@Craig...It is a complex issue. Just as the Hebrew and Christian Bibles have many parts that violent and seemingly inhumane, they must be understood in context. The Qur'an is no different. There are two types of jihad and it means struggle. The jihad that every Muslim faces each day is the struggle within. Islam means to surrender to Allah (G-d). They must struggle with surrendering the self in an act of worship. The other type of jihad is in outward defense of Islam. This is the jihad that worries people. If Muslims feel or think that Islam is threatened, then they are compelled to use force to protect it. This is where the problem exists; what one sees as a threat others do not. Non-Muslims perceive the world differently and many Muslims view Western modernity as a serious threat to the purity and survival of Islam. Many Muslims view the west as attempting to impose our values and culture on them, which by their way of thinking will eventually destroy Islam.

Politically it has been in the best interest of US policy makers to focus our insecurities and fears on Islam. It has made justifying our bellicose policies an easier sell. We are reminded that it was radicalized Muslims who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. Muslims have taken the place of the communists of the last half a decade, they are represented as a common enemy.

Its convert or die.................no grey area :(

@tonto...What century are you living in?

Craig,
As Lyle pointed out, the Koran contains about as much violence as the Bible and many other religious works. There are two key differences that I see.

First, The principle figure of the Bible was Jesus. He never did anything more violent than chase some moneylenders and his message was constantly a peaceful one. The key figure of the Koran was Mohammed. He took up a sword several times and led quite a few battles. Although he sometimes promoted peace he also often encouraged war. So that is the principle role model of Islam. To me it is not that there is more violence in the Koran - it is who is doing the violence.

The second difference in holy books is the link between religion and government. Jesus never supervised more than his apostles. In the bible you will find very little discussion of day-to-day matters. Jesus was a little dismissive of it with his "render unto Caesar...". Mohammed was the leader of Medina for a long time. He had to make decisions on many of the laws that governed the town. The Koran is filled with discussions and directives on running the town. For this reason Islam is deeply intertwined with government. This makes it much harder to establish a modern secular government where the majority of the people are Muslim. That is not to say it can't be done - look at Turkey or Indonesia.

@St. Swithin...Please don't forget my bible, the Jewish Tenach, (your Old Testament) it is full of violence. Much of Ancient Jewish Law parallels Sharia. The primary difference is that Jewish law has grown and adapted to changes. If you look to prominent figures from the Old Testament, warfare was very much part of the narrative. Was Mohamed any worse than Joshua? Under current law Joshua would be tried and convicted for crimes against humanity and genocide. One must remember the times in which these books were written. It is obvious that the Qur'an has not had the same path as other holy books and ideas. Judaism goes back 4000 years, Christianity 1700 years and Islam a mere 1200 years. Islam is struggling with modernity, whereas Christianity has defined modernity.

Although the message of Jesus was peace, look what followed. Don't forget Pippin the Short, Charles Martel and Charlemagne, they were responsible for spreading Christianity throughout Western and Northern Europe all at the point of a sword.

Lyle, I am not trying to excuse Christianity or overlook Judaism. I am simply responding to Craig and his perspective is from the Christian bible. People regularly did into the Old Testament for excuses for violence, but your average Christian is not going to look for role models beyond Jesus and a few characters they remember from Sunday school. In the Koran, THE key figure took up a sword and made war. That has to influence the religion. Your examples of Charlemagne et al only serve as counterpoint. If Christians can justify mass slaughter under the name of a man that went meekly to his execution, of what then can Muslims be capable?

People who are arguing Q'ran versus Bible need to take this to the next step and reflect on the evil that has been done in the name of Christianity as well as that done in the name of Islam. In both instances, religion is being used as an excuse for political and territorial aggression. People tend to be emotional when it comes to religion so it's easier to get the masses to do your bidding when they think they're fighting not for land or oil, but for their own beliefs.

@Bob McBride...It's not the majority of Americans that concern me. It is those Americans who are unreasonably focused on the proposed threat that Muslims represent. They are continuously hammering away with hate rhetoric and claims of Islamic take over, imposing Sharia Law. Unfortunately, we Americans don't have the best track record in how we treat minorities. Extreme nationalism and xenophobia is a dangerous mixture.

