A Dialogue between John Fraiser and Ibn Anwar Part 2

The following is my response to John Fraiser’s latest comment

by Ibn Anwar

John Fraiser:

• Ibn,
You wrote:
“I believe calling you stupid was about the only instance I ‘insulted’ you. To say that you have on your hands a Muslim with ‘lots’ of insults is a wee bit of an exaggeration don’t you think?”
Incorrect. You insulted me more than once. Here are the places you insulted me: “have you just come out of the jungle?” “Are you seriously that stupid?” “So really Fraiser…go learn some more.”

 

My Response:
Yes, well the jungle thing is connected to the sentence which followed it wherein I called you stupid. I stand by the fact that you saying that I have “lots” of insults for you is quite an exaggeration.

John Fraiser:

I don’t mind dialogue. I don’t mind disagreement. What I won’t tolerate is personal insult. So if you can’t dialogue with respect then I will not dialogue with you, plain and simple. So consider this a warning. I will not converse any further with you if you cannot do so with respect.

 

My Response:
Well, I would afford you respect, if you refrain from  making further silly comments like “most Muslims hate non-arabs”.

 

John Fraiser:

“No, I do not consider myself more intelligent than you or that I’m your instructor. I’m not sure where you got that from.”

Well, since you called me stupid, it logically follows that the only possible way you don’t consider yourself more intelligent than me is if you consider yourself as stupid or less stupid than you judged me to be. I presume that you don’t consider yourself to be as stupid as you accused me of being.
My Response:
Generally, I do not consider myself more intelligent than you. My calling you stupid was within the context of you saying “most Muslims hate non-arabs”. I did not rule you out as a thoroughly and completely stupid person(in all things).

“The reason why I called you stupid and asked if you’ve just came out of the jungle is because you made a rather unintelligent, foolish, stupid call it what you want remark i.e. ‘most Muslims dislike non-Arab Muslims.’”
Had you simply stated that my comment was stupid, I wouldn’t be making this big of a deal about your comment. But you didn’t call my comment stupid, you called me stupid. You should recognize that even intelligent people make stupid comments, but this does not make them stupid. I will show you respect, but I demand that you do the same, and up to this point, all you’ve done is defend your insults and offer excuses.

 

My Response:
Well, who made the comment? Comments are words, how can they be stupid? The person who produced those comments are to be held responsible, not the words. So yes, you were very much mistaken and stupid to make such a sweeping statement like “most Muslims hate non-Arabs” since as I have explained most Muslims aren’t even Arabs, so that would imply they the “Most Muslims(who are non-arabs)” hate themselves. You then tried to wriggle your way out of the error by saying “I now realize my statement is unclear, and see why you read it the way you did. But the statement is not incorrect. I did not say that most muslims hate ALL non-arabs, but the fact is that most muslims do hate Israelis, and Israelis are not Arab. So to say that most muslims hate non-arabs is correct since I don’t mean that they hate all non-arabs.” How is the statement you made INITIALLY not incorrect? The elaboration which you have just come up with was not there when I took the comments in the manner I did. You never qualified that the non-arabs which you may have meant are actually the Jews. The comment was in a very sweeping manner, hence forcing me to explain how erroneous it was. So the fault lies in you and had you made yourself more clear, we would not be wasting our time arguing on this point. In any case, the Muslims may hate the Israelis, but they do not hate them because they are Israelis. You make the Muslims seem so unreasonable. You fail to recognise the reasons behind the tension that exist between the Muslims and the Israelis, thus making you to say all these nonsensical things. In addition, it is not just us Muslims who dislike and despise Israelis, but even the Orthodox Jews are against them. Are they racist too? Come on man..seriously. Orthodox Jews against Zionism/Israel http://youtube.com/watch?v=1rAvt5g-SZY.

 

John Fraiser:

“In any case, what I called you is inconsequential and INSIPID compared to how your Lord and Saviour spoke to his people.”
This is another attempt to excuse yourself. I’ll explain the difference between your insults and Jesus Christ’s insults: you are not the Lord of all creation, and you are not the judge of all things. However, Christ is. So if Christ calls someone a wicked and adulterous generation, this is not just insulting rhetoric (such as your comments), it is true. If Christ says that the Pharisees were “whited sepulchers” then his judgment is true. It is his place to pass judgment, not mine. It is his place to pass judgment, not yours. So Christ, and Christ alone, has this authority as the Judge, to make these judgments. So to say that since Christ judged people, I can’t object to your insults is a specious argument. Your argument makes about as much sense as saying that if God says “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13), then he is not allowed to kill. God relates to his law as the lawgiver not the subject under the law.

 
My Response:
You argument is that Jesus is God, his judgments are true, so he cannot he held accountable for the insults he made. Well, my quoting the verses where Jesus used rather harsh language for his people was in response to your saying and I quote, “ If you consider yourself so intelligent and consider yourself to be my instructor then you should know better than to use ad hominems…” I’m sure Jesus was intelligent (assuming he’s God) and he was surely an instructor and a great teacher of his people, so, whether his judgments were true or not, you should also hold him accountable for all those insults. If by your logic that Jesus was correct in his judgments, then applying the same logic, you should not question my calling you stupid for making the statement since as I have illustrated more than once you were quite stupid to make such a statement. In addition, you have now contradicted your scriptures. You’re saying Jesus made judgments and were right to do so. I’m reading something else from your books:
“You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one”.(John 8:15)

“As for the person who hears my words but do not keep them, I DO NOT JUDGE HIM. FOR I DID NOT COME TO JUDGE THE WORLD, but to save it.” (John 12:47)
In any case, your argument is based on your presumed belief that Jesus is God, so that excuses him. Well, I do not believe Jesus is God and I can show you why. But that is a whole new other topic, a whole new other can of worms. You may refer to http://unveilingchristianity.wordpress.com/2008/04/06/why-is-jesus-god/ for some elementary information on why Jesus isn’t God.

Finally, you said ad I quote,”I’ll explain the difference between your insults and Jesus Christ’s insults”. Thank you for swallowing the horse and admitting that Jesus did insult. Let us see what insult mean:

–verb (used with object) 1. to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront. 
2. to affect as an affront; offend or demean. 
3. Archaic. to attack; assault. 
–verb (used without object) 4. Archaic. to behave with insolent triumph; exult contemptuously (usually fol. by on, upon, or over). 
–noun 5. an insolent or contemptuously rude action or remark; affront. 
6. something having the effect of an affront: That book is an insult to one’s intelligence. 

So, Jesus acted insolently and rudely, which as you yourself said is not befitting of an “instructor” which jesus clearly was.

Here’s another eye-opening instance of Jesus’ rudeness:

“While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside wanting to speak to you.” He replied to him, “Who is my mother and who are my brothers?” Pointing at his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:46-50)

I think we understand the underlying message, but, is it really necessary to say in one’s mother’s’ presence what Jesus said? Imagine your mother coming to your house and wants to speak to you.Instead of greeting her graciously, you turn around ad look at your close friends already there saying, “Who is my mother?” and then you point at your friends saying,”these are my mothers”..if that’s not rudeness, what in the world is?

