether the God of Christians is the same as Allah, Mazzolari replied, "No way! Where would the concept of the Trinity fit in? And Christ is certainly not the greatest of their prophets" (May 2004, the Milan newspaper Il Giornale). Some of the countless promoters of this line of thinking are Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Franklin Graham.

While some Muslims have yet to come of the denial that this is a war on Islam, Mazzolari adds: "This is just the beginning," of the war on Islam. However, still cautious of facing 1.3 billion united Muslims, like many other Islamophobes, he tries to hide behind Islamism: "The Church has defeated communism, but is just starting to understand its next challenge – Islamism, which is much worse. The Holy Father has not been able to take up this challenge due to his old age. But the next pope will find himself having to face it."

D'Hippolito writes: “Mazzolari is not alone.†I say, these are not statements alone. We come to know about just the faction of all that is being planned and executed on political, media, academic, religious and military fronts against Islam. This is not a sweeping statement when looked at from the perspective of Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state.

This second-most powerful cardinal believes: "The big problem of the future will be our relationship with the Islamic world. It is a challenge that does not only concern the Church" (the Italian daily La Repubblica on Oct. 15. 2004).

The most unfortunate reality is that the more anti-Islam forces are bracing to combat every thing that is or could become Islamic. Whereas Muslims don’t have anything at all that is truly Islamic in nature: collectively neither state, nor law, not even a single system; and individually neither personal lives, nor interpersonal relations. A people lost in rituals at their best are set to face a holocaust before which every other holocaust will pale by comparison.

Muslim liberalism and moderatism are fast becoming a joke in the sense that in the coming dark days, even if Muslims call their renunciation of Islam at the top of their voice, they would be considered opportunists and cowards, trying to avoid something worse than Nazi's gas chambers.

Notes:

[1]. Joseph D'Hippolito, "Vatican slowly awakens to Jihad," Front Page magazine, Nov 09, 2004. See: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=15865
Also see: Julian Coman and Bruce Johnston, “Vatican buries the hatchet with Blair and Bush over Iraq,†Daily Telegraph, October 10, 2004. See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ortal.html


[2]. Gerald Flurry, “From the Editor: The Coming War Between Catholicism and Islam,â₠Trumpet, December 2004. http://www.thetrumpet.com/geo/na/docs/i ... 0412/1.asp

[3]. For details about how “Islamism†is used as a cover to hide the real intentions of a war on Islam see http://usa.mediamonitors.net/headlines/ ... n_islamism

source: http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/12053/

 

[Muhsen]

They claims that they follow Jesus teaching, but unfortunately they are not.
Jesus said according to the bible “love your enemies†but they fight Islam everywhere. And they claims that Islam is aggressor.

 

[warner]

Vatican Renews Commitment to a war on Islam
by Abid Ullah Jan
(Saturday 18 December 2004)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Vatican’s renewed commitment to a war on Islam came to light in an editorial in the newspaper of the Italian bishops’ conference, Avvenire, written by Vittorio Parsi, a professor at the Catholic University of Milan and the newspaper’s foreign policy expert."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It was around November 2003 that Vatican publicly admitted to intellectually joining the war on Islam. One year later it has clearly approved the military war which could eliminate the rise of an Islamic State in the Muslim world.

One year later, Julian Coman and Bruce Johnston of British Daily Telegraph report from Rome on October 10, 2004: “Vatican buries the hatchet with Blair and Bush over Iraq.â€Â

Joseph D'Hippolito celebrates it as yet another victory in the war on Islam. Writing in Front Page Magazine (November 09), he exclaims how dramatically Catholic Church has shifted its approach to Islam: “The Telegraph, Britain’s leading conservative newspaper, reported October 10 that Vatican officials now support a multinational military presence led by NATO to restore order and protect Iraq’s nascent democracy.â€Â[1]

It must be dramatic in the sense that Vatican approved military adventures and continued bloodshed against the possibility of Muslims establishing an Islamic government. It was, however, not so dramatic for the matter that it has already joined the ranks of intellectual warriors in 2003.

A Jesuit magazine, La Civilta Cattolica, thought of as the semi-official voice of the Vatican, published an article in 2003, apparently to highlight the “desperate plight†of Christians in Muslim countries, but in reality its objective was to criticize the main concepts of Islam in which Jihad clearly stood out.

The article noted, “for almost a thousand years, Europe was under constant threat from Islam, which twice put its survival in serious danger.†The article reduced the concept of Jihad in Islam to just a “precept of Jihad†as if it entails nothing other than a blind order to fight all non-Muslims and conquer their lands irrespective of any circumstances.

Vatican’s renewed commitment to a war on Islam came to light in an editorial in the newspaper of the Italian bishops’ conference, Avvenire, written by Vittorio Parsi, a professor at the Catholic University of Milan and the newspaper’s foreign policy expert.

