Philo - apology accepted, thank you.
Agreed - terrorists do not recognise christian value: 'thou shalt not kill' - which is not exclusive to christians BTW. However terrorists are not terrorists because they are muslim, they are terrorists for the same and varied reasons of terrorists throughout human history.

Completely disagree that Islam is a cause of terrorism it is simply a religion like any other which has been used for good or ill like any other including christianity.

In other words this is the point that Waleed had been trying to make: that focusing on real or perceived differences between cultural beliefs and then distorting them to claim that these beliefs are evil is a barbaric approach. I would say that this a typical approach used throughout history to de-humanise the 'other'. This is what you and BD have been doing.

Hamlet - thank you for your support.

Philo,

Examine BOTH the founder AND the followers!

Not that you will have much luck with Muslims.. They are, as they say in Latin America, cabeza dura (hard heads). For two whole months I when out to forums, Muslim Q&A sites, and Muslims blogs trying to get them to recognize the obvious.

Using their own scriptures and historic accounts, I pointed out the incidents of torture, murder, slavery, rape, etc... by their prophet and his followers. I then asked Muslims to explain or justify those actions. Silience.

Out of about 30 to 40 attempts, the single honest response was that the actions were "problematic." That was at altmuslim.com. I even asked them to just tell me if that is what it says, in simple terms, even if they don't believe it or wccept it. Nada, zilch. I asked them to reject the hadiths, and only our fearless friend FH responded, basically saying they were unreliable (which is news to the other 99.9% of Muslims). Oh course, FH has previously defended the Hadiths here at OLO and even quoted from them, but consistency is almost as hard for a Muslim as honesty.

It is not easy! I don't think the idiots in France have a clue as to what they are up against. It would be funny if not so tragic.

Kactuz

BD (& Philo & Kaktuz)
The three "mosque"-teers :-)

Before I respond, I would interpret your inability to quote ‘women rights’ in your scripture that there is nothing to match women rights in the Quran.

On slavery, here is the Quran position to pagan arabs to wipe out slavery:

2:177…righteous is he who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels and the scriptures and the prophets; and giveth his wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask and to set slaves free; and observe proper worship and payeth the poor-due…

5:89 Allah will not you to task for that which is unintentional in your oaths, but He will take you to oaths which you swear in ernest. The expiation thereof is the feeding of ten of the needy with the average of that wherewith ye feed your own folk, or the clothing of them, or the liberation of a slave, …

90:11-13 but he hath not attempted the Ascent* Ah, what will convey unto thee what the Ascent is* (It is) to free a slave* and to feed in the day of hunger* An Orphan near of kin* Or some poor wretch in misery.

You got the picture: in brief “freeing a slave” became the norm to repent from repeatable sins or want to be a true believer.

Please quote me anywhere in the Bible where it is explicitly mentioned to ‘free slaves’, all my readings refer to it as an acceptable ‘status quo’.

And btw, if you insist on the challenger role, be professional enough and answer rather than the ‘duck, weave and change the subject” approach you adopt.. Be a first class missionary not the Liverpool street ones.

Scout,
Thanks! However you continue to be naive about the sacred text of the Qur'an that inspires justification for death to kafir and rape of captured slave women. Persons who follow the teachings of Christ hold the very opposite position, "Love your enemy" "He that hateth his brother is already a murderer", and "He that lusteth after a woman has committed adultery in his heart already". Read the New Testament text and the Qur'an to establish if both espouse the same message.

To quote you, "Completely disagree that Islam is a cause of terrorism it is simply a religion like any other which has been used for good or ill like any other including christianity."

Waleed and Fellow_Human are Westernised Muslims and they suffer the same threat as us from orthodox Muslim believers. They do not follow the Qur'an to the letter of its revelation. I suggest you visit the Muslim question and answer site: http://63.175.194.25/index.php?cs=prn&ln=eng&QR=2527&dgn=4&dgn=2 and find out from their scholars what is their attitude to western women including Christian and Jew. For more answers click on home page.

