Bill Maher: Not All Religions Are Created Equal

[thesometimesaint]

Maybe you could quote for me where Jesus told his followers to kill people, as Muhammad did? Until then every atrocity you mentioned doesn't come from Christ, but misguided followers.

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". The punishment for numerous sins was death by stoning. "Thou shalt utterly destroy", Matthew 10:34 Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.); There are many more if you really want them.

As to Islam.

http://en.wikipedia....an_and_violence

Ps: I like your Jesus just fine. It is the Christians I can't stand.

Attributed to Gandhi

Edited April 23, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[danielwoods]

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". The punishment for numerous sins was death by stoning. "Thou shalt utterly destroy", Matthew 10:34 Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.); There are many more if you really want them.

As to Islam.

http://en.wikipedia....an_and_violence

Ps: I like your Jesus just fine. It is the Christians I can't stand.

Attributed to Gandhi

I am sorry, I didn't see a direct quote of Jesus telling his followers to kill people. Did you post it?

[cinepro]

I am sorry, I didn't see a direct quote of Jesus telling his followers to kill people. Did you post it?

If the LDS are right and it was Jesus who gave all the mosaic laws in the Old Testament, then there were several infractions of a religious nature for which the penalty was death.

[thesometimesaint]

I am sorry, I didn't see a direct quote of Jesus telling his followers to kill people. Did you post it?

Jesus is the God of the OT. So those are direct quotes, and yes he did in his mortal ministry to say that he did bring a sword. That has been used in 2000 years of his followers to reign with bloody horror on this world.

Edited April 23, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[danielwoods]

If the LDS are right and it was Jesus who gave all the mosaic laws in the Old Testament, then there were several infractions of a religious nature for which the penalty was death.

So, the only way to implicate Jesus' followers is to include Mosiac laws in the OT. Is that right? Sounds like an admission that Jesus never told his followers to kill people. Understand, the argument is that all religions are the same. If that's the case, then where's the quote from Jesus?

[danielwoods]

Jesus is the God of the OT. So those are direct quotes, and yes he did in his mortal ministry to say that he did bring a sword. That has been used in 2000 years of his followers to reign with bloody horror on this world.

It is interesting. You honestly think that Jesus statement, "I bring a sword" is properly applied by other people killing other people with a sword?

Notice that Jesus is the one who is going to do the judging or sword wielding, he never states that others need to do this. What was Jesus' reaction to Peter when he cut off the guard's ear? Was it, "OH yeah that's what I'm talking about?"

That is a huge difference between Islam and Christianity.

Edited April 23, 2013 by danielwoods

[Questing Beast]

He prophesied that his followers would need to sell their cloaks and buy swords. He said that those who take up the sword will perish by the sword. The implications taken altogether are that Christianity would bring the sword, not peace into the world, i.e. the religion would not be a "religion of peace" as some believers assert (as do Muslims for their religion)....

[danielwoods]

He prophesied that his followers would need to sell their cloaks and buy swords. He said that those who take up the sword will perish by the sword. The implications taken altogether are that Christianity would bring the sword, not peace into the world, i.e. the religion would not be a "religion of peace" as some believers assert (as do Muslims for their religion)....

It's important to keep his statement in context. He told them to sell their cloaks and buy a sword as a means of defense against those who would rob and steal from them, not as a means to attack. Sorry, there isn't any similarity to what Islam teaches.

[BCSpace]

While I don't disagree with Maher's general point, I take exception to the bigoted way he stereotypically paints the whole religion of Islam with the broad brush of radical Muslims.

The problem with most reporting, interviews, and calls for tolerance regarding Islam here skip the most important questions about what does mainstream Islam teach about such things as Jihad, Sharia Law applied to non Muslims, Dhimmi, Taqiyya and Kitman, etc. I guarantee that none of you would be pleased with the answers. The only pleasing answers come from a small but vocal group of PC revisionists and propaganda groups such as CAIR and CNI.

[Questing Beast]

It's important to keep his statement in context. He told them to sell their cloaks and buy a sword as a means of defense against those who would rob and steal from them, not as a means to attack. Sorry, there isn't any similarity to what Islam teaches.

Islam teaches to defend the faith, and that is physical defense of its followers too not merely the doctrines, the Prophet or God. That some "zealots" take this defense to mean removal of alternate belief systems from the world through forced conversion is not de facto the doctrine of Islam....

[Pandorian]

Bill Maher's religion is Bill Maher, and his Jesus Christ is Bill Maher. That being said...I agree, not all religions are created equal. Hopefully, Islam will reach a state where they aren't so violent. Even our faith had a couple violent periods when it was young, however, it took Mormonism 20 years to get through it, and Islam has been around HOW MUCH longer, since the 700s?

If I draw a funny picture of Moses, I don't fear a Jew killing me.

If I draw a funny picture of Jesus, I don't fear a Catholic/Protestant killing me.

