Wednesday, May 27, 2009

MEMORIAL PARADE (click picture to enlarge)

154 comments:

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Gentlemen: Thank you both for appearing here. I will suggest an opening statement from each of the two participants, then proceed to no more than three (3) main subjects a), b), c), per segment;
>
then allowing the other person the opportunity to answer each of these subjects. Let's begin > with Mohamed; then, in the next session it will be Mr "A"'s turn to choose two or three subjects, and Mohamed's turn to answer.

Let's begin!
____ ____

Mohamed said...

Good idea Mr. reb!

At first thanks for hosting us at your blog. The main reason why I accepted to make the discussion here is that here there will be more persons who will witness the discussion, and maybe will share by their points of view. But I hope that all comments are allowed, without any moderation!! I hope too that "A" has the real will to discuss and exchange points of view with respect and understanding.

You wondered why the delay. I told you it's my exams, I'll finish 30th of June. But today is a day to have a rest. I'll type my first "3" subjects tonight (according to Egypt's local time).

See you at the night.

Mohamed

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Thank you, Mohamed!

* For the first week or so, I would like to see the discussion strictly limited to the two main participants, without others interrupting these thoughts.

* Persons with Identification will have Priority Over Anonymous Comments & Rude Hecklers!

* "Too Many Chefs might spoil the entire wonderful menu!"

* No "Reviles" Will Be Permitted!

>>

* All other comments, for now.... MUST be placed on --> 'Summary of WWII' post. reb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
___________________________________

Mohamed said...

At the first and before talking about any subject, I'd like to quote two holy texts from two holy books.
The first is from the Holy Bible, it was a famous saying that Jesus said to his fellows; "Love your enemies."
The other text is from the Holy Qur'an, it's a verse that says; "Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. " 60: 8
No big difference between the two holy texts, both of them invite to great values which are loving the other, understanding and tolerance.

1) A good subject to start with is how can we understand the verses of the Qur'an. When there are verses in the Qur'an that order Muslims to fight against others; Do that mean that every Muslim should hold his sword (or strap a bomb) killing every "non-Muslim" as more as he can to please Allah? OR it's just the opposite to please Allah? Is that what is really meant by these verses to kill and kill and kill? How can we understand the verses that invite to dealing kindly with non-Muslims beside the verses that order to fight against them? Can we "just" conclude that Qur'an is just suffering from "obvious" contradiction in its basis?

There is a very important basis to understand the teachings of Islam. This basis is the "Unity of Islamic texts". The core of this basis is: An order that comes in Qur'an can't be understood solely and isolated from other orders that talk about the same subject in Qur'an or sayings of the prophet (Sunnah).

An example would clarify this basis; there is a verse in Qur'an that says; "O ye who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say .." 4:43 That's the complete text of the verse. Let's imagine that we'll divide it into two parts, executing one part but not the other. If we read the verse like that; "O ye who believe! Approach not prayers" If we stopped at the order not to approach the prayer, then we can say then that Qur'a is ordering Muslims not to pray, it's an order to delete the prayer from the Muslim obligations. Is that right? Is that what Qur'an want to say? If we completed the verse we'll understand the real aim of the verse, we'll know that it's instead an order to pray but only when they aren't drunk, not to stop the prayer at all.

It's the same with every subject in Qur'an. When some verse talk about fighting against non-Muslims, we should check every other verse that talked about fighting against non-Muslims to be able to see the full image of how Islam dealt with this subject, when to fight, when to make peace, when to use an iron hand, when to give an olive branch, how to fight, who to fight against, who to give protection, when to stop fighting, etc. So we can't point at one verse that talk about fighting against non-Muslims yelling; "Islam order his followers to kill ALL non-Muslims!!" ignoring every other verse that clarified how and when to fight against them and when to give peace.
It's unjust and not fair to build our points of view on partial evidences. Our perspectives then can't be accepted by others.

Mohamed said...

Allow me please to talk about two verses that may be misunderstood if read partially, but will be understood if read in their context. I'll state them partially at the first to prove my theory.
"And slay them wherever ye catch them .." 2:191
".. seize them and slay them wherever ye get them " 4:91

I know how you're feeling now, how you look at Muslims, terrorism, barbarism, .. but please wait until you read the complete verses.

"190. Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. 191. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. 192. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 193. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah. but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. " 2: (190, 191, 192)

"89. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;- 90. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them). 91. Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: Every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto: if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them: In their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them. " 4: (89, 90, 91)

It's not an absolute permission to annihilate all and everyone who disbelieve in Islam, but it's an exceptional solution to treat with those who oppress, fight, and don't aim at establishing peace and maintaining stability. It's restricted by treaties that Muslims held with others.

I'll say no more about these verses, I'll leave the space now for my friends to answer this subject.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Thank You Mohamed,

We see here about a dozen paragraphs, and just under 1,000 words.
Let this be our guide, and measuring stick, for the beginning segment of this discussion.

>>

Amillennialist, please respond.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Thank you Mohamed,

TWO POINTS for the purpose of necessary clarification, before we continue:

a) brief definition of muslim words...

Caliphate > Leadership, Responsibility; Accountability (Allah may change it, if deemed necessary.)

Sunna or Sunnah > Mohammad's way of life; customary practice, tradition. To sharpen, shape, enact.

Ummah > Muslim global community.

>>

Friend Mohamed said: "Allow me to talk about two verses that may be misunderstood..."

{top} "and slay them whereever ye catch them"
{bottom} "it's unjust, and not fair to build our points of view on partial evidences. Our perspectives then can't be accepted by others."
>
Yes, now please allow REB to point to a few Biblical Contradictions:

In the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:21 we find, "Thou Shalt Not Murder"; then see Joshua 6:20-21, where the Israelites murdered the non-believers: they killed "men & women, young and old, and sheep, ox and ass with the edge of the sword." A bloodbath; Jericho died!

On Stoning {John 8:7} Jesus said: Let those among you who are without Sin, Let him cast the first stone."

On Condoned Slavery: See Exodus 21-20
>
From This Agnostic Viewpoint, we see that

Global Jihad ( kill-culture ) condones > Terrorism, suicidal murder, the Stoning of women & girls, the Dhimmi (Voluntary) Slavery, (if they pay the muslim tax.) and...
Terrorism; Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious
with terror' {Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220}
>
It might be helpful, if my friend Mohamed would point to Any Quranic Verse that clarifies (or justifies)
Global Jihad Murder, Stoning, Suicidal bombings, Terrorism, etc

Whereas, Modern Jews have long ago abandoned the above ancient traditions and laws, Shari'a Has Not!
>>

Amillennialist, it's your turn, please continue. reb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mohamed said...

Thank you Mr. reb for your identification of some words in Arabic that are related to Muslim culture.

You raised up some other subjects, out next subject would be "Dhimmi rights". But let me for now answer two things.

About the saying of prophet Muhammad; "I have been made victorious with terror".
It means that Allah make the enemies of Muslims afraid of them however they maybe weaker or more than them. A verse in Qur'an says; "And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah. But the (Wrath of) Allah came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts .." 59:2
A little example for you, (just an example), can you see the conflict between Israel and Palestinians! How should we compare the powers of the two sides? The stone vs. The tank, The gun vs. The air fighters, The humble rockets vs. The smart rockets. However all of this illogical differences of power scales, you can see how Israelis are afraid from Palestinians. Even when they wanted to assassinate the founder of Hamas resistance group , a 67 years old man, his two hands and two legs are completely disabled, almost can talk, moving on a wheelchair, do you know how they assassinated him? Going back home from the mosque after the prayer at 5:00AM, the Israeli Appatchis dropped "3 missiles" directly at him "on his wheelchair", killing the old man at once and 7 of his fellows! That's the meaning of "I have been made victorious with terror"." Your enemy will be afraid from you, even if he's stronger.

----------

About your request to point to Any Quranic Verse that clarifies (or justifies) Global Jihad Murder, Stoning, Suicidal bombings, Terrorism, etc.

It's a verse in Qur'an that clarifies the punishment of those who commit the crime of "Haraba". This crime is -according to Islamic books- an individual or a group of persons who use arms and weapons to spill the blood, rape , threaten people's property and steal money. It perfectly apply on what is called now as "TERRORISM". Bombing safe people, suiciding in crowded places and kidnapping innocents.

The verse says; "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; " 5:33

Their punishment in this life is; "execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land". And in the next life is; "heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter".

I've just read on a website about a man who faced the penalty of "Haraba" in Saudi Arabia because he kidnapped a 11 years old boy raping him in his shop, then he killed him by hanging him by a rope, then he killed the father of the kid using a chopper hitting him on his head and then on his body, and then he closed his shop leaving them to die. His head was cut.

We can talk in detail later about this subject and how Islamic religion maintain the safety of people, whether according to its holy texts or practically. But for now I'll wait for Amillennialist's response.

Mohamed

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Mohamed. Reluctantly, I published TWO "opening statements' from you;

Now please, wait for Mr "A" to provide us with his statement. reb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amillennialist said...

Thank you, Mr. Reb, Mr. Fadly,

My opening statement:

Freedom of speech is an excellent point at which to begin comparing and contrasting YHWH and His Christ -- the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the Prophets -- with Allah, Muhammad's deity.

The American conviction expressed in the Declaration of Independence -- that all rights come from YHWH and are therefore, unalienable (cannot be transferred, sold, stolen, or given away), belong to all equally, and include Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness – is derived directly from the teachings of the Bible, especially the words and work of Christ.

In the Ten Commandments we find YHWH's protection of human life (and other rights), and in the words of the Apostles we find that, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free."

We also receive from Jesus the concept of "Two Kingdoms" -- civil government versus God's rule in the Church, the invisible body of all Christians everywhere. Christ taught, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's [in context, money for taxes, and this to the Roman tyrant!], and give to God what is God's” [faith, obedience, loyalty, everything else].

Because of these doctrines, under the American Constitution all citizens are guaranteed the right to practice freely the non-genocidal, non-totalitarian religion of their choosing, without government interference.

Compare and contrast Christ's doctrines and the form of government derived from them with Allah's:

First, according to Muhammad, Allah's final revelations – these abrogate all previous statements allowing peaceful cooperation with non-Muslims – do not allow freedom of speech or religion. Muhammad slaughtered those who spoke against him (see, for example, Asma bint Marwan, recorded by Ibn Ishaq in his Sirat Rasul Allah) and commanded that if anyone changes his Islamic religion, “then kill him” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

Second, according to Muhammad, he was ordered (and so are his followers) to fight against the people “until all religion is for Allah.” Muslims are to use any means necessary to establish the rule of Allah over all mankind. This means that unless the Non-Muslim accepts the “invitation” to Islam – or slavery under it if they're “lucky” enough to be a Jew or Christian (or perhaps, Zoroastrian, though they've been mostly wiped out by Muslims) -- he is to be slaughtered by the faithful:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

Consider the stark contrast between any shari'a state in history and America. Even today's Islamic nations, though not fully shari'a compliant, are prime examples of utter barbarism, discrimination, and tyranny, while the United States of America (once the most Christian nation on Earth) is the most free, even to the point of defeating slavery (something of which Muhammad and his allah approve, especially if the infidel slave woman is really “desirable”).

Clearly, when human beings obey the principles found in the religion taught by Christ, freedom results.

Allah's religion results only in slavery and death.

Amillennialist said...

Mr. Reb,

A quick comment: As I was going through Mohamed's posts, I noticed your comment on the Conquest of Canaan and the death penalty under the Mosaic Law.

The Conquest of Canaan was a Divine judgment of great evil (see their deity Molech) after 40 years of warning to those nations, and it was against those who had refused to leave the cities.

Israel suffered the same fate centuries later at the hands of the Babylonians for the same wickedness.

I would be happy to discuss this with you further, if you are agreeable to it.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Mr "A", Thank You.

I would be happy to discuss the Slaughter of Jericho at another time & place.
>
For now, I think it preferable to stay here on point, discussing with Mohamed the relative merits (?) of Islam, the questionable values of Islam's Global Jihad, The Muslim Brotherhood, the grim world-wide bombings that ignore the suffering of innocents, the vicious stonings and mutilations of young girls (with the need to dominate all women) the absolute domination of all other faiths, and the fate of Apostates that have turned away from Islam.

Authoritative quotes are most helpful.

Mr "A", please continue with the balance of your comment, and directed to my friend Mohamed. reb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amillennialist said...

Sirs, let's give it a shot, in several parts:

1) Mohamed equates Christ's command to “Love your enemies” with Allah's not forbidding dealing “kindly and justly” with those who do not fight Muslims nor drive them from their homes.

How are those equivalent? How does being kind to someone not harming you even approach loving one's enemies?

To be remotely comparable, Allah would have to state something along the lines of “Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just to those who fight against you for faith or drive you from your homes.”

Even then, that would only allow kindness to one's enemies, not command love toward them, as Christ does.

Amillennialist said...

2) Mohamed talks about the “apparent” contradictions in Qur'an. They exist.

Later “revelations” that contradict earlier ones abrogate them. This is called “naskh”:

“The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath'" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427).

“Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things” (Qur'an 2:106)?

The abrogations most troubling to non-Muslims concern the proper Muslim stance toward them.

Unfortunately for millions (billions?) of “infidels” over the last fourteen hundred years, Muhammad's position on the subject evolved from one of cooperation with non-Muslims, to allowing self-defense, to requiring self-defense, to demanding offensive warfare against those who refuse the “invitation” to Islam (or slavery under it).

