Evidence for God from Science

Of course I don't "approve" of Robert Spencer. He wrote a book for the sole purpose of inciting hatred against Muslims. Why would I approve of him? Would I approve of Muslims who try to incite hatred against Christians? (AHEM AYMAN AL-ZAWAHIRI) No! Would I approve of Muslims who try to incite hatred against jews? (AHEM MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD) No! (I call them crazies.)

So why do you approve of someone who tries to make people hate Islam and Muslims?

Let me say that I've never met Farzana Hassan-Shahid and I can't say anything about her. I read one piece of hers I more or less agreed with, so I don't know what "liberal" views the Muslim community finds conflict with (I found it a rather conservative piece actually.) However, I saw that some articles of hers were posted on Muslim WakeUp! which is a group I actually do have a problem with.

The voice of moderation is the voice of the Prophet, pbuh. Islam calls for moderation... there's a chapter in Riyadh us-saliheen called "Moderation in Worship." Muslims are advised to avoid extremes.

The voice of reform... well now, there are two kinds of reform. I agree with one and not the other. So how do you define reform?
1) Change the principles of Islam to satisfy modern society?
2) Change our own society (just the Muslims) to identify with the principles of Islam?

I am against the first and for the second. That's because I believe that Islam is a religion revealed from God, and I am very familiar with the principles of this religion. Therefore, I believe that if people stick to those principles, we wouldn't be in this mess. Mind you, I'm talking about Muslims sticking to them, not forcing them on others.

However, there is a movement in islam, like Muslim WakeUp, that calls for literally changing the principles of Islam to make it more secular. For example, taking away the rights of husbands and wives. Removing or altering the idea of hijab so Muslims dress less modestly (wear bikinis, shorts, etc.). Abolishing the rules of government, the need for khilafa. Ultimately, it would be replacing Islam with the modern secularization that is becoming popular today. Abandoning stories they don't agree with, such as the creation of Adam (p) in favor of evolution, and re-interpreting the Qur'an ignoring the understanding that has been passed down from the Prophet pbuh so they can basically make it say whatever they want. Sounds bad.

Muslims, be Muslims.

Christians, be Christians.

I see it like the modern Christians who say that there is no hellfire. That the stories of the Bible are just that, stories. There wasn't really a flood, the Red Sea was just shallow... that Jesus pbuh wasn't really born of a virgin, for example. Yes, there are Christians (mind you a minority) who say this... replacing their own religion with what is popular today. That I reject. I reject it in Christianity and I'm not even Christian, so you better believe I reject it in Islam.

So reform?

Yeah, Muslims need to be Muslims again, go back to their roots.

peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssss

Aviatrix wrote:Of course I don't "approve" of Robert Spencer. He wrote a book for the sole purpose of inciting hatred against Muslims. Why would I approve of him? Would I approve of Muslims who try to incite hatred against Christians? (AHEM AYMAN AL-ZAWAHIRI) No! Would I approve of Muslims who try to incite hatred against jews? (AHEM MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD) No! (I call them crazies.)

So why do you approve of someone who tries to make people hate Islam and Muslims?

Robert Spencer writes to expose the truth (although I understand you would not call it that) of Islam - the Islam that fires these "crazies" to do all the kinds of things that neither you nor I approve of. You misunderstand his purpose. What is more, it is important to correctly identify the object of the hatred, separating people from ideology, if it is indeed hatred at all. He is very careful to write what can be validated and substantiated.

However, despite your attitude towards him, I was hoping you would see that there is a division among Muslims themselves, some obviously with more moderate or liberal views than others. You have already shown yourself to be one who adheres to a more peaceful form of Islam than do those who are the crazies. Both you and they claim to be practising the truth that you read from the Qur'an. So there is a difference. How do you reconcile the different understandings that exist within Islam?

Aviatrix wrote:Therefore, I believe that if people stick to those principles, we wouldn't be in this mess. Mind you, I'm talking about Muslims sticking to them, not forcing them on others.

This is a good example of what I mean. There are those Muslims who do believe that the Qur'an says they are to force Islam on others - or subdue, mutilate or slay them. Are you saying that the Qur'an does not teach that?

Nonono. Robert Spencer is trying to expose something, but not Islam. If you want to learn about Islam, there's orientalist books you can pick up that aren't filled with his lies. Try "The Everything Islam Book" for instance. Or even, "Islam for Dummies." I'm not kidding... these books don't talk about this stuff Robert Spencer is on about.