Lyle, what are you expecting these people to do? Take up arms?

@Bob McBride...Who are you referring to about taking up arms?

The people with Eagle whatever that are objecting to the Mosque. Who did you think I was referring to?

@Bob McBride...I wouldn't have asked if I would have known who you are referring to. I don't worry about the Eagle Forum taking up arms.

Lyle, good to know. You seem to be lumping these folks in with a group you've identified as being of dangerous in their degree of anti-Muslim sentiment. Hence my question.

BTW, hammering away with hate rhetoric and claims of takeovers by nefarious groups of individuals supposedly adherent to an extremist philosophy who are imposing a set of predetermined laws is precisely what's been used to generate the current political atmosphere we have in this state right now.

I guess when it suits ones purposes, it's an effective tool rather than an objectionable mindset.

Jb thanks for making my point. Where is the condemnation of the actions of the hardcore islamist scum from within the mainstream Muslim community? All I hear is crickets chirping.

@J.B. Schmidt....The Muslims that I know definitely have come out and condemned the extremism and terrorism perpetrated by the radicals. They have done this privately and publicly. They have been identified on watch lists just because of their names, etc. I traveled with several who were given "special treatment" by the TSA, including in one case a strip search.

Zulfiqar Ali Shah has been fully investigated and was not charged with anything. He is a supporter of Palestinians and opposes Israel. He is on record of supporting Hamas, which many consider to be a terrorist organization. As a strong supporter of Israel, I too share the view that Hamas supports terrorism. However, when the US froze the assets of Kind Hearts, subsequent federal judges, over time, found that the government had acted in appropriately.

Mr. Ali Shah, is the religious director of ISM and will be focused on providing the infrastructure in the support Muslims in the Milwaukee Metro Area. As a professional NGO and tax exempt organization director, he has been trained to guide the ISM. This is not unlike professional positions we have in Judaism to direct our educational efforts and meet the needs of the community. I would hope that we don't slam the door on the ISM because we may find a staff director objectionable. Obviously he has the support of the Islamic Community or they wouldn't have hired him.

@Lyle
I highly doubt you can compare Ali Shah as being similar to your directors. Unless of course you have an extreme Zionist as a director.

The case against Kind Hearts was dropped on 14th and 15h amendment grounds and not whether they could prove connections to Hamas. Either way, he was also principal at a school that produced a terrorist. Some might argue you could then hold the principal of any high school shooting responsible, but there is on big difference. Jose Padilla acted on what he was taught. That cannot be said about violent students at other high schools. There is a pattern here we should be concerned about.

The political establishment within the US is not likely to challenge anything Islamic in fear of being labeled as intolerant or retaliation as we have seen in Europe. However, then when the people do, you and others attack them for being intolerant. The unfortunate truth is that the majority of terrorism around the world is carried out by Muslims and that might represent a small portion of Islamic believers; it is the price they pay. If Christians did not come out in mass to condemn those that blow up abortion centers or pedophile priests; they would face the same objections.

People show up to object to all building plans put before city councils. It is just not as sensationalized as it is with Islam, because the news wishes to create a story that will fill time during the 8hrs of local news each channel has to fill.

@ J.B...Well said...Thanks for making me think a little today...

@J.B. Schmidt...The issue with Kind Hearts was not dropped because of the 14th and 15th amendments but the 4th and 5th amendments. The judges ruled against the government because they proceeded without warrants. It was ruled that freezing their assets was unwarranted.

@Lyle
Correct, I had a slight typo. To much civil rights on the brain lately.

However, it has no effect on statement accept to give me 2 extra characters with which to use in my post.

@Tom Kamenick...As you state you cannot state a number but you claim intuitively that it is significant. I don't dispute that there is a real danger from radical extremists. However, how real is the threat here in S.E. Wisconsin? There are people reacting to the situation as if terrorism is eminiment. If you compare domestic terrorist acts, it has been non-Muslims who have committed such acts except for the one in Ft. Hood.

Should we put anti-abortion groups on a watch list because of terrorism committed by some extreme individuals? Violence at organizations and staff over the aboriton issue has a much higher probability of occurrance than a Muslim terrorist act.