 

John Fraiser:

You quoted me as saying: “most Muslims dislike non-Arab Muslims.” This is a clear misquotation. I never said this. What I actually said was, “I find it ironic that you would call this priest a racist given the hatred that most muslims have for non-arabs.” I said that most muslims hate non-arabs, not non-arab muslims. So you have built up your own straw man and knocked him down, but what does that have to do with me?
I now realize my statement is unclear, and see why you read it the way you did. But the statement is not incorrect. I did not say that most muslims hate ALL non-arabs, but the fact is that most muslims do hate Israelis, and Israelis are not Arab. So to say that most muslims hate non-arabs is correct since I don’t mean that they hate all non-arabs.

 

My Response:
The above has been clarified.

 

John Fraiser:

You wrote: “You have convinced me that I was wrong to assume that the priest is racist..so I’m changing the title of the video.”
I’m glad you have let go of the charge of racism, but you should just take the video down altogether. How does a video of a priest slapping a woman help your purpose of unveiling Christianity? Couldn’t I put a video of Muslims cutting off the head of American and European civilians? Isn’t it much more heinous to behead someone than to slap someone? If you approve of this method of defaming a religion then Islam will come out on the losing end by far.

 

My Response:
I have thoroughly explained why I have such videos and articles on the blog more than once to you. I am not a broken record to repeat the same thing over and over again. You may refer to our previous exchanges for the response in case you missed them. I have also stated that you may very well showcase the behaviour, attitutdes and actions of Muslims on your blog. I will not take offence in the least bit. Insha’Allah as I stated they will act as an impetus for Muslims to better themselves provided those videos, articles or whatever they may be are valid.

 

John Fraiser:


“It is no secret that Muslims despite our prejudices against each other are the least racist people on earth.”
You may believe that Muslims are “the least racist people” on earth, but this claim is controversial almost to the point of shock to those who hear it. It is not Christians who have produced maps with whole countries removed from it (such as maps of Israel that some Muslims produce). It is not Christians who make threats on civilians (such as many Muslim terrorists have done). The complaints over racism in America during the 1960’s were largely over segregated schools, separate drinking fountains and discriminating hiring practices. As wrong as this racism is, there are actions performed by Muslims that are far worse than this. Jews are a hated race by many Muslims and to say otherwise is simply to revise history and ignore the facts. Too many Muslims have sworn the destruction of Israel and Jews who seek to live as Jews in their land.

 

My Response:
I have already clarified the above quite a few times and again I do not wish to repeat myself. Fact number one is that if the lie that Islam commands Muslims to hate and eliminate Jews, they the Jews would have ceased to exist since when the only place they were given sanctuary from Christian aggressors like Ferdinand and Isabella were within Muslim territories.

 

John Fraiser:

You wrote: “I do not doubt there are Muslims who are prejudiced against another race even when they belong to Islam.”
So then how can you claim that Muslims are the least racist people? There are many Muslims who fit this description. You say that this “racialist [sic] feeling is kept in check due to the clear prohibition of racism in Islam” but not all Muslims agree with your version of Islam. They think you misinterpret the Qur’an. They think that Muslims are called to do violence against Jews.

 

My Response:
I’m sure there are racist groups of people in all communities and societies, but, in the bigger picture, generally Muslims are the least racist. Take a look at Mecca during the haj, the epitome of a melting pot of non-racism. Yes, Islam is the only religion on earth which explicitly condemns racism in many places in the Qur’an and Sunnah.

 

John Fraiser:
Perhaps they are just taking the Qur’an at it’s word: “O believers! Take not the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another’s friends. If anyone of you takes them for his friends, he is surely one of them” (5:56).
My Response:
Professor Palazzi the Italiam Muslim scholar has beautifully and thoroughly explained the above:
In the December interview, I asked, “The Koran, 5:52 states, ‘O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends of each other. And whoso among you takes them for friends is indeed one of them. Verily Allah guides not the unjust people.’… My question is: How do you reconcile these passages with your views about Jews and Israel?” Prof Palazzi responded by saying, inter alia, “As for the text of the Quranic verse, it’s translation is simply wrong. Awliya’ (tutors and protectors) in Arabic is different from asdiqa’ (friends), and a correct translation is ‘O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for tutors. They are respectively tutors to each other. And whoso among you takes them for tutors is indeed one of them. Verily Allah guides not the unjust people’. To this, the commentary under question raised the following objection:
COMMENT:
Palazzi has a good “Italian blood” and perhaps good intentions, but unfortunately I have to disagree with his faulty and misleading translation of the word awliya’. Awliya’ is the plural form of wali (“governor”) or waliy (“close one”). It is most closely translated to mean more “loyalists”, definitely not “tutors” nor “protectors”.
SHEIKH PROFESSOR PALAZZI RESPONDS:
Awliya’ and wali have many different meanings depending on the context in which they are used. “Tutors” and “protectors” are among the most common meanings for these terms.
In ordinary daily Arabic wali is the term used when referring to “tutor” and “protector”.
In Arabic, the tutor of an orphan is the orphan’s wali.
The representative of a prospective wife in marriage contract negotiations is the prospective wife’s wali.
The Arabic-English Dictionary of the University of Damascus lists among the various meaning for wali:
“Legal guardian. A friend or protector. Someone who is supposed to look out for your interest. Guardian, curator, custodian, keeper, caretaker, patron, sponsor, supporter, protector, defender, friend, associate, companion, saint, holy man, lord, chief, master, owner, proprietor, holder, possessor”.
As may be seen from these examples, the most frequently giving meanings for wali involve custody, protection, patronage, and tutorship; not “loyalist”, as suggested by the comment

COMMENT:
To correctly translate verse #50 from surat al-maa’ida [Qur’an, Sura 5:52, “The Table”] below is to say: “You who have believed, do not take the Jews and Christians as loyalists (because) they are loyal to each other. And he who takes them as close one is one of them. Allah will not guide the unjust people”.
SHEIKH PROFESSOR PALAZZI RESPONDS:
With regard to the Qur’anic verse cited [Qur’an, Sura 5:52, Sura al-maa’ida/”The Table”], the term awliya’ can only refer to tutorship, protection or patronage.
The Qur’an tells us that “Allah is the Wali of those who believe” [Qur’an, Sura 2:257, Sura al-Baqarah/”The Cow”].
Were we to accept the claim according to which Wali means “loyalist” and “definitely” not “tutor” or “protector”, then the translation of this Qur’anic verse would read: “Allah is the loyalist of those who believe”.
According to traditional Sunni interpretation, wali in Qur’anic Arabic means neither ordinary “friendship” nor “loyalism”.
That is the reason why the English translation of this Qurani’c verse by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan reads, “Allah is the Wali (Protector or Guardian) of those who believe”.
The Qur’anic prohibition against Muslims taking Jews and Christians as protectors and guardians directly relates to the Qur’anic affirmation that Allah is the tutor and protector of Muslim believers.