According to D’Hippolito, the paper “bluntly outlined Vatican policy: ‘What (the terrorists) want is, in fact, not “Iraq for the Iraqis,†but “Iraq for the assassins.†Thus all of Iraq will become a colossal common area for fundamentalist terrorism, for the brigands of Ba’ath, and for the most extremist Shiite mullahs. The international community and the West, which objectively holds within this community the greatest share of power, culture and responsibility, have the duty of blocking the realization of this plan.â€Â

Earlier on Oct. 2, 2004 Civiita Cattolica linked Islam to “terrorism,†which is the now well-known way of widening the last crusade. It says: "There is a tragic conceptual connection beginning from New York on September 11, 2001, and reaching Beslan, in North Ossetia, on September 1, 2004. It is the connection of terrorism of Islamic origin, which in three years has sown death in many places all over the planet.â€Â

Linking the problem to the roots of Islam, the Vatican magazine continues: "In reality, Islamic terrorism has not changed the goals that it has pursued since its origin until the work of Osama bin Laden.â€Â

Many a Pipeses and Friedmans are busy making such links to demonize the roots of Islam. Sam Haris went to the extent of pursuading others not to call it a war on terrorism, but to openly call it a war on Islam (Washington Times Dec 02, 2004).

However, according to D’Hippolito, the latest attack from Vatican “is significant not only for its intensity but also because of its source. The Vatican’s secretary of state – and by extension, the pope – personally approves all of Civilta Cattolica’s unsigned editorials.â€Â

Political, “intellectual,†and military circles in the West take inspiration from such attacks on the core of Islam from Vatican.

Another magazine of Philadelphia Church of God, Trumpet, apparently denounces Catholics for the earlier crusades, but towards the end of its editorial in December 2004 issues concedes: “This is why the world should be so alarmed when it hears the Vatican today talking about its next great adversary being Islamism. They are right: This Middle Eastern power is rising and becoming a serious threat. But for the Catholic Church to speak out about the problem is to bring the specter of the Crusades to life once again!â€Â[2]

Don’t speak; do the job, seems to be an indirect message which Bush and Blair are carefully following under the cover of fighting “Islamic terrorism,†or the rancid notion of “Islamism.â€Â[3]

In the political circles, Rome can hardly conceal its actions as a result of the inspiration it takes from Vatican. This is how Vatican now takes the lead on political front. Establishing Islamic States in countries under direct and indirect US occupation are out of question any way. However, to address the “green menace†in any other potential land, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state, suggests a role for the UN in his interview to La Stampa.

He hoped that the United Nations would add a new principle to its charter: "the possibility, even the duty of ‘humanitarian intervention’ in extreme situations in which human rights are trampled upon within a country." Interestingly, the same person and the institute behind him approve the US butchery in Iraq. Where else can be the situation worse than what we witness in Iraq?

Following the lead, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s permanent observer to the U.N., reinforced Sodano’s remarks in an address to the UN’s refugee committee in early October. Ignoring the light of Iraqis, Afghans and Palestinians  not to speak of the thousands suffering in Guantanamo kind of US run concentration camps around the world  Tomasi proposes: "International human rights and humanitarian law oblige governments to provide for the security and well-being of all those under their jurisdiction. If, however, a state fails to or cannot take this responsibility … then the international community can and should assert its concern, step in and take on this obligation." Where is this “international community†now to save Iraq, Afghanistan and other occupied lands from the barbarism of occupiers?

To see how the church and military are now on the same wavelength compare General Boykin’s remarks to Monsignor Cesare Mazzolari, the bishop of Rumbek in southern Sudan. The US Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence the war on terrorism, General Boyking believes the US war is a battle between a "Christian army" and Satan and that Muslims worship an "idol' and not a "real God".

Similarly, when asked whether the God of Christians is the same as Allah, Mazzolari replied, "No way! Where would the concept of the Trinity fit in? And Christ is certainly not the greatest of their prophets" (May 2004, the Milan newspaper Il Giornale). Some of the countless promoters of this line of thinking are Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Franklin Graham.

While some Muslims have yet to come of the denial that this is a war on Islam, Mazzolari adds: "This is just the beginning," of the war on Islam. However, still cautious of facing 1.3 billion united Muslims, like many other Islamophobes, he tries to hide behind Islamism: "The Church has defeated communism, but is just starting to understand its next challenge – Islamism, which is much worse. The Holy Father has not been able to take up this challenge due to his old age. But the next pope will find himself having to face it."

D'Hippolito writes: “Mazzolari is not alone.†I say, these are not statements alone. We come to know about just the faction of all that is being planned and executed on political, media, academic, religious and military fronts against Islam. This is not a sweeping statement when looked at from the perspective of Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state.