The problem we have is that, as a society, we are in the dark concerning Islam and fear that which we don't know. If I was living and working outside the US, depending where I was at, I would assign a much higher risk to such action. Whenever one travels to Israel, terrorism must be part of a serious risk analysis. However, the approach that many have toward Islam in the US is not justified.

Would we not be better off by engaging the Islamic community and create an atmosphere of open and free dialogue? Both Muslims and non-Muslims would benefit on putting a human face on the prediposed threat. Rather than dehumanizing, I am calling on humanizing to reduce the risk to all.

I can't answer your question regarding all Christian clergy, but a number of churches have had programs/presentations on the subject of Islam in order to educate their congregations on the teachings of Islam and clear up the negative stereotypes and general level of hatred against Muslims that arose after 9/11.

The Archdiocese of Milwaukee has even taken steps to educate their employees on Islam so that the parish priests/staff can address issues of anti-Islam sentiment that might come up from the parishioners. St. Robert in Shorewood has even brought in guest speakers from the Islam Center in Milwaukee to address questions and concerns about the Muslim community.

@ Mike...I concur...there is currently, a push in the UN to adopt Sharia Law as the "world judicial law". This concerns me, because in America, we pride ourselves on the separation of church and state, so to say we should "bow" to one "religions" perspective of law, that has what I consider extreme values within its conversion aspect, is troublesome. Secondly, if the Muslim community was truly peaceful and "loved their neighbor as themselves" they would stand up and say, "This isn't right!...or You can't do this!...etc..." Just as I would denounce an extremist view of cultural christianity if someone tried to harm another because of their faith/race/government opinion/political view/etc because that kind of selfish pride isn't for the "good of the people" either. I am not so ignorant of the Sheria Law and it's "standards" that I have no justification for concern. However, I love them as people, created in the image of God, because it is the right thing to do...

@Dave Kube...To answer your question, they are much less tolerant now than they were in the past. With the coming of the Christian Crusades, Islam became resistant to reestablishment of Christianity in a number of their native lands. However, where Christian and Jewish communities already existed, they were very tolerant as long as the Christian groups didn't proselytize. The relationship changed a great deal with the formation of the State of Israel and the political fallout. Currently, Islamic nations are very intolerant of outside religious groups. However, that is no excuse for our intolerance here.

@ Lyle...I agree with some of your points but i disagree with others...But I will response with this...If I was your neighbor and I was abusive, mean and belittling to my wife and children and you knew it, but as most, never say anything (this is not saying that Muslim poeple are doing this so don't misinterpret what I'm saying) then one day I said, "Hey Lyle, how 'bout your kids come over to my house to play with my kids..." would you be reluctant knowing my history of behavior? Riddle me that...

@ Lyle...Another question...What does the Qu'ran tell it's followers in how to treat individuals whom leave the faith, and just for discussion purposes, decide to follow Christianity or any other faith, as it were?...

@Dave Kube...In your first scenario of a man mistreating his wife and children, I would do the same whether they are Muslim or not. If I saw public abuse of his spouse I would call the authorities. If I have any indication that he is abusing or neglecting his children, I would call child protective services. As far as letting my kids play with his, I would probably allow them the relationship. For one, I would already have a relationship with him and would tell him of objections to his behavior. If there was any risk to my children or anyone else's children, I wouldn't let them go to his home where they would be vulnerable to harm.

@Dave Kube....Please realize that I have only a working knowledge of the Qur'an. My understanding is that under the strictest interpretation that the person leaving Islam could be killed for bringing dishonor to their family. Generally in modern society outside of the most extreme Islamic communities, the member who left would be disowned. Yet in liberal communities, they would not be disowned but would be socially sanctioned by the family and community.

Dave:

As Lyle mentioned earlier, the Bible/Torah is full of scary stuff as well.

I assume that you don't make a habit of killing those who curse his mother or father as dictated in Leviticus 20:9, or kill those who work on the Sabbath as commanded in Exodus 35:2. Why should anyone assume that Muslims make it a common practice to kill those who leave their religion/faith?