 

John Fraiser:

“Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in Allah, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which Allah and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth” (9:29).

 

My Response:
Yes, the above does seem rather harsh. But I have fully explained it, have I not? I wonder, why you love repeating yourself? Further more, the above translation does not accurately render the word Arabic word “qaatilu” into English.  This is because the Arabic fi’l amr Qaatiloo does not mean “Make war” but rather “fight” or fight back. People often make the error of equaliting qaatil with uqtul. They are totally different. The first means to fight whilst the second means to kill. The word for war in Arabic is Harb and it’s fi’l amr or command verb(Make War) is har’ib which is not to be found in the verse. As for the explanation of the verse as I said has been given in my previous response. You may refer to it again.

 

John Fraiser:

Tell me, where in the Bible Christians are commanded to kill those who of other religions or make war against those who do not believe as they do?

 

My response:

Interesting question. I think I touched the issue in this article :
http://unveilingchristianity.wordpress.com/2007/11/17/apostasy-and-killing-in-christianity/#more-34

Further more, we see in Hebrews:
“If we decide to go sinning after we have learned the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins. There is nothing but fear in waiting for the judgment and the terrible fire that will destroy all those who live against God. Anyone who refused to obey the law of Moses was found guilty on the proof given by two or three witnesses. He was PUT TO DEATH WITHOUT MERCY. So what do you think should be done to those who do not respect the Son of God, who look at the blood of the agreement that made them holy as no different from others’ blood, who insult the Spirit of God’s grace? Surely they should have a MUCH WORSE PUNISHMENT.” (Hebrews 10:26:29)

 

John Fraiser:
There is a Muslim organization called “The International Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders.”
Tell me, what comparable organization exists in Christianity that calls for war against a race like this group does?
Tell me, what children’s television program in Christianity calls for the death of civilians like these Muslim children’s program calls for the death of Americans, Danes, and Jews? (the second video actually uses a rather poor rip-off of Mickey Mouse).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1xL7prrDSo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LgFZGiszXU&feature=related
What these videos teach is nothing short of sick, twisted and wicked.
Official school textbooks of the Palestinian Authority contain songs and poems such as this: “Draw your sword, death will call upon you, and your sword will go wild. Palestine, the young will redeem your land” and “Cherish the jihad fighters who quench the earth of Jerusalem with their blood” and “Jews welcome their own persecution because it is profitable” (Norman Doidge, “The Palestinians’ little bombers: School textbooks teach children to admire the martyr,” National Post [November 9, 2000]).
Tell me, what Christian school textbooks teach anything like this?
Hamas runs a Muslim boys school in Gaza City. Here’s what the boys are instructed to recite: “I will make my body a bomb that will blast the flesh of Zionists, the sons of pigs and monkeys. I will tear their bodies into little pieces and cause them more pain than they will ever know” (Jack Kelley, “Devotion, desire drive youths to ‘martyrdom,’” USA Today [August 5, 2001]).
Tell me, what evidence do you have that children in Christian schools are taught to say and believe things like this?
My point is not that Islam is false because of the racism in it, my point is that you can’t claim that Muslims are the least racist of all people. I don’t propose to know who the least racist religious group is, but it is most certainly not Islam.
If you want to believe this lie, you are certainly free to do so, but the facts do not support your claim. There is no religion on this planet that is more violent than Islam and no religion that is more at war with itself than Islam. Islam will have to be at peace with itself before it can ever convince the world that it is a peaceful religion.

 

My Response:
Get off your high horse of Christian holier than thou attitutde and realise that there are problems in your own backyard and that you guys are not the perfect angels filled with some spirit the Christian evangelists try to make it out to be. It is for the reason of the above attitutde that “show me where Christians have done this or that(implying they haven’t and are good, pure, holy people)” that I have the articles exposing negative Christian behaviours and attitutdes.
Adolph Hitler’s autobiography Mein Kampf mentions that at a Christmas celebration in 1926, Hitler stated;”Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews…The work that Christ started but could not finish,I – Adolph Hitler – will conclude.”
Who helped and supported Hitler and his regime against the Jews?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD9JMwQKirQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehBDArceAlo&feature=related

Jesus(assumed God) terrorises other races :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzJPKk9OBro&feature=related

Children trained to be physical soldiers of God:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpiccERJaFk
Christian terrorism in Northeast India
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christian_terrorism_in_northeast_india.htm
Christian terrorist attempts a bombing in Iowa
http://jdallen.org/news/christian-terrorist-attempts-car-bombing-in-iowa/

Academic research on Christian racism:

http://human-nature.com/nibbs/01/ogilvie.html

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/aah/sierichs_12_4.htm
Daniel Chirot explains that the terrorism and genocide against catholics during the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland was justified based on the Biblical account of Joshua:
“Massacres of whole populations are an ancient phenomenon. The word genocide was first coined only in 1944, but the concept and the act are much older. We all remember the story of how Joshua’s men blew their trumpets and down came the walls of Jericho, the first of the Canaanite cities to fall to the invading people of Israel. Children who are told Biblical stories in Sunday schools are not usually told what happened next. ‘Then ‘ the story continues in Joshua 5, ‘Then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword.’ Only the family of the harlot who had protected Joshua’s spies and betrayed her people was saved. Finally, and I quote again, ‘they burned the city with fire, and all within it.’ Lest you think this is just an ancient story, remember that it inspired Oliver Cromwell in the mid-17th century, whose army invaded Ireland explicitly using the Book of Joshua as an example in what began as a campaign to exterminate Catholicism from that land. He failed, and in the end the English were more practical and only subdued Ireland without wiping out the Catholics, but at the start of the campaign, the intent was there. Historians estimate that close to 20% of Ireland’s population at that time died from war and the diseases and famine that always traveled with invading armies in those days.”
(Daniel Chirot. Why Some Wars Become Genocidal and Others Don’t. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington.)
There is a Christian organisation called “Lambs of Christ” which is an anti-abortion terrorist Christian organisation. A member of its organisation James Kopp shot and killed Dr. Barnett Slepian in 1998. He was also a member of the “Army of God”. The organisation argues that its existence and goals are legitimately sanctioned by God and the Bible.

