YouTube censoring a video which only quotes the Quran

[Aeson]

Originally posted by aneeshm
OK.So you claim that the Quran is, irrespective of whatever argument people who disagree put forth, quoted "out of context".

No. Now you are misconstruing what I said.

When someone presents a verse stripped of all qualification and/or mangles the text, then pretends it applies to what it does not, I think it is "out of context". If you have any arguments against what I have said, feel free to address those points specifically.

How about I provide some context, then? The Hadith would do nicely, won't they?

Copy and pasting a chapter from "Understanding Islam through Hadis" is unnecessary. If I want to read that book I'd check it out from the library. (But sadly could not do so in India, since it's banned there, right? India is such a weird place, banning books by Hindu authors about how to interpret Muslim beliefs...)

If you want to start a general discussion about the Hadith, feel free.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I'd be interested in seeing this done with the New Testament since I've been trumped in debates making this claim before.

Matt. 10:34-36

34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law 36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.

That's Jesus speaking. And again:

Luke 22.36

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."

[Robert]

Before I reply to Aeson's responses to my Quran texts I need to address this first.

Aeson:

A person's faith is based on their own interpretation. People using the same text (Bible or Quran) as a foundation come to wildly different conclusions in that regard.

That's true. Everybody can interpret anything in anyway they want. I'm sure that it's possible to start a war in the name of Ghandi. The question is if we can blame Ghandi if someone starts a war in his name?

I don't think that every interpretation is a valid interpretation.
Basing capitalism based on Marx is not a valid interpretation of Marx.

Yes, the Bible has been interpretated in many ways. Many of those ways aren't valid, imho. That doesn't stop people from making these interpretations. But it should stop the sane people from blaming the Bible or Christianity for what the fools do.

Every group, religion, ideology or political stream have their idiots. The main question is: Are the idiots making their claims because of their belief or despite of it?

In christianity, many things are open for interpretation. Paul states that clearly. What can people eat, should people obey certain feasts or days, how do we pray, etc.
There are things that aren't open for interpretation though, imho. (That doesn't stop people from doing so though)

About the ressurection, imho, Paul is very clear that it happened. Now one can say that Paul is wrong or Paul never said that and it's a later insertion, etc.
But saying so is not an interpretation but an altering of the texts.

If one believes that Paul actually wrote that and that Paul had the knowledge he needed to write it, then it's impossible to interpret Paul in any different way then that he believed that Jesus raise from the grave.

1 Cor 15
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

I know that some christians do still deny that Christ rised from the grave, but they don't do that based on a different interpretation of 1 Cor 15, but based on their rejection of 1 Cor 15 as a trustworthy source.

Bottom line: yes, it's possible to interpret anything in several ways, but not all interpretations are valid ones.
And I think that it's valid to read the entire Quran from beginning to end, and conclude that Allah expects a jihad from it's followers.

I don't think that it's valid to conclude after reading the Bible from beginning to ending that God or Jesus expect violence or some kind of a jihad from christians.

The core of the faith of someone who believes they are told to be peaceful... is peace.

The question is not if people will interpret different books in an evil way, but the question is if we can blame those books for that interpretation.

If I say: "Purple people are evil and deserve dead but we are not allowed or supposed to kill them!" then it's not valid to interpret this as an order to kill purple people.

If I say: "Purple people are evil and deserve dead"
Then it would be valid to interpret it that they should be killed.

The message of the New Testament is forgiving, love, don't judge another, be humble, turn the other cheek.

You missed the whole point about Jesus I'm afraid. Your assessment of Christianity is based on his teachings. (You know, the "nice" stuff in the Bible.) Yet you deny that they are Muslim teachings as well. The Quran refutes you

Yes, the Quran took a lot from the Bible.
Yet do Muslims claim that the Bible as we have it right now is not the real Bible, but a corrupted version.