Amillennialist said...

3) Mohamed makes an argument for understanding passages in their context. I agree.

I've never done otherwise, contrary to his implication.

Mohamed does neglect to make one point regarding context: Since Qur'an is a series of often disjointed, independent sayings – its chapters arranged by size, not chronology – to find the context of many passages it is necessary to go to ahadith (the sayings of Muhammad) and sira (his biographies).

Amillennialist said...

4) Regrettably, it appears that Mohamed is implying that I've claimed that Allah commands Muslims to kill “all non-Muslims.” Or, perhaps, he's hoping someone else who isn't paying attention will think I have.

Mohamed admits (unintentionally, I'd wager) that Allah commands warfare against non-Muslims (“every other verse that clarified how and when to fight against them and when to give peace”).

So, let's look at one of those chronically-taken-out-of-context verses and its actual context, Qur'an 9:5.

This is called “The Verse of the Sword,” and with it, Muhammad opened up the entire non-Muslim world to Islamic conquest, making all non-Muslims targets for either conversion, slavery, or slaughter.

Here is The Verse:

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

A non-Muslim unfamiliar with the context of that verse would be alarmed (rightly) and may make the logical leap to “all Muslims are commanded to kill all non-Muslims.” This would not be true, and here is why: Muhammad ordered slaughter for those non-Muslims who refuse the “invitation” to Islam and subjugation as dhimmis (an option for the “People of the Book;” pagans are not usually so “lucky”):

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

So, no, “all Muslims” are not ordered to kill “all non-Muslims.” Just the ones who resist.

One other important consideration: Since the goal of Islam is the establishment of Allah's tyranny over all mankind, the use of any means necessary is fine. If Islam can subjugate the entire world without firing a shot or lighting a fuse, it will.

This is why you see demographics, media, schools, prisons, politics, the courts, and money used successfully in establishing Islam in Western nations.

If anything, bin Laden and his buddies may have set back the spread of Islam in America.

Amillennialist said...

5) Mohamed brings up two passages to illustrate that Qur'anic verses should be taken in context.

Again, I agree, they should.

The first is 2:191, “slay them wherever ye catch them.” Though I have not taken this verse out-of-context, Muslims dealing with inexperienced non-Muslims often use this verse to mislead their audiences.

Yes, the command here is given in the context of retaliation, retribution, even self-defense.

The only problem is, the same command is uttered in the context of offensive warfare against non-Muslims in Sura 9 (quoted above) on the basis of religion, the only “immunity” granted to those “infidels” who've kept their treaties with Muhammad, and only until those treaties expire.

Sura 4 mentions self-defense in verse 91, but look at verse 89: “Do not consider them friends, unless they mobilize along with you in the cause of Allah. If they turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in war. You shall not accept them as friends, or allies.”

Exempted from this violence are those who join groups with extant peace treaties with Muhammad (verse 90).

So the default state according to Mr. Fadly is – without considering the later verses requiring offensive warfare – one of hostility toward non-Muslims on religious grounds.

Again, Mohamed states that, “It's not an absolute permission to annihilate all and everyone who disbelieve in Islam.”

I've never said otherwise.

And isn't it curious that Mohamed doesn't volunteer the rest of the story?

Amillennialist said...

6) Instructively, Mohamed concludes this section of his comments with this:

“it's an exceptional solution to treat with those who oppress, fight, and don't aim at establishing peace and maintaining stability. It's restricted by treaties that Muslims held with others.”

With self-defense (“those who fight”) I have no problem. With retaliation, I understand (I don't agree, but I understand).

I do have a problem with “oppress,” and “don't aim at establishing . . . and maintaining stability.” Too often, Muslims – following Muhammad's example – consider non-Muslims not immediately lying down and making every concession demanded of them by the faithful as committing “oppression” or causing “instability.”

Not being Muslim is a threat to the Islamic state!

Here, “disbelief” in Allah is the cause for war:

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world)" (Qur'an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).

Another declares execution, crucifixion, and amputation appropriate punishments for . . . “mischief”!

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).

I always slaughter those with whom I have no peace treaty.

Amillennialist said...

7) Mohamed makes a passing reference to “dhimmi” rights. That's an oxymoron to any honest person whose done his homework!

Dhimma is “protection” for the “People of the Book,” Jews and Christians (and at times, certain other groups).

Protection from whom? This is the kind of “protection” mobsters offer: You pay us, and we'll protect you – from ourselves!

In fact, mafia look like angels next to what Islam has traditionally offered dhimmis, per Muhammad's command in Qur'an 9:29, which reads: “Fight those who believe not in Allah . . . nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

“Subdued” is translated variously as “brought low” and “subjection.”

What does this mean in practice? One model of Islamic “protection” is the Pact of Umar, which states in part:

“We [Christians] shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor [h]ide him from the Muslims.

We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.

We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

We shall not sell fermented drinks.

We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists

We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.

We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.

Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."

Can't you feel the love?

Amillennialist said...

8) Mohamed tries to ameliorate the utter barbarity of Muhammad's being made “victorious with terror” and the implications of that declaration and example for today's non-Muslims concerned with Islamic terrorism with this verse:

“And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah. But the (Wrath of) Allah came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts ..” 59:2

They were hiding in their fortresses.

(By the way, it is not a good idea to bring up Israel and their Muslim neighbors in defense of Islam. If Israel were as bad as Islamic and other anti-Semites claim, they'd have “taken care” of the “Palestinians” a long time ago.

The truth is, since its inception, modern Israel has had to defend itself continually against jihad.)

Amillennialist said...

9) Mohamed notes a punishment carried out in Saudi Arabia for heinous crimes. I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem with this: Mr. Fadly does not mention that the way in which the “Islamic religion maintain[s] the safety of the people” applies only to Muslims, even in his beloved Egypt, where Copts are attacked and killed and their daughters kidnapped and raped routinely by Muslims.

Under Islamic law – which is derived from Qur'an and Sunna – non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little children are not afforded the same consideration as Muslim males.

Consider the following passages regarding just non-Muslims; perhaps Mohamed can explain how these texts don't say what they actually say:

"It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366)."

"Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a decision that when a [J]ew or [C]hristian was killed, his blood-money was half the blood-money of a free muslim.

"Malik said, 'What is done in our community, is that a muslim is not killed for a kafir unless the muslim kills him by deceit. Then he is killed for it.'

[. . .]

"Malik said, 'The blood-monies of the Jew, Christian, and Magian in their injuries, is according to the injury of the muslims in their blood-moneys. The head wound is a twentieth of his full blood-money. The wound that opens the head is a third of his blood-money. The belly-wound is a third of his blood-money. All their injuries are according to this calculation'" (Muwatta Book 43, Number 43.15.8b).

"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust" (Qur'an 5:51).

"Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak" (Qur'an 4:76).

"Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures" (Qur'an 98:6).

"Muhammad - the messenger of GOD - and those with him are harsh and stern against the disbelievers, but kind and compassionate amongst themselves" (Qur'an 48:29).

And, of course, all the passages regarding offensive warfare to make the world Islam.

Good day, gentlemen.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Mr "A" - Quite frankly, I am amazed
at your ability to record without hesitation, these nine complex points with such detail, in forty-three minutes!
>
Following Mohamed's Response, this will conclude the First Segment.
>
When we begin Segment Two, I will suggest that we address One Subject Per Day...giving that subject an identifying label (as in 'Dhimmi') then allowing the other fellow to provide his complete answer.

Mohamed, take all the time you need. reb

Mohamed said...

WOW!!

The last time I was here, it was only 9 comments. I think I've missed too much. ;)

Any way, I was away because of a problem in my keyboard, plus my exams.

See you soon.

Mohamed

Amillennialist said...

Mr. Reb,

I wish I were so quick!

Due to recent computer problems, I had prepared my comments in a file saved to my Desktop.

(I did proofread and edit the comments as I pasted them, though!)

Regards,

Amillennialist

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Very Good. We have finished Phase One.

Now, I suggest that we agree upon a
single subject for Phase Two. reb
__________________________________

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

These two gentlemen obviously have extra-ordinary knowledge re The Holy Bible & Holy Qur'an.

I wiil amend my request... that any person wishing to comment on Phase One and Two, please do so on our "Summary of WWII" (post) for the balance of July; thank you. reb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Mohamed - We last heard from you on June 28th. Is there more that you would like to add to on Phase I ? If so, please continue. reb
__________________________________

Mohamed said...

Mr. reb,

At first let me express my apologizes for being so late. The main reason for this lateness is that I make researches to answer most of the points raised by Amillennialist, I don't just copy&paste my paragraphs.
Any way, thanks for your patience.

At first I must record one very important thing;

I wonder how you said that you; "Reluctantly, published TWO "opening statements' from me", when you published so many "Opening statements" from Amillennialist that can't be ignored by me without any answer. Starting by the "Freedom of Speech" then "The Difference Between American Mercy and Islamic Barbarism", then his nine "shots" raising different subjects other than our main subject; "How To Understand Qur'anic Verses?", focusing on "Dhimmi rights" that we've approved to make it as our next subject to discuss about. I believe he's following the same way of confusion that he always followed in all my previous discussions with him 3 years ago.

I've to answer these subjects at first, then I'll see what he has said concerning our main Opening Statement and answer it.

Peace,

Mohamed

Mohamed said...

Amillennialist,

Do you love Bin Laden?
No? I'm afraid to tell you then that you aren't a devout Christian. According to your beliefs, you must "love your enemies", which applies to everyone who harm you and threaten your safety (Which one to be considered as "the enemy" than who kills my brothers with no guilt?) Consequently, you love all terrorists who bombed themselves in American places, you love those who stroked the two towers killing thousands with no guilt. (!!!).
As for Islamic beliefs we Muslims don't have to love those who kill children and attack innocents, we don't have to love those who bomb markets and crowded places killing tens of innocents. Qur'an clarified the limits to Muslims;
"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. * Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong." 60: 8, 9
There is a big difference between "loving" who fire off my brother, and "not loving" who fire off my brothers.

+++++++

Mohamed said...

Amillennialist,

I can see you've talked about many subjects, trying to distort us away from our main first subject. I'll answer in quick paragraphs some of these subjects, then I'll go back to our main subject.

*That's right. You can't compare between "Loving" those who kill innocents, and "Punishing" them. According to Islamic teachings it's not just about loving or not loving those who threaten the safety of safe people at the image of armed burgler, raping, killing innocents, terrorizing the safe, bombing crowded places like markets and trains, etc, but instead Islam has set a reasonable punishment, whether for this life and also for the Judgement day. Islam clarified that we must punish them by both physical and moral penalties. They face one of the following physical penalties; execution, crucifixion, cutting off of the hands and feet, or to be exiled. These physical penalties are combined with their disgrace among people whom they killed their fathers, mothers or children. Beside these physical and moral penalties they'll face heavy punishment in the Judgement Day. That's what Islam has set to face the random killing, bombing crowded places, threating the safety of community and terrorizing innocents. Just imagine those who planned and executed the 9-11 attacks with cut hands and legs!
Now, what your beliefs tell you about those enemies and enemies of every human? "Love your enemies" (!!)
That's the difference between Islamic teachings and other teachings. Islam has a balanced view that realizes the differences between those who give peace and those who give war, not a restricted view considering everyone the same, those who give peace are just the same as those who give war.
Islam tells Muslims to: Love those who are kind, who share you the same land, who cooperate with you to build a safe country, who aim at establishing together progressive community, who want to build bridges of understanding and exchanged cooperation. But those who want to assassinate the life, kill the innocents, terrorize the safe people, destroy the bridges of understanding, and collapse the progress of countries; those must be faced by an iron hand, not to be loved.

Mohamed said...

*You raised up a good subject which is the "stark contrast" between Shari'a states and the United States of America (the most Christian nation on Earth). We can fill books of how Shari'a was much better than Americans and Christians, but I'll quickly review some differences.
-Early when the Christians came from Europe to the new land where there were a people already living on it. Millions of them were annihilated with cold blood. More than 100 Millions have been wiped off the face of the earth, including their cattle and farms. They were feeding their dogs by the alive flesh of Red Indians, babies were grabed from the arms of their mothers and thrown on rocks to break their skulls, they were roasting them on fire. That's Christians who did that. This exactly applies to; "they murdered the non-believers: they killed "men & women, young and old, and sheep, ox and ass with the edge of the sword" When prophet Muhammad inhibited Muslims to kill the young and old, the women and monastics, and not to destroy homes or worshiping places. That's a "stark contrast".
-Earlier when the Christian Crusaders came over the Muslim lands aiming at "freeing Jerusalem", they destroyed Muslim cities on their way, and killed in Jerusalem 70.000 of Muslims IN A WEEK, 10.000 per day.
-One other possessive product of the American nation is The Use of Mass-Destruction Weapons. Killing hundreds of thousands by a push on a button is a brutal thing that Islamic culture refuses clearly. Our Muslim scholars announced in a Fatwa that the use of mass-destruction weapons is Haram (Prohibited) according to Shari'a rules, when we can hear American voices justifying that disgusting horrible act, and even it has been used twice in WWII killing hundreds of thousands in seconds, and causing other hundreds of thousands to suffer of radiations for the rest of their life. That's a difference between Shari'a and the Christian America.
-Another disgusting thing that America (the most Christian nation on Earth) is committing is Torturing of Prisoners in American Prisons. Sexual harassment, insulting of religious beliefs, photographing prisoners nude, attacks by dogs, etc are all examples of what Americans are doing against prisoners in American prisons. All these disgusting are done under the direct supervision of American government. When we can find in our Muslim holy texts; "And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive,-" 76:8
-According to your culture it's accepted to murder the non-believers: "men & women, young and old, and sheep, ox and ass with the edge of the sword. But according to Islamic heritage the prophet was always insisting that Muslim combats mustn't kill the woman, the child, the old or a monastic, they shouldn't kill the animals or cut the trees, they mustn't destroy the homes or worshiping places. That's another stark difference.