The following are some revealing News reports:

Film Shows Youths Training to Fight for Jesus

Wednesday, 20 September 2006
New Documentary Features Controversial Bible Camp, Evangelical Movement
By DAN HARRIS

Sept. 17, 2006 — – An in-your-face documentary out this weekend is raising eyebrows, raising hackles and raising questions about evangelizing to young people.
Speaking in tongues, weeping for salvation, praying for an end to abortion and worshipping a picture of President Bush — these are some of the activities at Pastor Becky Fischer’s Bible camp in North Dakota, “Kids on Fire,” subject of the provocative new documentary, “Jesus Camp.”
“I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places,” Fisher said. “Because, excuse me, we have the truth.”
“A lot of people die for God,” one camper said, “and they’re not afraid.”
“We’re kinda being trained to be warriors,” said another, “only in a funner way.”
The film has caused a split among evangelicals. Some say it’s designed to demonize. Others have embraced it, including Fischer, who’s helping promote the film.
“I never felt at any point that I was exploited,” Fischer said.
“I think there is a push right now in a lot of evangelical churches to definitely keep the teenagers and keep the children in the faith,” said Heidi Ewing, co-director of “Jesus Camp.” “And this is one version of that attempt.”
A Growing Movement
This camp is, by many accounts, a small — and perhaps extreme — slice of what some say is a growing, intensifying evangelical youth movement.
Over the past decade and a half, enrollment at Christian colleges is up 70 percent. Sales of Christian music are up 300 percent. Tens of thousands of youth pastors have been trained.
Young people are targeted through Christian music festivals, skateboard competitions and rodeos.
“This is an enormous youth movement,” said Lauren Sandler, a secular, liberal feminist from New York City who spent months among the believers researching her new book, “Righteous.”
Sandler says the evangelical youth movement will have a negative impact on the country’s future, because even the most moderate young evangelicals are inflexible on issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
“It’s an absolute, straight-up us-against-them,” Sandler said. “It’s, you’re either with us or you’re against us. … Not only are you a sinner, but you are working for the enemy — the enemy being Satan.”
Chap Clark, an associate professor at the Fuller Theological Seminary who’s trained youth pastors for decades, said people who see “Jesus Camp” should not come away with the idea that evangelizing to youth consists mainly of political indoctrination.
Clark said youth pastors focus much more on providing meaning to kids who can’t find it in a materialistic culture or in their family lives — “which is going to translate into much healthier adults who are more able to be into respectful dialogue and come alongside people who disagree with them.
“I think this is a very hopeful time because of the youth ministry movement,” he added.
There’s disagreement about whether this movement is good for the country and whether the movie is an accurate portrayal of the movement.
But there’s growing agreement that these children will have a real impact. One child in “Jesus Camp” goes so far as to say, “We’re a key generation to bringing Jesus back.”

 

Is American military ‘the Christian Taliban’?

Monday, 08 October 2007
source: WorldNet Daily, October 8, 2007
Chuck Norris
Under the radar is a report that an atheist’s religious (or non-religious) freedoms are being restricted by the military in Iraq.
U.S. Army Spc. Jeremy Hall and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, or MRFF, founded in 2005, filed a lawsuit against Maj. Paul Welborne and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, purporting that Hall, as an atheist, was being harassed for not being a Christian.
The MRFF believes this prejudicial treatment of non-Christians is so pervading that MSNBC notes, “The suit also alleges that Gates permits a military culture in which officers are encouraged to pressure soldiers to adopt and espouse fundamentalist Christian beliefs.”
Theists in foxholes?
Even if Spc. Hall’s discrimination case proves to be true, it’s a far stretch to extrapolate that situation or even others to conclude that Gates permits a military culture in which religious prejudice is encouraged. It’s one thing to cite select discrimination cases; it’s quite another to prove a universal, unconstitutional pattern in the military. But that is the MRFF’s aim: “to show there is a pattern and practice of constitutionally impermissible promotions of religious beliefs within the Department of Defense.”
The question is: Is the MRFF basing such a goal on a preponderance of evidence or have they already drawn the conclusion and are going out hunting for alleged data to support it? As a fascinating twist in the case, Lt. Col. James Hutton, a spokesman for multinational forces in Iraq recently reported, “Several media reports list a person named Maj. Paul Welborne as having been involved in this situation. To date, we have not located any soldier by that name.”
Christians’ Constitutional rights on and off the battlefield
I’ve met and gotten to know hundreds of officers and chaplains on and off the battlefield, those who are very dedicated to both God and country. I’ve observed their faiths and oversight of troops firsthand. And I must say: to accuse the American military of being a fundamentalist factory or Christian Taliban is going way, way overboard! From my own enlistment in the Air Force 40 years ago to my recent tours in Iraq, I have never once seen Christianity mandated to anyone in any way. As spokeswoman Cynthia Smith responded, the Department of Defense “places a high value on the rights of members of the Armed Forces to observe the tenets of their respective religions.”
By all means, religious plurality should be allowed wherever America governs. But that allowance should not morph into an arena in which Christian officers and chaplains’ First Amendment freedom of speech and religion is inadvertently restricted. They should meet the particular religious needs of the troops, but they should not have to cater to everyone at the cost of losing their own particular religious distinction or preference.
If Christian officers’ or chaplains’ convictions prompt them to help a soldier cope with war by turning to the comfort of the Psalms, they should not be penalized or labeled as intolerant or exclusive for doing so. If they want to pray with troops before going into battle, they should be not prohibited from doing so – “in Jesus’ name.” They should not be hindered from handing out Bibles without offering Qurans at the same time. That is their Constitutional right!
And if civilian or nonprofit groups like Military Ministry, the Military Mission’s Network or churches partnering with them want to support the Christian ministry on the battlefield, it is their Constitutional right as well. Just as it is mine to encourage people to join them!
Christianity is not the enemy
The fact is, our country is more obsessed with highlighting Christian fundamentalist abuses than we are the plots and ploys of Muslim extremists who are attacking our troops.
And what does this MRFF lawsuit indirectly say about our Christian chaplains? If the military is placing undue pressure on our troops to convert to fundamentalist Christianity, that makes our chaplains the “Taliban field commanders”? Will we next indict or subpoena the chaplaincy as unconstitutional? How degrading for those religious patriots who place themselves in harm’s way to help our troops!
As I explained in my last article, chaplains go out to the front lines bearing no weapons. And they are some of the most despised by Muslim extremists, since the latter regard this war as a jihad or religious war against the West and Christianity.
Christianity is not our enemy, but an aid to our troops. Have we forgotten that? That is why, since the Revolutionary War, America has employed and deployed chaplains to the field – and they could use a few more. It’s great to see more and more giving them their due recognition.
‘Ministering spirits sent to serve’
As with our other troops, there are many examples of bravery, heroism and sacrifice among our chaplains. Lt. Cmdr. John J. Gayton and Lt. Joseph Buenviaje, CHC, USN, serve as excellent ones. On April 20, 2007, Chaplains Gayton and Buenviaje, Catholic and Protestant chaplains ministering side-by-side, were attacked along with other service men and women while fulfilling visitation requests by those on the front lines of battle.
I must let Chaplain Gayton tell the story in his own words – something which still sends shivers up my spine!
 
