93 Responses

1. Richard

   January 12, 2012 | Log in to Reply

   Chameleon “Your attempts to debunk the Quran via cosmological references are amusing, at best.”

   Not as amusing as the actual cosmological picture given by the ignorant charlatan Muhammad in the Quran.

   The mighty Allah did not seem to know that the Earth was not flat, surrounded by 7 layered domes of “heavens” one on top of the other, (the nearest heaven which contained the stars), and the Sun did not move around a stationary Earth and the Sun and the Moon were not further than the stars. The Earth was not created after the stars (41:9 to 12).

   Tafsir Al Jalalayan

   41:9 “Say: ‘Do you [really] .. disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two days, Sunday and Monday,..

   41:10 “And He set ..therein firm mountains [rising] above it, and blessed it, with an abundance of water, crops and stock, and ordained, divided, therein its [various means of] sustenance, for human beings and beasts, in four, complete, days .. ”

   (placed the mountains like Lego pieces on the Earth – logical to Muhammad with the knowledge of his times but strange for Allah not to know Mountains are not placed, nor firm but are formed and wear away many times during Earths existence)

   41:11 “Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke, [consisting of] rising vapours, and He said to it and to the earth, “Come both of you, to what I desire from you, willingly, or unwillingly!” ..They said, “We come, together with all those inhabiting us, willingly!”

   The Earth according to the Quran can Hear and Answer and has the capacity to decide whether to come willingly or unwillingly, rather than move precisely and inanimately as per the Laws of motion and gravity!

   41:12 “Then He ordained them (the [suffixed] pronoun refers back to al-samā’, ‘the heaven’, because it [al-samā’] actually denotes that plural [sense] to which it will lead [in the following clause), in other words, He made them to be, seven heavens in two days ” Thursday and Friday. He completed them in the last hour thereof, in which He created Adam ” which is why He does not say sawā’an, ‘evenly’ here [as He did earlier]; what is said here concords with those verse in which it is stated that the heavens and the earth were created in six days; and in each heaven He revealed its commandment’, that to which He commanded those in it [to follow], in the way of obedience and worship. And We adorned the lowest heaven with lamps, with stars, and [this was also] to guard them (hifzan is in the accusative because of its implicit verbal sense, in other words, ‘We guarded it against the devils lest they try to listen therein [to the angels] by stealth with meteors’). That is the ordaining of the Mighty, in His kingdom, the Knower, of His creatures.”

   So after he had created the Earth Allah created the stars! and “adorned” them on the nearest heaven!

   That he created the Earth and the “7 Heavens” literally in days and not periods is confirmed by the Sahih Muslim Hadith 39:6707 “Abu Haraira reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) took hold of my hands and said: Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, created the clay on Saturday and He created the mountains on sunday and He created the trees on Monday and He created the things entailing labour on Tuesday and created light on Wednesday and lie caused the animals to spread on Thursday and created Adam (peace be upon him) after ‘Asr on Friday; the last creation at the last hour of the hours of Friday, i. e. between afternoon and night.”

   Al Tabari quoting Ibn Abbas “The Jews came to the Prophet and asked him about the creation of the heavens and the earth. He said: God created the earth on Sunday and Monday. He created the mountains and the uses they possess on Tuesday. On Wednesday, He created trees, water, cities and the cultivated barren land. These are four (days). He continued (citing the Qur’ān): `Say: Do you really not believe in the One Who created the earth in two days, and set up others like Him? That is the Lord of the worlds. He made it firmly anchored (mountains) above it and blessed it and decreed that it contain the amount of food it provides, (all) in four days, equally for those asking’- for those who ask. On Thursday, He created heaven. On Friday, He created the stars, the sun, the moon, and the angels, until three hours remained.”

   The Light came 2 days after the plants started photosynthesis!

   The Sun and the Moon on the other had are in the Midst of the 7 heavens, which places the Moon further than the stars! My this Allah is forgetful, maybe he is suffering from Alzheimer’s? After all he must be rather old.

   71:15, 16 “‘See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another, ‘And made the moon a light in their midst, ..”

   [Emperors New Clothes – See ye not these beautiful clothes ” and the Arabs nodded in unison – yes Muhammad we see, all the 7 heavens ” and those that expressed doubt and mocked him were duly killed in the most horrible fashion]

   Then Allah forgets again what he has done and sets the sun and the moon among the constellations. 25:61

   Chameleon “For example, there is not a single verse in the Quran that says the Earth is flat, but you try to twist metaphorical references into “giving the impression of flatness”. I have read and reread those verses using multiple translations, and none of them give that impression to me at all. ”

   It is not only that every verse referring to shape of the Earth gives some impression of flatness, but none refer to it as round. And no doubt you wouldn’t get the impression of flatness, because you’re conditioned to believe the incredible yarn of Muhammad. Not even when it says things like “He Who has, made for you the earth like a carpet spread out; ..” Carpet, Bed, Spread out are the words used.

   Not only does it repeatedly say the Sun moves, it never says the Earth does, rather it says the “firm mountains” are set, or cast on an unmoving Earth.

   And the Sun sets in a muddy spring – here is another hadith, more precise

   Sunan Abu Dawud 3991 ” “Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water” Precisely as the Quran says it.

   The absurd primitive Cosmology aside the Quran is simple riddled with errors of facts, logic, history – you name it.

   The whole Muhammad yarn is just too incredible and full of holes to be believable to any but those with the lowest intelligence. This is reflected in the scholarship emerging from your numerous Islamic schools or Madrassas who produce nothing but murderous Muhammad clones.

2. Chameleon

   January 8, 2012 | Log in to Reply

   Richard,

   You have officially failed. I gave you so many chances and so much time to make your case. Even with your last kick at the can, you produced nothing but hot air.

   Your attempts to debunk the Quran via cosmological references are amusing, at best. For example, there is not a single verse in the Quran that says the Earth is flat, but you try to twist metaphorical references into “giving the impression of flatness”. I have read and reread those verses using multiple translations, and none of them give that impression to me at all.

   Another example is your quip about what the “back” side is vs. the proper direction to pray (which is just a symbol of Muslim unity, by the way, not a prayer to anything or anyone in Mecca). There is no doubt, dispute or even second thought whatsoever to over a billion Muslims as to what is the proper direction to face for prayer, since it is just common sense, but somehow there is not only a doubt to you, but an irrational contradiction. What a hilarious joke! I don’t think I could have come up with a better argument myself to show how you twist common sense perspectives and metaphorical text into literal absurdities. I rest my case on your cosmological BS.

   What is so astounding to me is how utterly and disgustingly you failed in your attempt to portray Islam as a religion of hate and violence, which was really the core topic always at issue, in spite of your endless attempts to go in circles on ancillary topics. Even now, you still shamelessly claim that somewhere — out there who knows where — mysterious unmentioned verses or hadiths contain a kill order: “The Quran and Hadiths are full of kill orders”, you say, but you produce absolutely nothing to prove this claim. DON’T YOU GET IT BY NOW? THE KILL ORDER SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST, EXCEPT IN YOUR HEAD. The ability of the human mind to continue claiming something as true when every attempt to support that claim has been completely and utterly crushed never ceases to amaze me.

   One of your two remaining arguments appears to be that some unmentioned fatwa by a mullah on a payroll somewhere says that Muslims are at war with non-Muslims, so this justifies killing in the name of Islam. Never mind that I already debunked this logic with the example of bin Laden himself, who officially declared war on America but did so NOT with any kill order, but by arguing that he was acting according to the universal human value of self-defense! You can’t find anything in Islam to provide a kill order, so the best that you can do is find a few so-called modern day “Muslims” to give a kill order without support from Islam (which you didn’t even bother to reference, by the way — how pathetic!). I can find all kinds of Christians throughout history and today to provide examples of kill orders against Muslims, but am I deranged enough like you to argue that this somehow implicates Christianity in any way? Of course not. It is nothing more than a hollow ad hominem argument.

   Your other argument is to resort to that old standby of yours: “taqiyya”. You accuse me of this nonsense yet again by saying that “the definition of ‘persecution and oppression’ in Islam is anything from merely being a non-believer, to expressing ones opinion, to expecting Muslims to obey our western laws.” It is you who is guilty of taqiyya once again, since I never claimed or even remotely implied that this was my definition of “persecution and oppression”. And it most certainly is not the definition implied by the Quran. Let me be abundantly clear here so that there is no room for confusion or doubt. My definition of the words “persecution” and “oppression” are exactly the same as can be found in any reputable dictionary, NOT the definition that you are trying to impose on my arguments.

   You have already admitted, without any doubt whatsoever, that fighting — even killing — in response to persecution and oppression is justified. Unlike others I have argued with, you proved that you actually have the balls to admit what virtually every American passionately believes but is often too ashamed to admit out loud, since it blatantly contradicts the Christian love cult doctrine: fighting and, if necessary, killing, is justified in response to persecution and oppression. That is the ONLY type of violence that Islam allows in the context of war or any armed conflict. Islam is therefore 100% in compliance with American values when it comes to violence in the context of war. However, that does not mean that all American values in warfare, such as unilateral aggression as a means of “preemptive self defense”, are in compliance with Islam — they most certainly are not. Islam has far more honorable values in warfare than that.

   Therefore, it is not me who is telling you what your values on violence in warfare are. You already admitted what your values are. I HAVE MERELY PROVEN, BEYOND ALL DOUBT, THAT YOUR VIEWS ON VIOLENCE (IN WAR) ARE 100% IN COMPLIANCE WITH ISLAMIC BELIEFS.

   I rest my case. Now go crawl back into your repulsive, hate-filled hole. I am done with you.

3. Richard

   December 18, 2011 | Log in to Reply

   “7. many other indirect evidence as it is a sin to have your backside towards Mecca while praying. Makes sense in a flat earth, but senseless in a spherical Earth as each time you face Mecca, your backside faces away from it.”

   Correction “in a spherical Earth as each time you face Mecca, your backside also faces it from the opposite side.

4. Richard

   December 18, 2011 | Log in to Reply

   Chameleon “I AM STILL WAITING ON THE KILL ORDER. SO FAR YOU HAVE UTTERLY FAILED TO PRODUCE IT AFTER SO MANY ATTEMPTS. I HAVE PROVEN THAT YOUR VIEWS ON VIOLENCE (IN WAR) ARE 100% IN COMPLIANCE WITH ISLAMIC BELIEFS.”

   Chameleon dont try and tell me what my views on violence are. I have already told you they are not at all in compliance with Islamic beliefs.

   Chameleon “a kill order is a command to kill non-Muslims other than in response to persecution and oppression. The clear context that we have always been discussing is in the context of WAR, whether you call that war justified, unjustified, jihad, terrorism, political Islam or whatever you want. It is NOT in the context of civil or criminal law within the confines of the Muslim community itself, so please spare me your mindless definitional distractions to avoid addressing the real issue at hand.”

   The Quran and Hadiths are full of kill orders, a few of which I have quoted, and commands to violence against non-believers, women, animals, homosexuals etc.

   You speak a different and taqiyya mouthing language Chameleon. The definition of “persecution and oppression” in Islam is anything from merely being a non-believer, to expressing ones opinion, to expecting Muslims to obey our western laws.

   According to the schools of Muslim jurisprudence, the “Muslim world” is in a perpetual state of war with the “non-Muslim world”. In practical terms Muslims are at war with non-Muslims, so therefore can kill them.

   It is amazing you think that whether that “war” is justified, unjustified, jihad, terrorism, political Islam or whatever, is irrelevant and a “mindless distraction” to the many orders to kill non-believers.

   What is an irrelevant mindless (or deceiving) distraction is trying to argue that commands to violence are not commands to violence, discrimination against women, non-believers etc are not what they say they are.

   What is irrelevant is trying to argue that a book and a preposterous story line spun by a 7th century semi-literate, has any relevance to the modern world and our evolved secular values and evolving morality.

   Science arrives closer and closer to truth through evidence. It makes hypotheses and then sees if that hypothesis is confirmed or refuted by the evidence. It demands absolute honesty and impartiality. If any evidence refutes the hypothesis it has to be discarded or amended in the light of contradictory evidence.

   Your religious stance in direct opposition declares the absolute Truth for all time and defends this declaration against all evidence to the contrary.

   For example let us examine two hypotheses

   A. That the Quran is a message word for word by “the creator” of the Universe.

   B. That the Quran is a fabrication by Muhammad.

   1. If it A were true does it contain at least some unequivocal, unambiguous, knowledge that wasnt known by humans in the 7th century or some “prophesy” that has since come true. – Answer no

   2. If B is true does it contain errors and falsehoods – Answer yes many many.

   3. If B is true does it contain the personal history and prejudices of Muhammad – yes

   For example it says that the Earth is flat, that the Sun moves around the Earth and sets in the Earth at night at its stopping point only to arise in the morning at the command of Allah.

   The evidence of this are

   1. Many verses in the Quran at least giving the impression of flatness. Example:
   http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/015-qmt.php#015.019

   2. The absence of a single reference on the shape of the Earth stating it to be round. (Before you begin 79:30 does not give any reference to roundness). There is only one place in the Quran where an egg (or ostrich egg) is mentioned and that is 37:49 to describe women’s eyes in paradise. That word does not appear in 79:30, which simply says “And after that He spread the earth.” http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/79:30

   4. The absence of a single reference to say the Earth is moving.

   5. Verses in the Quran that say that the Sun sets in its “setting place” in a muddy spring on Earth and has a “rising place” also on the Earth. That this is a “parable” is not acceptable. Why should “the maker of Universe” tell some trite parable using false information. (Boys and girls let me teach you a lesson starting with the fact that the Sun sets in a muddy spring)

   6. A Hadith where Muhammad says that the sun travels “till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again”. It is then permitted and rises again. This is in no way in conformance with the modern knowledge that the Earth revolves around the Sun and day and night are caused by the revolution of the Earth about its axis.

   7. many other indirect evidence as it is a sin to have your backside towards Mecca while praying. Makes sense in a flat earth, but senseless in a spherical Earth as each time you face Mecca, your backside faces away from it.

   Your reply typifies the religious stance where the Quran is assumed to be true and explanations are tried to be given to the evidence in contradiction.

   Chameleon “As for the rest of this hadith, it is cryptically referencing a literal or metaphorical future where the sun one day rises from the West instead of the East. Who knows what this means exactly? No one can say for sure.”

   But you are sure that this will happen just because the Quran says so. The only way for this to happen is for the Earth to reverse its rotation – somewhat unlikely – to put it mildly.

   “The “prostration” of the sun, by the way, is just a metaphor for the obedience of celestial bodies to the immutable will of God – i.e., in this case, the laws of physics – in how the sun appears to bend down below us in “prostration” each night and then rise from “prostration” each morning.”

   It does not appear to “bend down in prostration” to me. It simply sinks below the horizon.

   And Muhammad said that it “prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again”. There is a particular place he is talking about a place where the Sun “prostrates itself” asking for “permission” to rise again. The act of setting “prostrating” “beneath the throne” and “rising again” are distinct and discrete acts revealing no modern knowledge but rather the medieval ignorance of the Arabs of that time.

   So it could be that “the “prostration” of the sun, ..is just a metaphor” but it could also be exactly what he said it was – prostrating at the “throne of Allah”

   By the way there is no “obedience of celestial bodies to the immutable will of God” but rather they follow impassively Newton’s Laws of motion, or more precisely to the General Theory of Relativity.

   “And for those who are looking for a literal interpretation of the sun rising in the West, per this hadith, the realities of “geomagnetic reversal”, precession or other effects could explain the meaning.”

   Unfortunately not. “Geomagnetic reversal” only reverses the Magnetic poles, not the physical ones or the direction of the Earth’s rotation. The physical locations remain precisely where they are. East remains East and West west.

   Yes rise = move the Sun moves, apparently around the Earth. What the Quran neglects to say is that the Earth moves.

   Time and again you ignore the obvious explanation of mountains of contrary evidence and argue that the Quran remains true despite these.

5. Chameleon

   December 10, 2011 | Log in to Reply

   Richard,

   As I already defined, a kill order is a command to kill non-Muslims other than in response to persecution and oppression. The clear context that we have always been discussing is in the context of WAR, whether you call that war justified, unjustified, jihad, terrorism, political Islam or whatever you want. It is NOT in the context of civil or criminal law within the confines of the Muslim community itself, so please spare me your mindless definitional distractions to avoid addressing the real issue at hand. Therefore, just to be clear, violence against non-Muslims (per the kill order) is NOT relevant at all with respect to legal punishments against Muslims or the killing of common, harmful pests of a particular time or place.

   Nevertheless, since you insist on bringing up the extermination of common pests as examples of how “Muhammad hated the harmless innocent creatures”, I will quickly address this point here. Note that all these pests were “permitted” to be exterminated because they were harmful, with the command to reduce the overpopulation of dogs given only TEMPORARILY, per the full hadith wording (which you of course omitted), due to no animal control and no modern veterinary methods of sterilization. There is no command, nor even permission, to exterminate animals who pose no harm. Why certain black dogs of an unknown breed were considered always harmful, i.e. “a devil” in the common vernacular, per one hadith only, is not clear, since no context or breed was given. You make it sound like there was no practical purpose for the killing of common pests and for reducing the overpopulation of wild dogs, many of whom would no doubt attack humans or livestock in packs, and many who would be rabid, per other hadiths. This is why we have animal control today, though you clearly take it for granted. If you would have ever been to a non-first world country without proper animal control, as I have, then you would understand and appreciate the necessity for controlling the overpopulation of dogs, especially certain breeds that could be notoriously vicious, as some breeds are.

   Finally, I leave you with a hadith about how important it is to be kind to animals, per Prophet Muhammad: Narated By Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “While a man was walking on a road, he became very thirsty. Then he came across a well, got down into it, drank (of its water) and then came out. Meanwhile he saw a dog panting and licking mud because of excessive thirst. The man said to himself “This dog is suffering from the same state of thirst as I did.” So he went down the well (again) and filled his shoe (with water) and held it in his mouth and watered the dog. Allah thanked him for that deed and forgave him.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! Is there a reward for us in serving the animals?” He said, “(Yes) There is a reward for serving any animate (living being).” – [Bukhari Vol. 8, Book 73, #38] & [Muslim Book 26, Chapter 39, # 5577] . There are also many other hadiths commanding not to abuse animals, to minimize the pain of animals when they are slaughtered for food or exterminated (which is what your gecko hadith actually says, if you bothered to read it properly), not to overburden work animals, never to beat or brand camels or other animals on the face, never to torture animals (one woman who did so to a cat was said to go to hell for this action), and on and on. So to say that “Muhammad hated the harmless innocent creatures” is the most foulest of lies.

   Now back to the kill order and away from your silly attempt at definitional distraction. On that note, you say: “I produce kill order after kill order and you refuse to accept them as kill orders and thus Islam emerges as peaceful and perfect.” All that you have shown are examples of fighting or killing IN RESPONSE TO PERSECUTION AND OPPRESSION, as I have proven again and again and again. This justified reason for fighting and killing is 100% in compliance with your own values (and universally accepted values) on violence (in war). I never said that Islam is a love cult where everything is always about peace. It is also about fighting against persecution and oppression, which would be anything but peaceful.

   So tell me, which of all the examples that you have shown me have I not summarily dispatched as examples of a kill order? Instead of erroneously claiming that you have provided so many verses that I am just ignoring, prove it by rebutting even a single one of my arguments. SHOW ME JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF A COMMAND TO KILL NON-MUSLIMS IN THE QURAN THAT IS NOT IN RESPONSE TO PERSECUTION AND OPPRESSION. STOP BLATHERING HOLLOW CLAIMS AND PROVE THAT YOU ARE RIGHT AND I AM WRONG.

   Verse 4:89 is yet another example of your futile attempt. This verse only allows fighting against those who fight you for no justified reason (i.e., persecution or oppression, once again). You omitted verses 4:88 and 4:90-91, any one of which makes this point abundantly clear. Taken together, they crush your interpretation irrefutably. Therefore, you are wrong again. There is no kill order here whatsoever.

   You are claiming that the Tafsir of Ibn Abbas on verse 2:193 is not logically contradictory. I have already proven that it is. If you are challenging my proof, then stop whining that ‘it just ain’t so’ and show me where I am wrong. Are you that intellectually weak that you can’t back up your counterclaim with actual facts and logic? The Tafsir itself admits that verse 2:193 clearly says to desist fighting once those who are fighting cease hostilities. There is no interpretation required for this part of the verse, since that is exactly what the verse says and what Ibn Abbas admits it says. Therefore, the contradiction within the Tafsir has nothing to do with any added interpretation by me whatsoever. IBN ABBAS BLATANTLY CONTRADICTED HIMSELF, and therefore invalidated his Tafsir in the process. The fact that he also contradicted my logically consistent interpretation is beside the point. Don’t you get it?

   You also say that “The Quran IS full of contradictions.” You have yet to prove even a single one. Are you brain dead that you still don’t understand the concept of facts and logic being required to support your sweeping conclusions, even after all this time I have been drilling this concept into your head?

   As for punishment for adultery, this is a much longer topic than I am willing to elaborate upon here, but one thing is clear is that it is 100 lashes for Muslims only (i.e., not non-Muslims), and it is not stoning. Stoning was an early practice of the community carried forward from the Jewish law, as the hadiths show, but later overridden quite clearly by a revealed verse in the Quran (24:2) for the 100 lashes in punishment for “Zina”, which means adultery. Zina is the only word for adultery, so those translators who translate this word as “fornication” (while translating Zina as “adultery” elsewhere in the Quran) are categorically incorrect and self-contradictory. But once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with a kill order, so I am not going to go off on a tangent here.

   Also, there is no penalty merely in changing one’s religion from Islam. It is only when there is treason involved that the penalty could be death, just as is the case in the U.S. for the penalty of treason against the nation. Bukhari 52:260 is just an abbreviated and incomplete recollection by one individual of a longer, more specific set of conditions to justify killing under three circumstances (only two of which still apply per Islamic doctrine, since the penalty for Zina is now 100 lashes). The longer quote is as follows: “By Allah, Allah’s Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, i.e., was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate.” (Bukhari 83:37). Note how the act of treason is irrefutably clear in condition #3 here. It is too long a topic, but there are other hadiths that show this consistency as well, where those who were killed were merely acting as Muslims for the sake of subversion against the Muslim community. In other hadiths, the use of the phrase “apostates as renegades” rather than just “apostates” highlights the treasonous element. And there are other examples where someone became an apostate peacefully (and Prophet Muhammad knew about it) but was not killed. Finally, the only verses of the Quran that advocate killing of hypocrites (apostates) are for those who fight against Muslims or aid others in fighting against Muslims; otherwise, killing of hypocrites who demonstrate their apostasy by refusing to help the Muslims is forbidden (4:90). Moreover, verses from the Quran make it clear that it is possible to become an apostate in Islam without punishment of any sort and then repent and still come back to Islam. The only punishment would be in the hereafter for those who harden in their disbelief and don’t return to Islam before dying (3:86-91, with a focus on the key verse 4:89). I have already covered Bukhari 52:260, 84:57, 84:58, 84:64, and 84:65 fully in a previous post, which you could not rebut whatsoever. I will not repeat myself again given your lack of respect for my previous arguments, which completely refuted your conclusions. I do enjoy, however, watching your blatant practice of Taqiyya yet again by editing out all the treasonous parts from Bukhari 84:64/65 to make it sound like the real issue was a change in religion when it is clear from the hadiths that these individuals were never Muslim to begin with and only acted as Muslims for the sake of treachery! You don’t have facts, so instead you make them up – brilliant! Moreover, once again, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with any kill order.

   You also repeat the same translation that I already debunked in my last post: “What does your logic say about the words “those who malign Allah AND HIS MESSENGER, Allah hath cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained. Accursed, THEY WILL BE SEIZED WHEREVER FOUND AND SLAIN WITH A (FIERCE) SLAUGHTER.”?” Didn’t you read what I wrote at all? You are conflating two separate verses together, 33:57 and 33:61, to make it appear that they are a single verse when they are not. Verse 33:61 starts with the word “Accursed” and does not relate to the wording in 33:57 at all! More Taqiyaa on your part – it never ends, even after I blatantly point it out the first time. Can’t you make an argument without so brazenly making up the facts?

   You also say “I do not believe I should kill a person wherever I should find him simply if he does not believe what I believe, if he is a ‘polytheist’, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Jew ..whatever.” Wonderful. I am happy that you do not believe this, since neither do true Muslims. Believing in this would require there to be a kill order, which clearly does not exist. You have proven that it does not exist because of your inability to find it even after all of your efforts. Once again, you are showing that you have good, strong Islamic values in this respect. There may be hope for you after all.

   You say “Now the translation of verse 36:38 is wrong that the sun runs to its resting place, despite many translations by Arabic experts”. Quit hiding behind someone else’s skirt and show me the arguments against mine. Otherwise sit down and shut up with your whining about what “Arabic experts” supposedly say. I have four independent translations of the Quran that say otherwise, and you can look up the key root word for yourself on the Internet to validate my interpretation. Moreover, you quote a hadith (Bukhari 54:421) that is supposedly against my interpretation, but it actually supports it 100%. There is no “resting place” quoted here at all, but rather “the sun runs its fixed course for a term (decreed)”, which is more or less my translation (i.e., 100% in compliance with science), definitely not yours. Also, there is no mention whatsoever of the sun going into a pool each night in this hadith, so you are not just shooting yourself in the foot once with this hadith, but twice! As for the rest of this hadith, it is cryptically referencing a literal or metaphorical future where the sun one day rises from the West instead of the East. Who knows what this means exactly? No one can say for sure. The “prostration” of the sun, by the way, is just a metaphor for the obedience of celestial bodies to the immutable will of God – i.e., in this case, the laws of physics – in how the sun appears to bend down below us in “prostration” each night and then rise from “prostration” each morning. And for those who are looking for a literal interpretation of the sun rising in the West, per this hadith, the realities of “geomagnetic reversal”, precession or other effects could explain the meaning. For example, geomagnetic reversal has happened in cycles over Earth’s history (of up to 1 million years each), where the north and south poles switch polarity, thereby also switching what is now East vs. West, which means the sun has risen in the “West” before and will do so again in the future. With respect to geomagnetic reversal, the sun does the same, which can cause severe solar storms, and apparently it may be in the process of doing so now. Alternatively, it could refer to the death of our sun, which is inevitable, thereby validating that the sun runs in an orbit (course) predetermined (or for a fixed, but finite time).

   If you want to understand more regarding the parable of Zul Qarnain, then go look it up yourself. The Tafsir on it are quite extensive in terms of the messages it contains, including the metaphors. As for your interpretation of the rising sun verse (18:90), it is simply ridiculous. So you are saying that “the sun shone continually on them” as your interpretation (with no translation analysis or support from anyone to back you up). If that were true, that means the sun would not ever be moving relative to the Earth for these people, but yet the verse says that he “saw it rise over a people”. The last I checked, RISE = MOVE, so there is no way for it to shine continually over them while also continually rising! You then say that the sun burning is “modern knowledge”! So nobody was ever burned by the sun or could feel its heat in those days, but they can only do so today? Then you say “This does not prove that the Quran does not say that – rather because the Quran DOES say that, it proves the Quran is ridiculous.” Now you have circular logic masquerading as “proof”, all based on nonsensical interpretations as “facts”. You actually tried to form an argument here, so bravo to you, but it was so absurd and addle-brained that I couldn’t decide whether to laugh or be repulsed in apathy.

   Based on the blatant lies, twisted facts and nonsensical logic that I am getting from you now, I will only give you one more chance before I sign off on this thread. It is becoming a waste of both our times, especially since you can’t produce any kill order, as I remind you again:

   I AM STILL WAITING ON THE KILL ORDER. SO FAR YOU HAVE UTTERLY FAILED TO PRODUCE IT AFTER SO MANY ATTEMPTS. I HAVE PROVEN THAT YOUR VIEWS ON VIOLENCE (IN WAR) ARE 100% IN COMPLIANCE WITH ISLAMIC BELIEFS.

6. Richard

   December 9, 2011 | Log in to Reply

   PS The Hadith is Bukhari 54:421 and there are others too.

7. Richard

   December 9, 2011 | Log in to Reply

   Chameleon “I AM STILL WAITING ON THE KILL ORDER. SO FAR YOU HAVE UTTERLY FAILED TO PRODUCE IT AFTER SO MANY ATTEMPTS. THEREFORE, YOUR VIEWS ON VIOLENCE ARE STILL 100% IN COMPLIANCE WITH ISLAMIC BELIEFS”

   lol Chameleon you are pathetic. I produce kill order after kill order and you refuse to accept them as kill orders and thus Islam emerges as peaceful and perfect.

   You say that “Based on his Tafsir, Muslims are faced with an illogical, 100% contradictory command when the idolaters stop fighting at the Sacred Mosque but continue to express or privately honor their pagan religious beliefs (i.e., Muslims must both desist AND continue fighting at the same time).”

   The Quran IS full of contradictions, which gives people like you leeway to argue on both sides of the coin. On the other hand it contradicts the Quran itself, which says the Quran is clear and can be understood by everyone. (This revelation miraculously came to Muhammad when he was criticised for saying the Quran was too hard to be understood by the common man.)

   However the contradiction here exists only in your mind. They are to desist in fighting if the person surrenders and embraces Islam, but kill them if they resist and refuse to do so.

   The companion of Muhammad further says Allah will be merciful to them after they are killed if they have truly converted to Islam, as the verse also says.

   My views on violence are 0% in compliance with Islamic beliefs.

   Unlike in Islam:

   I do not believe I should kill a person wherever I should find him simply if he does not believe what I believe, if he is a “polytheist”, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Jew ..whatever.

   I do not believe that adulterers should be given 100 lashes or stoned to death.

   I do not believe that chameleons or lizards should be killed, or dogs or black dogs or kites or eagles or crows.

   I do not believe that if a person leaves Islam he should be killed. In fact I think they should be commended and praised.

   “They wish that you would disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal. Therefore, do not take a guide from them until they emigrate in the way of Allah. Then, if they turn back TAKE THEM AND KILL THEM WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM…” Quran 4:89

   “the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ ” Bukhari 52:260

   “..Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’ ” Bukhari 84:57, also 84:58

   “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “..some young foolish people .. will go out from (leave) their religion ..So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.” Bukhari 84:64, 65

   Chameleon “I have enough intelligence to assess the facts and logic”

   So what does your intelligence and logic say about these words?

   What does your logic say about the words “those who malign Allah AND HIS MESSENGER, Allah hath cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained. Accursed, THEY WILL BE SEIZED WHEREVER FOUND AND SLAIN WITH A (FIERCE) SLAUGHTER.”?

   Now the translation of verse 36:38 is wrong that the sun runs to its resting place, despite many translations by Arabic experts, and when some bloke reaches “THE setting place of the sun” it is “a literary parable replete with metaphor”.

   I was taught Christian parables by my grandmother they were all replete with very wise messages, what exactly is the message of this “parable”?

   You say “how could the sun rise literally “on a people” who had no protection from the sun (i.e., they were naked natives). They would be burned alive without protection being so close to the sun. Clearly, this is just literary imagery as well, but you don’t mention the rising sun verse because that one makes the literary imagery of the setting sun verse exceedingly obvious.”

   1. No protection from the sun does not mean they were naked natives, but that the sun shone continually on them (at the “rising place of the sun”).

   2. That they would be burned being close to the Sun is modern knowledge and it IS ridiculous that such a thing could happen.

   3. This does not prove that the Quran does not say that – rather because the Quran DOES say that, it proves the Quran is ridiculous.

   4. You claim that all these eminent Arabic scholars got the translation of Quran 36:38 wrong, well how about this hadith then which clarifies this very verse and mentions it by name? :

   “The Prophet asked me at sunset, “Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?” I replied, “Allah and His Apostle know better.” He said, “It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: “And the sun Runs its fixed course For a term (decreed). that is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing.” (36.38)”

   What does your intelligence and logic say about that?

   Look Chameleon I actually feel sorry for you. You were brought up to love Islam and you genuinely think that by definition there can be no evil in Islam. But that is not the truth.

   Its hard but eventually I hope you will accept it and be at peace with yourself.

8. Chameleon

   December 8, 2011 | Log in to Reply

   Richard,

   Unlike you, I really don’t care what any “scholars” – long dead or still alive – say about Islam if it conflicts with what Islam actually says. A Tafsir is just one person’s opinion or analysis, nothing more. It is not part of Islamic doctrine. I have enough intelligence to assess the facts and logic regarding any argument about Islam, so I don’t blindly follow anyone, particularly self-proclaimed “mullahs”. I will not be sucked into the vortex of anyone else’s erroneous thinking. As I said before, and as I say again, all that matters are the facts and logic of the argument. There is nothing else that deserves any respect. Likewise, if my facts and logic are challengeable in any way, then be my guest and do so. So far, you have not been able to successfully challenge any of my arguments.

   It is a verifiable fact, for example, that the translation that you gave of verse 2:193 is loaded with interpolations that are not at all in the original Arabic. So it is totally irrelevant who or what came up with it. It is still crap just the same. So let me get this straight, in spite of how obvious the contradiction is, your argument is that I should just blindly accept what some Muslim says because that Muslim supports your viewpoint and has been “revered” by Muslims at some point in history? Effectively, you are advocating an irrational surrender of reason, and then you accuse me of doing exactly that!

   Let’s just take one example from the revered Ibn Abbas. I am sure that he makes a lot of valuable arguments that stand up to the test of facts and logic, but we can’t accept what he says when his arguments do not. It is that simple. Take a look, more specifically, at his Tafsir on verse 2:193 from the same web link that you provided. He says fighting (including hostilities and killing) by Muslims MUST DESIST when those who are fighting against Muslims stop their hostilities (this part is extremely explicit in the verse, so there is no way for him to wiggle out of this command for Muslims to stop fighting here). This not only contradicts his interpretation of what is implied to “desist” in verse 2:192 for no logical reason, but it blatantly contradicts his interpretation of the other part of verse 2:193, where he says that Muslims should continue to fight “until there is no association of partners with Allah in the Sacred Precinct, (and religion is for Allah) and Islam and worship of Allah reign in the Sacred Precinct”. So, on the one hand, he is saying that fighting by Muslims MUST DESIST if the idolaters who are fighting Muslims stop fighting; but, on the other hand, fighting MUST CONTINUE if the idolaters who were fighting Muslims continue to express their religious beliefs at the Sacred Mosque. Based on his Tafsir, Muslims are faced with an illogical, 100% contradictory command when the idolaters stop fighting at the Sacred Mosque but continue to express or privately honor their pagan religious beliefs (i.e., Muslims must both desist AND continue fighting at the same time). As you can see, even if Ibn Abbas would have lived and breathed next to Muhammad for his entire life, his Tafsir can still be utterly squashed based on the irrefutable evidence and test of facts and logic, as I just did to his Tafsir of verse 2:193. You, on the other hand, like a bumbling idiot, accept his irrational interpretations as beyond reproach and make it rational in your own head by ignoring all parts of his Tafsir that contradict the view to keep killing until all Kufr is eliminated, which is totally unsupported by verses 2:190-194. When a Tafsir is logically self-contradictory, as here, or contradictory to the Quran and authenticated hadiths, it cannot be accepted, no matter what “revered” authority is behind the Tafsir.

   Don’t go posting YouTube or other web links and expect me to watch or read them. If you believe that any of these arguments are better than mine, then let me hear them in your own words. Stop vomiting web link opinions. Show me what they’ve got. I will enjoy making fodder out of their arguments just as much as yours if they cannot stand up to the test of facts and logic. But I will enjoy it that much more when you take a cowering stand behind your favorite mullahs to fight for you.

   Remember: facts, logic, THEN conclusion. The goal here is not wit, Shakespearean or otherwise, but actual reasoned arguments. One liners are merely comical, not persuasive. That is why you sound like such an ignorant buffoon.

   Now for your lies and illogical arguments. Verse 33:57 (just like 3:85, which you also quote) just reiterates in yet another way that being an unbeliever is bad – wow, there’s that revelation once again! How could maligning a Prophet of God be expected to deserve anything other than the curse of God? Of course this would be the outcome, as it would be in Christianity and Judaism as well. You make no point here whatsoever.

   You then make it sound like verse 33:61 is directly referencing the individuals in verse 33:57 by conflating the two verses together, but it is not. Verse 33:61 was just a warning from God against Muslim hypocrites and those spreading perverse evil and terror (or “sedition”) in Medina to stop, or else God would call the pious Muslims to fight against them, in which case they would be killed. Note the use of the words “IF” they “don’t desist, WE will”, which means it is conditional as a WARNING only, and that God will respond as the consequence. It is not for Muslims to respond unilaterally without God’s subsequent command. Finally, this verse is purely a reference to specific historical events and is addressed only to the historical inhabitants of Medina, and therefore it only applies to that context. We also have to keep in mind the context of sexual slander and physical “harm” (or “harassment”) that was acknowledged to have occurred to Muslim women in verses 33:58-60 (as well as in various hadiths from the Medina period), in combination with what can be translated as “perverts” in one translation of the Quran in verse 33:61. Given this context, the connotation here is that the warned punishment from God was largely in response to the oppression, persecution and degradation of women, quite possibly including rape. Although this verse is not directly relevant to the Muslims of today, it does serve as a reminder to Muslims of how despised such destructive and evil misogynistic behavior is to God. This verse was never an actual command to Muslims in Medina, and it is certainly not a command to Muslims today. It was only a warning.

   In no way shape or form do these two verses have anything to do with your conclusion that they say the following: “In the case of Islam if you do not believe that Muhammad is a prophet that is the worst sin. Such a person will burn in hell. It would be a small matter to send him or her there forthwith.” There is absolutely no connection whatsoever to this wording. So I ask again, where are you getting this crap? This time, answer the question please.

   As for verse 5:33, I already addressed that above, which you ignored. You failed to rebut my argument whatsoever, so instead you just repeat yourself. So I too repeat myself with a copy and paste: As for verse 5:33, this is not referring to any kill order, but to a legal punishment against someone who would be the equivalent of a modern day terrorist, who is not only guilty of murder, but the equivalent of personally “waging war” and “perpetrating disorders (mayhem) in the land”. This verse refers to the most serious crime – and, consequently, the most serious penalty – in the entire Quran. But once again, it has absolutely nothing to do with a kill order against non-Muslims. Your argument falls completely flat yet again.

   You also say the following: “As for Islamic logic it is circular. Muhammad is a prophet because the Quran says so. The Quran is true because the Quran says so and claims itself to be a “miracle”. Lol.” I never said that the Quran or Islam or even God are verifiably true, so there is no need for any circular logic nonsense. It is as if you are arguing with someone who cannot respect any other alternative viewpoint. There are plenty of those individuals in every religion, but I am not one of them. Islam, just like any other way of life, is a choice, not based on proof but based on one’s deepest convictions and experiences in life. The Quran itself contains many “signs” of God to those with an open mind (which is actually the same word for verse), but “signs” are also not proof in any scientific sense, nor were they ever meant to be. That is why I know it is impossible for me or anyone else to prove that Islam is true. That is not what I am trying to do. I am merely proving what Islam is not.

   You also say the following: “Don’t talk to me about facts and logic quoting “facts” from a book that says the Earth is flat (Quran 15:19, 20:53, 43:10, 50:7, 51:48, 71:19, 78:6, 79:30, 88:20 and 91:6), the sun moves around the Earth and sets at night in the Earth in a muddy pool (Quran 18:86-90).” I have been through all these verses on other occasions in the past, and none of them contradict science or observable perception, especially when literary imagery is used for the latter. In fact, some of them, among others not listed here, are quite prescient and arguably beyond the known science of the time. Don’t just vomit a list of verses. Pick your best 2-3 examples beyond the two I am addressing here and make your arguments. If you pick more than three, then I will only address your first three. I will then satisfy your masochism by shooting your arguments down as I always do. I am not going to go through all of them, since these are seriously off topic and I don’t have the time. Just make sure to get your facts straight first.

   For example, verses 18:86-90 are referencing a literary parable replete with metaphor and are clearly not meant to be scientific descriptions. The sun setting in a dark black body of water of some sort could just be emphasizing the great extent of the western travels of Zul Qarnain in reaching an ocean or a large lake, which the context fully supports. However, let’s put that obvious metaphor aside for a moment. Even WE speak today of the sun setting “in the ocean” or “in the lake” on a horizon of water when we describe our experience of a sunset with everyday literary imagery. Not only that, beach and lake real estate listings today, even in English, use these exact phrases to advertise the properties’ views (yes, I checked)! I fail to see what point you are making at all. Such imagery is an accurate description of the visual experience, even without any added metaphor. Note also how the sunrise is referenced soon after in verse 18:90 “Until when he came to the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom we had provided no covering protection against the sun.” Now if we take this verse literally too, how could the sun rise literally “on a people” who had no protection from the sun (i.e., they were naked natives). They would be burned alive without protection being so close to the sun. Clearly, this is just literary imagery as well, but you don’t mention the rising sun verse because that one makes the literary imagery of the setting sun verse exceedingly obvious. If you don’t agree, then why would it not say that the sun is coming out of a pool of water on the other side? If it truly went in, then it must come out. Your mechanical interpretation of an unambiguous literary image is just plain silliness.

   As for verse 36:38, the translation of “runs to a resting place” is not correct. The phrase in question after “runs” (or “flows” or “swims” per other translations) is “li-mustaqarrin laha”, which means “in a course (or orbit) predetermined” or “in a period (or cycle) determined”, which is 100% consistent with science. There is really only one root word here, so the idea of orbiting and then stopping to rest and then orbiting again is not at all implied. A “stop” verb is nowhere to be found in any meaning of this root word, which would have to be implied right after the word “runs” if “resting place” were the core meaning of the word. There is a connotation of “stability” in this word too (likely where the “resting place” interpretation comes from), but that is PART OF the course or orbit movement. Why? Because there is only one root word here, not two. This implies that the orbit is consistent, stable or predetermined, hence the accurate interpretation above. I have four different translations of the Quran that support this interpretation as well.

   You also say the following: “As I have shown above in all the wars that “Allah’s messenger” waged he was the aggressor. So if the people choose to resist (wage war) they shall be killed and sent to hell for eternal torture.” Did I miss something? You did not demonstrate any such aggression in even one single war, let alone “all the wars”. I know this is difficult for you to understand, and now I feel like I am talking to a child after so much repetition, but you actually have to present some facts and logic BEFORE your conclusion, especially before such a grand and sweeping conclusion as that one, which would require an entire book to demonstrate.

   You are really starting to bore me again now, since you are coming up with absolutely no relevant arguments. All that you have left are empty claims, web link opinion vomiting, and propaganda blusters about what you have “shown”, when you have shown nothing but failure. Moreover, all that you can do is continue bringing up more non-arguments while failing to acknowledge any of my arguments that you don’t like or can’t possibly rebut. The arguments that you do try to rebut generally miss the point entirely. Instead of countering what I argue, you set up straw man arguments to rebut so that you don’t have to address what I was actually arguing (e.g., the witness of two women issue, where you failed to address the main verses from the Quran being referenced in the hadith question). Conversing with such irrationality will never be more than a futile and unproductive exercise. I am only going to give you one or two more kicks at the can before I sign off this thread, so make it good. In the mean time, I love to say this and will keep doing so until you can prove me wrong, since it highlights your utter hypocrisy in vilifying your own cherished beliefs on violence:

   I AM STILL WAITING ON THE KILL ORDER. SO FAR YOU HAVE UTTERLY FAILED TO PRODUCE IT AFTER SO MANY ATTEMPTS. THEREFORE, YOUR VIEWS ON VIOLENCE ARE STILL 100% IN COMPLIANCE WITH ISLAMIC BELIEFS.

9. Richard

   December 7, 2011 | Log in to Reply

   PS Chameleon “Verse 2:192: .. does not say “if they desist, from unbelief and become Muslims”. It just says “IF THEY DESIST, God is All-Forgiving, All Compassionate”… Verse 2:193: You have interpolated so many words into this short verse that your translation is absolutely absurd. ..Where are you getting this BS – from some mullah on a payroll?”

   Actually Chameleon if you were paying attention I wrote that I was quoting directly from the Tafsir of Al-Jalalayn.

   You can verify this “fact” here:
   http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=192&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

   and here:
   http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=193&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

   These Tafsir’s are the most highly regarded by Sunni Muslims.

   I dont know if they were in anyone’s payroll but they were composed first by Jalal ad-Din al-Mahalli in 1459 and then completed by his student Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti in 1505.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafsir_al-Jalalayn

   These and other similar exegesis were accepted by Muslims for 7 centuries till Chameleon and his like came along and realised that the morality didnt quite fit in with modern values and so are trying to prove something different.

   The tafsir of Ibn Abbas says “(But if they desist) from their disbelief, association of partners with Allah and turn to Allah (then lo! Allah is Forgiving) towards those who turn to Him, (Merciful) towards those who die in a state of repentance.”

   Clearly stating kill them anyways – Allah will be merciful to them later on…lol

   http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=192&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

   Tafsir Ibn Abbas was composed by the Companion of Muhammad Abdullah Ibn Abbas (d. 68/687).

   “Abd Allah ibn Abbas was a paternal cousin of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. He is revered by Muslims for his knowledge and was an expert in Tafsir (exegesis of the Qur’an), as well as an authority on the Islamic Sunnah.”

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%60Abd_Allah_ibn_%60Abbas

   The companion of the “Prophet” himself. Surely he would know a thing or two about the Quran and what Muhammad said more than you Chameleon?

10. Richard

    December 7, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Non-Muslims are not innocent and can be killed, A Muslim explains:

    He also explains about Dar al Harb

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4&feature=related

11. Richard

    December 7, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon, Shakespeare said “brevity is the soul of wit”. You confuse yourself with long-winded, rambling arguments where you try and prove what is said by Muhammad is not really meant by him and what is said in the Quran actually means something else.

    Dont use a thousand words where one will do.

    As for facts you wouldnt know a fact if one came and bit you on the bum.

    Me – “In the case of Islam if you do not believe that Muhammad is a prophet that is the worst sin. Such a person will burn in hell. It would be a small matter to send him or her there forthwith.”

    “Where are you getting this crap?”

    From the crap that is written in the Quran and the Hadiths

    Quran 33:57, 61 “Lo! those who malign Allah AND HIS MESSENGER, Allah hath cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.” ”

    This world fierce slaughter and in the next world eternal torture in hell (another commandment to kill)

    Quran 5:33 “The recompense of those who wage war against Allah AND HIS MESSENGER and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter. ”

    (another commandment to kill and threat of hell thereafter).

    As I have shown above in all the wars that “Allah’s messenger” waged he was the aggressor. So if the people choose to resist (wage war) they shall be killed and sent to hell for eternal torture.

    The Shahada of Islam states “I witness there is no god but Allah, AND MUHAMMAD IS THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH”.

    As for Islamic logic it is circular. Muhammad is a prophet because the Quran says so. The Quran is true because the Quran says so and claims itself to be a “miracle”. lol

    Let us examine the logic of Muhammad:

    “The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If one enters a horse with two others when he is not certain that it cannot be beaten, it is not gambling; but when one enters a horse with two others when he is certain it cannot be beaten, it is gambling.” AbuDawud 14:2573 lol

    And modern Muslim logic from a genius by the name of Dr. Zakir Naik.

    In reply to a question “Are Non-Muslims allowed to preach their religion and build places of worship in an Islamic state? If yes, then why building churches are not allowed in Saudi Arabia whereas Muslims are building Mosques in London and Paris? ”

    He says “If Non Muslim is principals of a school and if he wants to select a math teacher will he select a teacher who says 2 + 2 = 3 or the one who says 2 + 2 = 4 or the one who says 2 + 2 = 6? He would select the candidate who said 2 + 2 = 4, because the others don’t have a correct knowledge of Mathematics similarly the other religions are wrong, and only Muslims have a right knowledge regarding religion. And when their religion and worship is wrong how can Islamic nations allow them to preach their (wrong) religion & build their places of worship?”

    and he substantiated this reasoning by quoting Quran 3:85 “And whoever desires other than Islam as religion – never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.”

    In other words because 2+2 = 4 Islam is true ans Islam is true because Islam says so. lol

    You can watch the whole hilarious interview here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jYUL7eBdHg

    Read the Emperors New Clothes please.

    Dont talk to me about facts and logic quoting “facts” from a book that says the Earth is flat (Quran 15:19, 20:53, 43:10, 50:7, 51:48, 71:19, 78:6, 79:30, 88:20 and 91:6), the sun moves around the Earth and sets at night in the Earth in a muddy pool (Quran 18:86-90).

    Quran 36:38 “And the sun runs [on course] toward its stopping point.” Sahih International translation

    “And the sun runneth on unto a resting-place for him.” Pickthall

    “And the sun [which] runs to its resting-place.” Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute Jordan

12. Chameleon

    December 6, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    More hot air -and lots of it this time. I am only interested in actual arguments, with facts and logic supporting a final conclusion, which makes most of what you say irrelevant. Just step back a bit and take a look at your postings vs. mine to get a better picture of what I am talking about. I write actual PARAGRAPHS, with facts supporting logic supporting conclusions. You, on the other hand, just vomit on the page. Your conclusions are mostly just propaganda sounds bites and are usually not even supported with facts and rarely follow from what little facts you provide. Next time, please keep in mind one piece of general advice that I received long ago: one sentence does not a paragraph make.

    If you cannot prove that Islam advocates violence for any other purpose except in response to persecution and oppression, then, by your own acknowledgment, you are admitting that you believe 100% in Islamic values with respect to when violence is appropriate. Therefore, you have just raised the stakes for yourself. I am basing this on your second post, where you admit that killing is appropriate against persecution and oppression: “My ancestors before me put such people to the sword. I believe in dealing firmly with such people.” My question had nothing to do with whether you are Christian or not. It doesn’t matter whatsoever. It is simply a question that ALL HUMANS must answer in order to call themselves functionally human. This is not a question that humanists, atheists or anyone for that matter can escape from by sitting on a fence. There is no such position. Either you would fight and kill in such a situation or you wouldn’t. In your case, you answered exactly as a Muslim would: you would fight and kill in response to persecution and oppression. Congratulations on admitting your Islamic beliefs. You do have balls after all.

    The only way for you to prove that your beliefs on violence are not 100% Islamic is to prove that Islam commands to kill outside of this universally accepted parameter of being in response to persecution and oppression, which you follow too – i.e., to demonstrate the elusive kill order in the Quran. So, let’s see what you have come up with.