What Robert Spencer calls Islam you never see in a mosque, you never see in a Muslim home. He's not exposing truth--you're making a foolish assumption about what truth is. He's actually making up a reality where Islam is evil and wicked, and Muslims are cruel, exactly to incite hatred against Islam, when it is only a few in Islam who are the problem--and their beliefs which are decidedly outside of the religion. But he won't tell you that. He lumps us all in together, calls all this stupidity Islam. Islam isn't about violence and killing. Never was, never will be. Period. What he writes can be refuted by Muslim children the world over. We aren't so foolish to buy into his nonsense--we know better, we who are living Islam.

So don't try and tell me this guy who is doing nothing other than trying to make you hate Islam is telling the truth. Not when I live Islam every single day and know it's not what he says it is.

You have already shown yourself to be one who adheres to a more peaceful form of Islam than do those who are the crazies. Both you and they claim to be practising the truth that you read from the Qur'an. So there is a difference. How do you reconcile the different understandings that exist within Islam?

I adhere to Islam; there is only one kind of Islam and it is peaceful. I've been telling you that the people who live Islam as some violent war-mongering excuse to kill people are crazy. What I say is the truth is what the scholars say is the truth, and what scholars today agree on, they have agreed on for centuries that the truth they say is the truth of this religion. And they agree with me (and not with Mr. Spencer.) When people kill innocents, they are acting in clear violation of the example of the Prophet pbuh, and in violation of Shari'ah.

Read these:

Nobody can be compelled into Islam.

Cold Blooded Murder

Just a confirmation of what I've been saying from real Muslim scholars, okay? If you look on legitimate websites (islamonline.net is a great one with an excellent fatwa team) you'll see that what these people are doing (killing in the name of Islam) is utterly reprehensible and against Islam. They are wrong. I don't have to reconcile anything--they are just flat out wrong.

This is a good example of what I mean. There are those Muslims who do believe that the Qur'an says they are to force Islam on others - or subdue, mutilate or slay them. Are you saying that the Qur'an does not teach that?

Of course I'm saying the Qur'an does not teach that! The Qur'an does not teach that! (Where have you been the last few days????)

Aviatrix, you assert that those Muslims who commit atrocities are not acting in accordance with Islam.

I have a brief video clip here with a message to all Muslims living in America who believe as you do.

Brigitte Gabriel (absolutely no relationship to Mark Gabriel whose name is not his Arab one) is a Lebanese Christian woman, now living in the United States, who has experienced first-hand the Jihad which is now beginning to sweep across the entire planet.
She is asking something absolutely vital of the Muslims who do not agree with the atrocities being committed in the name of Islam.

How do you respond?

Two words: dial up.

Don't you have a transcript or something? It would take me like an hour to watch that.

But in the meantime, can you answer me this?

What does "moderate" mean?

Moderately religious? Like a little bit religious but not very? Like is the Pope moderately religious? Or extreme? Or fundamentalist? I'm curious.

This thread is about increased communication between Muslims and Christians. I'm here for dialogue. It's about Muslims reacting to an incorrect and offensive comment with level heads, calling for mutual respect and beneficial discussion.

And you have to turn this into a Muslim against Muslim thing?

What is up with that?

Aviatrix wrote:Two words: dial up.

Don't you have a transcript or something? It would take me like an hour to watch that.

But in the meantime, can you answer me this?

What does "moderate" mean?

Moderately religious? Like a little bit religious but not very? Like is the Pope moderately religious? Or extreme? Or fundamentalist? I'm curious.

This thread is about increased communication between Muslims and Christians. I'm here for dialogue. It's about Muslims reacting to an incorrect and offensive comment with level heads, calling for mutual respect and beneficial discussion.

And you have to turn this into a Muslim against Muslim thing?

What is up with that?

The video plays for 9 minutes. I have a broadband connection only marginally faster than dial up. It does not take an hour to watch it.

Brigitte Gabriel is recognizing that there are Muslims in America who believe as you do, Aviatrix, that these atrociities are evil and wrong. She is challenging Muslims in America who believe exactly that to actually raise their voices in protest at their Muslim counterparts who disagree and interpret the Qur'an differently, who continue to commit these offences.

You are expressing a version of Islam that many refer to as "moderate" - that is, you outwardly say that you do not condone the violence of other Muslims. That is what is meant by the use of the word "moderate" when you hear it applied to Islam.