After sharing communion with the troops and blessing them and asking God to dispatch His angels to guard them from harm … Suddenly, an explosion hit us with great force and a cloud of dust and debris began to fall in front of us. … the overpass had been destroyed, and the [operational post] was demolished…. some of the Marines had survived and were badly wounded. … I immediately joined Chaplain Buenviaje at the side of Lance Cpl. May who had been blasted off the north side of the overpass to the embankment below. He was comforting the Marine and trying to keep him conscious. I helped to remove some of the debris from his lower extremities to assess if he had any traumatic injuries.
About 30 feet short of that, RP2 (Religious Programs Spc. Second Class) Keene had reached another Marine who had been thrown to the highway below. I rushed over to his aid. We were in a very exposed position, so the RP took a defensive position as I attended to Lance Cpl. David Volk. He was having severe pain in his right leg, which was obviously fractured. … He asked me not to leave him. I remained at his side and gave him assurances as well as a prayer and blessing. He was one of the Marines who had just received holy communion minutes before the blast. I kneeled over him to cover him and shield his face from the sun and so that I could maintain eye contact with him and keep him talking and alert. Keene ran to make a quick assessment of [a civilian] Iraqi vehicle and discovered one person killed in action and the other severely wounded. I debated going to provide first aid but made the call to stay with Lance Cpl. Volk until the [helicopter evacuation] arrived to give assistance [at which point Gayton gave them assistance].
Moments later, we received radio communication of shots fired and that one Marine was hit (by sniper fire) on top of the overpass. All the personnel from our convoy had returned to vehicles and we maintained the security perimeter until we were replaced by Fox Company. … [When it was all said and done, we also ministered to] the Marines and sailors involved in the reaction team and the medical response team as well as members of the command staff.
Wow! What’s even more amazing is that Chaplain Gayton later learned a piece of shrapnel had lacerated the back of his neck, inches from resulting in a fatality. And he continued to minister despite his wounds!
With tears in my eyes, two Bible verses come to mind: “Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?” And Jesus’ words, “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.”
So what was I saying about a lawsuit accusing our military officers and secretary of defense of “pressuring soldiers to adopt and espouse fundamentalist Christian beliefs”? Give me a break! Give them one!

Some questions that need to be answered:
Was it Muslims who participated in WW1 and WW2 which exacted MILLIONS of lives?
Was it Muslims who did Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Was it Muslims who did Vietnam?
Was it Muslims who did the Bosnian genocide?
Was it Muslims who sanctioned Iraq for 11 years and used chemical weapons in the Gulf War which directly caused the death of more than 100 000 children?
Are Muslims the ones who have thousands of nuclear warheads that can utterly destroy the world more than 8 times over? No, who are in possession of them?
Let us see the facts!
3,000,000 Vietnamese People murdered over 30years of US Aggression 
Well over 300,000 Japanese massacred when the US dropped nuclear bombs on the urban civilian areas of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and firebombed Tokiyo
 
More than 4,000 innocent civilians killed in Panama during the US invasion in 1989
 
Over 500,000 people were killed in Laos when America subjected civilians to “secret bombing” from 1964

to 1973, dropping over two million tons of bombs on the country. Over one fourth of the population also became refugees
100,000 people were murdered in South Korea prior to the Korean War by a brutal repression supported by US forces in 1945. This includes between 30,000 and 40,000 killed during the suppression of a peasant revolt on Cheju Island
Up to 4,500,000 Koreans were killed from 1951 to 1953 during America’s massive slaughter in the Korean War
200,000 were murdered when the Philippines were conquered by American forces. This took place just over 100 years ago
23,000 people were slaughtered in Taiwan by US-backed, trained, equipped, and funded forces (Chiang’s Nationalist army) during the late 1940s
700,000 Indonesians (mostly landless peasants) were murdered in 1965 when the US armed and supported General Suharto
200,000 were slaughtered in East Timor in 1975 by General Suharto with US support
600,000 civilians were killed in Cambodia by US bombing between 1969 and 1975
 
750,000 civilians were driven from their homes in East Timor by Indonesian forces in 1999 and 10,000 were killed
Over 1,700,000 Iraqis have been killed by US bombings and sanctions, mostly women and children
Over 1,000,000 lives were lost during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s in which the US used direct force and supported Hussein and Iraq
45,000 people were killed in South Lebanon since 1982 by Israel, always armed and supported by the US
Thousands have been killed in Palestine and millions (in both Palestine and Lebanon) were made refugees by US-backed Israel
Over 75,000 civilians were killed and over one million refugees were created in El Salvador from 1980 to 1994 when the US intensely supported the efforts of a brutal regime and its death squads to eliminate a popular uprising
40,000 civilians were killed by the US-backed National Guard in Nicaragua over the course of almost 50 years
30,000 lives were killed by the US contras in Nicaragua from 1979 to 1989
200,000 Guatemalans were slaughtered from 1960-1990s by a military apparatus trained, armed, funded, and assisted by America
Over 35,000 Colombian civilians have been killed during the US-supported Columbian war against left-wing rebels
Over 3,000 were killed and countless others injured by US interventions in Cuba
Up to 10,000 more Somalians were killed by US troops during America’s “humanitarian mission” in 1993
1,500,000 were killed between 1980 and 1988 in southern Africa by the US-armed South Africa.
Yes, let us continue with the fairy tale that Christians are perfect angels living on earth and that Christianity is better than Buddhism on the issue of killing.

 

John Fraiser:

“The reason why unruly behaviours of certain prominent Christians ae [sic] highlighted on this blog is to prove a very vital point to those Christians in missionary circles who have a tendency to play the ‘holier than thou’ game.”
Prominent Christians? Was the priest you accused of racism and which you still have up on your blog a prominent Christian? No one even knows who he is. VenomFangX? He’s just some kid with a webcam on youtube. Me? I’m no prominent Christian and yet you’ve devoted two posts to criticizing me. So who are these prominent Christians that you are highlighting? Besides, if you have Christians playing the holier-than-thou game why not simply tell them that pointing out the behavior of certain Muslims without criticizing the faith of Islam doesn’t get us anywhere. Obviously you can post videos of Christians (or I should say, people claiming to be Christians) on your blog, but so what? There are videos of Muslims doing far worse things. When it comes to posting stories and videos of religions doing violent and terrible things, Islam is going to lose that contest.

 

My Response:
Well, by prominent I meant Christians who are not just any tom, dick and hairy. By prominent I meant Christians who are at the heads of society like the priest in the video clip. I have no doubt that the priest like any priest, pastor, reverend etc. are prominent in their communities as a reflection of their roles as shepards and examples to the locals. In regards to VenomFangX. Well he is a very prominent Christian personality on youtube. This is a fact. Is he not Christian? My blog received several hundred hits just because I had a video from youtube on VenomFangX..so that in itself proves his prominence. As I have explained and I shall repeat this one last time, you may if you wish feature ang highlight Muslim behaviours, attitudes and actions for the whole world to see as how many other detractors of Islam has in hopes of diminishing Islam’s credibility. That is your prerogative and I welcome you to do so. Insha’Allah if those materials are legitimate and the actions committed are indeed wrong then they will act as an impetus for good will Muslims to improve themselves. If it were a contest, Christianity will lose out bad and the facts I gave just now are not even the tip of the iceberg. One thing for sure is, when all the agressions committed by Muslims since 1400 years ago are combined it will never ever reach the numbers committed by Christians in no less than 50 years in WW1 and WW2 and we haven’t counted all the other wards yet. So please…wake up.

