Since when did the NAACP become pro moslem??

[BeecherVol]

Discussing the topic????

The topic of the thread had to do with the nexus between the NAACP and moslems, we've hardly touched upon that topic at all.

The shame of this board is that nearly anything having to do with politics and islam will quckly be turned into an anti-Christ rant by some fool (or group of) and then go on in that vein for days. (often aided and abetted by some monitor with the same sort of mindset.)

If one wants to understand one of the basic differences between Jesus and muhammed, and between Christianity and islam, here is a fine example:

The example of Mohamed on forgivness Sahih Muslim, Book 17: 4206

There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said: Allah's Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He (the Holy Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah's Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma'iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child). When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him (the Holy Prophet) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah's Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) heard his (Khalid's) curse that he had hurled upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven. Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried.

The example of Jesus on forgivness (John 8:1-11)

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. "Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?" They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."

As usually the topic went off in another direction. That was what I was referring to.

 

[sjt18]

Here you go. Have fun reading.

I think I already acknowledged that there were varying interpretations of the Koran.

What I have said and that your article did not contradict is that the more fundamental/literal a Muslim is the more likely they are to accept violence as a legitimate means of spreading Islam. The more fundamental/literal a Christian is the less likely they are to accept violence as a legitimate means of spreading Islam. FWIW, fundamentalists/literalists do not make up a majority those who call themselves Muslim or Christian.

I noted one thing though. The author seems to be claiming that interpretations go back to Muhammad and his disciples. History tells us that Muhammad DID resort to violence in the name of religion. This undeniable fact undermines the notion of those texts not advocating violence.



Finally, can you name the author of that article? I didn't see one. If there isn't one then I am unsure why you would expect me to give full credence to an anonomous wikipedia article. Surely that isn't the full breadth of your mass of knowledge on Islam and comparative religions?

 

[sjt18]

Like other groups that gravitate to liberalism/Dems, both of these groups are empowered by ginning up a grievances against America, mainstream Americanism, and our concepts of rights and freedom generally. The Arab proverb applies- "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".

 

[therealUT]

First, that selection of the Wikipedia article is riddled with academic citations. Second, no, it nowhere near suffices for my knowledge. I have plenty of first-hand knowledge of Islam going as far back as 6th grade when I became friends with a Muslim I played basketball with. My life experiences have brought me in touch with many Muslims; the longest tenures in Iraq, Dubai, and India. Next, I through studying both the Middle East and Afghanistan, I have read many accounts of Islam. For a thorough understanding of the differences between Sunni and Shia, and the way each view the Koran, I suggest The Shia Revival by Nasr. For a thorough understanding of why the Middle East looks as it does today, I would suggest British Imperialism: 1688-2000 by Cain and Hopkins and The Peace to End All Peace by Fromkin. For understanding militant Islamic terrorism, and its roots, I would suggest Islam and Politics by Esposito, Arab Nationalism by Choueiri, and anything written by Leah Farrall. However, I would also suggest you pick up the Koran (or, as mine is spelled Qur'an) and read it through in its entirety. You might be interested to know that the preface to my copy begins with this:

The Qur'an is the final conclusion of all divine revelations especially the family of Abrahamic faith: of the Torah revealed to Moses and the Bible revealed to Jesus, peace be upon both of them. Islams first and most significant tenet is Tawhid, the belief in the one and only God Who reveals the same truth the various nations, addressing each of them in its own language, according to its own understanding, culture and traditions.

Yasin T. al-Jibouri
1999

 

[gsvol]

I see why you post so many pictures, gs. This is fun.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Look at me, I can post images of misinformation too.

 

[gsvol]

As usually the topic went off in another direction. That was what I was referring to.

How long do you think the naacp and the moslem brotherhood have been linked up??

 

[BeecherVol]

How long do you think the naacp and the moslem brotherhood have been linked up??

Your asking the wrong man gs, I wouldn't know either way. Its not that I don't care to know, but to me personally it really doesn't matter.:hi:

 

[gsvol]

And yes, Muslim would qualify under the literal definition as a "race" of people, as would Christians, etc.

That is the most ridiculous statement I've ever
read on this board and surpasses some real
doozies.

Race has to do with genetically transmitted physical
characteristics that tend to identify one with some
particular group.

As far as I'm concerned, there is only one race, the
human race.

Race has little if anything to do with one's religion
and religion has nothing at all to do with one's race.

What you espouse is a huge non sequitur.

It has been said; "find a non sequitur and you will
find a lie, find a lie and you will find a liar."

If that's how you'd like to characterize it, fine.