This second-most powerful cardinal believes: "The big problem of the future will be our relationship with the Islamic world. It is a challenge that does not only concern the Church" (the Italian daily La Repubblica on Oct. 15. 2004).

The most unfortunate reality is that the more anti-Islam forces are bracing to combat every thing that is or could become Islamic. Whereas Muslims don’t have anything at all that is truly Islamic in nature: collectively neither state, nor law, not even a single system; and individually neither personal lives, nor interpersonal relations. A people lost in rituals at their best are set to face a holocaust before which every other holocaust will pale by comparison.

Muslim liberalism and moderatism are fast becoming a joke in the sense that in the coming dark days, even if Muslims call their renunciation of Islam at the top of their voice, they would be considered opportunists and cowards, trying to avoid something worse than Nazi's gas chambers.

Notes:

[1]. Joseph D'Hippolito, "Vatican slowly awakens to Jihad," Front Page magazine, Nov 09, 2004. See: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=15865
Also see: Julian Coman and Bruce Johnston, “Vatican buries the hatchet with Blair and Bush over Iraq,†Daily Telegraph, October 10, 2004. See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ortal.html


[2]. Gerald Flurry, “From the Editor: The Coming War Between Catholicism and Islam,†Trumpet, December 2004. http://www.thetrumpet.com/geo/na/docs/i ... 0412/1.asp

[3]. For details about how “Islamism†is used as a cover to hide the real intentions of a war on Islam see http://usa.mediamonitors.net/headlines/ ... n_islamism

source: http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/12053/

They will hide under any banner to fight islam it is not something new,1400 years ago they persecuted the Propet of Islam and his followers.There was no Bin Laden and No terrorism then so waht was their excuse then.
They have Killed prophet after prophet who came with the truth and slandered others. They were rebellious against GOD, they want to destroy islam so they can cause chaos in this world
They have always hated the truth of Islam and they will find any banner to hide under in order to try and Extinguish the light of Islam but Guess what they will never succeed.
Chapter 9 Noble Quran
32. They (the disbelievers, the Jews and the Christians) want to extinguish Allâh's Light (with which Muhammad has been sent - Islâmic Monotheism) with their mouths, but Allâh will not allow except that His Light should be perfected even though the Kâfirûn (disbelievers) hate (it).
peace
:angel:

 

[reznwerks]

bogus

When are you guys going to realize Islam is as bogus as Christianity? If you want to do good things and treat your fellow man equally then do it. You don't need a God as an excuse to do it. The Quran is not a textbook (has not authority) any more than the bible.Just because something is written in it doesn't make it true.

 

[Gary]

They will hide under any banner to fight islam it is not something new,1400 years ago they persecuted the Propet of Islam and his followers.There was no Bin Laden and No terrorism then so waht was their excuse then.

Absolute rubbish!....... Muhammad was the aggressor. He MURDERED those who opposed him.

It is often claimed by Muslims that their Prophet's actions were consistent with both the standards of his day in Arabia and with those of many of the prophets of Israel in pre-Christian times (ea. David's scheme to kill Uriah the Hittite, etc.). Syed Ameer Ali says of the massacre of the Banu Quraydhah: "We simply look upon it as an act done in complete accordance with the laws of war as then understood by the nations of the world" (The Spirit of Islam, p. 81). This brings us back once again to relative standards - the only ones, it seems, by which Muhammad and his religion can be justified. The defence sometimes takes a different form - it is alleged that the Muslims acted according to the basic principles of human nature. Here is an example:

• It was not in their nature to suffer such injustices or to submit to such tyranny for long without thinking of avenging themselves. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 198).

It is precisely at this point that Islam becomes something of an anachronism, an outdated form of religion which was, centuries earlier, replaced by one that was far better. When Jesus came into the world a new covenant was introduced, one far better than the one it replaced (Hebrews 8:6). One of the better essences of this new covenant is the universal pouring out of the Holy Spirit on all who truly belong to Jesus Christ so that they may no longer be bound to their ordinary natures but to the new nature within them which has Divine qualities (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:12). As Hayka' says of Mohammad and his companions, it was "not in their nature" to suffer patiently, leaving vengeance to the Lord. But this very thing is in the nature of true Christians because they are born of the Holy Spirit and have divine power to become what God truly wants men to be. How graciously these words of a follower of Jesus compare with the spirit of the followers of Muhammad:

• For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it, if when you do wrong and are beaten for it you take it patiently? But if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God's approval. For to this you have been called, for Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps. 1 Peter 2:19-21

Jesus Christ brought a new morality into the world. He showed that earthly survival and security were not paramount objectives for men and nations but rather that men should seek to become like God in their characters. He died and rose again to make such things possible. He introduced a higher standard of righteousness, one much superior to that of Islam.