 

John Fraiser:

“Oh yes, and you are most welcome to highlight Muslim behaviors which you find upsetting or disagreeable on your webite [sic].” Thank you for your permission, but I don’t need it. I know that I am free to run my blog how I choose, but I choose not to waste my time making specious, useless arguments like you do. I choose not to engage in ad hominem attacks.
You wrote: “Let’s get the cat out of the bag, shall we? What is racism? dictionary.com defines it as :
1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH THIS!!!! Really?
‘For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.’ (Deuteronomy 7:6)”
This verse does not teach that the race is superior or has the right to rule over others. The Lord has judged Israel for thinking this. Rather, the Lord showed unmerited favor on the Jews, because of who he is, not because of who they are. Salvation according to the Bible does not come from individual achievement. It is the Lord’s work in saving us. So to apply a definition of racism to the Bible such as: “a belief…that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement” simply doesn’t apply to what the Bible says about Israel. In fact, the history of Israel in the Old Testament is largely a history of their obsession with the cultural achievements of other races. They often worshipped their gods and married their people. Racism does not apply here.

 

My Response:
You have not explained away the apparent racism in Deuteronomy 7:6. As defined by the lexicon and others respectively, racism is not that a race feels superior to another and that it has to rule other races. The moment a race is considered superior to another race, THIS IS RACISM! This is precisely the message of Deuteronomy 7:6.

 

John Fraiser:

Then you quote a passage from Matthew 15 (though you don’t cite it) and claim that it indicates that Jesus Christ was a racist. Jesus knew exactly what he was going to do for this woman. However, there was a lesson to be taught. In calling her a dog, he is simply using a term for Gentiles commonly used by Jews which referred to their failure to observe the dietary restrictions which the Jews followed. It was not a derogatory term. The term used is kynarion which is not used of a wild dog but of a house dog or personal pet. This fact is also clear from the usage here since the woman speaks of a dog that eats the crumbs from the table of the master. So, in calling her a dog, Jesus is not saying that her race is inferior, but saying that as a Jew he was sent to Jews. The woman recognizes that she is a Gentile asking for a salvation from the Jewish Savior when she calls him “Son of David” (Matt 15:22). Jesus commends her for her faith and rewards her for it, not because she is Jewish but because she has faith. Thus demonstrating that what matters is faith not race. Notice also that Jesus doesn’t do what the disciples propose that he do: “Send her away.” No, he grants her what she asks in faith.

 

My Response:
Ah, yes, calling someone a dog(with the intention excluding explanation that he/she’s a domesticated dog) is much better than calling someone a wild dog. Ahahaha….this is too funny that I don’t think I need to counter anything you said. The readers can decide which conclusion is better, mine based on the text itself or yours with forced out-of-text interpretations.

 

John Fraiser:

“If this isn’t racism? What in the world is?” I’ll tell you. The hatred of Jews by millions of Muslims.
“The creation of the Jewish state garnered enormous support from the Christian community, yes. However, how has this got anything to do with racism?”
This has everything to do with racism. If these Christians hated Jews, they would not help them receive land. The point is to highlight the way that many Muslims hate Jews and to contrast that with the way that Christians have helped Jews. And many Muslims hate Christians for this.

 

My Response:

What Christians hated Jews? When did I discuss Christians hating Jews in the previous comments? I have explained more than three times how Muslims do not hate Jews for their race. I will not repeat it again.

 

John Fraier:
“The reason they are supported by Zionist Christians [sic] like the late Rev. Jerry Falwell is because they the Christians believe that the land mass from the river Nile to the Euphrates belong to the Jews.”
Ok, fine. But if they hated them like many Muslims do they wouldn’t speak so highly of Israel.

 

My Response:
Uh oh….erm..the Jews are said to inherit those lands by God which zionist Christians believe and you yourself just affirmed, so why would zionist Christians hate them? By the way, there are Christians who despise Israelis aka Zionist Jews. Check out the dialogue between Sheikh Imran with the Christian Bishop. You may find the video on Sheikh Imran’s website. Refer to the blogroll.

 

John Fraiser:

“However, they fail to recognise what Jesus said about these [sic] Jewish race. ‘Therefore I say unto you, The Kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruit thereof’ (Matthew 21:43).”
Now you are simply arguing against their theology. So what if they arrive at there view according to a misunderstanding of Scripture? The point I made was that Christianity has a large pro-jewish segment and that Jews don’t have no reason to fear Christians, but they do have a reason to fear Muslims. Regardless of their reasons, they are nevertheless pro-jewish.
You’ve argued that they misinterpret Scripture, but this has nothing to do with the racism question.

 

My Response:
Yes, I agree it has nothing to do with racism, however, it has everything to do with the subject of Christians’ relationship to Jews and how the former is vehemently unrelenting in their support of the latter regardless of what the former’s book says. By the way, why did you leave out the quote from Deuteronomy? Are you so fond of the Jews that you cannot have them exposed by their own prophet?
John Fraiser:
You wanted to put the verse I quoted that shows racism in the Qur’an in context. But the context doesn’t make what is said any better or any less racist.
“O ye who believe! take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport,- whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have faith (indeed). When ye proclaim your call to prayer they take it (but) as mockery and sport; that is because they are a people without understanding. Say: ‘O people of the Book! Do ye disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in Allah, and the revelation that hath come to us and that which came before (us), and (perhaps) that most of you are rebellious and disobedient?’ Say: ‘Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!’” (Al-Ma’idah Chp. 5, verse 57 to 60)”
Then you try to explain that this shows that it is not speaking of Christians or Jews as a people, but only refers to those who mock Allah and Muhammed. However, the verses which you say provide the context refer to “a people without understanding” and “people of the Book.” This is obviously then not simply a reference to just a segment of Christians and Jews. Because all Christians and all Jews are people of the Book. And then the Qur’an dehumanizes these people by saying that Allah has transformed some of them into apes and swine (this is the verse that the boy from the Hamas school I quoted above is referring to when he calls Zionists “pigs and monkeys”). So here we have the Qur’an saying that Muslims are not have Jews as their friends.

 

My Response:
Read the verse again, very carefully and notice where it says,”even if they are from AMONG those who received the Scripture before you..” This proves that the Qur’an in this instance is not speaking about ALL Jews and Christians, but only those who mock and attack Allah and Muhammad. In context you will see that those who incurred Allah’s wrath and punishment were those who “worshipped evil” and not just any Christian or Jew. Please, try to be honest and read the text carefully.