FWIW I describe myself of Christian faith, and still attend church when I can (though I have 9-5 work on Sundays), don't bring this bias crap around. gs's "o noez we oughta be scurred of all da sand ppl and all da moslems!" BS is what populates the board, so it's what I respond to.

That isn't my message at all and I suspect you
are intelligent enough to understand that.

Your asking the wrong man gs, I wouldn't know either way. Its not that I don't care to know, but to me personally it really doesn't matter.:hi:

I would say from at least the time of the MLK
assassination.

At that time there were calls from some civil rights
leaders to; 'pray no more to western gods who are
white but pray to eastern gods who are more for
the black man.' (paraphrased)

This was a thinly veiled call for people in the civil
rights movement to embrace islam, as for black
Americans, they would be well advised to know
that the western whites had treated black Africans
far better than had the moslems, particularly the
Arab moslems.

Look at me, I can post images of misinformation too.

You are the board champion when it comes to
disinformation, that's all you ever post even
though you are so brainwashed you may not
even know it.

 

[gsvol]

I think there are plenty in here that would benefit from a primer concerning the definitions of words. Yes, words do have meanings.

You might start by explaining of the meaning of
the word 'race' to milo.

You do know that Shiites do not accept the Sahih Hadiths as authentic. They view them as fabrications and, therefore, false.

So you eliminate 10 +/- % of moslems concerning
the Sahih Hadiths??

At any rate the shia mullahs of Iran have no problem
at all with condemning a woman to death by stoning
for the sin of adultry. (nor of hanging teenagers for
being seen as homosexuals.)

 

[therealUT]

At any rate the shia mullahs of Iran have no problem at all with condemning a woman to death by stoning for the sin of adultry. (nor of hanging teenagers for being seen as homosexuals.)

Neither do the Christians in Uganda (whom we employ as force protection for our Servicemembers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan).

 

[milohimself]

You might start by explaining of the meaning of
the word 'race' to milo.

definition of race from Oxford Dictionaries Online

• a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group:

Usage

In recent years, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th -century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts (race relations, racial equality), it is now often replaced by other words that are less emotionally charged, such as people(s) or community

One individual definition by Oxford for the word in no way necessarily implies regional or genetic definition, even though that is the common context. That last bit acknowledges that the use of the word "race" in direct association with ideologies was correct.

Or, if you prefer the American variety...

Race - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics

So... Any questions?

 

[gsvol]

Neither do the Christians in Uganda (whom we employ as force protection for our Servicemembers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan).

Really??? I seriously doubt what you say since
he Amin pogrom against the Christians of Uganda
couldn't have left that many living!

At any rate they certainly didn't get that sorry
attitude from reading the gospel.

 

[therealUT]

Really??? I seriously doubt what you say since
he Amin pogrom against the Christians of Uganda
couldn't have left that many living!

At any rate they certainly didn't get that sorry
attitude from reading the gospel.

85% of the country is Christian; the country recently passed a law (note: this is not just an archaic law that has not been changed) that prescribes the death penalty for homosexuals, as well as anyone who is HIV positive.

 

[gsvol]

So... Any questions?

When did the definition change??

Second College Edition
The American Heritage Dictionary
1985:

race; n.
1. A local or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.

2. Mankind as a whole.

3. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographical distribution.

4. A genealogical linage.

This definition says nothing about ideology being a determining factor when considering race, it is about genetic make up or even regional geographical distribution. (with common genetics)

Same source;

religion; n.
1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe.
b. A particular integrated system of the expression: the Hindu religion.

2. The spiritual or emotional attitude of one who recognizes the existence of a superhuman power or powers.

3. An objective pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

....

Under your defintition of race as you interpret it, then moslems would be the most racist group on the face of the Earth, would they not??

Some Interesting Stastics About the Incursion of Islam Sola Scriptura

(not entirely out of date)

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well..

Here’s how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. ........

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. .....

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. ...........

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. ............

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, .....

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, ......

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, .........

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, ........

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace.. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, .....

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, .......

Feel free to share this important information to any who care about the future of our Country.

85% of the country is Christian; the country recently passed a law (note: this is not just an archaic law that has not been changed) that prescribes the death penalty for homosexuals, as well as anyone who is HIV positive.

The Mufti of Uganda, Sheikh Sha’aban Ramadhan, says there are 6,700 mosques in Uganda and that the Muslim population has grown to 30 percent of the total population of Uganda.

Most tribal heritage in Africa has taboos against homosexuality.

I find two of your claims highly dubious;

Neither do the Christians in Uganda (whom we employ as force protection for our Servicemembers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan).