Mohamed said...

Now let's talk about our main subject; "How to Understand Qur'anic verses".
I believe your main reason to ignore verses that clarified the rules of fighting, fighting only those who fight against us, not killing children, women and monastics, not attacking worshiping places, etc is the "Naskh". OK, let's clarify at first for our friends what the "Naskh" means.
Naskh according to Shari'a means that two verses or two Hadith (Saying of the prophet) are revealed or said one after another, talking about the same subject with opposite meanings that we can't apply them side by side, so we only apply the second and not the first.
So, at first, they both must be talking about the same subject. Second, they both must be opposing each other that it's impossible to apply them together. One of the apparent examples for the "Naskh" is the verses that prohibited drinking wine. At first the 219th verse of the 2nd Chapter said; "They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: "In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit. .." Then the 43th verse of 4th Chapter said; "O ye who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say ..". Then the 90th verse of 5th Chapter said; "O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. ". So the first verse clarified that drinking wine is a bad thing, but it didn't said it obviously that it's prohibited. Then the next verse ordered Muslims not to drink when prayer times is close, it's a partial prohibition. At last, the verse ordered Muslims to ".. eschew such (abomination) ..", it's a clear and full prohibition, all later verses can't be applied together with the last one, so the previous verses aren't applied and only last verse that fully prohibit drinking wine is applied.

Mohamed said...

Someone would ask; and what's the purpose of "Naskh"? Why there are various verses with opposite meanings?
The main reason for that is Facilitation towards the new Muslims. Qur'an isn't like other holy books e.g the Torah and Bible that were revealed all in one time, but Qur'an has been revealed across 23 years according to the events and incidents that face Muslims in their life. Qur'an was revealed in an area where there were no state system or arranged law rules, there weren't obligatory rules as known today. So, any "sudden" obligations would make a shock for the new Muslims, if Qur'an ordered the new believers to abandon wine at once or to stop the interest in money lending, it would be so hard for them to obey. So, Qur'an made it in gradual steps so as to make it easy for them to apply the orders. For example; at first a verse comes with a partial prohibition in specific times, then another verse comes with a full prohibition and subject the previous verse for the "Naskh". That's like the way how the Muslim prayer has been imposed, and the wine has been prohibited. Another reason for the "Naskh" is maintaining some interest in a specific part of the time, when this interest is gone, then the later rule is no more applied. One of the examples for that exists in the Torah; it was accepted for the early sons of Adam to marry each other, the brothers to marry the sisters, but when the sons of Adam became more in number and there were no longer any need for such marriage, this rule has been deleted by the other rule that prohibited that marriage.

If we asked ourselves; And how should we know if a verse or a Hadith has subjected to the "Naskh" or not? Do we know it by ourselves? Can we say that the verse subjects to the "Naskh" just because we thought that it contradict with a next verse?
There are two ways to realize that there is a "Naskh" for some rule; 1) The next verse states clearly that the first verse will no more apply on the common subject. 2) Two verses following each other in time but one with a positive order, the other with a negative order, so only the next one will apply. Another important thing; it's only Allah (through Qur'an or Hadith) who says that a verse or a Hadith has subjected to the "Naskh" or not, so after the prophet's death we can't conclude that any verse or Hadith has subjected to "Naskh", that's because by the prophet's death there is no more revelation, so there are no new rules or "Naskh" of existing rules.

HIGHLIGHTING AN IMPORTANT POINT about "Naskh": ONLY verses that can't be applied together a) in the same conditions, b) towards the same persons would subject to the "Naskh. But if we can apply all verses together, then no verse subjects to the "Naskh"

Mohamed said...

Now about the variety of verses that exist in Qur'an that may appear contradicitng each other; like a verse that order Muslims to fight against non-Muslims, and another that orders Muslims to give them peace, or a verse that orders Muslims to deal kindly and justly with them! Can we apply all of them together without any problems?
Should we follow the easy way, the way of deleting our minds, and just conclude that Qur'an is contradicting itself, then it can't be applied, or it'll result in divisions among Muslims that a division will apply one rule and others will apply the opposing rule. Or should we follow the way of those who make their minds work, and try to understand all the verses that showed for Muslims how to deal with non-Muslims as one system that all the rules inside it are integrating each other?!!
If we followed the second way we'll realize that Islamic system for dealing with non-Muslims is a perfect and balanced system. It tells you to; "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors." 2:190 It's OK for Muslims to defend themselves against those who fight against them, but they mustn't transgress limits which are not killing a child or a woman, not killing a monastic or destroy churches and temples, not killing animals or destroying farms. When Muslims apply this rule, then the next verse clarifies; "And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; .." 2:191 But if they quit their oppression, the next verse clarifies; "But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." 2:192 Muslims must defend themselves, fight against the enemy when they meet them in wars, BUT if they quit fighting then Muslims must quit too.

Someone would ask, but how a verse orders Muslims to; ".. slay them wherever ye catch them .." When the next one says; "but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. " 2:193 Isn't it an "obvious contradiction"? No at all. The first verse isn't ordering Muslims to kill every and all non-Muslims; From one side, how come this would be logical when the prophet ordered fighters not to kill children, old, etc? On the other side, how come Muslims are ordered to kill all non-Muslims when Jews lived side by side with Muslims in Medina, the seed of Islamic state, under a treaty signed between prophet Muhammad and Jews. Also, in every state that Muslims opened non-Muslims were allowed to live, practice their worships and jobs freely.
So, how come we can claim that Qur'an orders Muslims to kill a child going to his school, or an employee going to his office, or a mother in a picnic with her children? That's exactly against the Qur'an and Hadith.

Mohamed said...

The question hasn't been answered yet; Doesn't the verse ".. slay them wherever ye catch them .." obviously contradict other verses that order Muslims to deal kindly and justly with non-Muslims, and to give them peace? There isn't any contradiction between such verse and other verses. This verse and all verses that order Muslims to fight against non-Muslims is restricted on the case of those who fight against non-Muslims, is restricted to war times, when soldiers are battling. I wonder what should be said to soldiers going to fight against the enemy; would it be reasonable to say; "When you meet your enemy in the battle throw them .. by flowers" or "When you meet them .. give them a big hug". No, it's the miserable fact of wars, when armies are face to face, when swords clashes, when blood is spilled, every soldier from both sided has one target; Killing The Enemy. So, that order; ".. slay them wherever ye catch them .." is for those soldiers who fight against soldiers of the enemy. Civilians inside their safe states, kids in their schools, women in their homes, employees on their offices aren't included in this verse, only the warriors.

However all of that, Islam didn't lose its balance. This can be realized from many other rules when Muslims deal with non-Muslims whether in peace or in war times.
*For example, the prophet inhibited Muslims to kill a wounded solider even in a battle.
*Qur'an clarified that Muslims fight against those fight against them; "Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? .." 9:13 Also, "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, .." 2:190
*Qur'an also clarified that Muslims should be strong to prevent others from thinking of attacking Muslims, but the next verse says; "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, .." 8:60
*Qur'an showed that Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just." 60:8 But "Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection)." 60:9
*Islamic teachings order Muslims to respect their treaties with others. Qur'an 5:1 "O ye who believe! fulfil (all) obligations. .." And also Qur'an clarified that it's out of piety to fulfill treaties with non-Muslims; "(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous." 9:4. Also, ".. As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous." 9:7
*Islam gives asylum even for those non-Muslims who ask for it and keep their security. "If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge." 9:6

There is a last thing; I hope from my friend reb, and Amillennialist that you re-read my paragraphs again. A second reading would be useful to make my points be fully understood.

Thanks,

Peace be with you,
Mohamed

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Gentlemen, Thank you for your efforts, and I hope this concludes
your opening statements!
>>
I MUST Interject Here, to answer Mohamed's point about the Jewish subjugation of Cannanland, where the Ancient Israeli slaughtered "man & woman, young & old, and sheep, ox and ass with the sword."

That's a different debate, that I've agreed to have with Mr "A" at another time and place, Please!

a) Modern Israeli soldiers Are NOT purposely targeting women, kids and animals today. This occured a thousand years before the Prophet Mohammad's birth!
>
b) American Prison Guards, military or civilian, Are NOT Legally Permitted To Abuse Prisoners in ANY U.S. Prison. There are SEVERE legal penalties for any such behavior! To suggest otherwise is grossly unfair, and smacks of more hateful Anti-American propaganda.
>>
NOW, for purposes of brevity, may I again suggest a "Single-Subject Agreement" for Phase II?

Mohamed, please begin:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amillennialist said...

Well, Mohamed,

Playing the victim already, I see.

I offered one Opening Statement.

My "nine shots" were one reply to your comments, broken into sections for length.

And neither do I "just copy and paste" my replies as you so graciously imply.

The fact that you recycle "arguments" in defense of Islam so common and easily refuted that I have already prepared devastating refutations of them is not my fault.

Is this an indicator of the seriousness and accuracy with which we are to interact?

Amillenialist

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

We all have our strengths and weaknesses, don't we?

Mr Fadly, please continue now with your Chosen Single Subject. Wasn't it "The Dhimmi"?

One subject, then one answer; hopefully no more than 1000 words each. Please continue. reb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mohamed said...

Mr. reb,

Thanks for your quick publish of my comments, I expected some delay.

>>
About the Jewish subjugation of Cannanland, I'm looking forward to Amillennialist's defense regarding it.

>>
I do think Israeli soldiers nowadays purposely target women and children. (The early history of the establishment of this Zionist entity record massacres and rapings against Palestinian villagers, in addition of current Israeli acts which are all don't concern to war acts.) But we can discuss that later.

>>
I suggest that it would be better to give the space now for Amillennialist whether to "refute" my last paragraphs, or to start our next subject; "Dhimmis".

I'll just wait.

Mohamed said...

Amillenialist,

Playing the victim? (!!!)

No comment!

>>
I'm waiting for your devastating refutations concerning my arguments. I suggest that you refute at first my explanation of the "Naskh", then tell us about the difference between (Loving) and (Punishing) terrorists, then finish your refutations by explaining for us how Qur'an contradict after my explanation.

Waiting..

Amillennialist said...

Mohamed,

Please don't accuse me of "nine shots" again this time, since like the last, I'll be responding to what you wrote.

Amillennialist said...

Part 1 of 2

Mohamed,

"you must 'love your enemies' . . . you love all terrorists , , , As for Islamic beliefs we Muslims don't have to love those who kill children and attack innocents"

No, you are those who "kill children and attack innocents."

"Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith . . . It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong." 60: 8, 9

There is a big difference between "loving" who fire off my brother, and "not loving" who fire off my brothers.


You said you were doing research, but not about Christ's teachings apparently, since you're grossly misrepresenting them. Does that bother you at all?

Jesus did not command, "Excuse immorality and reward the criminal." He made a distinction between "Two Kingdoms," the spiritual and civil realms (a distinction absent from Islam, since Muhammad used his "faith" as a tool to satiate his lusts).

The individual Christian is to love even his enemies. Christ forbids personal revenge. The state, on the other hand, is to punish evil and defend its citizens.

Jesus taught and practiced, "Love your enemies," even praying for those who were murdering Him. He died for the sins of all people, even those who hate Him.

Jesus taught that His Father causes the sun to shine on the just and unjust and the rain to fall on the just and unjust. He says that if we are only kind to those who are kind to us, we are no better than unbelievers. In this context, Jesus commands, "Be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect."

Christ teaches His people to pray, "Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us," and, "If you do not forgive others' sins, neither will yours be forgiven."

You don't understand that your sin makes you an enemy of Christ. He commanded, "love YHWH with all your heart, mind, and strength," "You believe in the Father; believe also in Me," and, "all must honor the Son as they honor the Father."

You break those commandments every day as a Muslim.

"The soul that sins is the one who will die." You justly deserve God's wrath because of your sin.

What hope do you have for eternal life? How can you think you will escape Hell?

Amillennialist said...

Part 2 of 2

What does Allah offer? The possibility that your good works might outweigh your sins? The only sure way for you to enter Paradise is to slaughter or be slaughtered for Allah (Qur'an 9:111). Do you really think virgins wait there for you? Boys "like pearls"?

Loving one's enemies doesn't mean rewarding or excusing their evil. Nor are we to stand by in the face of evil. Self-defense and the defense of others are appropriate.

Christ also forbids "throwing one's pearls before swine, lest they trample them and turn again and rend you." We are not to give foolishly what is valuable to those who will not appreciate it.

Love means doing what is best for another person, and that is telling the truth, turning someone from evil. It is, ultimately, pointing to Christ and His forgiveness.

You don't understand love because your god is the inverse of it.

You defend revenge and retaliation because that is what Muhammad commanded and practiced.

It is ironic that you use your god as a point of reference in trying to -- what are you trying to do exactly, show Christ was wrong? -- since your god forbids "dealing kindly and justly with" non-Muslims when they "fight you for faith." Isn't that odd?

