Mere_Christian wrote:
I can't speak arabic. Al Jezeera is not on my favs list of channels. Nor do I like to see the Islamic world doing its thing with my cable dollars supporting it.
They have an English language website and channel. The story linked to in the OP is from their English language website.
Mere_Christian wrote:
Please point me to the Born Again Christians at Al Jezeera? Or anywhere else in the Islamic world? I'm open to actuality. You do know that Christianity is a Middle East movement don't you? Jesus wasn't from Stockholm or New York.
I don't pretend I can identify a Born-again Christian without them telling me so. Of course who are you or I to gainsay one who self-identifies as Christian? Who are Born-again Christians, only those of your own sect? What about Catholics, or Coptic Christians? Nestorians?
Lebanon, for instance, has a sizable Christian minority, roughly 39% of the population. There is also a Kurdish Church of Christ, an evangelical church in the Middle East.
As far as Al-Jazeera goes, the journalists don't exactly announce their religious affiliation at the beginning of every show or article. There are at least dozens of Westerners who work at Al-Jazeera. Sir David Frost, for example, self-identifies as Christian.
If you wish to engage in a No True Scotsman about this, feel free, but I will call you on it.
Mere_Christian wrote:
They way it was used in Mecca when Muhammad stood outside of it threatening to kill everyone that didn't embrace Islam the religion of peace. That was how many centuries ago? Or was it today in Afghanistan?
Well jihad can mean violent action in defense of Islam, it also means struggle. The struggle to live an upright life. The struggle of defending one's faith in debate counts as jihad. The violence of suicide bombers with their grand proclamations are far more dramatic, and so we, and the media, latch on to them as examples.
Fighting against infidels or apostates is the lesser jihad.
[quote="Wikipedia article on Jihad:"
Greater Jihad
Within Islamic belief, Muhammad is said to have regarded the inner struggle for faith the "greater jihad", prioritizing it over physical fighting in defense of the Ummah, or members of the global Islamic community. One famous hadith has the prophet saying: "We have returned from the lesser jihad (battle) to the greater jihad (jihad of the soul)." Muslim scholar Mahmoud Ayoub states that "The goal of true jihad is to attain a harmony between islam (submission), iman (faith), and ihsan (righteous living)." Greater jihad can be compared to the struggle that Christians refer to as "resisting sin", i.e. fighting temptation, doubt, disbelief, or detraction. The greater jihad is about holding fast against any ideas and practices that run contrary to the Muhammad's revelations (Qur'an), sayings (Hadith) and the examples set by how he lived his life (Sunnah). This concept of jihad has does not correspond to any military action.
In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular (though ÙƒÙ�Ø§Ø kifÄ�ḥ is also used).[citation needed] For instance, Mahatma Gandhi's struggle for Indian independence is called a "jihad" in Modern Standard Arabic (as well as many other dialects of Arabic); the terminology is applied to the fight for women's liberation.
In modern times, Pakistani scholar and professor Fazlur Rahman Malik has used the term to describe the struggle to establish "just moral-social order", while President Habib Bourguiba of Tunisia has used it to describe the struggle for economic development in that country.
Mere_Christian wrote:
I define it by the way the AK-47's and strapped on bombs show me.
Well then I would say by your definition Al-Jazeera neither engages in or supports jihad. If you say otherwise, then please show me where they have set IEDs or blown up buildings. Show me where they have praised such actions, or given material support to men who did.
This would depend on how you are using jihad, which I asked about above. They do not, for example, take a positive stance on suicide bombers. If you claim otherwise, when have they done so? When have they reported in favor of suicide bombing?
Mere_Christian wrote:
Mecca was not taken by Muhammad and his Islamic warriors by sending the Meccans flowers. It was by the sword of Jihad. Somehow to me that is ringing very 21st century.
That's nice, it doesn't answer my question. You have changed the subject from Al-Jazeera to early Medieval Arabian history. I am more than willing to discuss history, it is my area of expertise. If you wish to discuss or debate about the formation of Dar-al-Islam, start a thread and I will join you in it.
Mere_Christian wrote:
In the "Islamic World" we have Islamic behavior. There is no history of Islamic countries being open to a free exchange of ideas.
What does this have to do with Al-Jazeera? Don't they give the lie to your claim? They are a private news organization that reports the news, they support a free exchange of ideas and they exist in a Muslim nation. That being said, in general, Middle Eastern countries are not totally open to Western ways, they feel threatened by them, worries that we wish to replace their cherished traditions and culture with our own. I am not certain they are wrong about that, whether it would be for good, ill or otherwise. It was not always this way, there was a time when, for centuries, the Dar-al-Islam, the Muslim world, was far more open to the exchange of ideas than the West. This lasted for centuries, until the early modern age.
Are they anti-Christian, or merely not pro-Christian?
Mere_Christian wrote:Beheadings and dhimmi . . . let me see, both.