• For the Islam of Mohammed, coming after Christ, reverted to the lower types before him. The Prophet of Islam was in fact precisely the type of Messiah after which the Jews of Christ's day hankered, and which Jesus Christ Himself definitely rejected, from the Mount of Temptation and from the Mount of Calvary. (Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, p. 63).

When Muhammad found that the Jews and Christians were ultimately not going to acknowledge his claims, he became very antagonistic towards them. The Qur'an says of both these groups "God's curse be on them!" (Surah 9.30). The original words in Arabic, however, are qautalahumullaah which mean, quite literally, "Allah kill them". Jesus was also faced with a people who would not receive him. As he passed through Samaria on his way to Jerusalem, the Samaritans refused to accommodate him. Two of his disciples exclaimed "Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?" (Luke 9:54). This is the spirit of human nature, the spirit of vengeance, the spirit of Islam. But Jesus turned and rebuked them, saying:

• "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of, for the Son of man came not to destroy men's lives but to save them". Luke 9:55

The wondrous forbearing love of the Saviour of the world stands out, in all his teaching and actions, above the spirit of Islam. It was he who set the perfect example of love before the world when he prayed for the salvation of his enemies even as they crucified him, and bade his disciples do likewise: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you" (Luke 6:27-28). Indeed when Jesus gave a parable to demonstrate what true love was just after he had been rejected by the Samaritans, he chose a Samaritan as the hero of his story (Luke 10:33).

• The progress of Islam begins to stand out in unenviable contrast with that of early Christianity. Converts were gained to the faith of Jesus by witnessing the constancy with which its confessors suffered death; they were gained to Islam by the spectacle of the readiness with which its adherents inflicted death. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 242).

On the night Jesus was betrayed he called his betrayer his friend (Matthew 26:50), healed one of the soldiers who came to arrest him (Luke 22:51), and prayed for a disciple who was to desert him (Luke 22:32). The next day, when all human vindictiveness was let loose against him, he commended Pilate (John 19:11), comforted a man who but a few hours earlier had reviled him (Luke 23:43, Matthew 27:44), and sought the forgiveness of his murderers (Luke 23:34). This was the spirit of the man Jesus Christ. The same spirit has been manifested in thousands of true Christians since his ascension to heaven. Encouraged by his example and fortified by the Holy Spirit, his followers have also loved their enemies and prayed for the forgiveness of their murderers (Acts 7:60).

From the moment of his ascension to the moment of his return, his perfect standard is publicly portrayed before all men. The spirit of the Christian Gospel is the heart of true religion, one which summons human character to perfection, sets an incomparable example of it (Ephesians 5:2), and provides the Spirit by which such perfection is attainable. The prophets who came before Jesus Christ looked forward earnestly to the coming of their Redeemer, the Messiah, and when he came he introduced a religion and way of life vastly superior to that which went before. If the best thing that can be said for the spirit and attitudes of Muhammad and his companions is that they were no different to those who came before Jesus Christ, then this is one of the best reasons for not accepting the religion he introduced.

:wink:

 

[warner]

They will hide under any banner to fight islam it is not something new,1400 years ago they persecuted the Propet of Islam and his followers.There was no Bin Laden and No terrorism then so waht was their excuse then.

Absolute rubbish!....... Muhammad was the aggressor. He MURDERED those who opposed him.

It is often claimed by Muslims that their Prophet's actions were consistent with both the standards of his day in Arabia and with those of many of the prophets of Israel in pre-Christian times (ea. David's scheme to kill Uriah the Hittite, etc.). Syed Ameer Ali says of the massacre of the Banu Quraydhah: "We simply look upon it as an act done in complete accordance with the laws of war as then understood by the nations of the world" (The Spirit of Islam, p. 81). This brings us back once again to relative standards - the only ones, it seems, by which Muhammad and his religion can be justified. The defence sometimes takes a different form - it is alleged that the Muslims acted according to the basic principles of human nature. Here is an example:

• It was not in their nature to suffer such injustices or to submit to such tyranny for long without thinking of avenging themselves. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 198).

It is precisely at this point that Islam becomes something of an anachronism, an outdated form of religion which was, centuries earlier, replaced by one that was far better. When Jesus came into the world a new covenant was introduced, one far better than the one it replaced (Hebrews 8:6). One of the better essences of this new covenant is the universal pouring out of the Holy Spirit on all who truly belong to Jesus Christ so that they may no longer be bound to their ordinary natures but to the new nature within them which has Divine qualities (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:12). As Hayka' says of Mohammad and his companions, it was "not in their nature" to suffer patiently, leaving vengeance to the Lord. But this very thing is in the nature of true Christians because they are born of the Holy Spirit and have divine power to become what God truly wants men to be. How graciously these words of a follower of Jesus compare with the spirit of the followers of Muhammad:

• For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it, if when you do wrong and are beaten for it you take it patiently? But if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God's approval. For to this you have been called, for Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps. 1 Peter 2:19-21

Jesus Christ brought a new morality into the world. He showed that earthly survival and security were not paramount objectives for men and nations but rather that men should seek to become like God in their characters. He died and rose again to make such things possible. He introduced a higher standard of righteousness, one much superior to that of Islam.