CyberShy:
quote:
004.083
004.084

Aeson: These "pagans" are a specific group in Mecca who had been waging war against Muslims in Medina ~620AD. It still holds to the "aggress not" ideal.

btw, there are no 'pagans' in 004.084, just unbelievers. It's your interpretation perhaps that that's directed to a specific group that waged war against Muhammed, it may even be a valid interpretation, but it's also valid to interpret that muslims should wage war against all unbelievers.

Surely since the text of the Quran itself doesn't explain to us what these pagans are.
In the caves of Tora Bora there is no access to the internet and there are no libraries with many books.

Not to mention that the word 'unbeliever' is an easy to understand word. Why would someone do a google search for it?
In short, it's completely valid to claim from this text, even if you read all of the Quran, that Allah wants muslims to fight unbelievers.

I'm just a casual reader. 5 minutes on Google will give you more than you need to know about just about anything. It's not that hard to look into stuff.

So, the Quran couldn't be understood for centuries, till google came and teached us?

You're the "theologian", finding this sort of context should be something you... um... do?

There are many interpretations of the 'evil' parts of the Quran. Your interpretation is just one of them. I consider your interpretation valid, but I do also consider the interpretation of Osama Bin Laden valid.

The bad thing is that for Osama's interpretation you just only need to read the Quran. For your interpretation you need other sources. Therefor it's natural that most Muslims will by default have more sympathy for Osama Bin Laden then for a modern liberal Muslim who claims that Osama Bin Laden is wrong.

I think what you mean to say is, "People who don't think for themselves are going to come to the wrong conclusion." Because you know... it's not like anyone's ever read the Bible and come to a different conclusion about what it's saying...

Those participants of the crusaders never read the Bible. The Catholic Church had forbidden it's members to read the Bible. If those crusaders had read the Bible then I'm sure they would've never gone on a crusade.

The Roman Catholic emperors were power hungry people who used their faith and the ignorance of their people to wage war. It's known that thieves and criminals went on crusade to escape from their punishments.

In Northern Ireland both fighting parties use their faith (catholicism or protestantism) more as culture then that they have a clue. My wife, a journalist, visited Northern Ireland and spoke to a Catholic, a Protestant and an evangelical christian. The catholic and the protestant barely knew about their faith, never read the Bible, but were just a catholic and a protestant because their parents were. The evangelical christian used to be a terroristic protestant, who said that after he started to read the Bible he found out that what he was doing was not was Jesus told him to do.

It's not for nothing that there are 2.1 billion christians on this world, and only a very few of them use violence in the name of God.

There are 1 billion Muslims on this world, and for some weird reason many of them support violence, even if they never use it themselves.
Polls overhere in Holland showed that the majority of the muslims had symphathy for OBL. Many of them said that 9/11 was justice. They may never use violence themselves, but if they read the Quran then the Quran backs them up in their hate against the unbelievers.

Ah, so it doesn't matter that when God told Moses to slay all the idol worshippers, that we differentiate between those specific idol worshippers, or any idol worshippers at any time?

He did?
Quote the Bible where it says so.
Moses was only told to kill the people who lived in Canaan. It was an order given to the Jews and it came to an end after the job was done.

The Bible is a chronological book.
Unlike the Quran, which is a message for all believers.

There's no argument that the Koran (and Old Testament) are much more "eye for an eye" type stuff. But that wasn't what you were trying to prove.

There is an argument though that the "eye for an eye" stuff clearly ended with the fulfilling of the Old Testament. The problem with the Quran is that it was never fulfilled, like the OT, and the violence was never ended.

And I'm not aware of any Christian nation* which has "turned the other cheek" in a war instigated against them. So it's hardly a just comparison.

We, christians, suck at being good christians

Which means you went to one of those "Christians = Good, Muslim = Bad" sites and copy and pasted their ready-made misrepresentations without looking up the context?