Al-Jazeera is not a government, they have no standing with regard to dhimmi. Howeverr, dhimmi was developed in the Middle Ages to define the status of non-Muslims. They did not pay zagat, but a different tax, they were allowed to own property, land and worship as they pleased, they simply could not proelytize. The first pact that defined the status of Christians in Muslim lands was written by Christians who were setting their terms to the magistrate. The magistrate agreed to their terms. This was far better treatment than a Muslim in Europe at the same time, let's say 13th century Navarre.
Show me where and when Al-Jazeera has ever beheaded a single person? You appear to take the action of some Muslims and use it to paint all Muslims, their religion, nations with a Muslim majority, whether they be secular or not, and any organization, religious or otherwise, that comes from the Middle East with the same brush. If this is so it is done in ignorance, and I would guess also with some fear and hate. If you are unable to separate Al-Jazeera from suicide bombers and terrorists in your posts we will not get very far.
Mere_Christian wrote:
Al Jezeera is part of the Islamic world. There is no other world to Islamic beliefs.
I wasn't asking about that, I asked
you if you could admit of a middle ground in which one is neither for nor against something, but simply report on it.
Mere_Christian wrote:
Bible-believing Christians are constantly painted in the colors of bigots, phobes, ignorants and worse.
Show me where this has been the case. Show me where they were shown as bigots and were not acting in a bigoted manner. I will not say that everyone is always treated fairly by the media, but I don't believe it is an endemic as you say. Do you not admit that Christians can act in bigoted or phobic ways? Should they get a pass when they do?
Let's take a look at an extreme example. Fred Phelps, he self-identifies as a Christian, says he believes in the supremacy of the Bible as God's Word, five points of Calvinism, the Holy Spirit. Has he never acted in an ignorant or bigoted fashion?
You may decide to argue he is not a Christian. Should the news make that determination? They cannot. It is not their place to tell people what their religion is, they report that someone belongs to such and such church and professes the following beliefs and that is it.
Mere_Christian wrote:
How about realizing that our time in school is not spent dwelling on talking donkeys and flying machines taking prophets on rides to heaven. Mainly we focus on living in a world gone mad. A secular world gone mad. And the other parts are violent and/or ruining earth.
What? Ok, now I'm a little lost. Was there some big expose done that I missed? It is of course possible that the more mundane teachings are not newsworthy, that is, no one cares to watch a report about them, and when something odd crops up it is of more interest. That's my guess, but I'd like to look at the story you're referring to. (Flying machine?)
Mere_Christian wrote:
I don't watch Al Jezeera enough to have ever seen any other views but Islamic. Al Jezeera and MSNBC are the same to me.
To the first point: I thought you didn't watch Al-Jazeera? What stories have you seen or read that had an Islamic view? We could go pull all the stories on their frontpage today and look through them for a clearly jihadist bent.
To the second point: So MSNBC is a jihadist Mulsim organization in your eyes? I always figured they were the liberal counterpart to FoxNews, and not so much religiously as politically. How are they the same? I imagine you'd have to look at some broad categories to manage it.
Mere_Christian wrote:
Please, comparing the "Christians" at FoxNews to Muslims at Al Jezeera is ridiculous. FoxNews would not allow Ku Klux Klansmen any voice to spread their religious views, without attacking their behaviors and actions.
Why is it? Neither of them is there to spread their religion. They are all their to be journalists. It is not their job to suppress voices, doing so runs counter to the point of journalism. Neither of them is acting as a Christian or as a Muslim, they are all acting as journalists trying to do their jobs.
Mere_Christian wrote:And no where in the Gospel is there any wording to kill nonbelievers where you find them.
What does this have to do with Al-Jazeera?
Qur'an wrote: "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error"
So it would seem killing non-believers would count as compulsion or coercion. Convert or die. This has happened in the past, though it has also occurred that there were rulers who did not attempt to compel conversion upon pain of death or any other punishment. If other verses say otherwise then we can say the Qur'an is inconsistent. But then many say the same of the Bible and point to verses that appear contradictory. When this occurs Christians will often claim they do not understand the verses or are taking them out of context. Perhaps this is so, but then perhaps you do the same with the Qur'an.
Mere_Christian wrote:
It's 2009. Things move faster. The same Muslim guys beheading Christians and others, are taping the murders with their cellphone and digital cameras rolling.
Do they? Well then they are also moving faster for us. How can they ever catch up? Let's halve that time since they are moving so fast and check on them in 300 years.
Aside from that, Al-Jazeera is not a country, it isn't even a government run news station, so how would this point relate to them?
Mere_Christian wrote:Al Jazeera would never allow Christians to run pro-Christian news pieces broadcasted to the "Islamic World."
Am I wrong?
I don't know, why not try it and see? No news organization who claims to ave journalistic integrity ought to air a story they know is biased, pro-Christian or otherwise. My guess is that they will not, and they would be right to do so. Or do you believe news organizations should knowingly run biased stories? They do it, that's why I can only watch MSNBC and FoxNews as entertainment, rather than news.