There is only one major world religion whose deity commands fighting others over religious belief. That would be Muhammad's, as his own texts demonstrate (to his shame).

You follow a god that calls killing unbelievers because they are unbelievers "just." A god that sanctions beating wives, valuing females at half the value of a male (if that), and raping nine-year-olds. A god that approves of lying if it aids the spread of shari'a. A god that demands slavery or death for all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam.

In effect, by choosing this topic, you've highlighted the fact that the God of the Bible, YHWH, loves all even though all sin, and proved this by becoming flesh and dying on a cross for us, while al-Ilah wants everyone who won't submit as a slave or dead.

You've highlighted the fact that Christ assures all of Heaven, but Allah gives Paradise to those who butcher unbelievers for him.

There's that stark contrast again, and it's devastating.

But the love of God in Christ for you and your co-religionists is greater.

Amillennialist said...

Mohamed said...

Amillennialist,

I can see you've talked about many subjects, trying to distort us away from our main first subject. I'll answer in quick paragraphs some of these subjects, then I'll go back to our main subject.


Again, the "nine shots" were responses to what YOU wrote. Don't blame me if your posts wander a bit.

According to Islamic teachings it's not just about loving or not loving those who threaten the safety of safe people at the image of armed burgler, raping, killing innocents, terrorizing the safe, bombing crowded places like markets and trains, etc, but instead Islam has set a reasonable punishment, whether for this life and also for the Judgement day. Islam clarified that we must punish them by both physical and moral penalties. They face one of the following physical penalties; execution, crucifixion, cutting off of the hands and feet, or to be exiled. These physical penalties are combined with their disgrace among people whom they killed their fathers, mothers or children.

You fail to note here that one of the crimes for which the barbarities above are appropriate is "mischief." What is that, exactly?

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).

"Corruption, mischief, nuisance."

Unbelief itself is an offense against Allah.

That's the difference between Islamic teachings and other teachings. Islam has a balanced view that realizes the differences between those who give peace and those who give war, not a restricted view considering everyone the same, those who give peace are just the same as those who give war.

How is waging offensive warfare against all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam "balanced"? Do you work for the DNC?

Islam tells Muslims to: Love those who are kind, who share you the same land, who cooperate with you to build a safe country, who aim at establishing together progressive community, who want to build bridges of understanding and exchanged cooperation. But those who want to assassinate the life, kill the innocents, terrorize the safe people, destroy the bridges of understanding, and collapse the progress of countries; those must be faced by an iron hand, not to be loved.

Again, you don't mention the fine print:

--In Islam, no non-Muslim is innocent; instead they are "fuel for the fire": "Those who disbelieve, neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against Allah: They are themselves but fuel for the Fire" (Qur'an 3:10).

--In Islam, "destroy bridges of understanding" means "refuse the 'invitation' to Islam":

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

-- In Islam, "collapse the progress of countries" means "resist Islamic tyranny":

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24)

and,

""Fight those who believe not in Allah . . . nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth . . . ;" (Qur'an 9:29).

The devil's in the details.

Amillennialist said...

Points 1 through 4

Mohamed said...

Early when the Christians came from Europe . . . Millions of them were annihilated with cold blood . . . feeding their dogs by the alive flesh of Red Indians, babies . . . were roasting them on fire . . . This exactly applies to; "they murdered the non-believers: they killed "men & women, young and old, and sheep, ox and ass with the edge of the sword" When prophet Muhammad inhibited Muslims to kill the young and old, the women and monastics, and not to destroy homes or worshiping places . . . Crusaders . . . killed in Jerusalem 70.000 of Muslims IN A WEEK, 10.000 per day . . . American nation is The Use of Mass-Destruction Weapons. Killing hundreds of thousands by a push on a button is a brutal thing that Islamic culture refuses clearly . . . Torturing of Prisoners in American Prisons . . . to your culture it's accepted to murder the non-believers: "men & women, young and old, and sheep, ox and ass with the edge of the sword . . . the prophet was always insisting that Muslim combats mustn't kill the woman, the child, the old or a monastic, they shouldn't kill the animals or cut the trees, they mustn't destroy the homes or worshiping places. That's another stark difference.

The starkest difference here is between your assertions and historical fact.

1) Millions of Indians were not "annihilated with cold blood." Yes, a large portion of the native population died as a result of exposure to Old World diseases; that was unintentional.

Numbers of Indians died in wars against Europeans . . . and against other Indians. I don't suppose that we can expect those whose entire knowledge of the native peoples of the Americas comes from having viewed Disney's Pocahontas to know that many Indians were more bloodthirsty than Europeans, since they too, as in Islam, worshiped deities of blood.

And yes, innocent American Indians were mistreated by America.

2) In all the atrocities alleged to have been committed by The White Man against the rest of the world, I've never heard of feeding living "Red Indians" to dogs. If it did occur, it was not systemic. Neither have I heard of Europeans/Americans roasting Indian babies.

Blood libel against Jews alone isn't enough for Muslims anymore?

I am aware of Spain's sometimes un-Christian treatment of pagans in the New World.

I wonder where they got the idea that that was okay? Could eight hundred years of Islamic oppression have contributed something to their understanding of how to treat "unbelievers"?

Your attempt to try to tie your alleged atrocities to -- is that supposed to be from the Bible? Old Testament? The conquering of Canaan? -- some kind of religious command is preposterous.

Assuming you're referring to Canaan, the command for Ancient Israel to wipe out those left in the cities after forty years of dispossession was a command limited to that time, place, and target only. It was a Divine judgment of great evil and a fate which Israel suffered later for committing the same sins.

Anyone trying to apply that command to any other circumstance is not being truthful.

3) I noted earlier that Crusaders did commit atrocities. You still don't admit that the reason the Crusaders went there in the first place was in response to centuries of Islamic slaughter, rape, and brutality.

4) Shari'a commands death for apostates and offensive warfare against those who won't convert to Islam or submit to slavery. Our use of two atomic bombs was in the context of a war of self-defense and the defense of innocents against a brutal, tyrannical ideology.

Or would you prefer that a victim of totalitarianism remain helpless?

Amillennialist said...

Points 5 and 6

5) Americans don't torture anyone; if anything, we've been too deferential to Islamic sensibilities.

Those who mistreated prisoners were punished.

The treatment Muslims have received from Americans is much better than the actual torture and beheadings "infidels" receive routinely from your co-religionists.

Here's how Allah deals with prisoners of war. Apparently, he hasn't heard of the Geneva Conventions:

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).

6) You lie, Mohamed. My culture does not command killing "unbelievers."

That's a classic case of projection.

Amillennialist said...

Point 7

7) As for your claim that Muhammad prohibited killing women and children, that's patently false.

And as for "innocent," I've already noted that in Islam no non-Muslim is "innocent."

Here's what your false prophet Muhammad, the slaughterer of the innocent, has to say about the allegedly inviolable prohibition against killing innocent women, children, and the elderly and burning down trees:

"The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256).

"The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree) [justifying the murder of innocents]: but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah: for (Allah) loveth not those who do wrong" (Qur'an 42:40).

It is permissible for Muslims to kill inviolable infidels if they are aiding the fighting in deed, word, opinion, or any other way. This is because of the Prophet's order to kill Duraid ibn Al-Simma, who was 120 years old and went with the Hawazin tribe [to fight against the Muslims] to give them counsel. Ibn Qudama notes that the Prophet ordered him killed in the Battle of Hunein because he knew military stratagems. See Al-Tamhid 16:142.

"It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that the Messenger of Allah . . . ordered the date-palms of Banu Nadir to be burnt and cut. These palms were at Buwaira. Qutaibah and Ibn Rumh in their versions of the tradition have added: 'So Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, revealed the verse: "Whatever trees you have cut down or left standing on their trunks, it was with the permission of Allah so that He may disgrace the evil-doers"'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4324).

Amillennialist said...

Point 8

8) Here's your "beautiful pattern of conduct" on what to do with those who insult him: In response to having 120 year-old Abu Afak killed, Asma bint Marwan, a poetess, mocked Muhammad. He was not amused:

"When the apostle heard what she had said he said, 'Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?' Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, "You have helped Allah and His apostle, O Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, 'Two goats won't butt their heads about her,' so Umayr went back to his people.

Now there was a great commotion among Banu Khatma that day about the affair of bint [daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, 'I have killed bint Marwan, o sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting.' That was the first day Islam became powerful among Banu Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact . . .The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of Banu Khatma became Muslims because they feared for their lives" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah).

"Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. Asma was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. 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. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No . . . " (Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir).

Even if your libelous accusations were true (they are not), "Christians" who murder violate Christ's commands. Muslims who slaughter non-Muslims for Allah do so in obedience to his.

If the best you can do in comparing America with shari'a is make up stories about America and cover up for Muhammad, what does that tell you?

Amillennialist said...

Mohamed said...

Now let's talk about our main subject; "How to Understand Qur'anic verses".
I believe your main reason to ignore verses that clarified the rules of fighting, fighting only those who fight against us, not killing children, women and monastics, not attacking worshiping places, etc is the "Naskh" . . . One of the apparent examples for the "Naskh" is the verses that prohibited drinking wine.


You're off to a great start!

In misrepresenting what I wrote, you also misrepresent Muhammad, since he did slaughter women and children (noted in previous comments).

I do not understand your need to define that (naskh) which I've used correctly.

Wine doesn't kill infidels. It doesn't behead prisoners of war and rape their wives like your Muhammad.

The topic was how Muslims are to regard non-Muslims. Muhammad's "revelations" progressed from cooperation and respect when he was weak to wanton slaughter, rape, and slavery when he had gained power.

And he does contradict himself. Here's Muhammad on the immutability of Islam (apart from what he himself decides to change) and the abrogation of earlier, more peaceful verses in favor of the numerous verses of blood:

"I heard the Prophet saying...'Far removed (from mercy), far removed (from mercy), those who changed (the religion) after me!'" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 174).

“The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath'" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427).

“Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things” (Qur'an 2:106)?

Amillennialist said...

Mohamed said...

Qur'an isn't like other holy books e.g the Torah and Bible that were revealed all in one time, but Qur'an has been revealed across 23 years according to the events and incidents that face Muslims in their life.

I respectfully offer:

Moses wrote the first five books ("Torah," "Pentateuch") around 1500 B.C.

Job was written probably several centuries before that.

Joshua was written by Moses's successor, Joshua.

YHWH's prophets wrote their books when they received their revelations, so they were written up until the time of Malachi, a few centuries before Christ.

David wrote most of the Psalms around three thousand years ago.

So, the Old Testament books were composed over a period of at least 1500 years by dozens of different authors of various backgrounds.

The New Testament texts were composed by the Apostles from around 50 a.D. to the end of the first century. Their authors were Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, and Peter.

So, if you take the entire Bible, its texts were composed over a period of around two thousand years.

All of them spoke of Christ. The Old Testament writings foretold His coming, the New told what He did once He arrived.

And contrary to a common lie told by Muslims, the Biblical texs did not become corrupted.

We have today what the Prophets and Apostles wrote.

Amillennialist said...

Mohamed said...

Now about the variety of verses that exist in Qur'an that may appear contradicitng each other; like a verse that order Muslims to fight against non-Muslims, and another that orders Muslims to give them peace, or a verse that orders Muslims to deal kindly and justly with them! Can we apply all of them together without any problems?

[. . .]

If we followed the second way we'll realize that Islamic system for dealing with non-Muslims is a perfect and balanced system. It tells you to; "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors." 2:190 It's OK for Muslims to defend themselves against those who fight against them, but they mustn't transgress limits which are not killing a child or a woman, not killing a monastic or destroy churches and temples, not killing animals or destroying farms. When Muslims apply this rule, then the next verse clarifies; "And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; .." 2:191 But if they quit their oppression, the next verse clarifies; "But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." 2:192 Muslims must defend themselves, fight against the enemy when they meet them in wars, BUT if they quit fighting then Muslims must quit too.


The relevance of naskh to a non-Muslim is in this: Those earliest, peaceful "revelations" when Muhammad was weak were abrogated by the later Mandates for Blood epitomized by the content of Sura 9.

And as I've addressed before, no, the texts do not command Muslims to kill non-Muslims indiscriminately. They're to butcher non-Muslims according to the rules:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67).

"Allah’s Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

Amillennialist said...

Mohamed said...

Doesn't the verse ".. slay them wherever ye catch them .." obviously contradict other verses that order Muslims to deal kindly and justly with non-Muslims, and to give them peace? There isn't any contradiction between such verse and other verses. This verse and all verses that order Muslims to fight against non-Muslims is restricted on the case of those who fight against non-Muslims, is restricted to war times, when soldiers are battling.

That's little consolation to non-Muslims, since it is not just defensive or retaliatory actions in which Muslims are to engage; an "infidel's" unbelief is Allah's Casus Belli in the first place:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . '" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor . . . nor acknowledge the religion of Truth" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world)" (Qur'an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).

"O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him" (Qur'an 9:123).

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not" (Qur'an 2:216).

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies" (Qur'an 8:60).

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Another Long & Complex Statement by
Mr "A"- Fine. It's probable that our friend Mohamed is anxious to begin his answer in full.

A pause is necessary - please stand by.

>>

After Mohamed's answer is recorded,
we have a request. Several friends have suggested that Phase II of this discussion deal with 'Women's Rights & Restrictions' under their Muslim Sharia Law. reb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Editor's Note: Personal comments to
this editor should be posted on "War And Our Freedom" post.
>
We'll await Mohamed's Answer, then we can proceed with Mr. Fadly's "Muslim Women, Their Rights, Privileges & Restrictions"
reb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mohamed said...