1. That we actually employ Ugandans to protect US servicemembers in Iraq and Afghanistan. First reference I've heard to that effect.

2. That Ugandan Christians participate in the stoning of women for adultry.

(having reread your post, perhaps you weren't talking about stoning but about attitudes toward homosexuals?)

At any rate the moslem population is at a minimum of 12.5% in Uganda, could it not be islamic sharia law that was the driving force behind the anti-homosexual law??

Kenya has only a 10% moslem population but has recently enacted sharia compliance into it's constitution, as a practical matter that means a death penalty offence of homosexual behavior.

What you are doing is to use statistics to make your anti-Christian statements without examining the facts close enough to make accurate assessments.

What do you make of the connection between the naacp and various islamic groups?

 

[therealUT]

The Mufti of Uganda, Sheikh Sha’aban Ramadhan, says there are 6,700 mosques in Uganda and that the Muslim population has grown to 30 percent of the total population of Uganda.

Most tribal heritage in Africa has taboos against homosexuality.

The President is a born-again Christian. He signed the bill into law.

I find two of your claims highly dubious;

1. That we actually employ Ugandans to protect US servicemembers in Iraq and Afghanistan. First reference I've heard to that effect.

We have been employing Ugandans to provide force protection for FOBs throughout Iraq and Afghanistan since 2004-2005.

2. That Ugandan Christians participate in the stoning of women for adultry.

They don't stone women; however, while not "accepted" it is also not a rarity that women are killed by family members for crimes of dishonor (adultery, pre-marital sex, etc.)

This is a problem among many developing nations, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Hindu, etc. I read about "honor" killings at least once if not twice a week in Andhra Pradesh while I was there. The perpetrators were Muslims, Christians, and Hindus. Women were killed for a variety of offenses that ranged from adultery to love-marriages.

At any rate the moslem population is at a minimum of 12.5% in Uganda, could it not be islamic sharia law that was the driving force behind the anti-homosexual law??

Again, a born-again Christian President signed the bill into law.

What you are doing is to use statistics to make your anti-Christian statements without examining the facts close enough to make accurate assessments.

Uganda is a Christian nation. Aside from the short period in which it was ruled by "The King of Scotland", it has been ruled by Christian Ugandans.

However, your preference for societies of greater than 95% Christians is quite telling.

What do you make of the connection between the naacp and various islamic groups?

Most Muslims would be considered people of color, right?

 

[gsvol]

The President is a born-again Christian. He signed the bill into law.

You use 'born-again' as if it were a derogatory term.

Regardless of what faith is claimed by the Ugandan president, that law wasn't derived from what is written in the Gospel of Christ, the same cannot be said about the teachings of islam.

You play the artful dodger so well.

We have been employing Ugandans to provide force protection for FOBs throughout Iraq and Afghanistan since 2004-2005.

As I said, that's the first I've heard of that.

Can you say in what numbers and are they Ugandan military troops or private contractors?

They don't stone women; however, while not "accepted" it is also not a rarity that women are killed by family members for crimes of dishonor (adultery, pre-marital sex, etc.)

Again, these actions come from either tribal taboos or from islam, not from the Gospel.

This is a problem among many developing nations, whether they are Muslim, Christian, Hindu, etc. I read about "honor" killings at least once if not twice a week in Andhra Pradesh while I was there. The perpetrators were Muslims, Christians, and Hindus. Women were killed for a variety of offenses that ranged from adultery to love-marriages.

Again, on a world wide basis, no other group is so misogynistic as the so-called religion of islam and most of those viewpoints are codified in their (claimed to be divinely inspired) texts.

Again, a born-again Christian President signed the bill into law.

Obama claims to be a Christian, he has signed a few bills into law himself.

Uganda is a Christian nation. Aside from the short period in which it was ruled by "The King of Scotland", it has been ruled by Christian Ugandans.

The major difference between a nation in which has a majority Christian population and a nation that considers itself an islamic state is sharia law.

Do we not agree on that?

However, your preference for societies of greater than 95% Christians is quite telling.

How so?

Most Muslims would be considered people of color, right?

Would you say then this is a case of bigotry in action?

bigot, n. A person who is rigidly devoted to his own group, religion, race or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

 

[therealUT]

I'll get to the rest of your questions later, GS. For now, let's have fun with hypothetical situations.

Let's start with these givens:

1. The majority of religions persons who subscribe to the teachings of the New Testament consider themselves as Roman Catholics.