If I draw a funny picture of Joseph Smith, I don't fear any of you guys killing me, nor would I feel inclined to kill that person.

If I draw a funny picture of Mohammed, then all heck breaks loose.

When I was on my mission back in 1992, they sent out a command from up above to NOT proselytize Muslims because, one had joined the Church and ended up DEAD. That's not a religion of piece I could get behind.

I spent YEARS as a disaffected member saying bad things about the LDS Church, and other then a couple screaming matches with my wife, and counseling with a Bishop here and there, I came through completely unscathed. Not once did I fear that a group lead by the Stake President would come and lynch me or kill me.

If we believe that this is the Gospel of Jesus Christ restored through Joseph Smith, then that inherently says that WE have a superior religion, but our Elders and sister aren't about to go out and convert people with a sword.

[thesometimesaint]

It is interesting. You honestly think that Jesus statement, "I bring a sword" is properly applied by other people killing other people with a sword?

Notice that Jesus is the one who is going to do the judging or sword wielding, he never states that others need to do this. What was Jesus' reaction to Peter when he cut off the guard's ear? Was it, "OH yeah that's what I'm talking about?"

That is a huge difference between Islam and Christianity.

I never said it was "properly" applied. Only that it and many others have been used to justify killing a fellow human beings for millennia. He told Peter to get his sword, then proceeded to have Peter bring it with him. It is immaterial that Jesus later restored the guards ear. If I tell someone to rob a bank, and then go with them while they rob that bank. But then I give the money back. By law I still robbed that bank.

Did you bother to read my link? Christians have taken the Qur'an out of context to justify killing of Muslims for milleninia.

[Calm]

That has been used in 2000 years of his followers to reign with bloody horror on this world.

For some of his followers...

Did you bother to read my link? Christians have taken the Qur'an out of context to justify killing of Muslims for milleninia.

Qur'an or Bible? Edited April 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[Marmonboy]

Christians have taken the Qur'an out of context to justify killing of Muslims for milleninia.

Apparently Muslims have, too.

Followers of Islam have been killing each other for centuries, just for going to a different mosque. Religion of peace, indeed.

[thesometimesaint]

The problem with most reporting, interviews, and calls for tolerance regarding Islam here skip the most important questions about what does mainstream Islam teach about such things as Jihad, Sharia Law applied to non Muslims, Dhimmi, Taqiyya and Kitman, etc. I guarantee that none of you would be pleased with the answers. The only pleasing answers come from a small but vocal group of PC revisionists and propaganda groups such as CAIR and CNI.

Jihad simply means the struggle. Virtually every Muslim believes that it is a individuals struggle towards sanctification.

Sharia Law is a code of law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

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

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

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

[BCSpace]

Islam teaches to defend the faith, and that is physical defense of its followers too not merely the doctrines, the Prophet or God. That some "zealots" take this defense to mean removal of alternate belief systems from the world through forced conversion is not de facto the doctrine of Islam....

Only partially true. The doctrine of Islam can stand the existence of non believers, but it can't stand them not being subject to the rule of Muslims and such rule, Sharia Law, is completely contrary to the principles of freedom and liberty enjoyed by us in this nation and as taught by the Gospel of Christ.

What does the Arabic word jihad mean?

One answer came last week, when Saddam Hussein had his Islamic leaders appeal to Muslims worldwide to join his jihad to defeat the "wicked Americans" should they attack Iraq; then he himself threatened the United States with jihad.

As this suggests, jihad is "holy war." Or, more precisely: It means the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims.

The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe.

Jihad did have two variant meanings through the centuries, one more radical, one less so. The first holds that Muslims who interpret their faith differently are infidels and therefore legitimate targets of jihad. (This is why Algerians, Egyptians and Afghans have found themselves, like Americans and Israelis, so often the victims of jihadist aggression.) The second meaning, associated with mystics, rejects the legal definition of jihad as armed conflict and tells Muslims to withdraw from the worldly concerns to achieve spiritual depth.

Jihad in the sense of territorial expansion has always been a central aspect of Muslim life. That's how Muslims came to rule much of the Arabian Peninsula by the time of the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632. It's how, a century later, Muslims had conquered a region from Afghanistan to Spain. Subsequently, jihad spurred and justified Muslim conquests of such territories as India, Sudan, Anatolia, and the Balkans

.

Today, jihad is the world's foremost source of terrorism, inspiring a worldwide campaign of violence by self-proclaimed jihadist groups:

• The International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders: Osama bin Laden's organization;
  
• Laskar Jihad: responsible for the murder of more than 10,000 Christians in Indonesia;
  
• Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami: a leading cause of violence in Kashmir;
  
• Palestinian Islamic Jihad: the most vicious anti-Israel terrorist group of them all;
  
• Egyptian Islamic Jihad: killed Anwar El-Sadat in 1981, many others since, and
  
• Yemeni Islamic Jihad: killed three American missionaries on Monday.
  