Mr. reb,

I appreciate your kind hosting for my conversation with Amillennialist, and I respect that. But you said that this discussion will be a calm and serious discussion & perhaps a clarification of major differences. But all what I find here from Amillennialist is exactly the contrary. He’s using reviles and insults, directing disgusting accusations.

The problem about reviles isn’t that it will change something; if I said to a person that he’s a donkey, he isn’t going to find in the morning a tail and long ears. But the problem about them is that they make an uncomfortable atmosphere to discuss in, they make the standard of the conversation too low, it turns from an exchanging of points of views between two sides respecting each other and trying to understand, into a fight between two kids throwing each other by stones, both will be injured at the last, they won’t understand each other.

As you set Mr. reb as “rules” for discussing here if someone felt any reviles; here you’re my points of order. I’m objecting to these insulting statements said by Amillennialist..

*Since Muhammad used his "faith" as a tool to satiate his lusts

*No, you are those who "kill children and attack innocents."

*You don't understand love because your god is the inverse of it.

*You defend revenge and retaliation because that is what Muhammad commanded and practiced.

* Here's what your false prophet Muhammad, the slaughterer of the innocent,

They’re examples of the reviles said by Amillennialist. I hope you make a reasonable reaction to stop such low-standard language in the next paragraphs.

Mohamed

Mohamed said...

Amillennialist,

You know? I thought after reading your paragraphs; how can you convince a blind man that the ocean is blue?!!
I couldn't answer that question. If I provided hundreds of evidences, showed and even swore that the ocean is blue, he will never believe me. Why? BECAUSE HE CAN'T SEE!!
That’s the same with you. Even if I provided thousands of evidences, gave examples, spent hours explaining and clarifying.. you'll never change your mind. You know why? Because you aren't ready to understand, or even to listen. You'll use the worst words and descriptions to insult, you'll revile to make your point, you'll twist the texts far far from their context .. All of that to prove one false claim; How Islam is Too Bad.

Did you try to watch a TV add before? Could you see how they try to convince the customer how the good they sell is the best in the market, when all other goods are too bad?
You're trying to do the same. Islam’s terrorism and Christ’s mercy. Even if it coasts your creditably. Yes. Just listen to yourself when you justify the Divine order to wipe a city off the map, to kill the children, the old and the animals in the book that you believe in as your holy book, when you in the same time consider the order to fight against those who threaten the safe people –excepting children and women- as .. "Barbarism". (!!)
You claimed that that Divine order is restricted on some previous time, but you refuse to believe that the orders of fighting against oppressors is restricted on oppressors.
Just listen to yourself.

Mohamed said...

>
One day I was walking in the street, two cats were crossing the street (I think a husband and a wife), a car was coming from their right, the first cat passed, the second was looking to the left, the car went over her head! It didn't die at once, but it kept jumping and jumping of pain spreading its blood out of its head everywhere. It was a very horrible thing to look at. You know how the husband that survived reacted? It looked at here jumping in that horrible scene with the blood out of its head, when she stopped moving he just smelled his wife, turned around, and went in his way!!

You got my point out of this story? Sympathy and Mercy are the two things that make us different than animals. God put them deep in our human nature. No race, or religious group, or nationality had individual possession of that mercy. It's just about being human. Every human enjoy mercy, feel mercy. If you aim at making mercy a possession for every human being, but the Muslims, .. . If you aim at showing Muslims as vicious killers, blood thirsties, rapists, dictators, .. . Then you want to deny an undiscussable fact .... the fact that we Muslims are human beings. Humans that God has put mercy and sympathy inside our hearts. The same as He did to every other human. God who created Jews, Christians and Buddhists is the same God who created Muslims.

You want to convince me that Muslims, or the majority, or a big percentage, or Millions, or thousands of Muslims are killers who want to kill as more as they can, and to rape as more women as they can, and to rape children?!! Is that what you want to prove?!!

Good and Evil both exist in every nation, in every group. But in major; Good always make the victory, Good always is the basis, Evil is just an exception. What you want to convince us of is that in Muslim beliefs, Evil is the basis, Good is just an exceptional rare thing that didn't happen in Islamic culture.

How can you convince us of that when Islamic religion is the vast spreading religion, even in America? Do you want to prove that 1.6 Billion (almost quarter the world population) are all believers in a religion that invites to killing and raping others?!!

(!!!!)

If that philosophy is deep rooted in Islamic religion, then how it's convincing for those thousands who convert to it every year, even in the most free countries on the earth? If that "bloody philosophy" is that obvious in that religion, then why there are every day tens of different cultures; Westerns and Easterns who convert to it?

Human by nature hate those who are violent in their acts, who shout, beat and hurt others. If prophet Muhammad and his fellows across more than 1400 years have been vicious killers, rapists, lustful men, women oppressors.. so please .. من فضلك .. s'il vous plait .. per favore .. por favor .. can you convince me how, since the starting of Islamic message, the non-Muslims who convert to Islam are becoming more and more and more?!! Why after the attacks of 9-11-2001 against the Twin Towers, the number of new Muslims of the American-born increased so much?!!

Why & How?

A logical thinking would lead to; if Islam is a terrorism religion =>> then it would lead to the decreasing of the number of Muslims. Right?
But what happened and happening is just the contrary; Muslims are increasing, not just by birth, but by converting. This is happening in all countries; England, Australia, Canada and in America .. your country .. a free country. If terrorism is an obvious fact in that religion, so how they convert to it?!!! No one convert to a religion that invites to killing and raping.

THINK about my words, then I can argue your last paragraphs.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

This Concludes Phase I.

Now, if the two participants will please allow a brief statement:

Friend Mohamed is quite correct; if
I call my neighbor a donkey, when I look in the mirror in the morning, I should not be surprised to imagine two long ears!

Reviles & Insults do nothing to advance discussion.

Our Opening - Phase I - has been very educational for the non-muslim. Both parties here are well supplied, and equally well-prepared to continue now with Phase II.

Mohamed, if you will begin with "Muslim Women & Family Life, Their Rights, Privileges & Restrictions under Sharia Law" - also with their personal hopes for the future, this could do much to clear away the confusion & misunderstandings that is often so troubling to outsiders. Please begin. reb

Mohamed said...

Well Mr. reb.

But just in very briefed words to sum up Phase |..

Islam's system to rule has both soft hand and iron hand. Soft hand is for everyone; Muslims and non-Muslims. But the iron hand is only for those who threaten the safety of people and oppress the weak; whether they're Muslims or non-Muslims.

>
About Phase ||; "The Muslim Women & Family Life", I believe it won't take so long for me. I'll prepare my article and send it as soon as possible.

Regards,

Mohamed

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Mohamed...thank you.

Phase III

PALESTINE

Hamas - Fatah - Zionism, and the possible 'Two-State Solution'.
___

(Please limit each opening phase to
1,000 to 1,500 words. reb)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Mohamed - You have an admiring family comment, See "War & Our Freedom" post (for J.J. from O.S.)

Begin when you are ready. reb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

SOMEONE - Please begin Phase II. reb

Mohamed said...

A good thing to clarify at the first is that a Muslim woman or a Muslim family are both not different than any other woman or family in any other country. A Muslim woman has her own dreams that she work to make them real. She loves her husband and children, she loves her father and mother, she loves her brothers and sisters. She has someone to care for; a mother, a father, a beloved husband or her little children. A Muslim woman works to see her children as doctors and engineers, she bring them on the best ethics. A Muslim family is based on love and cooperation among its members.

>
Shar’ia (Islamic Law) has given Muslim woman equal position with the man. Qur’an says; “O humankind! We created you from a male and a female, ... . Truly the most honored of you in God’s sight is the greatest of you in piety.” 49:13 Qur’an says too; “.. Whoever does good, whether male or female, and is a believer will enter the Garden (of paradise) ..” 40:39
So, according to Shar’ia, it’s not about gender or race, instead it’s about what are the deeds of the human himself, just as a human being. The same thing in the Hereafter, all are equal.

>
Shar’ia recognizes women as individuals who have their own rights. It gave them the right of education; the prophet said; “Asking for science is an obligation on every Muslim, whether male or female.”. And the right to choose her husband; no one can force her to marry someone she don’t like. Islam maintain other rights for the woman like; the right to inherit whether as a wife, a daughter, a sister or a mother; and the right to keep her own property and earn her own money; and the right to make her own will.

>
Islam doesn’t prohibit women from working in respected jobs. We can see now Muslim women in all countries, whether Muslim or non-Muslim countries, occupying high positions in a variety of fields in societies. We can see them as; physicians, teachers, college professors, thinkers, religious scholars, scientists, authors, artists, politicians and social workers. They work in all these fields, not in spite of their religious obligations, but because of them.

Mohamed said...

>
Another important point is; why Muslim women dress that way, some totally covered and some other with covered heads only? Is that an oppression against women? Is the Hijab a new thing?

It’s essential to clarify two definitions at first;
Hijab: is covering the whole body of the woman, including the head, excepting the face.
Nijab (Known as Burka): is covering the whole body, including the head and the face, and sometimes revealing the eyes. (Generally seen in black dress, but it can be in other colors like white)

Hijab is to keep the dignity and modesty of Muslim woman. It’s not because the body of a woman is a shame that must be covered, but Qur’an has clarified why.. “Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. * And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their …” 24:(30-31)

If we look at three images put aside.
The first is for Mary, the great virgin mother of Jesus,
the second is for the Noble prize winning for peace Mother Teresa,
and the third is for a normal Muslim woman.

What would be the common thing between the three images?

The answer is very simple; It’s the cover of the head!

So, Hijab is no thing new that Islam came with, but it existed since the old times. On the other hand, we can’t claim that because a Muslim woman covers her head so it’s a cover over her mind. Women like Mary who was put as an example for all Muslims in Qur’an “And Allah sets forth, as an example to those who believe ... *And Mary the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her chastity; and We breathed into (her body) of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His Revelations, and was one of the devout (servants). ” 66: (11-12), or Mother Teresa who had a great message of peace, we can’t claim that these two great women had covers over their minds just because they covered their heads. And the same to Muslim women who cover thier heads by the Hijab, or are totaly covered by the Niqab, this don’t prevent them to to be effective members at society, to work and share in the progress of their community. The vast number of Muslim women wearing the Hijab who have jobs is a clear evidence about that.

>
Enough as an opening article. I’m sure new points will arise during the discussion.

I hope that you Mr. reb and your interested friends tell any confusing points about Women rights under Sharia (Islamic Law), as I don’t know what exactly confuse you.

Peace Be With You

Mohamed said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Thank you Mohamed; I believe you have concluded Phase II regarding Muslim Women (approximately under 1,000 words) and are ready to begin with Phase III - Palestine.
>
Now, Mr "A" your rebuttal to 'Muslim Women, Their Privileges and Restrictions' please. reb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mohamed said...

Mr. reb,

I waited for any answer from "A", but I think that he don't have something to say.

Before moving to phase |||, I prefer that you leave the space for any comments related to Phase || (Women Rights Under Sharia). I hope to hear all points that confuse you and your interested guests about that. I think that way the conversation will be more useful.

I'll wait 5 days for any questions.

Mohamed

Amillennialist said...

Part I

Gentle fellows,

As always when discussing Islam, I focus on how Muhammad and his allah defined the religion.

Any references to individual Muslims in Islamic history, current events, or personal experience is offered as evidence of how Muslims understand and obey those texts.

Fortunately for non-Muslims trying to understand Islam, its "sacred" texts are understood literally by well over ninety percent of the world's Muslims.

Unfortunately for non-Muslims trying to survive Islam, those texts are understood literally by well over ninety percent of the world's Muslims.

You'll notice a difference in style and substance between Mr. Fadly and me . . .

I focus on what Allah commanded and Muhammad said and did.

Mohamed focuses on everything but what Allah commanded and Muhammad said and did.

We're not concerned with Islam-as-Mohamed-Fadly-wants-us-to-think-it-is, we are concerned with Islam.

Without even reading what Mr Fadly has written regarding women in Islam -- something like Western women are treated like whores, but Muslim women are "elevated and revered," their honor "protected and defended," right? -- let's see just exactly what Allah and his apostle think about women . . . and women-to-be . . .

Amillennialist said...

Part II

In speaking of divorcing girls who've not yet reached puberty:

"And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months along with those who have it not. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him" (Qur'an 65:4).

On Mohammed's raping of his nine-year-old "wife;" Allah ordained it!:

“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

“Narrated 'Aisha [Mohammed's six-year-old bride and nine-year-old sexual "partner"]: 'Allah's Apostle said (to me), "You were shown to me twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, 'She is your wife, so uncover her,' and behold, it was you. I would then say (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'"'" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139 and 140).

Amillennialist said...

Part III

On beating wives, "plowing the field," the legal value of a woman's testimony, polygamy (and raping your slaves), the penalty for "lewdness," a daughter's inheritance, and what to do with a woman caught in adultery:

“. . . good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them . . . " (Qur'an 4:34).

“Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” (Qur'an 2:223).

"Allah's Apostle said, "If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 460).

“Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (Qur'an 2:282).

“If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (Qur'an 4:3).

"If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way . . ." (Qur'an 4:15).

“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (Qur'an 4:11).