2. The Roman Catholic Church, according to The Catechism of the Catholic Church, has three conditions for sin:
a. Has to know the act is a sin
b. Has to willingly desire to do the act
c. Has to commit the act

3. Jesus states in the New Testament that not a letter of the law is invalid.

4. The Mosaic Law states explicitly that an adulteress is to be punished by death.

5. Jesus, when he comes upon a woman who is about to be stoned for adultery, says, "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone".

6. Baptism, according to all Christian doctrine I have ever been encountered, immediately clears the recipient of both Original Sin and past sins; therefore, at the moment of baptism, the new Christian is without sin.

Situation:

A woman is charged with adultery and brought to a church where a person has just been baptized. The preacher instructs the new "Christian" to kill the woman. Can he refuse to do so and base his refusal on scripture?

 

[tigervol9802]

I'll get to the rest of your questions later, GS. For now, let's have fun with hypothetical situations.

Let's start with these givens:

1. The majority of religions persons who subscribe to the teachings of the New Testament consider themselves as Roman Catholics.

2. The Roman Catholic Church, according to The Catechism of the Catholic Church, has three conditions for sin:
a. Has to know the act is a sin
b. Has to willingly desire to do the act
c. Has to commit the act

3. Jesus states in the New Testament that not a letter of the law is invalid.

4. The Mosaic Law states explicitly that an adulteress is to be punished by death.

5. Jesus, when he comes upon a woman who is about to be stoned for adultery, says, "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone".

6. Baptism, according to all Christian doctrine I have ever been encountered, immediately clears the recipient of both Original Sin and past sins; therefore, at the moment of baptism, the new Christian is without sin.

Situation:

A woman is charged with adultery and brought to a church where a person has just been baptized. The preacher instructs the new "Christian" to kill the woman. Can he refuse to do so and base his refusal on scripture?

Not really. Forgiven/justified would be a proper termanology here, not cleared.

 

[therealUT]

Not really. Forgiven/justified would be a proper termanology here, not cleared.

Not according to the Catholic Church. The sin is "wiped away" and the person is restored to "the divine likeness" (which, would of course, be pure) at the moment of baptism. So, then, let us just confine this situation to the Catholic Church (and, most probably, the Lutheran and Episcopalian) and see that the dilemma remains.

 

[tigervol9802]

Not according to the Catholic Church. The sin is "wiped away" at the moment of baptism. So, then, let us just confine this situation to the Catholic Church (and, most probably, the Lutheran and Episcopalian) and see that the dilemma remains.

Probably not Lutheran. Probably so on Episcopalian.

That said, you are going to have a hard time convincing me this is a legit logical conclusion on Christianity given my thoughts on Catholic theolgoy.

 

[gsvol]

I'll get to the rest of your questions later, GS. For now, let's have fun with hypothetical situations.

Let's start with these givens:

1. The majority of religions persons who subscribe to the teachings of the New Testament consider themselves as Roman Catholics.

2. The Roman Catholic Church, according to The Catechism of the Catholic Church, has three conditions for sin:
a. Has to know the act is a sin
b. Has to willingly desire to do the act
c. Has to commit the act

3. Jesus states in the New Testament that not a letter of the law is invalid.

4. The Mosaic Law states explicitly that an adulteress is to be punished by death.

5. Jesus, when he comes upon a woman who is about to be stoned for adultery, says, "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone".

6. Baptism, according to all Christian doctrine I have ever been encountered, immediately clears the recipient of both Original Sin and past sins; therefore, at the moment of baptism, the new Christian is without sin.

Situation:

A woman is charged with adultery and brought to a church where a person has just been baptized. The preacher instructs the new "Christian" to kill the woman. Can he refuse to do so and base his refusal on scripture?

Your hypothetical question is absurd for two reasons,
you are wrong on point three and what you propose
doesn't ever happen nor is it likely to ever happen.

Then too you conviently overlook the option of
repentence.

Not so with islam.

Your thinking is on par though with suicidal
socialistic policies of most western governments.

Pajamas Media Islamists on Welfare: Paid to Plot the West?s Demise

Even worse, many well-known Islamic radicals
are on the dole. The irony of the situation is
inescapable: their parasitical behavior obliges
governments, through taxpayers, to subsidize
their adopted country’s own destruction.
----------------------------

Not even revelations that some actual terrorists
collect welfare payments before and after they
commit their crimes have prompted sweeping
reforms of the benefits system.
-------------------------------

Seriousness is long overdue. As an Islamist
Watch blog post from 2009 put it, “Only one
adjective properly describes a government
that funds those who seek its destruction:
suicidal.”