I've used my Quran search engine (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchquran.html)
And yes, I have read the context. The 1st context is always the surrounding text. The 2nd context is the entire Quran. The 3rd context would be the history, but since the Quran isn't a history book nor being read as a history book by most Muslims (as in: 'this is a message for the past, not a message for now') that 3rd context is hardly important for Muslims.

I'm the last one who would blame Muhammed for marrying a 9 year old girl. Different times, different marriages. I'd rather blame that time for that, but not Muhammed or Islam.

And you consider yourself "studying" theology?

you're a good debater, you have good knowledge. It's a pitty that you get personal. The more because you don't need it.

I'm studying christian theology.
Someone in this thread accused me of knowing nothing about my faith. I responded by saying that there's a lot for me to learn indeed, but that I'm not a common ignorant person about christianity. Thus I wasn't claiming that I know more or I am better informed then others. I just said that to counter the personal insults people trew at me.

I really consider it to be bad form that you trow this at me right now. I hope we can continue our debate based in arguments.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by CyberShy
That's true. Everybody can interpret anything in anyway they want. I'm sure that it's possible to start a war in the name of Ghandi. The question is if we can blame Ghandi if someone starts a war in his name?

You always blame the people who start the war. Doesn't matter what they use to justify it. This is what you can't seem to understand, that it cuts both ways. You want to blame the Quran, exonerate the Bible.

Every group, religion, ideology or political stream have their idiots.

This is really all it comes down to. (Well, that and people who are greedy, or cruel, ect.)

The main question is: Are the idiots making their claims because of their belief or despite of it?

They are making their claims because of their beliefs or ulterior motives.

Bottom line: yes, it's possible to interpret anything in several ways, but not all interpretations are valid ones.
And I think that it's valid to read the entire Quran from beginning to end, and conclude that Allah expects a jihad from it's followers.

As it is to read the Bible and conclude that God expects you to stone adulterers, kill idol worshippers, ect. You just can't see past your own personal interpretation of the Bible. You want any interpretation to be "valid" for the Quran, but only your interpretation "valid" for the Bible.

I don't think that it's valid to conclude after reading the Bible from beginning to ending that God or Jesus expect violence or some kind of a jihad from christians.

It is. As is made clear by how many Christians still take the "fire and brimstone" view of the Bible. You may "clearly" see otherwise, but the Bible contradicts itself in so many cases... What to take as "gospel truth", and what's just human error can be applied in many different ways.

The question is not if people will interpret different books in an evil way, but the question is if we can blame those books for that interpretation.

Books are books... people are responsible for their actions, books are not.

The message of the New Testament is forgiving, love, don't judge another, be humble, turn the other cheek.

And that if you don't accept Jesus as your savior you're going to be stuck with the Old Testament style beat-down after this life... for all eternity. (The notion of Hell is one that's very similar in both the Bible and Quran.)

btw, there are no 'pagans' in 004.084, just unbelievers. It's your interpretation perhaps that that's directed to a specific group that waged war against Muhammed, it may even be a valid interpretation, but it's also valid to interpret that muslims should wage war against all unbelievers.

It's not my interpretation... 4:75 in my copy (N.J. Dawood) has a footnote that clarifies it is directed at Mecca. A quick internet search verified it from several sources. I would assume the footnote is there to clarify something that didn't go over so well in translation, but not sure on that.

(My own interpretation is that Muhammed wanted to justify his wars, just as everyone who starts wars tries to give themselves some moral superiority for the fighting, and that "who started it" is likely a very muddled picture.)

Not to mention that the word 'unbeliever' is an easy to understand word. Why would someone do a google search for it?

You use the dictionary to look up words. I clearly wasn't saying you should look up the meaning of "unbeliever".

I think that anyone who is going to start a war based on what a text tells them should probably at least do a cursory investigation of what the text actually means. Same with anyone who wants to argue about what it means.

In short, it's completely valid to claim from this text, even if you read all of the Quran, that Allah wants muslims to fight unbelievers.