    Verse 2:192: This does not say “if they desist, from unbelief and become Muslims”. It just says “IF THEY DESIST, God is All-Forgiving, All Compassionate”. This can only mean desist from fighting, since there is no other action that the unbelievers are doing in the immediately preceding context, per verse 2:191: “Do not fight against them in the vicinities of the Sacred Mosque unless they fight against you there; but if they fight against you, kill them.” In every case, it says fight them IN RESPONSE TO when they fight or oppress you, and desist hostilities when they desist both fighting and oppression (also per verse 2:193). Proportionate self-defense and justice against oppression is emphasized ELEVEN TIMES in verses 2:190-194. There is no unilateral aggression permitted. Verse 2:190 introducing these verses makes this abundantly clear: “Fight those in the way of God who fight you, but do not be aggressive: God does not like aggressors.” What part of violent injustice or terrorism, the most aggressive form of violence, could possibly be implied by the command not to be aggressive?

    Verse 2:193: You have interpolated so many words into this short verse that your translation is absolutely absurd. It simply says: “Fight them until tumult and oppression (Fitna) come to an end, and the law of God (prevails).” There is no mention of idolatry or idolaters (mushrikeen), and no mention of “AND THE RELIGION, ALL WORSHIP, IS FOR GOD, ALONE AND NONE ARE WORSHIPPED APART FROM HIM”. Where are you getting this BS – from some mullah on a payroll? This is someone’s interpretation added to the translation. It just says “until the law of God (prevails)” or, alternatively, “until the way of life is recognized for God” (from the Arabic “Deen” = “way of life”, which is more generic than the English “religion”). As I elaborated on in my previous post, this wording is about the freedom of religion for Muslims, their way of life being recognized and not oppressed. That is all. This is supported by the previous context of being prevented from worshipping as Muslims, per verse 2:191, as well as the Z-L-M root word for oppression in 2:193, which you wrongly claimed was not there.

    Verse 2:191: It says “Kill them wherever they confront you in combat and drive them out of the places from which they have driven you.” Note how both of these phrases are actions 100% in self defense or against oppression Also, the “them” in verse 2:191 cannot possibly refer to anyone else but “those who fight you” in verse 2:190. It then says “Tumult and oppression are worse than killing” and continues with the verse already quoted about fighting those who fight you by the Sacred Mosque. Again, this verse adds two more commands that are 100% in compliance with defense against aggression and oppression. That makes FOUR times in one verse alone where it commands to fight or kill IN RESPONSE TO aggression and oppression from unbelievers.

    In no way whatsoever do these verses say “if you happen to come upon disbelievers kill them” or “In other words, if they surrender and become Muslims then don’t kill them but if they remain non-believers and resist – kill them.” What a joke! This conclusion doesn’t even follow from your own translations filled with interpolated words. Just listen to yourself define “Fitna” from Wikipedia in a way that has absolutely no relation to disbelief. You say: “The meaning of Fitna ” [your definition from Wikipedia showing that it does NOT mean disbelief] ” is not very relevant to the fact that the verse commands Muslims to kill non-Muslims for their disbelief.” If Fitna does not mean disbelief and it is not really even relevant, as you say, then how are you deriving a command to kill unbelievers from this verse except in response to persecution and oppression, which is 100% in accordance with your own beliefs? If there were a command to keep fighting until disbelief is no more, then the Quran would have said “Kufr”, NOT “Fitna”. The word Kufr would be the astoundingly obvious word choice to use if this were the case. Your entire argument rests on making these two words the same, when they are totally different — even per Osama bin Laden, who would have loved to make them the same too (in his declaration of war on Americans) but knew he could not. Kufr is an absence of belief, something only within the mind; whereas Fitna represents physical acts of violence and oppression of faith in the real world, not just some academic “test of faith,” as might be implied by your incomplete Wikipedia quote.

    What you failed to copy from Wikipedia is the most original common meaning of the word Fitna, which makes the oppression of faith very clear: “The meaning of the term is illustrated in the apocalyptic literature by people under extreme moral and psychological stress to compromise an element of their faith in return for worldly gain, and sometimes in return for their lives. They are made to choose, often not knowing exactly what is good and what is evil.” This is perhaps the worst consequence of Fitna: how it degrades and crumbles the foundations of faith through oppression and persecution over time. This is how the religion of Christianity became transformed into a pagan amalgamation after a long period of persecution and oppression by the Roman Empire. The oppression effectively came to a halt once Rome acquired control of the Christian doctrine itself to turn Jesus into a man-god savior, the same pagan religion (in different forms) that was dominant in Rome at the time. Once Constantine was able to control the final official books to be included in the New Testament Bible, he conveniently and famously “converted” to Christianity to unify the empire. Every Roman emperor for centuries after that saw the “wisdom” of being “Christian” too. Here is what a reputable scholar says on this subject (quoted from Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, published by Oxford Univ. Press, by Bart D. Ehrman, who chairs the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill): “At the beginning of the fourth century, Christians may have comprised something like 5 to 7 percent of the population; but with the conversion of Constantine the church grew in leaps and bounds. By the end of the century it appears to have been the religion of choice of fully HALF the empire.” (p. 250). It was at this very time (A.D. 395) that the Roman empire “was divided for the last time” (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_empire). Its subsequent overwhelming dominance after this point is indisputable to all who study history. Alas, the Christianity as we know it today was born in Rome, NOT Jerusalem.

    This poisonous, vulgarizing effect on core religious doctrine and every future generation following the religion is actually the worst consequence of Fitna. It is what happens when everyone follows a love cult of constantly turning the other cheek instead of fighting against oppression and persecution. The Quran alludes to the necessity to fight against Fitna/oppression in this verse to prevent the degradation and “razing” of not just the Muslim faith, but the original Jewish and Christian faiths as well, to the point where the original faiths would no longer even be in existence:

    “Permission is granted those (to take up arms) who fight because they were oppressed. God is certainly able to give help to those who were driven from their homes for no other reason than they said: ‘Our Lord is God.’ AND IF GOD HAD NOT RESTRAINED SOME MEN THROUGH SOME OTHERS, MONASTERIES, CHURCHES, SYNAGOGUES AND MOSQUES, WHERE THE NAME OF GOD IS HONOURED MOST, WOULD HAVE BEEN RAZED. God will surely help those who help Him. Verily God is all-powerful and all-mighty.” (22:39-40).

    Please explain how does it possibly make sense that non-Muslims should be attacked at every opportunity, when in fact the Quran not only forbids unilateral attacks, but also enjoins fighting against oppression to protect monasteries, churches, and synagogues too?

    You also say “For many religions belief is totally unimportant, it’s your actions which are important.” What kind of BS is this? If you are referring to “atheistic religions” like humanism, perhaps there is some technically irrelevant argument to be made, but not to any theistic religion. Faith is critical to both Christianity and Judaism as the most obvious and relevant comparisons. Or are you trying to tell me that good Muslims, Jews and atheists could be saved by the blood of God’s suicide on Earth too? Please tell me that you are not actually trying to make such an argument. The Bible is very clear that faith is the critical foundation for salvation. In Islam, faith and deeds are critical as the only two things that you will carry with you into the hereafter, but faith above all, since deeds follow from faith. By contrast, in Christianity, faith in the blood sacrifice trumps all. With the infinite “grace” of unconditional atonement, deeds ultimately don’t matter, a conclusion that you conceded by not being able to rebut my arguments against Christianity whatsoever.

    You also keep foaming at the mouth with absolutely no facts to back you up. For example: “In the case of Islam if you do not believe that Muhammad is a prophet that is the worst sin. Such a person will burn in hell. It would be a small matter to send him or her there forthwith.” Where are you getting this crap? So, by definition, everyone who lived before Muhammad must be burning in hell, since they could not believe in him? I think you are confusing Islam with the irrational doctrine of Jesus as savior. In Islam, there is no human savior. You only have to believe in the same message that all the prophets brought regarding the worship of the one God, who has no partners. That is all. If you bothered to actually read the Quran cover to cover, you would see this message on just about every page. Even the etymology of “Allah” is a testament to who God is in Islam: “ALLAH” is just a contraction of AL ILAH = “The God”, as in the one and only God. It is also the only word used for “God” by Arabic speaking Christians.

    You also say “If Muhammad says the evidence of two women is equal to the witness of one man and this proves the deficiency in her intelligence, you claim that is “tongue-in-cheek” and hence debunked – great.” If you would have actually read my analysis, you would have realized that my debunking of this claim was not because I showed the hadith was referencing a tongue-in-cheek QUESTION from Muhammad to a small group of women (Note: it was NOT a pronouncement or even a comment, but a QUESTION, which you were so good to highlight for me.) The question itself was referencing only one possible verse from the Quran (2:282), which is what all Islam haters use to claim that the witness of a woman is worth half that of a man in Islam. It was the false interpretation of THIS VERSE that I thoroughly debunked, which, in turn, provided even more compelling support that the question from Muhammad was tongue-in-cheek in nature. Please try to wake up your brain so that I don’t waste my time doing it for you. Then address my real arguments on the Quran instead of wimping out by claiming my argument hinges on a question from Muhammad in one hadith. You are deliberately missing the point.

    I know how much it upsets your worldview, but yes, indeed, THE GOLDEN RULE IS PART OF ISLAM, AND I ALREADY PROVED IT. What do you have against that proof? Absolutely nothing but empty claims and some more hot air – literally – about farting! Bravo on demonstrating your complete idiocy in formulating a meaningful counterargument.

    As for your statistics, they mean absolutely nothing without actual data. Anyone can throw out numbers without proving the detail behind them. Let me guess, you have been drinking from Bill’s Kool-Aid of “statistics”? This is the same guy who claims that 60%+ of all verses from the Quran talk about Kafirs! Even a cursory sampling of pages from the Quran will tell you how patently false that claim is. And you are relying on even more of his statistics like some dizzy airhead?

    I AM STILL WAITING ON THE KILL ORDER. SO FAR YOU HAVE UTTERLY FAILED TO PRODUCE IT. IF YOU CANNOT PRODUCE IT, THEN YOUR VIEWS ON VIOLENCE WILL BE PROVEN TO BE 100% IN COMPLIANCE WITH ISLAMIC BELIEFS. NOW HOW IRONIC IS THAT!

13. Richard

    December 6, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon “you are advocating some sort of love cult solution against those who persecute and oppress? Or are you going to admit that you advocate the Islamic solution of fighting against it, even if it means killing may be necessary?”

    Were you paying attention when I said I was not a Christian?

    There are only one people who persecute and oppress and that is the Muslims. They have been doing it since the time of Muhammad.

    My ancestors before me put such people to the sword. I believe in dealing firmly with such people.

    Islam is the greatest oppressor and enslaver of humanity in the world. It follows the example and teachings of Muhammad, a slave trader, rapist and bandit.

    The vast majority of Muhammad’s battles were offensive, even according to the Muslims. A few were “Defensive Offensive” and “Offensive to Defend”. Ones where “peace treaties” were broken and hence according to Muslims “justified”. Peace treaties such as the Al-Hodaybiyah Peace Treaty was to “neutralize Quraysh and its allies to eradicate the presence of Jews in Khaybar in particular and the Arabian Peninsula in general”

    Generally he operated a kind of protection racket where people were to pay him for not getting killed and their women raped and enslaved.

    Nature of Military Operations No. Percentage
    All Operations 85 100.0%
    Offensive 49 57.7% Offensive to Defend 21 24.7%
    Defensive Offensive 4 4.7%
    Dawah 4 4.7%
    Defensive 3 3.5%
    Reconnaissance 2 2.4%
    Peacemaking 1 1.2%
    Deceptive Maneuver 1 1.2%
    Military operations commanded directly by the Prophet (SAW) 31 36.5%

    http://military.hawarey.org/military_english.htm

14. Richard

    December 6, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon – dont start getting personal. You can call me names from the safety of the internet but were we to meet face to face you would probably soil yourself. Though I am not an unkind person and would treat you better than Muhammad treated chameleons (or dogs), specially black dogs.

    “Umm Sharik reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded her to kill geckos.” Muslim 026:5560

    ” ‘Amir b. Sa’d reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) commanded the killing of geckos, and he called them little noxious creatures. Muslim 026:5562

    “Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: He who killed a gecko with the first stroke for him is such and such a reward, and he who killed it with a second stroke for him is such and such reward less than the first one, and he who killed it with the third stroke for him is such and such a reward less than the second one. Muslim 026:5564

    Chameleon “You begin your post by vomiting irrelevant nonsense about crows, kites, mice, the scorpion, rabid dogs, chameleons, and geckos as somehow demonstrating a kill order or general intolerance against non-Muslims.”

    They are nonsense agreed, as is most of Islam, but not irrelevant.

    They are the authenticated sayings of Muhammad, from the Hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim. They show Islam full of the personal prejudices of Muhammad – a violent schizophrenic slave trader, enslaver and caravan robber, such as his violent aversion to harmless animals such as geckos or black dogs such as the very gentle and useful Labradors.

    “The Messenger of ‘Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When any one of you stands for prayer and there is a thing before him equal to the back of the saddle that covers him and in case there is not before him (a thing) equal to the back of the saddle, his prayer would be cut off by (passing of an) ass, woman, and black dog. .. he said: The black dog is a devil. Muslim 004:1032

    “Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered us to kill dogs, and we carried out this order so much so that we also kill the dog coming with a woman from the desert. ..He (the Holy Prophet further) said: It is your duty the jet-black (dog) having two spots (on the eyes), for it is a devil. Muslim 010:3813

    Chameleon ” PROVE IT. Just one single verse, [that orders Muslims to kill non-Muslims] that is all that I am asking”

    Well when I produce verses that clearly commands Muslims to kill non-believers, you wont accept them. There are over a 100 such verses.

    Let us start with Quran 2:191- The meaning of Fitna “with connotations of secession, upheaval and chaos. ..widely used in Arabic daily language as an adjective refers to “causing problems between people” or attempt to create chaotic situation that tests one’s faith.” (from Wikipedia), is not very relevant to the fact that the verse commands Muslims to kill non-Muslims for their disbelief.

    “And KILL THEM WHEREVER YOU OVERTAKE THEM and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and FITNAH IS WORSE THAN KILLING. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But IF THEY FIGHT YOU, THEN KILL THEM. Such is the RECOMPENSE OF THE DISBELIEVERS.” Translation Sahih International

    “And SLAY THEM WHEREVER YOU COME UPON THEM, and expel them from where they expelled you; PERSECUTION IS MORE GRIEVOUS THAN SLAYING. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, IF THEY FIGHT YOU, SLAY THEM — such is the recompense OF UNBELIEVERS” Arberry

    “And SLAY THEM WHEREVER YE FIND THEM, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for PERSECUTION IS WORSE THAN SLAUGHTER. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but IF THEY ATTACK YOU (THERE) THEN SLAY THEM. SUCH IS THE REWARD OF DISBELIEVERS.”

    Clear enough – if you happen to come upon disbelievers kill them.

    From the Tafsir of Al-Jalalayn:

    “And SLAY THEM WHEREVER YOU COME UPON THEM, and expel them from where they expelled you, that is, from Mecca, and this was done after the Conquest of Mecca; SEDITION, THEIR IDOLATRY, IS MORE GRIEVOUS, MORE SERIOUS, THAN SLAYING, them in the Sacred Enclosure or while in a state of pilgrimage inviolability, the thing that you greatly feared. But fight them not by the Sacred Mosque, that is, in the Sacred Enclosure, until they should fight you there; then if they fight you, there, slay them, there (a variant reading drops the alif in the three verbs [sc. wa-lā taqtilÅ«hum, hattā yaqtulÅ«kum, fa-in qatalÅ«kum, so that the sense is ‘slaying’ in all three, and not just ‘fighting’]) ” SUCH, KILLING AND EXPULSION, IS THE REQUITAL [reward] OF DISBELIEVERS.”

    2:192 “But if they desist, from unbelief and become Muslims, surely God is Forgiving, Merciful, to them.”

    2:193 “Fight them till there is no sedition, NO IDOLATRY, AND THE RELIGION, ALL WORSHIP, IS FOR GOD, ALONE AND NONE ARE WORSHIPPED APART FROM HIM; then if they desist, from idolatry, do not aggress against them. This is indicated by the following words, there shall be no enmity, no aggression through slaying or otherwise, save against evildoers. Those that desist, however, are not evildoers and should not be shown any enmity.”

    In other words if they surrender and become Muslims then don’t kill them but if they remain non-believers and resist – kill them.

    “You quote Quran verses 3:56 and 3:151. These essentially just say that being an unbeliever is bad and will be punished by God — the same message of just about every religion on planet Earth.”

    Not at all. For many religions belief is totally unimportant, its your actions which are important.

    In the case of Islam if you do not believe that Muhammad is a prophet that is the worst sin. Such as person will burn in hell. It would be a small matter to send him or her there forthwith.

    What is worse – killing or eternal torture of the worst kind?

    Islam forbids the killing of “innocent” people. But its definition of “innocent” is different to ours (westerners). A person who has rejected Islam is not “innocent” and can be killed without qualms. That is why Muslims are killing non-Muslims daily without batting an eyelid.

    Belief is so important in Islam that Muslims kill each other also if one believes something different from the other.

    If Muhammad says the evidence of two women is equal to the witness of one man and this proves the deficiency in her intelligence, you claim that is “tongue-in-cheek” and hence debunked – great.

    There is no arguing with you.

    Please read the Emperors New Clothes, before I talk with you again.

    The Golden Rule forms NO PART of Islam. Not found in the Quran or any Hadith except one where it is mentioned in passing along with instructions to behead any person claiming to be Caliph.

    Is doing unto others as you would have do unto you important in Islam? How many times is it mentioned exclusively by itself? 0 times in the Quran. 0 times in any Hadith and only once in a Hadith obviously quoting from the Christian scripture, along with commandments to kill.

    How many times is farting mentioned in Islam? 7 times.

    Farting is far more important, than treating others with fairness.

    The Golden Rule of Islam is found in Quran 2:194 “one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you.” –

    The same as doing unto others as you would have them do unto you? I dont think so.

15. Chameleon

    December 5, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Richard,

    Nice try. Fitna means “tumult and oppression”, not unbelief. Even Osama bin Laden translated the phrase EXACTLY this way in his official declaration of war on Americans in 1998. Of all the people, as a devotee of this website, you know full well that there is only one unambiguous word for unbelief: KUFAR (Kafir being the person with Kufar). That word is nowhere to be found here. Moreover, you are also wrong that 2:193 does not use the Z-L-M root word, which you have now admitted (correctly) to everyone as the root word for oppression. Here is the phonetic transliteration: “Wa QātilÅ«hum Ĥattá Lā TakÅ«na Fitnatun Wa YakÅ«na Ad-DÄ«nu Lillāhi Fa’ini Antahaw Falā `Udwāna ‘Illā `Alá Až-ŽālimÄ«na”. The last word is “Zalima”, and as you know, the verse ends with the word oppress: “If they desist, then cease to be hostile, except against those who oppress”. Whoops. Boy, did you put your foot in your mouth there! Not only that — there are still TEN more restrictions on fighting in verses 2:190-194 to clarify that it must be in proportionate self defense against persecution/oppression, which you have not even addressed!

    Second, verse 2:193 does not say keep fighting until “religion is for Allah”, as in until Islam rules the world. It says until “the law of God prevails.” Does this mean in any way to keep fighting until Islamic law dominates? The final part of verse 193, which I just quoted above answers that very question (i.e., until those who are being hostile against Muslims stop fighting and stop oppressing them). Again and again, my point is proven that Islam only allows fighting against persecution and oppression, not for aggression. The “law of God” is simply referring to the law of justice against persecution, which just happens to be also the law of every democratic country. It also refers to the law of God in the sense that Muslims must be allowed to fulfill the WHOLE of their religion and not be prevented from an essential element, such as prayer or pilgrimage (part of the historical context of this verse). In other words, it is about the basic human right of freedom of religion, which unequivocally passes what I call the “American values” litmus test AND your own litmus test: “Where it resorts to violence, it has to be firmly met with violence” (your words).

    You begin your post by vomiting irrelevant nonsense about crows, kites, mice, the scorpion, rabid dogs, chameleons, and geckos as somehow demonstrating a kill order or general intolerance against non-Muslims. Well, I have to admit, although I am not going to even bother reading these hadiths and just take it on your word that one hadith says to kill at least one of these things, you might just have landed your first punch on me, since these creatures never became Muslim. On the other hand, I believe that all creatures of God are considered to be in submission to Islam by default, so that means you are defending potential injustices against Muslims, not non-Muslims. This is all very confusing, but let’s chalk a point up for you anyway, since I don’t want to make you feel totally squashed on every issue.

    As for the Golden Rule issue, I have already debunked your points there. You are now backtracking by saying that you weren’t arguing that it was not authentic, but rather that it is not in conformance to Islam in general. I have already shown that it clearly is, by reference to several other hadiths as well as the Quranic command to be kind to your neighbors, not just those “near” but also complete strangers. I have also quoted other verses too, such as 40:7-9, where it refers to LOVE between Muslims and their enemies as being a good thing, and to be kind to enemies who don’t persecute or oppress you. You, on the other hand, have not produced a single verse to show how Muslims should be hateful to non-Muslims who don’t persecute or oppress them. I have made my case very well. You have made none.

    As for the chapter title of the hadiths, how is this even relevant? This is an addition from Bukhari to categorize the hadith. It is not even part of any hadith. Besides, all he is saying, in a somewhat jumbled English translation, is that someone cannot just “assume” the Caliphate in a coup over an existing Caliph. Even that is innocuous.

    As for the purpose of the entire hadith being about the Caliph issue, I have already proven that otherwise, and readers can verify that for themselves by reading the full text of the hadith, which is much broader than that one point.

    As for Bukhari 6:301, I have already debunked that too. Muhammad is asking a question, “Is not the evidence…”, which clearly implies a tongue in cheek reference to actual Islamic doctrine the woman know of, which does not in fact exist, rather than to his own independent pronouncement. Therefore, this adds still more ammunition on this hadith to show that it was done in jest to the woman on the celebratory day of Eid. Thank you for adding that point to your own detriment.

    As for proving that at least one hadith version of an incident must be in error, I have done so, whereas you have not, even though this was not at all central to my argument. I have met the standard of “pretty serious evidence”, whereas you have not. Incidentally, just because a hadith is authenticated (via a trusted chain of transmitters and other criteria) does not mean it is 100% accurate. Likewise, just because a hadith is not 100% accurate does not make it not authenticated. Even Bukhari would admit as much based on the clearly different variants of the same incident, as I have already emphasized in another post. When two variants are different in respect of the exact phrases at contention within them, then that means those specific phrases cannot be considered reliable. I have shown this, whereas you have not.

    You quote Quran verses 3:56 and 3:151. These essentially just say that being an unbeliever is bad and will be punished by God — the same message of just about every religion on planet Earth. And verse 3:151 refers to a violation of the most important commandment of all for Christians, Jews and Muslims alike: the First Commandment not to associate partners with God. There is absolutely no kill order in these verses, let alone any order at all for Muslims to follow. So what is your pathetic point?

    You also say, in quoting me, that “your statement ‘Without this kill order, the entire basis for the argument that Islam justifies terrorism or any other violent injustice is a fraud’ is patently false and absurd.” Of course it is a fraud, since without the kill order, you just have an honorable fight against persecution and oppression, which is 100% in compliance with American values and universal ethics. I am proud of such a fight, as anyone with honor should be, and I will never apologize for it or live the lie of utter hypocrisy that the followers of the love cult Christianity do.

    I am glad that you are now backing away for your previously admitted humiliating defeat. You are now claiming that the kill order does, in fact, actually exist: “You have the kill orders and Islam clearly justifies terrorism and violent injustice against non-believers, merely for not believing the violent hogwash of Islam.” Now for the hard part: PROVE IT. Just one single verse, that is all that I am asking. You say that these verses go on and on (“and so on and so forth”), so finding ONE VERSE should be an extremely trivial task for you. Are you so incompetent that you can’t even do that?

    Now, my question for you, which I have asked other love cult hypocrites, who can’t seem to answer such a simple question. Since I am getting bored with your pathetic arguments and total hypocrisy with respect to war, I demand an unequivocal answer if you want me to continue further:

    So tell me, are you really that much of a wimp that you are advocating some sort of love cult solution against those who persecute and oppress? Or are you going to admit that you advocate the Islamic solution of fighting against it, even if it means killing may be necessary? So which is it going to be? Or do you even have the balls to answer that question?

16. Richard

    December 5, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon “Your lack of intelligence is embarrassing.”

    Are you talking to yourself? An unintelligent person is incapable of grasping the simplest of concepts like you and repeatedly, when shown white, sees black instead and vice-versa, like yourself.

    Chameleon “You actually admit that there is no kill order in the Quran! Without this kill order, the entire basis for the argument that Islam justifies terrorism or any other violent injustice is a fraud.”

    Are you incapable of comprehending what I have written?

    THERE ARE OVER 100 VERSES IN THE QURAN COMMANDING TO KILL non-believers. These verses are open-ended, not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the (supposed) eternal, unchanging word of Allah, like anything else in the Quran.

    Though in most cases the historical context clearly shows that they are to be killed merely for not believing in the charlatan Muhammad.

    Islam commands that you should kill crows, the kites, mice, the scorpion, rabid dogs, (Bukhari 3:29:54, 3:29:52, 3:29:53, 3:29:54, 3:29:55, 4:54:531, 4:54:532, Muslim 7:2717, 7:2718, 7:2719, 7:2720, 7:2721, 7:2722, 7:2723, 7:2724, 7:2725, 7:2726, Muslim 7:2727, 7:2728, 7:2729, 7:2730, 7:2731, Abu Dawud 10:1844 , Al-Muwatta 20 26.89, Al-Muwatta 20 26.90, and Al-Muwatta 20 26.91 black dogs (Muslim 16:2839, Muslim 16:2840), in fact any dogs except those meant for the protection of extensive fields (Muslim 24:5248).

    Islam says you should kill CHAMELEONS and GECKOS “..Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) COMMANDED the killing of geckos, and he called them little noxious creatures.” (Sahih Muslim 26:5562, 26:5563, 26:5564, 26:5565 and 26:5566)

    Perhaps when you say there is no kill order in the Quran against non-believers, there is no similar order to killing of crows, black dogs and geckos.

    Thus Islam is a tolerant religion?! What utter nonsense!

    So far as killing of Humans (non-believers) are concerned, they are to be killed if they do not accept humiliation, pay the Jizya or convert to Islam (Quran 2:191-193), not on sight like black dogs or chameleons.

    In that verse the historical context is NOT defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge OFFENSIVE warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did).

    The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is false (the actual Arabic words for persecution – “idtihad” – and oppression – a variation of “z-l-m” – do not appear in the verse).

    The actual Arabic used is “fitna” which means disbelief. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until “RELIGION IS FOR ALLAH” – ie. unbelievers cease in their unbelief or to exist.

    “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.” Quran 3:56

    “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, [why?] for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority” Quran 3:151

    And so on and so forth ” and thus your statement “Without this kill order, the entire basis for the argument that Islam justifies terrorism or any other violent injustice is a fraud” is patently false and absurd.

    You have the kill orders and Islam clearly justifies terrorism and violent injustice against non-believers, merely for not believing the violent hogwash of Islam.

    “As for the witness of women being worth half that of men — whoops — I already crushed that conclusion in a posting above.”

    You have written so much rubbish I don’t read most of the hogwash you have written. However I am glad you have crushed the conclusion that the witness of women is worth half that of men, because that is the not what I have written but your own “prophet” Muhammad. Please take it up with him.

    “He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence.” Bukhari 6:301

    Chameleon “Now let’s see what other BS you are peddling. Oh yes, your conclusion that the Golden Rule does not exist in Islam because you are arguing that a Bukhari hadith is not authentic. A pretty serious claim, which demands some pretty serious evidence. So what “evidence” do you have? Your answer: that “there were no Caliphs during Muhammad’s time”

    1. There is NO Bukhari hadith mentioning the Golden Rule.

    2. The ONLY mention of the Golden Rule is in Muslim 20:4546

    3. I DID NOT say the hadith was not authentic. My evidence that it is NOT a part of Islam but merely a quote from the Christian text is NOT only that there were no Caliphs during Muhammad’s time, but that

    A) It contradicts the basic teaching of Islam that the believer is superior to the non-believer and men superior to women, (homosexuals to straights etc). That all humans are equal follows from the Golden Rule.

    B) It is not found in the Quran or any other hadith

    C) The chapter of that Hadith in Muslim (Chapter 10), Gives the heading “FULFILMENT OF THE COVENANT MADE WITH THE CALIPHS IS IMPERATIVE. THE CALIPH TO WHOM ALLEGIANCE IS SWORN IN THE FIRST INSTANCE HAS AN ESTABLISHED SUPREMACY OVER THOSE WHO ASSUME POWERS LATER”

    D) Clearly the purpose of the hadith is made clear here as also in the words contained in the Hadith “If another man comes forward (as a claimant to Caliphate), disputing his authority, they (the Muslims) should behead the latter.”

    Compare this with the Christian texts which give the Golden rule prime place in the Law.

    And after saying wrongly that I said the Sahih Muslim hadith was not authentic and this was “A pretty serious claim” you promptly go on to say that a Sahih Bukhari Hadith was not authentic because it contradicts what you want to believe.

    What a cherry picking clown you are.

    To be continued

17. Chameleon

    December 4, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Richard,

    What a yawn! Your lack of intelligence is embarrassing. You can’t rebut even a single one of my arguments, so by default I consider you to concede defeat to every last one. And how humiliating, indeed! You actually admit that there is no kill order in the Quran! Without this kill order, the entire basis for the argument that Islam justifies terrorism or any other violent injustice is a fraud. Islam only allows war and killing in response to persecution and oppression, which is a universal ethical standard. That is why it truly is such a “big deal”.

    The only possible exception to your lack of rebuttal is your continued emphasis on the peripheral “women in hell” issue that has absolutely NOTHING to do with “political Islam”, let alone violence against non-Muslims. As I stated, and the context of the hadiths support, this was just a rhetorical device to emphasize to women to be more grateful to those who provide for them (sometimes specified as just their husbands, and sometimes as their family and community in general). Being grateful is 100% under a woman’s control, so the fault has absolutely nothing to do with being a woman. The deficiency in intelligence and religion remarks are a separate issue. These were clearly tongue-in-cheek jests to a small group of women on the celebratory social occasion of Eid, as Muhammad was casually passing by them, and the women appeared to be playing along with the joke as well. You have failed to address the context at all and have simply insisted on a literal interpretation, as if this was something said as a serious condemnation on a serious occasion from a pulpit to the whole community! Give it a rest already and let the readers of this site judge for themselves how to interpret this hadith. We are both adding nothing to the debate by continuing to reiterate the same arguments again and again.

    As for the witness of women being worth half that of men — whoops — I already crushed that conclusion in a posting above. You have failed to rebut my arguments whatsoever. So, until you do, keep your empty claims to yourself.

    Now let’s see what other BS you are peddling. Oh yes, your conclusion that the Golden Rule does not exist in Islam because you are arguing that a Bukhari hadith is not authentic. A pretty serious claim, which demands some pretty serious evidence. So what “evidence” do you have? Your answer: that “there were no Caliphs during Muhammad’s time”, i.e., that the hadith must not be authentic because it referred to an as yet nonexistent concept of “Caliph,” even though it was referring NOT to current Caliphs, but to future Caliphs. Are you serious? Is that your argument? That is like saying that Arabs did not have a word for “representative” or “successor” (in leadership) until after Muhammad died, as if the word simply did not exist before then and the topic of succession never came up during Muhammad’s life. “Representative” and “successor” are the exact meanings of “Khalifa”, and this word existed long before Muhammad died. There are other hadiths where the word is mentioned by Muhammad or by others during his life, and the word is even referenced in the Quran as well, and clearly the Quran was revealed before Muhammad died! In fact, PER THE QURAN, THE FIRST CALIPH AND THE FIRST PROPHET WAS ADAM. Muhammad himself was considered a Caliph, but he was not referred to with this title because it was below his status and titles of “Prophet” and “Messenger of God”. It would be like calling a U.S. Senator “Congressman” rather than “Senator”, even though both titles are strictly correct. Why don’t you educate yourself and just look up “Caliph” on Wikipedia (for starters) to corroborate just about all of what I have said above. As for the argument that “Beheading a person is not an example of the Golden rule”, I 100% agree, as does the hadith itself. This was a completely different topic altogether within that hadith: what to do in the case of someone who attempts a coup against the Caliph legitimately recognized by the Muslim community. Your arguments all crash and burn, once again.

    Don’t you realize how absolutely foolish you sound basically conceding to defeat that there is not even one single kill order in the Quran against non-Muslims, while just two sentences later saying exactly the opposite without any factual backup: “There are over 100 verses in the Quran calling Muslims to wage war on non-believers (thus kill them).” It sounds like you need to sit yourself in a padded room and settle the argument with the voices in your head first before trying to have any intelligent debate with me.

    Part of the problem in explaining your contradictory irrationality is that you love to make unsubstantiated claims while totally failing to rebut any of my arguments to the contrary. GET ENGAGED WITH THE DEBATE, and stop “sighing” about me being “beyond hope” or other such nonsense. The debate is not about me. It is about my facts and logic in black and white, staring at you right in front of your face. So stick to the points and stay on topic. Didn’t anyone teach you how to make an argument that actually means something? Just a hint: start with the facts and logic, THEN jump to the conclusion. I know how fun it is for you to do all the jumping up and down part, but, from my standpoint, it just looks like someone having a tantrum.

    All you can do is keep throwing out more arguments in your desperation to find something that sticks while failing to counterargue anything. Don’t you realize that you have been crushed on every last point that you have brought up so far? You really are a masochist, aren’t you? You keep speaking about the “obvious truth” like some religious zealot. Well, if it is so obvious, then spit it out then!

    BUKHARI 83:50

    This brings me to the last new point that you have brought up, which is Bukhari 83:50. I will now summarily crush your point here as well. Here is a copy of what is in that hadith for reference purposes:

    Narrated Abu Juhaifa: I asked ‘Ali “Do you have anything Divine literature besides what is in the Qur’an?” Or, as Uyaina once said, “Apart from what the people have?” ‘Ali said, “By Him Who made the grain split (germinate) and created the soul, we have nothing except what is in the Quran and the ability (gift) of understanding Allah’s Book which He may endow a man, with and what is written in this sheet of paper.” I asked, “What is on this paper?” He replied, “The legal regulations of Diya (Blood-money) and the (ransom for) releasing of the captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever).” (Bukhari 83:50).

    FIRST, I note that you are completely wrong that there was no consequence to killing Kafirs. The consequence at all times was at least Diya (often translated in English as “blood money”, which is the equivalent to the civil penalty for murder in the U.S.), as well as prison per some hadiths, in the case where only Diya might be paid.

    SECOND, the reliability of this hadith is quite questionable, since it is directly contradicted by other hadiths reporting on exactly the same incident and while also claiming to quote word for word what was on the private sheet of paper kept by Ali for himself. For example, Bukhari 53:397 says that the lack of Qisas (equal retaliation) with non-Muslims was only with respect to wounds, not murder, and what type of camels are acceptable to pay for Diya: “verdicts regarding (retaliation for) wounds, the ages of the camels (given as Zakat or as blood money)….” Another example is Bukhari 92:403, which I am copying completely below to show how it makes absolutely no mention of Qisas, even though it is claiming to report, WORD FOR WORD, what was on Ali’s piece of paper (or “scroll”):

    “Narrated Ibrahim At Tamii’s father: Ali addressed us while he was standing on a brick pulpit and carrying a sword from which was hanging a scroll He said “By Allah, we have no book to read except Allah’s Book and whatever is on this scroll,” And then he unrolled it, and behold, in it was written what sort of camels were to be given as blood money, and there was also written in it: ‘Medina is a sanctuary form ‘Air (mountain) to such and such place so whoever innovates in it an heresy or commits a sin therein, he will incur the curse of Allah, the angles, and all the people and Allah will not accept his compulsory or optional good deeds.’ There was also written in it: ‘The asylum (pledge of protection) granted by any Muslims is one and the same, (even a Muslim of the lowest status is to be secured and respected by all the other Muslims, and whoever betrays a Muslim in this respect (by violating the pledge) will incur the curse of Allah, the angels, and all the people, and Allah will not accept his compulsory or optional good deeds.’ There was also written in it: ‘Whoever (freed slave) befriends (takes as masters) other than his real masters (manumitters) without their permission will incur the curse of Allah, the angels, and all the people, and Allah will not accept his compulsory or optional good deeds. ‘” (Bukhari 92:403).

    THIRD, it is also not clear what conditions are attached to no life-for-life Qisas with non-Muslims. Was it only in war or when guilt was in dispute? It is not clear.

    FOURTH, what seems to be clear from other hadiths is that the norm between tribes and communities was not life-for-life Qisas but rather just Diya only. For example, another hadith shows Muhammad arbitrating a dispute between two Jewish tribes (Banu Nadir and Banu Qurayzah), where one tribe normally paid only half the standard Diya to the other, so Muhammad made them equal. The point here is that Diya, not Qisas, was the inter-tribal norm:

    “Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: When this verse was revealed: “If they do come to thee, either judge between them, or decline to interfere….If thou judge, judge in equity between them.” Banu an-Nadir used to pay half blood-money if they killed any-one from Banu Qurayzah. When Banu Qurayzah killed anyone from Banu an-Nadir, they would pay full blood-money. So the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) made it equal between them. (Abudawud 25:3584).

    Common sense tells me that the norm of Diya alone would also be less likely to result in larger feuds between minority tribes due to the greater controversy of allowing a death penalty across tribal boundaries when the guilt of one party came into question. In fact, there was just such a case of disputed guilt to this effect in the hadith, except without Qisas at issue, which Muhammad generously settled on behalf of, and to the benefit of, a Jewish tribe by paying the Diya himself to avoid a tribal feud with Muslims (Muslim 16:4120). In this situation, a Muslim was likely killed by a Jew, and what is most important to note is that in this case too, the Muslims were only entitled to Diya, NOT Qisas. In other words, there was clearly a treaty arrangement of reciprocity between Muslims and Jews only to pay Diya without Qisas, since even the Muslims were not entitled to life-for-life Qisas from Jews.

    FIFTH, all the above arguments are overshadowed completely by this last argument, which is the most compelling of all: there actually WAS Qisas between Muslims and non-Muslims, but it could not possibly be implemented until Muslims became the dominant (and democratic majority) authority in a single city, which did not occur until the surrender of Mecca two years before Muhammad’s death. Here is the key hadith narrating this event, with other hadiths from Bukhari and Muslim corroborating its message 100%, with only minor variations in the wording:

    “Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported: The people of the Khuza’ah tribe killed a man of the tribe of Laith in the Year of Victory as a retaliation for one whom they had killed (whom the people of the tribe of Laith had killed). It was reported to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him). He mounted his camel and delivered this address: Verily Allah, the Exalted and Majestic, held back the Elephants from Mecca, and gave its domination to His Messenger and believers. Behold, it was not violable for anyone before me and it will not be violable for anyone after me. Behold, it was made violable for me for an hour of a day; and at this very hour it has again been made inviolable (for me as well as for others). So its thorns are not to be cut, its trees are not to be lopped, and (no one is allowed to) pick up a thing dropped, but the one who makes an announcement of it. AND ONE WHOSE FELLOW IS KILLED IS ALLOWED TO OPT BETWEEN TWO ALTERNATIVES: EITHER HE SHOULD RECEIVE BLOOD-MONEY OR GET THE LIFE OF THE (MURDERER) IN RETURN. He (the narrator said): A person from the Yemen, who was called Abu Shah, came to him and said: Messenger of Allah, write it down for me, whereupon he (Allah’s Messenger) said: Write it down for Abu Shah. One of the persons from among the Quraish also said: Except Idhkhir, for we use it in our houses and our graves. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Except Idhkhir.” (Muslim 7:3143).

    Note in this hadith that even the law of Qisas (life for life) would now be reciprocal to all citizens of Mecca, including the Quraish, given that Muslims were now in the ruling majority for the first time to be able to implement this change. Before, in treaties with Muslims, and even in treaties between non-Muslim tribes themselves, Diya would be paid at a mutually agreed penalty amount set in advance, roughly 100 camels (or an agreed percentage thereof for various wounds).

    Note also how this hadith shows how Mecca has always been sacred and shall remain sacred, free from all fighting and war, including the utmost respect for both property and life, with the exception of the “one hour” before the surrender of the city. This completely contradicts the propaganda that Muslims went on a killing spree against non-Muslims after they came to power in Mecca. The truth is exactly, 100% the opposite.

    This hadith also illustrates yet another reason why it is dangerous to rely on hadiths alone for Islamic doctrine, particularly when they contradict the Quran: not necessarily because the hadiths are “wrong”, but because they can be reflective of practices before the full maturity of the Muslim community and the full implementation of Islam within it. I already emphasized this point in a previous post, and I do so again now because it is relevant once again. With respect to Qisas vs. Diya, for example, there would have been no way for Muslims, as the minority community, to enforce Qisas across all communities when the norm was not a choice between Qisas or Diya between tribes, but Diya only.

    I rest my case on Bukhari 83:50.

    RELIGION OF PEACE VS. RIGHT TO FIGHT

    Now let me finish with verses 40:7-9, which you completely ignored in my last post and which completely crushes your mangled interpretation of Islam promoting indiscriminate war and hatred of all non-Muslims for no reason other than that they are non-Muslims:

    “It may be that God will CREATE LOVE BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR ENEMIES. God is all powerful, and GOD IS FORGIVING, EVER-MERCIFUL. God does not forbid you from BEING KIND AND ACTING JUSTLY towards those who did not fight over faith with you, nor expelled you from your homes. God indeed LOVES those who are just. He only forbids you from making friends with those who fought over faith with you and banished you from your homes, and aided in your exile. Whoever makes friends with them is a transgressor.”

    Hmmm – loving enemies as long as they don’t oppress and persecute you, and being kind and just towards them – that sounds not just fair to me, but extremely magnanimous. This also clarifies unequivocally the verses elsewhere about who Muslims should not make friends with: those who oppress and persecute them because of their faith or who aid those who do so. The idea that Muslims cannot form alliances, treaties or productive, trusting relationships with anyone except other Muslims is simply absurd.

    Again and again, the same criterion for fighting is consistent throughout the Quran. It is the same just and fair criterion that is 100% compatible with the most honorable values of justice of the United States of America, and the same criterion of liberty from persecution and oppression that was invoked and prosecuted by the founding fathers to form the country itself. It is an American value prized even more highly than the cost of death to achieve it. This most cherished of American values is not in the least bit a Christian value — in fact, it is violently opposed to the most fundamental of all Christian values. But how ironic, indeed, that such a quintessential American value is 100% an Islamic value, through and through.

    As you can see, I am not making up any love cult BS about Islam being just a “religion of peace”, nor have I ever done so. I leave that hypocrisy to the Christians. I am very proud of the fact that Islam recognizes the right to fight and, if necessary, KILL to stop persecution and oppression, and to seek justice against it. There is absolutely no need to apologize for a just fight and a just war. And no, by definition, that does NOT include terrorism or killing of innocents. You, however, don’t even have the balls to admit that this Islamic criterion for war is your own criterion. If it is not your criterion, then go ahead and continue to live your life of believing in a love cult fairy tale while also believing in the justification to fight and kill in the name of democracy and freedom from oppression. Unlike Christianity, Islam does not demand schizophrenia from its followers.

18. Richard

    December 3, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon “I have already addressed the “women in hell” issue ad nauseum, ..nothing further can really be said on this point.”

    I agree there are 20 Hadith’s in which Muhammad says most women are in hell. They are NOT given in only one context or situation. He gives the reasons WHY they are in hell very clearly also, namely:

    1. They are deficient in intelligence (because their witness is worth only half that of men)

    2. They are deficient in religion (because they have periods during which time they are unclean and are not allowed to pray)

    3. They are disobedient to their husbands (he clarified – they are in hell NOT because they are disobedient to Allah but to their husbands)

    The only thing further that can be said at this point is – this is clearly not a religion sent by an intelligent being, but one started by Muhammad. This clearly displays Muhammad as being a male chauvinist of the worst order.

    You say “You have still not produced even a single UNCONDITIONAL kill order verse from the quran against non-muslims”

    Big deal – and this is supposed to be a big victory for you claiming Islam being an unbiased religion of peace that treats all fairly?

    Get a grip. There are over 100 verses in the Quran calling Muslims to wage war on non-believers (thus kill them). It calls unbelievers “the worst of creatures”. It calls Muhammad the perfect human being whose example one should follow. Muhammad who waged war, murdered and enslaved non-Muslims, who said there would be no penalty for killing a non-Muslim, and just because there is no verse in the Quran calling Muslims to kill non-Muslims on sight, we are supposed to be gobsmacked with gratitude?

    To be contd…

19. Richard

    November 29, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Democracyistheanswer, you were right. I did give him the benefit of the doubt – but it seems Chameleon’s eyes are too blinkered to see the obvious truth,

    Chameleon – sigh – you are beyond hope. No time now for a detailed rebuttal. .

    The claim that Muhammad said those words is an obvious fabrication. There were no Caliphs during Muhammad’s time. The Caliph’s came after him ( who were murdered with monotonous regularity) made the rules for themselves to try and perpetuate their autocratic rule.

    The Golden Rule, like democracy, is incompatible with Islam, which believes in discrimination between the believer and non-believer and autocratic theocratic rule rather than democracy, where people are supreme.

    “no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a kafir (disbeliever).” Bukhari 83:50

    Beheading a person is not an example of the Golden rule – you have no idea what the Golden rule is – but then how would you being a Muslim. You ideas of morality are thoroughly corrupted by your brainwashing by that violent and discriminatory cult.

20. Chameleon

    November 27, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Richard,

    Ah, shucks, it sounds like you missed me. Since you seemed to be hoping that my absence was some sort of admission of defeat, I am sorry to disappoint you. It is actually quite the opposite. I was just getting bored and feeling very unchallenged, and I have better things to do with my time. But most important of all, after all this time, YOU HAVE STILL NOT PRODUCED EVEN A SINGLE UNCONDITIONAL KILL ORDER VERSE FROM THE QURAN AGAINST NON-MUSLIMS.

    On top of that, you have basically conceded complete defeat to my argument against the unconditional atonement doctrine of Christianity, the core tenet of the religion itself, by demonstrating your total inability to rebut any of my arguments. All that you have done is to support my argument 100% that Christianity is basically just a love cult, where love thy neighbor has now superseded the importance of worshipping God to the point where they are now considered one and the same thing; and where individuals no longer need to feel accountable to God for sin (including terrorism) because God committed suicide and resurrected himself in order to forgive all Christians unconditionally. You have also demonstrated your ignorance of the origins of Christianity by not acknowledging the compelling pagan sources of the religion, particularly how several pagan savior god religions were effectively rolled into the doctrine of Christianity to unify the Roman empire under one dominant faith after Constantine, starting around 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicea. The books in today’s Bible are not the “Scriptures” of Jesus referred to in the Quran (5:15). Even this verse emphasizes how Muhammad is “announcing many things of the Scriptures THAT YOU HAVE SUPPRESSED, PASSING OVER SOME OTHERS”, clearly implying the corruption of the original Scriptures of Jesus in modern Christianity. The books of the Bible today were decided upon through Roman political authority, not by Jesus or by God. This is how the Christian man-god doctrine arose long after Jesus – not at the time of Jesus, and certainly not because of any deception perpetrated by God, as you ridicule. You also demonstrate your ignorance of what is in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The scrolls don’t even mention Jesus at all, let alone reproduce actual written doctrine to corroborate the New Testament (read the Wikipedia article to see for yourself).

    Richard seems to be the only one left trying to make any intelligent replies, however pathetically, so most of my comments are addressed to him. Democracyistheanswer is just babbling about more empty claims without any factual or logical support from actual Islamic doctrine (sorry – unreferenced quotes don’t count), and others are just blurting out propaganda sound bites in a primitive display of self-soothing hatred. All quite amusing really. Perhaps most amusing was Democracyistheanswer’s attempt to back up Taqiyya as Islamic doctrine, and brimming with self-confidence that he actually did so, when in fact he was unable to quote even a single verse from the Quran or hadith to back himself up. All he could do was point to some obscure, non-doctrinal source and some Muslims who might advocate or practice it for whatever reason. But no actual doctrine. No beef. What is even more hilarious is that I continue to hear ad hominem arguments about how I could be lying (because of Taqiyya!) as a silly excuse not to address my arguments. My arguments are not based upon my opinions, you intellectual buffoons, but upon facts and logic. If my facts are wrong, then you can easily dispute them via my quotes. If my logic is wrong or my conclusions don’t follow from my logic, then all my reasoning is right in front of you to pick apart, word by word. Whether you believe I am following the hidden mysteries of Taqiyya outside of the facts and logic presented is completely irrelevant!

    Now, Richard, to your points.

    I have already addressed the “women in hell” issue ad nauseum, and you are bringing up no new arguments whatsoever, so nothing further can really be said on this point. You are insisting on a strictly literal interpretation that is devoid of both rhetorical emphasis and humor (the latter of which is abundantly clear with respect to the silly “deficient in intelligence and religion” reasons in the context of a passing comment on the day of Eid celebration to a small group of women). We will have to agree to disagree on this point. What is clear, however, is that my arguments take into account the full context of the hadiths, whereas yours do not. You cherrypick only what is convenient to your argument. Readers of this debate can judge for themselves which is more persuasive to them.

    Your arguments about the Golden Rule are becoming tiresome. First you asserted that it was not in the Quran or hadith, but you were totally wrong. Now you seem to be asserting that because it is in the hadith and exactly copies the Golden Rule that it must have been said not by Muhammad but by Caliph Abd al-Rahman of Cordoba Spain. In other words, because it truly is part of Islamic doctrine, there is no other explanation other than it must have been a forgery – i.e., damned if it is not there and damned if it is. Unfortunately for your conclusion, an authenticated hadith says it was indeed said by Muhammad, and you provide no proof, let alone evidence, regarding your attribution to this mysterious Caliph of Cordoba Spain. Hmm – it sounds like you are missing some key facts and logic here.

