Anarcho-capitalism

Zion, IL
By A.B. Dada
—
In my previous article titled Islamofascism versus Christofascism: a short study, I linked to a site by UnderAgeThinker, who I know now is named Joseph W. Kraft. In response to my post, Mr. Kraft says the following, which I will comment on part by part:

I copletely agree with you that we should know our own Bible and study other faiths. Christian do not do near enough of this and it is undefendable. You seem very well read and I’m sure you have arrived at your conclusions through careful study. However I must dissent with you on a few points.

Dissent is the finest form of communication, since it allows us to continue the discussion in hopes of providing some ideas unthought of by both of us. I appreciate the response on my blog.

First, “Islamofascist” is a term used to describe people who murder their own sisters because they were raped, who behead journalist, and do it because they believe Allah requires it. I’m not saying Allah does or does not, but that is what they believe. To call someone a “Christofascist” is to equate them with the Islamofascists accept that they believe they are doing the will of Christ. That is a powerfull thing to say. And you at least imply, that I am a Christofascist because I wrote an article critical of Ron Paul. I think that is going too far.

Actually, the term Islamofascist could also be used to describe the Pharisees and Ancient Israelites because they also believed in the same response to those who were against their Rule of Law. If someone sinned, it was the people’s place to stone them to death, including those who are raped (sex outside of marriage, even rape, was considered sinful by both the Ancient Israelites and some Muslims). I am currently about to start a short series of debate points with another blogger regarding the Christian/Catholic Just War Doctrine, and why I believe it is not the will of Christ or God the Father. I sincerely did not mean to imply that YOU are a Christofascist, even though I do believe that many Evangelicals are currently more fascist than individualist. I do believe that Christ’s words and actions prove that God is an individualist, who used the Ancient Israelites to prove that the Mosaic Convenant was not something that mortals could truly live by (i.e., theocracy or worldly covenant). Christ’s New Covenant (the Reign of God, or mistakenly called the Kingdom of God due to false translations) provides for individual decisions outside of theocracy.

Secondly, I do not dispute that most Muslims are peaceful. All I said was that the terrorists believe they are doing the will of Allah. I make no claim as to if this is the correct understanding of the Quran or not but, it is their understanding.

I accept that — but I also felt the need to explain how SOME Christian Evangelicals today believe that the Koran gives Muslims a reason to force theocracy on the world, when it fact it does not. The Koran, like the Bible, leave the issue of the Reign of God to individuals who form a new Kingdom without borders, mortal kings or the use of foce.

Thirdly, As you yourself said, there are different translations of the Quran. Your complaint about the translation I used seems to be (based on your bolding of the text) based on the first half of the verse. (I do not deffend the translation, honestly I’m not even sure what translation it was and I think I will switch it to Pickthall because of the complaints.) Yet I was refering to the latter half, “and all submit to the religion of Allah alone.” The translation you cite says the same thing in more eloquent language, “and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere.” So I think the translation is more or less irrelevant to your criticism.

Maybe that’s true, but we also see in the Old Testament and New Testament the view of “all” nations and people, which are horrible mistranslations of the original language and intent of each book. Of course, as a Preterist myself, it does produce a significant difference in my interpretation versus that of the majority of Evangelicals in terms of the translations we use of our own Bible. My problem with Christians is that I meet so many (maybe a dozen or more a week) who have never really inquired as to the meaning of specific verses or phrases in their own Bible, and just accept what their Pastor/Preacher/Leader tells them is Truth. When a Christian misconstrues the Koran, that’s OK because it isn’t their book. When a Christian misconstrues the Bible, it is up to other Christians to make note, and try to offer their perspective lest we allow that misconstruing as Truth for the future.

Finally, How did I take Surah 8:39 out of context? I let it speak for itself. I didn’t even write comentary on it.

I believe you did take it out of context because it seems you were promoting the ideology that Muslims, and the Koran, propose that they conquer the world and force everyone to bow to Allah (”God”), when it fact the Koran says to protect their “homeland” and Allah will take care of the rest. It is a common misconception for Christians and other non-Muslims that Muslims have a different doctrine of spreading their holy book than Christians do. Also, Christians today seem to have a misconception of our own Bible that leads many of us to believe in such unbiblical beliefs such as the Just War doctrine, as well as support of the State/government, or laws that supposedly prevent sinful nature from showing itself.

Yes, in the end it is just a doctrinal issue, but if we Christians can’t agree, how can we move forth to force non-Christians to live a certain way if we ourselves can not agree on which way is correct?