"There came to him [Mohammed] a woman from Ghamid and said: 'Allah's Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He [Mohammed] turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah's Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma'iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child).

"'When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him [Mohammed] with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah's Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He [Mohammed] entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid . . .'" (Muslim Book 17, 4206).

And this doesn't address the "divine" right to rape your infidel slave women, even if they're married, or murdering poetesses while they're nursing just because the mocked the monster Muhammad.

Amillennialist said...

. . . references "are" offered . . . .

Amillennialist said...

Originally, women had to cover up so that the paranoid and jealous Muhammad could make sure no one was looking at his property.

Later, it was so that the women wouldn't be raped by their coreligionists. As the Cat Meat sheikh in Australia explained, an uncovered woman is just uncovered meat to a Muslim (cat).

Why women must cover themselves (and why non-Muslim women are increasingly being targeted by Muslims for rape and other atrocities):

"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex . . ." (Qur'an 24:31).

"Aisha used to say: 'When (the Verse): "They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms," was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces'" (Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 282).

"Narrated 'Aisha: 'Allah's Apostle used to offer the Fajr prayer and some believing women covered with their veiling sheets used to attend the Fajr prayer with him and then they would return to their homes unrecognized'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 368).

[Explanatory note: Shaikh Ibn Uthaimin in tafseer of this hadith explains: "This hadith makes it clear that the Islamic dress is concealing of the entire body as explained in this hadith. Only with the complete cover including the face and hands can a woman not be recognized. This was the understanding and practice of the Sahaba and they were the best of group, the noblest in the sight of Allah . . . with the most complete Imaan and noblest of characters. so if the practice of the women of the sahaba was to wear the complete veil then how can we deviate from their path?"]

"Narrated 'Aisha: 'The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. 'Umar used to say to the Prophet "Let your wives be veiled," but Allah's Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam'a the wife of the Prophet went out at 'Isha' time and she was a tall lady. 'Umar addressed her and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda." He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of "Al-Hijab" (A complete body cover excluding the eyes)'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148).

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Thank you Mr "A"

If we have concluded Phase II -
Let's begin now with Phase III,

PALESTINE

Mr Mohamed, if you please.

reb

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Mohamed,

Should we have additional comment/debate on 'Muslim Women's Rights & Restrictions', or should we move on to the complex subject of

PALESTINE

Who should begin Phase III?
(your choice this time).

reb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Mohamed - Because of the slight delay, it occured to me that perhaps the subject of Palestine is so very complex, you may need more time than the other subjects
already covered in Phase I and II.

Would You Prefer to Prepare a Short
Phase III Summary of Shari'a Law,

(a) when it began, and (b), if additional amendments (additions) as the times and future events might require (?)

Our U.S. Constitution was purposely written to allow more amendments as time passes. Thank you for any answers to these very important questions. reb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

EDITOR'S STATEMENT:

FIRST, I believe I owe my friend Mohamed my sincere, and profound apology.

I had naively thought that I could
control a religious discussion with a balance of kindness & careful diplomacy, since this unique discussion had the potential to evolve into the most fruitful, and most enlightening discussion on the blog-o-sphere!

The Opening Statements began on June 18th, and ended on 7/19 for Mohamed, and 7/19-20 with Mr "A".

Those fond hopes of this editor now appear to have hit a stone wall.

Although the "Anonymous Mr A" has clearly displayed an intimate knowledge of the sadnesss, violence & chronic discordance in the MiddleEast, the ancient clashing of cultures with its concurrent violence on our television screens (in the so-claimed Holy Land), provides the world's viewers an often ghastly sight. Gaza is just one example.

Mr "A"'s amazing storehouse of Quranic Chapter & Verse has been impressive. However...

the abrupt wording Mr "A" has chosen has apparently violated the sensitive nature and deep belief-structure of my friend Mohamed Fadly. To say that I am "sad and disappointed" would be a gross under-statement.
>
I'll have more to say on this subject after I've had a chance to research a few dates.

Stand by, please. reb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amillennialist said...

Mr. Reb,

I defer to you, gracious host.

If I may, I would like to offer a few thoughts for all free men to consider.

Regards,

Amillennialist

*********************************

the abrupt wording Mr "A" has chosen has apparently violated the sensitive nature and deep belief-structure of my friend Mohamed Fadly

Ironically, out of Christian concern for Mohamed, my "abrupt wording" is actually toned-down.

But this is where every honest examination of Islam's "sacred" texts -- the written records of Allah's commands and the words and deeds of Muhammad -- always lead, since Mr. Fadly's "deep belief-structure" includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of Muhammad.

When that's the case, how can anyone tell the truth?

In my last post on why a woman must cover up under Islam, the only adjectives I used about Muhammad were, "paranoid and jealous."

Do those two words compare at all in harm to the actual rape, brutality, and degradation women and little girls suffered at Muhammad's own hands (and other body parts) and at his example, as emulated by devout Muslim men for fourteen hundred years?

If anyone, including Mohamed, can demonstrate where I've written something false, I will retract it.

Mr. Fadly's reaction is nothing new personally for him (or among Muslims in general), and so adds to this discussion by providing some insight into the attitudes and thought processes Muhammad's words and example shape in his followers:

Once ascendant, when Allah's apostle heard someone say something he didn't like, he had them killed (the poetess Asma bint Marwan opposed Muhammad, so he had her murdered. At least her killer set her nursing baby aside before he ran her through).

The same sort of death-for-criticizing-Muhammad has been carried out against non-Muslims for 1400 years (see the Pact of Umar and modern blasphemy/Qur'an-desecration laws for two vivid examples. Teddy Bear jihad, anyone?).

Today, those faithful Muslims who find themselves in a position of strength in a society (lands in which some form of shari'a dominates) do the same thing: Behead someone here, burn down something there.

Those who are not in the dominant position in their host country (most Western nations) resort to -- besides violence -- name-calling, law suits, and playing the victim.

Sometimes they shoot nuns over cartoons.

If Muhammad beheaded 700-900 Jews who had surrendered to him, is it improper to call him a "butcher" (or worse)?

If Muhammad began raping little Aisha when she was nine -- at Allah's ordaining! -- is it rude to say so?

Is it moral to speak "nicely" about such depravity?

I agree that my presentation can be forceful at times, but is it ever inaccurate, disproportionate to the evil under discussion, or false?

This is another form of blaming the victim, of demonizing those who tell the truth about Muhammad.

Here's conclusive proof of that: Has Mr. Fadly denounced any of his god and prophet's commands to enslave, rape, and slaughter those who refuse the "invitation" to Islam?

If not, why not?

Is the problem, then, the style of my presentation, or its substance?

My tone, or Mr. Fadly's integrity?

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Two Observations:

(A) Because Mr Amillennialist's wording has given us his clear and unequivocal response to Mohamed's contentions, I feel it would be both inappropriate and unwise for this referee to say anything...

(B) Mr "A"s words literally jumped off the page (7/25/09) and presents a serious challenge for his opponent. Therefore, I choose to remain neutral...

1. "Mr. Fadly's 'deep belief structure' includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of (prophet) Muhammad...when that is the case, how can anyone tell the truth?"

2. "If anyone, including Mohamed, can demonstrate where I've written something false, I will retract it."
_____

Mr Mohamed, would you like to respond? reb

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mohamed said...

Mr. reb,

Now you understood why the delay. You could see how Amillianlist argue!

When I accepted starting the discussion -that I quit 3 years ago-, I accepted it hoping for a civilized discussion, between two parties respecting each other and intending to build bridges of understanding and love. Not to build walls of misunderstanding, and destroy the last chance to provide a good atmosphere for civilizations to talk.

That's exactly what I've found here, and also 3 years before on Amillianlist's blog. Hatred, Twisting the texts and incidents out of their context, Lies, beside Using the worst and most hurting words to provide his points. I told you Mr. reb how the conversation will go forward. Didn't I?

>
Mr. reb,

I won't provide my list of "Point of Order", I guess you already know insulting parts.

We'll conclude Phase ll at first, beside some points about Phase l, then .. I'm sure we'll found some way to make it a civilized discussion, not a fight between a bunch of kids throwing each other by stones.

Mohamed

Mohamed said...

Amillianlist,

The same filthy language and the same way of directing accusations, and poisoning the atmosphere of the discussion. Huh, I wonder how you "love" prophet Muhammad when you're accusing him of that filthy and dirty accusations!!

Anyway, let's us discuss some points.

I'll talk now about the following;
1) Points About Phase l
2) Does Islam allow marrying girls who've not yet reached puberty?

Mohamed said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mohamed said...

A Little About Phase |

> (How Islam Dealt With War Prisoners?)

You said; Here's how Allah deals with prisoners of war. Apparently, he hasn't heard of the Geneva Conventions: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).

That's an obvious lie and dirty way talking about my holy beliefs, however, I'll respond.

I've already clarified that this verse is talking about the punishment of "Haraba" crime; those who threaten the safety of innocents, who kill randomly. I gave a recent example of these crimes that was faced by the punishment of Haraba, but you forgot -or ignored- that example. Let me remind you; A man in Saudi Arabia, kidnapped a little child, locked him in his shop, raped him, choked him by a rope, then he killed the father. His head was cut. That's Haraba! Verse 5:33 apply to such acts.
That's a just punishment for a horrible act. I told you that Islamic system has both the hand of mercy for everyone, and the iron hand for those who threaten the safety of community.

Verse 5:33 don't apply on war prisoners. That's an obvious twisting to Qur'anic verses. I've told you too about how Islam dealt with captives of war. 76th Surah of the Qur'an, verse 8, stated that; "And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive,-" It's a motivation for Muslims in war times to feed the war captives. Allah will love those who do that. (Note: This verse has been revealed in Al-Madinah).

In contrary; the Bible (Old Testament) says about war prisoners;" And when the LORD thy God delivereth it into thy hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword .." Deuteronomy Chapter 20: 13

Mohamed said...

> (Islam, Jizya or Fighting?!!)

You quoted a Hadith about how Muslims implying how Islam is so vicious. Well,,
A first thing, you missed -or hided- some parts of the Hadith, so as to misguide readers. So, I'll remind you at first how you stated it, then I'll reveal the parts you hided.
A second thing, I won't explain the Hadith. I'll just copy&paste divine orders from your bible concerning the same thing.

Here we go..

* You stated the Hadith that way;
the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

But the Hadith with parts you hided;
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them.

Mohamed said...

*You're complaining of these courses? You found it so ... vicious!!! So, let us see what the Bible say, the book you believe in as your holy book, that I believe it has been corrupted, what it set as courses for fighting other cities..

"10. When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. 11. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that are found therein shall become tributary unto thee, and shall serve thee. 12. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it. 13. And when the LORD thy God delivereth it into thy hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword; 14. but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. 15. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. 16. Howbeit of the cities of these peoples, that the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, 17. but thou shalt utterly destroy them: .." Deuteronomy Chapter 20: (10:17)http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0520.htm

Different courses!!!

Mohamed said...

> (Did Muslims Changed Their Peace Policy When They Became Powerful?)

You said; I focus on what Allah commanded and Muhammad said and did..Mohamed focuses on everything but what Allah commanded and Muhammad said and did.

That's another lie, Amillennialist.

Just try to re-read my comments about phase | .. Oh, or you don't bother yourself reading my words, even for a first time! Without even reading what Mr Fadly has written regarding women .. !!!

You can see that I explained to you what Fiqh books clarified about Naskh, and how and when it's used, and who say what subjects to it and what don't, AND I stated examples for that, whether verses or Hadith. Plus, I stated verses and Hadith refuting your misguiding lies that peace verses came only when Muslims were weak in Mecca, but when they became stronger, "killing" verses came!! I refuted that false claim, but you don't read or think about my evidences. Let me copy&paste an important part, and add some few things..


*After Ohod battle with the Arab pagans [Quraish] (the tribe of the prophet), when many Muslims have been killed, the prophet's uncle "Hamza" was killed, the prophet's tooth was broken, his head was severely injured. The fellows of the prophet asked the prophet; "Won't you curse them?" Prophet Muhammad answered; "I wasn't sent by Allah to ask for curses against others, instead I was sent by Allah as mercy for Mankind. O Allah, guide my people because they are men without knowledge."

*After the opening of Mecca city, when the prophet became in the position of power unto the people of Mecca, those who tortured the new Muslims by the most horrible ways (including; wiping, leaving them under the hot sun of Arabian Peninsula, putting heavy rocks on their chests, pulling them on the hot sands by horses, putting hot red iron on their bodies, etc), and killed them and took their money, what did the prophet do to them, when he was able to punish them?
He said; "Go, you're free." [He said that to the Infidels who tortured him and his fellows!]

*In the same day of opening Mecca, Umayr Ibn Wahb came to the prophet and asked him to forgive his cousin Safwan Ibn Umayya, one of the most enemies of Islam. Umayr said; "O prophet of God, Safwan is a master in his people, and he ran away of you to throw himself in the sea. Please give him asylum." The prophet answered; "I gave it to him." When Umayr went to Safwan and told him about that, Safwan answered; "But I'm afraid on myself!" Umayr said; "He's more kind and generous than that."
When they went back together to the prophet, Safwan said to the prophet; "This man is claiming that you gave me asylum." The prophet answered; "He's truthful!" Safwan said; "Then give me a period of 2 months to think if to convert Islam or not." The prophet answered; "No, you have 4 months."


These stories happened when Muslims had the power to take revenge, but did you see what the prophet did? Please, Go back and read it again!