@ Lyle..."If there was any risk to my children or anyone else's children, I wouldn't let them go to his home where they would be vulnerable to harm". Wouldn't this be considered intolerance on your part acording to what you concluded with in your last comment? "that is no excuse for our intolerance here"...No allowing yours or someone else's children to play just because my choice of behavior? This seems like a contradiction in thinking Lyle...Please clarify...

@ Cowdung...First, What is the second commandment of the new testament?...That is what I live by. Since Christ is the embodiment of the Law and the Prophets (if you choose to believe that...if not, still love you anyway) He redifined what the law was originally intended to bring but never could bring about that kind of change in the hearts of man. The Law deals with the offense but Grace deals with the intent of the heart. That is where the biggest difference lays. If you look closer at what's being done the the old testament, most things happen because of man's short sightedness of God's original plan, so whom is to blame still...man or God?

@ Lyle...socially sanctioned?!...Please explain your interpretation of this...

Dave:

I'm not sure what the 'second commandment of the New Testament' would be. Are you referring to the greatest commandments (Love G-d, and Love each other)? That's all fine and good, but I am concerned as to why you single out Muslims and take what is stated in the Qu'ran as an indication of a potential danger--aren't you afraid of the Jews as well?

@ Cowdung...I never stated that there was any danger...your assumtion into what I was saying made you think I was. I believe I said "(this is not saying that Muslim people are doing this so don't misinterpret what I'm saying)". My comment to Lyle was to try and get him to clarify his stance on the topic of certain areas within his blog post, NOT that i believe there was any danger whatsoever. Sorry for the confusion, it wasn't my intention to create that by asking Lyle a question...

@ Cowdung...Aren't we discussing the Muslim faith in the post? So how does sticking to the discussion make me singling anyone or anything out?...

Sorry Dave, I didn't intend to personalize the discussion. Your line of questioning seemed to be an indictment of Islam beliefs in that they allegedly promote violence against non-believers. If we accept those statements of the Qu'ran in that manner, don't we also have to accept the statements in the Old Testament/Torah in the same manner?

It seems to me that there is an attempt to justify feelings against Muslims and/or Islam based on what is stated in the Qu'ran, and I find that justification to be flawed.

@ Cowdung...That was not my intent at all...sorry for the misrepresentation that I left you with. My relationship with Lyle through these threads have allowed me some liberty to ask pointed questions to him in order to draw out poits in certain areas of discussion. You are correct, however, that violence in any faith/religion/non-religion/gathering/community/etc is unacceptable, and to hold one more or less acountable would be flawed. Thanks for your patience...

@Dave Kube....Having absolute proof of a high probability of harm is in no way connected with intolerance. In the case where potential harm is possible, but of low probability, does not require the same kind of action and tolerance is warranted.

@Dirk
Which ones? WWI, WWII, Vietam, Korea?

@ Dirk...Religion is NOT the root cause of war...Individuals or groups of people with perverted selfish ambishion that use their "faith" as a pillar/billboard for supporting their beliefs is...Saying religion is the cause of war is like saying guns by themselves kill people...no, it's PEOPLE that pull the trigger. Riddle me this...If people spent more time considering the rights of others over their own rights, would you still have an atmosphere for war? Hmmmm...

@ Bren...Muhammed made his own journeys to lands that were considered christian and had old testament scriptures interpreted to him. Thus, we get many similarities to some things in the Qu'ran and the proverbs/psalms of the Bible. Everything else, good job...

Dave, if the author of the Forward of my Quran isn't fully correct I'm glad to hear it!

@JRH...I don't think this current issue has anything to do with BPSN. The rise of BPS was always criminal in nature and have since become less Islamic and are more socially aligned with Black Separatism. A bit of a "red herring".

BTW, I didn't see you on the Patch over the weekend, were you slightly west of your current location?

@Lyle -

Admittedly, I was just seeing if I could get a rise out of you ;-) The P-Stones have indeed been a red-herring ever since Fort started calling the ADX Florence Supermax home along with chief rival Larry Hoover. One of my old high school buddies is actually Jeff Fort's current attorney of record - and boy, does he ever have some interesting stories to tell, but of course, those are privileged!

