Catholicism and Christianity v Islam
Pastor Richard Foot
news:1171511773....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com:
http://www.islamtomorrow.com/bible/NicaeaCouncil325.htm
> The year was 325 A.D. according to the Roman calendar.
Really? Maybe Islam Tomorrow would like to check that?
> A council was convened by order of Constantine, the
> Roman emperor. He had been a leader in the cult known
> as Sol Invictus (Invincible Sun) and now wanted to unite
> the Christian sects in the empire under his existing
> church; the Universal Church of Rome. [ . . . ]
> Changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday
The day of Sol Invictus?
> Changing the date of Jesus' birthday to December 25th
Another day of Sol Invictus (in the Northern Hemisphere)?
Romans seem to like the Sun as much as they hate German tourists.
In the Name of the Father, and of The Sun, . . .?
Fortunately, the Sun - or Son - is not the Moon, He is not Korea's
Reverend Moon of the so called Unification Church, neither is He Allah,
the Moon God (Al = the; Lah = Moon god) of Islam, if you've ever wondered
why Islamic culture is littered with moon shaped crescents.
--
Rev. Dr. Richard Dick Foot, BSc., DD, FFD
Chief Executive Pastor
Broomleigh Group of True Christianยฎ Baptist Churches
http://www.church.broomleigh.de/
arah
Thank you.
I hope this story will enlightened you
May God bless us and show us his guidance
AMEN
"Priests & Preachers Enter Islam?"
Chaplain Yusuf Estes
My ethnic background is English-Native American, Irish and German. I
was what they called a "WASP" (white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant). My
family moved to Texas in 1949 while I was still in grade school, so my
accent changed from "Yankee" to "Texan" real quick. We learned how to
say "Ya'll" instead of "youse guys" and "Howz ever thaang?" instead of
"Waz up?" We also learned how to eat "Corn bread 'n bains" instead of
"Johnny cakes and beans."
I was born in Ohio, raised and educated in Texas and was a successful
marketing entrepreneur and preacher of Christianity. I grew up in a
religious home. My parents and their relatives were all 'good
Christians.' Basically that means that you never drink alcohol, except
on very special occasions and never gamble expect Bingo at the church.
Religion was a real part of my life. I believed very much in God and
the Bible as His Word. While other children were playing 'school' and
'cops and robbers' I would sometimes play the 'Preacher.' I can still
remember my first sermon, standing on the ground in Doug Hideman's
backyard: "We must learn the Way of God! And then stay on that
Way." (That's all I said. I couldn't think of anything else)
My whole family on both my mother's and father's sides were very
active members of the same denomination of Protestant Christianity. We
all loved to go to church on Sunday mornings for Sunday school and
sermon (well maybe we didn't all love the long sermons). Then of
course, special activities and holidays such as Easter, Christmas,
Halloween and parties were always a part of our lives in my early
years. Our church was originally called only "Christian Church." It
wasn't until I turned 10 or 12 years old that the church 'split' into
two different groups that we started calling ourselves "Disciples of
Christ."
My father was an ordained minister and also very active in church
work, as a Sunday school minister and fund raiser for Christian
schools. He was the 'expert' in the Bible and its translations. It was
through my father that I came to know about the various versions,
translations and editions of the Bible as well as the introduction of
pagan worship to Christianity about the time of the Emperor
Constantine (325 C.E.). He, like many preachers would answer the
question: "Did God actually write the Bible?" by saying: "The Bible is
the Inspired Word of Man FROM GOD." Basically, it means that humans
(inspired humans, but humans just the same) wrote the Bible. That
quickly explains the errors, mistakes, deletions and additions which
have crept in and fell out over the years. He would add: "But it is
still the Word of God, as inspired to man."
God was always on my mind. I was 'baptized' into the 'Spirit' at age
12 and surprised even the minister (an ex-Jew who accepted Jesus) by
my seriousness and intent on being a 'full real follower of Christ." I
would think about Him and what He wanted us to do and why He created
us in the first place, very often. Many times I would be caught 'day
dreaming' about God when I was supposed to be paying attention to
other things, like watching the pots boil over on the stove or not
listen to the teachers at school. Sometimes I would rest my head on my
arms on the top of my desk and try to imagine: "What will happen when
we die?" and "What will Heaven be like?" or "Can we ever see God's
angels or the devil?"
My mind was frequently preoccupied with these types of thoughts as a
child. But then as with most youth, I became distracted from my
pursuit and began to be influenced by my peers. Other children would
make fun of me if I talked about these questions and thoughts, so it
seemed like a good idea to keep it to myself. No problem. I like to be
alone with my thoughts of God anyway.
After growing up and owning many business, I realized that I did not
want to be a 'preacher.' I was too afraid that I might be a hypocrite
or call people to something that I myself didn't truly understand.
After all, I had 'accepted the Lord' and considered myself a true
Christian, but at the same time I could not resolve the idea of God
being One and at the same time He is 'Three.' And if He is the
'Father', how could He also be the 'Son?' And then what about the
'Holy Ghost?' (later they changed that to 'Spirit'). But my big
question was always the same: "How does three equal one?"
Over the years I had tried to 'find' God in many different ways. I
checked out Buddhism, Hinduism, metaphysics, Taoism, different forms
of Christianity and Judaism. The one most attractive to me was a
combination of Gnosticism (Christian mysticism) and Cabalism (Jewish
mysticism) and metaphysics. This actually is a form of pantheism (God
being throughout His creation) and is similar to some of the 'Sufi'
mystics of today. But this concept in its entirety repulsed me because
I did not want to imagine myself as being a 'part of God.'
