The point of the article is that Christians have very little they can point to in order to support their claims that this country is founded upon Christian principles. The title of the article is ironic, not literal.

The core issue at hand, is that Islam is an Abrahamic faith, and the core of the specific ‘unalienable rights’ mentioned in the (uncited) Fiqh are based off of the laws passed down by Moses.

More specifically it is a wholesale lie, because there is no Fiqh that specificies anyone has rights based on being ‘human’. People have unalienable rights as Believers. Non-believers, are kaffir. All ‘humans’ have unalienable rights, but non-Muslims are, under Sharia, not human.

This is the common theme in Mosaic Law. It is social construct, not unalienable right, and to list Sharia as the inception of that concept is fallacious. Two millenia before there was any Sharia, Babylonian rulers were held under specific property laws that denied them the ability to just steal land from merchants, traders and private citizens. They also had a rudimentary concept of due process that guaranteed the right to present evidence to prove your innocence. This sets a precedent that rulers are beholden to laws in regards to the upholding of the rights of their subjects, long before Sharia (and probably at about the same time as Mosaic Law and in the same corner of the world).

There is an attempt on someone’s behalf to white wash history on the behalf of Islam. You will see a massive article on how Sharia influenced law around the globe, but you will not see articles on the influence of Brehonic law around the world, or any other ancient, pre-Islamic codes on wikipedia.

It also basically asserts that the marketplace of ideas only trades in one direction except for a few limited examples. Islam influences others, but nothing influences it, as it is the uncreated word of God and cannot be changed.

That historically, is just not true. Wikipedia reports the ‘truth’ of Islamic history from the mouths of Muslim fundamentalists and propagandists.

There have been influences from Islam to the rest of the world, including the western world (including many medieval interpretations of Christianity such as the ‘Fallen Angel’ myth that is in the Quran, but not the Bible) but in terms of jurisprudence, very little has flowed from Islam to the west.

The assertion that such things as impartial judges originate in Islam is wholly ridiculous. Especially considering that Islam, at its core adopts a theological construct of ritual purity. That which is pure is innocent, and that which is impure is guilty. This is the (as mentioned by another poster) divide between Justice and Morality.

In Western ideology, founded in Greco-Roman ideology, not Christian, is that the opposite of Justice is Injustice. In Islam, the Justice based jurisprudence states that Justice is the opposite of Immorality. Immorality is based on ritual purity and following the Sunnah which gaurantees this purity.

The only thing that could be remotely similar to ‘inalienable rights’ in Sharia, is that the core laws are unchangeable because they are divine and not mortal in nature. However, that concept isn’t new to Islam. Essentially every ancient religion (ironically arguably with the exception of Christianity, which is predominantly spiritually oriented when seperated from the OT) is geopolitical in nature. Religion, law, culture were all one and the same, and theocracy was the norm not the exception. Theocracy doesn’t equate to inalienable rights however.

I also fully reject that Individualism comes from Islam as well. The Quran and Hadith are very clear that the Muslim lives for the sake of the Ummah and the Ummah does not exist to serve the Muslim. It is a State first mentality; entirely Collectivist. It guarantess some property rights, but it also mandates a flat tax on income, property, et ceterra, that isn’t only used for public welfare but for the strenghtening of the Ummah militarily and financially for the spread of Islam into infidel lands.

This is OT, but I don’t think that “Fundamentalist” is even a good term to apply to the brand of Christianity you are attacking on your blog. Fundamentalism usually describes a form of regressive or ultra-orthodox Christianity, and the political activist Evangelicals aren’t really fundamentalist at all.

Fundamentalist Christians would be something closer to the Amish (although not entirely). They give Ceasar his due, and that is it. Fundamentalist Christianity would be almost whole spiritual aesceticism.

“I never claimed they were the same. Fundies are an extremist subset of Christianity.”

What you refer to in other posts (Hal Lindsey) as “Fundies” is actually a further extreme division of Fundamentalism which does not perform a proper exegetical hermeneutic in applying Scripture. Just to make a distinction…

Wikipedia should be not the primary scholarly source for any serious research

A blog is not serious research. Therefore, Wikipedia is completely appropriate. I have also gone on record several times previously about the limitations of this source.