 

[therealUT]

Your hypothetical question is absurd for two reasons,
you are wrong on point three

Comes straight from the Gospels. I am sorry that is not to your liking.

and what you propose
doesn't ever happen nor is it likely to ever happen.

Doesn't matter. The fact is that Christian scripture contains such a hypothetical dilemma.

Then too you conviently overlook the option of
repentence.

Not so with islam.

Right...

Aside from the verses in the Koran concerning forgiveness. I guess those are only pertinent in the Christian NT, though.

 

[therealUT]

You use 'born-again' as if it were a derogatory term.

I most certainly do not. It is how the President of Uganda describes his faith. Any derogatory connotation you perceive from those words is your own problem.

Regardless of what faith is claimed by the Ugandan president, that law wasn't derived from what is written in the Gospel of Christ, the same cannot be said about the teachings of islam.

That is certainly written in the Mosaic Law; Jesus validates Mosaic Law in the Gospels.

As I said, that's the first I've heard of that.

Can you say in what numbers and are they Ugandan military troops or private contractors?

Large numbers. Every guard tower surrounding every FOB in Iraq and Afghanistan is manned by Ugandans working for SOC (Securing our Country).

Again, these actions come from either tribal taboos or from islam, not from the Gospel.

That sure is convenient for your argument. If Christians commit atrocities, it can never be from a perverted reading of the Bible, it has to be from their savage cultures; if Muslims commit atrocities, though, it has to come from the correct reading of the Koran.

Again, on a world wide basis, no other group is so misogynistic as the so-called religion of islam and most of those viewpoints are codified in their (claimed to be divinely inspired) texts.

How do you define "group"? The Chinese government is highly misogynistic; as is the Indian government which force sterilizes lower caste women after two children.

The major difference between a nation in which has a majority Christian population and a nation that considers itself an islamic state is sharia law.

What is Uganda's law founded on? Not Sharia, I'll tell you that much.

Would you say then this is a case of bigotry in action?

bigot, n. A person who is rigidly devoted to his own group, religion, race or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

From the man who is giving the presentation, yes.

 

[gsvol]

Comes straight from the Gospels. I am sorry that is not to your liking.

What you are spewing is pure taqqiya.

Either that or you don't understand the first thing
about the Gospels.

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I
have loved you, so you must love one another. By
this all men will know that you are my disciples,
if you love one another."
(NIV, John 13:34-35)

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an
eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' "But I say to you,
do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps
you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.
(NAS, Matthew 5:38-39)

So in everything, do to others what you would have
them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the
Prophets.
(NIV, Matthew 7:12)

Doesn't matter. The fact is that Christian scripture contains such a hypothetical dilemma.

For a twisted mind perhaps.

Right...

Aside from the verses in the Koran concerning forgiveness. I guess those are only pertinent in the Christian NT, though.

Do you believe the koran is divinely inspired and
that Gabriel told Muhammed what was to be written??

The later, more violent, less forgiving verses in the
koran take precedence over the earlier ones, all
islamic scholars agree on this.

I most certainly do not. It is how the President of Uganda describes his faith. Any derogatory connotation you perceive from those words is your own problem.

You don't describe your own faith in like manner
do you??

That is certainly written in the Mosaic Law; Jesus validates Mosaic Law in the Gospels.

Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law and gave us a new
law, one of redemption that was open not just to
the Hebrew but to all of mankind who would
individually believe.

Large numbers. Every guard tower surrounding every FOB in Iraq and Afghanistan is manned by Ugandans working for SOC (Securing our Country).

Funny, I'd not heard of that at all, are they
employed by private contractors.

That sure is convenient for your argument. If Christians commit atrocities, it can never be from a perverted reading of the Bible, it has to be from their savage cultures; if Muslims commit atrocities, though, it has to come from the correct reading of the Koran.

Look at this past century, millions of people
were killed for the sake of jihad.

Look at an every day reading of current events,
every day there is violence done in the name of
islamic jihad.

How do you define "group"? The Chinese government is highly misogynistic; as is the Indian government which force sterilizes lower caste women after two children.

Admittedly the Chinese and Indian governments have
some rather stringent population control policies
but under islamic sharia law women are treated as
virtual chattel their entire lives.

What is Uganda's law founded on? Not Sharia, I'll tell you that much.

And I can tell you it's not founded on the Gospel.

You won't find verses in the Gospel that condone
such a law but you can easily find such verses in
the koran which authenticates islamic sharia.

From the man who is giving the presentation, yes.

But it is not bigotry to push for the establishment
of islamic sharia and a world caliphate??

And the Egyptian giving the lecture on what it
is like to live under sharia law certainly IS NOTbigotry!