God is Pure! God is Perfect! God is All Knowing and All Aware of all
things! So, how can I come along and say things like I was hearing
from the other preachers: "In a way, we are all gods." Read the Bible:
"You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you
shall die like men, and fall like any prince." (quoted from the Old
Testament; Psalms [82:6]) & "I said, you are gods." (New Testament
John 10:34)
The rationalization which comes about in the books attributed to the
Apostle Saul (changed his name to Paul), are full of statements which
basically cancel the Torah or Law of the Old Testament. He makes it a
matter of how you 'understand' something that makes it 'permissible'
or 'forbidden.' As an example in the English Revised Standard Version
which I have carried with me since 1953, it says in Paul's letter to
the Romans:
"I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in
itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean."
[Rom 14:14]
And again, in the same letter:
"So do not let what is good to you be spoken of as evil. For the
kingdom of God does not mean food and drink but righteousness and
peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."
[Rom 14:16]
By these types of statements, Paul pretty much destroys the entire Old
Testament Commandments. Yet at the same time, in the same English
version of the Bible in the first book of the New Testament, we are
told that Jesus preached a message which was exactly the opposite of
St. Paul:
"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I
have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to
you, till heaven and earth shall pass away, not an iota, not a dot,
will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes
one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be
called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and
teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I
tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and
Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
[Mt. 5:17-20]
So according the St. Paul's own testimony in his letter to the new
Roman Christians, he is relaxing not just the least of these
commandments, but basically all of these commandments. And he
justifies everything with his rationalization that if you don't think
it's bad, then it's not!
I just felt that something was wrong in this message and decided to
try to uphold the Commandments according to the Old Testament as much
as I could. That would mean: No Pork; circumcision; no sex outside of
marriage; no adultery; worship on Saturday (not Sunday) and most
important of all: No worship of anything which is in the creation.
This is in direct line with the verse which says:
"You shall have no other gods before (besides) me. You shall not make
yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven
above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under
the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the
Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who
hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands who love me and keep
my commandments." [Ex 20:3-6]
It seemed reasonable to me, that there should only be One God. He
should be All in Charge and without any partners. Reason also would
demand that only He should be given any worship because He Alone
deserves it. And as God, He should be the One to set the rules and
give the orders. Then it would be clear who really loved Him and who
was following His Commandments.
I had tried not to deal with these issues for many years. But now I
was getting close to fifty years old and needed to do something for
the Lord. After all, had done everything for me. So, it was time for
me to get serious about my religion and make some head way for the
Lord. I decided to join in with some of my friends who were
evangelists and preachers who preached in various parts of the country
and even in Mexico. We traveled together and praised the Lord together
and shared in 'the spirit' and went where the 'spirit lead us.' One of
them use to carry a huge cross on his shoulders and drag it down the
highway and give out little 'mini-Bibles' to those who cared to stop
and visit. It was enjoyable to go to those who had given up hope or
had no money or jobs and give them food, money, assistance and at the
same time call them to the message of Christianity. I took my Bible
everywhere and was very fast to whip it out and begin to 'preach the
message.' I was 'born again.' I needed to 'be in the light of Christ.'
I needed to share the 'message.' There was only one problem:
"What is the message?"
Oh sure, I know what some of the 'born again's are saying as they read
this:
"The message of salvation of Jesus Christ!" - "He died for your sins!"
- "He paid the price of redemption." - "He is the Risen Son of God!" -
"Jesus is LORD!"
Right. - I got that.
I preached that message myself and thought I understood it as well as
anyone else did. The problem is that one time I heard another preacher
say: "Don't leave your brain in the parking lot with your car."
Then it hit me to start thinking about the very serious problems and
real facts about my religion. Then came:
THE QUESTIONS NOBODY WANTS TO ANSWER -
________________________________________
ยท
ยท What about the Bible? Who actually wrote it?
ยท What was the original language of the Bible? (Hebrew? Aramaic? Koine
Greek?)
NOTE: - The Bible was never in English during the time of any prophet
(not even Muhammad) - because English did not exist until after 1066
AD!
ยท Does the Bible exist in the original form anywhere on earth? (No)
ยท Why does the Catholic Bible has seven (7) more books than the
Protestant Bible?
ยท Why do these two Bibles have different versions of the same books?
ยท Why are there so many mistakes and errors are from the very first
verse right up to the very last verse?
ยท Why do 'Born Again Christians' teach concepts that are not from the
Bible?
ยท There is no word "Trinity" in the Bible in any version of any
language
ยท The oldest forms of Christianity do not support the 'born again'
beliefs
ยท Jesus of the English Bible complains about the 'crucifixion'
("Eli! Eli! Lama sabachthani? - My God! My God! Why have You forsaken
me?") [Mk 15:34]
ยท How can Jesus be the "Only Begotten Son" of John 3:16? When in
Psalms 2:7 David is God's "Begotten Son?"
ยท Would a 'Just' God, a 'Fair' God, a 'Loving' God -- punish Jesus for
the sins of the people that he called to follow him?
ยท What happens to people who died before Jesus came?
ยท What happens to those who never hear this message?
ยท What about innocent children who die although their parents are not
Christian?
ยท Didn't God create Adam from dirt? -- So, why does he need Mary to
make Jesus?
ยท And what about God?
o How can God create Himself?
o How can God be a man?
o How can a man be a God?
o How can God have a son?
ยท The Bible says "Seth (is) the son of Adam" and that"Adam is the son
of God." [Lk 3:36]
ยท Can't God just forgive us and not have to kill Jesus?