In all seriousness, I believe people are most stigmatized and fearful of extremism. And it just so happens that Islam currently has the most violent and vocal contingent of extremists amongst the major world religions. The anti-American sentiment held by many Muslim nations and factions also doesn't bode very well as far as reflective perception goes, does it?

Unfortunately, much of the anti-Muslim sentiment is prefaced upon judging the whole simply by the bad apples - an un-discussed but paramount issue to your prior blog countering Ms. Lorraine's piece about erroneous racist conceptions. However, such sentiments are undoubtedly easy to spread - especially with the handling of such by the MSM, as we have almost certainly seen with respect to both issues.

As to my recent whereabouts, I only wish! I was actually predisposed with completing some needed home repair projects.

@mau...Your statement is a good illustration of my point, they just want to live and go about their business.

I would say that Christians seem to have more differences with each other and often are the ones demonizing each others' movements. What demonetization I have seen is usually directed at the extreme fundamentalist Christian right. Organizations like Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind.

Is Westboro really any more extreme than Heaven's Gate, Pentecostal, Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witness, Unitarians, Jimmy Jones, Order of the Solar Temple, witchcraft...... Seems all organized religions have their extremes. And what may be perceived as extreme by one group may not be perceived as extreme by another.

You think Unitarians are extreme? Harvard University was founded by Unitarians. Four American presidents were Unitarians (Adams, Adams, Fillmore and Taft) and a fifth (Jefferson) was closely aligned with Unitarianism. That's more than 10% of U.S. Presidents following an "extreme" religion. It was once one of the dominant religions of New England and its roots are Christian. The difference between Unitarianism and other Christian religions was rejection of the Trinity, Of course we're talking about a time in America, unlike today, when religious tolerance was valued and the Constitution was regarded as the law of the land.

@Gregory Kluck...You could always go to the Islamic Center. They do have people that would be more than happy to talk to you. I would suggest you call them and set an appointment.

Was this just the blue eyed blonde Muslims that were part of this "WAFFIN SS Division?"

@Tim Scott...What is your point?

Lyle, I think he thinks you're part of Arriana Huffington's plot to....I don't know what exactly (make money), but you're part of it.

@Bob McBride...Thanks Bob. I wonder who I should send the invoice to?

That's a toughie. The article indicates that they lost $100MM last year (only on the interwwweb can you lose that kind of money and still be considered a hot prospect in some circles) so I'm guessing it really doesn't matter where you send it.

@Tim
It appears that Lyle is to humble to admit what really happens here on Patch. Weekly, we the bloggers receive, our marching orders directly from Arianna. I have been chosen to write dummy pieces that appear conservative in order to trick American's into thinking that Patch is non-biased. However, you were to smart. You were not fooled when the article said, "however, that Huffington wants to distance herself from Patch." You might want to watch your back, the Huffington Empire does not treat interference very kindly.

You will be paid in Rubles and like it ;~)

What's the exchange rate on Rubles?

One Ruble is currently worth two Patzfahls and a Bren...

@CowDung -

According to my Patch exchange rate sheet, two Patzfahls and a Bren would yield exactly 1.5 morninmists and .5 Schmitz - care to trade?

@Tim Scott -

Seriously, can't we leave the unfounded conspiracy theories to the left - that's one of their tactics, not ours!

@Hoffa
On your exchange rate, what is the value of an original 1949 Randy?

@J. B. Schmidt -- That would be the exchange rate of an original 1949 'Kruggerrandy', and the answer is, priceless!

@J.B. & Randy1949 -

According to the sheet I received direct from Arianna, 1949 Randy's are fairly common, but do command a decent cross exchange of 1 AudiFan and 2.5 Angry White Dude's.

@Randy1949, I hope you're critiquing this string and pointing out that they are off-topic (like you do with me). What has this subject got to do with Muslims?

@Mau -- Joking around is one thing. It's diffusing the tension. Yelling 'murder' and 'debauchery' as it applies to Liberals in a thread about the wisdom of a mining bill is something else.

@Randy1949, When did I yell anything and when did I mention liberals in my single sentence comment. You're a hypocrite with double standards.

