Originally posted on May 24, 2006.

^.^

I have received a response to my recent articles on Islam, and I figured I should reply. Before I get going, I would like to thank the person who wrote the response. It takes time and effort that could have been used elsewhere, yet I engendered the use of these in response to my comments...my opinions. I am thankful, honored, and humbled.

Now, to the comments raised by Anonymous...

He starts with the following: "why do you hate Moslems that much and you consider them enemies?, why you consider Christianity is Western while Islam is not?" He continues by saying that Islam would have been adopted by the Roman Empire if Christianity had not been.

I don't "hate" muslims. I AM suspicious of Arabs in general, and muslims in particular. It was 19 muslims that carried out the attacks that left roughly 3100 or so people dead on Sept. 11...it was not a clan of Irish men, not a gaggle of Germans, and it was not a communist plot hatched in the cellars of Moscow. Like it or not, the attack on the World Trade Center was designed by an Islamic fanatic, carryied out by a group of Islamic fanatics, and all of them were following a radical Islamic theology.

Do I consider muslims as the enemy? Yep, and that includes the "moderates". Why? Well, in the case of the radicals, that's easy. The moderates however have been shirking their duty and have in that way helped the radicals who have publicly stated that their aim is to kill Americans, to replicate 9/11 on a far larger scale, etc. The moderates have been silent, and in doing so, they have silently given their blessing to the fanatics. If muslims don't wish to be considered as the enemy, they need to stand up and firmly denounce the fanatics who preach that Americans should be killed simply for being Americans.

Anonymous then makes the unfounded statement that the Roman Empire would have converted to Islam had it not converted to Christianity. This is false simply because Christianity was founded roughly 600 years before Islam was created, and the Roman Empire converted to Christianity roughly 300 years later. (I am giving rough estimates.) The point is, Islam wasn't on the scene yet to convert anyone.

Anonymous continues, talking next about how I am wrong in my opinions (which is why people generally write to me...) and how I am making generalizations. And in some cases, he is correct...because it is now the job of the muslims to convince me that they are not fanatics. However, from what I see and hear a lot of the time from the news reports, the sense that I am getting is that all muslims are exactly that...fanatics.

Then comes a bit of moral relativism, where Anonymous says that events happened in the Bible that would not have been allowed in Islam, such as an assault on a city where women and children were ordered killed. My first thought is that I doubt Islam lets women and children off that easy. For simply talking to a man who is not a relative, a woman risks death. Whether it is Sharia law or Islamic tribal custom makes no difference...the custom is defended as religious law. In the case of the Bible, sure there are a large number of incidents where woman and children were killed. To understand this, one has to understand the nature of sin, and how God hates sin. God himself destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all of the people living there with the exception of Lot and his family. God also struck down Israelites who rose up against Moses during the trek to the promised land, and God told the Israelites to attack many of the peoples living in the promised land.

But one thing you have to remember is CONTEXT, which is why I mentioned God and his hatred of sin. When Israel or its kings fell away from God and comitted sin, God was well within his rights to punish them, and that's what was happening.

Anonymous then goes on to explain the nature of religious belief and how Islam fits into that. He then gets into a bit of criticism of Christianity, thus displaying the hypocrisy I see in a lot of muslims today...it's not alright for me to criticise Islam, but Anonymous can mock Christianity, and the Trinity, and then compound that error by displaying just how little he understands Christianity: "God does not need to have a son, God does not need to kill his son who is himself on the cross to forgive us because of a sin we did not do..."

God does not need to have a son...that's quite a judgement...try that on the next expecting couple you see.

God did not "kill" his son...that implies that God directly did the deed. God gave his son to be a sacrifice on behalf of humanity for the forgiveness of sin, the consecration of the new covenant which wipes out the Old Testament law, and the redemption of those who believe. As for "sin we did not do," as human beings, we are born into sin, and throughout life, we are tempted to do sin, but through the belief in Jesus, through repentance and asking for forgiveness, God, through the sacrifice of his son, wipes that sin away, and it is completely forgotten.

Anonymous ends with the following:

"God can forgive the well-guided people with a simple word if God wish. We want to stop hatred, and follow what Jesus Christ said (peace be on him and his pure blessed mother); do love your enemies, bless who curse you."

If God wanted to do so, he could. However, that would be like me slapping you across the face, and expecting that you'll forgive me and forget that it ever happened. Instead, under the Old Testament law, the people were responsible to make adequate sacrifices to God for their sins. Under the new covenant, the sacrifice that Jesus gave for us is perfect, it is highly valueable, as any father will know...and it shows how much God loves all of us. He was willing to send his son to be nailed to a cross so that our sins may be forgiven.

Now, back to the political realities here in closing... I am suspicious of muslims, and I think this extends to a lot of Americans. Being suspicious is not a sin. Being hateful is. Do I hate muslims? No. I wish that we could all get along and understand each other, but I keep coming back to a question.

I know that a muslim can walk across a Christian community, no matter the size, and not be harmed at all. In fact, I doubt in most cases that he would get a second galnce. However, I question whether the same could be said of a Christain walking across an Islamic community, no matter the size. Given the rhetoric I see coming from muslims, a Christian would be risking his life in such a thing.

From what I have heard about the situation in Iran, I am hopeful that perhaps the insane president of that country can be overthrown. I believe that Israel knows the best way to defend itself and secure her future...with or without Palestinian cooperation or consent, and in general, the ravings of the muslims that we see to any time they don't get what they want has been exposed as exactly that...the ravings of a people whose version of negotiation is to get everything they want, or they'll attack.

It is up to muslims to change this view of themselves and their religion. I will listen with an open mind, but it will be a hard sell.

---
John B.
Blog Guy

BACK