ยท And what about Jesus?
o Jesus did not even carry the cross -- Simon Cyre'ne, a passerby
did! [Mk 15:21]
o Jesus of the Bible was NOT on the cross for longer than six (6)
hours -- NOT three days -- (from the 3rd to the 9th hour) [Mk 15:25 &
15:33]
o Jesus of the Bible did not spend three days and nights in the tomb
-- Friday night - until Sunday before dawn -- is not 3 days and
nights!
o Jesus DID NOT claim to be God - or even equal to God!
My friend with the huge cross became tired of trying to answer all of
my questions and in desperation one day, he told me to read the story
of Abraham in Genesis in the Old Testament. Especially the part of
sacrificing his son for the sake of God. He seemed to feel that this
was going to explain the whole concept of sacrifice and obedience to
God.
I read it.
But instead of convincing me that this was the meaning of punishing
the good so the bad do not have to suffer, I saw a totally different
message here.
Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son on the alter for the sake of
Almighty God, if that was what God wanted from him. But God did not
really want to take the life of an innocent boy for sins that Abraham
committed. That was not even the story here. And as far as replacing
his son with the ram for sacrifice, this also does not match the story
of Jesus on the cross.
Stop. Think.
Abraham was asked by God to sacrifice his son to test the loyalty of
Abraham. He did not withhold his son from God, so God's angels ordered
him to offer a ram in place of his son. God was pleased with his total
submission and as a result, God Blessed him and his offspring.
[Gen. 22:9-18]
Now think about the New Testament story of 'salvation.'
Jesus asked God NOT to put him through this ordeal.
"Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless
not my will, but Yours, be done." [Luke 22:42]
Notice in the next verse, an angel from heaven also appears to Jesus
to "strengthen him."
Abraham's angel comes to offer a ram as a sacrifice instead of the
son.
The next verse [22:44] Jesus is in AGONY as he prays "more earnestly;
and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the
ground."
Then I looked to the account of the story in the Book of Mark
[14:32-39].
Jesus goes to the garden of Gethsemane and his soul is "very
sorrowful, even to death." And "... going a little farther, he fell on
the ground prayer that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from
him." Meaning that somehow when the time came for the event to take
place he could escape it. This is NOT the submissive attitude of
Abraham.
Next I noticed in verse 36, Jesus says: "Abba, Father, all things are
possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but
what thou wilt." And then he goes to his disciples and wakes them up
and then returns to pray "... saying the same words."
This whole concept was so totally different than the one from Genesis
talking about Abraham and his son.
I asked questions and delved into 'those kind of stories' the more I
would like to facilitate the truth. Many strange things began to
happen. Very strange.
Things began to happen in my life. Things that would change many
concepts and beliefs that I had been burdened with for many years.
Solutions and answers started coming in very strange and wonder ways.
First, my father started doing business with a man from Egypt. After
introducing me to him, my father noticed right away that I was trying
to convert the man to Christianity and asked me not to do so in a rude
manner. I heard the man say he was ready to come to my religion if my
religion was better than his religion. But there was a condition, he
said he wanted proof. I told him religion is not about proof. It is
about faith. He then said something that really made me think. He told
me in his religion there was both faith and proof. Strange, I thought.
How could there be any proof about God or religion?
Next, I was to meet a Catholic priest who would enlighten us all on
the true history of the church and what was really going on in the
cathedrals and the Vatican. His name was Father Peter Jacobs. His
experiences throughout Central and South America, Mexico and the
United States would prove to be very enlightening. But most of all was
his deep understanding of the Bible and the scrolls. He brought to the
table many interesting and amazing facts about Christianity and the
organized religion of Catholicism.
Both the priest and the Muslim from Egypt came to live with us in our
home in the country near Dallas, Texas. Then things really started
getting strange.
ยท I would love to share the details of this story of how so many
preachers and priests are coming to Islam. Please visit our website to
get the whole story at:
http://www.islamtomorrow.com/yusuf/
On Feb 19, 1:51 pm, Pastor Richard Foot <Y...@email.com> wrote:
jwshe...@satx.rr.com
Another view
The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant
Religion (Hardcover)
by Robert Spencer (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Muhammad-Intolerant-Religion/dp/1596980281
Jim
> - "He paid the ...
>
> read more ยป
arah
VALPARAISO: Programs highlight conflict, connection and current
events
>From Friday, February 16, 2007 12:13 AM CST Email this story Print
this story
BY BRIAN WILLIAMS
bwil...@nwitimes.com
219.548.4348
As the United States fights wars in two Muslim lands and gropes toward
understanding of the religion of the prophet Mohammed, several coming
events aim to facilitate a better knowledge of Islam.
Two presentations at Valparaiso University and a course at Chesterton
High School's adult enrichment program will explore misconceptions
about the religion, Christian-Muslim engagement and the war on terror.
Greater knowledge about Islam and more dialogue can only be helpful,
according to Ferass Safadi, the education task force chairman of
United for a Purpose, a Valparaiso-based organization promoting
diversity.
"Anything that educates people on the true nature of Islam ... is
something that's positive," said Safadi, a 1994 graduate of Valparaiso
High School. "Ignorance only leads to hate."
On Monday at Valparaiso University, the Valparaiso Organization for
Learning and Teaching Seniors will host the talk "Christian-Muslim
Engagement: What Unites and What Divides" by Rev. Harold Vogelaar, of
the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago.
On Feb. 26, a professor of theology at Loyola Marymount University
will lead the forum "Breaking Down Common Misconceptions of Islam" at
Valparaiso University. Dr. Amir Hussain, a Canadian Muslim and the
author of "Oil and Water: Two Faiths, One God," will discuss popular
misconceptions about the Islamic faith.
And starting March 1, a three-week course at Chesterton High Adult
Enrichment titled "The War on Terror: From Islam to Iraq" will explain
Islam's roots, sects and impacts in the light of conflict since Sept.