• For the Islam of Mohammed, coming after Christ, reverted to the lower types before him. The Prophet of Islam was in fact precisely the type of Messiah after which the Jews of Christ's day hankered, and which Jesus Christ Himself definitely rejected, from the Mount of Temptation and from the Mount of Calvary. (Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, p. 63).

When Muhammad found that the Jews and Christians were ultimately not going to acknowledge his claims, he became very antagonistic towards them. The Qur'an says of both these groups "God's curse be on them!" (Surah 9.30). The original words in Arabic, however, are qautalahumullaah which mean, quite literally, "Allah kill them". Jesus was also faced with a people who would not receive him. As he passed through Samaria on his way to Jerusalem, the Samaritans refused to accommodate him. Two of his disciples exclaimed "Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?" (Luke 9:54). This is the spirit of human nature, the spirit of vengeance, the spirit of Islam. But Jesus turned and rebuked them, saying:

• "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of, for the Son of man came not to destroy men's lives but to save them". Luke 9:55

The wondrous forbearing love of the Saviour of the world stands out, in all his teaching and actions, above the spirit of Islam. It was he who set the perfect example of love before the world when he prayed for the salvation of his enemies even as they crucified him, and bade his disciples do likewise: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you" (Luke 6:27-28). Indeed when Jesus gave a parable to demonstrate what true love was just after he had been rejected by the Samaritans, he chose a Samaritan as the hero of his story (Luke 10:33).

• The progress of Islam begins to stand out in unenviable contrast with that of early Christianity. Converts were gained to the faith of Jesus by witnessing the constancy with which its confessors suffered death; they were gained to Islam by the spectacle of the readiness with which its adherents inflicted death. (Muir, The Life of Mahomet, p. 242).

On the night Jesus was betrayed he called his betrayer his friend (Matthew 26:50), healed one of the soldiers who came to arrest him (Luke 22:51), and prayed for a disciple who was to desert him (Luke 22:32). The next day, when all human vindictiveness was let loose against him, he commended Pilate (John 19:11), comforted a man who but a few hours earlier had reviled him (Luke 23:43, Matthew 27:44), and sought the forgiveness of his murderers (Luke 23:34). This was the spirit of the man Jesus Christ. The same spirit has been manifested in thousands of true Christians since his ascension to heaven. Encouraged by his example and fortified by the Holy Spirit, his followers have also loved their enemies and prayed for the forgiveness of their murderers (Acts 7:60).

From the moment of his ascension to the moment of his return, his perfect standard is publicly portrayed before all men. The spirit of the Christian Gospel is the heart of true religion, one which summons human character to perfection, sets an incomparable example of it (Ephesians 5:2), and provides the Spirit by which such perfection is attainable. The prophets who came before Jesus Christ looked forward earnestly to the coming of their Redeemer, the Messiah, and when he came he introduced a religion and way of life vastly superior to that which went before. If the best thing that can be said for the spirit and attitudes of Muhammad and his companions is that they were no different to those who came before Jesus Christ, then this is one of the best reasons for not accepting the religion he introduced.

:wink:

Absolute rubbish!....... Muhammad was the aggressor. He MURDERED those who opposed him. :

Lu 19:27 (AVRLE) But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

1 (AV) Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 (AV) For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 (AV) And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 (AV) Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 (AV) Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

:angel:

 

[Gary]

Lu 19:27 (AVRLE) But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Nice try!!

Ever heard of a parable?

Now ALL of the verses, in context.

Luke 19:11-27

The Parable of the Ten Minas

11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]‘Put this money to work,’ he said, ‘until I come back.’
14“But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don't want this man to be our king.’

15“He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16“The first one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned ten more.’

17“ ‘Well done, my good servant!’ his master replied. ‘Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.’

18“The second came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has earned five more.’

19“His master answered, ‘You take charge of five cities.’

20“Then another servant came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.’

22“His master replied, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’

24“Then he said to those standing by, ‘Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.’

25“ ‘Sir,’ they said, ‘he already has ten!’

26“He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them-bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Now do you want me to explain the parable to you? You see, it applies to all those who disbelieve in the King, Jesus.

:bday: :bday:

 

[Qasim786]

Now do you want me to explain the parable to you? You see, it applies to all those who disbelieve in the King, Jesus.

