Coach,

'its impossible for us to reason with Muslims' is a choice and not a conclusion.

Muslims are open for reason and reasoning (and I think more than a poster on this forum including myself demonstrated that).

As Muslims we must accept Christians and Jews as people of the book.
It is the combination you mentioned that refuses us.

Again it is your choice but don't use the 'muslims don't reason' smoke screen.

See my blogspot:
http://www.musliminsight.blogspot.com article on Christian Copts.

Ifran,
I see you are becoming as jaded as many of us thought you might with the continued slander and denigration of your beliefs.

I ask you, as a fellow man, forgive these people their narrow views. I see the frustration in your posts and feel it is leading to the inevitable disconnection with those outside your culture. I for one would be happy to talk and listen to you – on all many of subjects. I find you intelligent, fair and honest – and I even disagree with your politics!

If it helps, I think there are more tolerant than intolerant. It would seem to me that the intolerant need to voice their fears louder than the tolerant. So if you can, put it down to weakness in them. And, as your faith suggest, forgive them.

As to this article. We saw the author and know his position. That he continues to write is only because he has lost his voice elsewhere. He will pass, like a mild, ineffectual storm in a short while…

Peace my friend…

Irfan,

“But understand that I and 1.2 billion other people have no interest in killing you. Yes, we may wish to have some of you compulsorily admitted to institutions”

Thanks but no thanks. I leave that to you and your 1.2 billion other people.

Fellow_Human,

You are asking me to reason with you – using your example:

”As Muslims we must accept Christians and Jews as people of the book.”

Please explain:

1. What exactly do you mean by ‘accept’? (We don’t need your charity - unless you mean dhimmitude)
2. How many of you have read “the book”? (or are you scared you might discover the truth?)
3. Do you believe “the book” is the infallible word of God? (or it has been changed as a conspiracy to fool you)
4. If you believe in the central message of “the book” how can you believe in something else that came some 700 years later?
5. It says in “the book” that Jesus is the Way to the Father (God)

"Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." John 14:5-7

Please comment.

coach,
you seem to have adopted the personal approach, as the coach: talking to each player at half time, individually, is a nice touch. But don't forget to listen carefully to your team!

You will note, I included Anglicanism, and Roman Catholicism, as examples of 'religious systems' into which one is sometimes born. And yes, their 'system' can be critiqued, as they usually are, in about those teenage years, or before. That is my point.

Islam should also be critiqued. And of course, you will know that many from Islam, have become Christians, once they have met Christ, by faith.

And yes, I agree that Jesus said you need to be born anew, to enter, let alone even see the kingdom of God.

However, you might leave a bit of room in your theology, as to when and how that may take place, by faith. Even in the womb. John the Baptizer is a grand example of such a person, filled with the Spirit, in the womb, [says Dr Luke]. (this also leaves the possibility open for little ones who live only a few days - or don't even get the privilege of making their entry into this world, alive. Enough on that diversion).

I hope you didn't miss my 2 points:
1. Yes, all races, are created from "one blood" (Acts 17). Racism is wrong.
2. No, being critical of the deficiencies of Islam, or any other 'system' is not being racist. It is being human.

Criticising beliefs is a human activity, that must be open for all to do. Even your (and my) enthusiastic Christian views must be open to critique and testing. But surely, people must refrain from calling others 'bigots', 'racists' and 'rednecks', whenever they are critical of the tenets of Islam, Communism, Pentecostalism, Methodism, Facism, Mormonism, Atheism, or any other systematised approach to life.

tennyson, I think you will find if you look at many of the posts here that the complaint is not so much about the criticising of Islam as such but rather
- the insistance of some in doing nothing other than critising Islam. With some posters here one gets the impression that if FH or Irfran (or maybe Scout trying out her headcovering) tried to buy a bus ticket and the relevant poster was the bus driver they would get a lecture on the evils of Islam rather than a bus ticket.
- the double standards which exist regarding that criticism. Some are in utter denial about the brutality in the Christian Old Testament while at the same time utterly obsessed with the life of Mohammed.
- the attempts to treat all muslims in a discriminatory manner based on views of the posters about the nature of Islam rather than on the muslims individual interpretation of their faith. Islam has things they don't like so therefore all muslims are blood thirsty killers intent on world domination.
- the attacks on those of us trying to engage in a dialog with muslim posters. Not only are they not willing to engage in polite discussion themselves, they get upset by others attempting to do so.

There are probably other items which could go on that list but I guess it is a start. I've noticed that Irfran is getting some flack over recent posts which have been much milder in tone that the vast bulk of the posts directed at him by christains.

If more of the christain posters on this site demonstrated some of the "fruits of the spirit" they might bring the same kind of credit to the christain faith as FH and Irfran bring to their faith for those of us willing to judge based on character rather than theology.

R0bert

Dear Swilkie

I would hope, and even PRAY..that you will subject the Bible and my faith to the severest of critical scrutiny. Probably this is why I find it hard to understand why it seems so threatening and 'hateful' to others about their own positions.

IRF... have I ever called you a 'whacko' ? (Reason, are u noting ?)
in fact, if name calling was a sign of 'hatred' then we 'bigoted christians' are the most hated of all, just count the names. But then, this is not new. Its been going on since the Pharisees claimed Jesus was 'possessed by a demon' and the rabble described him as 'Drunkard and a glutton'.

SCOUT 'denigrating' a faith ? is quite different from critical scrutiny. "Your faith sucks, its rediculous, its stupid"... that is 'denigrating' but analysis of the implications of factual matter is not 'denigrating'.

ROB..

Mohamed = 'founder of a faith'
Jesus = 'founder of a faith' (though He is so much more than that)

compare apples with apples.

No one is in denial about the 'brutality' of the Old Testament, we simply point out that these were specific acts of divine judgement, not any commandment to treat people in that way generally. You would need to
a) Understand Tribal life and the 'kill or be killed' world of the day and
b) All the facts from the Biblical text,

to fully appreciate those events.

You may respond with 'same applies to the time of Mohamed ? Well, it doesn't because Christ brought the living word to the world and until 'Politicans' took it as a tool of control, never was a violent thing done, except TO Christians. So, if ones message is powerful enough, no army is needed to spread it. It is not a double standard mate.

and by the way, I doubt that even Kactuz holds any hate in his heart towards Muslims or Irf or F.H. Not sure about Skid.
I surely don't even after being called a 'Loony,Auschwitz guard, AlQaeda, spewing hatred' (and that from a 2.5 line post)(bless u Irf :)