11, 2001. Taught by CHS social studies teacher Chris Lowery, the twice-
weekly classes will touch on Sunni and Shiite differences, Osama Bin
Laden's aims and the Patriot Act, among other topics.
Noting many ties between Christianity and Islam, Lowery said: "When we
don't understand (each other), we end up conflicting."
IF YOU GO
Several local events are intended to help people better understand
Islam, including:
Feb. 19 -- "Christian-Muslim Engagement: What Unites and What
Divides," at 4:15 p.m, Valparaiso University Center for the Arts, Room
1412. Seniors may join VOLTS at any time; dues are $20 per person, $35
per couple. For more information, call (219) 464-5313.
Feb. 26 -- "Breaking Down Common Misconceptions of Islam" at 7 p.m.,
VU Neils Science Center. Also, a video about Islamic women in mosques
will be shown at 5 p.m. followed by discussion. Admission to the
events is free.
March 1 -- "The War on Terror: From Islam to Iraq," from 6 to 7:30
p.m. Tuesdays and Thursdays through March 22, Chesterton High School.
Registration is $53. For more information, call (219) 983-3730.
On Feb 20, 12:38 am, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
<jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> Another view
arah
The following are the Editorial Reviews
>From Publishers Weekly
In a meticulous quest for the historical Muhammad, Armstrong first
traces the West's long history of hostility toward Islam, which it has
stigmatized as a "religion of the sword." This sympathetic, engrossing
biography portrays Muhammad (ca. 570-632) as a passionate, complex,
fallible human being--a charismatic leader possessed of political as
well as spiritual gifts, and a prophet whose monotheistic vision
intuitively answered the deepest longings of his people. Armstrong
( The Gospel According to Woman ) refutes the Western image of
Muhammad as an impostor who used religion as a means to power, an
attitude encapsulated in a psychotic dream episode in Salman Rushdie's
The Satanic Verses. Denying that Islam preaches total intransigence,
she finds in the Prophet's teachings a theology of peace and
tolerance. The "holy war" urged by the Koran, in Armstrong's reading,
alludes to each Muslim's duty to fight for a just, decent society. She
draws significant parallels between the spiritual aspirations of
Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to
an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
>From Library Journal
This portrayal of the prophet of Islam and the setting from which he
emerged will captivate and enlighten general readers with a newfound
understanding of modern events in the Middle East. Armstrong, a former
Roman Catholic nun, has shown much insight and sensitivity in her well-
researched biography. She interweaves sections on the Western response
to Islam and the controversy over Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses
( LJ 12/88) within her detailed account of Muhammad and the
monumental, unifying religion that he introduced to the backward
tribal Arabia of the seventh century. The book was first published in
Great Britain in 1991 under the title Muhammad: A Western Attempt To
Understand Islam . Highly recommended.
- Paula I. Nielson, Loyola Marymount Univ. Lib., Los Angeles
Copyright 1992 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to
an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
The Economist
"Respectful without being reverential, knowledgeable without being
pedantic, and, above all, readable. It succeeds because [Armstrong]
begins Muhammad to life as a fully rounded human being."
Publishers Weekly
"This sympathetic, engrossing biography portrays Muhammad as a
passionate, complex, fallible human being...
Choice
"A fresh, well-written, and often insightful account whose ten
chapters give special attention to the religions roots, experiences,
and motivations of Muhammad."
Book Description
This vivid and detailed biography strips away centuries of distortion
and myth and presents a balanced view of the man whose religion
continues to dramatically affect the course of history.
About the Author
Karen Armstrong is the author of nearly twenty books, including The
Great Transformation, A History of God, and The Spiral Staircase, a
spiritual memoir, among other bestsellers. An internationally renowned
expert on religion, Armstrong is a powerful voice for interfaith
understanding. She lives in England.
On Feb 20, 12:38 am, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"
<jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
> Another view
>
>
> ...
>
> read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dan
> Muhammad by Karen Armstrong is a better book to read.
Oh how the muzzies loves Karen Armstrong...
Karen Armstrong's Fantasies About Islamic Terror
By Robert Spencer
In the wake of the 7/7 London bombings many politicians and pundits
have raced to renounce the phrase "Islamic terrorism." A London
Anglican priest named Paul Hawkins said in a sermon: "We can name the
people who did these things as criminals or terrorists. We must not
name them as Muslims." It may seem odd to deny to the likely
perpetrators of the bombings the name that they themselves prize above
all others, and it is certainly a disservice to any genuine Muslim
reformers who might be trying to identify and root out the causes of
violence from within Islam, but such are the politically correct
dogmas that prevail in most contemporary public discourse. And no one
is better versed in those dogmas, or more relentless in her pursuit of
any dissenters from them (with a fury that the most ruthless
Inquisitor would envy), than Karen Armstrong.
Armstrong, of course, is the ex-nun who now spends a great deal of
time propagating, through her books Islam: A Short History and
Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet and a steady stream of articles,
a highly tendentious version of Islam, as benign as Quakerism and as
expansive as the most liberal form of Anglicanism. In Islam: A Short
History, she blames Christians for the misapprehension that Islam is
not a peaceful religion:
Ever since the Crusades, the people of Western Christendom developed a
stereotypical and distorted vision of Islam, which they regarded as
the enemy of decent civilization....It was, for example, during the
Crusades, when it was Christians who had instigated a series of brutal
holy wars against the Muslim world, that Islam was described by the
learned scholar-monks of Europe as an inherently violent and
intolerant faith, which had only been able to establish itself by the
sword. The myth of the supposed fanatical intolerance of Islam has
become one of the received ideas of the West. (pp. 179-180)
As rescue workers continued to dig bodies out of the rubble in London,
she took up the cudgels yet again, writing a piece in The Guardian
entitled "The label of Catholic terror was never used about the IRA."