But jihad's most ghastly present reality is in Sudan, where until recently the ruling party bore the slogan "Jihad, Victory and Martyrdom." For two decades, under government auspices, jihadists there have physically attacked non-Muslims, looted their belongings and killed their males.

Jihadists then enslaved tens of thousands of females and children, forced them to convert to Islam, sent them on forced marches, beat them and set them to hard labor. The women and older girls also suffered ritual gang-rape, genital mutilation and a life of sexual servitude.

Sudan's state-sponsored jihad has caused about 2 million deaths and the displacement of another 4 million - making it the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of our era.

Despite jihad's record as a leading source of conflict for 14 centuries, causing untold human suffering, academic and Islamic apologists claim it permits only defensive fighting, or even that it is entirely non-violent. Three American professors of Islamic studies colorfully make the latter point, explaining jihad as:

• An "effort against evil in the self and every manifestation of evil in society" (Ibrahim Abu-Rabi, Hartford Seminary);
  
• "Resisting apartheid or working for women's rights" (Farid Eseck, Auburn Seminary), and
  
• "Being a better student, a better colleague, a better business partner. Above all, to control one's anger" (Bruce Lawrence, Duke University).
  

It would be wonderful were jihad to evolve into nothing more aggressive than controlling one's anger, but that will not happen simply by wishing away a gruesome reality. To the contrary, the pretense of a benign jihad obstructs serious efforts at self-criticism and reinterpretation.

The path away from terrorism, conquest and enslavement lies in Muslims forthrightly acknowledging jihad's historic role, followed by apologies to jihad's victims, developing an Islamic basis for nonviolent jihad and (the hardest part) actually ceasing to wage violent jihad.

http://www.danielpip...0/what-is-jihad

Also:

"the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists (specialists in the hadith) understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."

Bernard Lewis, The Political Language of Islam, p. 72.

The notion of violent Jihad is NOT confined to a small group of zealots in Islam, but is their mainstream teaching and a central aspect of their lives.

[thesometimesaint]

Apparently Muslims have, too.

Followers of Islam have been killing each other for centuries, just for going to a different mosque. Religion of peace, indeed.

I've never said they didn't.

Christians have been killing other Christians for going to another church.

My stated position is that: Anyone whom would use force or implied force to force religious compliance deserves our strongest censure, and condemnation.

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

Daniel Pipes is a demagog, and can not be trusted to tell the truth about Islam.

[BCSpace]

Daniel Pipes is a demagog, and can not be trusted to tell the truth about Islam.

It would seem that our very own Daniel C. Peterson would disagree with you:

I think highly of him. His father, Richard Pipes, was a famous Sovietologist at Harvard whose writing I admired. He himself earned a Ph.D. At Harvard with a dissertation on the Mamluks of medieval Egypt that became a fine book entitled, as I recall, Slaves on Horseback. He’s a legitimate, well-trained scholar, and very bright.

I confess that I have a bias with regard to Dr. Pipes, since he’s had some nice things to say about me (on the basis, in my view, of insufficient evidence). But, even factoring that in, I think his is a voice that should not be shunned.

I have at least one colleague here at BYU who despises him, too, but then, that colleague and I disagree very, very much on politics, as well.

I’ve never found Daniel Pipes to be a demagogue.

...but I am not very pleased with the campaign to blacken and marginalize Daniel Pipes. If he’s wrong, that should be demonstrated with evidence and analysis, not by name-calling.

http://ldspatriot.wo...n-daniel-pipes/

Pipes is actually a world class scholar on Islam, in the Bernard Lewis category, and has an actual Eastern perspective which is rare. So what if he applies what he knows to the real world. Isn't that what scholarship is for?

Edited April 23, 2013 by BCSpace

[CASteinman]

I think that there is a situation of history, culture and religion all coming together to create conditions in Islam that are not always easy for outsiders to understand.

As Mormons we should not be particularly immune to understanding what that is like -- and to being unfairly portrayed.

Nevertheless, regardless of how you "feel" about the issue it is true that most of the unrest in the world today involves people who are muslim. It does not matter whether you ARE Muslim, like Muslims or dislike Muslims. This worldwide issue exists.

If you go back only 500 years -- you will see that many things you condemn about Muslims were seen in Europe. Beheadings. "Religiously" driven tortures and executions. Crusades (vs Jihad). And so on. We actually do not have all that much patience for our own past, but in our past, we did not have outside parties telling us what was right and wrong. We worked it out. Islam is coming to terms at a time when the world is "smaller". So the troubles and travails are more exposed. While we cannot wink at crime, we can culturally have some sensitivity and consideration for the pressures they are under and grant that they are working these things out -- that evil is not in every grain of sand of the desert or in every bearded face of the middle east.

Edited April 23, 2013 by CASteinman