My comment was not in the string about mining bills. It was in the opinion piece "Gov. Walker Radio Address: People Before Politics" and it followed yours, Bren's and many other comments on the subject of female reproduction.

Randy1949
12:05 pm on Sunday, March 18, 2012
@Bren -- Yes, that sex-ed bill was the stupidest thing ever. By all means, let's see if we can raise our teen pregnancy rate while cutting various social services. And th abortion bill -- WTH? This would be insurance coverage that people would buy with their own money in these exchanges.
The Conservative obsession with women's bodies is both stupid and hypocritical. They were elected on Jobs, not back to barefoot and pregnant.

mau
7:30 pm on Sunday, March 18, 2012
Who's obsession brought us Roe v Wade that started this whole downward spiral to Sodom and Gomorrah.

@Barbara --It was wrong to allow Muslims to immigrate without assimilating? I suppose you're right, as the Native Americans and Hawaiians found out when they let the Christians in.

@Lyle -

What would happen if they let Jeff Fort out of prison and he decided to return to Milwaukee?

@JRH...Treat him like any other criminal and felon.

Not in our backyard - YET.

DUH HUHUHUHHUHU sooooooo funny! See how he added "kkk" to "America"? Wow someone give this guy a job as a comedian, I've never seen such a witty retort!

@oak creek resident...Where did you come up with Muhammad was a child molester?

@Lyle -

Actually, oak creek resident is correct. According to sources, Aisha was either nine or ten years of age when Muhammad entered into sexual relations with her. By all definition and reasonable interpretation, such an act would make anyone a child molester. Even Nabokov's Lolita was older than Aisha!

@JRH...I know the story of Aisha. In a cultural context she was not considered a child. Sharia prohibits sexual relations below the age of nine. A female could not be claimed as a wife worthy of protection and benefits until the marriage had been consummated. To us we obviously would call it child abuse, in fact in the state of Wisconsin sex with anyone under the age of 18 is illegal. If we used the standard of our day and applied it through history, child sexual abuse would be deemed the norm. Of course we must remember that people rarely lived past the age of thirty. It is reported that Mary mother of Jesus was somewhere between 12 and 13 when she gave birth. By our standards, is the Holy Spirit that supposedly impregnated her, a sex abuse spirit?

My grandmother had just turned 17 when she married my grandfather. She had just turned 18 when her first baby was born. She had my mother when she was 19. They had a total of 8 children and my grandmother was 89 when she died.

My sister-in-law's mother was 19 when she got married, had 11 children and was 91 when she died.

I think the secret is surviving your husband.

Lyle -

Big difference between 9/10 and 12/13. You know, there's that whole puberty and menstruation thing for females. I sympathize much more with Humbert than Muhammad.

Personally, as far as I'm concerned, it's not so much the story that's relevant to any particular religion, but rather the spirit and intention behind the stories

I'm still stuck trying to figure out the answer to the age old question posed best by William Shatner - "What does G-d need with a starship?"

One of the reasons people know so much about Aisha is that she became a very powerful, influential woman as a result of her relationship with Mohammed. She owed her status to the assumption that she was a virgin when she married.

The marriage was political. She was betrothed as a small child and married at nine or ten. I did a quick Internet search and found several examples of European (British, German, Norwegian) royals who married girls in the 7-10 age range. I found a reference to an Austrian child who was married to a French royal at the age of three.

These kinds of marriages were not uncommon at the time. The only reason they seem shocking to us is that the status of children and of women has changed, radically, as have customs related to marriage.

...and some sources state that she was older than 9.

@CowDung -

And taking slaves at a time when it was culturally accepted and a widespread practice isn't what most people would consider human exploitation, right?

Just because everyone is jumping off a cliff doesn't make it the right thing to do, does it?

Although there is some controversy regarding her age at the time, it is undisputed that Aisha hadn't even begun menstruating when Muhammad entered into sexual relations with her.

I'm sorry, but this just seems fundamentally wrong no matter what point in human history one is referring to.

We're talking about something that happened 1,400 years ago.