Of course. You just have to figure out who the "unbelievers" are. Otherwise you're just one of those people who are misusing a text to justify what you'd have done anyways.

So, the Quran couldn't be understood for centuries, till google came and teached us?

Obviously.

Before Google there were other avenues of finding information actually... not quite as easy... but for you and I, Google is there. Use it.

There are many interpretations of the 'evil' parts of the Quran. Your interpretation is just one of them. I consider your interpretation valid, but I do also consider the interpretation of Osama Bin Laden valid.

I haven't had any theological discussions with Bin Laden, so wouldn't deem his interpretations valid or not. His actions actually would be in accordance with the Quran's passages I mentioned if you assume that he is fighting against an aggressor towards, or oppressor of the believers.

(But as said before... in the end he's just using some text to justify what he wanted to do anyways. His crimes are not the text's fault. They're Bin Laden's.)

The bad thing is that for Osama's interpretation you just only need to read the Quran. For your interpretation you need other sources. Therefor it's natural that most Muslims will by default have more sympathy for Osama Bin Laden then for a modern liberal Muslim who claims that Osama Bin Laden is wrong.

If you look into what aneeshm is talking about, you would understand how ludicrous it is to say most Muslims only interpret the Quran based on what is in the Quran. The opposite is true, the Hadith is as much a part of the average Muslim's interpretation of the Quran as the Quran is. Only a small minority of Muslims hold that the Quran stands on it's own, without the Hadith.

Those participants of the crusaders never read the Bible. The Catholic Church had forbidden it's members to read the Bible. If those crusaders had read the Bible then I'm sure they would've never gone on a crusade.

Most of them went for spoils of war, or because it was what they had to do based on their position. Religion, as always, is just an excuse. If they had read the Bible (those few who could read), they would have picked the parts that suited them, and ignored the rest. That's what people do.

It's not for nothing that there are 2.1 billion christians on this world, and only a very few of them use violence in the name of God.

There are 1 billion Muslims on this world, and for some weird reason many of them support violence, even if they never use it themselves.

It couldn't have anything to do with economics and politics... it must all be due to the Bible vs Quran!

He did?
Quote the Bible where it says so.
Moses was only told to kill the people who lived in Canaan. It was an order given to the Jews and it came to an end after the job was done.

"Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who [is] on the LORD'S side? [let him come] unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, [and] go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men." KJV Exodus 32:26-28

I think there are a couple other instances too, on a much smaller scale, but not sure where they are. (The whole "go commit genocide to claim the promised land" thing isn't very nice either. And threatens the safety and security of all of humanity even to this day.)

There is an argument though that the "eye for an eye" stuff clearly ended with the fulfilling of the Old Testament.

"Clearly" being not so clear.

Let me ask you this, do you believe in Hell?

The problem with the Quran is that it was never fulfilled, like the OT, and the violence was never ended.

The Quran states that for peace to be joined, it only has to be asked for and kept.

The 3rd context would be the history, but since the Quran isn't a history book nor being read as a history book by most Muslims (as in: 'this is a message for the past, not a message for now') that 3rd context is hardly important for Muslims.

Um... it's important for anyone who wants to really understand. I'm sure many Muslims find it's historical context meaningful.

I'm studying christian theology.
Someone in this thread accused me of knowing nothing about my faith. I responded by saying that there's a lot for me to learn indeed, but that I'm not a common ignorant person about christianity. Thus I wasn't claiming that I know more or I am better informed then others. I just said that to counter the personal insults people trew at me.

Actually you also made the statement that you have had courses about Islam, and are studying to be a theologian, in regards to a question I asked.

I really consider it to be bad form that you trow this at me right now. I hope we can continue our debate based in arguments.

If you want to stick to arguments, fine. If you want to put your qualifications out there as if it is relevent information, you're the one making it part of the discussion and I will address it as I see fit.

