Comments on: Some Thoughts on Muslims Converting to Christianity and Vice-Versa

By: shadowofears

shadowofears — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:15:13 +0000

show you some fake converts to christianity?
there are many evidence that most of these so called muslim converts are fake. They are paid for their lies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhjnqrx5Igg

Another fake convert: (this is actually quiet hilarious how ignorant these “SO CALLED” converts are)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgm6L_gHsrU

Another one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSTgbPYswPg

Just for fun purpose
Check this out:

How ex-muslim baby killer Samer found christ!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RIWvDoPyLQk

By: Xman

Xman — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:46:36 +0000

Layman is being dis-ingenious by saying;

“No religious authority in the English-speaking world has executed a heretic since …1692…”
Then he calls apostasy a victimless crime

For starters, there hasn’t been a “Religious Authority” that has any power or to whom ordinary Xtians listen to in the english speaking world for centuries. If the Religious Fundies of America were in power, they would have bought forward Armageddon years ago just so that they could be RAPTURED to the right hand of Jesus in heaven.

Their authorities are now Bush & Blair who have no problem massacring millions of muslims.

As for Apostasy in an Islamic State, it is equivalent to Treason for which even the West has the Death Penalty. The Victims of the Apostate are his family and by extension, the Islamic State.

As for his allegation about Muslims persecuting Scientists, he mentions just 1 name. Ibn Rushd (Averroes) was a brilliant Islamic Scholar and Polymath. Muslims NEVER persecuted their Scientists and NEVER burned any of them. The Scientists were Islamic Scholars in their own right!
See a detailed biography of him here:
http://leb.net/~aljadid/classics/0422salloum.html

Have a read of some his books (mostly in Arabic - few in English)
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ir/

Why do these Christians Missionaries for Jesus always tell lies????

By: Xman

Xman — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 02:04:52 +0000

Jimmy, the Muslims were routinely called Infidels & Pagans & Disbelievers etc by the Christians.

As for your definitions, no we dont agree.
Anybody that claims to be a Muslim but he knows inside that he doesnt believe in Islam is called a Munafiq - Hypocrite.

Anybody that claims to be a Muslim but doesnt practice anything yet he knows inside himself that he should be practicing is called a Sinner.

Anybody that claims to be a Muslim but doesnt practice anything and he says that he doesnt need to practice anything ipso facto becomes a Kaafir - disbeliever in islam

Anybody who is not a Muslim is a Kaafir - disbeliever in islam. This is simply a statement of fact.

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 00:11:41 +0000

Following what I had previously written, let me explain by way of an example. Who is an infidel? The one who does not belong to a group of people who call themselves Muslims? Or, is an infidel the one who does not follow the spiritual ways of Islam. A long time ago, I attended a lecture by a professor, an ex-Jesuit. Among other things he said, there is one that struck me most. Commenting on a Buddhist acted compassionately, the professor said, “The Buddhist is a hidden Christian.” That got me thinking. I said, “Sir, could we also not say that a Christian, who is passionate, is a hidden Buddhist?” To this he said, “You have a point.”

So, who is an infidel? I think he is one who doesn’t follow the ways of Islam. If I proclaim myself to be a Muslim, but do not follow the ways of Islam, then, I am an infidel, not a Muslim in deeds. Similarly, one who claims to be a Christian, but does not follow the spiritual ways of Jesus Christ, is not a Christian. I hope you see my point.

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 17:27:01 +0000

There are many stories of people who convert to different religions such as, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism, to name a few, whose testimonials I have read. I have nothing but great respect for them. Each of them has taken different paths towards Truth. But, what is truth? Shall we say that one religion has the monopoly of Truth, while the others are false or only had partial Truth?

I think that when we fall into this kind of a discussion, we tend to treat the words found in the religious texts as Truth, so that we argue that “Truth is the words themselves.” This, I believe, is where the chance of establishing a dialogue amongst religions is jeopardized. For as long as we take words literally, we will never be able to meet. For instance, when Christians read the words, “I am the Light, the Truth, the Way…no one comes to God except through me,” they take them as literally as Muslims would of their texts. Not only will there be no dialogue, not only will some actions lead to various forms of violence, people who profess to have experienced what they believe to be the truth, will lose out on the significance of their religious experience which are encountered in many different ways.

Words, to me, point to the experience that everyone is capable of encountering. We should leave the words behind, and engage in the Experience. This Expeirence is what everyone can talk about, can dialogue about; while words are springboards.

By: aian jaafar

aian jaafar — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:16:29 +0000

hi, jknoel.

yes, we do understand the concept of progressive revelation. we muslims also believe in that.

and yes, the bible did call for violence against infidels. it even called out for the massacre of non-israelite “infidel” infants and sucklings, and the rape of non-israelite “infidel” virgins. it called for the MERCILESS execution of anyone who even hints at worshipping another deity than the israelite god.

to argue on the basis of progressive revelation has no bearing at all. why? because it would mean that once upon a time, the god of the bible called for this brutality, which many of you are all too happy to impute upon islam. i mentioned that we muslims believe in what you term as progressive revelation also. but we believe that God never ordered the cold-blooded massacre of infants and sucklings, in much the same way that we believe that king david and king solomon never committed idolatry and adultery.