Mohamed said...

> (Some Qur'anic Verses & Hadith About Peace With Non-Muslims "Revealed After Muslims Became Powerful":)

You claimed that; Those earliest, peaceful "revelations" when Muhammad was weak were abrogated by the later Mandates for Blood epitomized by the content of Sura 9.

Here you're some verses that were ALL revealed in Medina, when Muslims became more powerful than non-Muslims. Just THINK about the message sent out of them..

"O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other) .." Surah 49 (Revealed in Medina): verse 13

"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just." Surah 60 (Revealed in Medina): verse 8

"And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive,- * (Saying),"We feed you for the sake of Allah alone: no reward do we desire from you, nor thanks. " Surah 76 (Revealed in Medina): verses 8, 9 That Surah (Chapter) is talking about paradise and acts that a Muslim should do to go to paradise, and one of them is feeding the captive, who is assumed to be a killer to a Muslim brother in war! Muslims are motivated to feed him! Allah will love those who will feed that man!! That's a very high rank of forgiveness.

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, .." Surah 8 (Revealed in Medina): verse 60

"If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, .." 9th Surah (Revealed in Medina): verse 6

The message out of them is clear. PEACE. And all of these verses were revealed after the immigration of Muslims to Al-Madinah, when they had their own state, no power of the non-Muslims unto them. But Qur'an assured to make peace with non-Muslims.

So, your claims that Allah ordered Muslims to be peaceful only when they were weak and under the power of the infidels, but when Muslims became more powerful and had their own state away from the power of infidels, Allah ordered them to kill and enslave those who didn't accept the message of Islam, are false claims.
Just read the previous verses that were all revealed after the immigration of Muslims to Al-Madinah, when they had their own state. And read also the following verse that has been revealed too in Al-Madinah; "Let there be no compulsion in religion, .." 2:256, and you'll realize that all of them assure one thing; Peace!

Mohamed said...

> (Does Islam Supports Taking Revenge?)

You claimed that Islam supports taking revenge. That's a false claim. Just read carefully the following texts..

Prophet Muhammad said; "Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong to them. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong (even) if they do evil." (Al-Tirmidhi)

Hold to forgiveness; command what is right; But turn away from the ignorant. Qur'an, Surah 7: Verse 199

"Nor can goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: Then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate!" 41:34 That's one of my beloved verses!

Mohamed said...

> **(Does Islam Prohibit Killing Women & Children In Wars?)**

One misguiding lie of you is denying that the teachings of Islam prohibit the killing of women, children, old and monastics.

Well, read the following Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, the Book of Jihad; Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children. Volume 4, Book 52, Number 258.

Read also the orders of Prophet Muhammad to Muslims when they fight; Narrated Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army, He would say;
".. do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. " Sahih Muslim, Book of Jihad, Number 4294.

Also, read the following words that Abo Bakr, the first caliphate after the prophet's death, said to the Muslim soldiers when they went in a battle, he said; Don't kill an old man, Don't kill a child, Don't kill a woman. You'll find monks dedicated to worshiping, never approach them. Don't burn a plant. Don't cut a palm tree. Don't demolish a house. Don't demolish a temple (Worshiping place). Don't attack at the night, so as not to terrorize women and children.

That's what Islam has set as rules for Muslim soldiers when they fight. You would ignore these general rules set for Muslims when they fight, quoting individual incidents when some persons were inciting to break out the war and Muslims had to stop them, to keep the peace. If you ignored the general rule, focusing on exceptional incidents with exceptional conditions, then your quotion is refuted.

Mohamed said...

What did you say about killing men & women, young and old, and sheep, ox and ass with the edge of the sword in Bible?!! I guess you said; .. is that supposed to be from the Bible? Old Testament? Sorry, my mistake. Yes, it's from your Bible;

"21. And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, both young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.'" Joshua Chapter 6: 21

"2. Thus saith the LORD of hosts: I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he set himself against him in the way, when he came up out of Egypt. 3. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but SLAY BOTH man and woman, INFANT AND SUCKLING, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'" Samuel Chapter 15: (2,3)

Annihilation?

Yes!

What was your apologist about these incidents?

Assuming you're referring to Canaan, the command for Ancient Israel to wipe out those left in the cities after forty years of dispossession was a command limited to that time, place, and target only. It was a Divine judgment of great evil and a fate which Israel suffered later for committing the same sins. Anyone trying to apply that command to any other circumstance is not being truthful.

I will delay my comment on these texts few lines down, but, for now, if we went back to what you claimed that it's false that Islam prohibited killing women and children. I'll say it again;
The general rule is; Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children. Sahih Bukhari, Book of Jihad, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 258.
Your other quotions were exceptional incidents in exceptional conditions, and anyone trying to apply these exceptions to any other circumstance is not being truthful.

Now, About these texts in the Bible, Old Testament; We Muslims believe that all the three books, Torah, Bible and Qur'an were ALL revealed by Allah to his prophets; Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (Peace Be Upon All Them). The same messages of peace, love and forgiveness are the same messages that were revealed by Allah to all of them. So, we believe that such texts are made by Jewish rabbis who distorted and corrupted the Bible, and wrote it the way how they wanted, not how it was revealed by Allah.
So, these brutal commands in the Bible didn't came from God. Allah, Our Creator, The Most Merciful wouldn't order to kill infants and sucklings!

I hope you got my message.

Mohamed said...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now, let me please talk about what Amillianlist said about Women Under Sharia.

>(Does Islam allow marrying girls who've not yet reached puberty?)
(How did prophet Muhammad marry Aisha when she was only nine years old?)


++
According to the following Hadith: Narrated Hisham's father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old. Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236

And according to Malik, Shafi'i and Abo Hanifa -making a Fatwa about suitable age for marriage- they said that the age can't be fixed, but the measure for marriage age is that the woman is capable to bear the sexual relationship.

Shafi'i said that it's not preferable that the father make his virgin daughter to marry, until she grow up and take her permission. That's because the father is ordered according to Islam to take care of his children's interest.

According to About.com/ Pediatrics section, it's normal for girls to start puberty within the ages of 8 and 13. See here
++
A little information for followers of this conversation: Malik, Shafi'i, Abo-Hanifa (Stated above) and Ahmed Ibn-Hanbal are the main four Fiqh schools in Islamic studies.
++

Mohamed said...

We can realize from the previous Hadith and Fatwa's of three of the four main schools of Fiqh the following;

1) There are two cases related to marriage;
The first case is the legal formation of marriage, a thing that is allowed according to majority of Muslim scholars at any age, under the acceptance of the father of the girl who is ordered according to Islamic teachings to care for his children interest.
The second case is the sexual relathionship between the man and the woman; which is allowed ONLY when the girl reaches the age of puberty with the known signs of puberty. The three of Malik, Shafi'i and Abo Hanifa said that this age can't be fixed, but the measure for it is the capability of the girl to bear the sexual relationship, according to the father's estimation.
So, everyone who claims that Islam allows marrying immature girls didn't understand what the texts say.

2) The prophet didn't marry his wife, Aisha, the daughter of his closest friend Abo Bakr, as a little immature girl, but she was a grown girl, not a child.
Taking in consideration the hot area where Arabs lived, we can conclude that they grew up ealrier than cold areas. Beside, they in the old times -centuries ago- did most of the things earlier than we are doing this time. Just see Usama Ibn-Zaid leading an army at the age of 16!!
Any implication that Islam provide the shelter for Muslim men to make sex with immature girls is very misguiding. The conditions more than 1400 years, 14 centuries ago aren't the same as now, they did many things earlier than we are doing the same things.

Beside, could you notice that when you tried to make your dirty implication concerning the marriage of the prophet with Aisha, you quoted the words of Aisha herself, the little girl who has been raped!! Can't you see that she talked normally about that early marriage!! Can't you see that she didn't say that she complained and morally suffered from that!!

You got what I mean?

It was normal for her to marry in that age. If it wasn't normal, if it was a "raping" like you filthily said; she would be a failure woman in her life, she would hate the prophet for the rest of her life, it would leave a deep bad impact for her .. but how she was?!!

Aisha (May Allah Reward Her) lived 50 years after the prophet's death narrating the Hadith and transferring the science she got directly from the prophet to the next generations of Muslims.
She is the most one who narrated Sayings of the prophet (More than 2200 Hadith). And is considered to be the first Faqih (Muslim scholar).
Urwa Ibn Al-Zubayr (One of the fellows of the prophet) said; "I found no one who knows the Halal and Haram, Science, Poetry and Medicine than Aisha, the Mother of the Believers."

Is that a life of failure woman who suffered in her "childhood"? Do you think that if she hated the prophet, would she narrate 2200 Hadith of his sayings and acts?!!

Just think for a moment!

Another thing; before her marriage to the prophet, Jubayr Ibn-Mut'am Ibn-Adi proposed to her!! What do this tell you?!!
That marriage wasn't an exceptional thing that was to be considered a raping. It was accepted by the community where it happened, that another man proposed to her before the prophet.

Listen to what Aisha () said about her love to the prophet; Narrated 'Aisha:
"I did not feel jealous of any woman as much as I did of Khadija because Allah's Apostle used to mention her very often."
Sahih Muslim, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 165. No one feels jealous towards someone whom he hates. Jealousy means Love. Yes, Aisha loved the prophet, her husband. If that was true that he "raped" her as you claimed, would she love him?!!

Think!

Mohamed said...

Enough for now. I'll continue soon.

Amillennialist said...

You can't divorce what you haven't married:

"And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months along with those who have it not . . . whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him" (Qur'an 65:4).

And Aisha had not yet reached puberty (as if that would make raping a nine-year-old acceptable):

"Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)" (Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151).

"'A'isha . . . reported that Allah's Apostle . . . married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he [Mohammed] died she was eighteen years old" (Muslim Book 8, Number 3311).

Amillennialist said...

Hello, Mohamed,

So, quoting Muhammad and his allah is "poisoning the atmosphere of the discussion"?

If you don't like the "filthy language," don't blame me, blame Muhammad.

The last time we discussed these topics, you tried to justify Muhammad's raping little nine-year-old Aisha.

She lamented, "The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

Neither am I the one "accusing him of that filthy and dirty accusations," he's the one admitting it:

Allah's Apostle said (to me [Aisha]), "You were shown to me twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, 'She is your wife, so uncover her,' and behold, it was you. I would then say (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'"'" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139 and 140).

Will you now denounce that behavior as evil, Mohamed?

Will you now condemn Islam's "sacralizing" of pedophilia in imitation of Muhammad's example?

Or do you agree with Allah that such behavior is a "beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please" him?

***************************

Jesus Christ died for Muhammad's sins, too. By all accounts, he rejected that, to his doom.

"Love" does not mean lying for nor dismissing evil; rather, if you love someone, you'll warn them to avoid their own destruction in this world and condemnation in the world to come.

Amillennialist said...

I. In response to Mohamed Fadly on Muhammad on little Aisha, condensed from two previous posts for Mr. Fadly and our audience's convenience

Mohamed wrote:

Now, let me please talk about . . . Women Under Sharia.

(Does Islam allow marrying girls who've not yet reached puberty?)
(How did prophet Muhammad marry Aisha when she was only nine years old?)


He "married" her when she was six. He began raping her when she was nine.

You can't divorce what you haven't married:

"And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months along with those who have it not . . . whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him" (Qur'an 65:4).

And Aisha had not yet reached puberty (as if that would make raping a nine-year-old acceptable):

"Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)" (Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151).

"'A'isha . . . reported that Allah's Apostle . . . married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he [Mohammed] died she was eighteen years old" (Muslim Book 8, Number 3311).

The last time we discussed these topics, you tried to justify Muhammad's raping little nine-year-old Aisha.

She lamented, "The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

Neither am I the one "accusing him of that filthy and dirty accusations," he's the one admitting it:

Allah's Apostle said (to me [Aisha]), "You were shown to me twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, 'She is your wife, so uncover her,' and behold, it was you. I would then say (to myself), 'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'"'" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139 and 140).

Will you now denounce that behavior as evil, Mohamed?

Will you now condemn Islam's "sacralizing" of pedophilia in imitation of Muhammad's example?

Or do you agree with Allah that such behavior is a "beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please" him?

Amillennialist said...

II. In response to Mohamed Fadly on Muhammad's "inviolable" prohibition against killing innocent women, children, and the elderly and burning down trees

Three facts must be remembered in this discussion:

1) No non-Muslim is "innocent."

Qur'an 5:33, a warning to non-Muslims, states that "mischief" is punishable by crucifixion, execution, and mutilation.

Additionally, Allah says, "Those who disbelieve, neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against Allah: They are themselves but fuel for the Fire" (Qur'an 3:10).

2) Muhammad and his allah conveniently set aside whatever "divine" revelation stands between Muhammad and what he wants:

“The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath'" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427).

“Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things” (Qur'an 2:106)?

3) Allah says of Muhammad, "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah" (Qur'an 33:21).

This means that whatever Muhammad said and did was "Allah-pleasing."

Mohamed wrote:

Does Islam Prohibit Killing Women & Children In Wars?)

One misguiding lie of you is denying that the teachings of Islam prohibit the killing of women, children, old and monastics.

Don't kill an old man, Don't kill a child, Don't kill a woman

[. . .]

Don't cut a palm tree.

[. . .]

Don't attack at the night, so as not to terrorize women and children.

[. . .]

If you ignored the general rule, focusing on exceptional incidents with exceptional conditions, then your quotion is refuted.