    Not only that, you are absolutely wrong about Muslim 20:4546. Muslim hadiths are the second most authoritative of all hadith sources behind Bukhari, so it is generally very reliable, unlike the Sira, which are totally unreliable. You then stumble on to say that Tafsir should now be elevated to the status of religious doctrine, which demonstrates your total ignorance of what Islamic doctrine is after all this time making your arguments. Are you serious? Tafsir is just one person’s opinion/interpretation of Islam. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Islamic doctrine. I don’t care what anyone’s opinion is, especially mullahs on someone’s payroll. I only respect the facts of Islamic doctrine (Quran and sunnah) and the logic that follows from those facts. That is all that is relevant to the discussion.

    As for the message of Muslim 20:4546, the overall theme is neither the supremacy of Caliphs nor the Golden Rule. It is actually referenced in the hadith itself, as stated by Muhammad himself: “we gathered around the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He [Muhammad] said: It was the duty of every Prophet that has gone before me to guide his followers to what he knew was good for them and warn them against what he knew was bad for them”. In other words, he was providing his followers, including those in the distant future (as the hadith references) with some ageless words of advice to follow. One of these pieces of advice was unequivocally the Golden Rule, WORD FOR WORD, as I already emphasized. And, yes, another piece of advice was his guidance to follow the Caliph that has been recognized (elected and sworn allegiance to) by the community and not to foment insurrection against that Caliph. This latter advice was actually quite prescient of Muhammad indeed, since it was just this issue that divided the early Muslim community soon after Muhammad’s death and caused rifts that continue to this day (i.e., Shiite vs. Sunni). The advice against being a traitor to the Caliph that you have sworn allegiance to was just one part of a much longer hadith. I copy the entire hadith below so that others can judge for themselves against the claims of Richard that 1) this was not said by Muhammad (WRONG – it clearly was) and 2) the Caliph point was the central theme of the hadith (WRONG again):

    “It has been narrated on the authority of ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Abd Rabb al-Ka’ba who said: I entered the mosque when ‘Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘As was sitting in the shade of the Ka’ba and the people had gathered around him. I betook myself to them and sat near him. (Now) Abdullah said: I accompanied the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) on a journey. We halted at a place. Some of us began to set right their tents, others began to compete with one another in shooting, and others began to graze their beasts, when an announcer of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) announced that the people should gather together for prayer, so we gathered around the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He said: It was the duty of every Prophet that has gone before me to guide his followers to what he knew was good for them and warn them against what he knew was bad for them; but this Umma of yours has its days of peace and (security) in the beginning of its career, and in the last phase of its existence it will be afflicted with trials and with things disagreeable to you. (In this phase of the Umma), there will be tremendous trials one after the other, each making the previous one dwindle into insignificance. When they would be afflicted with a trial, the believer would say: This is going to bring about my destruction. When at (the trial) is over, they would be afflicted with another trial, and the believer would say: This surely is going to be my end. WHOEVER WISHES TO BE DELIVERED FROM THE FIRE AND ENTER THE GARDEN SHOULD DIE WITH FAITH IN ALLAH AND THE LAST DAY AND SHOULD TREAT THE PEOPLE AS HE WISHES TO BE TREATED BY THEM. He who swears allegiance to a Caliph should give him the pledge of his hand and the sincerity of his heart (i. e. submit to him both outwardly as well as inwardly). He should obey him to the best of his capacity. It another man comes forward (as a claimant to Caliphate), disputing his authority, they (the Muslims) should behead the latter. The narrator says: I came close to him (‘Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘As) and said to him: Can you say on oath that you heard it from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? He pointed with his hands to his ears and his heart and said: My ears heard it and my mind retained it. I said to him: This cousin of yours, Mu’awiya, orders us to unjustly consume our wealth among ourselves and to kill one another, while Allah says:” O ye who believe, do not consume your wealth among yourselves unjustly, unless it be trade based on mutual agreement, and do not kill yourselves. Verily, God is Merciful to you” (iv. 29). The narrator says that (hearing this) Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. al-As kept quiet for a while and then said: Obey him in so far as he is obedient to God; and disobey him in matters involving disobedience to God.” [Note that the last sentence is referring to the actions of the Caliph, who must be followed only as long as he is obedient to God in conformance with Islam.]

    On second glance, I just noticed that Democracyistheanswer did manage to squeeze in the mention of an actual verse from the Quran after all (60:4) – Bravo! Unfortunately, how this verse was relevant to his conclusion was completely omitted, and even his conclusion itself was unclear. But even more devastating, he shoots himself (and Richard) in the foot by bringing up this verse at all. Presumably, he was trying to emphasize how Islam says enmity will always exist between those who believe and those who are idolaters, as implied by the beginning of this verse. However, he fails to mention three critical points contradicting this conclusion completely. The first point is that this is not even a verse about Muslims (who followed Muhammad) vs. idolaters but about monotheists in general (who followed Abraham) vs. idolaters. The second point is that the end of verse 60:4 contradicts the implication of unconditional enmity, where it emphasizes Abraham’s permissible forgiveness of his father, who continued to live as an idolater. And then there is the third point, which extends the contradiction completely beyond the historical context of Abraham to the extent that it is totally destructive of your “hate and kill all unbelievers” mantra. I am referring to the verses almost immediately afterwards (i.e., 40:7-9): “It may be that God will CREATE LOVE BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR ENEMIES. God is all powerful, and GOD IS FORGIVING, EVER-MERCIFUL. God does not forbid you from BEING KIND AND ACTING JUSTLY towards those who did not fight over faith with you, nor expelled you from your homes. God indeed LOVES those who are just. He only forbids you from making friends with those who fought over faith with you and banished you from your homes, and aided in your exile. Whoever makes friends with them is a transgressor.” Hmmm – loving enemies as long as they don’t oppress and persecute you, and being kind and just towards them – that sounds not just fair to me, but extremely magnanimous. This also clarifies unequivocally the verses elsewhere about who Muslims should not make friends with: those who oppress and persecute them because of their faith or who aid those who do so. If you look at the context of those other verses (see below), the same message against aiding oppressors of Muslims applies there as well. The idea that Muslims cannot form alliances, treaties or productive, trusting relationships with anyone except other Muslims is simply absurd.

    Now let’s compare this to the doctrine of Christianity, where Jesus supposedly said the following (I lost the exact reference, but I can find it if you can’t): “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” This sounds like good advice, and is, but if this is all that Christianity says about those who persecute you, then these are clearly not American values, nor values that any humanist would or should ever subscribe to. By contrast, Islamic values constitute 100% American values in this respect. Whether you are a Muslim or an American or both, fighting is 100% honorable and justified against oppression and persecution. To believe in some sissy, fantasy love-cult creed about constantly turning the other cheek no matter how much you are being oppressed and persecuted is not only un-Islamic. It is un-American.

    Now I address Richard’s other points per his later post, followed by my comment on each:

    “Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe: A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allures you…” 2:221).

    This is excellent advice – try making a marriage work when two parents have fundamentally different beliefs! You clearly are out of touch with reality or have very little experience with friends or relatives who have gone down the path of mixing religions (of practicing parents) in one family, even when one of the religions is not Islam (and sometimes even when both parents have two different versions of Christianity). I have seen it fail again and again, especially once the children come along.

    “Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: ..3:28)”. In addition, you quote verses 4:139, 4:144, and 5:80, all emphasizing the ‘no unbelievers as friends’ point.

    See my comments on 40:7-9 above, which thoroughly debunks your conclusion and clarifies what all these verses about relationships with non-Muslims mean. “Friends” in these verses is actually more accurately translated with the connotation of “allies” in a political sense rather than friendship in a personal sense. Moreover, the word “rather” should actually be translated as “in preference to” Muslims or “to the detriment of” Muslims (i.e., one should not ally with those who persecute and oppress Muslims), which the context fully supports. For example, you omitted the end of verse 3:28, where it says “unless to safeguard yourselves against them”, meaning that alliances/treaties are OK if they are to safeguard Muslims rather than to maneuver for one’s personal profit to the detriment of the Muslim community. This is emphasized also in verse 4:139, which says “Do those who take unbelievers as their friends (allies) in preference to the faithful SEEK POWER FROM THEM? But all power belongs to God.” This clearly implies that the purpose of such a hypocritical alliance is for personal power and profit to the detriment of the Muslim community being oppressed. This is clarified more fully in the next verse, 4:140, where it says to leave the company of those non-Muslims who “deride” one’s Muslim beliefs. In other words, these are the type of non-Muslims one should not befriend, since this would cross the threshold of being “in preference to (or to the detriment of) the faithful”. Note also that it does not say here to fight or kill them for speaking against Islam, but just to leave their company, which acknowledges both the right of free speech and the right to live freely and openly as non-Muslims. Which non-Muslims should not be befriended is clarified still further in verses 4:141-143, where it is clear that such a private alliance with non-Muslims would be to the detriment of Muslims in the context of a war against those non-Muslims. The point here is not to prohibit alliances or trusting relationships with non-Muslims, but to lambaste the hypocrites who are constantly “wavering between the two” (depending on which side is in power) and who are willing to switch sides as traitors against Muslims for personal profit and power “if fortune favors the infidels” as the likely outcome. Note how verses 4:140-143 – all conveniently omitted by you – fall between the two verses that you quoted to support your mistranslated and completely out of context interpretation. In addition, with respect to verse 5:80, you conveniently omitted to mention who “Thou”(a mistranslation of “They”) is at the beginning of the verse. This is referring NOT to Muslims at all, in allying with infidels, but to those among the People of the Book who had gone astray, per verses 5:78-79! Shame, shame, shame. Taqiyya should be your middle name – it is you who is hiding the facts of Islamic doctrine, not me.

    “And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah…” 3:54).

    And your point is? This verse has absolutely nothing to do with Muslims, nor with violence or hate in Islamic doctrine. It just says that God was able to counter those who “contrived a plot” against Jesus, in reference to the plot to crucify him, which Muslims believe did not happen to Jesus. Do you even bother to read the context of the verses being spit out on this web site to see if they are remotely relevant to your argument?

    “O ye who believe! If ye obey the unbelievers, they will drive you back on your heels, and ye will turn back (from Faith) to your own loss.” 3:149.

    Again, your point is? This verse is astoundingly good advice in just about any religion on earth. In what religion would it be OK to obey those who don’t believe in your religion to the point that you turn your back on your own faith?

    “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!” 3:151). You also quoted verses 3:156, 3:178 and 4:151 (the latter of which appears to be quoting another verse entirely, not 4:151). Finally, the latter part of 9:73, as well as 3:56 in your other post, both reflect a similar theme here regarding the punishment due to the unbelievers.

    All of these verses, even in the somewhat mistranslated form that you show them, simply emphasize the same basic message that being a believer is good, and being an unbeliever is bad. Wow, what a revelation! So I ask again, what exactly is your point? This is the same message of every religion on planet earth. The only difference is that Islam places extra emphasis on how bad dying as an unbeliever really is. In other words, what we worship above all else actually matters. The consequences in the hereafter are therefore most certainly severe for unbelievers, which the Quran makes exceedingly clear without any sugarcoating. These verses have absolutely nothing to do with violent or aggressive actions of Muslims on earth, which you appear to be trying to highlight somehow by association.

    Your quote of verses 6:25 and 7:66 makes no point whatsoever other than highlighting that some people will believe in Islam and some people will utterly reject it, which is undeniably true, as you clearly agree. So what is your point?

    Verse 8:12 is referring to words spoken by God to angels with respect to a very specific battle in history, not to Muslims and not beyond that historical context. So, I ask YET AGAIN, what is your point?

    Verse 9:73 is referring to unbelievers who are hypocrites and conspire secretly against Muslims out of vengeance (i.e., those who “designed what they could not accomplish [as open enemies]. They did it only out of vengeance.”). Also note that this verse merely says to “deal with them firmly” as a command of resistance. It does not say kill them, nor does it even say to fight them physically in any way, even though doing so would be fully justified. SO I ASK YET AGAIN, WHAT IS YOUR PATHETIC POINT?

    Now, on to another post of yours, Richard, where you make a feeble attempt to list a few verses demonstrating the elusive kill order: “Quran 2:191-93, 2:216 (for those Muslim swines who do NOT kill), 3:56, 3:151, 4:74 (violent Jihad against the infidel), 4:89, 4:95, 4:104 (pursue a retreating enemy – in self-defence of course), 5:33, 8:12, … and the list goes on and on.”

    I have already covered and debunked verses 3:56, 3:151 and 8:12 above, since these have absolutely nothing to do with what Muslims are commanded to do.

    Verse 2:216 is simply saying that fighting is sometimes necessary, even though you may not like it, which is 100% in accordance with American values about the necessity for war under certain conditions. Under what conditions, one may ask? Well, verse 2:217, the very next verse, which you conveniently omitted, makes that clear: “oppression is worse than killing. They will always seek war against you till they turn you away from your faith, if they can.” In other words, war is necessary to fight against religious oppression and against those who attack you: all 100% American values, through and through.

    Verses 4:74, 4:89, and 4:95 are covered in a group of verses that Islam haters will bring up as evidence that Muslims have a general responsibility to fight under certain circumstances, as if such a responsibility is fundamentally wrong, or at least in contravention of the sacred Christian love cult, which must be superior because it doesn’t recognize any right to fight. The verses are 4:74, 4:76, 4:89, 4:95, 8:74, 9:38, 9:41, 9:44, 9:111 and 47:20: These verses and their surrounding context essentially state that one should fight against oppression and in self-defense against unbelievers and not make friends with hypocrites (who are Muslim) who are capable of fighting but refuse to fight for selfish reasons or fear of grave responsibility (47:20). My question to you is as follows: Since when is fighting against oppression and in self-defense in any way immoral, and how could it not be more honorable and rewarding to fight for a just cause than to shirk your responsibility and let others fight for you (which is the basic message of 4:95, 8:74, 9:38, 9:41, 9:44 and 9:111)? You may be an idealistic pacifist if you believe such nonsense, but, if not, you are contradicting the views of just about every American or other national patriot who honors the soldiers who fight for their country. The justification for fighting in the Quran here is clarified in 4:75, where it says “What has come upon you that you fight not in the cause of God and for the oppressed?” and in 4:84 where it says “You cannot compel anyone except your own self: but urge the believers to fight. It may well be that God will keep back the might of the infidels” (i.e., in defending against their attack). And again, in 4:90, where it refers to the hypocrites who refuse to fight for a just cause: “If they keep aloof and do not fight, and offer peace, God has left you no reason to fight them.” Fighting hypocrites simply because they are hypocrites is categorically not allowed, but fighting them when they openly oppose and fight against you is allowed (i.e., when they fight against resistance of oppression and want to make friends or allies with the oppressors instead).

    For verse 4:104, you again omit the context and misinterpret the verse entirely. It says “And do not be chary of pursuing them. If you suffer, they shall also suffer like you.” Per the wording, the first to suffer is clearly the Muslim, who is being attacked in a cowardly manner without cause, so the appropriate response by any ethical standard is to pursue the attacker to seek justice. The type of baseless, cowardly attack being referred to is clearly outlined in verses 4:101-102 (note that verse 4:103 is just a parenthetical comment before 4:104 about how to perform prayer under adverse conditions, such as those in the immediately preceding verses). Verse 4:101 refers to “if you fear the unbelievers may harass you” (while performing your prayers), and verse 4:102 says that “The infidels wish to find you neglectful of your arms and provisions [during prayer], to attack you unawares”, which would clearly be a very cowardly, unprovoked attack. Once again, how would it NOT conform 100% to American values to pursue justice in such an egregious situation?

    As for verse 5:33, this is not referring to any kill order, but to a legal punishment against someone who would be the equivalent of a modern day terrorist, who is not only guilty of murder, but the equivalent of personally “waging war” and “perpetrating disorders (mayhem) in the land”. This verse refers to the most serious crime – and, consequently, the most serious penalty – in the entire Quran. But once again, it has absolutely nothing to do with a kill order against non-Muslims. Your argument falls completely flat yet again.

    As for verses 2:191-193, the relevant verses are actually 2:190-194. You are truly shooting yourself in the foot with these verses, this time to an absolute extreme. For example, verse 2:193 states “If they desist, then cease to be hostile, except against those who oppress”, which clearly states the consistent criterion for fighting in the Quran: in defense of persecution and oppression, which is 100% in compliance with American values, through and through. Not only that, TWICE in verse 190, FOUR TIMES in verse 191, ONCE in verse 192, TWICE in verse 193, and TWICE in verse 194 (“retribution” implying defense) it emphasizes to fight only in defense or cease to be hostile when the attack on Muslims is over. That’s an unbelievable ELEVEN times emphasizing that such fighting must be in proportionate self-defense in the space of only five verses! So are you going to make the absurd argument that it is supposed to be a dozen times before the Quran really, really, really means it?

    If these rebuttals are not enough, consider verse 8:72, which makes it abundantly clear that a Muslim community is not permitted to fight non-Muslims with whom they have treaties EVEN WHEN ANOTHER MUSLIM COMMUNITY ASKS THEM TO FIGHT THE NON-MUSLIMS. In other words, not only does the Quran NOT say to kill non-Muslims, it says to leave them in peace and even to respect treaties with them that may be to the passive detriment of other Muslims. Moreover, in many other verses in the Quran, again and again, it emphasizes that Muhammad has come just as a “warner”, not as a “guardian” “to make you understand” by force or to be the judge over who is or will be truly a Muslim. That is only for God to judge in the hereafter, NOT for Prophet Muhammad to judge.

    Richard, are you totally incompetent that you cannot demonstrate even one single kill order in the Quran against non-Muslims in spite of your passionate claim that the Quran is full of such hatred and after all your incessant posts? You have produced nothing, absolutely nothing. I am still waiting, but I will not wait for much longer. You have had your chance, and you have failed.

21. Richard

    November 19, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    How brainwashed and enslaved are the Muslim minds:

    “Female Candidate for Egyptian Parliament Affirms that “Women Are Deficient in Intelligence and Religion, and It Is Not Permissible for Them to Be in Authority”

    http://www.translatingjihad.com/2011/11/female-candidate-for-egyptian.html

22. Richard

    November 19, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Democracyistheanswer I wonder if we should give Chameleon the benefit of the doubt.

    He has been silent. Maybe he realises that there is something to what I have been saying. Maybe he is having doubts and hopefully will leave that violent and discriminatory cult and join the human race.

    Islam is the very anti-thesis of the Golden rule. The Golden rule is applicable to all people, it does not discriminate between men or between women or between men and women.

    Islam, like all cults, discriminates between the insiders (believers) and the outsiders (unbelievers). The outsiders are scum who can be killed, raped and enslaved by the insiders.

    Belief rather than deeds is of paramount importance in the Quran.

    The unbeliever is mentioned in 160 verses of the Quran, all of them unfavourably.

    The Golden Rule not once.

    “Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe: A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allures you…” 2:221)

    “Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: ..3:28)

    “And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah…” 3:54)

    “O ye who believe! If ye obey the unbelievers, they will drive you back on your heels, and ye will turn back (from Faith) to your own loss.” 3:149

    “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!” 3:151)

    “O ye who believe! Be not like the unbelievers, ..” 3:156)

    “Let not the unbelievers think that our respite to them is good for themselves: We grant them respite that they may grow in their iniquity: But they will have a shameful punishment. ” 3:178)

    “Hast thou not turned Thy vision to those who were given a portion of the Book? they believe in sorcery and Evil, and say to the unbelievers that they are better guided in the (right) way Than the believers!” 4:51

    (Given a portion of the Book? Which book? The Quran? Where? When?)

    “Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with Allah. ” 4:139

    “O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?” 4:144

    “Thou seest many of them turning in friendship to the unbelievers. Evil indeed are (the works) which their souls have sent forward before them (with the result), that Allah.s wrath is on them, and in torment will they abide. ” 5:80

    All these and many more verses warm the Muslims not to take friends from among the unbelievers, lest they get “corrupted” – with the truth I guess.

    “Of them there are some who (pretend to) listen to thee; but We have thrown veils on their hearts, So they understand it not, and deafness in their ears; if they saw every one of the signs, not they will believe in them; in so much that when they come to thee, they (but) dispute with thee; the unbelievers say: “These are nothing but tales of the ancients.” 6:25

    “The leaders of the unbelievers among his people said: “Ah! we see thou art an imbecile!” and “We think thou art a liar!” 7:66

    (people even then were not stupid)

    “Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” 8:12

    “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.” 9:73

    and on and on…

23. Democracyistheanswer

    November 16, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    ‘Chameleon’ is a typical modern Islamic chameleon.

    He is distorting the doctrines of classical Islam to be more acceptable in our pluralistic, democratic age. I think he takes us for fools.

    Al walaa wal baraa is the Islamic counterfoil to the Golden Rule which is totally ruled out by al walaa wal baraa.

    Islamic apartheid from and hatred of kafirs is a compulsory dualistic doctrine that begins with Koran 60.4.

    This doctrine is one of the three fundamental doctrines of Islam.

    http://darulilm.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/al-walaa-wal-baraa/

    “If any Muslim makes Muwalaat to the kuffar, it is sin, however if they ally with them, they will become Murtad (apostate), but to ally with them to fight against Muslims, he becomes Murtad Harbie (an apostate at war with the Muslims).

    We must stay clear of the kuffar, their beliefs and way of life, we must have hatred for their disobedience and carry hatred for their actions. We must not show any affection towards them nor to befriend them or to ally with them.”

    Chameleon is a ‘murtad’ if he has kafir friends. He is guilty of innovation by adding the Golden Rule to Islam. Innovators are worse than kafirs and more blameworthy. They are to be killed immediately if they don’t repent.

24. Calatrava

    November 15, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Based on the amount of takkyia and islamic rage coming from the adherents of the “religion of peace” we can conclude that the information delivered from CPI is effectively being disseminated.

25. Chris

    November 14, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    The apologists for Islam like that Dr. Mohsen El-Guindy make me very proud to be a Christian. That dude is filled with hate. Scary. The more I learn about Islam the happier I am for the love and forgiveness of Christianity. Islam is a mess.

26. Richard

    November 12, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon “I have already fully addressed the “women in hell” issue, including Bukhari 6:301 and the other hadiths, and you are bringing up no new facts or arguments other than a statistic on males vs. females in the world. This statistic was not even my core argument, which was that the hadith was a parable for rhetorical emphasis to motivate better behavior, that is all.”

    Chameleon you are either too self-deluded to reason intelligently or are deliberately lying.

    You have not addressed the “women in hell” issue of Islam.

    1. That the majority of women are in hell is mentioned in not one but 20 Hadith’s. Comapre this with 6 hadiths where neighbour is mentioned (along with other things but none with loving ones neighbour as oneself).

    2. Not all the Hadith’s are about the same instance.

    3. Rhetorical – B.S.

    Chameleon “The only reason emphasized for the discrepancy was the BEHAVIOR of women, NOT THE IDENTITY of the women as women. Behavior can be controlled 100%, whereas just being a woman cannot.”

    You LIE Cameleon. The reasons given in the different Hadiths as to WHY the majority of women are in Hell are that:

    1. They are deficient in intelligence – This is not a behavioural thing but something due to the fact (according to Muhammad) that they are women.

    2. They are deficient in religion – again according to Muhammad because they have periods – again something due to the intrinsic fact that they are women. This cannot be controlled by their behaviour.

    The very fact that they are not allowed to pray when they are having their periods is also a personal anti-women prejudice of Muhammad, which he introduced into his religion.

    3. That they are “ungrateful” to their husbands. Bukhari 2:28, 6:301, 18:161, 24:541, 62:125, Muslim 001:0142

    You may claim this last part is a “behaviour” that they can correct, but in fact this displays a big anti-feminine bias.

    Why should they be “grateful” to their hubands? For beating them? Taking other wives? Keeping them subdued and subjugated in seclusion in their homes?

    Is there no reason for husbands to feel grateful to their wives? Why should they escape Hell for lack of such gratitude but women subjugated to hell for it?

27. Richard

    November 12, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon “Once again, I repeat: Where is the unconditional kill order against Kafirs? Where is the kill order? Where is the kill order? You keep saying it is there, so spit it out!”

    Ok but there is not enough space to quote so many commandments to kill in the Quran and Hadiths to post here:

    “..no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a kafir (disbeliever).” Bukhari 83:50

    Quran 2:191-93, 2:216 (for those Muslim swines who do NOT kill), 3:56, 3:151, 4:74 (violent Jihad against the infidel), 4:89, 4:95, 4:104 (pursue a retreating enemy – in self-defence of course), 5:33, 8:12, … and the list goes on and on.. what a peaceful religion.

    The disparaging remarks against the infidel are numerous, they are scum bound for Hell. It would be no great matter to kill them.

    Which is the mindset of the Muslims and which is what they are doing everyday.

28. Richard

    November 12, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon “As for verse 48:29, you have completely bypassed my facts and arguments and instead insisted on repeating propaganda sound bites and empty accusations lacking in real facts or historical references. You again try to bring in Ibn Ishaq or other inauthenticated stories and refuse to engage the doctrine of Islam itself.”

    Chameleon I have NOT quoted from Ibn Ishaq but from the TAFSIR of Al Jalalayn. You are ignorant not only of Christianity but of your own religion.

    A Tafsir is a commentary giving the context of the verses which are otherwise virtually incomprehensible to the casual reader.

    What I have quoted is word for word from this commentary. 48:29 is here

    http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=48&tAyahNo=29&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

    and the explanation here

    http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=48&tAyahNo=26&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

29. Richard

    November 12, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    “I hate to break the news to you, but Jesus never approved any version of a Bible, nor did he specify which words should be included in one. The Bible as we have it today is just a compilation from a large number of possible books, many pagan in origin, which were decided upon largely by the Emperor Constantine. At best, it is the equivalent of hadith in Islam, except without any authentication.”

    Indeed you are largely correct. Except for the pagan in origin, which I doubt as the New Testament is corroborated by the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date from around that period.

    But be as it may its not important so dont get your knickers into a twist about it.

    What is important is that it refutes the Islamic mythical assertion that they were given by God. Quran 5:15

    You cant blame semi-literate Muhammad for getting it wrong.

    And while on the subject of getting things wrong, deceiving and spinning tall yarns, Muhammad wanted to incorporate Judaism and Christianity into Islam so he spun a few yarns, such as Mecca being the scene of Abraham’s sacrifice instead of being the site of ancient pagan worship and that Jesus was just a prophet lower than Muhammad.

    His yarn – God sent his word (the Quran) to the Jews, but they corrupted it, then he sent it to the Christians, but they corrupted it

    Finally the mighty Allah, creator of the Universe, got it right the third time by sending the Quran, a copy of which is kept in heaven, to Muhammad. (it was in Arabic so how the Jews in Hebrew or the Christians mostly in Greek understood it is left the imagination).

    But Allah the deceiver, for some reason, made it appear to the people that Jesus was crucified and died on the cross.

    That Allah then raised Jesus to himself. Therefore Allah admits to deceiving the people.

    For the next 600 years, Allah sat back and watched all these people converting to, and following Christianity; a religion that was started by his deception, but he did not bother to lift a finger to correct anything until 600 years later, when he sent Muhammad with the Quran – to sort out the mess that he himself had created.

    Allah sent Jesus to ‘fix’ the errors that had crept into Judaism, but then undoes any corrections that were made from the intervention and Jesus’ message by making it appear that Jesus was crucified and then raised from the dead.

    Now lets look at the logic of this yarn:

    The entire purpose of sending Jesus was negated by his own deception.

    The people were thus left with not only one alternative to Allah’s ‘true’ religion, but two; Judaism or Christianity which entails (among other things) following the message of Jesus, which Allah himself had corrupted by making it appear that he had risen from the dead.

    So for 600 years, Allah’s pure religion was not to be found on this Earth and now (thanks to Allah’s deception) had two competing faiths to deceive the people and lead them away from the ‘true religion’.

    Is this an all wise being or some bumbling idiot from Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest?

    These tales dont even have a clever moral behind them like Aesops fables, but are rather stupid transparent lies.

    Come on Chameleon, surely you can see through all these rather stupid fairy tales?

30. Richard

    November 12, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon “As for your later post, which I just missed in my last post, you call me a “liar” for saying that my quote was not in the Quran. Are you delirious? Even you quoted my words as “per Prophet Muhammad”, and I already gave you the hadith reference, so clearly I never said it was from the Quran. It was said by Muhammad, which has the same weight as being said by Jesus.”

    As explained in my later post it was NOT said by Muhammad but by the Caliph Abd al-Rahman of Cordoba Spain.

    The fact that it is word for word that of the Christian commandment is because it IS the Christian commandment, not found anywhere, either in the Quran or any other Hadith.

    This also explains the fact that it is not anywhere mentioned in the Quran or the Hadiths, unlike in the Bible, that the laws and commandments are based on this.

31. Richard

    November 12, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon, you have launched into a huge irrelevant discussion about Christian dogma. I already told you I was not interested in discussing it.

    You are trying to argue with an agnostic who is not a Christian. However owing to the fact that I was brought up a Christian till my early teens, I do happen to know a bit about it and morally it is far superior to the backward and violent and discriminatory Islamic religion.

    Christian dogma is totally irrelevant to fact that Islam is a violent religion founded by a 7th century Arab megalomaniac, slave trader and caravan raider.

    But just for your education, because you are abysmally ignorant about Christianity: .

    1. You say that loving your neighbour in not the most important commandment, it is loving loving God.

    Jesus said “And the second is like unto it” (Mathew 22:39. He went onto to explain that loving your neighbour IS loving God. Practically that is the only way you can love God.

    This is illustrated by the poem “I sought my soul but my soul I could not see, I sought my God but my God eluded me, then I sought my neighbour and I found all three.

    2. You say that Jesus said “no man comes to the father but through me”. He also said in reply to a question “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”
    Mathew 19:16-17.

    And the commandments flow from loving your neighbour and doing unto others what you would have them do unto you.

    From this you can put it together – belief is not important, what is important is following the commandments above.

    You are trying to argue that a [supposed possibly mythical] being who was intelligent and powerful enough to have created the whole universe, would be so incensed by some insignificant animals, evolved from ape-like ancestors, on some insignificant planet in some insignificant Galaxy, not believing in him or that his name is Allah (even to the deaf) or that Muhammad was his alleged prophet (or any other religious belief) that he would torture them endlessly.

    The difference between Islam and other religion is that in deference to Muhammad’s commands his followers kill you without waiting for divine justice.

    Get a brain in your head – start using it and get out of your brainwashed stupor.

32. Richard

    November 10, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon “Chameleon “The golden rule is WORD FOR WORD part of Islam: “[ONE] SHOULD TREAT THE PEOPLE AS HE WISHES TO BE TREATED BY THEM.”. In fact, it is so important, that you will go to hell if you don’t follow it, per Prophet Muhammad.”

    Liar Chameleon

    1. Those words are NOT found in the Quran

    2. Those words are NOT found in the Sahih Hadiths of Bukhari – according to the Muslims the most reliable of all the Hadiths

    3. Those words are found in the Hadith of Muslim 020:4546

    4. Those words were never spoken by Muhammad. They were in fact spoken by the Caliph Abd al-Rahman of Cordoba Spain, centuries after Muhammad.

    5. Abd al-Rahman had ample time to absorb the golden rule from his Christian subjects in Spain.

    6. The context of that Hadith is about covenants made with the Caliphs. The main theme of this Hadith is that t.he Caliph to whom allegiance is sworn first has an established supremacy over those who assume powers later, not about any primacy of the Golden rule.

    7. This Hadith goes onto say “If another man comes forward (as a claimant to Caliphate), disputing his authority, they (the Muslims) SHOULD BEHEAD THE LATTER”.

    8. This is hardly an example of the Golden Rule!

    I can only conclude Chameleon that you have deliberately indulged in a false statement a prime example of Taqqiya and that you are a liar.

33. Democracyistheanswer

    November 10, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Dear Chameleon,

    (A chameleon changes its appearance to deceive…similar to the way Moslems use taqiyya).

    If you were normally one who used taqiyya (as a chameleon changes color)…

    …how would we know when you were not using taqiyya?

    Ibn Kathir, a prominent authority writes, “…believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly.” He quotes Muhammad’s companion, Abu Ad-Darda’, who said “we smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them,” and Al-Hasan who said “the Tuqyah is acceptable till the Day of Resurrection.” Shi’ite imams make taqiyya a central element of Shi’ism: “He who has no taqiyya has no faith”; “he who forsakes taqiyya is like him who forsakes prayer”.

    In the above, we solid Islamic support for taqiyya. Your claim that kafirs created taqiyya is absurd and lacking any support whatsoever…more of your taqiyya, perhaps.

34. Chameleon

    November 10, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Richard,

    As for your later post, which I just missed in my last post, you call me a “liar” for saying that my quote was not in the Quran. Are you delirious? Even you quoted my words as “per Prophet Muhammad”, and I already gave you the hadith reference, so clearly I never said it was from the Quran. It was said by Muhammad, which has the same weight as being said by Jesus. I hate to break the news to you, but Jesus never approved any version of a Bible, nor did he specify which words should be included in one. The Bible as we have it today is just a compilation from a large number of possible books, many pagan in origin, which were decided upon largely by the Emperor Constantine. At best, it is the equivalent of hadith in Islam, except without any authentication.

    As for verse 48:29, you have completely bypassed my facts and arguments and instead insisted on repeating propaganda sound bites and empty accusations lacking in real facts or historical references. You again try to bring in Ibn Ishaq or other inauthenticated stories and refuse to engage the doctrine of Islam itself. Once again, I repeat: Where is the unconditional kill order against Kafirs? Where is the kill order? Where is the kill order? You keep saying it is there, so spit it out!

35. Chameleon

    November 10, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Richard,

    I have already fully addressed the “women in hell” issue, including Bukhari 6:301 and the other hadiths, and you are bringing up no new facts or arguments other than a statistic on males vs. females in the world. This statistic was not even my core argument, which was that the hadith was a parable for rhetorical emphasis to motivate better behavior, that is all. The only reason emphasized for the discrepancy was the BEHAVIOR of women, NOT THE IDENTITY of the women as women. Behavior can be controlled 100%, whereas just being a woman cannot.

    As for your other post, great – bravo, Richard. You just fell into your own trap, although it took you much longer than I thought. Keeping score was not the point, but if it makes you feel better, then I concede defeat. I could add some more hadiths, but I will call the score 10-7 in your favor (note I also quoted a hadith on how Muhammad urged kindness to his open enemies even when they said “Death be upon you”, so that added one more point).

    You say the following: “The central doctrine of Christianity, according to me, is stated by Christ – do unto others as you would have them do unto you and love thy neighbour as thyself. He says this is the primary commandment on which everything else is based.” So everything hinges on loving your neighbor, so much so that you should even love your enemy under all circumstances and never kill anyone, no matter what.

    I am well aware of this love cult doctrine of modern Christianity, and I am glad that you highlighted it so well with your quotes and personal statement of belief. Unfortunately, it is this doctrine that is contradicted by the true core doctrine of Christianity as it exists today, which is the unconditional atonement of Jesus. Moreover, loving your neighbor is NOT the “primary commandment” in the New Testament, as you say, but the secondary commandment. Worshipping only God is the First and Primary Commandment – but more on that in a minute.

    Love of neighbor is also not the primary criterion, nor is it even required, to get into heaven for Christians. Unlike Islam, lack of neighborly love in Christianity becomes merely a forgivable sin with the blood sacrifice of Jesus. Moreover, if it were as simple as loving your neighbor to get into heaven, then any and all loving atheists would also qualify (even Unarmed Infidel if he worked on his manners a bit). In fact, even neighbor-loving Muslims would certainly qualify for Christian salvation, since they also follow the First Commandment of the Bible.

    On that note, it is not just the secondary commandment (of ‘love at all costs’, per the New Testament) that is contradicted by the unconditional atonement doctrine, but also the inviolable First Commandment as well. The First Commandment, per the Old Testament, is the same as the core doctrine of Islam: There is no god but God, which means nothing whatsoever can be associated or partnered with God; or as the Old Testament says: “You shall have no other gods BEFORE me.” However, the New Testament unequivocally states that one can only come to God through Jesus — in other words, Jesus as God comes BEFORE God the Father, in direct contradiction of the First Commandment:

    “6 Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.'” (John 14)

    The preeminence of Jesus is emphasized again in John 3, which Christians love to quote and emphasize as their core belief, so do not tell me that this verse is not that important:

    “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”

    And yet again, the New Testament emphasizes that it is only by Grace (through Jesus as savior) that Christians are saved, not by works. In other words, “by nature” we are all “deserving of wrath” because of our unavoidable sin, so the only salvation possible is “through faith” alone in Christ Jesus, per Ephesians 2:

    “Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions”it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith”and this is NOT FROM YOURSELVES, it is the gift of God” 9 NOT BY WORKS, so that no one can boast.”

    Note how these verses also emphasize, without question, that it is the belief in Jesus as savior – and that belief alone – that distinguishes the saved from the damned. So not only is the love cult doctrine itself made irrelevant by the unconditional atonement doctrine, but the First Commandment itself is now completely nullified as well. The only way anyone gets to go to heaven, and the only criterion that matters, is accepting Jesus as savior God. It is through “Grace” that Christians are saved, not by works, including love of neighbor. It cannot be by faith AND by works, unless you are contradicting Church doctrine by saying that Christ’s sacrifice was not enough, and that good works (including penance) must be added to the pot to get into heaven. Every Christian that I know would reject such a limited view of Christian grace, since the love of Jesus has no limit. According to mainstream Christian doctrine, Christ died for all sins for all who accept him as their savior. Period.

    Therefore, Christ also died for terrorists who believe in Jesus as their man-god savior, so being a terrorist and being a Christian are logically compatible after all. You can talk about the love cult of loving your neighbor all you want, but the reality is that unconditional atonement trumps everything in Christianity.

    But wait, you say, the First Commandment – completely inviolable above all other laws – has now been modified to a love cult version in the New Testament to say: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind.” (Luke 10:27, thank you for that one, Richard). Since loving Jesus should be considered equivalent to loving God, then we can now comply with this new and improved First Commandment. Unfortunately, we can’t completely and logically make the love for Jesus and God the same unless Jesus and God are made exactly equivalent, even of the same substance as one another. So that is why we should all thank the brilliant Church theologians for patching up this confounding mess. The Church, in its infinite wisdom, at its various Councils presided over by Roman emperors with political agendas (primarily the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.), decided to make Jesus “consubstantial” with God (now there’s a mouthful) in a vain attempt to remove the clear violation of God’s greatest commandment. In other words, Christianity overcame the egregious violation of the First Commandment by turning Jesus into God Himself.

    Unfortunately, the “brilliant” theologians were not so brilliant after all. They patched up one mess, but they created all kinds of new ones in the process, including absurd contradictions such as these: 1) Why would Jesus say it is OK to blaspheme against him but not God (the Holy Spirit)? 2) Why would Jesus need to pray if he were just praying to himself? 3) Why would Jesus tell everyone to pray to “Our Father” in the Lord’s prayer and not to him (and why would Jesus himself pray to “Our Father”, not “My Father”, which does not make sense if God only had one child)? and so forth. However, what is perhaps the most absurd point of all about the unconditional doctrine of atonement and Jesus becoming God is this. Unlike Islam, where it is emphasized at the beginning of nearly every sura and throughout the Quran that God is “The Most Compassionate, The Most Merciful”, “ever forgiving and kind”, etc. to those who repent and have faith in God, the God of Christianity does not have sufficient compassion, mercy or love on His own to forgive us. In order to create the necessary mercy and love to forgive us, God must first come to earth, commit suicide by putting Himself in a situation of absolute certain death, and finally resurrect Himself. The entire foundation of Christianity is therefore not only an illogical farce, but a provable contrivance of history and political power long after Jesus died.

36. Richard

    November 10, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon “The golden rule is WORD FOR WORD part of Islam: “[ONE] SHOULD TREAT THE PEOPLE AS HE WISHES TO BE TREATED BY THEM.”. In fact, it is so important, that you will go to hell if you don’t follow it, per Prophet Muhammad.”

    Liar show me where in the Quran this is written? Also show me where it is written, like in the Bible, that this is the the basis for the laws.

    In that same post you claim that verse 48:29 of the Quran is not talking about being ruthless with the unbelievers but being firm and in fact if you look at verse 48:25 Muhammad displayed a “Gandhi-like” forbearance to great “persecution”.

    What a laugh you liar. Let us turn to the Tafsir of Al Jalalyn. He says “Muhammad ..is the Messenger of God .. and those who are with him, that is, his Companions from among the believers .. are hard, tough, against the disbelievers, showing them no mercy [but], merciful among themselves..”

    The behaviour that Muslims display to non-believers are in direct contrast to the mercy and compassion they show amongst themselves.

    Then if you look to the explanation of verse 48:25 the following things are clear:

    1. The terrible “persecution” that the Muslim suffered consisted of barring them from reaching the Kaaba.

    2. In retaliation for this “persecution” the Muslims wanted to slay the non-believers but were not permitted to slay the Meccans because there were some Muslims among them.

    3. After these believers were separated from the non-believers permission was granted “to go ahead with the conquest thereof, with a painful chastisement”.

    They were then ruthless with the unbelievers while having shown mercy with the believers.

    Gandhi-like? Hardly

37. Richard

    November 9, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon “However, I demand that you first answer my claim that the unconditional atonement doctrine of Christianity is an illogical farce (i.e., that it allows terrorists to live and die as Christians and go, pure and clean, to heaven). Unlike Christianity, you cannot live or die as a Muslim if you are a terrorist.”

    What on earth are you talking about? The central doctrine of Christianity, according to me, is stated by Christ – do unto others as you would have them do unto you and love thy neighbour as thyself. He says this is the primary commandment on which everything else is based.

    Christ said that sins will be forgiven unconditionally if a person truly repents. Our justice system is based on restorative justice. Islamic justice is unjust as it is found not on the principles of natural justice but on arbitrary Sharia law, which it claims comes from Allah, but is really founded on 7th century tribal Arab views.

    You say about neighbours “.. if you found 141 hits but could not twist a single new one into “loving your neighbor”, perhaps I should include that Christianity doesn’t really care for neighbors at all, since it mentions them a lot without even adding that Christians should be good to them. ..As for your other post about “neighbors”, sorry, the score is still 6-2.”

    The Quran (or the Hadiths for that matter) does not mention “loving your neighbor” even once. So the score for Islam is 0. Get that? Zero, Zilch, nothing.

    The Bible:

    1. Leviticus 19:18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself.”
    2. Matthew 5:43 [ Love for Enemies ] “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
    3. Matthew 19:19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”
    4. Matthew 22:39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
    5. Mark 12:31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
    6. Mark 12:33 “To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
    7. Luke 10:27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ ; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”
    8. Romans 13:9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
    9. Romans 13:10 “Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”
    10. Galatians 5:14 “For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

    The score is 10-0 in favour of Christianity

    More later

38. Richard

    November 9, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon just a few of your lies and untruths:

    “As for your constant harping about women and Hell, i.e., how the “majority of its inhabitants are women”, what is your point here exactly? First of all, this will definitely be true by the simple fact that more women are born than men, as I already stated. However, more important, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are women.”

    1. Though you have stated it – it is NOT a fact that more women are born than men. The ratio of men to women in the world is 1.01/1 . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio

    If more women are born than men and they are killed as babies or in childhood, that they should then be sent to hell for no fault of their own would be unjust, but perhaps not unIslamic.

    2. That it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are women is only according to the taqqiya mouthing Chameleon. According to Muhammad it has everything to do with the fact that they are women. Read Bukhari 6:301. In reply to the specific question why Hell contains mostly women he says it is because they are deficient in intelligence and religion, because in turn the evidence of two women is equal to the witness of one man and they have periods, during which time they can neither fast nor pray.

    Bukhari 52:125 gives another reason – they are “ungrateful” and he clarifies they are not ungrateful to Allah but they are ungrateful to their husbands and that is why they are in hell.

    Bukhari 18:161 says MOST of the inhabitants of hell are women. Get that not the majority but most, clearly for the eye to see.

    3. My point Chameleon is that Islam is not from an all-wise being but from a 7th century Arab, namely Muhammad, containing all his prejudices and injustices. This is just plain to see if you open your eyes and stop deceiving yourself.

39. Chameleon

    November 9, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Richard, stop avoiding my questions. I have answered and debunked all of your claims, and you have not answered, let alone debunked, a single one of mine. It is your turn. It is you who are the master of Taqiyya by continually hiding the truth about the doctrine of Islam and the contexts of hadiths, as well as the fallacy of the core doctrine of Christianity. You claim as follows: “Islam is similarly naked to the cold glare of investigation and truth”. Then stop whining about how my methods of argumentation are too much for you to handle. Go ahead and shine your “cold glare” by addressing my facts and arguments instead of ranting like a howling idiot with irrelevant ad hominem attacks on me, more propaganda sound bites, and yet more and more out of context hadiths as diversions.

    I will not reply to any more of your silly peripheral accusations until you intelligently address my claim against Christianity, and until you can show where the unconditional kill order against Kafirs (or anyone else) is in the Quran. Without that kill order, the entire house of cards against “Political Islam” falls down. Just in case you need the question drilled into your head some more: Where is the kill order? Where is the kill order? Where is the kill order? Did you get that? According to Bill, 61% of the Quran is about Kafirs, and Kafirs are supposedly the sworn enemy of Muslims, so it should be an extremely trivial matter to dig up all kinds of kill orders. Why are you so shy all of a sudden?

    The only exception (in terms of diversions) I am choosing to make here is with respect to Taqiyaa, since it represents nothing more than a hollow attempt to undermine all of my arguments at once so that you don’t have to address any of them. As for your argument proving that Taqiyya is part of Islam, is this all that you’ve got? Are you serious? Verse 8:30 says “Remember, when the infidels contrived to make you [Muhammad] a prisoner or to murder or expel you, they plotted, but God also planned (or plotted); and God’s plan is best.” First of all, this verse has nothing to do with Muslims plotting or deceiving, only God plotting. Second, it was in response to an offensive military operation against Muhammad himself (i.e., war). And third, it is referring to an incident whereby Muhammad was hidden from the plotters against him; it was not even a counterplot by the Muslims to attack! This has absolutely nothing to do with deception by non-Muslims in any normal relationship outside of a war! Moreover, all that this verse shows is that there was at least one major justification for Muslims to fight to defend themselves and their religion — an attack on the Prophet of Islam himself. In case you missed the glaringly obvious conclusion, that means I am right, and you are wrong, yet again.

    As for your silly youtube videos, even if they supported your argument, which they don’t, they would not do anything whatsoever to prove your argument that Taqiyya is a secret doctrine endemic to virtually the entire Muslim community worldwide. There is no shortcut to doing your own research to confirm or deny that absurd hypothesis.

    As for the two videos in question, one tells a story of a “Muslim” lying to a Jew that Islam allows drinking when the Jew himself says he knows that Islam doesn’t allow drinking, and that is the only thing preventing him from becoming Muslim. Why would such a lie even work if the Jew (and the entire world) already knew what Islam clearly says about alcohol? There is no secret about Islam and alcohol — so what could there possibly be to hide? In the second video, it merely shows the duplicity of politicians — wow, and I am supposed to be surprised by politicians lying? What planet have you been living on? Not once during either video does it talk about the doctrinal basis of Taqiyya, and they hardly even mention the word itself, other than when non-Muslims are trying to explain “Muslim” behavior. So both videos are a total donut in terms of showing how Taqiyya is part of Islam. Once again, your arguments are completely hollow, and you are utterly wrong. What an embarrassment!

    The ugly truth about Taqiyya is that it is really just a trumped-up doctrine by non-Muslims for the sole purpose of invalidating any facts and arguments that they don’t like coming from Muslims — in other words, it is just a childish form of ad hominem attack. Whenever I hear you chanting the Taqiyya mantra, all I can imagine is you putting your hands over your ears and screaming so that you don’t have to hear what I am saying. Funny, but quite pathetic.

40. Richard

    November 8, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    The word used in Quran 8:30 is

    Makr – To practice deceit or guile or circumvention, practice evasion or elusion, to plot, to excercise art or craft or cunning, act with policy, practice strategem. (Lane’s Lexicon)

    Makr – cheat, dupe, double-cross, try and deceive (Hans Wehr dictionary)

    مكر – Google – Wiliness, deception, deceit, cunning, guile

    This is another example of a Muslim Arabic scholar practicing Taqqiya or deception or Makr in deliberately mistranslating verses of the Quran and hadiths to tone down its message.

41. Richard

    November 8, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon “I am .. here to combat the hate and the lies against Islam, in the hope that someone (likely someone not even posting here) will at least keep an open mind to investigate Islam for themselves.”

    What a complete joke, turning logic on its head. Muslims cannot question Islam or Muhammad. No Muslim can investigate Islam with an open mind.

    You keep dodging everywhere in your explanations. This is the standard ploy of all Muslims.

    If I quote the Sira it is unreliable. If I quote the Sahih Hadiths, it is spoken in jest. Muhammad didnt really mean what he was saying. The correct interpretation involves a long and complicated explanation, rather than what the words are plainly saying. If you cannot wriggle out of that then it is contrary to the Quran and hence false. If I quote the Quran confirming it, I have misinterpreted it. If I point to a translation by Arabic experts then finally the Quran cannot be understood unless you know Arabic. Great.

    Bertrand Russell pointed out that the wish to find out is the exact opposite to the wish to believe.

    If you do investigate Islam with an open mind you can see that it is a complete fraud. Open your own mind Chameleon.

    That is why I mentioned the Emperor’s New Clothes. In this story by Hans Christian Andersen a young boy, who is not indoctrinated or intimidated by the false propaganda that the Emperor is wearing fabulous clothes that only the wise can see, can plainly see that he is naked.

    Islam is similarly naked to the cold glare of investigation and truth.

    It is Islam that spews hate against the unbelievers, apostates, homosexuals (and incidentally chameleons, that belong to the same family as gecko’s).

    For some reason Muhammad hated the harmless innocent creatures (and many other animals such as dogs) and said that “he who kills a gecko with the first stroke there are seventy rewards for him” Muslim 26:5566 and others.

    Against dogs he said many many things such as “A woman, an ass and a dog disrupt the prayer, but something like the back of a saddle guards against that.” Muslim 4:1034 (That was against women and asses too)

    and “Five are the vicious and harmful things which should be killed even within the precincts of Haram: rat, scorpion, crow. kite and voracious dog.” Muslim 7:2721

    You claim “the hadith is clear, as narrated and vouched for by his own wife: PROPHET MUHAMMAD NEVER BEAT ANY WOMAN”

    Actually the hadith says that he never beat any woman WITH HIS HAND. It doesnt say he didnt beat them with a stick or a rod or his shoe or a whip.