In it, she professes astonishment that last year, at a "conference in
the US about security and intelligence in the so-called war on
terror," someone she identifies only as "one of the more belligerent
participants" argued that "as a purely practical expedient,
politicians and the media must stop referring to 'Muslim terrorism.'
It was obvious, he said, that the atrocities had nothing to do with
Islam, and to suggest otherwise was not merely inaccurate but
dangerously counterproductive."
Armstrong was astonished, mind you, not because this analysis is
absurd, but because she was amazed to hear it from the bull-necked
hawks she expected to find at such a conference. Yet although the
belligerent participant's recommendation is common these days, it
makes about as much sense as saying, "Now, we must not refer to 'Nazi
anti-Semitism.'" The Nazis were anti-Semitic because of core Nazi
teachings. The Muslim terrorists are committing acts of terrorism, by
their own account, because of core Islamic teachings. Saying that we
are supposed to ignore that is tantamount to saying that we must
ignore what the enemy tells us about himself, who he is, what he
wants, and why he is fighting. Which is tantamount to saying that we
should surrender. We cannot defeat an enemy we are afraid to name.
Yet Armstrong says that "our priority must be to stem the flow of
young people into organisations such as al-Qaida, instead of
alienating them by routinely coupling their religion with immoral
violence. Incorrect statements about Islam have convinced too many in
the Muslim world that the west is an implacable enemy." Armstrong here
seems to be saying that if we ignore the elements of Islam that give
rise to terror, they will stop giving rise to terror. I contend on the
contrary that if we are to have any hope of stemming "the flow of
young people into organisations such as al-Qaida," it can only come
from speaking forthrightly about what it is in Islam that makes them
flow into such organizations, and calling upon Muslims who call
themselves moderate to renounce those Islamic teachings -- while
alerting non-Muslims to the existence of such teachings, so that they
can take realistic actions against the threat in its true dimensions.
No problem can be fixed by denying that it is a problem.
But of course, Armstrong would not accept that it is a problem in the
first place. She declares that "these acts may be committed by people
who call themselves Muslims, but they violate essential Islamic
principles. The Qur'an prohibits aggressive warfare, permits war only
in self-defence and insists that the true Islamic values are peace,
reconciliation and forgiveness." Yet it is not enough any longer, if
it ever was, simply to assert that the terrorists "violate essential
Islamic principles" and talk about self-defense and peace. The
jihadists have again and again characterized their struggle as
defensive. Let Ms. Armstrong demonstrate, if she can, from the Qur'an
or Islamic tradition, why their characterization is in this case
inaccurate, and how moderate Muslims today can refute it. If she
cannot, then moderate Muslim leaders should do so, or risk giving
their very professions of moderation a hollow ring.
"Like the Bible," Armstrong says, "the Qur'an has its share of
aggressive texts, but like all the great religions, its main thrust is
towards kindliness and compassion. Islamic law outlaws war against any
country in which Muslims are allowed to practice their religion
freely, and forbids the use of fire, the destruction of buildings and
the killing of innocent civilians in a military campaign." But the
problem within Islam is not that of a few aggressive texts in the
Qur'an, parallel to a few in the Bible. In the Bible there are indeed
aggressive texts, but there is no open-ended and universal command to
all believers to make war against unbelievers, a la Qur'an 9:29. Nor
is that an isolated text: Islam, unlike Christianity, has a developed
doctrine sanctioning and calling for this warfare. The Shafi'i manual
Reliance of the Traveller, which bears the endorsement of Sunni
Islam's most respected authority, Al-Azhar University in Cairo,
stipulates that jihad is "a communal obligation" to "war against non-
Muslims." It teaches that "the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians,
and Zoroastrians...until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim
poll tax . . . The caliph fights all other peoples until they become
Muslim" (o9.0, o9.1, o9.8, and o9.9). This is one reason why jihad
terrorists like Osama bin Laden want so badly to restore the caliphate
- so that such a jihad can be pursued. There is no doctrine like this
in any other major religion.
Also, look closely at Armstrong's wording: "Islamic law outlaws war
against any country in which Muslims are allowed to practice their
religion freely." This is similar to a fatwa of Mufti Ebrahim Desai of
South Africa: "if a country doesn't allow the propagation of Islam to
its inhabitants in a suitable manner or creates hindrances to this,
then the Muslim ruler would be justifying in waging Jihad against this
country, so that the message of Islam can reach its inhabitants, thus
saving them from the Fire of Jahannum [hell]. If the Kuffaar
[unbelievers] allow us to spread Islam peacefully, then we would not
wage Jihad against them." A central part of the Islamic religion
traditionally has been its prescriptions for governance. Would
opposition to Sharia be hindering Muslims from practicing their
religion freely? The problem with such statements -- both Armstrong's
and Desai's -- is that they are so elastic as to be meaningless in
terms of restricting Muslims from waging war. The "America is waging
war on Islam" rhetoric coming today from jihadists is a case in point.
They assert that America is waging war on Islam, despite President
Bush's strenuous efforts to establish the contrary, and thus justify
waging war against us.
Likewise Armstrong's statement that "Islamic law...forbids the use of
fire, the destruction of buildings and the killing of innocent
civilians in a military campaign." Innocent civilians. Were the office
workers in the World Trade Center innocent? Osama says no. Can
Armstrong refute him on Islamic grounds? If not, then what is the
value of making such an assertion in the first place?