so, the best that you can argue is to tell the extremists among our brethren that what they are doing is not really wrong per se, the bible ordered much cruel things, what is really wrong is that such cruelty is no longer applicable, and besides, only the holy, chosen nation of israel are permitted in slaying innocent amalekite infants and sucklings. and you should tell bin laden and his extremist minions this: “bin laden, you can’t go about killing innocent non-muslims. taliban, you can’t execute hostile apostates. nothing’s really wrong about what you’re doing, it’s just that you’re not supposed to do it right now, since revelation has already progressed. bin laden, yahweh was cruel like you, but revelation has progressed, and he is not cruel anymore, he gave us his only son because he loves the world so much, he has already repented of the amalekite massacre, that’s why he now commands us to turn the other cheek. and bsides, bin laden, islam is wrong, so even though there’s really nothing wrong with massacring infants and sucklings, you’re not allowed to do it, since you’re not a bible-believer.”

i do not mean to offend your beliefs, my brother in humanity. my point is either you say that violence aganist infidels is wrong or not. if you say that it is wrong, then you condemn the earlier part of your bible. if you were an israelite, would you kill amalekite infants and sucklings? if you answer yes, you are worse than the most rabid islamic extremist, because not only will you do something wc they are doing, but you are hypocritical in criticising them for doing it. of course you haven’t criticised it yet. but why attempt to disprove violence against infidels in the new testament if it is ok? why mention progressive revelation?

as a muslim, i stand in the belief that God has never, and will never, ever command the massacre of innocent infants and sucklings, whether in the Holy Qur’an, or in the previous revelations. but i do believe that God has commanded believers to establish justice, and hostile disbelievers are to be killed, not because of their disbelief, but because of the harm that may result from them. what possible harm can come from amalekite infants and sucklings?

and i hope, just like you, that we can dialogue more. a reply would be appreciated. if i made a mistake, it is from me. and Allah knows best.

By: JKNoel

JKNoel — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:01:04 +0000

Did you realize that your use of

Rom 1:18-23

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
ESV

is totally out of context? It is not a call to violence against the ifidels, but a statement that all man is born with enough apriory knowledge of God to condemn him before God on the day of judgement.

As for the Deuteronomy text you quoted, you have to understand the Christian / Jewish concept of progresive revelation.

I dont say this as a debate, but I hope that we can dialogue more to foster a peaceful civilized coexistance, where we can agree to disagree.

By: Layman

Layman — Sat, 25 Mar 2006 03:41:02 +0000

But you should not be accusing Islam of things that can be found in your own Bible..

And why not, pray tell? No religious authority in the English-speaking world has executed a heretic since the demented and discredited Salem Witch Trials of 1692, but there are official Muslims in Afghanistan today who stand proud and ready to execute a Christian for the victimless "offense" of apostasy -- not to mention rabid and presumably non-Christian mobs ready to "tear him to pieces" on command. Be the Almighty so fragile that one who is a follower of Jesus and who loves God could pose a fearful risk to Him? Or is it that the ties that bind the mundane umma are of such vanity that the truth of just one living man's faith in love risks crazing the entire earthly dominion of vicious and trepidacious clerics? Above, it is argued that the list of "famous" Christians who have converted to Islam is substantial. Any list of persons who have joined the Mafia would be substantial, too. More to the point is the brevity of the list of those who left the Mafia and lived to tell about it. Said Mirhossain Nasri, the top cleric at Hossainia Mosque, one of the largest Shiite places of worship in Kabul, has said Abdul Rahman must not be allowed to leave the country: "If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can [get out of here(?) -Ed.] too," he said. "We must set an example. ... He must be hanged." In organized religion, as in organized crime, a diaconate of hangmen will always levy against the detainees' hope of survivable escape. A cart wheel one meter square would indeed travel 26% farther with each revolution than a one-meter circular one. Listening to apologists for radical, fundamentalist, or "throwback" Islam, I always get the feeling they're trying to sell me on the superiority of the square wheel. What passes for philosophy and jurisprudence in Afghanistan and elsewhere is stuck on the square wheels of its own insistence and design, stubbornly doing things reasonable, faithful, and beloved children of God outgrew centuries ago. In part, Islam is stuck because, as TigerHawk has written:

The umma persecuted its own Thomas Aquinas. His name was Ibn Rushd Averroes, an Andalusian Arab who translated Aristotle and proposed the compatibility of Aristotelian philosophy, the foundation of Western scientific achievement, and Islam... Indeed, Averroes's work so singularly informed Thomas Aquinas that Aquinas referred to Averroes as "The Commentator" in discussions of Aristotle, whom he revered as "The Philosopher." The dirty little secret of the Renaissance is that it and all that followed might not have happened without Muslim scholars such as Averroes. The much dirtier secret of Islam is that it never learned to reconcile faith and reason. It persecuted its geniuses. Christianity did too, but the Inquisition was a losing rear guard action against the Age of Reason, which had already been ratified by Saint Thomas Aquinas and other theologians. Islam's own inquisition persists to this day.

By: monotheist

monotheist — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 08:55:24 +0000

Its strange that Christianity say that it must be the True religion because people are converting to it. If that is the only criteria then Christianity is definitely not the True religion because there are more Number of People who denounce Christianity than the number of people who convert to it(They either turn Atheists or Muslims)

Plus where are these Muslim Converts to Christianity? Do they really exist in large Numbers?

Here is an Huge list of well known Converts to Islam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....s_to_Islam

If famous converts exist in such large numbers you can imagine the total number of converts.

Can Christians produce even half a list like this?