So Could you explain what Jesus is trying to say by this parable, If it applies to those who disbelieve Jesus.

 

[peace4all]

gary, go read your bible. GOD murdered those who opposed him!

Absolute rubbish!....... Muhammad was the aggressor. He MURDERED those who opposed him.

ahh go read it.

remember when he murdered the guy that went against his will and steadied the ark? remember when he turned lot's wife into a pillar of salt! remember the city of sodom, and gonorahha (sp) remember the flood!!!!!
did u you just skip over 98% of the bible?

 

[Gary]

As a man, Jesus is the example for Christians to try and follow. Jesus did not murder. Jesus taught us to love, even our enemies.

Muhammad also claimed to be an example for all men. However, he murdered, he was a theif, he was deceitful, he was lustful, he was a child-molester.

So who would you follow? Jesus or Muhammad?

 

[warner]

As a man, Jesus is the example for Christians to try and follow. Jesus did not murder. Jesus taught us to love, even our enemies.

Muhammad also claimed to be an example for all men. However, he murdered, he was a theif, he was deceitful, he was lustful, he was a child-molester.

So who would you follow? Jesus or Muhammad?

So much double standards,contraversy from Christians, When a verse is quoted to them that they don't like they run to the Excuse that it is a parable, They take Figuratively what is to ba taken literally But Talk about The son of GOD that they take Literally.Now my friend when it comes to Jesus Killing you claim it is a parable, wht say thet The hadiths of the Prophet Mohamed were Parables too. Why do you deny That be cause it does not suit your agenda in showing people your lies about islam.So for you all the sayings of the prophet Mohamed were Literal but all of Jesus weerre Parable except when you see son of GOD or he was GOD. In britain we have a saying."in for a penny in for a pound".That is if it applies to One it applies to the rest.So stop trying to make out Jesu was perfect and Mohamed was evil.Just because some of your Rebellious forefathers were Cursed and Killed. GOD cursed them in the Quran and Moses and Jesus in the Bible too.So will you go to war with GOD and Jesus and Moses or are you just out to slander someone who you know nothing about and I can guarantee you know nothing about him.You have proved it with all your previous posts.

 

[Gary]

Warner, I know a lot about Muhammad. I have read and studied the Quran, the Hadith (Bukhari, Muslim) and Tabari and Ishaq’s Sira.

The picture which emerges is disgusting.

Muhammad was a licentious man, a murderer, barbaric and unethical, a liar and a hypocrite. He was deceitful, inconsistent, immoral, lustful, a polygamist, an adulterer. He had slaves and concubines, a low regard for women. He encouraged wife beating.

Muhammad had little regard for the value of human life, especially those who opposed or exposed him. He instituted Jihad and called for the death of all who opposed him or Islam. Muhammad sent his men to kill his opponents in the middle of the night using deceit and lies. He was an assassin.

He showed signs of physical, spiritual and mental derangement. He was delusional and even attempted suicide. His wife reported that he was bewitched.

Muhammad massacred his prisoners of war indiscriminately. He was a criminal and a mass murderer. Muhammad raided merchant caravans and stole their goods. He was a highway robber. Muhammad made and then broke treaties. He was dishonest.

Muhammad cursed people and preached hatred towards other human beings.

Muhammad captured human beings and sold them or asked for a payment of a ransom to release them. He was a slave merchant and a terrorist.

Muhammad was sex-mad. Muhammad, at the age of 53, became aroused by a 9-year-old child. He was a paedophile. Muhammad forced himself on a captured woman on the same day that he killed her father, husband and many of her relatives. He was a rapist.

Now back to the topic......

We all know that Muhammad killed and murdered. That is recorded in Islamic tradition.

However, Jesus did not kill. Both the Quran and the Bible assert to this fact. What you quoted was a parable to show what happens on judgement day. Here the Bible and the Quran agree. Jesus will judge all.

But back to the verses. You probably missed it. The verses start with the following...

Luke 19: 11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable....

So again it is very clear.

1) Muhammad murdered those who opposed him.

2) Jesus will judge those who have opposed and rejected Him after they have died on the day of judgment.

 

[Qasim786]

Jesus will judge those who have opposed and rejected Him after they have died on the day of judgment.

Well Im, not sure Jesus was talking about Judgement. He said all those that would not want him to reign over them, should be killed. He said 'slay them before me'. If the parable applies to Jesus, as you said then how can you slay at the judgment, you cant die after you have died. Or was this figurative aswell, meaning that they would be seperated from God, i.e, go to hell.

 

[peace4all]

ohh, so now your sayign jesus ISNT god.

here is a big issue.

many christians say that jesus IS god. does christianity worship jesus? or the creator of jesus? god? If it is true that christians only worship jesus, than why not throw out the whole first half of hte bible? That had nothing to do with jesus at all. toss it out.