[Robert]

Aesson, a small reaction since I have to go,
NO, I do not only consider my 'own' interpretation to be valid.
And with 'valid' I don't mean 'true'. With valid I mean that it's possible to conclude it from the text.

I do surely believe that Jesus Christ is God Himself. YHWH from the Old Testament.
But I think that technically it is valid to say that Jesus is a God, but not God himself, but morely the first creation of God.

I'm not advocating my own interpretation of the Bible here. I'm advocating that it is possible to have opposite interpretations, but that not all interpretations are valid.

You can interpretate violence actions from a part of the Bible, but not from the entire Bible. That's my point.
"An eye for an eye" has really been made absolute by Jesus. It's therefor not able to interpretate the Bible as a source for "An Eye for an eye" unless you want to reject the words of Jesus. But then you can't really be named a christian.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later.

[Arrian]

"An eye for an eye" has really been made absolute by Jesus

I take it you meant obsolete.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Instead of intellectually masturbating over "interpretation", why not simply take the common-sense meaning of the texts which is obvious to the reader who reads it without prior knowledge? Isn't that the most sensible way to decide the "true" nature of a religion which is book-based?

[LordShiva]

No.

[Arrian]

Unless the reader is reading the text in its original language and is familiar with the culture that produced it, it's going to require some interpretation.

So here we have people reading the Bible and Quran in English (translated how many freakin' times) thousands of years after the stuff was written...

The meaning isn't always plain.

Now me, I'm not big on either book. It's pretty amusing when proponents of one or the other go on about how much better theirs is, though...

-Arrian

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Arrian
It's pretty amusing when proponents of one or the other go on about how much better theirs is, though...

QFT

[Arrian]

Caveat: it's amusing right up until the moment one of them starts killing people. Then it sucks, just a little bit...

-Arrian

[Aeson]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Instead of intellectually masturbating over "interpretation", why not simply take the common-sense meaning of the texts which is obvious to the reader who reads it without prior knowledge? Isn't that the most sensible way to decide the "true" nature of a religion which is book-based?

Yah, obviously there's a common sense way to read it. That's why there's never been any disagreement about what it means.

You can come to many different conclusions about the overall "theme" while reading the Bible, even with the proper contexts. Same with the Quran. This is probably why they've been so successful as religious texts, because regardless of what your ambitions are, you can likely find justification for them within.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I'm not advocating my own interpretation of the Bible here. I'm advocating that it is possible to have opposite interpretations, but that not all interpretations are valid.

You say your interpretation is valid, and those you don't agree with are invalid. This is how you justify your statements that Christianity can't be viewed as aggressive, and Islam must be.

Reading both the Bible, and the Quran, there are justifications in both for either peace or war.

You can interpretate violence actions from a part of the Bible, but not from the entire Bible. That's my point.
"An eye for an eye" has really been made absolute by Jesus. It's therefor not able to interpretate the Bible as a source for "An Eye for an eye" unless you want to reject the words of Jesus. But then you can't really be named a christian.

Unless you interpret things differently than you are doing. When Jesus said he came with a sword... he was refering to the way that the Messiah was supposedly going to manifest himself. That is, not so peacefully.

The ultimate "eye for an eye" (or rather, going far past that point in retribution) is the concept of Hell though. Even Jesus' sacrifice was only to appease "eye for an eye", just substituting his own. I think it's very clear that Christian doctrine is that retribution of some form is always necessary. It's supposed to be left up to God, but the Bible also shows that people can be God's tool in that work (eg. the Levites slaying the idolators).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Instead of intellectually masturbating over "interpretation", why not simply take the common-sense meaning of the texts which is obvious to the reader who reads it without prior knowledge? Isn't that the most sensible way to decide the "true" nature of a religion which is book-based?

Why don't we apply that system to the law as well? We don't need lawyers and judges, since there's a single obvious common-sense interpretation of everything.