    This hadith contradicts this same wife’s testimony that he hit her causing her pain, and she may have said that before he hit her.

    There are plenty of instances where he had people beaten and even killed at his command.

    “A man who drank wine was brought to the Prophet. The Prophet said, ‘beat him!” …”and he ordered him to be beaten (lashed). ” Muslim 81:768, 772

    “a person came and said, “Ibn Khatal is holding the covering of the Ka’ba (taking refuge in the Ka’ba).” The Prophet said, “Kill him.” ” Bukhari 29:72

    Muhammad – “Who will kill Ka’b b. Ashraf? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger. Muhammad b. Maslama said: Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him? He said: Yes. He said: Permit me to talk (to him in the way I deem fit). He said: Talk (as you like).” Bukhari 52:271, Muslim 19:4436

    A grievious punishment for maligning Muhammad.

    From the Life of Muhammad “The apostle said, “Kill any Jew that falls into your power.”

    also Abu Dawood 19:2996 “If you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them. So Muhayyisah jumped over Shubaybah, a man of the Jewish merchants. He had close relations with them. He then killed him.”

    “He then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims, but some of them came to the Prophet and he granted them safety, and they embraced Islam. He exiled all the Jews from Medina.” Bukhari 59:362

    “The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) then ordered regarding her (a jewess) and she was killed.” Muslim 39:4496, 4498

    (Incidentally she said “If you were a prophet, it would not harm you; but if you were a king, I should rid the people of you.” But Muhammad who had just taken a bite of the poisoned meat duly died of the poisoning – what does that say of his prophethood?)

    etc etc..

    “Even better, do your own Taqiyya by acting like a new Muslim convert and then asking them about the top secrets of Taqiyya that you are now obligated to follow as a Muslim. Watch for the blank stare ”

    No need for that – thanks to the wonders of the internet:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKs7oi_-NUo
    or here
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbIrWj6gDDk

    The Quran says “And when those who disbelieve plot against thee (O Muhammad) to wound thee fatally, or to kill thee or to drive thee forth; they plot, but allah (also) plotteth; and allah is the best of plotters.”

    I believe the correct word is not plotting but deceiving. Allah whose character mirrors Muhammad is the best of deceivers.

    will continue when I have more time

42. Chameleon

    November 8, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    I apologize for posting three times, which was not intentional. All three posts (done about one day apart since it looked like it did not go through) showed up 3 DAYS after the first post, so there is clearly something wrong with the comments updating in a timely manner here vs. when I first started posting on this site. Since I cannot delete anything myself, I kindly request that the first two posts be deleted (the last post has a few minor corrections). Also, given this new time lag, I may not come back to check on this site until three or more days from now.

    DemocracyistheAnswer, you are quoting some random garbage from Ibn Ishaq, which I have already commented on in terms of its complete unreliability, and who is actually saying these quotes is not even clear. As for you recognizing that my arguments are against what some mullahs argue, I am glad that you are finally awake and not claiming that I am being funded by such illogical idiots. I would challenge those mullahs in the same way that I challenge you. All that they have on their side are incontestable, empty fatwas. On my side, I have facts and logic, which I will put up against their fatwas any day. As for threatening me with “hell or the gallows in Iran and Saudi Arabia or [being] pushed out a window in Egypt”, you sound like a true mullah defending his version of Islam that he wants to impose on the world. What is so hilarious is how true this is. The entire goal of this web site is to defend those same twisted versions of Islam!

    “Say No to Islam”, see my post on Bill’s “Muhammad – Déjà vu” post. Yes, in private, Hitler persecuted and expressed hatred of “moderate” Christianity and “moderate” clergy (just like Al Qaeda does with “moderate” Muslims), but not Christianity as a whole. Hitler wanted to remake and renew Christianity according to his vision. He was passionate about Christianity and wanted to change it so that it supported his violent view of world domination, just like Al Qaeda and sites like this one here have been trying to do in remaking Islam, but have failed. As for that Hitler table talk about Islam, you are misquoting it to sound like he was supporting Islam when in fact he was calling it a “cult” that should be exterminated. He was only admiring the justification to fight in Islam, which he said was finally awakened within a violent and true “Christianity,” which was responsible for stopping the advance of Islam completely. He emphasizes “so gutless a thing was Christianity” (notice how Hitler used the word “was”, not “is”, in describing Christianity as “gutless”), and it finishes with “Christianity alone prevented them from doing so” (i.e., prevented the “cult” of “Mohammedanism” from conquering the world).

    (Un)Armed Infidel, you have clearly shown your true colors of lunacy. So much so that you appear to be making a desperate audition to get on loonwatch’s radar. Is that why you monitor that site? Are you disappointed, or somehow surprised, that nobody anywhere is taking you seriously? You shouldn’t be. You write such long emails with absolutely no facts and arguments against Islam – just empty accusations. All hot air and hate, nothing more. What is particularly disturbing is that you have now officially admitted to being a terrorist, which is “one who uses or incites violence to intimidate, often for a political purpose”. Welcome to the club that you hate. I quote, as evidence, your call to action: “Declare and engage in unconditional war against Islam, wherever it may exist”, “Stop the building of new mosques and systematically dismantle (with extreme prejudice) all existing mosques”, among other comments and admissions of hate. You also say that Bill “knows more about Islam than you do.” Perhaps he does, in which case he is either too shy or too afraid to engage me. Also, you and others make comments about my “misguided rants”, yet you make no rebuttals to my facts and arguments. Instead, you just rant on with more unsupported accusations. A “rant,” by definition, refuses to engage the facts and arguments presented and totally disrespects the etiquette of argument, rebuttal, and counter-rebuttal. By your own admission, it is you who is ranting, not me: you yourself said that “I have not come to this forum to argue or debate with you.” How wonderful! That is something both of us can finally agree on. As of now, why don’t you just start ignoring everything I say, since it is clearly making you mentally unstable, and I will start doing the same to you.

    Richard, your last post was just a rant of accusations without any facts and arguments. I hope that made you feel better because there is nothing for me to address there. The Tabari quote has no reliability as far as I am concerned, and it also has no context whatsoever. Moreover, it is flat out wrong, as Bukhari 23:390 clearly shows. As for your other post about “neighbors”, sorry, the score is still 6-2. Merely doing a text search for “neighbor” and finding 141 hits does not qualify. In fact, if you found 141 hits but could not twist a single new one into “loving your neighbor”, perhaps I should include that Christianity doesn’t really care for neighbors at all, since it mentions them a lot without even adding that Christians should be good to them. Or perhaps many of these might speak of bad treatment of neighbors – why else would you not pull good quotes out of them? As for Jesus explaining that neighbors are those whom you are in a position to help, that only supports the argument that Christians should treat neighbors that are close to them kindly. Since you are not “in a position to help me”, then at least you can rest assured that Jesus is giving you the green light to insult me or just about anyone else online.

    Richard, you did have one post where you actually did bring up a few facts and arguments – congratulations. However, you repeated the same arguments numbered 1-6 again. I have fully addressed all those points. The proper debate etiquette is to address my points with a counter-rebuttal, not to stand there nonplussed asking me to repeat myself with new facts and arguments. If any of my facts and arguments are weak in your eyes, then pick them apart, one by one, instead of picking your nose with a stupid claim that “you have not addressed any of my points”. If you cannot form a proper counter-rebuttal to the facts and arguments presented, then you are conceding defeat by default. As for your “new” point #7 (women’s testimony), that is already covered by point #6, which I fully addressed. However, I will add here that the verse about getting two witnesses to a verbal debt contract (for reasons made explicitly clear in my analysis) has absolutely nothing to do with the value of a woman’s testimony. Witness and testimony are two completely different things. The second female witness is suggested as a safeguard measure ONLY WHEN THERE ARE NO MEN AVAILABLE. In no way does the verse pit the value of one man’s testimony against that of two women’s. Two women are only better for safety reasons within the very limited scope of this verse, which is now completely obsolete under written contract law. As for your point #8 (and other hadiths listed to this effect), just because a woman is unable to offer her formal prayers for a short time has nothing to do with a deficiency in her religion – that was the whole point of the joke, or are you too dense to get the punch line?

    As for Bukhari 72:715, this hadith actually shoots yourself in the foot. Clearly, beating women is forbidden, since Aisha spoke up boldly and passionately here about how wrong it was in front of the Prophet. Unfortunately, as the woman who had the green spot on her face entered the room, she immediately launched into a loud complaint about her husband’s impotence, NOT ABOUT ANY BEATING. The rest of the hadith discusses how this impotence complaint was addressed, but does not extend beyond this to discuss what the cause of the green mark truly was, whether the woman continued to claim to the Prophet Muhammad that she was beaten (as she apparently said to Aisha privately) or whether the beating issue was even addressed. Clearly, something must have been said about the green mark, but unfortunately it wasn’t recorded. Aisha was impassioned about it, so she certainly would not have simply let it go unless it turned out not to be from a beating at all. We simply don’t know from this hadith, for sure. However, the hadith actually hints at the likelihood that the beating was a ruse to create a justification for divorce, since the claim of impotence was also an apparent ruse based on the clear evidence of her sons closely resembling her “impotent” husband. The woman implicitly admitted in the hadith that what she really wanted was to go “back” to a man named Rifa’a instead (perhaps an ex-husband).

    As for Muslim 9:3506, this is clearly another case of playing around, not beating, which I will get to in a moment once I explain the background of the incident here. It is also yet another case of shooting yourself in the foot, since it shows how the Prophet resolved a painful dispute with his wives not by beating them into submission to force them to his point of view, but by separating from them for an entire month (per this hadith and others) to allow the fondness to grow back with absence, just as verse 4:34 (the mistranslated “beating” verse) enjoins husbands to “separate from them” as a last resort before potential arbitration and divorce. This hadith also references (actually, quotes in part) another verse from the Quran that was revealed in response to this famous incident: “Prophet, say to your wives: ‘In case you desire the life and pomp of this world, come, I will provide you handsomely, and let you go [i.e., divorce you] with grace. But if you desire God, His Apostle, and the joys of life to come, then God has verily set apart for those of you who are good, a great reward.” (33:28-29). The Prophet’s wives were upset that he did not live in a palace and was not giving his wives riches and status, even though they said he had access to those riches because of his leadership role. Those riches, the 1/5 war spoils, were in fact not for him, but for the needy and indigent of the community, which his wives did not understand or accept in their act of group “rebellion”. That is the background to this hadith.

    Now back to the incident in question. The hadith makes it clear that the Prophet was “sitting sad and silent with his wives around him” (i.e., NOT beating them into submission) when his companion Umar came in to try to cheer him up with a joke: “He (Hadrat ‘Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter of Khadija when you asked me for some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah’s Messenger (mav peace be upon him) laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money.” Note the joke in how Umar made up a story about how he slapped the daughter of Khadija on the back of the neck when the Prophet asked Umar for money. In other words, the daughter of Khadija had nothing to do with the demand for money by the Prophet (as you misquoted), and yet Umar still “slapped” her because of the Prophet’s request for money (per his joke); while the Prophet was doing absolutely nothing to punish his wives when his wives were the ones asking HIM for more money that he doesn’t even have! In addition to laughing at Umar’s joke contrasting Umar’s joking behavior with his, the Prophet was also laughing at the irony of his situation: his wives were surrounding and besieging him, beating HIM up verbally, non-stop, with their demands. You clearly missed the punch line here! So to complete the joke, which the Prophet did NOT laugh at, Abu Bakr slaps his daughter Aisha on the back of the neck and Umar does the same to another woman related to him who is one of the Prophet’s other wives. The conversation amongst Abu Bakr, Umar and the women continues without a hitch right after these two “slaps”, with the clear implication that this was no “beating,” but just a playful reprimand from Abu Bakr and Umar. Nevertheless, I do concede that there likely was some tongue-in-cheek seriousness by Abu Bakr and Umar underlying the joke, perhaps indicating that Abu Bakr and Umar would not be so lenient as the Prophet in dealing with their wives in such a situation.

    The crucial point here is that the Prophet himself was the afflicted one in this incident, since he was in deep conflict with his wives, who were making unreasonable demands against him. Yet, IN SPITE OF HIS WIVES’ OPEN REBELLION TOGETHER AGAINST HIM IN THIS INCIDENT, HE NEVER BEAT ANY ONE OF THEM. The end result, of course, speaks for itself, and that is the lesson of sunnah here. This lesson is even more extraordinary in contrast to the Prophet’s own noble companions, who likely would not have lived up to his example if they were put in the same position. By dealing with his wives in this soft manner, he won back their hearts, and they never complained about their lack of money again, and no divorce was ever necessary.

    As for Muslim 004:2127, this is not referring to any beating. In this hadith, Aisha lied to the Prophet when there was no cause for her to lie about her following him secretly when he went to meet Angel Gabriel. And, as Aisha herself then realized, even if there was a cause, she would not have been able to conceal her lie from Allah anyway. Note that the Prophet does not express any anger with her whatsoever, or even rebuke her, but merely asks a question to assuage her clear pangs of guilt in trying to deceive him: “Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it.” Note how Aisha expressed her loyalty (and her guilt in breaching his trust) with exaggeration before this by saying “my father and mother be ransomed for you”, which was an idiom of intense devotion commonly used in Mecca, per other hadiths. It was this expression of devotion that prompted the Prophet to assuage her guilt with his question. Immediately after this exchange, they continue without a hitch to converse about the Prophet’s meeting, and Aisha was very curious about what she heard Angel Gabriel tell him. I would therefore seriously question the literal and idiomatic translation of the Arabic words here into the English words “struck” and “pain.” Given that she was already lying down in bed, and she was referring to how “he struck me on the chest” at the moment she admitted her guilt, what she most likely was referring to was simply the pangs of guilt at the moment she saw his disappointment in finding out she lied to him. How else could the Prophet’s compassionate question and lack of any anger whatsoever make sense, since the only purpose of that question was to assuage her guilt? Given this context, including the expression of compassion on the part of the Prophet for her guilt and her curious and engaged behavior immediately afterwards, clearly she did not consider this any “beating”; and it is very likely that there was not even any physical contact whatsoever. Most important of all, we have the authenticated hadith from the same Aisha herself, which clearly contradicts your interpretation of this hadith: “A’isha reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) NEVER BEAT ANYONE WITH HIS HAND, neither a woman nor a servant, but only, in the case when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah, and he never took revenge for anything unless the things made inviolable by Allah were made violable.” (Muslim 030:5756).

    As for Abu Dawood 2141 and 2142, I don’t consider Abu Dawood to be a very reliable source of hadith. It has more contradictions and much less scholarly support than Bukhari and Muslim. To start, Hadith 2142 has no context whatsoever, so it is unclear who the “man” is or when and why such beating happened. For example, is it referring to the practices in the pre-Islamic “days of ignorance” being forgiven for those who have now changed their practice to the sunnah of not beating women? It is unclear. Hadith 2141 is actually another good example of what I emphasized in my previous post, where Muhammad is clearly stating his unequivocal position of sunnah on beating women: “Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens.” It is only when Umar came to the Apostle and complained about a major disruption in the social fabric by this abrupt change vs. the age-old custom that was common amongst almost all families of Mecca that Muhammad may have temporarily relented to community demands, at least according to Abu Dawood. Again, if this can be determined to be accurate, it does nothing more than highlight the same point in my last post, that cherrypicking hadith is very dangerous regarding the continuation and example of objectionable customs in the early Muslim community, since that community was in a constant transition to Islam. Such drastic changes (like the banning of alcohol, which was also done gradually) would have been rejected by the community outright if they were pushed through overnight.

    Nevertheless, since we are digging into Abu Dawood now, here is yet another command from Prophet Muhammad about not beating women (Abu Dawood 11:2139): “Narrated Mu’awiyah al-Qushayri: I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and DO NOT BEAT THEM, and do not revile them.” How much more clear can it possibly be what the sunnah of Prophet Muhammad is on this point?

    The bottom line is that objectionable customs still remaining in the early Muslim community are NOT to be emulated today. Only the sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad is to be emulated today, and that sunnah is abundantly clear, as I state yet again: THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD NEVER BEAT ANY WOMAN, EVEN WHEN HIS OWN WIVES WERE OPENLY REBELLING AGAINST HIM.

    As for your “Muhammad’s assassin” quote, this is clearly not from the hadiths, and it is not even clear who is quoting this. Please don’t tell me that this more Ibn Ishaq nonsense. Once again, the facts on the Prophet’s behavior point to exactly the opposite conclusion. When the Prophet’s enemies cursed him in public, he did not respond with assassination, but with immense lenience. Here is his command to Aisha on how to behave with those who insult him:

    “Narrated ‘Aisha: A group of Jews came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “As-samu ‘Alaika ” (Death be on you), and I understood it and said to them, “Alaikum AsSamu wa-l-la’na (Death and curse be on you).” Allah’s Apostle said, “Be calm! O ‘Aisha, for Allah loves that one should be kind and lenient in all matters.” I said. “O Allah’s Apostle! Haven’t you heard what they have said?” Allah’s Apostle said, “I have (already) said (to them), ‘Alaikum (upon you).’ ” (Bukhari 74:273).

    As for your constant harping about women and Hell, i.e., how the “majority of its inhabitants are women”, what is your point here exactly? First of all, this will definitely be true by the simple fact that more women are born than men, as I already stated. However, more important, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they are women. The hadith states, “The people asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is the reason for that?” He replied, “Because of their ungratefulness.” It was said. “Do they disbelieve in Allah (are they ungrateful to Allah)?” He replied, “They are not thankful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors done to them. Even if you do good to one of them all your life, when she sees some harshness from you, she will say, “I have never seen any good from you.'” (Bukhari 62:125). He is placing 100% of the blame on behavior, not the identity of a person as a woman! Finally, these hadiths do nothing to argue against my original point that this is mostly likely just a story for rhetorical emphasis, to stress the importance of women being grateful for what they have in order to keep the family together and to remove jealousy of what others have as a divisive social force. Such creative metaphors and parables have been a common rhetorical device of prophets throughout the ages.

    As for deceiving an enemy in a state of war, I only know of two or perhaps three hadiths that reference such a thing. Please educate me and show me more, since you have clearly elevated lying to such an extreme importance in Islam. To make it into a central tenet of Islam, like Bill is doing on this site with Taqiyya/Kitman, is absurd. Yes, of course, deception and misdirection are valid military strategies in any war, and they are strongly supported and applied by every country in the world, including the U.S. To believe otherwise is simply a ridiculous fairy tale. You clearly have never been close to war or have discussed this with someone who has been. But to extrapolate this concept in some way to peaceful interpersonal relations as some obligation on Muslims is purely your fearful leader’s creative imagination at work. Show me what Islamic doctrine commands such a thing. Why don’t you sit in on a sampling of Khutbas (sermons) before Friday prayers at mosques in your area to get a flavor for what Muslims really tell each other to do rather than just fear-mongering amongst yourselves about what you think they are saying. Also, go ahead and grill the Muslims there about these concepts and all the “evil” you heard in the sermon and see what they have to say. Even better, do your own Taqiyya by acting like a new Muslim convert and then asking them about the top secrets of Taqiyya that you are now obligated to follow as a Muslim. Watch for the blank stare – I promise you, it will be priceless! I have never heard such concepts as Taqiyya/Kitman in my entire life until I came on these hate sites, and I have been to a LOT of mosques and talked to a LOT of Muslims. Doesn’t that give you any pause at all, that you should at least try to test out Bill’s theory for yourself, even if you can’t rely on my word for it (because anything possibly doubtful that I claim must be Taqiyya by the circular logic of Taqiyya itself)?

    By the way, I am not on this site to convince anyone to be a Muslim. If you got that message, then you are grossly mistaken. I am only here to combat the hate and the lies against Islam, in the hope that someone (likely someone not even posting here) will at least keep an open mind to investigate Islam for themselves. I am also not here to defend entire countries or thugs committing atrocities (e.g., in Beslan or elsewhere) who just might happen to call themselves “Muslim” by default of their birth.

    Richard (and others), I have now completely counter-rebutted all of your fact-based arguments, with the exception of the Hitler and Ossama bin Laden terrorism justification arguments, which I still promise to address once you address my claim. This is starting to get boring again with all your constant diversions. I will continue on peripheral points later if it is really that important to you. However, I demand that you first answer my claim that the unconditional atonement doctrine of Christianity is an illogical farce (i.e., that it allows terrorists to live and die as Christians and go, pure and clean, to heaven). Unlike Christianity, you cannot live or die as a Muslim if you are a terrorist. Second, all of you howling idiots have yet to prove, let alone even intelligently address, the most important point of all, which is the entire point of this web site: Where in the Quran is the unconditional kill order against Kafirs? Moreover, where in the Quran is the command for Muslims to dominate the world with Islam? According to this web site, Islam is loaded with such kill orders and world domination commands, so this should be an extremely trivial task for all of your inflated heads put together. Now bring it.

    Until I get a logically argued response to my claim against the central doctrine of Christianity from Richard (and hopefully others), I will no longer waste my time debunking all of his peripheral points about Islam. And until I get some intelligent, doctrine-based arguments on this thread regarding the two main political claims of this site (that Islamic doctrine mandates death and world domination over all Kafirs), I will no longer address anyone else’s peripheral points either. I have been more than generous in my thorough rebuttals. Now, it is your turn.

43. Richard

    November 7, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Kenneth Roberts “However, the unphotoshopped Mohammed is neither affectionate nor merciful:

    “Aisha, the Mother of the Faithful, was asked, ‘How did the Messenger of Allah behave?’ She replied, ‘His eye did not weep for anyone.'” Tabari VIII:40″

    If we diagnose Muhammad in the light of modern science, it is highly probable that he suffered from the psychological disease of Megalomania.

    The Oxford English Dictionary (1978) defines megalomania as “the insanity of self-exaltation; the passion for ‘big things'”.

    “Megalomania is characterized by an inflated sense of self-esteem and overestimation by the person of his powers and beliefs and associated with delusions, psychotic processes, or extreme forms of narcissism. Lack of empathy or feelings are often associated with this disease.”

    One of the dangerous delusions that Megalomaniacs suffer from is that they imagine themselves as special instruments of divine will.

    Islam is founded without evidence on the witness of Muhammad. If Muhammad is found to be not credible then Islam self-destructs.

    Did Muhammad lie or was he delusional? In my opinion it was a bit of both. Muhammad declared that lying is acceptable if it is used to propagate the cause of Islam by killing the enemy. He must have taken advantage of this principle to propagate his claims for the advancement of his religion.

    The Quran itself is self-declarative. Claiming to be a “miracle”. But a cursory examination of the Quran reveals it to be about as “miraculous” as the Emperors New Clothes. Shored up merely by loud declaration of its courtiers.

    And thus the Quran is God’s words because Muhammad said so and Muhammad was God’s messenger because the Quran says so. Which is a circular reasoning fallacy.

    The reason no Muslim can write an honest biography of Muhammad, is that the biography of Muhammad is a subject that is taboo.

    The character of Allah in the Quran closely mirrors that of Muhammad. Muhammad is too immoral to be a prophet and Allah too stupid to be God. He is in fact too stupid even to be an intelligent human being.

    Thus we are left with a malignant psychotic personality who successfully twisted and distorted the sense of morality and humanity of his followers, and linked doing good to ungodly and immoral things and a sacredness to crime and
    terrorism.

44. Richard

    November 6, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon I simply do not have time to read your drivel. Be brief in your answers. Do not try to cover your lack of answers with pages of irrelevant words and arguments.

    Verbal diarrhea does not constitute an argument.

    You have failed to answer any of my questions.

    Skimming through your replies let me first deal with some of your lies and falsehoods:

    This one caught my eye since it is in capitals “PROPHET MUHAMMAD NEVER BEAT ANY WOMAN.”

    Except that he did hit Aisha. This is recorded once. But once a wife beater … (you know the rest)

    Muslim 004:2127 “…(the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O ‘A’isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain,..”

    Is having women killed for composing poems against you qualified as violence?

    Asma bint Marwan, a mother or five, was so murdered when Muhammad’s assassin “He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina.” Ibn Sa`d. Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir. 2. pp. 30.

    How does what you claim reconcile with the fact that when a woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her black and blue (or green in this case), Muhammad ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires? Bukhari 72:715

    Or Aisha saying “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women” in the same Hadith

    Or Muhammad laughing when he heard that Umar slapped the daughter of Khadija for asking for money. He then told Umar and Abu Bakr that Aisha and Hafsa asked him for money whereupon they went and soundly slapped Aisha and Hafsa in front of Muhammad. Muslim 9:3506

    Or Abu Dawood 2141 “Iyas bin ‘Abd Allah bin Abi Dhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when ‘Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them.”

    Or Abu Dawood 2142 “The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.”

    etc etc etc…

    Hadith Bukhari 6:301 clearly says:

    Hell has a majority of women because they are deficient in intelligence and religion.

    And they are deficient in intelligence because the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man!

    And they deficient in religion because they can neither pray nor fast during their menses!

    In reply to this you say “The Prophet Muhammad was not making any official pronouncement. He was passing by a few women on the way to or from the mosque. He was speaking only to them, clearly with some tongue-in-cheek rhetorical emphasis to bring across his main point in a playful manner.. this was spoken very lightly, in a jovial environment”

    Indeed!

    That the majority of women in Hell are women are not only in that Hadith but in Bukhari 2:28, 18:161, 24:541, 54:464, 62:125, 62:126. and
    Muslim1:142, 4:1926, 4:1982, 36:6596,

    If that amused Muhammad he had a most macabre sense of humour, as he writes in 62:125 “I saw Paradise (or Paradise was shown to me), and I stretched my hand to pluck a bunch (of grapes), and had I plucked it, you would have eaten of it as long as this world exists. Then I saw the (hell) Fire, and I have never before, seen such a horrible sight as that, and I saw that the majority of its dwellers were women.”

    There are even more horrible descriptions of hell in the other Hadiths.

    That women cannot pray during their periods is given in other Hadiths Bukhari 4:228, 6:306, 317, 318, 322, 329, 26:631 and Muslim 2:573, 3:658, 3:660,

    Clearly was not meant to be only to the women he met and it was not spoken in jest.

    So please try again, briefly with reference to the Quran and Hadiths (not your verbal diarrhea explanations). How are men and women treated as per our our modern western concepts in Islam when:

    1. A man can divorce for any reason but a woman has to plead her case before a judge?

    2. Women are not permitted to practice polygamy, men are,

    3. women are not permitted to have have pre-marital/extra-marital sex with slaves and POWs, men are,

    4. women are not permitted to beat their marital partners, men are,

    5. a male inherits twice that of a female,

    6. the testimony of a women in court is worth half that of a man’s testimony?

    and add to this

    7. they are deficient in intelligence because the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man

    and

    8. They cannot pray during their periods?

45. Democracyistheanswer

    November 6, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Golden Rule?

    “Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace.” -Ishaq:587

    “Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah’s helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing him is a small matter to us.” -Tabari IX:69

    “Get out of his way, you infidel unbelievers. Every good thing goes with the Apostle. Lord, I believe in his word. We will fight you about its interpretations as we have fought you about its revelation with strokes that will remove heads from shoulders and make enemies of friends.” – Ishaq:530

    “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.'” Ishaq:327

46. Armed Infidel

    November 6, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon,
    I’m still waiting to hear you defend the Muslims who committed the atrocities in Beslan, Russia. Just to refresh you confused cult mind, I have extended you the courtesy of pasting it below for your review.

    ——————————————————–
    Chameleon,

    I sent you this posting earlier about the “Beslan rapes and forced urine drinking
    five years ago Muslim extremists invaded a school in Beslan, Russia. These Muslim terrorists held over a thousand people, most of them children, hostage. For three days these Muslim terrorists killed and tortured countless victims. The ways in which they were treated I will abbreviate . Children were shot for crying. Teachers and parents were shot for trying to calm the hostages. Young girls were gang raped. Young girls were raped with gun barrels and other objects. Many young girls did not survive these rapes. Children were forced to drink their own urine before being executed. The list of inhuman acts committed by these Muslim animals is as nothing I have ever heard before.”

    In response you stated to me earlier that, “As for the anecdotes of atrocities, all that you are demonstrating with these is how weak these societies are, and how little Islam is holding the social fabric together there.”

    Let’s focus directly on this particular Beslan “anecdote” for a minute, you know, the one that you were afraid to comment on previously. Here is you big chance to dazzle me with your ability to admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-accusations, play the victim, and obfuscate the truth… and don’t forget to give me a big Allahu akbar!!!! Allahu akbar!!! just so that I know you really mean it.

    Here we go Muslim…are you saying that Muslims did not commit these atrocities against the Russian people? Educate all of us Muslim!!”
    Armed Infidel ” November 1, 2011 @ 2:17 AM
    ——————————————————–
    We are all waiting for you to enlighten us on what really happened in Beslan, Russia and who it was that committed this heinous act of terrorism. We are waiting Muslim…for you to enlighten us with your pseudo-intellectual prowess.

47. Democracyistheanswer

    November 6, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Your modernistic revision of Islam for modern tastes is exactly what this article is about. The canonical authorities of Islam have unamously concurred on the violence of Mohammed…in other words, they have all supported the Wahabbist and Salafite interpretations of Islam…the very same interpretation as that of Bin Laden.

    Your fantasy of socialworker Mohammed is a modernist re-write of Islam. You will not find that in the Sira.

    Your re-interpretation of Muslim 852 totally contradicts the Dhimmi contract of Omar which was the universal code of official discrimination throughout Islamic history. When Muslim 852 is put in the context of the consensus of Islam, it can only refer to the equal treatment of fellow Moslems. A (najis) kafir is never equal to a Moslem, nor is a Moslem ever permitted to give genuine love or friendship to a kafir. Moreover, al-Nawawi makes clear that Mohammed’s pseudo-Golden Rule may only be interpreted as wishing for kafirs what a Moslem wants for himself, that is, to be a believing Moslem.

    Dhimmis or other kafirs are not to be treated equally according to Islamic consensus. You are making up your own version of Islam which is ‘bida’ and a crime which will send you to hell or the gallows in Iran and Saudi Arabia or pushed out a window in Egypt.

48. Armed Infidel

    November 6, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon,

    What is the problem? You submitted the same identical propaganda rant three different times? Apparently your attention span and patience is about 4 hours, give or take a few minutes.

    Chameleon ” November 4, 2011 @ 3:14 AM

    Chameleon ” November 4, 2011 @ 7:21 PM

    Chameleon ” November 5, 2011 @ 11:41 PM

    Here is some more advice Jackass, you may want to get your medications updated, or perhaps you need to cut back on your halal Kool-Aid a bit…you seem to be more confused and impatient than usual!?

    Here are a couple of more options you may want to consider, if you are married why don’t you go beat your four wifes to a pulp just to get some of your stress relieved so you don’t forget how many times you have submitted the same rant. If you are not married, go out a rape some Kafir girl, you know a nice white girl similar to your Prophet Mohammad’s (shit be upon him) favorite sex slave. After all, it is all compliant and approved by your Sharia law!

    Have a nice day!

49. Chameleon

    November 5, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    I have addressed all the new points above within my new post below, with the exception of the religious justifications of Hitler and Ossama bin Laden for their terrorist acts (including verse 4:84 for the latter). My post is too long already, so I will save those two arguments for my next post. However, just to give you a teaser for my thesis (in case you think I am avoiding the issue), you are completely missing the motivations and machinations of these terrorist leaders and their followers by continuing your futile and dry focus on religious doctrine. You are looking in all the wrong places for your answers. However, before I post anything on these two topics, I demand a reasoned reply to my final claim in my last post regarding the unconditional atonement doctrine of Christianity. I think you would agree that I deserve a reply after all my efforts to reply to (and completely debunk) your endless claims. For any of you who don’t reply, I can only conclude that you are conceding complete defeat to my claim, that the core doctrine of Christianity is a total, illogical farce.

    Democracyistheanswer, you first. I am not joking about the golden rule. The golden rule is how I live my life. I am ridiculing this site’s methods of Taqiyya, the very thing it claims to hate – its blatant hiding of the provable truth about Islam so that it can continue to spread flagrant lies. Now that the truth is clear, why don’t you check if the articles about Islam’s doctrinal deficiencies in this respect are retracted. If you are so concerned about lies, then why don’t you demand that they be retracted? I don’t have to check or demand, because I know that they won’t be.

    The golden rule is WORD FOR WORD part of Islam: “[ONE] SHOULD TREAT THE PEOPLE AS HE WISHES TO BE TREATED BY THEM.”. In fact, it is so important, that you will go to hell if you don’t follow it, per Prophet Muhammad. As for loving neighbors, you should do so to the extent that you feel as if your neighbors are your own children or immediate family (“heirs”). Please tell me how much more emphatic this message could be in Islam. These principles are just as much the essences of Islam. On a side note, Richard has come up with two quotes – very good. But that now leaves the score 6-2 in favor of Islam attaching more importance to these tenets, according to Bill’s statistical analysis of religious text. Once you can get up to 6, then you can call it even.

    Richard, now your turn. I see that you are beginning to make actual arguments now, so I give you credit for that; and thank you for not insulting everyone’s intelligence with just sound bites. Since the other poster also brought up verse 48:29, I will lead off there to close off my address of his post.

    The word “ruthless” is totally mistranslated in this verse and should actually be translated as “firm and unyielding” or “strong” (per two different translations). The Arabic word implies something that is unbending against force, which makes a huge difference to the meaning. “Ruthless” implies active, even unilateral, aggression; whereas “firm” implies strong resistance – for example, in the way I am being firm here in my rebuttal. Moreover, based on the clear and unambiguous rules of engagement outlined in suras 2, 9 and elsewhere, as well as the strong call to fight to resist persecution and oppression in the immediate context, unilateral aggression implied by the mistranslated word “ruthless” has no contextual support whatsoever. That interpretation would be completely contradictory to all Islamic doctrine.

    But let’s not stop there. Even the immediate context of 48:29 makes the interpretation obvious, which you conveniently omit. Verse 48:25 mentions the pretext for being firm against the unbelievers, because they were the ones “who hindered you from (going to) the Holy Mosque” and performing the rites of the pilgrimage. In other words, it was a clear case of religious oppression. In verse 48:26, it expands on the actual historical incident in question, supported at length by actual recorded history (from hadiths and other documents). In this incident, the Muslims came for the annual pilgrimage to Mecca (completely unarmed with only a single white sheet on) but were at first barred from doing so by the Quraish. After the Muslims stood firm and insisted over an extended period of time that they be allowed to perform their religious pilgrimage, the unbelievers backed down and finally relented. So what did the Muslims do to the unbelievers – be “ruthless” to them? No. This is what they did, per 48:26: “When the unbelievers fostered a sense of honor in their hearts, a sense of pagan honor, God sent down a sense of tranquility on His Apostle and the believers, and obliged them to an act of self-restraint, for they [the unbelievers] were deserving and worthy of it.” In other words, the Muslims practiced complete “self-restraint” with “a sense of tranquility” in dealing with the unbelievers. Wow! So what you are trying to do here is to turn what is the exact equivalent of Gandhi’s “non-violent resistance” philosophy in this incident into a totally opposite philosophy of ruthless violence! Are you serious?

    As for verses 2:191-193, let me address those now. This is an egregious case of you misquoting, taking quotes completely out of context and ignoring parts of what you did quote to conclude a totally opposite meaning: intolerance and injustice instead of unequivocal tolerance and justice. First of all, like any normal American would believe, I believe that anyone who is violently attacked via oppression or persecution is fully entitled to defend himself by fighting back. To believe otherwise is simply pacifist folly. If you believe that fighting back in any way equates to terrorism, then you should be the first to denounce the Declaration of Independence as a terrorist manifesto, since most of it is a laundry list of oppressions by the British as a justification for fighting back; moreover, you should be even more staunchly opposed to the unilateral, non-defensive military actions of the U.S. around the world.

    Second, verse 193 does not say keep fighting until “religion is for Allah”, as in until Islam rules the world. It says “Fight them UNTIL PERSECUTION (OR ‘SEDITION’) COMES TO AN END, and the law of God prevails.” Does this mean in any way to keep fighting until Islamic law dominates? The final part of verse 193, which you conveniently gloss over, answers that very question: “IF THEY DESIST, THEN CEASE TO BE HOSTILE, EXCEPT AGAINST THOSE WHO OPPRESS.” Again and again, my point is proven that Islam only allows fighting against persecution and oppression, not for aggression. The “law of God” is simply referring to the law of justice against persecution, which just happens to be also the law of every democratic country. It also refers to the law of God in the sense that Muslims must be allowed to fulfill the WHOLE of their religion and not be prevented from an essential element, such as prayer or pilgrimage. In other words, it is about the basic human right of freedom of religion, which unequivocally passes what I call the “American values” litmus test AND Richard’s own litmus test (“Where it resorts to violence, it has to be firmly met with violence.”).

    Third, you also conveniently started with verse 191 and completely omitted verse 190, which puts into context why and when such fighting is allowed, and what are the strict limits put upon the definition and response to “persecution”: “Fight those in the way of God who fight you, but do not be aggressive: God does not like aggressors.” Please explain to me what part of terrorism, the most aggressive form of violence, is even remotely implied here! Even your own abridged misquote makes it clear that fighting is in response to persecution and oppression, so once again, you are shooting yourself in the foot without even my help!

    Your reference about Muslims driving Meccans (Quraish) out of their city is absurd and contradicts all historical facts. It is exactly the opposite. The Quraish drove out the Muslims. So where did the Quraish migrate to en masse, and what reputable historian is claiming this nonsense? Also, the Muslims did not “conquer” Mecca, at least not with violence. It was a bloodless surrender by the Quaraish, except for a few isolated incidents of revenge that the Prophet later condemned. Full amnesty was given by the Prophet, and no spoils of war were taken. Oh, I almost forgot to ask – so why is it on this occasion, and every other, that the Prophet failed to follow the unconditional kill order against unbelievers that you claim Islam commands? I demand an explanation.

    The Muslims were far from safe in Medina, with 2-3 tribes breaking their treaties treasonously with the Muslims and trying to kill the Prophet on two separate occasions, if not more. They were welcomed by many in Medina, I agree, but the powerful tribes there gradually saw the growing Muslim community as a threat to their control. The Muslims were persecuted for their religion in Mecca and driven from their homes and their lives in Mecca, which is why they were forced to emigrate to Medina. They had every right to return to Mecca to reclaim their homes, their lives, and their full freedom to worship as Muslims. Once again, such action would unequivocally pass the “American values” test as an appropriate response to persecution and oppression.

    As for 3:151, this is referring to what God will do in the hearts of unbelievers who ascribe compeers/partners to God, the gravest of sins in Islam, Judaism AND Christianity. It is none other than the First Commandment itself. Or did you conveniently forget that commandment in your worship of a man-god son of God? So how does this dreadful outcome not make sense? It is what God, and God alone, will do as His punishment on unbelievers for violating his most sacred commandment. There is nothing in this verse to command Muslims, or even to imply what Muslims should do.

    As for 4:36, you are bringing up a completely irrelevant phrase to the point about being kind to your neighbor, for which the Quran is even more clear and encompassing than the Bible by explicitly including neighbors who are strangers. As for the phrase in question, I have already been over this phrase in detail in two other posts. It refers to the female refugees of war who are free believers (not slaves) and become the responsibility of the Muslim community, per verse 60:10. Therefore, the translation is correct.

    As for 33:4, this does not ban adoption. It merely says “nor has He made your adopted sons your real sons” (i.e., “real” by blood relation). In 33:5, it says, “Call them by the names of their fathers. This is the right course in the sight of God.” In fact, these verses clearly acknowledge the reality and legality of adoption. It is only in how the adopted sons are referred to that changes. They should keep the name and recognized heritage of their true father — that is all.

    As for “suckling”, you are really digging for esoteric stuff here, aren’t you? This has nothing to do with the political Islam thread, and it also has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic doctrine of today, as I will show. At any rate, I will go through it. It was not a “grown man” being referred to, but “a young boy who is at the threshold of puberty” (008:3427). This is referring to the principle that only post-pubescent children who are suckled (raised) by the same foster mother can cohabit in a household with an otherwise unrelated woman (like brothers can with sisters). Moreover, in hadith Muslim 008:3429, one of the wives of the Prophet is denying that this type of thing was done or can be done as a workaround to the cohabitation restriction before reaching puberty. However, if it was done, she said, it was only for this one specific incident, since it has otherwise been forbidden; suckling must stop after the normal suckling period, which is a maximum of two years in Islam. The authenticity of this hadith is seriously questionable, since it contradicts other quotes of the Prophet (as well as his companions), where he denies that one or two sucklings will create a foster relationship, “One suckling or two do not make the (marriage) unlawful.” (Book #008, Hadith #3415). And yet another quote saying this even more emphatically: “Narrated Aisha: Once the Prophet came to me while a man was in my house. He said, “O ‘Aisha! Who is this (man)?” I replied, “My foster brother.” He said, “O ‘Aisha! Be sure about your foster brothers, as fostership is only valid if it takes place in the suckling period (before two years of age)” (Book #48, Hadith #815, which is from Bukhari, a more reliable source than Muslim). In yet another hadith (Bukhari 62:39), the Prophet says, “a suckling relationship is established only when milk is the only food of the child.” But most important of all in discrediting this hadith 100% as Islamic doctrine today is verse 2:233 of the Quran, which sets the two year old infant threshold as the maximum age for suckling.

    As for Bukhari 6:301, this is referencing the same incident as the hadith I already commented on, and it supports the same interpretation that I already gave, except even more so given the additional context here. The Prophet Muhammad was not making any official pronouncement. He was passing by a few women on the way to or from the mosque. He was speaking only to them, clearly with some tongue-in-cheek rhetorical emphasis to bring across his main point in a playful manner, which you completely glossed over: to urge them to give more alms, not to backbite/curse, and to be more grateful to their husbands. What is the crucial point to support that this was spoken very lightly, in a jovial environment? It clearly says that it was the time of ‘Id-al-Adha or Id Al-Fitr prayer in the hadith, which are the two main days of celebration, merriment, music, and having community fun in Islam. The Id prayer itself is not even an obligatory prayer, since it is more a social than religious event. If you had ever experienced Id in your life, you would know how abundantly clear this would be. Another point in the hadith that points at the joking around are how the women played along so coyly with his comments, and how he said to those specific women, “I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you” (meaning, for rhetorical emphasis, that they need to put extra special effort into heeding his advice to do the good things that he is suggesting). This is not something that the Prophet would say except in jest, since there are no examples of him saying such insults seriously to others, let alone on the joyful day of Id, and let alone to a group of individuals that obviously could not be of the same piety or intelligence. He also said, “A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” This is no doubt just a playful compliment referencing their exceptional beauty and ornamentation on the day of Id, where all the women wear their finest outfits, even to this day. Once again, if you had ever experienced Id, this would be exceedingly obvious to you. Yet another indicator of the frolicking around are the absurdly funny reasons he gave for those women’s lack of intelligence and religion. There are no other references at all for a woman being deficient in religion because of natural bodily functions that she has no ability to control. As for the “intelligence” remark, this is also obviously a jestful play on words given the very limited applicability of verse 2:282 in referencing two female witnesses (see below). It is very unfortunate that the tone and joyful nature of the environment could not be recorded with this static hadith text because of how twisted and literal individuals are today, 1400+ years later, in reading the static text alone.

    Right of Divorce

    As for divorce, women have the full right of divorce, just like men. Going to the court for divorce is done for the same reason that it is normally required in the United States today: to settle upon any contractual marital property in dispute. In Islam, women have their own property separate from their husbands, but the property in dispute would be the dowry that is the obligation of husbands to pay to their wives in return for marriage. If a woman waives the right to this disputed property and has no valid reason for divorce other than her own whim or unsupported preference to divorce, then her divorce can still be immediate, just like for men. For example, a woman came to the Prophet Muhammad seeking the dissolution of her marriage, and she told the Prophet that she did not have any complaints against her husband’s character or manners (i.e., she had no real reason for divorce). Her only problem was that she honestly did not like him to the extent of not being able to live with him any longer. Here is one hadith on this incident: Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: The wife of Thabit bin Qais bin Shammas came to the Prophet and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I do not blame Thabit for any defects in his character or his religion, but I am afraid that I (being a Muslim) may become unthankful for Allah’s Blessings.” On that, Allah’s Apostle said (to her), ‘Will you return his garden to him?” She said, “Yes.” So she returned his garden to him and the Prophet told him to divorce her.” (Bukhari 63:199). It was that simple, that quick. Now it is even better for the man not to ask for any of the dowry back. Moreover, he is NOT allowed to ask for it back when the wife successfully sues for a divorce for any number of valid reasons, including abuse from her husband. Here are some quotes from the Quran on this matter:

    “And if a woman fears aversion from her husband or ill treatment, there is no harm if they make a peaceful settlement [divorce]; and peace is an excellent thing.” (4:128). This verse makes it clear that a woman can initiate a divorce in her favor (i.e., all dowry remains with her) based on a husband’s neglect or abuse of her in any way.

    “If you want to take another wife in place of the one that you are married to, then even if you have given her a talent of gold, do not take back a thing. Would you take it away by slandering and using unjust means.” (4:20) This verse makes it clear that a man cannot take back anything when he whimsically divorces a woman for no other reason than to marry a different woman. It also makes it a sin for a man to invent slanders or other claims against a woman so that he can try to make a claim against the dowry or a part of it in a court proceeding.

    “You are not allowed to take away the least of what you have given your wives.” (2:229). Once again, it is making the rights of a woman’s property given to her by her husband sacrosanct, even in divorce, which is the context of this verse. Verse 2:237 adds the condition that a man must surrender at least half the dowry if a divorce is sued for before the marriage is consummated, which could only be the case in an extremely short marriage. Paying all of it, though, “is nearer to piety”.

    Women Unequal to Men

    As for your other claims that women are unequal to men, this is stated from the western assumption and position that men and women have equivalent responsibilities and roles, which is not the position of Islam. Islam believes in the specialization of roles in the family, in the same way that Adam Smith believed in the benefits of division and specialization of labor. Islam also recognizes the undeniable biological differences in males and females to optimize them for different roles. That does not mean, however, that such roles are restrictive and can’t overlap – women are free to earn their own income as well, for example. Prophet Muhammad’s first wife, who was also his ONLY wife for 24 years, was about 15 years his elder and was the one who employed HIM in HER business. Now how is that for evidence of Prophet Muhammad recognizing and respecting the rights of women!

    Does this separation of roles in Islam meet the “American values” litmus test? Yes, partially, since separation of roles exists all over the world to a large extent. However, this is clearly one case where I would say that it does not agree to the most modern western standard – a standard that itself has proven to be very flawed on numerous levels given the breakdown of the family unit and other negative social developments of recent decades. Whether you agree or disagree with this position, you must agree that the choice of role separation is a private choice for a Muslim family to decide for itself and has nothing to do with Muslim vs. non-Muslim relations (the topic of debate in this thread). So we really are seriously digressing here. That said, since I am getting bored with your “Islam promotes hate” chanting, I will take the time to digress onto your points about the inequality of women:

    Polygamy, Pre-Marital Sex And Forced Sex

    I have already addressed the last two issues in a previous post. Both pre-marital sex and forced sex of any kind are strictly forbidden. The reference to “captives” or “slaves” was also already explained as a reference to “those with whom you have contractual relations”: the female refugees of war specified in verse 60:10. It has nothing to do with mut’a marriage, which is forbidden in Islam. As for polygamy, this is a concession for extraordinary circumstances, with the goal to make sure that all women are provided for, particularly in a time of war when there is a deficiency of men to take care of them. Another very common scenario would be when a woman is incapable of fulfilling her marital duties, is disabled, elderly or whatever. In western society, such women are discarded like garbage, left to fend for themselves, but in Islam, they must remain provided for. Note verse 4:19 in this respect: “Live with them [i.e., wives] with tolerance and justice, even if you do not care for [i.e., love] them. For it may well be you may not like a thing, yet God may have endued it with much goodness.” The burden is 100% on the men to take responsibility for women, not the other way around, or even 50/50. Also, if a woman were allowed to marry multiple men, there would have been no way to know who impregnated her, among many other familial and social difficulties (which man would be head of household, etc.).

    Polygamy is a simple necessity of practical life under extraordinary circumstances (i.e., when other alternatives are worse), but it is clearly frowned upon as a common practice, even in the Quran. For example, verse 4:1 adds the condition, “if you fear you cannot treat so many with equity, marry only one”, and verse 4:29 says, “however you may try, you will never be able to treat your wives equally”. Taking these two together makes the practice very ill-advised under any normal circumstance, to say the least. And 4:24 says, “seek them [women] with your wealth for wedlock and not for debauchery [lechery]. Then give those of these women you have enjoyed, the agreed dower.” Polygamy is a concession with significant financial and other responsibilities for men attached to it, not a license for irresponsibility or lechery. It is an allowed freedom, not a religious restriction like New Testament Christians must comply with at all costs; and it can benefit women just as much as men. Moreover, if an existing wife doesn’t accept it, she has a valid claim to be entitled to an immediate, uncontested divorce (with dowry going fully to her benefit per verse 4:20 above).

    Beating Women

    I am glad that you brought this up, since this is one issue where I don’t blame the lies so much on this web site. I blame the Muslims themselves for perpetuating this lie about beating women. Although you might be able to dig up some hadiths that appear to indicate some reluctant tolerance of its continued practice in the early Muslim community, the opinion — and most importantly, the sunnah – of the Prophet Muhammad on this practice is clear: it is forbidden. Here are some quotes: “How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?” (Bukhari 73:68). “A’isha reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) NEVER BEAT ANYONE WITH HIS HAND, neither a woman nor a servant, but only, in the case when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah, and he never took revenge for anything unless the things made inviolable by Allah were made violable.” (Muslim 030:5756). Although there could appear to be some hint of tolerance in beating women in hadiths by other members of the community, when the sunnah of the Prophet explicitly forbids it, please take note of my previous warning against using cherrypicked hadith as primary Islamic doctrine (for today’s Muslims) given the period of time it would have taken for any disruptive religion like Islam to take root as a full culture in the early Muslim community. Moreover, the entire purpose of hadith in terms of how a Muslim should behave according to Islamic doctrine TODAY is not to emulate every practice of the early Muslim community, but to emulate the actual practice (sunnah) of the Prophet Muhammad. On this note, the hadith is clear, as narrated and vouched for by his own wife: PROPHET MUHAMMAD NEVER BEAT ANY WOMAN.