Brigitte Gabriel, coming from war-torn Lebanon, is saying that she fully understands why Muslims in the Middle East are reluctant to speak out loudly about this violence to try to stop it. However, Muslims in America have a protected status by American laws and conventions. You have rights as American citizens to freedom of speech. Why are you not exercising your rights and speaking out very loudly against this Muslim violence, actually demonstrating to show your disapproval? She is saying that actions speak louder than words. Frankly Aviatrix, your words simply go nowhere in relation to the actions of Muslims who are commiting acts of terrorism against the west. You want us to believe you? Well, actions just do speak louder than words.

That is Brigitte Gabriel's challenge to YOU.

Let's see, I posted at 11:34, and now it is 12:18. Roughly 45 minutes, and not even half of it has downloaded yet. (I'm not kidding, I'm still loading this video, and it's not even halfway finished yet... after 45 minutes... so apparently it wouldn't take an hour, more like an hour and a half.)

I don't consider myself a 'moderate' Muslim. I don't consider the Pope a 'moderate' Catholic. I figure I'm normal, trying my best to serve my Lord. Normal, and not crazy. Not moderate vs. extreme. I support Shari'ah law, wear hijab... some people think that makes me extreme. It takes a normal person to denounce violence, though. So I'm normal. Moderate to me means not religious, and that doesn't describe me.

So here's my thing. I have been part of demonstrations of Muslims. Just a few weeks ago a whole bunch of Muslims from all over the country went to Washington, DC. I know here in my city we had a demonstration at the state capital. It was a demonstration against the war, actually. And more Jews than Muslims stood up to condemn the acts on both sides. Which is interesting, I think, so I brought it up. But the point is that Muslims are doing something, but even though this woman (I did manage to watch the first two minutes of this little video) says that Muslims are free to demonstrate here... we're not.

We're accused of hating America, actually.

She also said something else I really disagree with... that we should stand up and tell the world we are Americans first and then Muslims. No way. I'm a Muslim first. I serve God, and then country.

Don't you?

Muhammad's Sword

You should read that article by Uri Avnery, regarding the Pope's Comments.

Broadening the Scope of the Pope

A great video made by my favorite scholar, Sheikh Hamza Yusuf.

You must have an awfully slow connection - and I thought that I did!

Well, I'm not an American first because, well, I'm not an American.
But that aside, Christians are taught...

Romans 13: 1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Were you demonstrating against American troops in Iraq, or against the violence and atrocities that Islamic terrorists are perpetrating in the name of Islam?

I am talking about Muslims who believe the Qur'an does not teach violence actually taking to task those Muslims who do believe that. So what is being done by non-violent Muslims to stop those violent Muslims from killing the rest of us - yourself included? What is being done to change their supposedly wrong interpretation of Islam?

Aviatrix wrote:She also said something else I really disagree with... that we should stand up and tell the world we are Americans first and then Muslims. No way. I'm a Muslim first. I serve God, and then country.

The thing is, America lets you serve God - you have the freedom to worship according to your chosen religion.

By claiming to be a Muslim first, you are standing alongside your more violent brothers first and foremost. You are not standing apart from them and proclaiming your differences. You say in words that they are crazies, but you unite with them as fellow Muslims - by putting your religion first - before you distinguish any difference in nationality or citizenship. You will stand with them first over and above your country.

See, I don't really consider the people who I call "crazies" to be "fellow Muslims" so don't put words in my mouth.

But my Muslim brothers in Egypt, in Palestine, in Pakistan, in India. My sisters in Lebanon, in Syria, in Morocco. My Muslim brothers in England, in Denmark, my sisters in Canada, and Germany. I am united with them through Islam in a way I could never be united with somebody for simply being American.

That doesn't mean I don't submit to American law, of course I do. And I have a lot of respect for the country and its people--I am an American!

But when I die and I am asked what my way of life was, I'm going to say I was a Muslim, not I was an American. You see how religion transcends nationality?

You guys keep asking what is being done--the answer is the massive move to educate Muslims around the world. To create more knowledgeable scholars who are trained in traditional Islam who can teach it all over the world to Muslims who have long been following their own local Islam rather than the one revealed by the Prophet, and they are therefore easily swayed.

That's what's being done.

Are we trying to kill everyone who doesn't agree with us? No--that's what they, the terrorists do.

Knowledge is power.

Oh so I watched this finally.

Totally nuts.

There are probably at best 3 million Muslims in the entire country. And she wants to see a million people marching? That's a third of the total Muslim population. Come on, now. That's just silly. These people have families, jobs, and can't fly all over the country for useless demonstrations. And the demonstrations are useless. Terrorists could care less what American Muslims do. There would be no message.