Face it, christianity worships 2 figures, and atleast 1 of them is very bad. I have begun to read the bible (almsot all of genisis, then i had to skip to matt fro school) and have recofnrirmed my atheist beliefs, because alot of it sickens me.

plus the controversy about the prostitute that jesus married. Wasnt jesus a vegetarian? i dont see men following that. I dont see you following it either gary, with all of your insults at other religions. You always claim what you say to be fact, yet when we bring up the same problems with christianity, you deny it.

 

[warner]

Warner, I know a lot about Muhammad. I have read and studied the Quran, the Hadith (Bukhari, Muslim) and Tabari and Ishaq’s Sira.

The picture which emerges is disgusting.

Muhammad was a licentious man, a murderer, barbaric and unethical, a liar and a hypocrite. He was deceitful, inconsistent, immoral, lustful, a polygamist, an adulterer. He had slaves and concubines, a low regard for women. He encouraged wife beating.

Muhammad had little regard for the value of human life, especially those who opposed or exposed him. He instituted Jihad and called for the death of all who opposed him or Islam. Muhammad sent his men to kill his opponents in the middle of the night using deceit and lies. He was an assassin.

He showed signs of physical, spiritual and mental derangement. He was delusional and even attempted suicide. His wife reported that he was bewitched.

Muhammad massacred his prisoners of war indiscriminately. He was a criminal and a mass murderer. Muhammad raided merchant caravans and stole their goods. He was a highway robber. Muhammad made and then broke treaties. He was dishonest.

Muhammad cursed people and preached hatred towards other human beings.

Muhammad captured human beings and sold them or asked for a payment of a ransom to release them. He was a slave merchant and a terrorist.

Muhammad was sex-mad. Muhammad, at the age of 53, became aroused by a 9-year-old child. He was a paedophile. Muhammad forced himself on a captured woman on the same day that he killed her father, husband and many of her relatives. He was a rapist.

Now back to the topic......

We all know that Muhammad killed and murdered. That is recorded in Islamic tradition.

However, Jesus did not kill. Both the Quran and the Bible assert to this fact. What you quoted was a parable to show what happens on judgement day. Here the Bible and the Quran agree. Jesus will judge all.

But back to the verses. You probably missed it. The verses start with the following...

Luke 19: 11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable....

So again it is very clear.

1) Muhammad murdered those who opposed him.

2) Jesus will judge those who have opposed and rejected Him after they have died on the day of judgment.

Warner, I know a lot about Muhammad. I have read and studied the Quran, the Hadith (Bukhari, Muslim) and Tabari and Ishaq’s Sira.

You do , do you? You do not know all about Mohammad , had you known even a little bit about him you wouldn't
1.be claiming he admitted anything in the Quran
2. You wouldn't not be asking me to show you where he repented and asked for forgiveness.
3.Had you known a little bit about him or the Quran or Islam you would not be slandering in the way you are.Admit you know a little very little about Islam, and the quran and Mohammed.Only what you have been taught here and there enough for you to attack and slander Islam. bits here and there from anti Islamic sites.
Had you known anything about Bhukari or tabari you would have seen hadeeth where the prophet mohammed ( peace be upon him) Forgave hii enemies.You would have seen how he always hesitated before going to war and waited till he had Gabriel to bring confirmation from GOD to him. So the Christainity you practice is deception, you lie to others to slander them.Was that what jesus taught, was that what he did.I don't think you care what he said and id anyway because you do not practice what he did.How often do you fall on your face and Pray to the One GOD.How often do you abstain from pork Because jesus did not eat it. How often do you forgive your enemies.You Prefer to slander than to forgive.
And you claim you are a chrsitian and following Jesus.
Peace
:angel:

 

[warner]

Warner, I know a lot about Muhammad. I have read and studied the Quran, the Hadith (Bukhari, Muslim) and Tabari and Ishaq’s Sira.

The picture which emerges is disgusting.

Muhammad was a licentious man, a murderer, barbaric and unethical, a liar and a hypocrite. He was deceitful, inconsistent, immoral, lustful, a polygamist, an adulterer. He had slaves and concubines, a low regard for women. He encouraged wife beating.

Muhammad had little regard for the value of human life, especially those who opposed or exposed him. He instituted Jihad and called for the death of all who opposed him or Islam. Muhammad sent his men to kill his opponents in the middle of the night using deceit and lies. He was an assassin.

He showed signs of physical, spiritual and mental derangement. He was delusional and even attempted suicide. His wife reported that he was bewitched.

Muhammad massacred his prisoners of war indiscriminately. He was a criminal and a mass murderer. Muhammad raided merchant caravans and stole their goods. He was a highway robber. Muhammad made and then broke treaties. He was dishonest.