The real issue is whether or not Christians (or Fundies, if you consider them the same)

I never claimed they were the same. Fundies are an extremist subset of Christianity.

Were the founding documents based on Christian principles? You bet.

No. I wouldn’t make that bet.

But exclusively? No.

I said in the article that there may be Christian principles in there. I’m still trying to figure out what they are, though. Nobody has been able to tell me which principles are exclusively Christian. This article pointed out many concepts that were exclusively Muslim.

…“truth is truth.” Christ IS our faith not some piece of paper written not even 300 years ago.

That is not our truth. It may be your truth, but not mine. This is not a Christian country. It is populated largely by Christians, but that does not make it Christian.

My response to the content of this post is that it one cannot hold to this claim to the founding of a Muslim country.

I am not claiming that this is a Muslim country. You misread the article. I am saying that it is the Christians who are claiming this is a Muslim country. Unintentionally claiming, of course. They are the ones who use the Declaration of Independence as proof. I am merely following their logic. If the principles set forth in that document tell us that this country was founded upon the principles of a religion, then we look to see which religion those principles came from.

These nuances which become the side issues with which become the jabbing and sparring points only detract from any real discussion. The real issue is whether or not Christians (or Fundies, if you consider them the same) realize that our country has been founded after and upon hundreds of years of experience taken from many different nations. Whether or not ALL the principles found in the founding documents are inherently Christian does not change ones faith (as some may seem to claim).

The real purpose of the founding documents was to provide a state of liberty and freedom from oppression. Specifically religious oppression as was found in Europe at the time. Hence why the wording was intentionally connected to the religious purpose in the construction of the nation, being triggered, not by religious oppression, but by political and economic constraint (taxation w/o representation).

Were the founding documents based on Christian principles? You bet. But exclusively? No. But does that inherently make them completely Muslim? No. For borrowing of the best method of doing something is common sense, which is what much more common in that day than this one.

It is sad that name calling is still so readily used instead of civil discussion. So perhaps these thoughts from a Christian (Fundamentalist = the basic beliefs of the faith) will befall the same fate for the simple reason that “truth is truth.” Christ IS our faith not some piece of paper written not even 300 years ago. Christians should not use that as a proof of their faith, as much as they might want to (in agreement with the broadest sense of this post).

My response to the content of this post is that it one cannot hold to this claim to the founding of a Muslim country. The purpose was not for a religious government but one in which the government would allow religion to be unhindered by its control. This is directly opposed to 1) a Muslim understanding of how a Muslim country should be created, and 2) the whole document in question (declaration of independence) is for the people and by the people, in and of itself refutes this claim. To remove the foundation of which a Muslim nation would be built upon (Islam) disproves your theory in and of itself. It cannot be a Muslim nation. While it may borrow from that philosophy of government (of which I have not studied in depth), borrowing a few secondary issues of regulation without adopting key tenets of that system does not equate a complete adoption of that philosophy.

The killing of homosexuals is condoned and encouraged in the wonderful laws of Leviticus. Leviticus 20:13 clearly states “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Well there you have it, Homosexuality is wrong, and they must pay the ultimate price… IN THE NAME OF GOD!!!

Who else shouldn’t people do?

Don’t let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

Don’t have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)

Don’t wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

Don’t cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

Any person who curseth his mother or father, must be killed. (Leviticus 20:9) Have you ever done that?

If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10). I wonder if Dr. Laura would like that one to be enforced?

If a man sleeps with his father’s wife… both him and his father’s wife is to be put to death. (Leviticus 20:11)

If a man sleeps with his wife and her mother they are all to be burnt to death. (Leviticus 20:14)

If a man or woman has sex with an animal, both human and animal must be killed. (Leviticus 20:15-16).

If a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be “cut off from their people” (Leviticus 20:18)

Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death. (Leviticus 20:27)

If a priest’s daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. (Leviticus 21:9)

People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)

Don’t let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)

I wear blended fabrics and cut my hair, so off to hell I go.

Anyone who dreams or prophesies anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5)

If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it’s inhabitants… even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)

Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

I just hope their is some advance notice before the bible law is enforced. I’d like to move before then.

So you’re saying you are perfectly happy with the Muslim world’s reaction to 9/11?