But I really think you should look at this woman, and what she is trying to make her audience feel. It's especially obvious at the end... "Eurabia?" You know, to start off with America (as the country today) started off with Englishmen. But is the population today primarily of English origin? Nope. There has been an influx of different races and cultures. Germans, Poles, Italians, Japanese, Chinese, Mexican. The population of Arabs and Arab descendents pales in comparison to all those listed. But do you hear people saying, America is becoming to German, there are too many Germans! (You did, but why? Paranoia.) Do you hear people saying, America is becoming Mexican, the immigrants are taking over! (You do, but why? Paranoia, and racial hatred.) She is playing on this idea.

Muslims in America are not Arabs. The largest "ethnic" population is actually African-Americans, who have converted to Islam, or had parents who did. No joke. Islam is not an Arab religion. There are more Muslims in China than in Saudi Arabia. FYI.

So she is complaining about seeing women in burkha? So women want to wear clothes and she is afraid they are taking over the world? She is playing on racial fears, the idea that a native population is going to die out, and actually encouraging people to be genophobic. In a very foolish way, I might add.

What does she want? She wants Muslims to fight Muslims, apparently, and can't get over the idea of brotherhood in this religion.

So what is my response, "No." And also, "I'm not Arab but I am Muslim."

And this, we will be asked three questions when we die. Who was our Lord, who was our prophet, and what was our way of life.

And I am content with Allah swt as my Lord, Muhammad saws as my prophet, and Islam as my deen.

Being American won't impress God too much, imo, and my concern is not for this world but the next.

Muhammad's Sword

You should read that article by Uri Avnery, regarding the Pope's Comments.

Broadening the Scope of the Pope

A great video made by my favorite scholar, Sheikh Hamza Yusuf.

Aviatrix,

I read the opinion article you referenced above.

Referring to the President of the United States as an "emperor" and then to the Pope as a "political pawn" in effect to that emperor is hardly constructive or proactive.

In fact, in view of your previous comments to the very moderate and complimentary article that I posted from a catholic Newspaper which recognized and positively affirmed the actions of the 38 moderate international Muslim Leaders, it really strikes me that you are arguing and examining this whole issue from a very emotional issue rather than one that is based on reason and an examination of facts.

I can understand that in many ways. I have been a Christian for 31 years. When I was younger I was very certain that all I was taught and exposed to in my Church and family was all that I needed to know about Christianity.

That has changed in some ways as I've grown older and will no doubt continue to adjust and change some over time. It's not that I've rejected Christianity in any way. Quite the contrary. I embrace it in a stronger and more personal way than I have before. The difference now is that I embrace it after facing many challenges to it and it is a deeply personal and tested faith, that is a deeper part of who I am.

One area where my faith has adjusted significantly is in the area of understanding and reconciling my faith in God and the Bible in terms of the age of the earth and how God created it.

I used to be a very strong Young Earth Creationist for a period of time while I was younger. It was in many ways a very easy position to take. I had what I had been taught and told and I could return to it any time I wanted.

When I became exposed to science, evolution, astronomy, physics etc, I would engage and argue with those who attempted to teach me facts contrary to the ones I already knew in my heart to be true. I learned to absorb and repeat the arguments I was taught at Church and school (I went to Christian Schools for much of my life.) If one of those arguments or convictions I adopted was proven to be wrong, I would bring up the next one on the list and continue, as if nothing had happened. At the base of it all was my belief in the Bible and I would cling to the belief that no matter what, the Bible was right and I would hold to it and be called a fool regardless of what any evidence showed to the contrary.

Of course, I was in that context, as I understand it now, not holding to the Bible. I was holding to the interpretation of many in that area and equating it with the Bible itself. There's a very big difference between the two.

It was a path to walk, but after studying the Bible, further education, entering into the ministry, and interacting with others who knew more about this issue than others, my mind changed. I still hold as firmly to my conviction that the Bible is to be trusted above all, as ever. I'm a little quicker to listen than to speak in some instances however and I allow myself to believe that if the Bible is true it will stand up to challenges and scrutiny. I've found that it does.

What I think I am seeing in these threads with you is a very strong emotional basis in which you feel the need to defend anything that could be seen as negative about Islam and the Quran. Much of the material that I see coming from you, seems to perhaps be the result of a quick internet search to find a source, any source, whether opinion or fact or interpretation, and throw it at that challenge, while contending that direct quotes from Muslims or Islamists or anyone else must be wrong or that they must not be "true Muslims."