    With respect to the Quran, there is only one singular verse that is always quoted in support of beating wives: 4:34. And within that verse, absolutely EVERYTHING hinges on the translation of a single Arabic word, which sounds phonetically like “daraba”. According to the translation that I often use, by Ahmed Ali, the third condition at issue in verse 4:34 most likely means “go to bed with them (when they are willing)”, which is diametrically opposed to “beat them”, per other translations. Ahmed Ali bases his translation on the fact that “daraba” is often used elsewhere as the non-explicit meaning of sexual intercourse when it is abundantly clear that sexual intercourse is being referred to, as in “darab al-fahl an-naqah”, which means when “the stud camel covered the she camel”. Another reference is in verse 7:189, where it says “When the man covered the woman, she conceived a light burden and carried it about. And when she was heavy (with child) they prayed together to their Lord.” And further, in 2:187, it refers quite beautifully to the freedom to have sexual relations with wives in this way: “they are a cover for you, and you are a cover for them.” Therefore, Ahmed Ali’s version is a very compelling translation indeed. It also fits very well with the context of the immediately preceding verse, which says “leave them alone in bed” (i.e., to make their hearts go fonder with absence before coming back into bed with them), and the advice before that verse, which says, “talk to them suasively”. So tell me, how could such soft persuasion and then sexual self-restraint on the part of the man to win over his wife’s heart then follow with a verse that effectively says “beat the bitch”?

    In another translation of the Quran, called “Quran: A Reformist Translation”, it actually covers verse 4:34 in excruciating detail as one example of a consistently misogynist bias among many Muslim translators. The Arabic word “daraba” has at least 10 different literal meanings, per the authors of this book, so it is easily twisted to suit a meaning like “beat” that was not originally intended. There are much more specific Arabic words that mean to physically beat or scourge. You can actually read this section of the book for free on Amazon, per p. 17, since this is one of the “first pages” that Amazon shows when you “look inside” the book. The translation translates the key phrase as “leave her” (i.e., separate from her if all else fails), since “leave” or “separate from” is a valid translation of the Arabic word “daraba”. This translation actually fits extremely well with the immediate context afterwards, which states wives should not be blamed if they “open out to you” later (i.e., come back to you after separation). And then in the next verse after that it says what to do “if you fear a breach [divorce] between them” (husband and wife, i.e., if the separation keeps going on too long). In this case, it offers the very sensible advice “to appoint one arbiter from the people of the man and one from the people of the woman. If they wish to have a settlement, then God will reconcile them.” Please tell me why arbiters would be necessary if husband and wife were not already separated and how the Quran’s advice of arbitration to resolve differences could possibly fit with the immediately preceding verse translated to mean that the wife should be beaten into submission first! It doesn’t. Both the context of the verse in the Quran and the unequivocal context of the Prophet’s perfect behavior with his wives attest that translating this verse as “beat them” has no support whatsoever.

    Male vs. Female Inheritance

    It is not always the case that females would get half the inheritance of men. In some cases, they would get exactly the same, and in others females may get more than males, depending on which different types of relationships apply in a given estate. The rules are fairly complex, mostly laid out in the Quran, but also some in the hadith, so I am not going to go over all the details. However, I concede your main point that women for the most part would get half, such as in the typical example of a single parent who leaves wealth only to one son and two daughters: the boy would get the same as the two girls in total. In isolation, this certainly does seem unfair, but Islam is a social system, and that system must be looked at as a whole.

    The reason for this difference is simply because males are 100% responsible for the dowry in the marriage contract. The dowry itself comes from the husband’s wealth, which for a young husband would normally be entirely from his family’s inheritance. Therefore, at a minimum, even if the woman were to share the benefits of her dowry from her husband equally with him during their marriage, she would get the benefit of 50% of her own inheritance plus 50% of his inheritance from the dowry, thereby coming to 100% (equality), on average (assuming men and women come from families of comparable inheritance, which should be statistically true on average). If she didn’t share any of the benefits of her dowry with her husband, which she is fully entitled to do, then she would effectively get up to 150% of the inheritance benefit (including dowry), whereas he could get as little as 0% if he pledged his whole inheritance as dowry to the marriage (or 50% if he pledged half). As another example, if he pledged 50% of his wealth as dowry to the marriage and his wife shared this equally with him, then we would be back to an equal sharing of wealth between men and women (i.e., 50% + 50%/2 = 50% + 50%/2); if she kept all the dowry for her own benefit (as would be the norm), he would get 50% of the standard inheritance benefit (ceteris paribus across families), and she would get 100% (i.e., the 50% from her parents + the 50% from her husband). Run through the math yourself, and you will see that the woman comes out equally, or more likely well ahead, of her husband in terms of overall transfer of community wealth once the benefits of dowry are factored in.

    Women’s Testimony

    The idea that a woman’s testimony in court is worth half a man’s is nonsense. A woman’s testimony in court is equal to that of a man. In fact, a single woman’s testimony has the power to invalidate a single man’s testimony, and that is IN COURT. This is proven by verses 24:4-9, which address a claim by a husbands that his wife is committing adultery. Verse 24:8 states, “The woman’s punishment can be averted if she swears four times by God as testimony that her husband is a liar.” This is the only reference to testimony of woman IN COURT in the entire Quran that I am aware of. The only other reference to testimony of women that I am aware of is in verse 2:282, which refers to witnesses to financial transactions involving debt. First of all, take note that this verse is in reference to women being a third party witness to a contract between two other parties. The women are merely witnesses to the terms of the contract, not parties to the contract. Second, it involves debt payable over an extended period of time, which clearly can involve high pressure measures to enforce or bypass the contract terms. Third, which is the most important point here, it involves an UNWRITTEN contract, such as when the borrower (who is the one responsible for writing down the terms per this verse) is “deficient of mind or infirm” and is relying on the dictation of a guardian (i.e., without a scribe) to “record” the contract via witnesses – a very precarious set of circumstances, indeed, given the potential conflicts involved if there is a breach. In this situation, THE WITNESSES THEMSELVES ARE THE ONES WHO RECORD, VOUCHSAFE, AND PROTECT THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, SINCE THERE IS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT. This is why this verse emphasizes both in the beginning and at the end of the verse to do the contract IN WRITING rather than via witnesses alone: “draw up an agreement in writing” at the beginning of the verse; and at the end, “But do not neglect to draw up a contract, big or small, with the time fixed for paying back the debt. This is more equitable in the eyes of God, and BETTER AS EVIDENCE AND BEST FOR AVOIDING DOUBT.”

    The verse states that two women should be used “in case one errs”, but the key question is why she would err, which is implied in the same verse 2:282: “Have witnesses to the deal, (and make sure) that the scribe or the witness IS NOT HARMED. If he is, it would surely be sinful on your part.” This verse makes it clear that the agreement is supported either by a scribe, who vouchsafes the written contract; or by witnesses, who vouchsafe the exact terms of the verbal contract. Clearly, this verse is for the protection of women from being subjected to high pressure by the party breaching the contract. The presence and support of other women would reduce the pressure and possibility of perjury. Supporting this interpretation even further is why another woman is there “in case one errs”. The answer: simply to “remind her”. But “reminder her” of what? The very next phrase answers that question: that “When the witnesses are summoned, they should not refuse (to give witness and to do so accurately).” Clearly, the only reason a woman would outright refuse to give witness or to do so inaccurately – both undeniably grave sins in Islam – would be because of threats or other means of coercion behind the scenes. This added verse only makes sense in terms of connecting to what the reminder is about, since giving clear and accurate witness is already a clear obligation on Muslims per other doctrine. One woman effectively makes the other woman publicly accountable to the truth regarding the contract terms when either of them may otherwise be coerced into committing perjury or not giving any witness at all. And the verse itself creates a very effective deterrent (via distributed accountability) against the strong exploiting an otherwise easy opportunity to coerce the weak for simple financial gain.

    Although verbal contracts were very common in earlier times due to extreme levels of illiteracy, total lack of paper, etc., they are certainly no longer needed in any modern country. So, effectively, this verse requiring two female witnesses in such verbal debt agreements becomes irrelevant under contract law today. Some interpreters of this verse have opined that the two female witnesses would also be better given the general role of Muslim females, who would not be as experienced (or “intelligent”, referencing that one misinterpreted hadith above) in verbal debt contract terms as males, given that males are the primary commercial contractors/traders/earners in a Muslim family. I don’t believe that this is a valid interpretation, but even if it is, it is certainly not a necessary interpretation to argue. It is also not supported by the context of potential “harm” coming to the witnesses, who would clearly be in danger of physical or other coercion; hence the need for distributed accountability of female witnesses. Moreover, such an interpretation does not change the fact that this verse is effectively irrelevant under written contract law today in all modern countries.

50. Armed Infidel

    November 5, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon,

    You wrote:

    (Un)Armed Infidel,

    Ah, the predictable last refuge of a desperate mind and intellectual coward conceding to defeat: the ad hominem attack. I have clearly and easily rebutted every single one of your pathetic arguments against Islam. Yet you have absolutely NOTHING to offer in terms of any counter-rebuttal besides talking about my feelings. I am touched at your thoughtfulness, but only the facts and arguments matter here, nothing else. On that score, the results are clearly in. As the saying goes: You have been weighed. You have been measured. And you have been found wanting.

    Now go back to Billy’s KoolAid. He will be able to tell you all kinds of comforting, titillating stories about whatever you want to hear most about Islam — Taqiyya, Kitman, Dhimmi robots, Kafir sex slaves, impenetrable statistics without all that silly data, homosexual pedophilia, new and improved defecation titles, a whole new Koran written by Billy himself that promises only to reinforce your beliefs, and whatever else your heart desires. He will help you lick your wounds and nurse you back to your old self. He will make the world all clear for you again. The whites will all be whiter, and the blacks will all be blacker — just as it always should be.”
    Chameleon ” October 31, 2011 @ 11:31 PM

    Here is my response to you:

    As an atheist, I do not support any belief system, especially a dangerous one that claims to be a “religion of the only god of the universe” which is at best a work of fiction that was (according to Islam) fabricated from the sick mind of your mentally deranged, illiterate, schizophrenic, sociopathic so-called Prophet Mohammad (shit be upon him). I do not and will not ever defend, follow, or support any belief system – to include Christianity, as they are all, in my opinion, works of fiction. The biggest work of fiction is Islam. I also do not believe in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, Sasquatch, Norwegian Trolls, or Irish Leprechauns either.

    I have not come to this forum to argue or debate with you, or any other brainwashed Muslim clown like you, about the merits of your totalitarian, supremacist ideology of Islam, quite frankly, because there are none to debate. There is not one single socially redeeming quality to Islam. The only good thing about the Koran that I keep in my bathroom is that it allows me the opportunity, when I run out of toilet paper, to use the pages to wipe my ass. In this sense, there is great practical value not only to me, but to all Kuffars as well; and it also makes a great front door stop, and I occasionally have an opportunity to use it to remove some stubborn dirt from the soles of my shoes.

    You are the perfect example of the old adage that “it is impossible for one to argue with a sick mind” and in reading your whining (like a little bitch, I might add), sniveling, and proselytizing about the fictional construct of Islam, it is clear to me that you need to increase the dosage of the medications that you surely must be taking. And I am well aware that your sick and twisted brainwashed Muslim mind has already been made up about Islam and nothing I do or say is going to change that fact. So do not expect to get any counter-rebuttals from me, because I never intended to give you any in the first place. I am not here to debate you or get bogged down in the minutiae about Islam since, as apparently everyone knows except you, there is only one correct fictional source (and it is not you or me) and that is the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammad (shit be upon him).

    Here are some more disturbing aspects about Islam that you will find interesting:

    1. Islam displays many of the attributes of a “Cult of Personality” based on the life of its Prophet Muhammad (shit be upon him).

    2. The ideological indoctrination of Muslims is so thorough that they manipulate their own thought processes so that Islam is internalized as “the only truth.” Incoming information is filtered through their homophobic and intolerant 7th Century totalitarian ideology of hatred, deceit, racism, bigotry, misogyny, pedophilia, anti-Semitism, slavery, terrorism, murder, rape, humiliation, control, domination, and submission of the Kuffar. Filtering information through the Koran, the Sira, and the Hadiths allows Muslims to regulate how this information is thought about.

    3. One way in which Muslims are “controlled” is by way of the “thought stopping” technique of concentrated praying five times a day, towards Mecca, to Allah the only God in their universe.

    4. Fear is used to manipulate Muslims in two ways. The first is to create an outside enemy (Muslims vs the Kuffar) who is always persecuting them. This is why Muslims are ‘always the victim’ at every opportunity when dealing with the Kuffar. This is also why there are no ‘innocent’ Kafirs. The second is the fear of punishment if they are not “good enough.” Being “good enough” is following their ideology perfectly. “Being a good Muslim.” e.g. waging jihad against the Kuffar wherever a Muslim may find them.

    5. Muslims have a sense of “higher purpose” and see themselves as “the best of people” and as being the “keepers of the truth.” By becoming the instruments of their own ideology, ‘the foot soldiers of Allah,’ they create a mystical aura around Islam and will destroy anyone or anything that get in its way. They are ‘the chosen ones’ to carry out the Islamic imperative of total world domination under one caliphate of Islamic nations. The pursuit of this Islamic imperative supersedes all considerations of human decency of immediate human welfare against the Kuffar. In Islam the end justifies the means since the Kuffar are considered to be the lowest form of life, ‘the worst of people.’ A Muslim can lie, cheat, rape, steal from, deceive or whatever to the Kuffar outside of Islam. Association with the Kuffar is only to benefit and advance Islam in some way. Islam calls this ‘sacred deception’ by way of ‘taqiyya’ and/or ‘kitman.’ Muslims believe in their ideology to such a fanatical degree that they internalize and rationalize their ‘sacred deceptions.’

    6. All impurities in the world seem to originate from ‘outside’ Islam. Therefore, Muslims relieve themselves of this burden by denouncing the Kuffar (especially Jews) with great hostility and violence. Muslims will point to the mistakes of all other belief systems while promoting Islam’s own purity. This gives Muslims the impression that Islam is perfect, clean, and pure as an ideology and as a people. Muslims look at the world as ‘us’ and ‘them.’ Ethically, Muslims do not believe in ‘right’ or wrong,’ rather, what (according to Muhammad) what is ‘permitted’ and what is ‘forbidden.’ Why? Because Muslims believe that their Prophet Mohammad (shit be upon him) was the perfect man for all times and is to be emulated by all Muslim men.

    7. Muslims believe that Islam is the absolute truth and that it is sacred – beyond questioning. Islam’s ultimate moral vision becomes the ultimate science and the Muslims (or Kuffar) who dares criticize it, or even think criticism, are immoral, irreverent and ‘unscientific.” They are ‘bad Muslims” who have blasphemed!! Try to leave Islam and you become an apostate, the worst of offenses – and according to Sharia law apostates can be killed.

    8. Islamic doctrine supersedes human experience. The Islamic ideology merges with Muslims’ ‘truth’ and the resulting deduction can be so overpowering and coercive that it simply replaces reality. “Consequently past events can be altered, rewritten, plagiarized, or even ignored to make them consistent with the Islamic version of reality.” “The deaths of over 270 million Kuffar and the annihilation of native cultures at the hands of Muslims over the last 1400 years never happened.” “The act of war by against America on 9/11 was not done by Muslims, it was a ‘conspiracy’ by others; or it was done by a few ‘radicals’ within Islam who have hijacked and twisted its message of peace.” (According to Islam “peace” will only come once all the Kuffar have been subdued) “The over 18,000 attacks of jihad against the Kuffar since 9/11 all around the world were not by Muslims, but by others.” It is interesting to note that at no point will Muslims ever admit to or take responsibility for their violent actions against the Kuffar.

    9. According to Sharia law, Muslims have the right to decide who is worthy of life and who isn’t. They also decide which history books are accurate and which are not. e.g. the Islamic whitewashing of textbooks in America’s education system which presents a sugarcoated version of Islam as “a religion of peace” that “wants to co-exist peacefully with all others.” Whitewashed textbooks that tell about “the Golden Age of Islam” and all “the wonderful things Islam has done for the world.” All of which are pure Islamic propaganda not founded any truth. Those in Islam are worthy of life; the Kuffar outside Islam are only worthy of death. According to Islam, the Kuffar may be permitted to live if they convert to Islam and become a Muslim, are willing to live as a third-class dhimmi semi-slave under the oppressive totalitarian yoke of Islam; otherwise, they are brutally killed for not believing in the Prophet Mohammad (shit be upon him).

    Chameleon, it is obvious to me from reading your misguided rants, that you are nothing more than a pitiful and pathetic little sub-human who really does come across as an arrogant, condescending, irreverent, uneducated, brainwashed, pseudo-confident little jackass. And it is more than obvious that your modus operandi in submitting your written propaganda on Mr. Warner’s most respectable and accurate forum is to proselytize and wage jihad in the name of your moon god Allah (shit be upon him) in a failed attempt to advance the Islamic agenda.

    It is a testament to Mr. Warner’s excellent body of work that he knows more about Islam than you do, that he is the one who really understands it and has been able to articulate the truth about Islam based upon the Koran, and the Sunna of Mohammand (shit be upon him), not you. You, on the other hand, have done your best and failed to obfuscate that truth from us, because we know better, we are educated, and we see right through you”you do not fool us and this must really frustrate you to no end. We are not the “stupid and ignorant dhimmis that you are used to bullying around, are we?

    So the real question is why would you want to go out of your way, go to so much effort, to propagandize the truth about Islam to the Kuffar as based on your own Koran and Sunna of Mohammad (shit be upon him)? I can tell you why, deep down you are proud of the horrors of Islam, you relish any opportunity to wage jihad, and most importantly because you are attempting to hide the truth (from the Kuffar) that Islam is a homophobic and intolerant 7th Century totalitarian ideology of hatred, deceit, racism, bigotry, misogyny, pedophilia, anti-Semitism, slavery, terrorism, murder, rape, humiliation, control, domination, and submission of the Kuffar. You don’t want us to know the ugly truth, but we already know, can’t you see that? Are you really that stupid? I guess you are really that stupid. You are a self-declared foot soldier of Allah (more shit be upon him too), a self-professed “Defender of Islam” who has come to Mr. Warner’s forum to wage jihad against the Kuffar within the information battlespace. Your attacks have failed, and will continue to fail, because all of the other contributors (with the rare exception of your Muslim brother El-Guindy) on this forum are not buying anything that you have for sale, we all see right through your taqiyya, we all see right through your kitman, and we see right through your propaganda – you have failed to convince any of us to come over to your “dark side.” Just like your (fictitious) Prophet Mohammad (shit be upon him) failed as a religious preacher in Mecca, you have failed as a convincer on Mr. Warner’s forum. The one thing you have convinced me of is that you are deluded and confused, as is your Muslim brother El-Guindy.

    So, let me do a quick review of the short list of all of the wonderful attributes about Islam that you as a Muslim believe in to the core, but are trying to hide from us so that we do not find out the ugly and horrible 1400-year history of your so-called “religion of peace:”

    • Totalitarianism
    • Supremacism
    • Homophobia
    • Intolerance
    • Misogyny (rape, beating, subjugating, dominating, etc.)
    • Pedophilia (against boys and girls)
    • Anti-Semitism (ingrained desire to kill all Jews)
    • Slavery
    • Terrorism
    • Bigotry
    • Racism
    • Taqiyya
    • Kitman
    • Subjugation of Kuffars
    • Domination of Kuffars
    • Murder of Kuffars who refuse to be subjugated
    • Annihilation of all native Kuffar cultures
    • Hatred
    • Martyrdom
    • Islamic Paradise (you know, the 72 virgins and a cameo appearance with Allah [shit be upon him] himself.)
    • Halal food (torture and suffering of animals)
    • Adultery (Mu’ta marriages)
    • Sharia law (stoning, hanging homosexuals, beating, cutting off heads, cutting off tongues, need I say more about this wonderful concept?)
    • Deceit
    • Lying
    • Cheating
    • Stealing
    • Jihad (against the Kuffar)

    Now, after reading this short list, (did I miss anything?) how are you feeling Chameleon? Pretty good about yourself and your wonderful “religion of peace,” right? A whole lot of great attributes that you can feel to proud of as you are cutting the head off of some Kafir who does not believe that your Mohammad is the Prophet (shit be upon him)! You are probably thinking that I have a lot of hate built-up within me about Islam and Muslims, right? Well, what is there not to hate? Give me one good example of anything positive that Islam has actually done for the world in its brutal 1400-year history.
    You say you have detected some hatred in the tone of my writing? All I needed to learn about Islam happened on 9/11, when your sick and twisted Muslim brothers waged jihad by attacking my country and murdering over 3000 of my fellow countrymen. And to think that these cult members really believed that they would be going to Islamic Paradise! What a bunch of brainwashed idiots!! As an aside, did you know that the lead hijacker Mohammad Atta’s suitcase did not get on the hijacked plane with him? It is a crying shame that he showed up in Islamic Paradise without his suitcase!! A real shame!
    As you know, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, was killed a while back in Pakistan. I think America should have taken the advice of Pat Condell and, “he should have been not been buried at sea; rather, he should have been brought back from Pakistan and mounted on a tall stake at Ground Zero pickled in alcohol, with a porkshop shoved in his mouth, and a fireman’s axe shoved all the way up his ass” for everyone to see.

    Hatred? You better believe I harbor hatred against you and your fellow Muslims for declaring war on me and my country and the destruction of our Constitution and our American way of life. Why wouldn’t I harbor hatred? Muslims refuse to assimilate into our American culture, all you do is make demands for us to adapt to your “special needs.” Muslims have come to America to dominate, not assimilate. As far as you and your fellow Muslims are concerned, you are the enemy and will be treated accordingly.

    Here are my suggestions to our political elites in Washington:

    1. Declare and engage in unconditional war against Islam, wherever it may exist.

    2. Declare (once and for all) that Islam is not a legitimate religion; rather, that Islam is a homophobic and intolerant 7th Century totalitarian ideology of hatred, deceit, misogyny, pedophilia, anti-Semitism, slavery, terrorism, murder, rape, humiliation, control, domination, submission, and the annihilator of all Kafir cultures and nations.

    3. Declare Islamic law (Sharia law) illegal and not compatible with Western democratic values.

    4. Deport all Muslims, forcefully if necessary. If a Muslim has gained legal citizenship, strip them of their citizenship prior to deportation. Also, make them pay back all of the welfare monies that they have received from the country in which they are living, if they are unable to pay restitution, then confiscate all of their personal valuables.

    5. Stop the legal immigration of Muslims. Stop Muslims from transiting across national borders into Western nations for any reason. e.g. tourism, work, visitation, etc.

    6. Stop the building of new mosques and systematically dismantle (with extreme prejudice) all existing mosques.

    7. Formally, re-educate the general populations of all Western nations to the truth about Islam, not the sugar-coated and whitewashed Islamic propaganda that permeates existing educational systems. e.g. that Islam is a “religion of peace that has been hijacked by a few radicals from within.”

    In closing, here is my suggestion to you, tuck your chameleon tail between your legs and crawl over to http://www.loonwatch.com where you can feel more comfortable with your fellow Muslims hypocrites. And while you are at it why don’t you take your misguided Muslim brother El-Guindy with you, I’m sure you will both feel right at home at your new forum – hanging out with your fellow cult members. I hear they have some of your favorite halal Kool-Aid waiting there for you. Oh, one last thing, don’t let the door hit you on the ass on your way out of Mr. Warner’s forum.

    But before you go how about writing us a loud Allahu akbar!!! Allahu akbar!!!

    Have a nice day!

51. Chameleon

    November 4, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    I have addressed all the new points above within my new post below, with the exception of the religious justifications of Hitler and Ossama bin Laden for their terrorist acts (including verse 4:84 for the latter). My post is too long already, so I will save those two arguments for my next post. However, just to give you a teaser for my thesis (in case you think I am avoiding the issue), you are completely missing the motivations and machinations of these terrorist leaders and their followers by continuing your futile and dry focus on religious doctrine. You are looking in all the wrong places for your answers. However, before I post anything on these two topics, I demand a reasoned reply to my final claim in my last post regarding the unconditional atonement doctrine of Christianity. I think you would agree that I deserve a reply after all my efforts to reply to (and completely debunk) your endless claims. For any of you who don’t reply, I can only conclude that you are conceding complete defeat to my claim, that the core doctrine of Christianity is a total, illogical farce.

    Democracyistheanswer, you first. I am not joking about the golden rule. The golden rule is how I live my life. I am ridiculing this site’s methods of Taqiyya, the very thing it claims to hate – its blatant hiding of the provable truth about Islam so that it can continue to spread flagrant lies. Now that the truth is clear, why don’t you check if the articles about Islam’s doctrinal deficiencies in this respect are retracted. If you are so concerned about lies, then why don’t you demand that they be retracted? I don’t have to check or demand, because I know that they won’t be.

    The golden rule is WORD FOR WORD part of Islam: “[ONE] SHOULD TREAT THE PEOPLE AS HE WISHES TO BE TREATED BY THEM.”. In fact, it is so important, that you will go to hell if you don’t follow it, per Prophet Muhammad. As for loving neighbors, you should do so to the extent that you feel as if your neighbors are your own children or immediate family (“heirs”). Please tell me how much more emphatic this message could be in Islam. These principles are just as much the essences of Islam. On a side note, Richard has come up with two quotes – very good. But that now leaves the score 6-2 in favor of Islam attaching more importance to these tenets, according to Bill’s statistical analysis of religious text. Once you can get up to 6, then you can call it even.

    Richard, now your turn. I see that you are beginning to make actual arguments now, so I give you credit for that; and thank you for not insulting everyone’s intelligence with just sound bites. Since the other poster also brought up verse 48:29, I will lead off there to close off my address of his post.

    The word “ruthless” is totally mistranslated in this verse and should actually be translated as “firm and unyielding” or “strong” (per two different translations). The Arabic word implies something that is unbending against force, which makes a huge difference to the meaning. “Ruthless” implies active, even unilateral, aggression; whereas “firm” implies strong resistance – for example, in the way I am being firm here in my rebuttal. Moreover, based on the clear and unambiguous rules of engagement outlined in suras 2, 9 and elsewhere, as well as the strong call to fight to resist persecution and oppression in the immediate context, unilateral aggression implied by the mistranslated word “ruthless” has no contextual support whatsoever. That interpretation would be completely contradictory to all Islamic doctrine.

    But let’s not stop there. Even the immediate context of 48:29 makes the interpretation obvious, which you conveniently omit. Verse 48:25 mentions the pretext for being firm against the unbelievers, because they were the ones “who hindered you from (going to) the Holy Mosque” and performing the rites of the pilgrimage. In other words, it was a clear case of religious oppression. In verse 48:26, it expands on the actual historical incident in question, supported at length by actual recorded history (from hadiths and other documents). In this incident, the Muslims came for the annual pilgrimage to Mecca (completely unarmed with only a single white sheet on) but were at first barred from doing so by the Quraish. After the Muslims stood firm and insisted over an extended period of time that they be allowed to perform their religious pilgrimage, the unbelievers backed down and finally relented. So what did the Muslims do to the unbelievers – be “ruthless” to them? No. This is what they did, per 48:26: “When the unbelievers fostered a sense of honor in their hearts, a sense of pagan honor, God sent down a sense of tranquility on His Apostle and the believers, and obliged them to an act of self-restraint, for they [the unbelievers] were deserving and worthy of it.” In other words, the Muslims practiced complete “self-restraint” with “a sense of tranquility” in dealing with the unbelievers. Wow! So what you are trying to do here is to turn what is the exact equivalent of Gandhi’s “non-violent resistance” philosophy in this incident into a totally opposite philosophy of ruthless violence! Are you serious?

    As for verses 2:191-193, let me address those now. This is an egregious case of you misquoting, taking quotes completely out of context and ignoring parts of what you did quote to conclude a totally opposite meaning: intolerance and injustice instead of unequivocal tolerance and justice. First of all, like any normal American would believe, I believe that anyone who is violently attacked via oppression or persecution is fully entitled to defend himself by fighting back. To believe otherwise is simply pacifist folly. If you believe that fighting back in any way equates to terrorism, then you should be the first to denounce the Declaration of Independence as a terrorist manifesto, since most of it is a laundry list of oppressions by the British as a justification for fighting back; moreover, you should be even more staunchly opposed to the unilateral, non-defensive military actions of the U.S. around the world.

    Second, verse 193 does not say keep fighting until “religion is for Allah”, as in until Islam rules the world. It says “Fight them UNTIL PERSECUTION (OR ‘SEDITION’) COMES TO AN END, and the law of God prevails.” Does this mean in any way to keep fighting until Islamic law dominates? The final part of verse 193, which you conveniently gloss over, answers that very question: “IF THEY DESIST, THEN CEASE TO BE HOSTILE, EXCEPT AGAINST THOSE WHO OPPRESS.” Again and again, my point is proven that Islam only allows fighting against persecution and oppression, not for aggression. The “law of God” is simply referring to the law of justice against persecution, which just happens to be also the law of every democratic country. It also refers to the law of God in the sense that Muslims must be allowed to fulfill the WHOLE of their religion and not be prevented from an essential element, such as prayer or pilgrimage. In words, it is about the basic human right of freedom of religion, which unequivocally passes what I call the “American values” litmus test AND Richard’s own litmus test (“Where it resorts to violence, it has to be firmly met with violence.”).

    Third, you also conveniently started with verse 191 and completely omitted verse 190, which puts into context why and when such fighting is allowed, and what are the strict limits put upon the definition and response to “persecution”: “Fight those in the way of God who fight you, but do not be aggressive: God does not like aggressors.” Please explain to me what part of terrorism, the most aggressive form of violence, is even remotely implied here! Even your own abridged misquote makes it clear that fighting is in response to persecution and oppression, so once again, you are shooting yourself in the foot without even my help!

    Your reference about Muslims driving Meccans (Quraish) out of their city is absurd and contradicts all historical facts. It is exactly the opposite. The Quraish drove out the Muslims. So where did the Quraish migrate to en masse, and what reputable historian is claiming this nonsense? Also, the Muslims did not “conquer” Mecca, at least not with violence. It was a bloodless surrender by the Quaraish, except for a few isolated incidents of revenge that the Prophet later condemned. Full amnesty was given by the Prophet, and no spoils of war were taken. Oh, I almost forgot to ask – so why is it on this occasion, and every other, that the Prophet failed to follow the unconditional kill order against unbelievers that you claim Islam commands? I demand an explanation.

    The Muslims were far from safe in Medina, with 2-3 tribes breaking their treaties treasonously with the Muslims and trying to kill the Prophet on two separate occasions, if not more. They were welcomed by many in Medina, I agree, but the powerful tribes there gradually saw the growing Muslim community as a threat to their control. The Muslims were persecuted for their religion in Mecca and driven from their homes and their lives in Mecca, which is why they were forced to emigrate to Medina. They had every right to return to Mecca to reclaim their homes, their lives, and their full freedom to worship as Muslims. Once again, such action would unequivocally pass the “American values” test as an appropriate response to persecution and oppression.

    As for 3:151, this is referring to what God will do in the hearts of unbelievers who ascribe compeers/partners to God, the gravest of sins in Islam, Judaism AND Christianity. It is none other than the First Commandment itself. Or did you conveniently forget that commandment in your worship of a man-god son of God? So how does this dreadful outcome not make sense? It is what God, and God alone, will do as His punishment on unbelievers for violating his most sacred commandment. There is nothing in this verse to command Muslims, or even to imply what Muslims should do.

    As for 4:36, you are bringing up a completely irrelevant phrase to the point about being kind to your neighbor, for which the Quran is even more clear and encompassing than the Bible by explicitly including neighbors who are strangers. As for the phrase in question, I have already been over this phrase in detail in two other posts. It refers to the female refugees of war who are free believers (not slaves) and become the responsibility of the Muslim community, per verse 60:10. Therefore, the translation is correct.

    As for 33:4, this does not ban adoption. It merely says “nor has He made your adopted sons your real sons” (i.e., “real” by blood relation). In 33:5, it says, “Call them by the names of their fathers. This is the right course in the sight of God.” In fact, these verses clearly acknowledge the reality and legality of adoption. It is only in how the adopted sons are referred to that changes. They should keep the name and recognized heritage of their true father — that is all.

    As for “suckling”, you are really digging for esoteric stuff here, aren’t you? This has nothing to do with the political Islam thread, and it also has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic doctrine of today, as I will show. At any rate, I will go through it. It was not a “grown man” being referred to, but “a young boy who is at the threshold of puberty” (008:3427). This is referring to the principle that only post-pubescent children who are suckled (raised) by the same foster mother can cohabit in a household with an otherwise unrelated woman (like brothers can with sisters). Moreover, in hadith Muslim 008:3429, one of the wives of the Prophet is denying that this type of thing was done or can be done as a workaround to the cohabitation restriction before reaching puberty. However, if it was done, she said, it was only for this one specific incident, since it has otherwise been forbidden; suckling must stop after the normal suckling period, which is a maximum of two years in Islam. The authenticity of this hadith is seriously questionable, since it contradicts other quotes of the Prophet (as well as his companions), where he denies that one or two sucklings will create a foster relationship, “One suckling or two do not make the (marriage) unlawful.” (Book #008, Hadith #3415). And yet another quote saying this even more emphatically: “Narrated Aisha: Once the Prophet came to me while a man was in my house. He said, “O ‘Aisha! Who is this (man)?” I replied, “My foster brother.” He said, “O ‘Aisha! Be sure about your foster brothers, as fostership is only valid if it takes place in the suckling period (before two years of age)” (Book #48, Hadith #815, which is from Bukhari, a more reliable source than Muslim). In yet another hadith (Bukhari 62:39), the Prophet says, “a suckling relationship is established only when milk is the only food of the child.” But most important of all in discrediting this hadith 100% as Islamic doctrine today is verse 2:233 of the Quran, which sets the two year old infant threshold as the maximum age for suckling.

    As for Bukhari 6:301, this is referencing the same incident as the hadith I already commented on, and it supports the same interpretation that I already gave, except even more so given the additional context here. The Prophet Muhammad was not making any official pronouncement. He was passing by a few women on the way to or from the mosque. He was speaking only to them, clearly with some tongue-in-cheek rhetorical emphasis to bring across his main point in a playful manner, which you completely glossed over: to urge them to give more alms, not to backbite/curse, and to be more grateful to their husbands. What is the crucial point to support that this was spoken very lightly, in a jovial environment? It clearly says that it was the time of ‘Id-al-Adha or Id Al-Fitr prayer in the hadith, which are the two main days of celebration, merriment, music, and having community fun in Islam. The Id prayer itself is not even an obligatory prayer, since it is more a social than religious event. If you had ever experienced Id in your life, you would know how abundantly clear this would be. Another point in the hadith that points at the joking around are how the women played along so coyly with his comments, and how he said to those specific women, “I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you” (meaning, for rhetorical emphasis, that they need to put extra special effort into heeding his advice to do the good things that he is suggesting). This is not something that the Prophet would say except in jest, since there are no examples of him saying such insults seriously to others, let alone on the joyful day of Id, and let alone to a group of individuals that obviously could not be of the same piety or intelligence. He also said, “A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” This is no doubt just a playful compliment referencing their exceptional beauty and ornamentation on the day of Id, where all the women wear their finest outfits, even to this day. Once again, if you had ever experienced Id, this would be exceedingly obvious to you. Yet another indicator of the frolicking around are the absurdly funny reasons he gave for those women’s lack of intelligence and religion. There are no other references at all for a woman being deficient in religion because of natural bodily functions that she has no ability to control. As for the “intelligence” remark, this is also obviously a jestful play on words given the very limited applicability of verse 2:282 in referencing two female witnesses (see below). It is very unfortunate that the tone and joyful nature of the environment could not be recorded with this static hadith text because of how twisted and literal individuals are today, 1400+ years later, in reading the static text alone.

    Right of Divorce

    As for divorce, women have the full right of divorce, just like men. Going to the court for divorce is done for the same reason that it is normally required in the United States today: to settle upon any contractual marital property in dispute. In Islam, women have their own property separate from their husbands, but the property in dispute would be the dowry that is the obligation of husbands to pay to their wives in return for marriage. If a woman waives the right to this disputed property and has no valid reason for divorce other than her own whim or unsupported preference to divorce, then her divorce can still be immediate, just like for men. For example, a woman came to the Prophet Muhammad seeking the dissolution of her marriage, and she told the Prophet that she did not have any complaints against her husband’s character or manners (i.e., she had no real reason for divorce). Her only problem was that she honestly did not like him to the extent of not being able to live with him any longer. Here is one hadith on this incident: Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: The wife of Thabit bin Qais bin Shammas came to the Prophet and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I do not blame Thabit for any defects in his character or his religion, but I am afraid that I (being a Muslim) may become unthankful for Allah’s Blessings.” On that, Allah’s Apostle said (to her), ‘Will you return his garden to him?” She said, “Yes.” So she returned his garden to him and the Prophet told him to divorce her.” (Bukhari 63:199). It was that simple, that quick. Now it is even better for the man not to ask for any of the dowry back. Moreover, he is NOT allowed to ask for it back when the wife successfully sues for a divorce for any number of valid reasons, including abuse from her husband. Here are some quotes from the Quran on this matter:

    “And if a woman fears aversion from her husband or ill treatment, there is no harm if they make a peaceful settlement [divorce]; and peace is an excellent thing.” (4:128). This verse makes it clear that a woman can initiate a divorce in her favor (i.e., all dowry remains with her) based on a husband’s neglect or abuse of her in any way.

    “If you want to take another wife in place of the one that you are married to, then even if you have given her a talent of gold, do not take back a thing. Would you take it away by slandering and using unjust means.” (4:20) This verse makes it clear that a man cannot take back anything when he whimsically divorces a woman for no other reason than to marry a different woman. It also makes it a sin for a man to invent slanders or other claims against a woman so that he can try to make a claim against the dowry or a part of it in a court proceeding.

    “You are not allowed to take away the least of what you have given your wives.” (2:229). Once again, it is making the rights of a woman’s property given to her by her husband sacrosanct, even in divorce, which is the context of this verse. Verse 2:237 adds the condition that a man must surrender at least half the dowry if a divorce is sued for before the marriage is consummated, which could only be the case in an extremely short marriage. Paying all of it, though, “is nearer to piety”.

    Women Unequal to Men

    As for your other claims that women are unequal to men, this is stated from the western assumption and position that men and women have equivalent responsibilities and roles, which is not the position of Islam. Islam believes in the specialization of roles in the family, in the same way that Adam Smith believed in the benefits of division and specialization of labor. Islam also recognizes the undeniable biological differences in males and females to optimize them for different roles. That does not mean, however, that such roles are restrictive and can’t overlap – women are free to earn their own income as well, for example. Prophet Muhammad’s first wife, who was also his ONLY wife for 24 years, was about 15 years his elder and was the one who employed HIM in HER business. Now how is that for evidence of Prophet Muhammad recognizing and respecting the rights of women!

    Does this separation of roles in Islam meet the “American values” litmus test? Yes, partially, since separation of roles exists all over the world to a large extent. However, this is clearly one case where I would say that it does not agree to the most modern western standard – a standard that itself has proven to be very flawed on numerous levels given the breakdown of the family unit and other negative social developments of recent decades. Whether you agree or disagree with this position, you must agree that the choice of role separation is a private choice for a Muslim family to decide for itself and has nothing to do with Muslim vs. non-Muslim relations (the topic of debate in this thread). So we really are seriously digressing here. That said, since I am getting bored with your “Islam promotes hate” chanting, I will take the time to digress onto your points about the inequality of women:

    Polygamy, Pre-Marital Sex And Forced Sex

    I have already addressed the last two issues in a previous post. Both pre-marital sex and forced sex of any kind are strictly forbidden. The reference to “captives” or “slaves” was also already explained as a reference to “those with whom you have contractual relations”: the female refugees of war specified in verse 60:10. It has nothing to do with mut’a marriage, which is forbidden in Islam. As for polygamy, this is a concession for extraordinary circumstances, with the goal to make sure that all women are provided for, particularly in a time of war when there is a deficiency of men to take care of them. Another very common scenario would be when a woman is incapable of fulfilling her marital duties, is disabled, elderly or whatever. In western society, such women are discarded like garbage, left to fend for themselves, but in Islam, they must remain provided for. Note verse 4:19 in this respect: “Live with them [i.e., wives] with tolerance and justice, even if you do not care for [i.e., love] them. For it may well be you may not like a thing, yet God may have endued it with much goodness.” The burden is 100% on the men to take responsibility for women, not the other way around, or even 50/50. Also, if a woman were allowed to marry multiple men, there would have been no way to know who impregnated her, among many other familial and social difficulties (which man would be head of household, etc.).

    Polygamy is a simple necessity of practical life under extraordinary circumstances (i.e., when other alternatives are worse), but it is clearly frowned upon as a common practice, even in the Quran. For example, verse 4:1 adds the condition, “if you fear you cannot treat so many with equity, marry only one”, and verse 4:29 says, “however you may try, you will never be able to treat your wives equally”. Taking these two together makes the practice very ill-advised under any normal circumstance, to say the least. And 4:24 says, “seek them [women] with your wealth for wedlock and not for debauchery [lechery]. Then give those of these women you have enjoyed, the agreed dower.” Polygamy is a concession with significant financial and other responsibilities for men attached to it, not a license for irresponsibility or lechery. It is an allowed freedom, not a religious restriction like New Testament Christians must comply with at all costs; and it can benefit women just as much as men. Moreover, if an existing wife doesn’t accept it, she has a valid claim to be entitled to an immediate, uncontested divorce (with dowry going fully to her benefit per verse 4:20 above).

    Beating Women

    I am glad that you brought this up, since this is one issue where I don’t blame the lies so much on this web site. I blame the Muslims themselves for perpetuating this lie about beating women. Although you might be able to dig up some hadiths that appear to indicate some reluctant tolerance of its continued practice in the early Muslim community, the opinion — and most importantly, the sunnah – of the Prophet Muhammad on this practice is clear: it is forbidden. Here are some quotes: “How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?” (Bukhari 73:68). “A’isha reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) NEVER BEAT ANYONE WITH HIS HAND, neither a woman nor a servant, but only, in the case when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah, and he never took revenge for anything unless the things made inviolable by Allah were made violable.” (Muslim 030:5756). Although there could appear to be some hint of tolerance in beating women in hadiths by other members of the community, when the sunnah of the Prophet explicitly forbids it, please take note of my previous warning against using cherrypicked hadith as primary Islamic doctrine (for today’s Muslims) given the period of time it would have taken for any disruptive religion like Islam to take root as a full culture in the early Muslim community. Moreover, the entire purpose of hadith in terms of how a Muslim should behave according to Islamic doctrine TODAY is not to emulate every practice of the early Muslim community, but to emulate the actual practice (sunnah) of the Prophet Muhammad. On this note, the hadith is clear, as narrated and vouched for by his own wife: PROPHET MUHAMMAD NEVER BEAT ANY WOMAN.

    With respect to the Quran, there is only one singular verse that is always quoted in support of beating wives: 4:34. And within that verse, absolutely EVERYTHING hinges on the translation of a single Arabic word, which sounds phonetically like “daraba”. According to the translation that I often use, by Ahmed Ali, the third condition at issue in verse 4:34 most likely means “go to bed with them (when they are willing)”, which is diametrically opposed to “beat them”, per other translations. Ahmed Ali bases his translation on the fact that “daraba” is often used elsewhere as the non-explicit meaning of sexual intercourse when it is abundantly clear that sexual intercourse is being referred to, as in “darab al-fahl an-naqah”, which means when “the stud camel covered the she camel”. Another reference is in verse 7:189, where it says “When the man covered the woman, she conceived a light burden and carried it about. And when she was heavy (with child) they prayed together to their Lord.” And further, in 2:187, it refers quite beautifully to the freedom to have sexual relations with wives in this way: “they are a cover for you, and you are a cover for them.” Therefore, Ahmed Ali’s version is a very compelling translation indeed. It also fits very well with the context of the immediately preceding verse, which says “leave them alone in bed” (i.e., to make their hearts go fonder with absence before coming back into bed with them), and the advice before that verse, which says, “talk to them suasively”. So tell me, how could such soft persuasion and then sexual self-restraint on the part of the man to win over his wife’s heart then follow with a verse that effectively says “beat the bitch”?

    In another translation of the Quran, called “Quran: A Reformist Translation”, it actually covers verse 4:34 in excruciating detail as one example of a consistently misogynist bias among many Muslim translators. The Arabic word “daraba” has at least 10 different literal meanings, per the authors of this book, so it is easily twisted to suit a meaning like “beat” that was not originally intended. There are much more specific Arabic words that mean to physically beat or scourge. You can actually read this section of the book for free on Amazon, per p. 17, since this is one of the “first pages” that Amazon shows when you “look inside” the book. The translation translates the key phrase as “leave her” (i.e., separate from her if all else fails), since “leave” or “separate from” is a valid translation of the Arabic word “daraba”. This translation actually fits extremely well with the immediate context afterwards, which states wives should not be blamed if they “open out to you” later (i.e., come back to you after separation). And then in the next verse after that it says what to do “if you fear a breach [divorce] between them” (husband and wife, i.e., if the separation keeps going on too long). In this case, it offers the very sensible advice “to appoint one arbiter from the people of the man and one from the people of the woman. If they wish to have a settlement, then God will reconcile them.” Please tell me why arbiters would be necessary if husband and wife were not already separated and how the Quran’s advice of arbitration to resolve differences could possibly fit with the immediately preceding verse translated to mean that the wife should be beaten into submission first! It doesn’t. Both the context of the verse in the Quran and the unequivocal context of the Prophet’s perfect behavior with his wives attest that translating this verse as “beat them” has no support whatsoever.

    Male vs. Female Inheritance

    It is not always the case that females would get half the inheritance of men. In some cases, they would get exactly the same, and in others females may get more than males, depending on which different types of relationships apply in a given estate. The rules are fairly complex, mostly laid out in the Quran, but also some in the hadith, so I am not going to go over all the details. However, I concede your main point that women for the most part would get half, such as in the typical example of a single parent who leaves wealth only to one son and two daughters: the boy would get the same as the two girls in total. In isolation, this certainly does seem unfair, but Islam is a social system, and that system must be looked at as a whole.

    The reason for this difference is simply because males are 100% responsible for the dowry in the marriage contract. The dowry itself comes from the husband’s wealth, which for a young husband would normally be entirely from his family’s inheritance. Therefore, at a minimum, even if the woman were to share the benefits of her dowry from her husband equally with him during their marriage, she would get the benefit of 50% of her own inheritance plus 50% of his inheritance from the dowry, thereby coming to 100% (equality), on average (assuming men and women come from families of comparable inheritance, which should be statistically true on average). If she didn’t share any of the benefits of her dowry with her husband, which she is fully entitled to do, then she would effectively get up to 150% of the inheritance benefit (including dowry), whereas he could get as little as 0% if he pledged his whole inheritance as dowry to the marriage (or 50% if he pledged half). As another example, if he pledged 50% of his wealth as dowry to the marriage and his wife shared this equally with him, then we would be back to an equal sharing of wealth between men and women (i.e., 50% + 50%/2 = 50% + 50%/2); if she kept all the dowry for her own benefit (as would be the norm), he would get 50% of the standard inheritance benefit (ceteris paribus across families), and she would get 100% (i.e., the 50% from her parents + the 50% from her husband). Run through the math yourself, and you will see that the woman comes out equally, or more likely well ahead, of her husband in terms of overall transfer of community wealth once the benefits of dowry are factored in.

    Women’s Testimony

    The idea that a woman’s testimony in court is worth half a man’s is nonsense. A woman’s testimony in court is equal to that of a man. In fact, a single woman’s testimony has the power to invalidate a single man’s testimony, and that is IN COURT. This is proven by verses 24:4-9, which address a claim by a husbands that his wife is committing adultery. Verse 24:8 states, “The woman’s punishment can be averted if she swears four times by God as testimony that her husband is a liar.” This is the only reference to testimony of woman IN COURT in the entire Quran that I am aware of. The only other reference to testimony of women that I am aware of is in verse 2:282, which refers to witnesses to financial transactions involving debt. First of all, take note that this verse is in reference to women being a third party witness to a contract between two other parties. The women are merely witnesses to the terms of the contract, not parties to the contract. Second, it involves debt payable over an extended period of time, which clearly can involve high pressure measures to enforce or bypass the contract terms. Third, which is the most important point here, it involves an UNWRITTEN contract, such as when the borrower (who is the one responsible for writing down the terms per this verse) is “deficient of mind or infirm” and is relying on the dictation of a guardian (i.e., without a scribe) to “record” the contract via witnesses – a very precarious set of circumstances, indeed, given the potential conflicts involved if there is a breach. In this situation, THE WITNESSES THEMSELVES ARE THE ONES WHO RECORD, VOUCHSAFE, AND PROTECT THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, SINCE THERE IS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT. This is why this verse emphasizes both in the beginning and at the end of the verse to do the contract IN WRITING rather than via witnesses alone: “draw up an agreement in writing” at the beginning of the verse; and at the end, “But do not neglect to draw up a contract, big or small, with the time fixed for paying back the debt. This is more equitable in the eyes of God, and BETTER AS EVIDENCE AND BEST FOR AVOIDING DOUBT.”

    The verse states that two women should be used “in case one errs”, but the key question is why she would err, which is implied in the same verse 2:282: “Have witnesses to the deal, (and make sure) that the scribe or the witness IS NOT HARMED. If he is, it would surely be sinful on your part.” This verse makes it clear that the agreement is supported either by a scribe, who vouchsafes the written contract; or by witnesses, who vouchsafe the exact terms of the verbal contract. Clearly, this verse is for the protection of women from being subjected to high pressure by the party breaching the contract. The presence and support of other women would reduce the pressure and possibility of perjury. Supporting this interpretation even further is why another woman is there “in case one errs”. The answer: simply to “remind her”. But “reminder her” of what? The very next phrase answers that question: that “When the witnesses are summoned, they should not refuse (to give witness and to do so accurately).” Clearly, the only reason a woman would outright refuse to give witness or to do so inaccurately – both undeniably grave sins in Islam – would be because of threats or other means of coercion behind the scenes. This added verse only makes sense in terms of connecting to what the reminder is about, since giving clear and accurate witness is already a clear obligation on Muslims per other doctrine. One woman effectively makes the other woman publicly accountable to the truth regarding the contract terms when either of them may otherwise be coerced into committing perjury or not giving any witness at all. And the verse itself creates a very effective deterrent (via distributed accountability) against the strong exploiting an otherwise easy opportunity to coerce the weak for simple financial gain.