F_H I will endeavour to answer your question more fully as my 24 hour limit restricts me. Question: Please quote me anywhere in the Bible where it is explicitly mentioned to ‘free slaves’, all my readings refer to it as an acceptable ‘status quo’.

What I can say here is that Christian Believers were to recognise that in Christ all are free men, there is neither slave or free i.e. there was to be no class system. Those believers who were slaves of unbelievers were to serve their masters as though they were serving God. Examples of this are demonstrated in Joseph, Daniel. Especially Onesimus who had become a believer while sharing imprisonment with Paul. If Christians had non-believing masters this was not to impede their service but they were to serve with more diligence. Christ never captured women as sex slaves, this is only found in Islam

F.H. I appreciate your 'humor' :) truly.. its good.

I'll address all your points in terms of one principle, and underline that the Christian concept of social life is NOT one of a list of 'rules and laws' it is the application of a principle of....

"Love your neighbour as yourself"

This applies to women, to slaves, to economics to all things.
The Jews had (have) 634 extra rules which they seek to use to cover "specific" areas of life to which they apply the 10 commandments.
Its not neccessary, following the golden rule in all things is all that is needed.

SLAVERY.. 'would you like to be a slave' ? NO.. so don't treat other human beings in such a way. "There is no longer slave or free"... i.e.. take the ESSENSE out of slavery, treat people fairly as your own family, don't use them for SEX and don't beat or ill treat them.
And most obviously, if there is an opportunity to free them and establish them in life independantly ..DO IT. (as my wifes people did when they came to Christ.. want to come to the village where they were given land and buffaloes etc ?)

WOMEN ditto. but within the framework of the authority structure laid down in Scripture, which of course while giving the male the leadership role, says that leadership must be 'love your wife as your own body'.
As for property rights, they already had them in the Old testament. Anything deviating from this is CULTURAL not 'scriptural'.

The New Testament (which interprets the old) does not under any circumstances even for a moment suggest a man can have more than one wife, and especially LEADERS.... unlike another 'religion' I know of :)

So.. having addressed your 'issues/red herrings' I'll now seek to clarify something for Hamlet

HAMLET
I hope the above gives more insight on 'where' we are coming from.
The verses you offer, should all be taken in the framework of the above and they apply 'within the church'. Women in that day had their own business also.

Remember the first Christians served happily under the Roman Empire even enduring persecution; they never envisage establishing Government. The New Testament embodies the Christian message that views all men as servants or ministers of God with the practical outcome of serving each other. Jesus identified himself as the servant of the people. He said that he did not come to Lord over men [judge] but to serve and give his life in sacrifice to save others.

The NT doesn’t identify matters for State reform, it is assumed that as the message changes people in political power its values will influence their decisions. The message is focused upon personal decisions and intimate practises. Naturally as Christ followers if they occupy government their Christian attitudes should formulate policy and practise. That is why under the influence of Pauline theology during the reformation it impacted political conscience and led to great, prosperous free societies. Hence Westminster politicians are called ministers of the crown [crown = people.] As this influence diminishes so Western societies will fall back into legalism and enforced State control over the people.

In following Christ there was to be no Lords except God, all were answerable personally and directly to God. Christ never used a person against their will. Christians were to treat all persons as their equal. Hence the admonition to recognise there is no slaves or freemen in Christ, nor race identity with the admonition there is neither Jew nor Greek. They were all to be one united body serving each other.

The NT identifies submission and service of husbands to God, wives to husbands, children to parents, servants to masters. Conversely there is caring responsibility of husbands to wives, parents to children and bosses to their staff.

There was never any thought of capturing persons as slaves and especially as the property of as is the case with Mahomet who captured women and girls as sex slaves. This practise is still sanctioned in Islam even today, demonstrated in Indonesia in the last five years. I’ve videotapes of young Christian girls who’ve escaped to tell horrific murderous stories