I've made those types of arguments myself in the past.

It's ironic, because then you go and post a link to an opinion editorial from an Atheist Jew because you apparently like the way it portrays Muslims and it also attacks the Pope and United States.

By the way, I think there were some valid points in the piece. For instance, I think it is true that for a considerable period of time in history, Muslims did treat Christians and Jews better than has been the case when circumstances were reversed. It might surprise you that Robert Spencer, whom you've been portraying as unreasonable and with a hatred of Muslims motivating his material, says the same thing.

Of course, to realize that, you'd have to actually read him and perhaps suspend judgment until you read what he had to say and then engage with the material, instead of attacking the source, and frankly that is a very hard thing to do. I know. I've wrestled with things like that.

I want you to know, I have a lot of admiration for your tenacity. It cannot be easy, coming onto a Christian Board and fielding so many challenges from so many directions by yourself. That takes courage.

I also have to tell you, that observing your sources and techniques, I don't have a lot of respect for your willingness to consider and interact with what you're being presented. I see what appears to me, to be emotional responses, attacking the messenger and very little actual interaction with the information.

In fairness, you're getting a lot of people coming at you and it is difficult I know to handle it all. That's in part, why I've been backing off a little to not pile on to you.

It is very hard to examine core issues like this and to consider that perhaps there is material and evidence to consider that will cause someone to set aside for a moment, the things that they have been taught and hold to be true no matter what.

It's especially difficult when you feel attacked or persecuted.

All this to say, I hope you will think a little bit about what is being said. Maybe slow down a little and examine the information and resist the urge to automatically respond with a canned answer and take a look at things and consider if there is anything there worth listening to and if so, examine how that should change.

I'll be honest with you. I still don't always do a good job with that. But, I've done some and it's made what I believe more personal and something that is part of the fabric of me, rather than just a jacket that someone else made that I slip into when I feel the need to be warm and secure.

Hope you understand what I'm saying.

At the very least, you may want to consider what you choose to represent you in terms of references. This article represents you very poorly and contradicts several things you've claimed earlier.

I have to end with this appeal. I wonder why God has brought you to this board and to face these issues? I appreciate what I'm learning from observing you, both directly and indirectly.

My prayer for you is that you would come to know God in a deeply personal way, and my belief is that Jesus Christ is the way for that knowlege to come. I respect that you believe differently. I pray God will reveal and draw you to Himself so that you may know peace and the love of Christ that allows us even to love our enemies, even when we as Christians often so a very poor job of it.

Bart

Referring to the President of the United States as an "emperor" and then to the Pope as a "political pawn" in effect to that emperor is hardly constructive or proactive.

I agree--that was a foolish introduction, and there was no need to attack the President or the Pope. You'll note, I hope, that the rest of the article did not deal with that, but historical considerations. Therefore, the reason I posted this article (which was not the result of a google search, except to find a website hosting it--it had been emailed to me on two different list-serves to which I subscribe, and posted on a forum.) was the historical information presented about Islam. Remember that this article was not written by a Muslim. However, it refutes the idea that Islam was spread by the sword (which is a myth propogated today among non-Muslims.)

Here is a relevant quote from the article.

Jesus said: "You will recognize them by their fruits." The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: how did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to "spread the faith by the sword"?

Well, they just did not.

For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.

And regarding the tolerance of Islam...

There no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?

Passages like this are the reason I quoted this article, which I've read a number of times--it was not a google search-and-find. It's also interesting that this article was written by a self-proclaimed "atheist Jew" and not a Muslim.

Now regarding the video--it presents similar information, but from the Muslim perspective sort of. The Sheikh makes a point, however, of citing Christian sources to justify the point he makes, which is the same as the one made by Uri Avnery in the article. (He in fact says he wouldn't use Muslim sources because people would say they are biased.) So he refers to Christians. It's part of a monthly series of "podcasts," though only the 3rd one, put out by the Zaytuna Institute. I've made it a point to watch these when they come out.

The reason I've offered these things was not to give you an encyclopaedic account on Islam, but to provide you with a different perspective. Uri Avnery is an interesting character--I don't necessarily agree with his philosophy, but I appreciate that he is trying to bring peace. So I don't use him as a source, but rather hoped you would find enlightenment or reason in his article.

The other articles I have posted are on a website that I was privileged enough to help construct, and I am familiar with their contents. Again, not google-searched. I make a point of having read and being familiar with anything I want you to read. My answers aren't "canned," especially not when I post the articles. I only post them so you know I'm not the only person to say what I say.