    Although verbal contracts were very common in earlier times due to extreme levels of illiteracy, total lack of paper, etc., they are certainly no longer needed in any modern country. So, effectively, this verse requiring two female witnesses in such verbal debt agreements becomes irrelevant under contract law today. Some interpreters of this verse have opined that the two female witnesses would also be better given the general role of Muslim females, who would not be as experienced (or “intelligent”, referencing that one misinterpreted hadith above) in verbal debt contract terms as males, given that males are the primary commercial contractors/traders/earners in a Muslim family. I don’t believe that this is a valid interpretation, but even if it is, it is certainly not a necessary interpretation to argue. It is also not supported by the context of potential “harm” coming to the witnesses, who would clearly be in danger of physical or other coercion; hence the need for distributed accountability of female witnesses. Moreover, such an interpretation does not change the fact that this verse is effectively irrelevant under written contract law today in all modern countries.

52. Richard

    November 4, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    PS Chameleon you issued a challenge “.. how about we tally up a score, in honor of Bill’s endorsed methods of religious statistical analytics, to see which religion emphasizes love of neighbor and the golden rule more. So far, Islam is officially way ahead, with five distinct quotes from the Prophet Muhammad and one from the Quran, per below, so try to take the lead from here, and then I will continue the challenge:”

    So here is the reply for the challenge:

    1. Islam emphasizes the love of neighbour not at all. Not once in all your quotes does it say we should love our neighbour.

    2. If we take the number of times Muhammad mentions farting compared with the number of times he mentions neighbour, farting wins hands down. So we can conclude Islam emphasizes not farting much more than doing good to your neighbour.

    3. Islam neither mentions nor emphasizes golden rule at all. Compare this to Christianity where it is the central point and the most important law, the basis for all laws and morality.

    The basis for Islam is to believe that Muhammad, a most immoral character, is a prophet of God. Hardly the basis for anything moral.

    4. In the Bible neighbour is mentioned 141 times. Jesus also explains who is your neighbour – anyone who you are in a position to help.

    Contrast this with one mention in the Quran where love is not mentioned along with neighbour and where it is combined with a few other things, like “doing good”, whatever that means, to slaves and captured women. “Doing good” could mean not beating them after you have forced yourself to have sex with them. Its left up to the reader to interpret that.

    So whereas you say “So far, Islam is officially way ahead, with five distinct quotes from the Prophet Muhammad and one from the Quran” after my reply it is woefully behind.

    In fact, owing to the fact the Golden rule is not mentioned or emphasized at all, it has failed to take off from the starting line.

53. Chameleon

    November 4, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    I have addressed all the new points above within my new post below, with the exception of the religious justifications of Hitler and Ossama bin Laden for their terrorist acts. My post is too long already, so I will save those two arguments for my next post. However, just to give you a teaser for my thesis (in case you think I am avoiding the issue), you are completely missing the motivations and machinations of these terrorist leaders and their followers by continuing your futile and dry focus on religious doctrine. You are looking in all the wrong places for your answers. However, before I post anything on these two topics, I demand a reasoned reply to my final claim in my last post regarding the unconditional atonement doctrine of Christianity. I think you would agree that I deserve a reply after all my efforts to reply to (and completely debunk) your endless claims. For any of you who don’t reply, I can only conclude that you are conceding complete defeat to my claim, that the core doctrine of Christianity is a total farce.

    Democracyistheanswer, you first. I am not joking about the golden rule. The golden rule is how I live my life. I am ridiculing this site’s methods of Taqiyya, the very thing it claims to hate – its blatant hiding of the provable truth about Islam so that it can continue to spread flagrant lies. Now that the truth is clear, why don’t you check if the articles about Islam’s doctrinal deficiencies in this respect are retracted. If you are so concerned about lies, then why don’t you demand that they be retracted? I don’t have to check or demand, because I know that they won’t be.

    The golden rule is WORD FOR WORD part of Islam (“[ONE] SHOULD TREAT THE PEOPLE AS HE WISHES TO BE TREATED BY THEM.”). In fact it is so important, that you will go to hell if you don’t follow it, per Prophet Muhammad. As for loving neighbors, you should do so to the extent that you feel as if your neighbors are your own children or immediate family (“heirs”). Please tell me how much more emphatic this message could be in Islam. These principles are just as much the essences of Islam. On a side note, Richard has come up with two quotes – very good. But that now leaves the score 6-2 in favor of Islam attaching more importance to these tenets, according to Bill’s statistical analysis of religious text. Once you can get up to 6, then you can call it even.

    Richard, now your turn. I see that you are beginning to make actual arguments now, so I give you credit for that; and thank you for not insulting everyone’s intelligence with just sound bites. Since the other poster also brought up verse 48:29, I will lead off there to close off my address of his post.

    The word “ruthless” is totally mistranslated in this verse and should actually be translated as “firm and unyielding” or “strong” (per two different translations). The Arabic word implies something that is unbending against force, which makes a huge difference to the meaning. “Ruthless” implies active, even unilateral, aggression; whereas “firm” implies strong resistance – for example, in the way I am being firm here in my rebuttal. Moreover, based on the clear and unambiguous rules of engagement outlined in suras 2, 9 and elsewhere, as well as the strong call to fight to resist persecution and oppression in the immediate context, unilateral aggression implied by the mistranslated word “ruthless” has no contextual support whatsoever. That interpretation would be completely contradictory to all Islamic doctrine.

    But let’s not stop there. Even the immediate context of 48:29 makes the interpretation obvious, which you conveniently omit. Verse 48:25 mentions the pretext for being firm against the unbelievers, because they were the ones “who hindered you from (going to) the Holy Mosque” and performing the rites of the pilgrimage. In other words, it was a clear case of religious oppression. In verse 48:26, it expands on the actual historical incident in question, supported at length by actual recorded history (from hadiths and other documents). In this incident, the Muslims came for the annual pilgrimage to Mecca (completely unarmed with only a single white sheet on) but were at first barred from doing so by the Quraish. After the Muslims stood firm and insisted over an extended period of time that they be allowed to perform their religious pilgrimage, the unbelievers backed down and finally relented. So what did the Muslims do to the unbelievers – be “ruthless” to them? No. This is what they did, per 48:26: “When the unbelievers fostered a sense of honor in their hearts, a sense of pagan honor, God sent down a sense of tranquility on His Apostle and the believers, and obliged them to an act of self-restraint, for they [the unbelievers] were deserving and worthy of it.” In other words, the Muslims practiced complete “self-restraint” with “a sense of tranquility” in dealing with the unbelievers. Wow! So what you are trying to do here is to turn what is the exact equivalent of Gandhi’s “non-violent resistance” philosophy in this incident into a totally opposite philosophy of ruthless violence! Are you serious?

    As for verses 2:191-193, let me address those now. This is an egregious case of you misquoting, taking quotes completely out of context and ignoring parts of what you did quote to conclude a totally opposite meaning: intolerance and injustice instead of unequivocal tolerance and justice. First of all, like any normal American would believe, I believe that anyone who is violently attacked via oppression or persecution is fully entitled to defend himself by fighting back. To believe otherwise is simply pacifist folly. If you believe that fighting back in any way equates to terrorism, then you should be the first to denounce the Declaration of Independence as a terrorist manifesto, since most of it is a laundry list of oppressions by the British as a justification for fighting back; moreover, you should be even more staunchly opposed to the unilateral, non-defensive military actions of the U.S. around the world.

    Second, verse 193 does not say keep fighting until “religion is for Allah”, as in until Islam rules the world. It says “Fight them until persecution (or ‘sedition’) comes to an end, and the law of God prevails.” Does this mean in any way to keep fighting until Islamic law dominates? The final part of verse 193, which you conveniently gloss over, answers that very question: “IF THEY DESIST, THEN CEASE TO BE HOSTILE, EXCEPT AGAINST THOSE WHO OPPRESS.” Again and again, my point is proven that Islam only allows fighting against persecution and oppression, not for aggression. The “law of God” is simply referring to the law of justice against persecution, which just happens to be also the law of every democratic country. It also refers to the law of God in the sense that Muslims must be allowed to fulfill the WHOLE of their religion and not be prevented from an essential element, such as prayer or pilgrimage. In words, it is about the basic human right of freedom of religion, which unequivocally passes what I call the “American values” litmus test AND Richard’s own litmus test (“Where it resorts to violence, it has to be firmly met with violence.”).

    Third, you also conveniently started with verse 191 and completely omitted verse 190, which puts into context why and when such fighting is allowed, and what are the strict limits put upon the definition and response to “persecution”: “Fight those in the way of God who fight you, but do not be aggressive: God does not like aggressors.” Please explain to me what part of terrorism, the most aggressive form of violence, is even remotely implied here! Even your own abridged misquote makes it clear that fighting is in response to persecution and oppression, so once again, you are shooting yourself in the foot without even my help!

    Your reference about Muslims driving Meccans (Quraish) out of their city is absurd and contradicts all historical facts. It is exactly the opposite. The Quraish drove out the Muslims. So where did the Quraish migrate to en masse, and what reputable historian is claiming this nonsense? Also, the Muslims did not “conquer” Mecca, at least not with violence. It was a bloodless surrender by the Quaraish, except for a few isolated incidents of revenge that the Prophet later condemned. Full amnesty was given by the Prophet, and no spoils of war were taken. Oh, I almost forgot to ask – so why is it on this occasion, and every other, that the Prophet failed to follow the unconditional kill order against unbelievers that you claim Islam commands? I demand an explanation.

    The Muslims were far from safe in Medina, with 2-3 tribes breaking their treaties treasonously with the Muslims and trying to kill the Prophet on two separate occasions, if not more. They were welcomed by many in Medina, I agree, but the powerful tribes there gradually saw the growing Muslim community as a threat to their control. The Muslims were persecuted for their religion in Mecca and driven from their homes and their lives in Mecca, which is why they were forced to emigrate to Medina. They had every right to return to Mecca to reclaim their homes, their lives, and their full freedom to worship as Muslims. Once again, such action would unequivocally pass the “American values” test as an appropriate response to persecution and oppression.

    As for 3:151, this is referring to what God will do in the hearts of unbelievers who ascribe compeers/partners to God, the gravest of sins in Islam, Judaism AND Christianity. It is none other than the First Commandment itself. Or did you conveniently forget that commandment in your worship of a man-god son of God? So how does this dreadful outcome not make sense? It is what God, and God alone, will do as His punishment on unbelievers for violating his most sacred commandment. There is nothing in this verse to command Muslims, or even to imply what Muslims should do.

    As for 4:36, you are bringing up a completely irrelevant phrase to the point about being kind to your neighbor, for which the Quran is even more clear and encompassing than the Bible by explicitly including neighbors who are strangers. As for the phrase in question, I have already been over this phrase in detail in two other posts. It refers to the female refugees of war who are free believers (not slaves) and become the responsibility of the Muslim community, per verse 60:10. Therefore, the translation is correct.

    As for 33:4, this does not ban adoption. It merely says “nor has He made your adopted sons your real sons” (i.e., “real” by blood relation). In 33:5, it says, “Call them by the names of their fathers. This is the right course in the sight of God.” In fact, these verses clearly acknowledge the reality and legality of adoption. It is only in how the adopted sons are referred to that changes. They should keep the name and recognized heritage of their true father — that is all.

    As for “suckling”, you are really digging for esoteric stuff here, aren’t you? This has nothing to do with the political Islam thread, and it also has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic doctrine of today, as I will show. At any rate, I will go through it. It was not a “grown man” being referred to, but “a young boy who is at the threshold of puberty” (008:3427). This is referring to the principle that only post-pubescent children who are suckled (raised) by the same foster mother can cohabit in a household with an otherwise unrelated woman (like brothers can with sisters). Moreover, in hadith Muslim 008:3429, one of the wives of the Prophet is denying that this type of thing was done or can be done as a workaround to the cohabitation restriction before reaching puberty. However, if it was done, she said, it was only for this one specific incident, since it has otherwise been forbidden; suckling must stop after the normal suckling period, which is a maximum of two years in Islam. The authenticity of this hadith is seriously questionable, since it contradicts other quotes of the Prophet (as well as his companions), where he denies that one or two sucklings will create a foster relationship, “One suckling or two do not make the (marriage) unlawful.” (Book #008, Hadith #3415). And yet another quote saying this even more emphatically: “Narrated Aisha: Once the Prophet came to me while a man was in my house. He said, “O ‘Aisha! Who is this (man)?” I replied, “My foster brother.” He said, “O ‘Aisha! Be sure about your foster brothers, as fostership is only valid if it takes place in the suckling period (before two years of age)” (Book #48, Hadith #815, which is from Bukhari, a more reliable source than Muslim). In yet another hadith (Bukhari 62:39), the Prophet says, “a suckling relationship is established only when milk is the only food of the child.” But most important of all in discrediting this hadith 100% as Islamic doctrine today is verse 2:233 of the Quran, which sets the two year old infant threshold as the maximum age for suckling.

    As for Bukhari 6:301, this is referencing the same incident as the hadith I already commented on, and it supports the same interpretation that I already gave, except even more so given the additional context here. The Prophet Muhammad was not making any official pronouncement. He was passing by a few women on the way to or from the mosque. He was speaking only to them, clearly with some tongue-in-cheek rhetorical emphasis to bring across his main point in a playful manner, which you completely glossed over: to urge them to give more alms, not to backbite/curse, and to be more grateful to their husbands. What is the crucial point to support that this was spoken very lightly, in a jovial environment? It clearly says that it was the time of ‘Id-al-Adha or Id Al-Fitr prayer in the hadith, which are the two main days of celebration, merriment, music, and having community fun in Islam. The Id prayer itself is not even an obligatory prayer, since it is more a social than religious event. If you had ever experienced Id in your life, you would know how abundantly clear this would be. Another point in the hadith that points at the joking around are how the women played along so coyly with his comments, and how he said to those specific women, “I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you” (meaning, for rhetorical emphasis, that they need to put extra special effort into heeding his advice to do the good things that he is suggesting). This is not something that the Prophet would say except in jest, since there are no examples of him saying such insults seriously to others, let alone on the joyful day of Id, and let alone to a group of individuals that obviously could not be of the same piety or intelligence. He also said, “A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” This is no doubt just a playful compliment referencing their exceptional beauty and ornamentation on the day of Id, where all the women wear their finest outfits, even to this day. Once again, if you had ever experienced Id, this would be exceedingly obvious to you. Yet another indicator of the frolicking around are the absurdly funny reasons he gave for those women’s lack of intelligence and religion. There are no other references at all for a woman being deficient in religion because of natural bodily functions that she has no ability to control. As for the “intelligence” remark, this is also obviously a jestful play on words given the very limited applicability of verse 2:282 in referencing two female witnesses (see below). It is very unfortunate that the tone and joyful nature of the environment could not be recorded with this static hadith text because of how twisted and literal individuals are today, 1400+ years later, in reading the static text alone.

    Right of Divorce

    As for divorce, women have the full right of divorce, just like men. Going to the court for divorce is done for the same reason that it is normally required in the United States today: to settle upon any contractual marital property in dispute. In Islam, women have their own property separate from their husbands, but the property in dispute would be the dowry that is the obligation of husbands to pay to their wives in return for marriage. If a woman waives the right to this disputed property and has no valid reason for divorce other than her own whim or unsupported preference to divorce, then her divorce can still be immediate, just like for men. For example, a woman came to the Prophet Muhammad seeking the dissolution of her marriage, and she told the Prophet that she did not have any complaints against her husband’s character or manners (i.e., she had no real reason for divorce). Her only problem was that she honestly did not like him to the extent of not being able to live with him any longer. Here is one hadith on this incident: Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: The wife of Thabit bin Qais bin Shammas came to the Prophet and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I do not blame Thabit for any defects in his character or his religion, but I am afraid that I (being a Muslim) may become unthankful for Allah’s Blessings.” On that, Allah’s Apostle said (to her), ‘Will you return his garden to him?” She said, “Yes.” So she returned his garden to him and the Prophet told him to divorce her.” (Bukhari 63:199). It was that simple, that quick. Now it is even better for the man not to ask for any of the dowry back. Moreover, he is NOT allowed to ask for it back when the wife successfully sues for a divorce for any number of valid reasons, including abuse from her husband. Here are some quotes from the Quran on this matter:

    “And if a woman fears aversion from her husband or ill treatment, there is no harm if they make a peaceful settlement [divorce]; and peace is an excellent thing.” (4:128). This verse makes it clear that a woman can initiate a divorce in her favor (i.e., all dowry remains with her) based on a husband’s neglect or abuse of her in any way.

    “If you want to take another wife in place of the one that you are married to, then even if you have given her a talent of gold, do not take back a thing. Would you take it away by slandering and using unjust means.” (4:20) This verse makes it clear that a man cannot take back anything when he whimsically divorces a woman for no other reason than to marry a different woman. It also makes it a sin for a man to invent slanders or other claims against a woman so that he can try to make a claim against the dowry or a part of it in a court proceeding.

    “You are not allowed to take away the least of what you have given your wives.” (2:229). Once again, it is making the rights of a woman’s property given to her by her husband sacrosanct, even in divorce, which is the context of this verse. Verse 2:237 adds the condition that a man must surrender at least half the dowry if a divorce is sued for before the marriage is consummated, which could only be the case in an extremely short marriage. Paying all of it, though, “is nearer to piety”.

    Women Unequal to Men

    As for your other claims that women are unequal to men, this is stated from the western assumption and position that men and women have equivalent responsibilities and roles, which is not the position of Islam. Islam believes in the specialization of roles in the family, in the same way that Adam Smith believed in the benefits of division and specialization of labor. Islam also recognizes the undeniable biological differences in males and females to optimize them for different roles. That does not mean, however, that such roles are restrictive and can’t overlap – women are free to earn their own income as well, for example. Prophet Muhammad’s first wife, who was also his ONLY wife for 24 years, was about 15 years his elder and was the one who employed HIM in HER business. Now how is that for evidence of Prophet Muhammad recognizing and respecting the rights of women!

    Does this separation of roles in Islam meet the “American values” litmus test? Yes, partially, since separation of roles exists all over the world to a large extent. However, this is clearly one case where I would say that it does not agree to the most modern western standard – a standard that itself has proven to be very flawed on numerous levels given the breakdown of the family unit and other negative social developments of recent decades. Whether you agree or disagree with this position, you must agree that the choice of role separation is a private choice for a Muslim family to decide for itself and has nothing to do with Muslim vs. non-Muslim relations (the topic of debate in this thread). So we really are seriously digressing here. That said, since I am getting bored with your “Islam promotes hate” chanting, I will take the time to digress onto your points about the inequality of women:

    Polygamy, Pre-Marital Sex And Forced Sex

    I have already addressed the last two issues in a previous post. Both pre-marital sex and forced sex of any kind are strictly forbidden. The reference to “captives” or “slaves” was also already explained as a reference to “those with whom you have contractual relations”: the female refugees of war specified in verse 60:10. It has nothing to do with mut’a marriage, which is forbidden in Islam. As for polygamy, this is a concession for extraordinary circumstances, with the goal to make sure that all women are provided for, particularly in a time of war when there is a deficiency of men to take care of them. Another very common scenario would be when a woman is incapable of fulfilling her marital duties, is disabled, elderly or whatever. In western society, such women are discarded like garbage, left to fend for themselves, but in Islam, they must remain provided for. Note verse 4:19 in this respect: “Live with them [i.e., wives] with tolerance and justice, even if you do not care for [i.e., love] them. For it may well be you may not like a thing, yet God may have endued it with much goodness.” The burden is 100% on the men to take responsibility for women, not the other way around, or even 50/50. Also, if a woman were allowed to marry multiple men, there would have been no way to know who impregnated her, among many other familial and social difficulties (which man would be head of household, etc.).

    Polygamy is a simple necessity of practical life under extraordinary circumstances (i.e., when other alternatives are worse), but it is clearly frowned upon as a common practice, even in the Quran. For example, verse 4:1 adds the condition, “if you fear you cannot treat so many with equity, marry only one”, and verse 4:29 says, “however you may try, you will never be able to treat your wives equally”. Taking these two together makes the practice very ill-advised under any normal circumstance, to say the least. And 4:24 says, “seek them [women] with your wealth for wedlock and not for debauchery [lechery]. Then give those of these women you have enjoyed, the agreed dower.” Polygamy is a concession with significant financial and other responsibilities for men attached to it, not a license for irresponsibility or lechery. It is an allowed freedom, not a religious restriction like New Testament Christians must comply with at all costs; and it can benefit women just as much as men. Moreover, if an existing wife doesn’t accept it, she has a valid claim to be entitled to an immediate, uncontested divorce (with dowry going fully to her benefit per verse 4:20 above).

    Beating Women

    I am glad that you brought this up, and this is one where I don’t blame the lies so much on this web site. I blame the Muslims themselves for perpetuating this lie about beating women. Although you might be able to dig up some hadiths that appear to indicate some reluctant tolerance of its continued practice in the early Muslim community, the opinion — and most importantly, the sunnah – of the Prophet Muhammad on this practice is clear: it is forbidden. Here are some quotes: “How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?” (Bukhari 73:68). “A’isha reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) NEVER BEAT ANYONE WITH HIS HAND, neither a woman nor a servant, but only, in the case when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah, and he never took revenge for anything unless the things made inviolable by Allah were made violable.” (Muslim 030:5756). Even if there appears to be some hint of tolerance in beating women in hadiths by other members of the community, when the sunnah of the Prophet explicitly forbids it, please take note of my previous warning against using cherrypicked hadith as primary Islamic doctrine (for today’s Muslims) given the period of time it would have taken for any disruptive religion like Islam to take root as a full culture in the early Muslim community. Moreover, the entire purpose of hadith in terms of how a Muslim should behave according to Islamic doctrine TODAY is not to emulate every practice of the early Muslim community, but to emulate the actual practice (sunnah) of the Prophet Muhammad. On this note, the hadith is clear, as narrated and vouched for by his own wife: PROPHET MUHAMMAD NEVER BEAT ANY WOMAN.

    With respect to the Quran, there is only one singular verse that is always quoted in support of beating wives: 4:34. And within that verse, absolutely EVERYTHING hinges on the translation of a single Arabic word, which sounds phonetically like “daraba”. According to the translation that I often use, by Ahmed Ali, the third condition at issue in verse 4:34 most likely means “go to bed with them (when they are willing)”, which is diametrically opposed to “beat them”, per other translations. Ahmed Ali bases his translation on the fact that “daraba” is often used elsewhere as the non-explicit meaning of sexual intercourse when it is abundantly clear that sexual intercourse is being referred to, as in “darab al-fahl an-naqah”, which means when “the stud camel covered the she camel”. Another reference is in verse 7:189, where it says “When the man covered the woman, she conceived a light burden and carried it about. And when she was heavy (with child) they prayed together to their Lord.” And further, in 2:187, it refers quite beautifully to the freedom to have sexual relations with wives in this way: “they are a cover for you, and you are a cover for them.” Therefore, Ahmed Ali’s version is a very compelling translation indeed. It also fits very well with the context of the immediately preceding verse, which says “leave them alone in bed” (i.e., to make their heart go fonder with absence before coming back into bed with them), and the advice before that verse, which says, “talk to them suasively”. So tell me, how could such soft persuasion and then sexual self-restraint on the part of the man to win over his wife’s heart then follow with a verse that effectively says “beat the bitch”?

    In another translation of the Quran, called “Quran: A Reformist Translation”, it actually covers verse 4:34 in excruciating detail as one example of a consistently misogynist bias among many Muslim translators. The Arabic word “daraba” has at least 10 different literal meanings, per the authors of this book, so it is easily twisted to suit a meaning like “beat” that was not originally intended. There are much more specific Arabic words that mean to physically beat or scourge. You can actually read this section of the book for free on Amazon, per p. 17, since this is one of the “first pages” that Amazon shows when you “look inside” the book. The translation translates the key phrase as “leave her” (i.e., separate from her if all else fails), since “leave” or “separate from” is a valid translation of the Arabic word “daraba”. This translation actually fits extremely well with the immediate context afterwards, which states wives should not be blamed if they “open out to you” later (i.e., come back to you after separation). And then in the next verse after that it says what to do “if you fear a breach [divorce] between them” (husband and wife, i.e., if the separation keeps going on too long). In this case, it offers the very sensible advice “to appoint one arbiter from the people of the man and one from the people of the woman. If they wish to have a settlement, then God will reconcile them.” Please tell me why arbiters would be necessary if husband and wife were not already separated and how the Quran’s advice of arbitration to resolve differences could possibly fit with the immediately preceding verse translated to mean that the wife should be beaten into submission first! It doesn’t. Both the context of the verse in the Quran and the unequivocal context of the Prophet’s perfect behavior with his wives attest that translating this verse as “beat them” has no support whatsoever.

    Male vs. Female Inheritance

    It is not always the case that females would get half the inheritance of men. In some cases, they would get exactly the same, and in others females may get more than males, depending on which different types of relationships apply in a given estate. The rules are fairly complex, mostly laid out in the Quran, but also some in the hadith, so I am not going to go over all the details. However, I concede your main point that women for the most part would get half, such as in the typical example of a single parent who leaves wealth only to one son and two daughters: the boy would get the same as the two girls in total. In isolation, this certainly does seem unfair, but Islam is a social system, and that system must be looked at as a whole.

    The reason for this difference is simply because males are 100% responsible for the dowry in the marriage contract. The dowry itself comes from the husband’s wealth, which for a young husband would normally be entirely from his family’s inheritance. Therefore, at a minimum, even if the woman were to share the benefits of her dowry from her husband equally with him during their marriage, she would get the benefit of 50% of her own inheritance plus 50% of his inheritance from the dowry, thereby coming to 100% (equality), on average (assuming men and women come from families of comparable inheritance, which should be statistically true on average). If she didn’t share any of the benefits of her dowry with her husband, which she is fully entitled to do, then she would effectively get up to 150% of the inheritance benefit (including dowry), whereas he could get as little as 0% if he pledged his whole inheritance as dowry to the marriage (or 50% if he pledged half). As another example, if he pledged 50% of his wealth as dowry to the marriage and his wife shared this equally with him, then we would be back to an equal sharing of wealth between men and women (i.e., 50% + 50%/2 = 50% + 50%/2); if she kept all the dowry for her own benefit (as would be the norm), he would get 50% of the standard inheritance benefit (ceteris paribus across families), and she would get 100% (i.e., the 50% from her parents + the 50% from her husband). Run through the math yourself, and you will see that the woman comes out equally, or more likely well ahead, of her husband in terms of overall transfer of community wealth once the benefits of dowry are factored in.

    Women’s Testimony

    The idea that a woman’s testimony in court is worth half a man’s is nonsense. A woman’s testimony in court is equal to that of a man. In fact, a single woman’s testimony has the power to invalidate a single man’s testimony, and that is IN COURT. This is proven by verses 24:4-9, which address a claim by a husbands that his wife is committing adultery. Verse 24:8 states, “The woman’s punishment can be averted if she swears four times by God as testimony that her husband is a liar.” This is the only reference to testimony of woman IN COURT in the entire Quran that I am aware of. The only other reference to testimony of women that I am aware of is in verse 2:282, which refers to witnesses to financial transactions involving debt. First of all, take note that this verse is in reference to women being a third party witness to a contract between two other parties. The women are merely witnesses to the contract, not parties to the contract. Second, it involves debt payable over an extended period of time, which clearly can involve high pressure measures to enforce or bypass the contract terms. Third, which is the most important point here, it involves an UNWRITTEN contract, such as when the borrower (who is the one responsible for writing down the terms per this verse) is “deficient of mind or infirm” and is relying on the dictation of a guardian (i.e., without a scribe) to “record” the contract via witnesses – a very precarious set of circumstances, indeed, given the potential conflicts involved if there is a breach. In this situation, THE WITNESSES THEMSELVES ARE THE ONES WHO RECORD, VOUCHSAFE, AND PROTECT THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, SINCE THERE IS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT. This is why this verse emphasizes both in the beginning and at the end of the verse to do the contract IN WRITING rather than via witnesses alone: “draw up an agreement in writing” at the beginning of the verse; and at the end, “But do not neglect to draw up a contract, big or small, with the time fixed for paying back the debt. This is more equitable in the eyes of God, and BETTER AS EVIDENCE AND BEST FOR AVOIDING DOUBT.” The verse states that two women should be used “in case one errs”, but the key question is why she would err, which is implied in the same verse 2:282: “Have witnesses to the deal, (and make sure) that the scribe or the witness IS NOT HARMED. If he is, it would surely be sinful on your part.” This verse makes it clear that the agreement is supported either by a scribe, who vouchsafes the written contract; or by witnesses, who vouchsafe the exact terms of the verbal contract. Clearly, this verse is for the protection of women from being subjected to high pressure by the party breaching the contract. The presence and support of other women would reduce the pressure and possibility of perjury. Although verbal contracts were very common in earlier times due to extreme levels of illiteracy, they are certainly no longer needed in any modern country, so effectively this verse requiring two female witnesses in such verbal debt agreements becomes irrelevant under contract law today. Some interpreters of this verse have opined that the two female witnesses would also be better given the general role of Muslim females, who would not be as experienced (or “intelligent”, referencing that one hadith above) in verbal debt contract terms as males, given that males are the primary commercial contractors/traders/earners in a Muslim family. I don’t believe that this is a valid interpretation, but even if it is, it is certainly not a necessary interpretation to argue. It is also not supported by the context of potential “harm” coming to the witnesses. Moreover, such an interpretation does not change the fact that this verse is effectively irrelevant under written contract law today in all modern countries.

54. Say No to Islam

    November 4, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    To Chamleon the Dhimmi:

    You quote: “All atrocities deserve to be punished to the fullest extent possible. That is exactly my point — there are no excuses”

    I don’t believe you are being sincere with that statement. Nope. You can say whatever you wanted to defend Islam, you’re just being deceitful with us. So far others have emphasized on the atrocities of Islam and you refused to believe that and you made some very lengthy arguments justifying some supposedly benign Quranic teachings in order to deny the worst parts of Islam.

    The entire basis of the Qur’an is to teach and encourage Muslims to make all of the world belong to Allah thru jihad, whatever it takes. Islam is not at peace with all of mankind because one half of the world has not yet submitted to Allah.

    I noted that you quoted Hitler defending and praising Christianity. I truly don’t think you are getting the irony of Hitler when he wrote that in his book, “Mein Kampf”. He hated Christianity and everything it stood for. Look up Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-1944. You’ll see plenty of Hitler bashing and hating Christianity.

    And Hitler himself praised Islam and its teachings, and believed that Germans would have been better Mohammedans than Christians (and despite the fact he disliked the Arabs in general).

55. Richard

    November 3, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon “Richard, you also say that it was Islam that killed the 3,000 civilians on 9/11. Please connect A to B for me. You know, just like grade school.”

    OK since that is your level. From the interview of Tayseer Allouni of Al Jazeera with Usamah bin Laden, 21st October 2001:

    Usamah bin Laden: “These young men, whom Allah has cleared the way for, they have shifted the battle to the heart of the United States and they have destroyed its most outstanding [abraz] landmarks, their economic landmarks and their military landmarks, that being with the grace of Allah [dhalika fadlu allah]. And they have done this from what we understand, and we have incited and roused for this [harradna] before, and it is in self-defense, defense of our brothers and sons in Palestine and for freeing our holy sites. And if inciting [tahrid] for this is terrorism, and if killing the ones that kill our sons is terrorism, then let history witness that we are terrorists….

    ..yes, we’ve been inciting for years, and we released legal rulings [fataawa] and documents concerning this issue, and other incitements which were published and broadcasted in the media. ..So we incite, and incitement is appointed [muta`ayyin] today, and Allah has asked it from the best of humans, the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam).
    Allah (subhannahu wa ta`aala) said:

    “Then fight O Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) in the Cause of Allah, you are not tasked (held responsible) except for yourself, and incite the believers (to fight along with you), it may be that Allah will restrain the evil might of the disbelievers. And Allah is Stronger in Might and Stronger in punishing.” [Qur’an (4):84]” ”

    The above are the exact words of Bin Laden.

    Get the connection? Devout Muslim Usamah bin Laden quoting the Quran as justification for the attacks.

    AND if that isnt enough:

    Quran 48:29 “Mohammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another”

    AND Quran (2:191-193) – “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.” The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by the Meccans. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word “persecution” by Muslim translators is misleading. The Arabic comes from “fitna” which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until “religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

    Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”.

    They will cast terror into the unbelievers why? For no reason other than their faith. Islam is the most intolerant of all religions.

    As for Hitler. Your first quote is from the Mein Kampf and quite meaningless except as a rant against Christianity, just read the paragraphs before that. The Mein Kampf is full of rants against Christianity.

    The second from a political speech on 12 April 1922, before he rose to power. He needed the support of a Christian Nation, hence the political speech.

    The moment he rose to power thousands of Christian clergy were sent to the concentration camps and executed. His last rites were a civil marriage ceremony and no religious rites were performed just before or after his suicide.

    In any case can you similarly connect A to B, Hitler and Christs teachings to the Holocaust?

    Chameleon “There is only ONE quote from Jesus on this topic that I know of. So how about we tally up a score, in honor of Bill’s endorsed methods of religious statistical analytics, to see which religion emphasizes love of neighbor and the golden rule more. So far, Islam is officially way ahead, with five distinct quotes from the Prophet Muhammad and one from the Quran, per below, so try to take the lead from here, and then I will continue the challenge:”

    The ONE “quote” that you know of is this “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, FOR THIS SUMS UP THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS” Mathew 7:12 Get it? This is the essence of Christianity.

    This is confirmed in Mark 12:30-31 “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. AND THE SECOND IS LIKE UNTO IT Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. THERE IS NONE OTHER COMMANDMENT GREATER THAN THESE. ”

    The above is perfectly clear. Against this you offer what from Islam?

    Quran 4:36 (which you have conveniently mistranslated) “Serve Allah, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), AND WHAT YOUR RIGHT HANDS POSSESS: For Allah loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious”

    “WHAT YOUR RIGHT HANDS POSSESS” if you read the chapter are women – Wives, daughters, slaves and captured women. The possession of men just like any other possession.

    The neighbour is hardly the central point of Islam. Just a parting reference, drowned out by the warnings on farting and threats of eternal hell for trite and mundane things, which seems to be far more important to Mohammad and the Allah he has invented.

    I simply dont have time to refute all your lies. For example I quoted Bukhari 54:464 where Muhammad says that hell is mostly populated with women.

    To this you replied “As for Bukhari 54:464, this is most likely just a simple use of hyperbole for rhetorical emphasis. .. However, if you insist, then it would technically be correct to do so, since more women are born than men.” lol How childish.

    Here is another one Bukhari 6:301:

    “Allah’s Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o ‘Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle ?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.”

    This is perfectly clear. Hell has a majority of women. Why? Because they are deficient in intelligence and religion.

    Why are they deficient in intelligence? Because the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man!

    And why are they deficient in religion? Because they can neither pray nor fast during their menses!

    Answer a few questions if you can:

    1. Why can a man can divorce for any reason but a woman has to plead her case before a judge?

    2. Sahih Muslim 8:3425 Why does Muhammad say that a woman should suckle a grown man in order to stay in the same house alone?

    3. Quran 33:4 Why does Islam ban adoption?

    4. How do you say there is equality between men and women in Islam when: Women are not permitted to practice polygamy, men are, women are not permitted to have have pre-marital/extra-marital sex with slaves and POWs, men are, women are not permitted to beat their marital partners, men are, a male inherits twice that of a female, the testimony of a women in court is worth half that of a man’s testimony?

56. Democracyistheanswer

    November 2, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon,

    Your religion COMMANDS you to lie to infidels if it is in your advantage to subjugate them.

    Most of your post is actually pure taqiyya, you are photoshopping Islam.

    Mohammed was not gentle in the Sira. I have read the Sira. You know very well that Moslems are gentle only to one another (as neighbors) and violent (ashidaa) to kafirs. (Koran 48:29)

    Your hadith quotes are another case of taqiyya. It is not surprising that you misrepresent Mohammed’s original jihad cult, but you are so obvious about it…you are so easy to catch. No gentle admonitions have ‘kafir’ in the same sentence. Kafirs are subhumans to be tricked into the pen…like wild animals.

    BTW, we non-Moslems take the Golden Rule seriously. Your joking about it is extremely alarming. That’s the whole point.

    You have seriously undermined your presentation by ridiculing the Golden Rule.

    Chameleon, we have observed you photoshopping Mohammed.

    ‘Chameleon’ is a good name for a photoshopper.

57. Chameleon

    November 2, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    You know what? I was about to sign off for good on this site, but a couple of things amused me enough to draw me back in.

    One was how Richard pulled together a commendably imaginative metaphor about Jurassic Park, “Jonestown gone wild”, dinosaurs, Hitler, and Muhammad somehow all rolled into one. I have to admit that it even went over my head, but it sounded spectacular! And I thought you guys were complete zombies — perhaps I was wrong.

    The other thing that reeled me in, quite unexpectedly, was Richard, yet again. I had resigned myself to the conclusion that this guy was so full of hot air and hate that he was simply not reachable with normal conversation. But then he astounded me with an entire post dedicated to farting. He can’t make an argument, but at least he is amusing as he passes his wind.

    By the way, Richard, when you actually can quote from some independent, genuine historians about the history of the first Muslim communities, let me know. Until then, your rewrite of accepted history is not even worthy of a reply.

    “Say No to Islam”, I don’t know what you are referring to in terms of making excuses for atrocities. I have done nothing of the sort. All atrocities deserve to be punished to the fullest extent possible. That is exactly my point — there are no excuses. It is you and others like you who are arguing that Islam excuses such atrocities and that individuals are not responsible because they are just following their religion like robots. The truth is exactly the opposite. Unlike Christian values, which advocate that we should just keep turning the other cheek to atrocities, Islamic values advocate that they should be strictly punished.

    As for your “personality cult” argument. Hello? A personality cult requires the personality to be alive to sustain the cult. That’s why all these cults die when the leading personality dies. Prophet Muhammad is NOT alive, in spite of what Bill might want to make you believe. Moreover, there is no central authority in Islam, let alone any central personality of any significance beyond at a very localized level (e.g., some Shiite leaders in Iran perhaps). At least try to get your propaganda sound bites correct. Your lack of facts and arguments is embarrassing enough.

    As for me being “funded” in my “promotional” effort, I will take that as a compliment, so thank you very much. Unfortunately, it is definitely not true. I am just on my own, completely unaffiliated with any organization. Also, you are missing one important detail in your theory. I have done nothing to promote Islam here. Everything I have written has simply been to defend Islam against unfounded claims, point by point, verse by verse. However, it really doesn’t matter what I say, does it? If you can’t reconcile my passion for the truth about Islam vs. your conviction in its falsehood, then don’t worry. Just try to assure yourself that it is Taqiyya, and you’ll feel all cozy and better again that the world still makes sense to you.

    Richard, as for Islam being silent about loving your neighbor or the golden rule, this is all just more Billy Kool-Aid. Don’t you realize yet how much you have been deceived? There is only ONE quote from Jesus on this topic that I know of. So how about we tally up a score, in honor of Bill’s endorsed methods of religious statistical analytics, to see which religion emphasizes love of neighbor and the golden rule more. So far, Islam is officially way ahead, with five distinct quotes from the Prophet Muhammad and one from the Quran, per below, so try to take the lead from here, and then I will continue the challenge:

    Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “Anybody who believes in Allah and the Last Day should not harm his neighbor, and anybody who believes in Allah and the Last Day should entertain his guest generously and anybody who believes in Allah and the Last Day should talk what is good or keep quiet. (i.e. abstain from all kinds of evil and dirty talk). (Book #73, Hadith #47)

    Narrated Abu Rafi’: The Prophet said, “The neighbor has more right to be taken care of by his neighbor (than anyone else).” (Book #86, Hadith #109)

    Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet said “Gabriel continued to recommend me about treating the neighbors kindly and politely so much so that I thought he would order me to make them as my heirs. (Book #73, Hadith #43)

    Narrated Jarir bin ‘Abdullah: The Prophet said, “He who is not merciful to others, will not be treated mercifully.” (Book #73, Hadith #42)

    [W]e gathered around the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He said:…Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and enter the garden should die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and should treat the people as he wishes to be treated by them…. The narrator says: I came close to him (‘Abdullah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘As) and said to him: Can you say on oath that you heard it from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? He pointed with his hands to his ears and his heart and said: My ears heard it and my mind retained it. I said to him: This cousin of yours, Mu’awiya, orders us to unjustly consume our wealth among ourselves and to kill one another, while Allah says:” O ye who believe, do not consume your wealth among yourselves unjustly, unless it be trade based on mutual agreement, and do not kill yourselves. Verily, God is Merciful to you” (iv. 29). (Muslim, Book #020, Hadith #4546)

    Pay homage to God, and make none his compeer, and be good to your parents and relatives, the orphans and the needy and the neighbors who are near you, and the neighbors who are strangers, and the friend by your side, the traveler, and those with whom you have contractual rights. (Quran 4:36)

    Note in the Quran how it emphasizes to be kind not just to your neighbors who are near you, but to neighbors who are your total strangers as well. At first I thought you were just total hypocrites in how extraordinarily nasty and insulting you have been, including your obsession with defecation insults. However, perhaps it is even worse than I thought: it is a gross deficiency in your Christian-based morals, where you are told to love only your neighbor in the strictly literal sense, i.e., only those who are closest to you, unlike Islam. That certainly explains a few things about your ugly behavior.

    Richard, you also say that it was Islam that killed the 3,000 civilians on 9/11. Please connect A to B for me. You know, just like grade school. I think you can handle that, can’t you? Forgive me, but I must have missed your arguments on that point. Make sure to explain how this thesis is even rational when suicide is a sin in Islam even more explicitly than in Christianity, how the “good Muslim” bombers could go drinking and fornicating (both forbidden) the evenings before they would die in the name of Islam, how murdering innocents is explicitly forbidden in Islam, and a few other minor details like that. Also, based on your premise that Islam is responsible for 9/11 because individuals who were “Muslim” were responsible, please explain how your 3,000 deaths compares to the 7,000,000 deaths that Christians have on their hands from the holocaust, or millions of other deaths from the Crusades, the Inquisitions (Church sanctioned!), Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and on and on. All were done by Christians, and all were promoted as good Christian causes to rally the masses to support or endorse such heinous atrocities. Hitler himself was the greatest terrorist ever, and he did it all in the name of Christianity. Here are a few excerpts from my comments on Bill’s “Muhammad – Déjà Vu” post in terms of Hitler’s Christian inspiration for terrorism:

    “The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine.” Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf” Vol. 1 Chapter 12

    “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.”

    “In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.”

    According to your logic, the blood of 7,000,000 is now on your hands, Christian.

    But wait, you say. Being a terrorist and a Christian are never compatible, you say. Let’s take a look at that in a minute. However, first take note that I have already disproven every one of your claims that Islam allows, let alone advocates, war or violence except in response to persecution and oppression, i.e., to fight only in self-defense against those who fight you. In short, you have failed miserably to prove your claim against Islam. In fact, for the most part, you have failed to make coherent, factual arguments based on any Islamic doctrine whatsoever. Therefore, “Islam is evil” only because you believe it to be so. Ironically, Richard himself has very strong Islamic values in this respect, and he doesn’t even realize it! In his own words, “Where it resorts to violence, it has to be firmly met with violence.” I could not have summed up the Islamic (i.e., Richard) view better, Richard.

    You have utterly failed with your claims. Now, it is my turn to make a claim, and for you to respond. Take a look at exhibit #1, a story that just came out today about militant terrorists who are almost certainly Christian (http://news.yahoo.com/feds-online-novel-played-role-ga-militia-plot-111437565.html). Whether it is confirmed they are Christian or not is not really the point though — just a nice added touch. The real point is this, which I also posted as a comment to the article: Just like Ossama bin Laden, these terrorists clearly believed what they were doing was right, just, and in line with their faith system. According to the corrupted man-god version of Christianity today, which Jesus never preached, as long as you accept Jesus as savior and God incarnate at one point in your life and don’t recant, you are “absolved” from whatever terrorist acts you commit, especially if you believe such acts to be right and just. Christ died for those sins too. Therefore, please explain to me how being a Christian and a terrorist can’t go hand in hand. In short, my argument is against the core Christian doctrine of unconditional atonement for those who accept Jesus as savior and God – the very heart of Christianity itself. Based on this logic, being a terrorist can go hand in hand with not only living as a Christian, but dying as one too — and going to heaven, pure and clean, as the reward. Now you tell me, which religion allows its adherents to be terrorists – Islam or Christianity?

58. Richard

    November 1, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Armed Infidel, Beslan and 9/11 are just some of the atrocities that Muslims commit ON A DAILY BASIS EXCLUSIVELY ON THE BASIS OF ISLAM, DUE TO THEIR BRAINWASHING BY ISLAM.

    Some of their atrocities can be read about right here:

    https://politicalislam.com/bulletin-of-christian-persecution-october-2-28-2011/

    https://politicalislam.com/category/bulletin-of-christian-persecution/

    This is just some of the atrocities against Christians, which are many in Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, Phillipines, Europe, Russia. Then they are also killing Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Women who fall in love with men outside their religion, homosexuals, men and women who leave Islam (apostates).

    Chameleon and Dr El Guindy, I come from a Christian family and culture, but I am a rationalist. I am not interested in defending Christian dogma. I only say the morality of Christianity, based as it is on doing unto others as you would have them do unto you and loving your neighbour as yourself, is immeasurably superior to Islam, which is based on discrimination between the Muslim and non-Muslim and Men and Women.

    The reason why I am opposed to Islam is because it is a gigantic, monstrous personality cult founded on the personality of Muhammad, a thoroughly immoral person. Its like Jonestown gone wild. The dinosaurs of Jonestown breaking out from their Jurassic Park and invading our cities. Like Hitler having won the second world war.

    In no other religion do the followers of the religion kill in the name of their religion. If they did I and others would be concerned. Islam needs to be opposed with information and education and stamped out of the face of the Earth. Where it resorts to violence it has to be firmly met with violence.

59. Say No to Islam

    November 1, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chamleon, clearly you are an Islamic apologist, a dhimmi of the worst sort. I read your long-winded, pseudo-intelligent rants justifying and excusing the historic crimes, violence, and terror of Mohammed and Islam. It is like reading someone praising Adolf Hitler, his work Mein Kampf, and Nazism, excusing the worst atrocities of the Nazis by claiming otherwise the reasons for it.

    There are plenty of websites made by neo-Nazis debunking the crimes and evils of Hitler and Nazis, and promoting Nazism out there. Therefore, you can find the same from sites promoting “awareness” of Islam, debunking myths, rebutting misinformation, correcting falsehoods, and spreading propaganda about Islam and Mohammed. These sites are privately funded with Saudi money or donated money from Islamic supremacist groups or wealthy Muslims, all shared the ambitious goals of imposing Islam upon the other half of the world that has not yet submitted to Islam. They are doing whatever it takes to impose Islam by any mean, socially, financially, politically, culturally, psychologically, and violently. Doubtless, you and other tools like Dr. Mohsen are doing their dirty works.

    Islam is built on lies, violence, terror, and mountainous bodies of victims for over 1400 years, began by an illiterate schizophrenic sociopath from Mecca.

60. Armed Infidel

    November 1, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon,

    I sent you this posting earlier about the “Beslan rapes and forced urine drinking
    five years ago Muslim extremists invaded a school in Beslan, Russia. These Muslim terrorists held over a thousand people, most of them children, hostage. For three days these Muslim terrorists killed and tortured countless victims. The ways in which they were treated I will abbreviate . Children were shot for crying. Teachers and parents were shot for trying to calm the hostages. Young girls were gang raped. Young girls were raped with gun barrels and other objects. Many young girls did not survive these rapes. Children were forced to drink their own urine before being executed. The list of inhuman acts committed by these Muslim animals is as nothing I have ever heard before.”

    In response you stated to me earlier that, “As for the anecdotes of atrocities, all that you are demonstrating with these is how weak these societies are, and how little Islam is holding the social fabric together there.”

    Let’s focus directly on this particular Beslan “anecdote” for a minute, you know, the one that you were afraid to comment on previously. Here is you big chance to dazzle me with your ability to admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-accusations, play the victim, and obfuscate the truth… and don’t forget to give me a big Allahu akbar!!!! Allahu akbar!!! just so that I know you really mean it.

    Here we go Muslim…are you saying that Muslims did not commit these atrocities against the Russian people? Educate all of us Muslim!!

61. Richard

    November 1, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon you will not listen to reason or see evidence, so its no use talking to you.

    The Quraish did not start the war with Muhammad, He did. He raided their caravans. He was nothing but a raider, pillager and thief. The evidence is there but you will not see it. Against the evidence I have shown you what evidence do you produce? Nothing.

    Chameleon “So anyone who murders and calls himself a Muslim is murdering because of his religion, but any Christian who murders is just having a bad day because of a lapse in his religion? ”

    Chameleon, a Christian who murders is a murderer, not inspired by Christianity. But Muslim jihadists who murder are inspired by Islam. Tell me what inspired Bin Laden or the 15 Hijackers to kill 3,000 civilians? It was nothing but Islam. Some Muslims say they were mistaken but the Hijackers and many others didnt think so.

62. Richard

    November 1, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Dr. Mohsen El-Guindy “You fear me because I an a warner to you and your like in face of a severe torment.”

    Dr. Mohsen El-Guindy that made me burst out laughing. Thank you for that. You are a clown and quite unbelieveable. That you could have gone thorough life and be in your sixties and still believe that nonsense amazes me.

    “We Muslims bow and fall down prostrate in prayer seeking bounty from Allah and His good pleasure.”

    To be fair Dr. Mohsen El-Guindy, you do push your your forehead into the floor with your ass up in the air, pointing in unison to the skies. And why do you face the idol of Kaaba in Mecca when you do that may I ask? And God forbid if you were to fart in that position.