 

John Fraiser:

Of course, the Qur’an says the same thing elsewhere: “O believers! Take not the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another’s friends. If anyone of you takes them for his friends, he is surely one of them” (5:56).

 

My Response:
The above has the same meaning as the verse quoted earlier which Professor Palazzi explained.

 

John Fraiser:

You also took exception to my quotation of the Hadith: “Thank you for showing to us what a dishonest person you are by misquoting the hadith. Let us see what the hadith really says.
You see, the hadith speaks of those Christians and Jews who built places of worship at the graves of their prophets and what is implied is that they also perform worship there. This is what they are cursed for in the said hadith, not simply because they are Jewish or Christian. If there are Jews and Christians who do not do these, then they are not those addressed in the hadith. In any case, the hadith isn’t a green light for Muslims to terrorise Jews and Christians. Anyway, the Jews are cursed according to their own Tanakh. Refer to Deuteronomy 3:25-29 quoted earlier.”
So how did I misquote the Hadith? I may not have quoted as much as you did, but this doesn’t mean I misquoted it. I quoted what the Hadith says. Now you may seek to explain the part I quoted, but what I quoted is correct. You call me dishonest. Your accusation is groundless. You attribute a motive to me that you cannot know. How do you know that not quoting as much of the passage as you would like me to quote makes me dishonest. I didn’t attribute dishonesty to you when you misquoted me as saying: “most Muslims dislike non-Arab Muslims.” How would I know if your misquotation was out of dishonesty. Maybe you simply made a mistake or were lazy in your reading of my words. Either way, there are other possible explanations besides dishonesty.

 

My Response:
You misquoted the hadith by making it seem as if the Prophet s.a.w. cursed the Jews and Christians with a full stop. This gives the impression that the Prophet s.a.w. hated the Jews and Christians which is not the case. The context expels the idea that the Prophet s.a.w. were racist towards the Jews simply because they’re Jews or that he hated Christians because they’re Christians. Our discussion is mainly about racism, you provided the unfinished hadith quote in the attempt to discredit Muhammad s.a.w. as being racist towards the Jews.

 

John Fraiser:

You also try to pass off Jizya as simple taxation, and compare it to American taxation. Here are some key differences. First, if someone doesn’t pay taxes in America, the Bible does not command me to “fight them.” In fact the Bible forbids me to do violence against others. Punishment is the responsibility of the state, not the responsibility of the individual Christian (Romans 13). Second, our taxes are not based on religious affiliations. If we were to charge Muslims a special tax (whether higher or lower) it would be a form of discrimination which our constitution forbids. Furthermore, the American government does not care about people “feeling themselves subdued.”
However you explain the Jizya, the point I made was that the Qur’an commands violence against Jews: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth [Islam], even if they are of the People of the Book…”

 

My Response:
My point was that even in America the land of the Brave and the land of the Free, people have to pay taxes. So if you have a problem with paying tax then you should stop doing it and see what will happen. Whether your Bible allows or demands it or not is inconsequential to me. The thorough explanation in my previous post has explained all the points you have brought up yet again. I NEED NOT repeat them here.

 

John Fraiser:

You wrote: “Even in America the most lenient means of reproach for failure to pay tax is jail time.”
Not true. The most lenient penalty for tax evasion is fines and interest charges. Jail time is the maximum penalty.
You wrote: “Let us see what the New Testament has to say about killing people who deserve killing :
Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve TO DIE, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.’ (1st Romans 20-32)”
There is no book of First Romans. There is a first chapter in Romans, but the way you cite it isn’t how you’re supposed to cite it. You have twisted this verse to fit your bias. This passage describes every person that has ever lived on this planet, not just a few people. We have all been envious, greedy, wicked, sinful, hateful, quarrelsome, deceptive, malicious, and gossips. We have all been proud and boastful. And yes, we all deserve to die. But where does the verse command that we “fight those who believe not” as we do? I deserve to die for the sins that I have done and so do you, but God has had mercy on me by trusting in Jesus Christ and not in myself. He can have mercy on you too, if you put faith in the work of Jesus’ conquering of death in his crucifixion and resurrection. But this verse no where tells the Christian to put anyone to death. In fact, the same book of Romans that you quote commands me to be at peace with all people and not to owe anyone anything other than love:

 

My Response:
I apologise for the wrong referencing. Thank you for correcting it. Well, it really depends on how you would want to interpret it. Like so many other Biblical passages, they are open to different interpretations. If there was only room for one interpretation you would not have so many denominations within Christianity. What I see is that the verses say that anyone who does the things mentioned DESERVE TO DIE. In regards to your saying that the same books commands you to be at peace with all people(including your enemies), well you will find the same thing in many other books of the Bible. In one instance it says this, in another it says something else. We all know the commandment,”Thou shalt not kill” given to Moses,  need I show you all the places Moses killed men, women, children and even donkies?

 

John Fraiser:

Romans 12:14-21
“14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.
16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.
18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.
20 On the contrary: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
I challenge you to find a verse in the Qur’an that says anything like this about dealing with one’s enemies.

 

My Response:
The true servants of Allah are those who behave gently and with humility, and whenever the foolish quarrel with them, they reply with [words of] peace. (25:63)
If a non-believer ask you for asylum, grant it to him so that he may listen to the words of Allah, and then escort him to where he can be secure. (9:6)
Respond to an evil deed with something good and see how somone who is seperated from you because of enmity becomes a dear friend. (41:34)

 

John Fraiser:
“The above shows that not just Jews deserve TO DIE but anyone who does the things mentioned! WOW! How beautiful.”
Yes, you are right that all deserve to die. But this is not racism. It doesn’t single out a particular race that has this problem. Scripture says that we are all in the same boat. We are all guilty before God: Jew and Gentile, Christian and Muslim, male and female. But contrary to what you say, this is not beautiful. The beautiful part is that Christ can save us from this wrath and this death sentence by his work on our behalf but we must look to him. How beautiful!

 

My Response:
Well, actually Jesus told us how to be saved:
“This is life eternal, that they may know You(the Father) THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” (John 17:3)

 

John Fraiser:

You go on to include several stories of Muslims helping Jews during WWII. I don’t doubt that this is true. I was unaware that Muslims were helped by Jews at this time. But this hardly demonstrates Muslims to be the least racist of all people. Jews certainly don’t feel protected by Muslims today. It’s not Christians that are threatening to wipe Jews from the face of the earth.

 

My Response:
Yes, those are some examples of how Muslims do not hate Jews, because they’re Jews.

 

John Fraiser:

You were bothered that I didn’t answer your comments on my blog but instead deleted them. Later I responded quickly to your comments on your own blog and then you said the following:
“ Well..finally, at long last…the prodigal son returns.”
I am not prodigal and I am not your son. I have no obligation to return to your site. You have not asked me for a reason for the hope that is within me. So 1 Peter 3:15 doesn’t apply to my dealing with you in this way. Actually there is a different verse from 1 Peter that gives me advice in dealing with you: “Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult.” (3:9). Consequently, I have not insulted you or repaid your evil with evil.