@Nick
Its laughable, your suggestion to connect Luther and Mohammad as long lost brothers in reformation, seriously?

While I will admit their have been some dark days of Christianity, their is no Christian doctrine that supports the claim to baptism by sword. If you wish remind me of Old Testament regulations, any informed Christian would point out that Christ freed us from that archaic system and established ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.” However, Muhammad's words are taken as unchanging and not open to cultural changes as Jewish law or the Christian Old Testament. Hence, the intolerance and violence of Muhammad are still applicable today.

While the Christian leaders condemn violent actions of the their own members, you rarely find that condemnation by Muslim leaders a side from the liberal mullahs within the US. The US Islamic community has released fatwas making terrorism a sin; however, mullahs in the middle east have said they have no authority to do so. No other religion openly allows violence within its ranks as Islam does, that is just a fact.

I do not believe that is what this mosque would bring, but when you compare Christianity and Islam as if we are cut from the same cloth, it is only an attempt to discredit all religion and has no basis in fact.

@J.B. Schmidt...Did you get your check yet from Huffington. I'm still waiting on mine. That aside, let me see if I can't shed some light on Nick's comment. What I took away was that he was claiming that Luther and Mohammad were both reformers.

The conditions that existed when Mohammad began was a monotheist movement attempting to take on the pagan control of Mecca. There was constant open tribal warfare between the various tribes on the Arabian Peninsula. His wars were in self defense against the ruling tribes in Mecca and Medina.

Mohammad was reported to be well versed in both Christianity and Judaism. Although reported to be illiterate, he followed the long oral traditions present for the time. When reading the Qur'an, one is immediately drawn to the similarities of the narratives' content that closely mirrors. Christian and Jewish narratives. I give you the example of the "binding of Issac". Judaism and Christianity's narrative claim Issac was bound by Abraham, while Islam claims that Ishmael was the son that was bound. What is not disputed is the binding of a son and the common patriarch of Abraham. From Abraham the two religions of Judaism and Islam find a common source. The covenant with Abraham being fulfilled with the two lines of peoples. This is just one example of the intertwining of two traditions. We Jews are much more closely related both culturally and genetically with Islam than we are with Christianity.

@J.B. Schmidt...On the other hand Christianity traces its origins to Judaism. But it must be recognized that like Islam, Christianity arose as an alternative to Roman and Greek paganism. That gives Christianity its unique character. It has only been the last 300 years that we have seen a significant separation between church and state in Christianity and the demise of Christian theocracies. Islam has not yet reached a stage where it is moving away from an ideal of theocracy. Given enough time, Islam will also move into modernity.

@Lyle
I have never denied the existence of a shared past between Christian and Jews. The one that exists between these two groups and Muslims is presumptuous at best. Muhammad developed his stories based of oral traditional and not actual proof that the Islamic lineage dating back to Abraham exists.

I don't think there is a post-Christ comparison to Mohammad. A better comparison would be Joshua leading Israel into Canaan. There you see God leading the people directly using cultural accepted practices to drive out foreigners, like Muhammad's claims to have been lead by Allah during his attacks. More important however, while Christians and Jews understand the Old Testament to be referenced time specific as to how the actions of the people were carried out; Islam sees the Qur'an as not time specific and its words hold the same understanding today as they would have to Muhammad.

I completely disagree that Christianity rose as the anti-pagan religion. While you will disagree for obvious reasons; Christianity rose as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy thru Christ. I think that the you will notice that the theocracies that arose post-Christ, were less about God's control of government and more about power hungry kings looking for easy control of the people. The proof is that theocracies began to disappear after Luther exposed the corruption

Perversion of Christianity leads to war, while acceptance of Islam leads to violence. That is what scares people.

Didn't all the major religions have an 'anti-Paganism' component to them? As I understand, the intent of many laws in Leviticus were to keep the Jews separate from the Pagans and to discourage Jews from engaging in acts of Paganism...

Obama is not a brown-skinned, anti-war socialist who gives away free healthcare. You’re thinking of Jesus

Thanks for sharing, Keith...

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all Abrahamaic religions. Abraham is their common ancestor.

@J.D. Schmidt....Let me give you a short history lesson.