Muhammad cursed people and preached hatred towards other human beings.

Muhammad captured human beings and sold them or asked for a payment of a ransom to release them. He was a slave merchant and a terrorist.

Muhammad was sex-mad. Muhammad, at the age of 53, became aroused by a 9-year-old child. He was a paedophile. Muhammad forced himself on a captured woman on the same day that he killed her father, husband and many of her relatives. He was a rapist.

Now back to the topic......

We all know that Muhammad killed and murdered. That is recorded in Islamic tradition.

However, Jesus did not kill. Both the Quran and the Bible assert to this fact. What you quoted was a parable to show what happens on judgement day. Here the Bible and the Quran agree. Jesus will judge all.

But back to the verses. You probably missed it. The verses start with the following...

Luke 19: 11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable....

So again it is very clear.

1) Muhammad murdered those who opposed him.

2) Jesus will judge those who have opposed and rejected Him after they have died on the day of judgment.

[quote="Gary_Bee":01c2d]Warner, I know a lot about Muhammad. I have read and studied the Quran, the Hadith (Bukhari, Muslim) and Tabari and Ishaq’s Sira.

You do , do you? You do not know all about Mohammad , had you known even a little bit about him you wouldn't
1.be claiming he admitted anything in the Quran
2. You would not be asking me to show you where he repented and asked for forgiveness.
3.Had you known a little bit about him or the Quran or Islam you would not be slandering in the way you are.Admit you know a little very little about Islam, and the quran and Mohammed.Only what you have been taught here and there enough for you to attack and slander Islam. bits here and there from anti Islamic sites. those who arwe teaching you are deceiving you into beleive Mohamed wrote the Quran.
Had you known anything about Bhukari or tabari you would have seen hadeeth where the prophet mohammed ( peace be upon him) Forgave hii enemies.You would have seen how he always hesitated before going to war and waited till he had Gabriel to bring confirmation from GOD to him. So the Christainity you practice is deception, you lie to others to slander them.Was that what jesus taught, was that what he did.I don't think you care what he said and id anyway because you do not practice what he did.How often do you fall on your face and Pray to the One GOD.How often do you abstain from pork Because jesus did not eat it. How often do you forgive your enemies.You Prefer to slander than to forgive.
And you claim you are a chrsitian and following Jesus.
Peace
:angel:[/quote:01c2d]

 

[Gary]

Did Muhammad murder his enemies or not?

Did Muhammad deceive or not?

Did Muhammad have sex with a 9 year old girl or not?

Did Muhammad have black slaves who he traded?

P.S. I do not have to forgive Muhammad. Muhammad should have repented to God and then asked for forgiveness from the families of those he murdered.

 

[peace4all]

antoehr christion told me that you still must love hitler, regardless of what he did wrong.. but muhamed you cant?

What about that guy that god gave the power to slay 80k+ pharasiees (sp) ~ u know, david and goliaths culture~ isnt he bad? god gave him teh power to kill them! it was his own naive actions that made him get caught, and yet he gets gods help to murder?

what about the fact that due to the fact that god sent him angels, he was willign to let his 2 virgin daughters get raped? isnt that against gods laws to encourage others to sin? obviously havign pre marital sex is a sin, so why do u let a guy get away with it!

 

[YESHUA]

antoehr christion told me that you still must love hitler, regardless of what he did wrong.. but muhamed you cant?

What about that guy that god gave the power to slay 80k+ pharasiees (sp) ~ u know, david and goliaths culture~ isnt he bad? god gave him teh power to kill them! it was his own naive actions that made him get caught, and yet he gets gods help to murder?

what about the fact that due to the fact that god sent him angels, he was willign to let his 2 virgin daughters get raped? isnt that against gods laws to encourage others to sin? obviously havign pre marital sex is a sin, so why do u let a guy get away with it!

If you want to love Hitler go right ahead my friend and love him? But why would I love Hitler he is dead? Or what? I should forgive him and not hate him, you se hating anybody other than the satan is against the will of GOD. You don't have to love a person to forgive do you? It has to do with the will of GOD and HIS commandment. To pray for our enemies and forgive them who persecute us. When Jesus said love one another HE meant the ones in the same believe and then concerning those outside our faith we should forgive and pray that they might come to faith.
John 13:34 - A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
John 13:35 - By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
John 15:12 - This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
John 15:17 - These things I command you, that ye love one another.
1 John 3:23 - And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
And concerning Hitler, Muhammad here is what is said about both of them in the Bible
2 John 1

1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;
2 For the truth's sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.
3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
4 I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.
5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Jude 1

22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.shalom and love in the name of YESHUA, soon to come and judge this wrecked world better repent and get saved