    Your religion deals with complete mind control. Muhammad was a control freak (among other things). He wanted to control everything about a human. How you pray, how you have sex, how you fart and how you piss.

    Bukhari 4:137 Allah’s Apostle said, “The prayer of a person who does ,Hadath (passes, urine, stool or wind) is not accepted till he performs (repeats) the ablution.” A person from Hadaramout asked Abu Huraira, “What is ‘Hadath’?” Abu Huraira replied, ” ‘Hadath’ means the passing of wind from the anus.”

    or from Abu Dawood “…One day I was in the company of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him). He wanted to urinate. Then he came to a soft ground at the foot of a wall and urinated. He (the Prophet) then said: If any of you wants to urinate, he should look for a place (like this) for his urination.”

    and “Narrated Salman al-Farsi: It was said to Salman: Your Prophet teaches you everything, even about excrement. He replied: Yes. He has forbidden us to face the qiblah at the time of easing or urinating, and cleansing with right hand, and cleansing with less than three stones, or cleansing with dung or bone.”

    (The Arabs should clean themselves with at least 3 stones after shitting.)

    and “Narrated Abu Sa’id al-Khudri: I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say: When two persons go together for relieving themselves uncovering their private parts and talking together, Allah, the Great and Majestic, becomes wrathful at this (action).”

    This “Allah, the Great and Majestic” of Muhammad’s is very concerned about how you shit and piss, pray, dress, have sex.

    Bukhari 8:139 My uncle asked Allah’s Apostle about a person who imagined to have passed wind during the prayer. Allah’ Apostle replied: “He should not leave his prayers unless he hears sound or smells something.” lol

    Bukhari 8:436 Allah’s Apostle said, “The angels keep on asking Allah’s forgiveness for anyone of you, as long as he is at his Mu,salla (praying place) and he does not pass wind (Hadath). They say, ‘O Allah! Forgive him, O Allah! be Merciful to him.”

    Allah forgives only so long as you dont fart! God help you if have had hot Indian curry and your bum is up in the air and let out a little fart.

    According to Muhammad the Adhan, (the call to prayer), puts Satan to flight farting noisily so that the people may not hear the Azan. So maybe the next time you smell that stink and hear that noise when your bums are pointing skywards – its not you, its Satan.

    Bukhari 11:582 Allah’s Apostle said, “When the adhan is pronounced satan takes to his heels and passes wind with noise during his flight in order not to hear the adhan. When the adhan is completed he comes back and again takes to his heels when the Iqama is pronounced and after its completion he returns again till he whispers into the heart of the person (to divert his attention from his prayer) and makes him remember things which he does not recall to his mind before the prayer and that causes him to forget how much he has prayed.” lol

    And you believe all this nonsense?

63. Chameleon

    October 31, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    (Un)Armed Infidel,

    Ah, the predictable last refuge of a desperate mind and intellectual coward conceding to defeat: the ad hominem attack. I have clearly and easily rebutted every single one of your pathetic arguments against Islam. Yet you have absolutely NOTHING to offer in terms of any counter-rebuttal besides talking about my feelings. I am touched at your thoughtfulness, but only the facts and arguments matter here, nothing else. On that score, the results are clearly in. As the saying goes: You have been weighed. You have been measured. And you have been found wanting.

    Now go back to Billy’s KoolAid. He will be able to tell you all kinds of comforting, titillating stories about whatever you want to hear most about Islam — Taqiyya, Kitman, Dhimmi robots, Kafir sex slaves, impenetrable statistics without all that silly data, homosexual pedophilia, new and improved defecation titles, a whole new Koran written by Billy himself that promises only to reinforce your beliefs, and whatever else your heart desires. He will help you lick your wounds and nurse you back to your old self. He will make the world all clear for you again. The whites will all be whiter, and the blacks will all be blacker — just as it always should be.

64. Armed Infidel

    October 31, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon,

    You Muslims are a touchy bunch, aren’t you!!?! So sensitive when faced with criticism about your totalitarian ideology. Sounds like you are having a hard time dealing with criticism too? You just can’t handle the truth, can you? Just have another cup of coffee and take a break, sounds like you need to calm down a bit. Here is my advice to you, ask yourself what your Prophet Mohammad (shit be upon him) would do when he was criticized!

    Frankly, I’m not impressed with your response, but it was fun drawing you out into the open so that everyone can see you for what you are, a Muslim scrambling around in dazed confusion and ranting your Islamic mantra…Allahu akbar!! Allahu akbar!!!

    You are almost as entertaining as your fellow Muslim El-Guindy!! He’s a real funny guy, eh?

    Now, Chameleon, pay attention, here is your next homework assignment: Explain the following two terms “Taqiyya” and “Kitman” and how they relate to the Kuffar.

65. Chameleon

    October 31, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Richard,

    I am not going to give you a history lesson when the history by real historians is abundantly clear. For example, do you have any idea what preceded the attack on any Quraish caravan (aka military supply line)? Of course you don’t. You just assume that all conflict with the poor, passive Quraish started with a Muslim attack on a caravan. That little detail called a war, which you conveniently omitted, was already well underway. All you are doing is just copying and pasting from Bill’s and others’ attempted rewrites of history. Read from the true historians — including reputable non-Muslims — and then do a real analysis. Until then, your copying and pasting of propaganda that disagrees with commonly accepted history is worth nothing.

    Ibn Ishaq=extremely unreliable. Nothing further to say there because nothing further needs to be said.

    Muslim 19:4422 proves that the death of the chiefs had absolutely nothing to do with any assassination, which was the whole point. It only corroborates Ibn Ishaq in the abuse of Muhammad and the death of the chiefs in an unrelated military battle. Once again, you are wrong.

    The Quran makes perfect sense to Muslims who read it, and the vast majority of them have never even heard of Ibn Ishaq, let alone read it. The Quran focuses on Allah, not Muhammad or even his history or character beyond a small portion of verses. I can only speak strongly for myself. The Quran is beautiful, very easy to read and consistently focused on the worship, oneness and other attributes of God. The Bible, on the other hand, is just a jumble of history, with the focus on God’s creation, particularly his Prophet Jesus.
    With this focus, it is no wonder Jesus was assimiliated into the pagan sun gods of Rome, who died and were resurrected to save humanity (Hmm, doesn’t that sound familiar?).

    As for suras 8 and 9, where the rules of engagement in war are detailed (among other topics), these are also quite clear to me even without any hadiths, let alone Ibn Ishaq. I am a Muslim, and yet I have no idea what you are talking about in terms of not understanding the Quran — now isn’t that funny?

    Like (Un)Armed Infidel, you have clearly been drinking too much Bill KoolAid. Bukhari 59:340 does show the incident of Hamza doing something vicious to the camel, but don’t you realize that Hamza was at one point not a Muslim and even adamantly opposed to Muslims? In this incident, he was also drunk, and the Prophet Muhammad clearly condemned it severely. This latter point, as well as numerous other hadiths where it forbids the abuse of animals (and drinking alchohol), is the only relevant point regarding Islamic doctrine, and it was this very point that you chose to omit! What a deceiver you are! Here is the full quote of the hadith for others to see:

    Narrated ‘Ali: I had a she-camel which I got in my share from the booty of the battle of Badr, and the Prophet had given me another she camel from the Khumus which Allah had bestowed on him that day. And when I intended to celebrate my marriage to Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet, I made an arrangement with a goldsmith from Bani Qainuqa ‘that he should go with me to bring Idhkhir (i.e. a kind of grass used by gold-smiths) which I intended to sell to gold-smiths in order to spend its price on the marriage banquet. While I was collecting ropes and sacks of pack saddles for my two she-camels which were kneeling down beside an Ansari’s dwelling and after collecting what I needed, I suddenly found that the humps of the two she-camels had been cut off and their flanks had been cut open and portions of their livers had been taken out. On seeing that, I could not help weeping. I asked, “Who has done that?” They (i.e. the people) said, “Hamza bin ‘Abdul Muttalib has done it. He is present in this house with some Ansari drinkers, a girl singer, and his friends. The singer said in her song, “O Hamza, get at the fat she-camels!” On hearing this, Hamza rushed to his sword and cut of the camels’ humps and cut their flanks open and took out portions from their livers.” Then I came to the Prophet, with whom Zaid bin Haritha was present. The Prophet noticed my state and asked, “What is the matter?” I said, “O Allah’s Apostle, I have never experienced such a day as today! Hamza attacked my two she-camels, cut off their humps and cut their flanks open, and he is still present in a house along some drinkers.” The Prophet asked for his cloak, put it on, and proceeded, followed by Zaid bin Haritha and myself, till he reached the house where Hamza was. He asked the permission to enter, and he was permitted. The Prophet started blaming Hamza for what he had done. Hamza was drunk and his eyes were red. He looked at the Prophet then raised his eyes to look at his knees and raised his eves more to look at his face and then said, “You are not but my father’s slaves.” When the Prophet understood that Hamza was drunk, he retreated, walking backwards went out and we left with him.”

    You also say “A murderer who happens to be a nominal Christian is not the same thing as a Muslim who murders as a direct result of belief in his religion.” So anyone who murders and calls himself a Muslim is murdering because of his religion, but any Christian who murders is just having a bad day because of a lapse in his religion? Please explain to me how this absurd doublespeak logic works! This is the same stupid logic that came up with Bill’s 270 million deaths attributable to jihad (by the way, with absolutely no data provided!). Anyone killed must be due to jihad if it happened in a majority Muslim country. By that logic, we should be well over a billion deaths caused by Christian holy war. What a joke!

    As for verse 8:1, this actually says “for God and His Messenger”, not for Muhammad. The 1/5 was not for him personally, but for distribution to those who could not participate in the battle who had genuine, deserving needs. If it were not for this, the needy and indigent of the community would have gotten very little or nothing in a warrior-take-all default alternative. So of course this verse is still relevant. Also, if you read the history about the Prophet, he lived a relatively austere life in comparison to his status. In fact, he threatened to divorce his wives for demanding more material things of the world to reflect their status as his wives. Why would he do that if he could easily just keep more of the 1/5 for himself to avoid such intense marital conflict?

    Please do yourself a service and actually read something beyond anti-Islam hate propaganda, even by reputable non-Muslim historians. I have so clearly walloped you and (Un)Armed Infidel on every last point that you have brought up regarding the doctrine of Islam that you must be getting the picture by now how grossly deficient your knowledge of Islam truly is and how prejudiced you are against it. Your willful lack of intelligence is becoming an utter embarrassment to yourself, but you don’t even realize it. So much so that I am actually starting to feel sorry for you, and that really bores me. I don’t have the time to sit here all day long responding to your inimical bias against Islam. Unless you can show that you actually have something of an open mind, then I might as well just be having a conversation with myself — and that’s a waste of my time.

66. Democracyistheanswer

    October 31, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Dear El-Guindy,

    If I came to your office and asked for work saying, ‘Joe is my reference. He says I’m a great worker!’…you would ask, ‘Who is Joe?’ I could reply, ‘Oh…Joe’s VERY honest…you can believe him!’

    But you would say, ‘I (el-Guindy) don’t know Joe!’

    Exactly!

    Look at it this way…Mohammed shows up and says, ‘I heard from Gabriel who heard from Allah that I (Mohammed) am a great guy!’

    It is the same thing and you follow this uncritically…I would not want an MD who has no critical thinking.

67. Chameleon

    October 31, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    (Un)Armed Infidel,

    You’d better check your ammunition because you are really shooting blanks now. Please reread the first paragraph of my last post. I am defending Islam, NOT “Muslims” who violate Islam — you can add pedophile Pakistani truckers to that list too! Your statistics reek of the absurd on the nefarious activities of all these “Muslims”. You say 95% of Pakistani truckers are homosexual pedophiles — don’t you realize how ridiculous that makes you sound? But heh, at least the statistics sound impressive, don’t they? Too bad you can’t back up any of them.

    As for the anecdotes of atrocities, all that you are demonstrating with these is how weak these societies are, and how little Islam is holding the social fabric together there. Again, you keep shooting yourself in the foot. You fear some strict version of global sharia law from such chaotic, lawless, irreligious, and totally leaderless people like this? What have you been smoking? Also, on the one hand you say that Islam has no moral codes, but on the other you and Bill are constantly threatened by this doomsday phantom sharia law machine out there about to devour us all up, making everyone into “Dhimmi” robots. Don’t you realize how schizophrenic and brainwashed you sound?

    Just wait for it — in a few years, Muslims will run in all the Congressional elections and, by a miracle, win 2/3 of all seats so that they will have enough votes to destroy the U.S. Constitution. Hmm — please explain to me, how will that happen? And please explain to me how these impoverished, sex-crazed chickens with their heads cut off are going to accomplish that. At least amuse me with some nutty conspiracy theory — this is getting a bit boring. And try to do your own writing — enough of your copying and pasting crap.

    As for your http://crombouke.blogspot.com link, I must say that you like to hang around with some real winning specimens of the human race. Basically, this guy is just another anti-Islam hate propagandist, except taken to the extreme, with only one goal: “to destroy Islam”. His arguments sound as empty, brainwashed, and misinformation loaded as yours, and he will clearly not be open to any intellectual debate. His mind is already completely closed. That said, I may try to engage him anyway at a later date, just to humor myself once I get too bored here.

    As for the Jan. 26, 2010 blog entry you referenced, I think you pretty much already copied it word for word in your post, which makes sense, since you don’t strike me as someone who does any thinking for himself. This blog entry had one link that I was interested in seeing, where he says “In Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine.” When you click on the embedded link, it goes to a site referencing irrelevant quotations from Winston Churchill. I must say, this guy is brilliant! He truly sees connections where no one else does.

    The only item of relevance referenced in your entire post was that of the “pedophile” label that you love to throw around. I think I already posted this too you, but here it is yet again: The idea that Prophet Muhammad married Ayesha when she was nine is categorically incorrect. She was between 18-20 years old at marriage. She was also the daughter of the next leader after Muhammad and, by all accounts, a strong leader of Muslims during Muhammad’s life and long after Muhammad’s death, not some weak, orphaned, abused child slave. Unfortunately, even most Muslims are ignorant on this point and resort to defending the incorrect age of marriage. The logic and facts are unmistakable, as discussed in depth at the following link: http://www.islamawareness.net/FAQ/what_was_ayesha.html. This analysis totally debunks the misinformation. Please reply to the facts and the arguments after reading it, and stop parroting your propaganda sound bites like a moron having a one way conversation with himself.

    I am very sorry to rain so much on your hate parade. I know that you are having a bad day. You sound so full of hate and anger. That can be very stressful when you can’t transfer it to someone else. I, on the other hand, am completely at peace. I suggest that you cut back a bit on your KoolAid. That stuff can kill you.

68. Dr. Mohsen El-Guindy

    October 31, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Armed infidel and Richard.

    It seems that you two are hired to work for political Islam. Bill Warner write the opening article and you two bark and applaud. or maybe Bill warner is hiding behind the names Richard or armed infidel!

    Armed infidel says: “The only calamity that Allah (even more and more shit be dropped upon him) has afflicted me with in this present life is you.”

    You are dam right. I am the voice of reason which is trying to teach you the wisdom of creation and what religion truly is, what corruption that happened in old scriptures, what Allah wants from His servants during their life of probation, and what is in store for them in the Hereafter if they don’t abide by the teachings of His only and true religion-Islam.

    Now your voice is raised, now you shout like women, now the hatred and enmity you carry against Islam are clearly shown. You have nothing to prove your erroneous ideas about Islam but falsehood and ignorance.

    You fear me because I an a warner to you and your like in face of a severe torment.

    You consider my words meaningless rantings! Okay, it is up to you to believe in my words or not to believe. As I said before, we Muslims don’t give a dam if you people believe in our religion or not, every one will die and be accountable to Allah very soon. You will receive your accountability without injustice because Allah is just. All the filth you uttered against Allah you will pay dearly for. And now you know for sure, how you will pay for it in the present world and in the Hereafter, I am not going to repeat my words again.

    The minute you read my words here and elsewhere, and no matter how quick you reject them with opposing arguments, the minute you will be held responsible for them before Allah. You will be asked on the Day of Resurrection about the truth and realities you have known from me as well as all the insolence and insults you showed to Allah. Your ugly words will encompass you on the Day of resurrection. You will hear them but you will not be able to deny them or even defend yourself. Allah will seal your ugly mouth, and your filthy words against your Creator will be your accusers.

    My answer to your monstrous words: ‘Even more and more shit be thrown upon Him (Allah)’, is:
    “Praise be to Allah Lord of the worlds, the most gracious, the Compassionate, the Creator of heavens and earth, the Creator of all things, the All-knowing. And blessings and peace be upon His seal of the Prophets and Messengers.”

    This is the difference between you and me: I submit, you rebel!

    The punishment and wrath of Allah will not wait until the Day of Resurrection to befall you, but it will surround you in this world, and in the Hereafter you will be facing the torment of the Fire that is laid upon the damned – burning in Hell-Fire for eternity.

    You say, ” Allah seems to have afflicted Muslims with worldly calamities in this present life. Your countries are Hells on Earth, with murder violence, mayhem and very poor standards of living.”

    No Mr. ignorant, it is your country that is hell on earth, and I am not going to introduce records of murder, rape, and all kinds of crime etc.. I am not going to introduce the terrifying costs (billions of dollars) of the natural disasters befalling your country every year.

    As for poor standard of living, why don’t you look at your economy you moron. When you think you will be able to recover from the debt of trillions you are now facing? After 10 or 30 or 50 years! This matter is really serious when you realize that other super powers are already rising quickly whether economically or militarily!

    Because you are so ignorant, you haven’tasked yourself why your economy has reached this ugly status of deterioration? It is because your bankers and their rich clients were not honest in their transactions, Your elite were looking only after their own interest. The banks were mostly trading in papers and not real assets. Your banks were selling the debts’ papers to other banks seeking quick gain on the expense of the poor and middle class. The result is: your country is going down to a frightening poverty. That is why you have now demonstrations asking for equality and social justice.

    Armed infidel says” If you want to waste your time bowing at least five times a day pointed to your moon god (may even more shit be heaped upon him) in Mecca, go right ahead, but don’t expect me to push my forehead into the floor with my ass up in the air for anyone”.

    You are so stupid as to insult your Creator with such insolence. You are not a match for him. Again, I will repeat the words which maddens you: Allah’s wrath will befall you in this world. You will be facing varieties of unbearable afflictions until your day comes. And in the grave you will be severely tortured until the Day of Resurrection by the angels responsible for torturing in the grave. As for the eternal torment in Hell, you will enjoy a variety of burnings that will roast your flesh and smash your bones on and on for eternity.

    I don’t expect you to push your forehead into the floor with your ass up in the air as you insolently say. because if you do that you will be a Muslim submitting completely to Allah, but I want you to stay an ass as you are now until the day comes when you enjoy the severe torture awaiting you.

    We Muslims bow and fall down prostrate in prayer seeking bounty from Allah and His good pleasure. The mark of our faith is on our foreheads from the traces of prostration during prayers. This is also our description in the Torah where the posture of humility in prayer is indicated by prostration: e.g., Moses and Aaron “fell upon their faces,” Num. xvi. 22.

    As we read in the Koran:

    Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are hard against the unbelievers, merciful one to another. Thou seest them bowing, prostrating, seeking bounty from Allah and good pleasure. Their mark is on their faces, the trace of prostration. That is their likeness in the Torah… (Al-Fath, 29).

    On the Day of Resurrection the believers in Allah (Islamic monotheism) and did good deeds by following the teachings of the Koran and the Sunna of the Prophet, their faces will be glowing with light emanating from Allah’s countenance and proceding ahead of them. It illuminates the way for them while crossing the darkness of the Day of Judgment to their final destination, carrying their books that bear their records in their right hands. Their greeting will be: “Good news for you this day. Gardens beneath which rivers flow. To dwell therein for aye! This indeed will be the highest achievement.”

    This is the day when the hypocrites will say to the believers: “wait for us. Let us borrow a light from your light!” It will b said, “Turn you back to your rear!, then seek a light where you can.”
    So a wall will be put up between them, inside it will be mercy, and outside it will be torment.
    Those outside the wall will call out: ‘Were we not with you?’ The believers will say, ‘True! But you led yourselves into temptation; you looked forward to our ruin; you doubted Allah’s promise; and your false desires deceived you; until there issued the command of Allah, and Satan deceived you in respect of Allah.

    In this day no atonement of any form can be accepted. Hell is the place where the hypocrites and the unbelievers make abode. It claims them as her own, and how evil is the destination.

    Allah knows the unseen in the heavens and the earth; He knows the thoughts within the breasts. There is nothing in the heavens or the earth that can frustrate Him. He is All-Knowing, All-Powerful. If Allah should take men to task for what they have earned He would not leave upon the face of the earth one crrature that crawls; but He is deferring them to a stated term, but when their term is come, all will be delt with according to their deeds.

    My words to you increas you only in aversion. You devise evil; but evil devising encompasses only those who do it. Those who strive against Allah’s signs to void them, theirs shall be a chastisement of painful wrath.

    Those infidels like you who deny Allah and insults Him the way you do shall have to suffer for it. Hell shall claim them as her own, neither will it have a complete killing effect on them so that they die, nor shall its torment be lightened for them. Thus do Allah requite the like of you. Therein you will cry: ‘Our Lord! Bring me out, I shall do righteous deeds, not the evil deeds that I used to do.’
    But you shall be told, ‘Did We not give you life long enough, so that whosoever would receive admonition could receive it? And the warner came to you. So taste you the evil of your deeds and do not expect anyone who would afford you help.’

    Allah says in the Koran:

    As for the unbelievers (Kuffar – plural of Kafir), theirs shall be the Fire of Gehenna; they shall neither be done with and die, nor shall its chastisement be lightened for them. Even so We recompense every ungrateful one. Therein they shall shout, ‘Our Lord, bring us forth, and we will do righteousness, other than what we have done.’
    ‘What, did We not give you long life, so that whosoever would receive admonition could receive it? To you the warner came; so taste you now! The evildoers shall have no helper (Fatir 36, 37).

    Our Lord, Allah, will bring us together on the Day of Resurrection, then He will judge between us with truth.

    Not alike are the blind and the seeing. Nor are alike darkness and light. Nor are alike the shade and the sun’s heat. Nor are alike the living and the dead.

    Your unbelief increases you only in loss. You are totally separated from the only reality that exists – Allah. You buried yourself in a dark grave, thus depriving yourself from Allah’s light, the light of guidance. Unless Allah wishes, no guidance would ever benefit you. You are already dead.

69. Richard

    October 31, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon it seems you are too far gone to accept the truth.

    Muhammad emerges as the perfect man, unblemished if you refuse to accept, by definition, any and all of the evidence against him.

    You refuse to accept Ibn Ishaq though he is the earliest biographer of Muhammad. You interpret Muslim 19:4422, which clearly corroborates Ishaq in your own convoluted way.

    You say “the Battle of Badr.. was a unilateral and completely unrelated attack against the Muslims.”

    What utter rubbish! The Battle of Badr was provoked by Muhammad when sent his men out to raid caravans, then deliberately provoked a battle with the Meccan army sent out to defend them.

    “Then the apostle heard that Abu Sufyan was coming from Syria with a large caravan of Qurish, containing their money and merchandise, accompanied by some thirty or forty men” When the Apostle heard about Abu Sufyan coming from Syria, he summoned the Muslims and said, “This is the Quraish caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps Allah will give it as a prey.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 428)

    Of course you will say that Ibn Ishaq is unreliable but that is the ONLY evidence we have and when you say it was an “attack against the Muslims” you have NO evidence whatsoever other than Muslims insistence that it was so.

    Much of the Quran only makes sense in the historical context given by Ibn Ishaq.

    This same account of Ishaq goes on to say that some of the Muslims were reluctant to participate in the attack because they did not want to go to war. Muhammad later refers to these peaceful Muslims as ‘Hypocrites’ in the Quran, and he condemns them to Hell and demands that true Muslims deal with them harshly. Quran 66:9

    When he got near to the Hijaz, Abu Sufyan was seeking news and questioning every rider in his anxiety, until he got news from some riders that Muahmmad had called out his companions against him and his caravan. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 428)

    Abu Sufyan did two things at this point to avert battle. He changed his route, so as to avoid Muhammad’s army, and he sent for help. The Meccans then sent out a larger force of about 900 men to rescue the caravan.

    A lengthy cat and mouse game ensued between Muhammad and the Meccans, in which the latter do nearly everything they can to avoid a conflict and make their way home (Ishaq/Hisham 433 to 443).

    Eventually Muhammad successfully forced them into battle by deliberately stopping up the water wells on which they depended for the trek back to Mecca – and then planted his army between the remaining wells and the thirsty Meccans.

    What part of this could possibly be confused with self-defense on the part of Muhammad?

    The Muslims clearly had the advantage against the weary and reluctant Meccans, even though they were lesser in number. Initially, they amused themselves by killing the few men desperate enough to try and reach the water:

    Al-Aswad, who was a quarrelsome ill-natured man, stepped forth and said, “I swear to God that I will drink from their cistern or destroy it or die before reaching it.” Hamza [a Muslim strongman] came forth against him and when the two met, Hamza smote him and sent his foot and half his shank flying as he was near the cistern. He fell on his back and lay there, blood streaming from his foot toward his comrades. Then he crawled to the cistern and threw himself into it for the purpose of fulfilling his oath, but Hamza followed him and smote him” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 443)

    The Muslims toyed with several other thirst-crazed Meccans in the same deadly manner before Muhammad finally gave the order to rout the “enemy.”

    The period following the victorious battle was one of giddy celebration for the Muslims. The decapitated heads of Muhammad’s opponents from Mecca were presented to him, and their slayers honored.

    Live captives were brought before him as well, where he ordered some ransomed and others executed.

    Uqba, the man who threw intestines on Muhammad in Mecca, was not ransomed though he pleaded for his life, but killed and cut into pieces.

    In what seemed bizarre even to his own men, (they were astonished), Muhammad walked among the bodies of the dead Meccans and taunted them, insisting that they could hear him in Hell (Bukhari 59:314), pointing to him being mentally ill.

    The captured wealth of the Meccans was divided among the victors. Hamza, the man who had slaughtered the first Meccan attempting to reach water, turned his cruel amusement toward defenseless animals, cutting the humps off of camels and disemboweling them for no reason other than to relish their agony (Bukhari 59:340).

    Amid the drunken carnage, Allah “spoke” to Muhammad and told him to make sure that the other Muslims gave him a fifth of the war booty. These words have become permanently recorded in the Quran (8:1), even though they have no relevance today.

    Muhammad also informed his men that their victory was actually due to a legion of angels sent down by Allah (Quran 8:9) – which were, of course, visible only to Muhammad (Quran 8:50). (For some reason, the angels didn’t show up at the next battle, in which the Muslims were routed at Uhud).

    Much of the 8th Sura, one of the Qur’an’s more violent chapters, was “revealed” following the aftermath of the Battle of Badr. Many of the verses make little sense outside of their historical context, proving that the Sira (biography of Muhammad) is necessary for interpreting the Quran.

    The historical context of the battle of Badr clearly shows the misconception of modern-day Muslims that the Battle of Badr was a defensive conflict. Only the Meccans fought in defense of their lives and property that day – and they did so reluctantly, after Muhammad took every step to force them into battle.

    The Battle of Badr though a minor battle in the history of the world, was so important to Muhammad that he incorporated it in the Quran. As though a book supposed to be the everlasting word of the creator of the universe would be bothered about a minor Arabic fight among all the things in the Universe.

    You say “I am not here to defend entire countries or individuals who happen to call themselves Muslim. Nor am I here to defend misogynist or similar “scholars” who can’t back up their fatwas. I am here to defend Islam.”

    But these “entire countries or individuals who happen to call themselves Muslim and “misogynist” scholars” are guided by the Islam you defend.

    You say “You can rake through history and find all kinds of atrocities of murder, rape, slavery and so forth committed in the name of Christianity and many other religions just the same.”

    I beg to disagree. You do not hear Christians shouting Allah is the Greatest when killing and slaughtering as the Muslims do. A murderer who happens to be a nominal Christian is not the same thing as a Muslim who murders as a direct result of belief in his religion.

70. Chameleon

    October 31, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    (Un)Armed Infidel,

    You’d better check your ammunition because you are really shooting blanks now. Please reread the first paragraph of my last post. I am defending Islam, NOT Muslims who violate Islam — you can add pedophile Pakistani truckers to that list too! Your statistics reek of the absurd on the nefarious activities of all these Muslims. You say 95% of Pakistani truckers are homosexual pedophiles — don’t you realize how ridiculous that makes you sound? But heh, at least the statistics sound impressive, don’t they? Too bad you can’t back up any of them.

    As for the anecdotes of atrocities, all that you are demonstrating with these is how weak these societies are, and how little Islam is holding the social fabric together there. Again, you keep shooting yourself in the foot. You fear some strict version of global sharia law from such chaotic, lawless, irreligious, and totally leaderless people like this? What have you been smoking? Also, on the one hand you say that Islam has no moral codes, but on the other you and Bill are constantly threatened by this doomsday phantom sharia law machine out there about to devour us all up, making everyone into “Dhimmi” robots. Don’t you realize how schizophrenic and brainwashed you sound?

    Just wait for it — in a few years, Muslims will run in all the Congressional elections and, by a miracle, win 2/3 of all seats so that they will have enough votes to destroy the U.S. Constitution. Hmm — please explain to me, how will that happen? And please explain to me how these impoverished, sex-crazed chickens with their heads cut off are going to accomplish that. At least amuse me with some nutty conspiracy theory — this is getting a bit boring. And try to do your own writing — enough of your copying and pasting crap.

    As for your http://crombouke.blogspot.com link, I must say that you like to hang around with some real winning specimens of the human race. Basically, this guy is just another anti-Islam hate propagandist, except taken to the extreme, with only one goal: “to destroy Islam”. His arguments sound as empty, brainwashed, and misinformation loaded as yours, and he will clearly not be open to any intellectual debate. His mind is already completely closed. That said, I may try to engage him anyway at a later date, just to humor myself once I get too bored here.

    As for the Jan. 26, 2010 blog entry you referenced, I think you pretty much already copied it word for word in your post, which makes sense, since you don’t strike me as someone who does any thinking for himself. This blog entry had one link that I was interested in seeing, where he says “In Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine.” When you click on the embedded link, it goes to a site referencing irrelevant quotations from Winston Churchill. I must say, this guy is brilliant! He truly sees connections where no one else does.

    The only item of relevance referenced in your entire post was that of the “pedophile” label that you love to throw around. I think I already posted this too you, but here it is yet again: The idea that Prophet Muhammad married Ayesha when she was nine is categorically incorrect. She was between 18-20 years old at marriage. She was also the daughter of the next leader after Muhammad and, by all accounts, a strong leader of Muslims during Muhammad’s life and long after Muhammad’s death, not some weak, orphaned, abused child slave. Unfortunately, even most Muslims are ignorant on this point and resort to defending the incorrect age of marriage. The logic and facts are unmistakable, as discussed in depth at the following link: http://www.islamawareness.net/FAQ/what_was_ayesha.html. This analysis totally debunks the misinformation. Please reply to the facts and the arguments after reading it, and stop parroting your propaganda sound bites like a moron having a one way conversation with himself.

    I am very sorry to rain so much on your hate parade. I know that you are having a bad day. You sound so full of hate and anger. That can be very stressful when you can’t transfer it to someone else. I, on the other hand, am completely at peace. I suggest that you cut back a bit on your KoolAid. That stuff can kill you.

71. Armed Infidel

    October 30, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon,

    So you are here to defend Islam? Great! What are you going to do defend Islam from the truth?

    Go ahead and defend this blog entry dated Tuesday, 26 January 2010 at http://crombouke.blogspot.com

    This is your big opportunity to defend Islam, so go ahead, go ahead give it your best shot you arrogant bastard!

    Unlike most other religions, Islam doesn’t have ethical standards or moral codes. There is no equivalent of the Ten Commandments or Eightfold Path. Nor does the individual’s conscience count for anything. In fact, Islam works in a diabolical fashion to destroy conscience.

    The sole arbiter of what is right or wrong is Mohammed’s confused and contradictory ravings in the Koran, and the example he set by his predatory behavior.

    The Perfect Pedophile
    Muslims worship Mohammad as ‘The Perfect Man’. If Mohammad did something then it’s OK, in fact it’s obligatory for Muslims to follow his example.

    But unfortunately for millions of children throughout history, who have been born into Islam or fallen into the clutches of the Mohammedans, the ‘prophet’ Mohammad was a particularly warped and repulsive pedophile.

    He acquired his sex-slave Aisha (var. sp. Ayesha) when she was six and he was fifty-something, much against her father’s will.

    However Allah said it was OK, so Aisha was dragged away from her dolls and handed over to Mohammed. As she was too young for Mohammed to penetrate, he climaxed by rubbing himself between her thighs without actually entering her body. This practice is known as Mufa’ Khathat or ‘thighing’, and is practised in Muslim families to the present day.

    Women as chattels.
    In Islam women and children are chattels. Every woman must have an owner, and a virgin can bring a good price when sold in marriage. [In Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine]. This has a number of unfortunate and disgusting consequences.

    – Incest
    Since the sale of a girl involves a substantial cash transfer, it’s better if the money flow can remain within the family. Consequently, incestuous marriages proliferate, with girls being sold to older cousins and uncles. This leads to a much greater incidence of birth defects.

    – Sex starved young men
    Women are kept in purdah, and must be accompanied by a male relative whenever they leave the house. Wealthy older men acquire the youngest brides (often young cousins), with polygamy ensuring that young women are always in short supply for impoverished young men. In traditional Muslims societies, by the time the average Muslim male has reached adolescence all the girls have been sold to old lechers. This gives the Muslim males four choices…

    (1) Stay faithful to Mrs Hand and her five daughters. However masturbation is a sin, so it’s preferable to…
    (2) Die while killing infidels so you get into Allah’s brothel in the sky and have eternal sex with 72 virgins
    (3) Rape anything that’s available- usually Kafir girls (Raping a Kafir woman or girl isn’t a sin – they’re uncovered meat and asking for it)
    (4) Go for young boys. Although homosexuality between grown men is a sin, it’s OK to enjoy a boy provided he’s still beardless (‘Bacha bereesh’ – pre-pubescent boys are classed as females.)

    Depths of depravity towards Christians
    The combination of their primitive, tribal ‘religion’, their brainwashed hatred of infidels, and the example of their loathsome ‘prophet’ means that there are no depths of depravity to which they will not sink when molesting infidel children, as the last two examples below illustrate…

    Muslim pedophile gangs prey on British Children
    “Of course you find pedophiles and rapists in all communities, but these are nearly always loners operating in secret, because pedophiles are despised and hated by normal people.

    However Islam is different. Pedophilia is socially acceptable in Islam because ‘the perfect man’ Mohammed was a pedophile. In addition, pedophile attacks on ‘kuffar’ (non-Muslim) children are seen as a legitimate form of jihad, inflicting humiliation and demoralisation on the children and their parents.

    The Islamic invasion of the West is one huge razzia (raid of rape and pillage) and Western children are war booty. Pedophila is widespread in Muslim communities, with Christian children being the main targets. The pedophiles operate in well-organised gangs and networks. They are protected and encouraged by their wider communities and enjoy immunity from prosecution so as not to damage ‘Community Cohesion’

    Islamic pedophile child abduction and gang-rape is a tactic of Sexual Jihad and is being increasing used against infidel children in Western countries.

    Following the Perfect example from the Perfect Man
    “Now since Mohammed is role model for all Muslims, he set a precedent which allows all Muslim men to perform Mufa’Khathat on children younger than nine, and to have full sex from nine onwards.

    Ayatollah Khomeini, generally regarded as one of the leading Muslims of the twentieth century, wrote “A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister.”

    Being a devout man who practised what be preached, the Ayatollah had a ‘fling’ with a four year old girl, as related in ‘Hal Ataaka Hadeeth ur-Raafidah’ by the late Sheikh Abu Mus’abaz-Zarqaawi:

    “When it was time to sleep, the guests had all left, except for the inhabitants of the house. Al-Khomeini laid his eyes on a young girl who, despite being only four or five years of age, was very beautiful.

    So, the Imam requested from her father, Sayyid Sahib, that he spend the night with her in order to enjoy her. Her father happily agreed, and Imam al-Khomeini spent the night with the girl in his arms, and we could hear her crying and screaming.'”

    Man boy sex in Islam
    In Muslim societies women are kept covered in burkhas, so the prettiest things that most unmarried Muslim men ever see are beardless pre-pubescent boys. Beardless boys are not regarded as male, so sex with them is not considered as homosexuality as it is between adult men. Consequently, in traditional Muslim societies completely clean shaving is frowned upon, as it sends the wrong messages about sexual availability. If full beards (Taliban-style) are not worn, then moustaches are required. Muslim clerics (like Catholic priests) are especially fond of little boys, and enjoying them is one of the perks of the job. Muslims get very annoyed if kuffars interfere with their rightful privileges. If a boy refuses to have sex with an Imam, he can expect severe punishment…

    PAKISTAN: 95% of truckers have sex with boys
    The name ‘Pakistan’ means ‘Land of the Pure’. In that Islamic republic where homosexuality is a crime, the sexual exploitation of boys is an endemic practice, notably in the transport industry.

    Those Muslims who denounce the moral corruption of Western secular societies are hypocrites. Children are violated in western countries of course, but those responsible are pursued and punished. In ‘The Land of The Pure’ , when boys are not being transformed into human bombs, they are sodomised with impunity’

    Rest of article (in French) at
    http://www.bivouac-id.com/2010/02/25/pakistan-95-des-camionneurs-ont-des-activites-sexuelles-avec-des-garcons/

    Beslan rapes and forced urine drinking
    Five years ago Muslim extremists invaded a school in Beslan, Russia. These Muslim terrorists held over a thousand people, most of them children, hostage. For three days these Muslim terrorists killed and tortured countless victims. The ways in which they were treated I will abbreviate . Children were shot for crying. Teachers and parents were shot for trying to calm the hostages. Young girls were gang raped. Young girls were raped with gun barrels and other objects. Many young girls did not survive these rapes. Children were forced to drink their own urine before being executed. The list of inhuman acts committed by these Muslim animals is as nothing I have ever heard before.

    Christian girl aged 21/2 raped then left to die for the greater glory of Allah.
    “Baby Neeha, at the age of 21/2, was raped by the son of her father’s employer and left to die by the roadside, he said. No one was arrested for the crime.

    These horrific events took place because her father, who was Christian, refused to give in to pressure from his Muslim employer to convert to Islam,” El Shafie said.

    The family went underground in Pakistan to hide from Muslim extremists who were seeking revenge for their non-conversion, he said.

    “The family has lived for years in hiding and in constant fear of being discovered by the employer’s family or Islamic extremists,” El Shafie said. “We are thrilled that she’s finally in Canada.”

72. Chameleon

    October 30, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Come on guys, is that all you’ve got? I am not here to defend entire countries or individuals who happen to call themselves Muslim. Nor am I here to defend misogynist or similar “scholars” who can’t back up their fatwas. I am here to defend Islam. Show me the facts and arguments, not fatwas or historical abuses of Islam. This is just the same old ad hominem attack, except this time on a global level against any and all Muslims who defend their religion — a sure sign of someone who is afraid to address the facts and arguments about the religion itself.

    You can rake through history and find all kinds of atrocities of murder, rape, slavery and so forth committed in the name of Christianity and many other religions just the same. It is not the religion that is to blame, or even religion in general as some atheists argue, but rather the political and self-serving need to try to justify what is unequivocally against all religions and all common decency. There are millions upon millions of devout Muslims who lead lives observing all these common decencies and abhorring all such atrocities violating them, and I have yet to meet even one Muslim in my entire life who has ever publicly or privately advocated or even approved of such atrocities — and I have met a LOT of them. So to say that such hideous views are somehow indicative of the “real Muslims” out there, let alone anything near a majority, is utterly false. The only thing that you are doing by repeating this nonsense is helping to feed Al Qaeda’s propaganda machine. They are no doubt happy to see such zealous supporters in action.

    As for slavery, I qualified my statement about the historical continuation of slavery with “except those who openly opposed Islam.” However, I do take and accept your point that my use of the word “eradicated” in one phrase was too strong, since this implied a judgment about history outside of Islam. Thank you for your correction. The key point that I was trying to make, however, is that Islam is unequivocally against slavery. The early community acknowledged the reality of slavery ingrained in the culture, but Islam effectively banned it as an acceptable practice over one generation, if not immediately, by not allowing or supporting the enslavement of free individuals and doing everything possible to get Muslims to free any slaves that remained. A hadith is referenced in the “Islamic View on Slavery” Wikipedia link that Richard referenced, which I also saw before but forgot to reference. It clarifies this point still further, that enslaving free men is explicitly not permitted per the Prophet: “There are three categories of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgement. Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and eats this money” (al-Bukhari and Ibn Majjah).”

    As for captives of war, yes, captives were definitely taken by Muslims. In fact, they should and MUST BE taken as the only morally correct alternative, as they are today by every country in every war. It’s just that now we call them POWs. The unacceptable alternative, of course, is killing them. This does not mean that they become slaves. When the war is over, just like POWs today, the Quran says that they must be released, either for nothing or in return for compensation in exchange(i.e., “ransom”, which would include their POWs in exchange). This is exactly what is done as the military norm today, in the 21st century. There is absolutely no other option in this, per verse 47:4: “So, when you clash with the unbelievers, smite their necks until you overpower them, then hold them in bondage. Then either free them graciously or after taking a ransom, until war shall have come to end.”

    As for the story about the assassination of the individual who abused the Prophet, you are quoting your version from Ibn Ishaq, which is totally unreliable, as I have already discussed. Moreover, it contradicts authenticated hadith. You are totally shooting yourself in the foot by misquoting Muslim 19:4422 to support Ibn Ishaq. Here is the full quote of that hadith, which exactly proves my point:

    “It has been narrated by Abdullah (b. Mas’ud) who said: When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) was lying postrate in prayer and around him were some people from the Quraish, ‘Uqba b. Abu Mu’ait brought the foetus of a she-camel and threw it on the back of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He did not raise his head until Fatima arrived, removed it from his back and cured him who had done that (ugly act). He said: O Allah, it is for Thee to deal with the chiefs of the Quraish. Abu Jahl b. Hisham, ‘Utba b. Rabi’a. Uqba b. Abu Mu’ait, Shaiba b. Rabi’a, Umayya b. Khalaf or Ubayy b. Khalaf (Shu’ba, one of the narrator of this tradition is in doubt about the exact person). I saw that all were slain in the Battle of Badr and their dead bodies were thrown into a well, except that of Umayya or Ubayy which was cut into pieces and was thrown into the well.”

    What this hadith says is that the Prophet never took revenge through assassination here. He prayed for justice by asking Allah to deal with his abusers (in another hadith, he also asked the chiefs to enforce their protection, which they didn’t). Later, it was reported that all of these chiefs were killed in the Battle of Badr, which was a unilateral and completely unrelated attack against the Muslims. This battle had nothing to do with the abuse in question.

    You also say the following about what I said: “you have admitted that Islam was a religion meant for the Arabs of the 7th century.” I never said anything of the sort. It was actually extremely disruptive of their ingrained 7th century practices. I said that pre-Islamic customs are sometimes alluded to in the hadiths, which makes it dangerous to treat hadiths as primary Islamic doctrine, especially when they contradict the Quran. You then also said that Islamic doctrine was “less just and moral than the existing Arab laws and morals of those times.” Wow, that is quite a thesis — please elaborate on that some more, especially since slavery, killing of unwanted infant girls, and so forth were all accepted as customs in pre-Islamic times. I have never seen that even remotely argued even by the most twisted anti-Islam haters. Please try to educate me, if you can.

    As for the verses discussing “those whom thy right hands possess” referenced in 33:50. 23:5-6, 4:24, 8:69, 24:33, and possibly elsewhere, I have already covered that in detail in my previous post. This is actually referencing “those with whom you have contractual rights” per the Arabic phrase “Ma malakat aymanukum”. Who these women are is described in verse 60:10, as I also explained in detail above. They are not slaves or possessions of any sort.

    As for 2:178, this is actually emphasizing the equality of punishment, not inequality as you imply. What it is saying is that the responsible individual, and ONLY that individual, will be held accountable for murder. It is contradicting the pre-Islamic practice, for example, whereby more than one slave or woman was killed in retaliation if a free man was killed (such as by a slave or woman), which effectively meant that innocent individuals were often killed in retaliation, creating an endless cycle of unjust violence.

    As for verse 16:75, the distinction here is not between “master” and “slave” (actually, “man” and “hired servant”, per the correct translation), but rather between a rich man and a poor man. It uses this as an analogy of how individuals are obviously unequal in worldly wealth to set up the final point in 16:76 (the very next verse), where it says, in the same manner, individuals are just as obviously not equal in spiritual wealth. The difference in spiritual wealth is highlighted by what is proof of the “wealthy” individual: “one who enjoins what is just, and follows the straight path.”

    I think I have rebutted quite clearly and easily all of your arguments, at least all the ones that have been backed by even a snippet of facts. If I have missed any, then let me know.

    As a side note, I find the conversations with Dr. Mohsen El-Guindy amusing in their absurdity, but extremely pathetic on both sides. All of you are neither listening to a damn thing the other is saying nor trying to communicate facts and arguments that are of relevance to any real discussion. If it helps everyone to blow off steam to get through the day, then keep going at it. However, just try not to degrade yourselves in the process — and that goes for both sides. Take a step back and look at all of us as human beings who are free to make our own choices, even if they may be “wrong”.

73. Richard

    October 29, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon “To prove how effective this debasement is, you only have to read the absolute delight in your own words about the thought of the imagery.”

    Pardon me. I do not approve of such acts. But to have a person killed because of it is far far worse.

    “As for the “retaliation” for this incident, Mohammad did not have this person killed”

    But he did. Uqba bin Abu Mu’ayt pled for his life but was killed after the Battle of Badr when he was taken prisoner. “When the apostle ordered him to be killed, Uqba said, “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?” [Muhammad’s reply] “Hell.” The man was put to death. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 458) Then his body was cut into pieces and thrown into a well. Muslim 19:4422

    You say that things contrary to the Quran are invalidated in the Hadiths. But the Quran explicitly allows slaves.

    To Muhammad “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee” Quran 33:50. 23:5-6, 4:24, 8:69, 24:32, 2:178 (All humans are NOT created equal), 16:75 – the slave is not equal to the master.

    “Once again, slavery was not eradicated from day one in the community that Muslims were originally a part of, but it was done so in relatively short order given how ingrained it was culturally.”

    What!? You are sadly ignorant about slavery in Islam, which exists till today.

    “Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as 1.25 million white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast.”

    “In 2003 a high-level Saudi jurist, Shaykh Saleh Al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa claiming “Slavery is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery#Arab_slave_trade

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Modern_times

    The total slavery in the Ottoman Empire, India and Africa numbered in the Hundreds of Millions over the years. They were only following the example of Muhammad a slave trader himself.

    Dr. Abdul-Latif Mushtahari, the general supervisor and director of homiletics and guidance at the Azhar University:

    “Islam does not prohibit slavery but retains it for two reasons. The first reason is war (whether it is a civil war or a foreign war in which the captive is either killed or enslaved) provided that the war is not between Muslims against each other – it is not acceptable to enslave the violators, or the offenders, if they are Muslims. Only non-Muslim captives may be enslaved or killed. The second reason is the sexual propagation of slaves which would generate more slaves for their owner.”

    I could go on an on, but you have admitted that Islam was a religion meant for the Arabs of the 7th century. It is less just and moral than the existing Arab laws and morals of those times.

    Why dont you abandon it and turn towards humanism and rationalism?

74. Richard

    October 28, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Dr. Mohsen El-Guindy “Allah will afflict you with worldly calamities in this present life, then you will be sverely tortured in the grave and in the heareafter you will be roasted in Hell for eternity.”

    Dr. Mohsen El-Guindy Allah seems to have afflicted Muslims with worldly calamities in this present life. Your countries are Hells on Earth, with murder violence, mayhem and very poor standards of living.

    The countries that have a good standard of living and people live good lives are those that have done away with your fictitious Allah.

    As for your threats of us roasting in your fairy-tale Hell for eternity thats fine by us – just so long as you roast in hell in real life.

    You are a pathetic child still believing in the Bogey-man.

75. Richard

    October 28, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    lol Dr. Mohsen El-Guindy – you have come out in your true colours – spewing hate generated by your religion Islam- a religion that spawns hate from an invented god, who is none other (see the Wizard of Oz) than the character of Muhammad himself, – a god who hates.

    Chameleon why is it that places where Islam and your “god-given” laws – the Sharia – are implemented are actual hells on Earth? Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the Sub-Saharan countries, Iran?

    You say “To even indulge in a women’s beauty with one’s eyes is considered shameful for a Muslim man, let alone indulge in the type of lecherous behavior that you describe”

    The “lecherous behaviour” is not what I describe but what the Hadiths and the Sira do. I have merely quoted them.

    Yes the Islamic society is one of extreme sexual repression and frustration. Thus ideally suited for the type of behaviour it explicitly permits – the rape of captive women and slaves and the promise of wine, young boys and houris in paradise.

76. Armed Infidel

    October 28, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    El-Guindy (The Ignorant)

    “Allah is swift at reckoning” – Why don’t you call his 800 number and tell your moon god Allah (shit be upon him) I’m busy right now, but I can fit him into my schedule next Tuesday at 9:00am so we can get started on this “swift reckoning.” Tell him not to be late, because I’m a busy person.

    “He is your Creator” – I hate to break the news to you Mr. Ignorant, but my parents created me, not your make believe moon god (may more shit be upon him).

    “and to him we bow in Islam” – If you want to waste your time bowing at least five times a day pointed to your moon god (may even more shit be heaped upon him) in Mecca, go right ahead, but don’t expect me to push my forehead into the floor with my ass up in the air for anyone.

    “Allah will afflict you with worldly calamities in this present life” – The only calamity that Allah (even more and more shit be dropped upon him) has afflicted me with in this present life is you.

77. Lee

    October 27, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Dr. Mohsen El-Guindy,

    You are right, of course.
    All praise allah, pig excrement be upon him.

78. Dr. Mohsen El-Guindy

    October 27, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Armed infidel

    The enemy of Allah, this profane, calling himself “armed infidel”, is so arrogant as to vomit filth from his unclean defiled mouth about Allah, the God of the worlds and all beings, and about His seal of the Prophets.