First of all - there is no proof that Abraham ever existed. Therefore, the claims from Judaism and Islam cannot be independently verified.

Secondly - Judaism was not entirely free of paganism until after the Northern Kingdom was conquered by the Assyrians in the 8th century B.C.E.

Thirdly - After the rise of Alexander and the immigration of Jews throughout the Greek Empire, Judaism began to increase by righteous gentiles converting. By the 1st century C.E. available evidence indicates that 10% of the Roman Empire, some 50 million people, were Jewish.

Fourth - Except for the Coptic Christians, Ethiopian Christians and Indian sub-continent Christians; all Christianity sprung from Pauline Christianity. The majority of Christians follow Pauline-ism. Before Paul blackmailed the Church at Jerusalem, all Christians had to become Jews first. Since males didn't have to go through circumcision, the movement grew rapidly.

Fifth - Contemporary Christianity was born out of warfare when Constantine defeated Maxentius in 313 C.E. at the Tiber temporary bridge. He claimed Christianity was the reason he prevailed. From that moment on, Christianity became the Roman State Religion and its growth was mostly at the point of the sword for the next eight centuries.

Sixth - The collapse of Rome in 472 C.E. left the Roman Catholic See in charge and ruled as a theocracy until the rise of Charlemagne in 800 C.E.

@Lyle
J.D.? I assume a misprint or is that what Arianna wants me to be called from this point forward?

I did not need the history lesson and I object to nothing in it, nor did I misrepresent history with what I said. I feel you may have misunderstood what I said, as I read it I am slightly confused. I am simply stating that shared history with Muslims is a hoax perpetrated by Mohammad. I don't believe that he being illiterate would have been able to trace an oral history back two millennium.

As for Paul, I am happy to see that believe he stole Christianity from the christian Jews living in Jerusalem. I was afraid you had the idea that Paul was a Roman spy attempting to draw out Christians. Either way, you are relying on poor interpretation of the events in the New Testament. There were concerns of within the early church of how to address Jewish law; however, both Peter and Paul observed both Jewish and Gentile cultural rituals. Hence, your theory is incorrect.

Lastly, are you selling out Abram? The father of the Jewish people. While I am sure that some sects of Judaism may take a belief that Abraham never existed, the larger body of Jews must find that to be heresy. If he didn't exist, what is the point of your religion?

@J.B. Schmidt...Sorry about the error. No, Huffington has given me orders to change your name.

A long debate has been going on in Judaism concerning Abraham and the other patriarchs. As I stated before there is no verification whether or not he and the other patriarchs actually existed or are simply archetypes. In either case it doesn't matter, because the evolvement of Judaism is not contingent on who Abraham was or was not.

The Torah wasn't written down until probably somewhere around 800 B.C.E. and the first mention of a scroll was with Ezra the Scribe. There is a great deal unknown and much is based on tradition and conjecture. We do know that written and oral Torah emerged after the Babylonian diaspora. Also to emerge with the Babylonian diaspora were other traditions not thought to be part of the early Mosaic traditions, such as: the celebration of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. My point is that it is very cloudy as to the origins of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. One thing to be said is that the Qur'an was being written down while Mohammad was still alive.

As far as the connection from Abraham through Ishmael to Mohammad, this is documented in the Torah through Ishmael and Abraham's other wives and concubines. When Moses meets Jethro, he is a priest of Median and they attributed their line back to Abraham. the Medianites were people of the Arabian Peninsula and clearly were Bedouin tribes. Abraham was the mythological fountainhead of many people.

@J.B. Schmidt...Mohammad was a traveler being a caravan driver. He would have come into contact with a number of different groups. In Medina there was a large indigenous Jewish community and Mohammad would have been very familiar with them. Therefore, he would have had plenty of opportunity to learn about both Judaism and Christianity, and Islamic thought would have been influenced by the two other traditions and the accepted tenets of the time.

Heavily influencing Islam was the tribal system. We even see that social structure at play today in Islamic societies. Islam became the unifying force that put an end to chronic tribal warfare. The problem for Islam is that they are locked into the 7th century and have not successfully fully transitioned to the 21st century.