[Robert]

You say your interpretation is valid, and those you don't agree with are invalid.

No, I didn't say that.
I even gave examples of doctrines I totally disagree with which I think that they are valid interpretations.

I think I was pretty clear:

CyberShy: I do surely believe that Jesus Christ is God Himself. YHWH from the Old Testament.
But I think that technically it is valid to say that Jesus is a God, but not God himself, but morely the first creation of God.

Aesson: This is how you justify your statements that Christianity can't be viewed as aggressive, and Islam must be.

No, christians don't have been ordered to use aggression. Christians are even forbidden to use aggression. In such a clear way that it can't be interpretated differently if one reads the entire Bible. Sure, if you rip a part of a line out of it's textual context, one may do it, but if one reads the whole Bible, it's clear that one can't.

Reading both the Bible, and the Quran, there are justifications in both for either peace or war.

there is both peace and war in both the Quran and the Bible, that's true. But christians are nowhere in the Bible ordered to start a war themselves or use aggression themselves. Muslims are.

It's as simple as that.
but tell me, quote a part of the Bible where christians are asked to start a war or to use aggression.

Unless you interpret things differently than you are doing. When Jesus said he came with a sword... he was refering to the way that the Messiah was supposedly going to manifest himself. That is, not so peacefully.

That's true. In the end Jesus will bring justice.
But the Bible is clear that it's Jesus who brings justice, not the christians. Christians are even told to not judge each other.

That's not a matter of interpretation, that's just what it says in clear simple words.

Only a fool would interpret it different. And yes, there have been fools and there will be fools. But for the Quran one doesn't have to be a fool to interpret it in such a way to start a war.

The ultimate "eye for an eye" (or rather, going far past that point in retribution) is the concept of Hell though. Even Jesus' sacrifice was only to appease "eye for an eye", just substituting his own.

That's interpretation, and I don't agree with you. (It's a valid interpretation though )
But yes, you're right, christianity is not all about peace and happyness. It has justice as well.
But once again, justice is to God and to Jesus. Christians have to love one another, pray for their enemies, turn the cheek.

It's as simple as that.
As a child I understood that my father could punish my sister but I could not. I had to be good to her.
A child can understand it.

I think it's very clear that Christian doctrine is that retribution of some form is always necessary. It's supposed to be left up to God, but the Bible also shows that people can be God's tool in that work (eg. the Levites slaying the idolators).

Yes, but that's in a historical context.
The Quran lacks that historical context in the text itself. It just says "Slay the idolators". And not to a specific group (the Levites, who do not exist anymore, or hardly) but just to all believers. One may interpret to only count for Muhammed in the days of Muhammed, but that's only an interpretation.

If I tell you: "Paint your and my car red" then you would be a fool to paint all cars red and say that I told you.

If I tell you: "Paint cars red" then you could defenitely interpret me to paint all cars red. Eventhough I may just have meant your car and my car.

And that's the difference.
I don't say that there aren't fools who paint all cars red despite that I told them to paint only your and my car red. But after my first line I can expect people to just paint my car and your car red. After my 2nd line I can expect people to go nuts.

Yah, obviously there's a common sense way to read it. That's why there's never been any disagreement about what it means.

The nicean creed, acknowledged by about all christians (99%?) shows that christians do not disagree about the core of their religion. And indeed, there's a lot they can disagree about, but Paul already told us that we could disagree about a lot of things.

Same with the Quran. This is probably why they've been so successful as religious texts, because regardless of what your ambitions are, you can likely find justification for them within.

That's your modern liberal way of looking at it.
And you're not going to change it, because that's just the way you have ordered and explained religion to yourself, and therefor it's an important base for your non-belief.

But in the end you don't get it.
You don't get that christians can disagree about many things. That it's never been the purpose of christians to all be the same. " A jew among the jews and a greek among the greeks" is a well known Biblical phrase. You misidentify the big christian tolerance for a broad interpretation of the Bible. You also misunderstand the Bible as if it's our Quran. The Bible is not to christians what the Quran is for Muslims.