Armstrong continues with another common canard: "We rarely, if ever,
called the IRA bombings 'Catholic' terrorism because we knew enough to
realise that this was not essentially a religious campaign. Indeed,
like the Irish republican movement, many fundamentalist movements
worldwide are simply new forms of nationalism in a highly unorthodox
religious guise. This is obviously the case with Zionist
fundamentalism in Israel and the fervently patriotic Christian right
in the US." It is true that the IRA's was not essentially a religious
campaign. The IRA was not claiming to blow things up in the name of
their religion or justifying their actions by reference to Christian
scripture. The jihad terrorists today, however, explain that they are
acting in the name of Islam, and quote Qur'an copiously. Nor was the
IRA an international movement with a program calling for the
subjugation the world under its system of law and societal mores.
Islamic terrorism is.
Armstrong does grant that "sometimes a military effort may be a
regrettable necessity in order to defend decent values, but an oft-
quoted tradition has the Prophet Muhammad saying after a military
victory: 'We are coming back from the Lesser Jihad [ie the battle] and
returning to the Greater Jihad' - the far more important, difficult
and momentous struggle to reform our own society and our own hearts."
Yet of course, Osama and his ilk would say precisely that a military
effort is a regrettable necessity today in order to defend decent
values. This again calls for refutation, not glossing-over. And as for
that Hadith, Ms. Armstrong may not be aware that attacks upon it form
a central part of jihadist polemic. Abdullah Azzam, a founder of Al-
Qaeda, and Hassan Al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, argued
that it was a weak hadith, and thus should not be followed by Muslims.
They maintained that jihad was primarily warfare and that Muslims
should understand it as such. And indeed, this statement of Muhammad
does not appear in the hadith collections that Muslims consider most
reliable. Here again, if moderate Muslims really do not wish their
children to join terrorist groups, they must refute the arguments
advanced by Azzam and Al-Banna. Armstrong shows no indication of even
knowing that such arguments exist.
It gets worse. Armstrong even goes to bat for the Wahhabis: "even
though the narrow, sometimes bigoted vision of Wahhabism makes it a
fruitful ground for extremism, the vast majority of Wahhabis do not
commit acts of terror." Obviously not, any more than the vast majority
of Nazis actually worked in death camps. But in any case, the idea
that Wahhabism is violent and the rest of Islam is peaceful is simply
false. The doctrines of violent jihad are found among all Muslim
sects. And Armstrong seems at least aware of this: she argues that
jihad terrorism should be renamed "Qutbian terrorism," stating that
"Bin Laden was not inspired by Wahhabism but by the writings of the
Egyptian ideologue Sayyid Qutb, who was executed by President Nasser
in 1966." It is at least good of Armstrong to acknowledge that Qutb
was not a Wahhabi. Other Islamic apologists are not so willing to do
so. But what Armstrong has not demonstrated, and cannot demonstrate,
is that "Qutbian terrorism" represents in any way a departure from
traditional Islamic teaching, or that most Islamic schools of thought
reject its key principles.
"There are too many lazy, unexamined assumptions about Islam,"
complains Armstrong, and she notes that "precise intelligence is
essential in any conflict." Quite right. And she is right again when
she says that "by making the disciplined effort to name our enemies
correctly, we will learn more about them, and come one step nearer,
perhaps, to solving the seemingly intractable and increasingly
perilous problems of our divided world." Yet ironically enough, it is
clear from her own obfuscations and distortions of Islam that she
herself has not made this disciplined effort. Her continuing
influence, however, is just one indication of why it is so crucial
today that other, less-biased analysts do so, and do so quickly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and
the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of six books, seven
monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic
terrorism, including Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the
World's Fastest Growing Faith and the New York Times Bestseller The
Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). His latest
book is the New York Times Bestseller The Truth About Muhammad.
Dan
More on Karen Armstrong:
The Jewish-Friendly Koran
A whole new context.
By David Klinghoffer
I wish I could crawl into the head of British historian Karen
Armstrong, whose comments about Islam and Muhammad are astonishing. In
good conscience, how does she say the things she does?
My occasion for asking is a new PBS documentary, Muhammad: Legacy of a
Prophet, that debuted Wednesday night. The filmmakers take pains to
show how cuddly and non-threatening a religion Islam is, but the most
mind-blowing words in the two hours of footage are from Ms. Armstrong.
She says, "Muhammad had nothing against the Jewish people per se, or
the Jewish religion. The Koran continues to tell Muslims to honor the
People of the Book."
Referring to Christians as well as Jews, that famous phrase, "the
People of the Book," comes up whenever someone is trying to paint a
friendly face on Islam. The truth is that Muhammad typically means it
not in praise but as an expression of bitter irony, as if to say:
These people have Scripture, yet they reject me! Author of Mohammed: A
Biography of the Prophet and Islam: A Short History, Armstrong
presumably has studied the Koran carefully enough to know this. Or has
she?
Muhammad takes a lively interest in Jews and Christians, whom he deals
with explicitly in many, many passages. Here's a quick sample.
God is quoted by prophet as saying, "The unbelievers among the People
of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell.
They are the vilest of all creatures." "...those that disbelieve Our
revelations and deny them are the heirs of Hell." Of the Jews in
particular: "God has cursed them in their unbelief."
As to how one is to deal with such unbelievers, the Koran's message is
vigorously expressed. "Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him
are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." "If you
do not go to war, He will punish you sternly." "Believers, make war on
the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." "Believers,
take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are
friends to one another."
A couple of verses suggest a pacifistic perspective: "Requite evil
with good, and he who is your enemy will become your dearest friend."
But these are isolated thoughts. Much more representative are the
passages that describe, with satisfaction, the destruction of the
cities and nations of the unbelievers in the past, the ruin of their
lives and fortunes in the future.