 

My Response:
By questioning your belief and wanting to speak to you about your faith should that not be construed as my wanting the “hope” which is “in you” ? If you have the truth share it with me. That is all I want and desire. I want to talk and discuss. Isn’t that what your book wants you to do?

 

John Fraiser:

“You have no time to respond to my comments which is an obligation laid on you according to 1st Peter 3:15, yet have sufficient time to give no less than 3 responses under your ‘Was Christ Forsaken by His Father’ with 59 lines of words in all and an entire post called ‘There’s Humor in Theology 24’?…. Surely, reasonably speaking if you have time to compose a whole brief essay of 59 words along with a new post in the span of time I waited for a response from you, you would have been able to give some sort of feedback”
Yes, I suppose I’d also have time to respond to you if I quit my job, too. Maybe I should abandon all of my prior engagements to make sure I answer you in the time you determine. You are obsessed with debating with me to the point of counting the number of lines in a comment I made on my own blog on a post that has nothing to do with you. This is highly abnormal. You actually took the time to count each line? How strange.

 

My Response:
Yes, I did just that. Why is that strange? You made the claim that you were too busy, so to ascertain the validity of your claim, I went to your site. And yes, I saw how “busy” you were.

 

John Fraiser:

“I respect the way you govern your blog, but is it chivalrous to just delete away my invitation to you and ignore me for several days and only return when I composed the article which exposes your seemingly ‘cowardly’ behaviour?”
If I run my blog in a respectable way when I delete your comments, then why are you complaining about it? If I can find your site the first time, I can find it again. I don’t need you to come on my blog and tell me that you have responded to my comment. Your comments were off topic and were not useful to anyone else. Once I see your comment why do I need to leave it up there? It was only meant for me, I read it and it served your purpose in informing me so naturally I would take it down. Besides, you have my email address. If you want to tell me that you’ve responded, just email me. The number of hits to your blog may indicate that you are new to the blogosphere. If so, you should know that I did what almost any other blogger would do. When you don’t post on topic or are involved in a personal matter, your comment gets deleted. Oh, btw, haven’t you heard, chivalry is dead. Besides, even when it was alive, chivalry was shown to women.

 

My Response:
I merely wanted to get your attention that I’ve responded to your comments in case you forgot you left them because of your “busy” schedule. Yes, I was rather perturbed that my first invitation went deleted and gone unreciprocated. Naturally, being the avid blogger that I am with the free time I had then, I sent several more invites which were also deleted and received no reciprocation. Only AFTER I composed the “expose’” on your deleting my comments did you RETURN. Seems a bit suspicious, don’t you think? Whatever it is, the important thing is that you finally did come back and responded. Since when is chivalry dead? How can courageousness, courteousness etc. be dead?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Chivalrous
–adjective
1. having the qualities of chivalry, as courage, courtesy, and loyalty.
2. considerate and courteous to women; gallant.
3. gracious and honorable toward an enemy, esp. a defeated one, and toward the weak or poor.

 

John Fraiser :
“There is no need to analyse my ‘ad hominems’…”
So then you admit that you engage in ad hominems. Enough said.

 

My Response:
Perhaps, you failed to notice the inverted commas?

 

John Fraiser:

“And I am still waiting for your response as to why you chose to question the video post on the Catholic Priest which I alleged to be racist but not on those articles which deny and question Jesus’ divinity?”
The reason is quite simple. It was the first post I came to on the blog. It was a rather short process. I saw a couple of posts and made a couple of comments. I didn’t see any post on Jesus divinity. I have since looked at it and it is not worthy of respect because you don’t cite a single Christian source that makes the arguments you claim Christians make. In all my years of being a Christian and fellowshipping with Christians I have never heard anyone make the arguments that you attribute to Christians except the “I am” argument. Do you have any sources for your claims? Unless you do, I’m not going to defend straw men that you have made.

 

My Response:
Erm…if I wanted to argue against Christians, does it make sense for me to go find some pro-Christian(Christ worshipper) argument against Christ’s divinity? lol. Anyway, there are plenty more articles more to the core of Christianity than the video, not just on Jesus’ divinity which call for response and explanation. So, I would appreciate it if you could comment on them. That is, if you’re a responsible Christian who wish to share the “hope” that is “in you”. It is a very easy excuse to discard the articles as not worth my time, so I won’t comment. Yeah, right.

 

John Fraiser:

Furthermore, even if I had chosen to question your take on the video of the Catholic priest and deliberately ignored the other posts, what’s the point? Am I obligated to post on the most significant post on your site? Isn’t it fitting that I point out that you are attacking individual Christians (or people who claim to be Christians) when you claim to be unveiling Christianity?
“It is evident that the latter is of more importance and significance, thus again I invoke 1st Peter 3:15 and demand that you provide clarifications lest you be seen as incompetent by the readers.”
1 Peter doesn’t really apply here, but even if it did, it wouldn’t mean that I have to reply to you. I spend a lot of my time in apologetic response. I simply can’t engage everyone. Suppose that 500 people ask me for the reason for the hope within me in 500 different ways. The constraints of time and energy make it impossible that I should respond to all of them. I do my best and leave the rest to God.

 

My Response:
No, this is yet another excuse. You’ve excused yourself with the previous excuse that you found the other articles not worth your time, devoid of substance etc. Anyone with an ounce of reason can see how close you are to a bashful maiden.

 

John Fraiser:

Ibn, I do not hate you or disrespect you. I think you have bought into the lie of Islam and are deluded by Satan. But Christ loves you and will have mercy on you. My job is to show love toward you but also to challenge your false doctrine. If you want to engage civilly, and I am willing to continue to do so and would like to stick to the issues and not to personal attacks. I am trying to establish that you need to let go of personal attacks on Christians since it doesn’t get us anywhere. I do not want to engage in personal attacks on Muslims because it doesn’t show that Islam isn’t true. We should discuss the doctrine of Christianity and the doctrine of Islam and perhaps we can at least reach clarity on some matters.

My Response:
John, I do not hate you or disrespect you. I think you have bought into the lie of Christianity and are deluded by Satan. But God loves you and will have mercy on you. What does this prove? Erm…nothing…let’s get on with the doctrines and enough beating around the bush and making excuses.

Allah Knows BEST!

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Responses to “A Dialogue between John Fraiser and Ibn Anwar Part 2”

  1. Rev. Donald Spitz says:

    Barnett Slepian reaped what he sowed. He was a babykilling abortionist and killed babies for money when James Kopp stopped him from murdering any more innocent children. I’m glad James Kopp stopped babykiller Slepian Your support of this baby murderer is disgraceful.
    SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.

  2. Mint says:

    Thank you for good information~~*

    Please comeback to visit my blog too : http://about-medicalmalpractic.....gspot.com/

    I’m sorry , If you think this is spam. but may i thank you again.

    Bye

Leave a Reply