    He impudently says, “Muslims belong to a “cult of personality” based upon their so-called Prophet Muhammad (shit be upon him) and a fictitious moon god named Allah (shit be upon him too) and nothing, and I mean nothing, is going to bring them to their senses. ”

    You call yourself armed infidel!
    The minute you declared your infidelity, and your opponent now is Allah, are you match for him you moron!

    Our God is not a moon god you miserable filth of humanity. He is your Creator, the God of all being. Where did you get this information from, you lowly, you abject. From the Kuran or the Sunna of the prophet?

    We worship the God who was mentioned in the Koran. Listen and read you moron ignorant about the God we worship:

    say you: ‘We believe in Allah, and in that which has been sent down on us, and sent down on Abraham, Ishmael, Isaak, and jacob, and the Tribes, and that which was given to Moses and Jesus and the Prophets, of their Lord; we make no division between any of them, and to him we bow in Islam (Al-baqarah, 136).

    Where is the fictitious moon god here you infidel lier?

    The messenger believes in what was sent down to him from His Lord, and the believers; each one believes in Allah and His angels, and his Books and His Messengers; we make no division between any of His Messengers.
    They say, ‘We hear and obey.’
    Our Lord, grant us Thy forgiveness; unto Thee is the homecoming.’ (Al-Baqarah, 285).

    Where is the fictitiuos moon god here you infidel hypocrite?

    Allah, there is no god but He, the living, the everlasting. Slumber seizes Him not, neither sleep; to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth. Who is there that shall intercede with Him save by His leave?
    he knows what lies before them and what is after them, and they comprehend not anything of His knowledge save such as He wills.
    His throne comprises the heavens and earth, the preserving of them oppresses Him not; he is the All-High, the All-Glorious (Al-Baqarah, 255).

    Where is the fictitiuos moon god here you inmate of Hell?

    Well Mr. profane, you showed a lack of respect to Allah and His prophet. You made not a just estimate of Allah such as is due to Him. Satan decked out your deeds fair to you. You are deaf, dumb and blind. Allah left you in utter darkness so you could not see His path. The worst of beasts in Allah’s sight are those that are deaf and dumb and do not understand. If Allah had known of any good in you He would have made you hear; and if He had made you hear, you would have turned away, swerving aside. You are classed with crouds that go to perdition. You are doomed to come to an evil end. You shall surely know by what overturning you will be overturned.

    By insulting Allah and the seal of the Prophets, you have incurred Allah’s most inexorable wrath. An ignominious punishment awaits you.

    your plots against Islam, are but plots against you own soul. soon you will be overtaken by huliliation before Allah, and a severe punishment for all your plots.

    Don’t ever think that Allah prolongs your days for your own good. He gives you respite only so that you may commit more grievous sins.
    Allah may punish wicked people by granting them respite and providing them worldly benefits in abundance, which encourages them in sin and transgression. So when they are finally seized by the wrath of Allah they are caught suddenly and utterly unprepared while engrossed in disbelief, a life of impiety and open revolt against their lord.

    On the Day of Resurrection the infidels who denied Allah or incorporated with Him other deities will be herded in throngs to the Abysm of Hell. And when they have reached its gates they are swung open, and there, shall the angels (guards of hell) receive them with reproach unto their infidelity. They will say to them, ‘Did not the Messengers come to you from yourselves, reciting to you the verses of your Lord, and warning you of the meeting of this Day of yours?’ They will say, ‘Yes’. But say the angels, ‘Allah’s Word that was proclaimed beforehand is now being realized that the infidels were born to be the inmates of Hell.’

    The Koran says to people like you and your like:

    Then the unbelievers shall be driven in companies into Hell till when they reached it, then its gates will be opened and its keepers will say to them, ‘Did not Messengers came to you from among yourselves, reciting to you the signs of your Lord and warning you against the encounter of this your day?’ They shall say, ‘Yes indeed’; but the Word of the chastisement has been realized against the disbelievers.’
    It shall be said, ‘Enter the gates of Hell, to dwell therein forever.’ How evil is the lodging of those that are proud! (Al-Zumar, 71).

    You deny the truth when it is declared to you, but you shall learn the consequence of your scorn. Allah shall mock you and shall lead you on blindly wandering in your insolence.

    Surely those who disbelieve in Our Signs – We shall certainly roast them at a Fire, as often as their skins are wholly burned We shall give them in exchange other skins, that they may taste the chastisement. Surely Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise (Al-Nisa, 56).

    those that disbelieve and deny Our revelations shall become the inmates of Hell (Al-maidah, 86).

    Announcing that you are an infidel is not something to boast about. Did you think that Allah has created you in play without any purpose, and that you will not be brought to Him? You cannot frustrate Allah. A grievous penalty awaits you because you rejected faith.

    Allah will afflict you with worldly calamities in this present life, then you will be sverely tortured in the grave and in the heareafter you will be roasted in Hell for eternity.

    Those who reject Our Signs We shall gradually visit with punishment in ways they perceive not (Al-A’raf, 182).

    Then leave me alone with such as belie this Koran. We shall punish them gradually from directions they perceived not (Al-Qalam, 44).

    In the present life you will be blundering around in darkness, and you will persist in your sinful ways, thus plunging into utter despair.

    Don’t think you wicked, because Allah out of His infinite grace and mercy, grants respite,therefore the retribution will be slow in coming. When the time comes the retribution will come so swiftly that you will be surprised and you will wish you could get more respite. Let it not supposed, that because there will be millions of souls to be judged; there will be any delay in judgment as in a human tribunal. It will be as it were in a twinkle of an eye.

    To Allah belongs the Unseen in the heavens and in the earth. And the matter of the Hour is as a twinkling of the eye, or nearer. Surely Allah is powerful over everything (Al-Nahl, 77).

    Allah is swift at reckoning. Your life span in the worldly life in addition to that in the grave will seem to you in the day of resurrection as a day or part of a day. You will realize that this duration practically amounts to nothing. When you will be asked: ‘how long did you stay? You will say: ‘Maybe 10 days or so.” But the best among you in knowledge will say, ‘It was but a brief day.’

    on the Day the Trumpet is blown; and We shall muster the sinners.
    Upon that day with eyes staring, whispering one to another, ‘ you have tarried only ten nights.’
    We know very well what they will say, when the justest of them in the way will say, ‘You have tarried only a day.’ (Taha 102-104).

    So as you see most unfortunate liar, your resurrection and accountability are very near. So is Hell-fire awaiting you. Before you are thrown into it you will hear its sighing, the while it boils and wellnigh bursts asunder with rage.

    What are you waiting for? Die now and see what is in wait for you.

79. Chameleon

    October 26, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Richard,

    The Sira no doubt contain some value in their historical background, as I indicated, but they are most definitely not a source to rely on for the doctrines of Islam. That is where those egregious stories of rape and subjugation are found, such as some Muslim telling a man to rape women while their husbands watched (per another poster) — that kind of over the top inflammatory story could not be more clearly the product of obvious propaganda. There was an endless supply of detractors of Islam 150 years after the Prophet’s death, for the same obvious reason that all mudslinging propaganda is created, even today, in every democratic election: to oppose a political force that is upsetting the status quo of power. To expect anything less would be naive.

    It is the verbal equivalent of throwing entrails on someone while they pray to debase them. To prove how effective this debasement is, you only have to read the absolute delight in your own words about the thought of the imagery. As for the “retaliation” for this incident, Mohammad did not have this person killed; per the hadith, he appealed to the elders of the opposing community to enforce their protection against such acts.

    As for the hadith, they are meant to expand and clarify the doctrine of Islam, which is ultimately the Quran. When the hadith are in contradiction to the Quran, they simply cannot be accepted, regardless of any authentication. The hadith are generally quite accurate, and there is a whole science to the authentication process, which is beyond my scope of study, that looks, for example, at the reliability of each person in the entire chain of narrators, whether any foreign individuals pop into that chain (who would clearly not be as reliable as a chain within a single community), what other chains of narration corroborate the hadith (hence the reason for so many variants of the same quote back to back in hadith volumes), and so forth. Clearly, there are two reasons alone that make the hadith limited in their application: 1) the numerous variants of the same quote essentially admit quite blatantly that hadiths can’t possibly all be accurate, most especially in their precise wording; and 2) most hadiths are snippets of larger quotes that are often missing the context of what precedes or follows those snippet quotes, unlike the Quran. Missing context can make the entire meaning sometimes switch to imply exactly the opposite of what the snippet says, as I have shown elsewhere in quotes of the Quran.

    Another reason to take the hadiths with a grain of salt in some cases is because the rules of the Muslim community really did not come to fruition until the later Medina period. In the interim, some pre-Islamic practices continued (many from Jewish and Christian customs, but also some pagan) while the new culture gradually took root. To expect an entire doctrine of Islam on day one and to have an entire community digest and accept it like programmed robots immediately would simply be an inhuman and impractical expectation destined for failure. One example of this is the doctrine regarding alcohol, which was revealed in three separate verses over a wide space of time. In the beginning, there was some acknowledgement of alcohol (without permission), then there was a verse stating that there is “some benefit” but that “the harm outweighs the benefit” (again, with no permission and a possibly implied prohibition), and then the final verse where alcohol was explicitly prohibited. None of these three verses contradict each other in any way. They merely complement each other in a natural progression. There are similar cases with respect to practices apparent in hadiths but then later made explicitly forbidden in the Quran. Therefore, just because a hadith contradicts the Quran does not mean that the hadith is inaccurate, but I do acknowledge that this is certainly possible, since there is no guarantee of accuracy in the hadith, as I said.

    As one example of how the Quran supersedes hadith, you quoted from Bukhari about a slave girl being gifted to a relative. Did something like this ever happen? Perhaps, but that is not really relevant to a discussion about Islam. Why? Because I know that it must predate Islamic doctrine on the issue, since such practice unequivocally violates exactly what the Quran commands, such as in verse 4:19, that women cannot be considered property for inheritance or any other purpose. In fact, it goes a step further to emphasize that all the property that women own is inviolable, which is also emphasized elsewhere in the Quran and hadith.

    Slavery is an example of a cultural practice that was deeply ingrained in and around the original Muslim community, but it was effectively rooted out of the community within a single generation through the incorporation of Islam. With the entire economic and social system completely dependent on slavery, there would have been no practical or socially acceptable way to eliminate it instantaneously. Instead, Islam mandated that various punishments could be paid by freeing slaves, and freeing slaves was strongly encouraged both in the Quran and hadith. In verse 2:177, it actually becomes explicit that all those who are truly pious and “who follow the straight path” will free all slaves (i.e., not even keep the ones that they have). In addition, for whatever slaves that were still being kept, they were to be treated with respect, dignity and generosity and never beaten (in effect, becoming more of the equivalent of indentured servants in the post-Civil War slavery period in the U.S.). Since new slaves were not permitted, the practice naturally died out on its own, except of course, by those who openly violated Islam. An example of a typical quote of hadith on the benefits of freeing slaves (and the implied penalty of not doing so) is as follows: “The Prophet said, ‘Whoever frees a Muslim slave, Allah will save all the parts of his body from the (Hell) Fire as he has freed the body-parts of the slave.'”

    As for apostates, Bukhari 52:260, 84:57, and 84:58 are all not referencing sunnah at all (the practices of the Prophet), but what was done on two occasions by two individuals who killed apparent apostates because they thought they were following the sunnah. In one case, the apostate was burned alive, which the hadith itself states was explicitly against Islamic doctrine. So clearly these fellows were not considered scholars of Islam! Also, the context of those killings is completely omitted. As for 84:64 and 84:65 (also, 66-68, which you did not cite, all of which are versions of the same single quote), these are referencing sunnah hadith, so they are actually relevant. However, there are clear contextual differences in this quote vs. the other two: 1) they are talking about a future hypothetical event and 2) the issue is not apostasy at all, but rather treason by a hostile force (i.e., a group acting like Muslims to infiltrate and destroy the Muslims). Here is the quote: “I heard the Prophet saying, ‘There will appear in this nation … a group of people so pious apparently that you will consider your prayers inferior to their prayers, but they will recite the Quran, the teachings of which will not go beyond their throats and will go out of their religion as an arrow darts through the game, whereupon the archer may look at his arrow, its Nasl at its Risaf and its Fuqa to see whether it is blood-stained or not (i.e. they will have not even a trace of Islam in them)…. So, wherever you find them, kill them” (note: I combined two hadiths here for brevity). This is nothing more than a clarification of the verses in the Quran to fight against those who persecute and oppress Muslims, particularly those who commit treason by breaking formal treaties (verses 9:12 and 9:13) or by conspiring with the enemy while acting like Muslims (i.e., treason through hypocrisy, per the verses discussed below).

    To further elaborate on this last point, when an ally openly breaks a treaty to a Muslim community’s detriment and suffering, and becomes its enemy, this is an act of treason and open war requiring some sort of proportionate retaliation. Verses 9:12 and 9:13 state this very clearly: “If they break their pledge (treaty) after giving their word and revile your faith, fight those specimens of faithlessness, for surely their oaths have no sanctity: they may haply desist. Will you not fight those who broke their pledge and plotted to banish the Apostle, and who were the first to attack you?” Even in modern democracies such as the U.S., acts of treason are punishable by death. In Islam, they are punishable by retaliation, though not necessary by death, since retaliation MUST STOP when traitors desist and are subdued. Verses 1, 3, 5, 14, 26, and 29 of sura 9 emphasize this punishment as retaliation on those who break treaties and attack first.

    As for hypocrites in Islam, who are in a sense “apostates” of a sort, the Quran is very clear about how to deal with them. In verse 4:90 it refers to the hypocrites who refuse to fight for a just cause: “If they keep aloof and do not fight, and offer peace, God has left you no reason to fight them.” Fighting hypocrites simply because they are hypocrites is categorically not allowed, but fighting them when they openly oppose and fight against you is allowed (i.e., when they fight against resistance of oppression and want to make friends or allies with the oppressors instead). This is the same message of both 3:28 and 5:51, where it emphasizes not to prefer unbelievers as friends (better translated as “allies”) in preference to (i.e., to the disadvantage of) believers. The context for verse 3:28 is quite clear, but for verse 5:51, it becomes more clear in the context of verses 5:54 and 5:59, where it emphasizes that it is wrong to give a preference in alliance to those who despise you and “mock and make a sport of your faith” over those who share your faith. How is this natural affiliation not logical or morally consistent in the same way that just about any normal human being would and should behave? Alliances and treaties with non-Muslims is unequivocally allowed and advocated in Islam, but not when those “allies” are treasonous against Muslims or backstabbing by way of lying hypocrisy.

    As for Bukhari 59:369, I don’t see a lot of interest in this quote at all, since there is no context to explain exactly who was targeted by this complicated stratagem and why. What seems to be clear, however, is that the individual was a top leader residing in a “fort”, thereby implying a military objective that would otherwise be impossible without a sound plan to accomplish it. Since when is using a bit of planned deception in war a bad idea?

    As for Bukhari 54:464, this is most likely just a simple use of hyperbole for rhetorical emphasis. The context of this quote and the audience are not given, so that would greatly help to explain the use and purpose of this language. For example, I vaguely remember this quote also in the context of the Prophet criticizing women for too much backbiting (damaging gossip). I believe that taking this quote so literally would be a mistake and a bit extreme. However, if you insist, then it would technically be correct to do so, since more women are born than men.

    As for Bukhari 80:753, your quote appears to be correct, but it still makes little sense, since it sounds illogical. The English translation is no doubt at fault. How could a slave “belong” to the “people who have freed him”? The answer: most likely, “belong” actually means “belong” to the community now as an equal member of society instead of being outside of the community as a slave. How else could this logically make sense? That makes the quote totally innocuous, so I am missing your point here.

    As for Bukhari 41:598, this appears to be about someone who wanted to free his slave but couldn’t pay enough to do so. This only seems to make sense if the slave was owned by more than one person, not to pay off a debt, since quite a few hadiths talk about this very scenario and how to free a slave with multiple owners. This is such a short quote that it leaves more questions than answers, since it references a new owner. For example, what did that owner do with the slave? What was the pretext for this scenario? Etc. Once again, slavery was not eradicated from day one in the community that Muslims were originally a part of, but it was done so in relatively short order given how ingrained it was culturally. Therefore, I don’t see this quote as being really relevant to the doctrine of Islam either.

    As for Bukhari 47:765, the context from this brief quote is almost completely missing and sounds quite spurious. What we do know is that a woman was actually rebuked for acting without the permission of the Prophet, not really from freeing the slave girl, per se, which you omitted from your explanation. Given that this wording seems to totally contradict the advice of the Quran to free slaves without condition, it raises more questions . Was this really a house servant, not a “slave”? Would one of her maternal uncle’s be able to provide better for this girl somehow (and perhaps free her with some sort of parting stipend, as the Quran enjoins, rather than with nothing as the woman did)? Was this girl just sent directly onto the street to fend for herself, thereby causing the disapproval? It is all very unclear.

    As for Bukhari 62:137 and 34:432, these are clearly two variations of the same quote, where the first is in a section of hadiths focusing on coitus interruptus. The Prophet appears to say that something is wrong by saying “it is better for you not to do it”, but it is not clear what that “it” is – taking female captives as booty or coitus interruptus, since other hadiths clearly imply that coitus interruptus is OK. Therefore, either he is saying that taking female captives as booty is wrong or the quote itself is likely spurious given its contradiction of other hadith. At the very least, the basic authenticity of this quote (both versions) is seriously in question. Moreover, even if it is only disapproving of coitus interruptus, then that means there is still no approval given in either of these versions for taking female refugees/captives of war as slaves, thereby not setting any potential precedent of sunnah. What is clear from history, however, is that there were quite a few practices in the “days of ignorance” that were tolerated for a time before Islam was fully codified (e.g., drinking alcohol and slavery, per above). This is why it is dangerous to look to the hadith as the primary doctrine of Islam. The Quran is the primary doctrine of Islam, especially when it contradicts already ingrained cultural practices of the community as narrated in the hadith. So what does the Quran say and how does it contradict the enslavement of female refugees of war in the “days of ignorance”? Read on.

    The translations of the Quran that reference “captives”, “concubines”, “sex slaves”, “whom your right hands possess” and similar variations are categorically incorrect and are based on the same Arabic phrase “Ma malakat aymanukum”, not the word “IBad”, which is the definitive word for “slave” used elsewhere in the Quran. And, yes, misogynist Muslims (and even reputable scholars blindly following their translations) are largely to blame for these errors. The more correct translation is “those with whom you have contractual rights”. These were the wives of the enemy combatants who were persecuted because they acknowledged the message of Islam or they sought asylum in the Muslim community for whatever reason (e.g., as a result of war), per verse 60:10. Believe it or not, asylum in the Muslim community was often highly sought out for economic and social reasons alone, since Muslim women were granted rights (e.g., property ownership, community support, etc.) that were unprecedented at that time. Since they did not go through a normal divorce process, an exceptional contract allows them to “marry” Muslims as free woman, not as slaves, and to have the protection and maintenance of the Muslim community. Here is a translation of that verse: “O believers, when believing woman come over to you as refugees, then examine them. God alone is cognizant of their faith. If you find that they are believers, do not send them back to the unbelievers. They are not lawful to them, nor are the unbelievers lawful for believing woman. Give the unbelievers what they have spent on them [in the marriage contract]. There is no sin if you marry them provided you give their dowers to them” (note: dowers = money or other resources for their financial security that they will freely OWN). What part of sex slavery or abuse is implied here with respect to female refugees of war? It also makes it clear that if the women are not honestly believers (as best as can be assessed), then they should be sent back to the unbelievers, since there is no other option given that unbelievers (kafirs) are completely and explicitly unlawful to Muslim men (by implication here and explicitly per verse 2:221).

    Also, verse 24:33 makes it clear that no woman can be forced into sex outside of the marital relationship (and no man is permitted this type of relationship), while also emphasizing that slaves should be set free, not kept: “Those who cannot afford to marry should abstain from what is unlawful until God enriches them by His grace. And free those slaves you possess who wish to buy their freedom after a written undertaking, if you know they have some goodness, and give them out of the riches God has given you. Do not force your maids to prostitution (unwanted sex) if they wish to lead married lives, in order to get the benefits of this world. But if someone forces them, surely God will forgive them after their forced helplessness, for He is forgiving and kind.”

    Even further, there are several hadith where punishments were meted out for rape, so rape is clearly forbidden per the sunnah. I can dig these up for you again if you like and if you can’t find them – just let me know; I should have written the references down. There are also many hadiths about how the sanctity of a woman’s body is sacred in Islam; and men are enjoined to be always chaste outside of a marital relationship, with 100 lashes in public (for men too) as the punishment in cases of “merely” adulterous sex, which is clearly below the severity of rape (note the purpose of this punishment was primarily shaming, not physical punishment, per hadith). To even indulge in a women’s beauty with one’s eyes is considered shameful for a Muslim man, let alone indulge in the type of lecherous behavior that you describe: “Tell the believing men to lower their eyes and guard their private parts. There is goodness for them in this” (24:30).

80. Richard

    October 26, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Chameleon “For example, was Muhammad verbally abused and abused with garbage without retaliating.”

    If you call having your “abusers” killed “not retaliating”, sure. He had the poetesses who mocked him in her poetry killed while she was breastfeeding her baby.

    The worst “abuse” he ever suffered was when he was bending down to pray with his butt up in the air someone put some animals intestines on his shoulders so he couldnt straighten up Bukhari 4:241. Pretty funny when you come to think of it. But in retaliation he had the guy killed as, everyone who mocked him the moment he entered Mecca with his army.

    Chameleon “In general, the “Sira” are not a reliable source at all for Islamic doctrine”

    But they are reliable to tell us about his character. After all that is all that we have, and written by Muslims to boot. Having killed off all the non-Muslims.’

    “Ibn Ishaq is most definitely not an “official biography” of Muhammad, since it was written about 150 years after his death, and none of the stories are authenticated, unlike Hadith.”

    Which were “authenticated” how many years after his death?

    And the Hadith which you say is “authenticated” tells us that Muhammad had Sa’d killed after deceiving him, Bukhari 59:369

    THAT HELL IS POPULATED MOSTLY WITH WOMEN, Bukhari (54:464) “The Prophet said, “.. I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women.”

    THAT APOSTATES SHOULD BE KILLED Bukhari 52:260 – “…The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ “, also Bukhari 84:57, Bukhari 84:58 and Bukhari 84:64-65 “Allah’s Apostle: ‘.. there will appear some young foolish people who ..will go out from (leave) their religion … So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.'” – How charming!

    TAKE SLAVES AND ENGAGE IN SLAVERY – Bukhari 80:753 – “The Prophet said, ‘The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him.'”

    Bukhari 41.598 – Slaves are property. They cannot be freed if an owner has outstanding debt, but can be used to pay off the debt.

    Bukhari 47.765 – A woman is rebuked by Muhammad for freeing a slave girl. MUHAMMAD TELLS HER SHE WOULD HAVE GOT GREATER REWARD IN HEAVEN BY GIFTING HER TO A RELATIVE.

    THAT WOMEN CAN BE TAKEN CAPTIVE IN BATTLE AND RAPED AND SOLD AS SLAVES AFTER THEIR HUSBANDS AND FATHERS ARE KILLED Bukhari 62:137 – The women were raped with Muhammad’s approval.

    Bukhari 34:432 – Another account of females taken captive and raped with Muhammad’s approval. In this case it is evident that the Muslims intend on selling the women after raping them because they are concerned about devaluing their price by impregnating them. Muhammad is asked about coitus interruptus.

    AND THE LIST GOES ON – SUBJUGATION, SLAVERY, THREATS OF HELL AND ETERNAL TORTURE AND CALLS TO WAR, ALL FROM YOUR AUTHENTICATED HADITHS!

81. Chameleon

    October 25, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    It sure looks like a lot of hate going on here, and not just by the anti-Islam crowd. It also looks like I recognize at least one Islam hater from another web site – just when you thought you got rid of me! So what is the big reveal here that is supposed to surprise us Muslims?

    For example, was Muhammad verbally abused and abused with garbage without retaliating. Yes, almost certainly, as sources show, and as would be quite logical given that he was deeply threatening the status quo. In fact, it wasn’t the type of benign “garbage” that we normally think of, but rather entrails, blood, rotting flesh and the like, and it was even thrown on him while he was praying. This type of abuse and ridicule was common in other stories of prophets and disruptive leaders of all kinds, so I would not be surprised if there is some parallel somewhere. Nonetheless, as we all should know, correlation does not imply causation. At the very least, the correlation must be very high, a threshold clearly not demonstrated above. Now does this mean extended elaborations of this story about the sick woman ultimately converting to Islam are true — likely not, since I am not aware of any authenticated source for this either.

    In general, the “Sira” are not a reliable source at all for Islamic doctrine or the sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad. As I replied elsewhere on this site, Ibn Ishaq is most definitely not an “official biography” of Muhammad, since it was written about 150 years after his death, and none of the stories are authenticated, unlike Hadith. Even Ibn Ishaq acknowledges that some of his compiled stories are likely fabricated, and his stories that do exist today are moreover just quotes by others of what Ibn Ishaq wrote from who knows what source. There were a large number of detractors of Islam, so detracting stories without any authentication were not in short supply. It would be like those 1500 years from now reading Robert Spencer to learn about Islam — a twisted tale indeed.

    Most of the article above just talks about the “doctrine” of taqqiya (as if all Muslims secretly practice this — wrong!), the call to others to go out and find a whole bunch more of it (be my guest), and some pathetic ad hominem attacks on Islam (boring!) with a laundry list of clearly despicable individuals who claim to be Muslim, all without really providing much meat to chew on at all.

    However, I won’t deny that there is a bit to chew on, so chew I shall. If you think I missed something, let me know.

    The “authoritarianism” quote: the quote says “Allah and His Messenger” with the word “and” rather than “or”, meaning the emphasis is on both together, not Muhammad independent of the Quran or in potential contradiction of it. Every executive branch of government in the world, every company, every organization has one individual who has the final say on all key decisions, so why would Muhammad as a leader be any different? Also, if Muhammad should not have been the representative authority on matters of Islam and leadership of the first Muslim community, then who should it have been? To slap an “authoritarian” label on the only available option is ridiculous.

    The “megalomania” quote: The quote is too obscure to decide what it really means. What is “treasure” to one person vs. another may be material, spiritual or anything else that he or she values. It really adds nothing to the discussion, and I have not bothered even to validate this hadith to check its accuracy or context.

    The “misogyny” quote: The source of this is not clear. It is definitely not from the Quran, and it doesn’t appear to be a hadith either. At any rate, beating a woman was never practised by the Prophet and is not permitted in Islam, in spite of the inaccurate and misogynistic translations of verse 4:34, which is often bandied about even by the backwards Muslim crowd and otherwise reliable scholars. I can cover this in more detail if someone asks me to, but it would digress too much from the topic here.

    The “intolerance” quote: This is from Sira that I don’t consider reliable, particularly because it contradicts both the Quran and the practice of the Prophet in creating and honoring formal alliances with those of other faiths on numerous occasions. If you want a clear example, let me know, and I will provide it.

    The “compulsion” quote: This is also from a questionable source and contradicts the Quran in verses 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”) and 10:99 (“If it had been the Lord’s Will, they would all have believed, all who are on earth. Wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe?”) It also clearly contradicts the practice of the Prophet.

    The “supremacism” quote: Verse 8:39 makes it clear that fighting is to stop once persecution of Muslims ends, that is all. It is in no way referring to unilateral aggression by Muslims, but rather just the opposite, continued firm defense until the aggressors against Muslims stop. It does not say “until the religion of Allah reigns supreme”, but “until the law of God prevails” (i.e., justice prevails). This is very much the same as verse 2:193, where it says “Fight them until persecution (or ‘sedition’) comes to an end, and the law of God prevails.” Does this mean in any way to keep fighting until Islamic law dominates? The final part of verse 193, which is often omitted by detractors, answers that very question: “If they desist, then cease to be hostile, except against those who oppress.” The “law of God” is simply referring to the law of justice against persecution, which just so happens to be also the law of every democratic country in the world.

    The “terrorism” quote (verse 7:4): It is funny how hard the haters try to dig for the word terrorism in the Quran from 1400+ years ago, even though terrorism as we all know it only started about 60 years ago. The way this verse has been translated makes it sound like God is committing random acts of terror in destroying villages — kind of like a Chief Terrorist Officer bogeyman leading by example for all the “Muslim” terrorists out there. Omitted from this wording, of course, are the key words “retribution” (in this actual verse) and “punishment” in the very next verse (7:5). In fact, it was not just a punishment, but it was a punishment so well deserved that those who were punished acknowledged it as such just before it “overtook them”: “And when our punishment overtook them they had nothing to say except crying out: ‘We have indeed been sinners.'” Once again, the correct translation is “retribution”, not “terror”. Isn’t it funny how loaded that one substituted word can make things sound? Terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with this verse!

    Please try to provide something a bit more interesting to chew on next time — more facts, better arguments. Otherwise, this is going to be a real yawn fest and a waste of my time.

82. Armed Infidel

    October 25, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    El-Guindy,

    I’m still waiting for you to find some time to share your thoughts to ‘enlighten me’ about the following mainstream areas of Islam:

    1. Who was responsible for the attacks of 9/11 against America?
    2. Do you agree with Islamic Sharia-compliant Mu’ta Marriages (Sharia-approved adultery)?
    3. Do you feel it is appropriate for Muslim men to throw acid in the faces of Muslim women for not following Muslim dress codes?
    4. And whether you are willing to denounce Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas as terrorist organizations?
    5. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Muslim Brotherhood?
    6. Do you support the destruction of the American Constitution and have it replaced by Islamic Sharia Law?
    7. Do you feel it is appropriate for Muslim men to marry and have sex with little girls as young 6-9 years old, as did your Prophet Muhammad?
    8. Do you approve of sex with little girls as young as 2-3 years old, so long as there is no penetration?
    9. Do you approved of beating your wife?”

83. Armed Infidel

    October 23, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Richard,

    Good morning,

    It’s pretty obvious from reading their rants, that one cannot argue with sick Muslim minds.

    Muslims belong to a “cult of personality” based upon their so-called Prophet Muhammad (shit be upon him) and a fictitious moon god named Allah (shit be upon him too) and nothing, and I mean nothing, is going to bring them to their senses. You can wave the historical truth about Islam in their face all day and they will continue to rant the same old Islamic taqiyya and kitman right back at you. Muslims can’t handle the truth, especially when coming from a kafir. Then, of course, comes the typical Muslim modus operandi -they will make the requisite threats of violence against you, all the while claiming “victim status” and calling you racist (Islam is not a race), bigot, hate monger, and the biggest non-word and misnomer of all “Islamophobic.” Telling the truth about Islam and Muslims has become the new hate speech here in America.

    Muslims will stop at nothing to dominate and subjugate all kafirs like you and me if given half a chance…turn us into semi-slaves and treat us like animals.

    Islam is like a cancer that needs to be cut out of all Western societies before these host nations are totally consumed by this blight on our world e.g. look what is happening to Europe. We are at war, and Muslims are the enemy!

    El-Guindy (the ignorant) still has not responded to my earlier questions I posed to him concerning: wife beating; Mu’ta marriages (arranged short-term phony marriages to kafir women for sex) which is essentially a legalized form of adultery which is approved in the Koran Chapter 4, Verse 24; who attacked the United States on 9/11 (Muslims)?; the murders of over 270 million kafirs at the hands of Muslims over the last 1400 years; and Muslim men having sex with little girls and boys! El-Guindy has refused to respond at all! Why? Because he knows as well as I do that it is all true. Muslims cannot argue with the facts (as based upon the Koran and Sunna of Mohammad) about their totalitarian ideology of hatred, racism, lies, domination, subjugation, rape, pillage, plunder, child rape, and so on…which is why El-Guindy will never respond to my questions directly and pointedly. Besides, El-Guindy is probably too busy beating his four wives (and as many kafir sex slaves as he can afford), having sex with little girls and boys, building his explosive “martyr vest” suicide vest, and waging stealth jihad against America!

84. Richard

    October 22, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Dr. Mohsen El-Guindy “We Muslims don’t give a dam if you people believe us or not”

    That is a lie Dr. Mohsen El-Guindy. You care very much. You kill apostates – those who realise your religion is a fraud and try to leave it . And you kill non-Muslims whenever you can.

    “…the message of Islam ..is a message of mercy.”

    Mercy? You kill, slit peoples throats and behead them. What message of mercy is this?

    It is a message only of hate, domination, enslavement and violence.

    “It is the road to paradise.”

    What a lie. Has anyone come back from this fairy-tale paradise of yours? You “paradise” is a lie, a fairy tale. How can any intelligent person believe such nonsense?

    Islam is a road to destruction and hell on Earth. Just look at your Islamic countries.

85. Armed Infidel

    October 22, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    This post is directed to “Jameela, the self-professed Messenger of Allah
    & Defender of Islam”

    Wow! That is quite a fancy title you have awarded yourself Muslim! And I might say a whole lot of Islamic bullshit you have spewed in your October 15th posting. I am an atheist, so I do not believe in any god, especially the fictitious pig you claim to be the only god in the universe. Oh, but I forgot that I was not supposed to say that because you told me to “Be forewarned!” How silly of me to poke fun at your stupid “only god of the universe!” I promise that it will happen again!

    El-Guindy, glad to see you are back and up to your same old Islamic bullshit rants! When are you going to grow a spine, stop trembling, stop hiding like a little girl, and answer the questions I posed to you? I’m still waiting!!

86. Richard

    October 21, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Jameela “Be forewarned! Slandering the Prophet Muhammad {pbuh} with the much-repeated and Jew-invented lie, which I won’t repeat, will not change the fact that Jesus was only a Messenger of Allah and not his son, nor will slandering him alter the truth that Christians are corpse-eating, blood-drinking, zombie slaves of their vertical pig Jew masters.”

    Jameela

    1. It is not slandering Muhammad to tell the truth about him

    2. He was no prophet

    3. It matters not a hoot to me what Jesus was, it does not change the fact that his moral teachings are far above those of Muhammad, who told people to lie, kill, rob and enslave.

    4. Muslims are zombie slaves to the Arabic moon-god Allah and the monster Muhammad. Their very cry “Allahu Akbar” means “Allah is the Greatest” not God is great. The Arabic word for Allah is Illah.

    5. In practical terms Allah is nothing but Muhammad. He is the partner of Muhammad. See “The Wizard of Oz” – “I am the Great Oz” the humbug is speaking into a microphone for the “Great Oz”

    (Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me.”)

    Sahih Bukhari Vol. 9, Book 89, No. 251

    6. Talking about “corpse-eating, blood-drinking, zombie slaves” – what do you Muslims do on Eid? Slaughter goats by slitting their throats as a sacrifice in place of a human sacrifice – the alleged about to be sacrificed Isaac by Abraham.

    You are Zombie slaves indeed.

    PS Jameela your male counterparts gets Houris and young boys in your alleged paradise – but what do you get? The chance to watch your husbands and boyfriends deflower virgins and have sex with young boys?

87. Richard

    October 21, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Jameela “If Jesus is god, then why don’t the Children of Israel worship him?”

    If Muhammad was a prophet and The Quran was really the words of God how come it was unaware that Jews dont call Ezra the son of God? (Quran 9:30). Among the many false things in the Quran

    Jameela “They are the authors of the Bible; could it be the Jews know what their Christian slaves know not, that the Bible is a forgery and the biggest hoax perpetrated on mankind in the annuals of history?”

    Jameela you sound like a crazed woman? man? Christians are not Jews slaves or indeed the slaves of anyone. They never were in history, the slaves of Jews. Slavery was abolished in Christian nations a long time ago. It very much flourishes in Islam.

    After all Muhammad was a slave trader and your ideal model of a human being. Among his other charming qualities were pedophilia, murder, rape, enslavement and lying.

    The biggest hoax perpetuated on mankind is Islam. Slavery to your mythical Allah and mandatory Pilgrimage to an ancient pagan idolatrous site, which greatly enriches the keepers of the site.

88. Ken

    October 20, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    El-Guindy admits that 1) Mohammed was violent and 2) the definition of ‘good character’ is violence.

89. Democracyistheanswer

    October 20, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Dr. El-Guindy,
    Anwar Awlaki preached peaceful Islam to the American public, but violent, aggressive jihad to his disciples in secret. Presumably, you do the same. That would be called taqiyya or photoshopping, wouldn’t it?

90. Dr. Mohsen El-Guindy

    October 19, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Kenneth Roberts

    The nonsense Kenneth Roberts said about Muhammad is a chain of continuous insolence launched against Islam. The falsehood and the ranting the Christian Islamophob hate mongers are saying regarding Islam is in fact a compilation of sins over their heads. Sins that will encompass them on the Day of Resurrection. Allah will charge them: “Was it with my verses and My Prophet you were mocking?”

    What are you exactly Kenneth Roberts? A photographer using some modern photographic terminologies to attack Islam?
    I don’t know about those phony Muslims you are talking about. In Islam there is no compromise in religion. We Muslims don’t give a dam if you people believe us or not, but we do only care about delivering the message of Islam to the whole world because it is a message of mercy. It is the road to paradise.

    Those who change the religion in order to satisfy non-Muslims are not true Muslims but hypocrites that don’t mind changing the words of Allah or the Prophets to earn worldly gain.

    We true Muslims will never be apologetic about our religion. Our religion is one peace, either you take it or leave it, but bear the terrible consequences awaiting you on the Day of Accountability.

    It is foolish and degrading to correlate Islam wit the actions of some of its adherents. Exactly as if I correlate Christianity with the savage massacres of the crusade, the inquisition, Hitler, Napoleon, Christians killing Muslims in Bosnia and Hursek, Christian atomic bombs thrown on Hiroshima and Nagazaki, etc.

    There is violence in the Old and New Testaments urging the Prophets or the Children of Israel to kill the captive children, women, men and even animals. If these divine orders were true and not fabrication, so all you have to do is to submit and agree without argument.

    Prophet Muhammad was of exalted manner and those who approach him with falsehood are but enemies to their Creator, Allah.

    Denunciated shall be every sinful liar who intentionally asserts what is false and relates it to Allah, His Koran and His Prophet, and clothes himself with the ugly vesture of wickedness. A vesture of wickedness that makes him counsel deaf to Allah’s revelations when they are recited to him. Such like person must expect a severe punishment, because he turns Allah’s signs into ridicule. Hell awaits him and asserts him as her own and shall beset him on all sides. There and then nothing he earned, accomplished or gained in the worldly life will be of any advantage to him nor will those whom he worshipped apart of Allah (Jesus, pope, priest, idol, stone, wood, animal, etc…) avail him benefit or afford him help, and he shall suffer grievously.
    The Koran says:

    Those are the signs of Allah (the Koran) that We recite to thee in truth; in what manner of discourse then, after Allah and His signs, will they believe?
    Woe to every guilty imposter who hears the signs of Allah being recited to him, then perseveres in waxing proud, as if he has not heard them.; so give him the good tidings of a painful chastisement.
    And when he knows anything of our signs, he takes them in mockery; those – for them awaits a painful chastisement. Behind them Gehenna (the name of the Fire); and that they have earned shall not avail them aught, nor those they took as protectors apart of Allah; for them awaits a mighty chastisement.
    This is guidance; and those who disbelieve in the signs of their Lord, there awaits them a painful chastisement of wrath (Al- Jathiyah 6-11).

    The Koran also says:

    Do they not know that whoever oppose Allah and his Messenger – for him awaits the fire of Gehenna, therein to dwell forever? That is the mighty degradation (Al-Tawbah, 63).

    If the scoffers at Islam would see when the angels of death besiege them from all sides to disembody their souls, how they descend violently upon them striking their faces and their backs, and say to them , ‘Taste the penalty of the blazing Fire. This is because of that which your hands had forwarded.’

    If thou couldst only see when the angels take the souls of the unbelievers, beating their faces and their backs: ‘Taste the chastisement of the burning – that, for what your hands have forwarded, and for that Allah is never unjust to His servants (Al-Anfal 50, 51).

    Kenneth Roberts and his peers, like to turn the signs of Allah and the words of the Prophet into a joke. They plunge into defaming religion and disobeying Allah and His prophet and laugh them to scorn.

    As we read in the Koran:

    And if you questionest them, then assuredly they will say, ‘We were only plunging and playing!’
    Say, ‘What, then were you mocking Allah, and His signs, and His Messenger?’ (Al-Tawbah, 65).

    Do Kenneth Roberts and his like do not know that hey will be resurrected and he will be accountable to Allah? Do he not realize that Allah knows what he conceals and what he reveals, and that Allah is the knower of the Unseen?

    Did they not know that Allah knows their secret and what they conspire together, and that Allah knows the things unseen (Al-Tawbah, 78).

    Kenneth Roberts, when you talk about Islam with such evil words this shows that you are totally ignorant about the last Testament to the world. You are also ignorant about the refined manners of the the best of creation, the seal of the prophets, Muhammad peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.
    Don’t fish unauthentic Hadith out of the books of hadith to redicule the prophet or stab the religion in the back. Everything is recorded poor fellow.You will be responsible for every word good or bad you uttered in this wordly life. So how about the evil words you uttered about your Creator and His seal of the prophets?.

    Don’t you know Mr. Knowhow that nothing on the earth or in the heaven is hidden from Allah! Consider not that Allah is unaware of what you do. He just but give you respite up to a day when the eyes will stare in horror. Allah is All-Mighty; He justly avenges His own right.

    On that Day you will be dazed, your eyes will stare without expression, and never move back; your neck will be outstretched; your head uplifted in terror from the judgment from on high; and your heart becomes empty of all hope as the physical heart might become empty of blood when circulation stops. In this state you will press forward to Judgment. And you will see the sinners that day bound together in fetters. Their garments of liquid pitch and their faces covered with Fire. Allah will requite each soul according to what it earned by its own acts, good or evil in its life of probation.

    The koran says:

    Deem not that Allah is heedless of what the evildoers work; He is only deferring them to a Day when eyes shall stare, when they shall run with necks outstretched and heads erect, their glances never returned on themselves, their hearts void.
    And thou will see the sinners that day coupled in fetters, of pitch their shirts, their faces envelopped by the Fire, that Allah may recompense every soul for its earnings, surely Allah is swift at the reckoning (Ibrahim, 42, 43, 49).

    Now Kenneth Roberts listen to this Koranic parable:

    Your ugly words about the Prophet and the Koran will take you by the nose directly to Hell Fire. Your words about the Koran and the Prophet must be polite and also true. The good word of truth is like a tree known for its beauty, it gives pleasure to all who see it. It remains firm and unshaken in storms, because its roots are firmly fixed in the earth. Its branches reach high, and it catches all the sunlight from heaven, and gives shade to countless birds in its branches and men and animals beneath it. It yields abundant fruit for people to delightfully eat.

    The evil word as yours is the opposite of the goodly tree, it may flourish to begin with but soon enough it is uprooted from the surface of the earth. Its root being loosely implanted, it does not have the strength to grow erect nor does it eventually grow at all.

    As we read in the Koran:

    Hast thou not seen how Allah has struck a similitude? A good word is as a good tree – its roots are firm, and its branches are in heaven; it gives its produce every season by the leave of its Lord. So Allah strikes similitude for men; haply they will remember.
    And the likeness of a corrupt word is as a corrupt tree uprooted from the earth, having no stability. Allah confirms those who believe with the firm word, in the present life and in the world to come; and Allah leads astray the evildoers; and Allah does what he will (Ibrahim 24-27).

    Kenneth Roberts, Your insolence is against your own soul, a brief enjoyment of this worldly life, then in the end unto Allah is your return, and He shall inform you of that which you used to do.

    The Koran has come to you from your Lord. Whoso sees clearly, it is to his own gain, and whoso is blind, it is to his own loss.

    Now Kenneth Roberts, I leave you to your fabrication and forging. Now I leave you in your insolence wandering blindly.

91. Jameela

    October 15, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Silent Night: The Cannibal Anthem

    The Christmas season is almost upon us and you corpse-eating, blood-drinking Christian ghouls can’t wait to sing your favorite Christmas carol, Silent Night, which is actually a sadistically perverted song about cannibalism. Silent Night praises and rejoices in eating the corpse of your Jew-corpse god, hanging off of two sticks. Tell me, is Jesus’ flesh really as tender as the song Silent Night says it is? “Holy Infant, so TENDER and mild”.

    Also, on Christmas your children will be visited by Satan in disguise, as Santa is an anagram of Satan, and they both come from the most destructive force in nature, fire. Know this! Satan is not a serpent; Satan is a jinn, created from a smokeless flame of fire according to the following Verses of the Qur’an. Santa also originates from fire, as he slides down the chimney and enters your houses through the fireplace.

    (“And [remember] when We said to the angels: “Prostrate yourselves unto Adam.” So they prostrated themselves except Satan. He was one of the jinn; he disobeyed the Command of his Lord. Will you then take him [Iblees] and his offspring as protectors and helpers rather than Me while they are enemies to you? What an evil is the exchange for the Zaalimoon [polytheists, and wrongdoers, etc.].

    (And the jinn: He created from a smokeless flame of fire.)

    For the entire above, and the unspeakable, depraved and inhumane acts of eating Jesus’ corpse and drinking his blood under the pretense of “Holy” Communion; the Christian’s lord will thank them for their diabolical devotion with a speech that is revealed in the following Verse of the Qur’an.

    (And Shaitan [Satan] will say when the matter has been decided: “Verily, Allah promised you a promise of truth. And I too promised you, but I betrayed you. I had no authority over you except that I called you, and you responded to me. So blame me not, but blames yourselves. I cannot help you, nor can you help me. I deny your former act in associating me [Satan] as a partner with Allah [by obeying me in the life of the world]. Verily, there is a painful torment for the Zalimun [polytheists and wrong-doers].”)

    Let it be known! Your disbelief in Islamic Monotheism is by Decree of Allah; as it is He Who determines those whom He will rescue from the Blood Cult of Christianity according to the following Verse of the Qur’an.

    (It is not for any person to believe, except by the Leave of Allah, and He will put the wrath on those who are heedless.)

    (“And you shall certainly know the truth of it after a while.”)

    If Jesus is god, then why don’t the Children of Israel worship him? They are the authors of the Bible; could it be the Jews know what their Christian slaves know not, that the Bible is a forgery and the biggest hoax perpetrated on mankind in the annuals of history? Allah reveals this to be the case in the following Verse of the Qur’an,

    (Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, “This is from Allah, to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn (thereby).)

    Surely, if Jesus was God’s son, the Jew’s would worship him, but they don’t and this should be a red flag to Christians, but they don’t appear alarmed over this blaring contradiction. Christian’s say the Jew’s are God’s “Chosen People”, well what were the Jew’s chosen for? And what do the Jews worship if they don’t worship the nearly-naked, corpse-god hanging off of two sticks they set up for their Christian slaves to worship? They worship Israel aka Satan, their father. I advise Christian’s to pay heed to Allah’s Warning to them in the following Verse of the Qur’an.

    (And indeed We have sent down to you manifest Ayat [these Verses of the Qur’an which inform in detail about the news of the Jews and their secret intentions, etc], and none disbelieve in them but Al Fasiqun [those who rebel against Allah’s Command]).

    If Christians obeyed the following Commandments, they would be Muslims instead of corpse-eating, blood-drinking ghouls destined for the Hell-fire.

    1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
    2. You shall not make for yourself a carved image”any likeness of anything that is in the heaven above or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth.

    Be forewarned! Slandering the Prophet Muhammad {pbuh} with the much-repeated and Jew-invented lie, which I won’t repeat, will not change the fact that Jesus was only a Messenger of Allah and not his son, nor will slandering him alter the truth that Christians are corpse-eating, blood-drinking, zombie slaves of their vertical pig Jew masters. Slandering the Prophet will only add torment upon torment to your punishment in the Hell-fire. If you corpse-eaters are so concerned about sexually abused children, instead of slandering the Prophet, you should act upon a dire situation already in progress by rescuing those sexually-abused Altar Boys from those Pedophile Predator Priests who rape boy children with impunity in the Catholic Coven. The following Verse of the Qur’an reveals that Christian’s will conclude on the Day of Resurrection that they were stupid in the life of this world.
    (And they will say: “Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we would not have been among the dwellers of the blazing Fire!”).

    (They made not a just estimate of Allah such as is due to Him. And on the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand. Glorified is He, and High is He above all that they associate as partners with Him!)

    ([This is the] Revelation sent down from the Lord of the Alamin [mankind, jinn and all that exists].)

    ([He is Allah] Owner of High Ranks and Degrees, the Owner of the Throne. He sends the revelation by His Command to any of His slaves He wills, that he (the person who receives revelation) may warn (men) of the Day of Mutual Meeting [i.e. the Day of Resurrection].

    (And to warn those [Jews, Christians, and pagans] who say, “Allah has begotten a son [or offspring or children].”)

    (No knowledge have they of such a thing, nor had their fathers. Mighty is the word that comes out of their mouths [i.e. He begot sons and daughters]. They utter nothing but a lie.)

    (Your Ilah [God] is One Ilah [God-Allah, none has the right to be worshipped but He])

    (“And indeed, We created man from dried [sounding] clay of altered mud. And the jinn, We created aforetime from the smokeless flame of fire.”).

    (And I have created the jinn and men only to worship Me).

    (And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.”)

    Jameela
    Messenger of Allah
    & Defender of Islam
    13 October 2011

92. Kim Bruce

    October 15, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Should we not compare the photoshopped versions of Islam with Islam’s canonical writers and spokesmen? Should we not study orthodox authorities of Islam such as Bukhari, Ibn Ishaq, Taymiyyah, Tabari, Nawawi, Ibn Kathir, since they represent Islam’s canonical consensus?

    Yes, we should but tell that to the Main Sleeze Media and the sleezy Politicians, SEIU Union thugs, etc., that follow the sublime teachings of Obama.

93. tarawa1943

    October 13, 2011 | Log in to Reply

    Thank you for this article. This deception extends to the quaran/koran and quasi-muslims say that the q/k is a compilation of Judaism and Christianity, when in reality it has absolutely nothing to do with either. Them quasi-muslim will manipulate the facts of history and ancient writings to meet their personal agenda of quasi-muslim superiority and total quasi-muslim world domination. The quasi-muslim is doomed to a devil’s hell with that type of thinking. When tested the quasi-muslim will never go to the Tanach or Torah as it speaks nothing but truth to them.