"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal
sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate." "God
loves those who fight for His cause in ranks as firm as a mighty
edifice." In the surah titled "That Which Is Coming," we find verses
that sound weirdly like 9/11: "They [the unbelievers] shall dwell
amidst scorching winds and seething water: in the shade of pitch-black
smoke, neither cool nor refreshing." "On that day woe betide the
disbelievers! Be gone to the Hell which you deny! Depart into the
shadow that will rise high in three columns, giving neither shade nor
shelter from the flames, and throwing up sparks as huge as towers, as
bright as yellow camels!"
As I was making my way through the text, occasionally I would read a
particularly vivid passage aloud to my wife. "But you're taking that
out of context," she'd say. "You must be."
Actually, on page after page, sentiments like these are the context.
Karen Armstrong is either one of the biggest liars on the planet, or,
more likely, self-deluded in the way only professional scholars can
be. She mystifies me.
- David Klinghoffer is the author of a spiritual memoir, The Lord Will
Gather Me In, as well as the forthcoming The Discovery of God: Abraham
and the Birth of Monotheism.
arah
Karen Armstrong was a nun and has wrote the truth, that why Spenser
and David Klinghoffer were against her.
Let read what the bible said:
Kill Nonbelievers
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their
fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not
seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether
small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of
the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.
Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be
put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for
their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.
(Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the
coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death.
They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
Death for Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man
and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
Death for Fornication
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication
and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.
(Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
Death to Followers of Other Religions
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be
doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
Kill False Prophets
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall
say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the
name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and
mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving
you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow
citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such
cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true
and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you
must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as
well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the
middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as
a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin
forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has
been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his
fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you
and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your
ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him
and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is
pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her
wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they
shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there
her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime
against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall
you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
Kill Followers of Other Religions.
1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your
beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve
other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any
other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to
the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity
upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be
the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in
with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you
astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of
Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall
fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy
13:7-12 NAB)
[Say: We believe in God, and in what has been revealed to us and what
was
revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in
(the Books)
given to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets from their Lord: We make no
distinction
between one and another.] (Aal `Imran 3:84)
Islam teaches the respect of all beliefs.
As is borne out by this command of God in the Qur'an, Muslims must
believe in
all the prophets of God previously sent to humanity. This means that
they are
not permitted to show any disrespect to any prophet or to the religion
he taught
to his followers. To a Muslim, religious belief must come out of a
person's free
choice, as God has also commanded not to use any kind of coercion in
the matter
of religion:
[Let there be no compulsion in religion, truth stands out clear from
error.]
(Al-Baqarah 2:256)
It is the conviction of a religion's adherents, not the compulsion
they can
impose on others, that establishes its moral force on earth. This was
a
principle evident in the life and practice of the Prophet Muhammad
(peace be on
him) as well as the Constitution of Madinah which he drew up with the
multi-religious community of Madinah.
This document guaranteed the freedom of worship to all religious
communities.
This was the spirit of the Qur'an that shines into the hearts of all
its
perceptive readers: the spirit of tolerance and understanding. Allah
says in the
Qur'an that He has made people into nations and tribes so that they
can know and
deal with each other in an equal temper of kindness and generosity:
[O humankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and female,
and made
you into nations and tribes, that you may know and deal with each
other in
kindness (not that you may despise each other). Verily the most
honored of you
in the sight of God (is he who is) the most righteous of you, and God
is Knower,
Aware.] (Al-Hujurat 49:13)
The above verse emphasizes the point that in Islam there is no place
for
intolerance, prejudice, or bigotry based on color, race, nationality
or any such
considerations. This all-encompassing tolerance of Islam applies to
all elements
of life and all affairs of Muslims.
The Muslim's acceptance of the Jews and Christians (referred to in the
Qur'an as
People of the Book) as authentic religious communities is made clear:
[And dispute not with the People of the Book, except with means better
(than
mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong
and
injury.] (Al-`Ankabut 29:46).
This verse tells Muslims that they should take all measures to avoid
dispute,
anger or other negative feelings between themselves and others.
A Historical Context
In his book, More in Common Than You Think: Bridge Between Islam and
Christianity, Dr. William Baker explains how Muslims view the Torah
and the New
Testament as inspired revelations of God and how Islam neither
targeted the Jews
nor Judaism.
In his article "The Prophet of Islam and the Jews: Basis of Conduct,
Acceptance,
Respect and Cooperation", Fysal Burhan quotes Dr. Baker: "It is a fact
of
history that when the Jews were being persecuted in Europe during the
middle
ages they found peace, harmony, and acceptance among the Muslim people
of Spain.
In fact, this was the era of Jewish history that they themselves refer
to as
"the golden age."
Marmaduke Pickthall, whose translation of the meanings of the Qur'an
remains one
of the most popular today, also commented on the subject:
In Spain under the Umayyads and in Baghdad under the Abbasid
Khalifas,
Christians and Jews, equally with Muslims, were admitted to the
Schools and
universities - not only that, but were boarded and lodged in hostels
at the cost
of the state. When the Moors were driven out of Spain, the Christian
conquerors
held a terrific persecution of the Jews. Those who were fortunate
enough to
escape fled, some of them to Morocco and many hundreds to the Turkish
empire,
where their descendants still live in separate communities, and still
speak
among themselves an antiquated form of Spanish. The Muslim empire was
a refuge
for all those who fled from persecution by the Inquisition.
The Western Christians, till the arrival of the Encyclopaedists in
the
eighteenth century, did not know and did not care to know, what the
Muslim
believed, nor did the Western Christian seek to know the views of
Eastern
Christians with regard to them. The Christian Church was already split
in two,
and in the end, it came to such a pass that the Eastern Christians, as
Gibbon
shows, preferred Muslim rule, which allowed them to practice their own
form of
religion and adhere to their peculiar dogmas, to the rule of fellow
Christians
who would have made them Roman Catholics or wiped them out...