Religions are not alike. Hinduism isn't alike to christianity, judaism isn't alike to Islam, etc. You just see some common grounds and conclude that it's all the same. Do you not get that some religions are more doctrine based. Others are more based in rituals. Other religions are based on honoring the past. Again other religions are based upon peace and brothership.

A religion is not: a God + a holy book + living a good life = religion

Christians are NOT supposed to be all the same. There's no holy language, no holy city or mountain. All we have to believe is that Jesus Christ died for our sins. And that we have to love each other like we love ourselves. And all christians do believe so. (and fail to do so).

And you come and say that christians interpretate things differently, but you just base your opinion on sects. on fools. About the billions of christians in history only a few supported war.
That's a big difference with Muslims. A huge part of the Muslim population does support war and Jihad. Even those nice neighbours of you most probably do. They will not start it themselves, but deep in their hearts they have sympathy for Iran and OBL. And if you ask them, they will deny it, since Muslims never disagree with their guests. But if you become their friends, then they will disagree with you, since Muslims are very noble and polite people. They don't publicly disagree with strangers.

That's based on experience and on the experience of many others. Even a dutch journalist, who described himself as left-wing, once told that he had traveled the world and met many Muslims all over the world. He said that in the beginnig most Muslims told him they disagreed with OBL and really hated what he was doing. But the more often he visited the same people, the more friends they become. And all of the sudden he found out that they actually did agree with OBL. He told on the radio that he was shocked, because all he believed in as a left-wing journalist crumbled.

And that's why you will never see big groups of Muslims protest against Iran, OBL, Sharia, etc.

And you will obviously say that I have no proof for that, that I have to give links or that I just use straw men. Well, I can't proof it, that's clear. And that's why this debate will go nowhere in the end.
You just have your ideology, and that's that every religion can be interpretated in a violent way, but that most people are nice friendly peace loving people.

Do you know another difference between Muslims and christians? Muslims fear dead and Allah. Muslims always say "Peace be with him" if they pray for died people. Even for Muhammed. you know why? Because even Muhammed can't be sure to enter paradise. nobody in Islam can be sure. They are always terrified to end up in hell. That's why they blow themselves up in public! They earn hell as a martyr.

Do you know the difference between a christian martyr and a muslim martyr? A christian martyr is being killed because of his faith. A muslim martyr kills others because of his faith.

You base your opinion on nothing but study table theology. I dare you to go out of your door, meet muslims, become friends with them, and keep talking to them. First you'll notice that they are very very very nice people. We can learn a lot from them! They are more polite, more friendly, more eager to give. And when you learn them to know long enough you'll find that they do reject the western society, and hope that it'll crumble one day and support anyone who does try to destroy it.

You don't know how many muslims I have met that watch porn on their mobile and call western girls whores while doing so. How much they drink from the western civilization, they still reject it and hate it.

The problem is that the secular people of our civilization think: "Muslims are like christians, we must just treat them like christians, and in the end all will be fine."
And that's just wrong. Muslims have a totally different believe then christians. It's not for nothing that in the 'christian world' our western civilization started, while the muslim world still is totally different.

The seperation of church and state is a CHRISTIAN invention. The Bible already tells us to give to the emperor what belongs to him. To obey the administration, etc. That's obviously open to interpretation, but at least it's very possible to interpret it that way. There's nothing in the Quran that justifies the seperation of Church and State. Therefor you can't expect this to work for muslims. Muslims must lose their faith to accept the seperation of church and state.

I'm not trying to say that christianity is a better faith.
Perhaps the Muslims are right, and it's a good thing to spread to only right moral over the world, if needed by the sword. It's just our western opinion that we should keep talking and talking. I just try to state that there are HUGE differences between both religions and both civilizations. They are not alike.