Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Another Instance for Anonymous

From the blog SnappedShot.com comes this gem of a story about love and peace from Islam.

Pull Quote:
Islamists under the auspices of a paramilitary force last week destroyed six churches to protest a police rescue of two teenage Christian girls kidnapped by Muslims in this Bauchi state town.

Police recovered the two Christian girls, 15 and 14, on May 12 after Muslims in Ningi kidnapped them three weeks ago in an attempt to expand Islam by marrying them to Muslim men.
Now, tell me again how Islam promotes Love, Peace, and Respect for Law. Please provide an example of where Christian rapists and kidnappers rampaged against religious places of other religions because their victims were rescued out of their hands.

5 comments:

Midnite said...

I appreciate how you are trying to provide an Apologetic against Islamic attack. Let us be cautious, however, to distinguish between the acts of Islamics and acts that would be deemed right by Islam. Even Christian history is plagued by those who would twist a religion to their own ends.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/07/texas.ranch/index.html?iref=newssearch

Note: I am NOT defending Islam here. There are plenty of internal critiques that have shown, to me at least, that Islam is not a truth. But fallen men using the Islamic faith to justify evil does not necessarily mean that Islam preaches that evil.

The Captain said...

midnite, while I do not wish to paint all Muslims with the same bold brush as the "islamists" acted in the news story I cited, I still believe, and have read it, that Islam itself teaches evil against non-believers.

The article you cited does not seem to fit. The story is about how a sect of believers holed up in their own compound and behaved a certain way that was contrary to certain laws of the land they lived in. How is this comparable to the butchery, savagery, and springing to riots at the slightest implication that Islam has been slighted?

Are there "modern" muslims that live a good decent life, respecting the laws of the nations they reside within, and want to just live rightly and provide for their families? YES. Most assuredly. TO them I pray that they can exert pressure over their radical brethren.

However, much of the believers in Islam are not modern. They believe in a strict adherence to the laws, rules, guidelines set forth by the Qu'ran and by the edicts set forth by their imams. They do not question the rulings by their imams. When an imam declares that it is right to kill a woman cause she has a teddy bear, then it is RIGHT.

These strict followers see the modern muslims as cowards, backsliders and just as evil as the infidels they hate. They see them as betrayers of the faith.

And yes, as I mentioned before, in the Christian past there were evil men who used the Christian faith as a weapon. But that was before we had our reformation.

But, here is the sticking point. The Christian reformation RETURNED BACK to the Bible. Modern muslims are labeled as falling away from Islam's teachings. The radicals of Islam are the ones that follow the Qu'ran tooth and nail.

And even today, there are evil men in the Christian religion who would do evil in the name of God. But, compared to Islam, we prosecute and remove the offenders from our faith instead of praising them. When Catholic preachers fail morally, they are removed (sometimes too late and sometimes the matter is dubiously handled by evil men higher up the ladder). True Christian faiths remove the evil from their midsts. Others, ... breed it. And they can be distinguished by the hatred and vitriol that they spew in the name of their god.

We have many religions now, that claim to be Christian but have fallen from the faith. Many have leaders that have no faith and proudly claim to not believe in the bible. Once again, it is the Christians that have denounced them as the false-teachers that they are.

Midnite said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Midnite said...

I think I see your point. What I was trying to illustrate is that the actions of those who claim to be following Islam should not be the evidence we use against Islam unless it can be, and has been, shown that the actions are in line with the Islamic faith. I think, for your example, it is not (at least not for 1/2 of it). I have read nothing that ever suggested that marrying non-believers is a way to spread Islam. Forcing you to pledge faith or kill you, yes, I've seen that. But not forced marriage.

I was not trying to show that the LDS raid was an example of Christians behaving in a manner similar to these Islamacists. All I was trying to point out is that the actions of those that claim to be acting in a Christian way should not define Christianity, just as the actions of those that claim to be acting in an Islamic way should not define Islam. The religious texts are those things that we should use to attack a faith.

However, I do completely agree that the actions taken by these men was morally corrupt and extremely sinful, and it seems, from where I sit at least, to be "par for the course" with Islamic fundamentalists. If the only product of a toaster is burnt toast, the toaster is most likely broken.

The Captain said...

Ok. I see your point.

And, I do agree... to a point. Let me say this, people and the groups the belong to are judged by their actions and the actions by the radicals within the group.

So, in effect we are judging Islam by these radicals. But you must agree though, that the moderates are not really helping us be decrying and loudly denouncing the radical element?

I like your thinking midnite. Thank you for visiting my site and contributing.