If Europe had known as much of Islam, as Muslims knew of Christendom,
in those
days, those mad, adventurous, occasionally chivalrous and heroic, but
utterly
fanatical outbreak known as the Crusades could not have taken place,
for they
were based on a complete misapprehension...
It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious
law that
they became more tolerant; and it was only when the Muslims fell away
from their
religious law that they declined in tolerance and other evidences of
the highest
culture. Before the coming of Islam it had never been preached as an
essential
part of religion." (Madras Lectures on Islam)
The Prophet's Pluralistic Constitution
The Qur'an never claimed to teach a new religion. It consistently
contextualized
the Prophet Muhammad as being the final messenger in a long line of
messengers
from Allah confirming the truth of all earlier scriptures. This
continuity is
clear in the respect the Prophet showed to people of other religions.
Muhammad's mission was to restore the pure religion of Noah, Abraham,
Moses,
David and Jesus. The Islamic view of earlier religions is clear from
the
following verses of the Qur'an:
[The same religion has He established for you as that which He
enjoined on
Noah--which We have sent by inspiration to thee (O Muhammad)--and that
which We
enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus... Call (them to the Faith), and
stand
steadfast as thou art commanded, follow not thou their vain desires;
but say: "I
believe in whatever Book Allah has sent down; and I am commanded to
judge justly
between you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord: for us (is the
responsibility for)
our deeds, and for you for your deeds. There is no contention between
us and
you. Allah will bring us together, and to Him is (our) final goal.]
(Ash-Shura
42:13 & 15)
It was in the year 622 CE that the Prophet came to Madinah after a
period of
thirteen years of preaching Islam to the Quraish tribe in Makkah. In
Madinah he
found many who were ready to receive him and help him in his mission.
At that
time, the city of Madinah and its surrounding area was home to many
Jewish and
Arab tribes. There were also people of various racial and national
origins
including Romans, Persians and Ethiopians living in Madinah.
Taking into consideration the hopes and aspirations of this community
of
multi-religious background, the Prophet Muhammad drew up the basic
principles of
a pluralistic constitution. In addition, it established the rights and
equality
of every citizen before the law, as well as freedom of religion, trade
and
speech. The constitution spelled out the political rights and duties
of both the
Jews and Muslims to protect each other from every threat to their
security and
to uphold moral conduct and fair dealing.
Part of the constitution reads as follows:
The Jews of Banu `Awf are one nation with the Muslims; the Jews have
their
religion and the Muslims have theirs, their freedmen and their persons
shall be
protected except those who behave unjustly or sinfully, for they hurt
but
themselves and their families. The same applies to the Jews of Banu an-
Najjar,
Banu al-Harith, Banu Sa'idah, Banu Jusham, Banu al-Aws, Banu
Tha'labah, and the
Jafnah, clan of the Tha'labah and Banu al-Shua'ibah. Doing good deeds
is a
protection against sinfulness. .......There is no responsibility except
for one's
own deeds....This document shall not constitute any protection for the
unjust or
the wrongdoers.
Whoever goes out to fight or stays at home is safe in the city, unless
he has
committed an injustice or a crime. God is the protector of whoever
honors his
commitment to this document, and is God-fearing and so is Muhammad,
the
Messenger of God. (Ibn Hisham)
The Constitution of Madinah was a historical document authored and
dictated by
Prophet Muhammad as the law of a land inhabited by different ethnic
groups and
nationalities. The document secured and promoted cooperation and
fraternity
among all people of any creed, color, ethnicity, and lineage, and set
down the
criterion of righteousness as the base of distinction.
A Human Soul
In addition to the legislation that the Prophet laid down in Madinah,
he also
practiced the spirit of acceptance and respect for those who were
different in
his daily life. The Prophet used to visit the sick people among the
Jews as well
as the Muslims; and when on one occasion the funeral procession of a
Jew passed
before him, he stood up as a sign of respect for the deceased. "Why
did you
stand up for a Jewish funeral?" he was asked. The Prophet replied: "Is
it not a
human soul?" (Al-Bukhari)
In this age of racial profiling and targeted killings directed at
Muslims this
attitude of the Prophet may sound other-worldly.
Works Cited:
Burhan, Fysal. "The Prophet of Islam and the Jews: Basis of Conduct,
Acceptance,
Respect and Cooperation". last accessed March 26, 2006.
Pickthall, Marmaduke Muhammad. "Madras Lectures on Islam". 1927.
Dan
> and David Klinghoffer were against her.
This is what you wish to believe.
> Let read what the bible said:
No, let's not. You tirelessly spam this and other Christian newsgroups
with off-topic propaganda. I couldn't care less what you think about
the bible.
This is not about a choice between Christianity and Islam. If I were
not a Christian, I could imagine being a Jew, a Buddhist, or maybe
even a Zoroastrian. But never would I descend into the satanic
cesspool that calls itself Islam.
Now please stop your spamming. Show a little restraint and confine
your messages to Muslim newsgroups.
genedoug
This is a Unitarian-Universalist website. It is not a UU principle to
attack other religions. You are spamming this group, too. If you
believe Islam is a "Satanic Cesspool," please justify your claims, in
a manner more convincing than just name calling.
Dan
If you are going to discuss spamming, you should start by learning the
difference between a website and a newsgroup.
I didn't realize that these messages were being cross-posted to your
group; the distribution of this thread was determined by the author of
its first message.
In future, I will certainly try to be careful to eliminate
alt.religion.unitarian-univ from the distribution lists of any posts
that I reply to.