John

Thank you for correcting me. I must admit that I got sucked into discussing the existence of Jesus because Pericles responded to quotes from the Koran and Hadith by saying that we cannot trust any religious books and that there is no real evidence that Jesus existed.

I often find that people on these forums use the "attack is the best form of defence" approach when they don’t have a leg to stand on. Rather than directly address the issue at hand and the arguments presented, they respond with "yeh, well what about the Christians"

Personally there are three religious beliefs that I find ridiculous.

They are:

1. Mahomet was given a whole code of life by the Angel Gabriel.
2. God came down to earth as his son Jesus Christ.
3. God in person gave Moses a set of laws.

I don't see any of this worth arguing about.

What I do see is this:

1. All three have a similar philosophy of life.
2. All three have produced some marvelous thinkers and humanitarians.
3. All three have produced fanatics who seem to have distorted the teachings of their founders.
4. The fundamental basis of all these beliefs is commendable.

Dear Celeste...(Logic) I want to pick you up on one point of your list.

Point 3 of your second list.

[3. All three have produced fanatics who seem to have distorted the teachings of their founders.]

This is where (no offense) you are totally misguided. We can disagree on the other points, re Moses, and the Incarnation, as they are matters of faith. But that point 3 of yours is one of misrepresentation of verifiable fact.

Radical Muslims are simply Quranic/Hadithic Muslims. I can prove this to you easily. Note..I said 'prove' not hint or suggest.

Surah 9:29
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Notwithstanding an earlier verse which refers to the infidels breaking their oaths and restricting Muslims to 'fight in Allahs way' and 'not to transgress'... The important question is to see how the whole concept of 'fighting' for Allah is actually interpreted by Mohammed and his companions. After all, no one knew these verses better than they right ?

HADITH MUSLIM BOOK 1 number 30, 31, and 32.
It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord)

Each of those hadiths has a DIFFERENT narrator. The same idea is included in Bukhari where the context is about countries Omar is planning to INVADE. (after already expanding and invading many tribes and regions)

So, the idea of aggressive jihad/struggle/war/invasion is not 'conjecture' it is established and undeniable fact as being true Islam. It is clearly not a distortion of the 'founder's ideas..it is an implementation of them based on his repeated example.

That is the pot calling the kettle black, proverbs.

>>I often find that people on these forums use the "attack is the best form of defence" approach when they don’t have a leg to stand on<<

The majority of this thread has been an all-out attack on Islam, and on Muslims by association. I simply pointed out that the basis for all these attacks is flimsy, in that it relies upon interpretations of ancient manuscripts, predominantly by people with a strong vested interest in the "accuracy" of their own particular, idiosyncratic interpretation.

As I said in my earlier mail, I personally cannot place any faith in a document that has so many omissions and lacunae. In most cases, a document or book or letter unearthed by archaeologists will be carefully placed in context of all other contemporary fragments, and a judgement made on i) the bias or predisposition or purpose of the author and ii) the chronology and authorship of similar - and conflicting - documents.

I questioned whether the Gospels are an accurate account of the life of a man who appears nowhere else in history to have performed the deeds ascribed to him.

This is your argument. See if you can spot the flaws:

>>Written reports about Jesus, come from a variety of sources by a whole range of people, including:
Friends
(since when do we dismiss historical documents because they were written by supporters of a person?)
Enemies
(these people have nothing to gain by perpetuating a lie so why not deny his existence)
Government officials
Historians and casual observers.
2. All of these people acknowledge the existence of Jesus.
3. There is no documentation from that period to dispute those reports.<<

Which of these is a) contemporary and b) describes the acts and deeds that he is presumed to have performed?

Incidentally, are you able to give references for each? That would certainly help me understand your points.

To say that this argument is not relevant to a thread excoriating a religion for the content of its scriptures is simply perverse.

This is not a thread about the authenticity of a particular religion or it’s Scriptures and I am willing to acknowledge that I got caught up in that argument. It is a thread about why Muslim academics do not speak out against those who are supposedly misrepresenting Islam by committing acts of terror in the name of Islam.

Some have suggested that it is due to an inability to engage in self criticism. Others have pointed out that Islamic texts advocate violence and Muslim Academics cannot speak out against something the believe to be true.

Whether you or I believe in Islam or Christianity or any other religion is irrelevant. The question is, what do the academics believe? If they believe that Islam truly does condemn violence, then why are they not speaking out with the same level of passion as when someone draws a cartoon that is less than flattering toward their religion.

Having said that, here are a few references. If we want to discuss this side issue further then maybe we should start a new thread

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus A Roman Government official who was very anti Christian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger Not sure where this guys stood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus From what I can determine Josephus was a supporter. It wasn’t until the 17th Century that people began to raise questions about his impartiality.

It is likely that each of these guys used local documents and records of the time. When we are looking back over 2000 years then I would consider 50 years to be reasonably contemporary.

As for documentation about the Acts of Jesus, I do not have any (other than the gospels) nor did I claim to have any.

See also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus