179 replies to this topic

[RavenHawk]

Lion6969, on 21 April 2012 - 01:22 AM, said:

Raven you are so misguided. Those verse you quote are totally out of context, a bit like Muslims interpreting bush's words when he said this is a new crusade (maybe he meant it )

What a pile of…  No, that excuse does not hold water.  That is what that verse means.  I gave context.  I gave commentary by a high official of the Ottoman Empire.  And I presented track record.  You can’t sit back any more and say – oh… that’s not what that means.  It’s that kind of dishonesty that destroys the credibility of Muslims.

Quote

Your reasoning for massacre of innocent Jewish, Christian and Muslim women, children, the frail etc was right at the time as it sent a message around to those nations around, really? Of course, they are acts of a tyrannical evil army hell bent on destruction the fact you try and justify it says a lot about you!

Then you don’t understand the tactics.  Genghis Khan is probably the best example.  Most people just see him as a barbarian Hell bent on destruction.  But in actuality that was the furthest from the truth.  The man was an empire builder.  When you approach a walled city, the inhabitants can just sit on the wall and laugh at you.  But if you can defeat the wall you can control the city.  But this is extremely costly.  It not only depletes your army it also destroys a portion of the economical capability of the city.  So what you do is put every man, woman, and child to the sword and send a few survivors to neighboring cities with the message “resistance is futile”.  This gives you a better chance to capture more cities intact and preserve the economic infrastructure and the artisans that drive it.  Trade between the cities stay in place and trade beyond the region continues.  So it is far from wanton destruction.  You can then tap into the wealth generated and rebuild your army to go capture the next region and add to your empire.  More specifically in the Crusades, an army could not afford to leave an undefeated city in the rear.

Quote

Guaranteed, if they were the actions of a Muslim army invading a non Muslim nation thousands of miles away, would have been deemed barbaric and evil, wouldn't it?

Absolutely!

Quote

So why do you beat and around the bush, if people like you had their way you would nuke all Muslims to obliteration, just be honest, not to us, but to yourself. Your contempt for Islam and Muslims oozes from your posts and it clearly deluded your perception of history and reality!

I don’t beat around the bush.  Obliteration is not the intent.  It’s not my contempt for Islam.  I believe that there is great beauty in Islam.  I still hold out from all doubt that Islam can change.  It is my contempt of the contempt that Islam has against non believers.  And the disingenuousness of Muslims backpedaling that the Quran does not say ‘this’, ‘that’, and ‘the other thing’ that oozes against non believers.  And that you cannot admit to it or accept your history.  I never hear a Muslim say, yes – this is our history but starting today, we are going to change.

Quote

Just go away tally up how many Muslim nations your armies occupy and how many you have killed, you will be proud of the figures!

Being proud isn’t part of it.  One has to fight fire with fire and that is what the world is involved with to defend itself against the Muslim “Right of Arrogance”.

Quote

Ps, you claimed the crusade was a just cause which went tits up! Justified how? Your reasoning that Islam was intolerant of other religions, what utter tosh! Who was unhappy under Muslim rule? The Jews or Christians? I can't wait for the answer, do you have any primary historical sources to show your point? I have several sources written by Jews and Christians of the era which say otherwise, or are you just going by those Christian missionary sites which regurgitate crusader myths till this day?

Oh back to the crusader myth excuse?  First off, it was the Muslims that cut off access to the Holy Land that instigated the Crusades.  The reason for the Crusades was accomplished.  It didn’t go tits up.  It was the Treaty of Ramla between Richard and Saladin that opened up the holy land to all pilgrims.  

Non Muslims that live under Muslim rule are referred to as Dhimmi or people that no longer have the responsibility for their own lives, which make pogroms a commonplace.  Of course anyone living under those conditions will say that they are happy.  They have no choice.  But they aren’t free.  They are nannyied.  They are still second class citizens.  Of course, depending on which ruler they live under will have varying levels of freedom.  And some are freer than others but just the fact that there is such a distinction places the Muslim in an artificially superior position.  And because of that, to claim that Islam is tolerant is a falsehood.  It is not tolerant, but the Dhimmi under its control are coerced.

[hetrodoxly]

odas, on 24 April 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

If, If, If........way to many ifs. If granny had balls shed be grampa.

The if's were for "Knights of Shadows" benefit? for you, "Saladin was defeated at Jaffa by a smaller army, Richard was in poor health and word had reached him that his brother was about to take his crown in England.

[RavenHawk]

Lion6969, on 21 April 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

If the crusades were right to massacre everyone to send a message to those around him, does that mean hitlers actions were right at the time as he to was sending a message to those around him and the Jews specifically? It's the same logic, it's your logic!

We have to be very careful here.  The tactics that the Germany army used to control regions was very sound, perhaps brutal but sound.  But the intentions of Hitler were pure evil and the two are completely separate.  When you are invading a region and you face resistance, the most effective method of control is to capture and execute the resistance and all those that aid and abet.  My father-in-law lived in Eastern Poland in September of 1939.  The Soviets took his family and sent them to the gulags in Siberia because his father was a forest ranger that owned a gun.   Months later, resistance fighters that had killed invading Germans ran to my father-in-law’s old village.  The German’s followed the trail in the snow and they executed everyone in the village.  Being caught between two invading armies, he feels very lucky to have survived.  This is war.  Hitler would have been ok, if he just stuck with ethnic cleansing and just told the Jews that they are no longer welcomed.  There would have been deaths from this forced movement, but there would be no genocide in secret.  Hitler would have been just another dictator.  

You don’t know tactics.  You don’t know logic.  So please don’t go there.  I don’t mind you using Godwin’s Law but make sure it’s substantial.

[RavenHawk]

Lion6969, on 21 April 2012 - 01:34 AM, said:

I bet you would agree with massacring all Muslims in Iraq inorder to send a message to surrounding Muslim nations not to *** with USA? I'm right aren't I? At least it will reduce the insurgency to 0 so you might be able to justify that way too

No, I do not agree with massacring all Muslims in Iraq.  But Islam does have to learn that it can no longer threaten the world because it will not submit to the will of Allah.  Your naivety just pegged the meter.

[RavenHawk]

Knight Of Shadows, on 21 April 2012 - 05:28 AM, said:

yeah i know exactly how your version of history is written that's why i'll save my self the trouble and not argue
saladin kicked the crusaders ass out of jerusalem .. the never took it back in his life .. neither the life of his son after him .. correct your inoformations i hate to have discussions with some one so lacking yet always fond of flaoting around his " massaive " knowledge

It’s not my version of history.  It is history.  The problem is the focus.  Saladin defeated the Kingdom of Jerusalem.  That is not in dispute.  This is what started the Third Crusade.  This is what brought Richard to the Holy Land.  Richard was able to drive to almost the gates of Jerusalem but he didn’t take it.  He could have but didn’t have enough to hang on to it.  But this brought Richard and Saladin together to sign the Treaty of Ramla which opened the Holy Land to all pilgrims.  This is what Richard wanted.  So it didn’t matter who had Jerusalem.  He respected Saladin enough that he felt that he could trust Saladin to keep his word and Richard return home after achieving his goal.

Quote

jerusalem was never seized after saladin freed it from crusdaers
your history i think doesn't even admit the crusader embarrasing lost at the battle of " Hiten " so spare me your lack of knowledge am not here to give history lessions you got sites you can read from
bit of advice .. when you wanna discuss something builds some knowedge about it
claiming knoweldge is one thing .. but having it is another thing and claiming it without having it is extremnly annoying
yeah bunch of beaten up crusaders took their tails between their legs back to eurpoe and wrote history about their massive
win over muslims yay to them .. while muslims was taken control of jerusalem

Here’s a clue.  After Richard secured the rights of passage for pilgrims to access Jerusalem, there was no need to take Jerusalem.  Saladin roughed up the Crusader states but never did defeat them.  By treaty, the Crusader states were reduced to a stretch on the coast between Acre and Tyre.  They were never sent back to Europe with their tail between their legs.  It remained this way for another 100 years when the last Crusader State was basically just absorbed back into the Muslim culture.  And Again, Richard returned home after securing safe passage of pilgrims to Jerusalem.  You’re too hung up on battles and conquering, instead of outcomes.  The Treaty of Ramla was really the best of both worlds.

Quote

just like your pop singer fantasy " Chris De Burgh " singing a fantasy of his .. that's what i think is your version of history .. amusing but pointless

Well, it is fantasy.  “The Fall of Jerusalem” is highly inaccurate.  It is not my version of history.   It is not history.  It is your fantasy.  I see what is happening now.  I’m presenting history and despite what I say, you’re painting it the way you want.  I guess being Muslim, you have to be use to twisting things like that so you can try to defend Islam.

Edited by RavenHawk, 24 April 2012 - 06:12 PM.

[RavenHawk]

Knight Of Shadows, on 21 April 2012 - 05:31 AM, said:

gee how can you discuss something with the guy if he doesn't even admit it was saladin that took jerusalem back from crusaders    am extremely shocked .. is this how distorted their version of history is .. god help us all !

When did I deny it?  I wasn’t even talking about it.  I was talking about the Treaty between Richard and Saladin.  Which occurred after Jerusalem.  Why don’t you try getting into the conversation first so that you can understand what is going on??

[Knight Of Shadows]

http://en.wikipedia....attle_of_Hattin

history lessions ? 1$ per lession .. am just being generous
but as usual and hippocrates of the west .. they played with numbers
the crusaders outnumbers saladi forces by way more
but again when you look at western side of story .. they show otherwise " must be emarrasment " of defeat
everything is fixed in western version of history and i do meant Everything
to suit their " heros " image that was false

do they even mention that richard the lionheart was blood lustful murderer who takes pleasure in torturing and kill people ?
i have no idea the version is soo far from the truth .. it'll make good movie though
it's just like the west .. all fantasy hollywood level of truth

at least they were " generous " enough to admit defeat in hiten battle

Edited by Knight Of Shadows, 24 April 2012 - 09:28 PM.

[Knight Of Shadows]

RavenHawk, on 24 April 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

When did I deny it?  I wasn’t even talking about it.  I was talking about the Treaty between Richard and Saladin.  Which occurred after Jerusalem.  Why don’t you try getting into the conversation first so that you can understand what is going on??

to tell the truth after i read too line of your post i didn't read the rest
coz it was probably gonna be making excuses and all for the crusaders when they killed almost every muslim when they captured jerusalem .. and when saladin did he didn't kill christians
that didn't sit well with crazy murderers muslims thought with you did it ?

as usually you'll make no big deal of it .. and try to give excuses discussions are about admitting facts
not make excuses for murderers actions
if you want discussions you better start admitting facts and stop making excuses when things don't go your way
and admit that was wrong .. plain .. simple
just like i admit when i see muslims doing something wrong .. but the claim of " know it all " and " gives excuses "
and make it simple and say " **** happens " doesn't lead to discussions
it leads to one sided conversation you're doing with your self not me  

[odas]

RavenHawk, on 17 April 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

Only in your view there is no discussion.  I’m holding your feet to the fire and not allowing you to divert from the discussion with your deception.


I’m not imposing anything.   I’m trying to stay with the facts.  Whoever writes the history only provides the flavor.  That doesn’t change the events.  You seem to want to stick to only one side of the argument.  If anything is imposing anything on you, it is history and Muslim track record.


9:5.  9:1-10 puts it into context.


I’m not making excuses.  That in itself is an excuse to divert attention.  **** happens and people die.  That doesn’t make the West evil.  I didn’t think I had to mention that **** happens with the Barbary Pirates – once is enough.  But if you like, many innocent people died in the Umayyad Conquest of Iberia.  Many died in the Ifriqiyan invasion of Sicily.  And many died in the piracy acts of Algiers, Tripoli, and Morocco.  That’s what happens in war.  Does that make Muslims innately evil?  I don’t think so.


I think things have been one sided for far too long.  The point of my post is to bring balance to it.


I know it makes it easier for you if you think I am making up crap.  That’s the madrasah in you.  I’m trying to keep this open but it is far from simple.  The mistakes of the West are obvious and well documented.  It would be trivial to go over them.  I think it’s about time to go over *all* the wrong doings of Islam this time.  Of which you’ve never admitted to and you still try to make excuses for.  History is a great revealer of track record.  You’ve been given several examples in history and you still can’t acknowledge them.  Because it happens to us doesn’t make it more valuable but now that the tables have turned and it’s happening to you – welcome to the club.


I paid attention, it just wasn’t noteworthy.  You could have put “all”, “some”, or “a few” and it wouldn’t have mattered.  You can either have *conquest* or *defense*, not both.  But if you like, if you want to argue from that angle, then what Israel did in ’67 should fit your definition and the entire Muslim world should just stop whining about Israel’s pre-emptive strike and leave them alone.  It was Jewish land long before it was Muslim.  And it was poor choices by a Muslim nation that allowed the opportunity for Jewish return.  It wasn’t the West.


I’m always willing to discuss it, I’m just tired of having to sit back and be dictated to that your side is the only legitimate side.  Let’s try going with the facts for once this time…  You’re the one making up my mind, I’m trying really really hard to keep an open mind.  I’m reacting to your words.


And each point you’re proving that you don’t know your own history or you’re in denial of it.  How am I bluffing (or whatever) by going with history?  I’m not making this stuff up.  I want to impose the facts of which you keep diverting from.  **** happens is not my point, it is an axiom of war.  My point is that the West is not the only ones guilty of that.  There is just as much blood on Muslim hands.  But Muslims look at their hands and say “no blood there”.  How dishonest is that?


I may have to.  If noone does then that artificial and phony sense of superiority will be Islam’s downfall.

I guess you overlooked the following, so I offer it again.  The bottom line is that I’m ok with the conquest part of it.  Both sides do it.  This is what civilization does.  The weaker is absorbed by the stronger.  That’s why empires come and go.  I’m even ok with the Quran giving Muslims the right to make war on all non believers.  But what pisses me off is the whinefest that Muslims do when the tables are turned.  The moderates speak out against the radicals yet they overlook their own history and all that speaking out only amounts to lip service because in the end, moderates support the radicals.  Nothing is going to change until Muslims admit to their complicity.  And because of that it really doesn’t matter if the West invades more.  Perhaps the West should take a lesson out of Genghis Khan’s book.  I heard it was a hit with Muslims in the day.

Here is the Sura in it's full form: 9:5. 9:1-10. Please read it from the begining to the end because only one to point out is not accurate since they are conected. But, for the arguments sake I will highlighte two parts 9:5 that Raven pointed out and 9:4 that can be taken too to prove something different.

[9:1] This is a declaration of disavowal1 by Allah and His Messenger to those who associate others with Allah in His Divinity and with whom you have made treaties:2

[9:2] "You may go about freely in the land, for four months but know well that you will not be able to frustrate Allah, and that Allah will bring disgrace upon those who deny the Truth."

[9:3] This is a public proclamation by Allah and His Messenger to all people on the day of the Great Pilgrimage:4 "Allah is free from all obligation to those who associate others with Allah in His Divinity; and so is His Messenger. If you repent, it shall be for your own good; but if you turn away, then know well that you will not be able to frustrate Allah. So give glad tidings of a painful chastisement to those who disbelieve.

[9:4] In exception to those who associate others with Allah in His Divinity are those with whom you have made treaties and who have not violated their treaties nor have backed up anyone against you. Fulfil your treaties with them till the end of their term. Surely Allah loves the pious."

[9:5] But when the sacred months expire slay those who associate others with Allah in His Divinity wherever you find them; seize them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them. But if they repent and establish the Prayer and pay Zakah, leave them alone. Surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Ever-Merciful.

[9:6] And if any of those who associate others with Allah in His Divinity seeks asylum, grant him asylum that he may hear the Word of Allah, and then escort him to safety for they are a people who do not know.

[9:7] How can there be a covenant with those who associate others with Allah in His Divinity be binding upon Allah and His Messenger, excepting those with whom you made a covenant near the Sacred Mosque?9 Behave in a straight manner with them so long as they behave with you in a straight manner for Allah loves the Godfearing.

[9:8] How can there be any covenant with the other polytheists for were they to prevail against you, they will respect neither kinship nor agreement. They seek to please you with their tongues while their hearts are averse to you,10 and most of them are wicked

[9:9] They have sold the revelations of Allah for a paltry price12 and have firmly hindered people from His Path.13 Evil indeed is what they have done

[9:10] They neither have any respect for kinship nor for agreement in respect of the believers. Such are indeed transgressors.

Sura 9:6 is also very interresting.

Now to comparison some excerpts from the Bible OT:

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)


Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)



They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)



A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

And now the NT:

In the NT, we read about Jesus commanding his followers to buy swords: "He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.  (Luke 22:36)"

"So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways.   I will strike her children dead.  Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.  (From the NIV Bible, Revelation 2:22-23)"  


It is interresting to see how everyone here points fingers at other religions but exactley the same happens in their own religion.
Also, many christians say that their religion is better then other religion, mainly Islam, of what it has become now. Well, I have to say to that, if it was for christianity law it would be much worse than sharia. It is the modern thinking that prevailed and brought freedom to the world and not christianity per se. It is just conviniant to hide behinde other peoples achievments, who actually turnd their back on biblical teachings and made the world a better place.

Edited by odas, 25 April 2012 - 02:28 PM.

[hetrodoxly]

Knight Of Shadows, on 24 April 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....attle_of_Hattin

history lessions ? 1$ per lession .. am just being generous
but as usual and hippocrates of the west .. they played with numbers
the crusaders outnumbers saladi forces by way more
but again when you look at western side of story .. they show otherwise " must be emarrasment " of defeat
everything is fixed in western version of history and i do meant Everything
to suit their " heros " image that was false

do they even mention that richard the lionheart was blood lustful murderer who takes pleasure in torturing and kill people ?
i have no idea the version is soo far from the truth .. it'll make good movie though
it's just like the west .. all fantasy hollywood level of truth

at least they were " generous " enough to admit defeat in hiten battle

Surely to charge for lessons you have to have some knowledge of the subject in question?
Your link isn't the last crusade, no one denies Saladin won battles, are you saying my post was wrong ie Saladin didn't lose at Jaffa and Richard was driven out of the holy land?

[RavenHawk]

Knight Of Shadows, on 24 April 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....attle_of_Hattin

history lessions ? 1$ per lession .. am just being generous
but as usual and hippocrates of the west .. they played with numbers
the crusaders outnumbers saladi forces by way more
but again when you look at western side of story .. they show otherwise " must be emarrasment " of defeat
everything is fixed in western version of history and i do meant Everything
to suit their " heros " image that was false

do they even mention that richard the lionheart was blood lustful murderer who takes pleasure in torturing and kill people ?
i have no idea the version is soo far from the truth .. it'll make good movie though
it's just like the west .. all fantasy hollywood level of truth

at least they were " generous " enough to admit defeat in hiten battle

I have no idea what you are babbling about?  “The West playing with numbers – Crusaders outnumbered Saladin – but then they show otherwise”??  WTF?  This is just gibberish.  The Crusaders did have an edge but it was a complete rout.  The defeat was very embarrassing.  And your point?  I think you should cull what you make off of history lessons and seek professional help.

This defeat gave Jerusalem to Saladin, but it didn’t send the Crusaders back to Europe with their tails tucked between their legs.  In fact, I would guess that most Christians were Semitic.  Where do you think Lebanese and Syrian Christians come from?  They are the remnants of the Crusader States.  I don’t know if Richard took pleasure in torturing and killing people, but he was very ruthless, just as Saladin was.  You have to be to be a great leader.  The two men were basically brothers.  In another time, they would have been comrades in arms.  And it was this *bond in arms* that allowed the Treaty of Ramla to come about thereby opening Jerusalem to all pilgrims.  The Third Crusade was probably the most successful and on-goal of any Crusade.  Primarily because the Treaty of Ramla is still observed today.

So what is it about that entry that is fantasy?  Instead of babbling incoherently, please share.  The good thing about wiki is that it allows you to submit changes and corrections.

[RavenHawk]

Knight Of Shadows, on 24 April 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

to tell the truth after i read too line of your post i didn't read the rest

Ah ha…Maybe you should before you reply, then you can avoid sticking your foot in your mouth – multiple times.

Quote

coz it was probably gonna be making excuses and all for the crusaders when they killed almost every muslim when they captured jerusalem .. and when saladin did he didn't kill christians
that didn't sit well with crazy murderers muslims thought with you did it ?

Analyzing tactics and outcomes is not making excuses.  It’s trying to understand the situation.  It’s more than just numbers or who did what, but also why.  You do realize that the two events you mention are about 100 years apart?  Different motivations lead to different outcomes.  Given the hostile environment and a ruthless enemy, the toll on the Crusader army was considerable.  By the time the survivors made it to Jerusalem, you didn’t want to be on the receiving end.  The Pope had basically given that army free rein so the sack of Jerusalem was ugly.  Noone is trying to deny that.  But it did two positive things.  It reopened Jerusalem to all pilgrims and reopened old trade routes with the East.  Also, you need to note that the al Aqsa and Qubbat As-Sakhrah were left intact (even expanded upon), unlike what the Romans did to the Temple in ~70ce.  There’s a lot more here than how many Muslims were massacred.  Now move forward 100 years and Saladin takes Jerusalem after the rout at Hattin.  He puts the captive combatants to death or into slavery and spares the civilians.  So you have to ask why?  One answer is that he didn’t want to enrage Europe because a big response and he would not be able to repel it.  Another reason could be that the majority of civilians were Semitic so he had no inclination to repopulate it with other Semites.  The city is running fine with what is there.  Plus, Saladin was in a position to be lenient.  Whatever the reason, it benefited him more to spare their lives.  Then Richard arrives at Acre and takes the city.  The captives he has, he must put to the sword.  He cannot afford to leave enemy in his rear or line of supply.  So circumstance has a lot to do with the fate of captives.  That’s the way it has always been in war from the beginning.  This is history.  It is not excuses.

BTW, you’re missing the point.  It’s not that they are “crazy murdering Muslims”, it’s that “crazy murdering Muslims” think that they are superior to everyone else and all non believers are worthy of death.

Quote

as usually you'll make no big deal of it .. and try to give excuses discussions are about admitting facts
not make excuses for murderers actions

No big deal about what?  You are definitely in your own little world.  I’ve been discussing facts and have been waiting for Muslims to admit to the facts.  I continue to wait.

Quote

if you want discussions you better start admitting facts and stop making excuses

You should follow your own advice.  This train of thought began when resident Muslims began bashing the West about invading Muslim lands?  I started asking “but what are the reasons?” and pointed out that Muslims invaded Europe first.  Then there was a series of denials.  And now the counter is that the West has killed more Muslims.  And that is really non sequitor.  Who killed more is not really a concern.  That Muslims consider themselves superior to everyone else and do everything to deny their history is what concerns me.

Quote

when things don't go your way

What things not going my way?  We’re discussing history and track record.  I’d say things haven’t been going your way.

Quote

and admit that was wrong .. plain .. simple

What was wrong?  Putting captives to death?  Sorry, that isn’t wrong.  Now some might take exception to that but it isn’t wrong.  It is part of war.

Quote

just like i admit when i see muslims doing something wrong ..

Yeah right, that is just so much lip service.

Quote

but the claim of " know it all " and " gives excuses "
and make it simple and say " **** happens " doesn't lead to discussions
it leads to one sided conversation you're doing with your self not me  

Now that’s a pile of excuses if I’ve ever seen it.

[RavenHawk]

odas, on 25 April 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

Here is the Sura in it's full form: 9:5. 9:1-10. Please read it from the begining to the end because only one to point out is not accurate since they are conected. But, for the arguments sake I will highlighte two parts 9:5 that Raven pointed out and 9:4 that can be taken too to prove something different.

I have – many times.  So, just ask yourself, what are Muslims to do after the term of the treaty (with non believers) has ended?  The commandment is very clear.

Quote

Now to comparison some excerpts from the Bible OT:

It is interresting to see how everyone here points fingers at other religions but exactley the same happens in their own religion.
Also, many christians say that their religion is better then other religion, mainly Islam, of what it has become now. Well, I have to say to that, if it was for christianity law it would be much worse than sharia. It is the modern thinking that prevailed and brought freedom to the world and not christianity per se. It is just conviniant to hide behinde other peoples achievments, who actually turnd their back on biblical teachings and made the world a better place.

This is not about that it happens in the Bible too.  And no one is denying that these verses are saying what they are saying.  Some are out of context and others you’re mixing what GOD says and what Jesus says and that can change the meaning significantly.  GOD gave law and Jesus used parables to teach.  But the essence of most of those verses are correct.  The Bible can be very violent.  So what’s the real difference?  The difference is Jesus (Issa).  Islam does not have the divine Issa (revealed Mahdi).  

Jesus said that he “did not come to do away with the Law but to fulfill it”.  And for most people this causes problems in understanding.  There are 613 individual commandments under Jewish Law.  It’s called the Miztvot, of which you list several.  Over half do not apply to gentiles.  So in essence, Jesus does remove much of the Law.  But be careful here because that statement opens up a can of worms which is beyond the scope of this thread.

What is left is basically civil and criminal Law.  The presence of Jesus has ultimately led to this nation having the ability to rule with secular laws which allows all peoples to live here – to be Americans.  That’s why we are a Christian nation.  The freedom we have today that is protected by the Constitution is incompatible with Sharia Law.  The two together would be partnering other authority with Allah which is a major sin.  And that is also talked about in Sura 9.

It took a long time to go from the Cross to today.  It took Christianity over a thousand years to mature.  Islam has not matured.  Today, we no longer stone or behead someone for adultery or apostasy.  Because Jesus fulfills the Law.  On the other hand, Islam does stone and behead for those crimes and even less.  The Bible has become a guidebook.  The Quran is a strict rulebook.

Going back to Ayah 9:5, I gave context and an example of Muslim interpretation.  200 hundreds years ago, a fledgling America did not pose a threat to Islam so in the arrogance of those representatives, they could be more honest with their intentions.  Well, today it is different.  Muslims are in full Taqiya mode whether they are radical or moderate.  And these three or so threads I’ve been replying in have proved it.  I wish it wasn’t true.

[odas]

Why would you think that the and of a treaty means war? A glass half empty or half full?

JESUS is Jesus [ Issa] and not Mahdi.

The Quran is a guide for a certain way of life and not a rule book.

You realy do not know the essence.

[and then]

odas, on 26 April 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

Why would you think that the and of a treaty means war? A glass half empty or half full?

JESUS is Jesus [ Issa] and not Mahdi.

The Quran is a guide for a certain way of life and not a rule book.

You realy do not know the essence.

When you compare the Issa and Mahdi of the Qur'an with the False prophet and antichrist of the Bible, they, in that order, are a perfect match.  The Jesus of the Bible and Issa of Qur'an are diametrically opposite from a Christian POV.  When Issa descends at Damasq he will pray behind Mahdi, break the crosses and kill the swine.  Renounce the idea of his deity and give allegiance to Mahdi and Allah
The Qur'an is a guide for how to conquer people on a personal then national level.  A religious political device.