You've got a lot of "exceptional conditions," don't you, Mohamed?

If you set aside the "general rule" as you please, it is not "my" quotation that is refuted, but your general rule.

Here are a few "refutations" of the "general rules" you specifically mention above:

"The Prophet [. . .] was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256).

"The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree)" (Qur'an 42:40).

It is permissible for Muslims to kill inviolable infidels if they are aiding the fighting in deed, word, opinion, or any other way. This is because of the Prophet's order to kill Duraid ibn Al-Simma, who was 120 years old and went with the Hawazin tribe [to fight against the Muslims] to give them counsel. Ibn Qudama notes that the Prophet ordered him killed in the Battle of Hunein because he knew military stratagems. See Al-Tamhid 16:142.

"the Messenger of Allah . . . ordered the date-palms of Banu Nadir to be burnt and cut. These palms were at Buwaira. Qutaibah and Ibn Rumh in their versions of the tradition have added: 'So Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, revealed the verse: "Whatever trees you have cut down or left standing on their trunks, it was with the permission of Allah so that He may disgrace the evil-doers"'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4324).

There. You've got the Ideal Man himself approving of the murder of women and children (at night!), the mandate for retaliation (which would allow killing women and children), the murder of a man 120-years-old (!), and burning down trees.

Shall we include Asma bint Marwan, a poetess murdered at Muhammad's instigation for criticizing him?

So you see, I'm not the one, "denying that the teachings of Islam prohibit the killing of women, children, old . . . ."

That would be Muhammad.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Gentlemen! At this point, I want both participants to know that as your moderator, how very pleased I am to have two highly qualified men...
engaged in this complex, and often heated discussion, from two opposing perspectives.

I have a troubling question for either...or both of you:

The Theological Differences in evidence between Christian & Jew, Serb and Kurd, Sunni and Shia...all are far more serious than ever before, because of the potential posed by a possible nuclear exchange, in this century.

In my view, this points to the necessity for more dialogue, more not less civil discussion of this type.

If Iran's leadership is permitted to develop, and threaten nuclear capability, leading to dominance of other Muslim cultures in the area, this would exacerbate and proliferate similar developments throughout the region.

That Unresolved Issue...presents a unique dilemma not just for fellow muslims, but for the entire world.

Would my two friends like to discuss this pressing problem? reb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mohamed said...

Amillennilaist,

Let me talk a little about how a successful discussion should be achieved..

(Mr. reb, Please read my words and tell me if I was mistaken)

A discussion for me is; Two parties seeing one thing from different positions with opposing or different perspectives. Both of them try to make the other party come to his position to see it from his perspective. One party provide his perspective about the subject of the discussion, proving his perspective by the use of some evidence.

It's like two astronauts floating in the space around the moon. Astronaut A is floating in front of the enlightened half of the moon, Astronaut B is floating in front of the dark half of the moon. Mr.A swear that the moon is enlightened, Mr.B swear too that the moon is dark! A fight was about to break out!! How should we prevent that fighting?!! It was very easy..
Mr.B invited Mr.A to come to his position, they looked together and said; "Yes, It's dark!" Then, Mr.A invited Mr.B to come to his position, they looked together and said; "Yes, It's enlightened!". They became puzzled!!
During their puzzlement when they were floating in front of the enlightened half thinking; "Who is right?", a very huge alien ship crossed in a flash, the moon became dark for a second. They both looked at the sun, ..., "YESSS, WE'VE FOUND IT ... IT'S DARK" They found out that the moon itself is dark, but the light they see coming out of it is just the reflection of sun light. And since then they became friends, and everyone became happy. :P

Wow, it turned into a story for children. :)

My point is; The core of a discussion is that both parties try to reveal their perspective, everyone provide evidences and explanations to clarify his perspective, everyone try to invite the other party to come and see his unique perspective. After seeing both perspectives of the same subject of the discussion, one true fact will remain.

>
The role of the other party is reading the evidences very well and make his researches and start his answer by providing his perspective about the same subject, then refuting the evidences provided by the other part. That's how successful discussions go.

An Evidence for An Evidence, An Argument for An Argument.

When one party provide some evidence, the role of the other party to refute that evidence. But what if he didn't?!!
Yes, a good question. If the other part ignored the evidences and quotions provided by the other party, what do that mean?
If he just repeated what he said before? If he ignored the new evidences provided by the other party?

I won't answer..

Mohamed said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mohamed said...

Now, let me talk about what you did.
You talked about some points that confuse you about Islamic religion, providing some verses from the Qur'an and Hadith. I won't talk about how you provided your perspective, and what words you used, it's another subject. I clarified and explained, and provided evidences refuting your claims. What was your step?!! Instead of refuting the new evidences I provided proving my perspective, you just repeated what you have said before!! Is it a reasonable reaction for a party who intend to make a successful discussion and understand the beliefs of the other party?!!

Mohamed said...

>
Amillennilaist,

I expected from you -after my last statements- some argument about the texts I quoted and to the explanation I provided. I expected that you would say something like;

Mohamed, You claimed that ... .No, You're mistaken, and here you're my evidences to prove that ... .

That's how discussion goes.

>
Let's make it practical. I'll pause the discussion for now, and give you 3 days to answer my last statements AND THE NEW EVIDENCES I provided. Repeating what you've said before added nothing new to the discussion.

>
Even more practical?!!

OK.

I'll rephrase the same evidences that I used to refute your claims in my last statements, making it more briefed and more arranged (in a, b, c).

Mohamed said...

Here we go;

>(How Islam Dealt With War Prisoners?)
a) In Qur'an; "And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive,-" A verse that was revealed in Al-Madinah.
b) Verse 5:33 don't apply on war prisoners, but those who commit Haraba crimes like the man who raped a child then killed him and his father.

>(Islam, Jizya or Fighting?!!)
a) Your hiding of some parts of the Hadith?
b) The commands stated in Bible, Old Testament, Deuteronomy Chapter 20: (10:17) about fighting against cities.

>(Did Muslims Changed Their Peace Policy When They Became Powerful?)
a) The amnesty of the prophet to the people of Mecca; "Go you're free." after his conquest to Mecca in 8th year after his immigration to Al-Madinah.
b) The prophet's prayer to the other warring party; "O Allah, guide my people because they are men without knowledge.", after the defeat of Muslims in Ohod battle, the killing of many of Muslims including his uncle and his injuries.
c) The prophet's granting of asylum to an infidel who was considered to be one of the most enemies of Islam.
d) "O mankind! We created you .., that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other) .." 49 : 13(Revealed in Medina)
e) "Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not .. from dealing kindly and justly .." 60 : 8 (Revealed in Medina)
f) "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, .." 8 : 60 (Revealed in Medina)
g) "Let there be no compulsion in religion, .." 2:256 (Revealed in Medina)
(ALL THESE RULES OF DEALING WITH MUSLIMS WERE REVEALED WHEN MUSLIMS HAD THEIR OWN SEPARATED STATE, AWAY FROM THE POWER OF THE INFIDELS)

Mohamed said...

>**(Does Islam Prohibit Killing Women & Children In Wars?)**
a) During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children. Sahih Bukhari
b) Said the prophet for Muslim soldiers when they go to fight; ".. do not kill the children. .." Sahih Muslim
c) Said Abo Bakr for Muslim soldiers when they go to fight; "Don't kill an old man, Don't kill a child, Don't kill a woman. You'll find monks dedicated to worshiping, never approach them."
d) Anyone trying to apply exceptions to any other circumstance is not being truthful. >Note: These were your words about Canaan, the command for Ancient Israel to wipe out those left in the cities.<
e) What was mentioned in Bible; Now go and smite Amalek, .. ; but SLAY BOTH man and WOMAN, INFANT AND SUCKLING, ox and sheep, camel and ass. Samuel Chapter 15: (2,3)
f) A new evidence; What was mentioned in Bible; Now therefore kill every male AMONG THE LITTLE ONES, and KILL EVERY WOMAN that hath known man by lying with him. Numbers Chapter 31:17
g) A new evidence; What was mentioned in Bible; Howbeit of the cities of these peoples, that the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt SAVE ALIVE NOTHING THAT BREATHETH, * but thou shalt utterly destroy them. Deuteronomy Chapter 20:(16,17)

>(Does Islam allow marrying girls who've not yet reached puberty?)
(How did prophet Muhammad marry Aisha when she was only nine years old?)

a) Fatwa by Malik, Shafi'i and Abo Hanifa about the age of marriage.. capability to bear the sexual relationship.
b) The difference between legal formation of marriage, and sexual relationship.
c) The scientific fact that girls can start puberty at the age of 8.
d) People of the past did many things earlier than us.
e) The difference of custom according to the time and place.
f) The proposal of another man to Aisha before her marriage to the prophet.
g) Aisha (May Allah Reward Her) didn't suffer from that marriage.
h) Aisha as a narrator to the sayings of the prophet.
j) Aisha's love to the prophet.

That would be more useful for our discussion. If you wanted any more details, you can go back to the detailed paragraphs.

Waiting for your response..

Amillennialist said...

If a donkey says he's a donkey, looks like a donkey, sounds like a donkey, and acts like a donkey, he's probably a donkey.

All of which is irrelevant to my comments, since I am not making things up, I am not mischaracterizing, labeling falsely, stereotyping, or demonizing others, I am reporting what the donkey of Allah said and did.

If Mohamed doesn't agree with "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, theft, deceit, and blasphemy, he should stop defending Muhammad's words and deeds.

Actually, he's not defended them, he's only tried to explain why Islamic bloodlust, barbarity, and discrimination is good for us.

Mohamed protested against: "Since Muhammad used his "faith" as a tool to satiate his lusts"

But Muhammad said Allah told him to rape Aisha:

“'If this is from Allah, then it must happen.'"'" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139 and 140).

Mohamed took offense at: "you are those who 'kill children and attack innocents.'"

In obedience to Allah's command and Muhammad's example, every day around the world, Muslims rape, enslave, and butcher non-Muslims, including children and other innocents:

"[was it] permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256).

If Mohamed does not like being a part of "you" (jihadists warring against non-Muslims), he should stop being a part of "you."

Stop defending jihadists.

Mr. Fadly didn't like this, either: "You don't understand love because your god is the inverse of it."

The Son of God died for the sins of all people (including you, Mohamed), so that all -- including Muslims -- might go to heaven.

On the other hand, Muhammad said that killing (or being killed trying to kill) non-Muslims gets you "paradise," with your perpetual virgins and boys "like pearls":

"theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain" (Qur'an 9:111).

Mohamed balked at this: "You defend revenge and retaliation because that is what Muhammad commanded and practiced."

Muhammad did command and practice retaliation, including death for poetry:

"When the apostle heard what she had said he said, 'Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?' Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her.

[. . .]

[Muhammad] said, "You have helped Allah and His apostle, O Umayr!" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah).

And here's another clause that offended Mr. Fadly: "Here's what your false prophet Muhammad"

Muhammad claimed to be a prophet of the God of the Bible, yet he calls the Son of God, YHWH in the Flesh, "unbeliever," "cursed by Allah," and "deluded," for Christians are stating only that to which Christ Himself, His Father, and the Holy Spirit testify:

"[. . .] Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth" (Qur'an 9:30)!

Either Allah is not YHWH-- contrary to Muhammad and Muslim's claims -- or Muhammad was a false prophet.

Perhaps instead of objecting to accurate, factual descriptions of Muhammad, Mohamed Fadly should be objecting to what Muhammad said and did.

Amillennialist said...

Mohamed wrote:

"You claimed that that Divine order is restricted on some previous time, but you refuse to believe that the orders of fighting against oppressors is restricted on oppressors"

Briefly, as I've noted elsewhere, I do not oppose legitimate self-defense.

The problem with your "oppressors," is that -- just like Muhammad -- anyone who resists conversion or dhimma, anyone who remains in "unbelief" is, by nature, an "oppressor" of Muslims.

They are "the worst of creatures," "fuel for the fire," an "enemy of Allah," and a "friend of satan," against whom you are to wage war.

Crucifixion for "mischief"? Death for "fitnah" (unbelief)?

Be honest:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67).

"Allah’s Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

"Allah's Apostle was asked, 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).' The questioner then asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause.' The questioner again asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To perform Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). . .'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25).

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do" (Qur'an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).

Amillennialist said...

Mohamed asks:

"You want to convince me that Muslims, or the majority, or a big percentage, or Millions, or thousands of Muslims are killers who want to kill as more as they can, and to rape as more women as they can, and to rape children?!! Is that what you want to prove?!!"

No, that's what Muhammad did and what Allah commanded and endorsed, according to your own "sacred" texts.

That is what thousands and millions of Muslims advocate and practice.

That's what you defend.

I don't try to "prove" anything.

I tell the truth about Muhammad.

Amillennialist said...

Mohamed wrote:

"Islam's system to rule has both soft hand and iron hand. Soft hand is for everyone; Muslims and non-Muslims. But the iron hand is only for those who threaten the safety of people and oppress the weak; whether they're Muslims or non-Muslims."

The only problem is:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67).

"Allah’s Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

I have a request...For purposes of 'Sequence Continuity' I ask that both participants please stay on this post! On 7/28/09 - 2:57 PM Mohamed sent this message:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mr. reb,

I'd like to assure my gratitude for you to host (the) discussion. Many Thanks To You! (Followed by five more paragraphs, Mohamed hoping for a revised response from Mr "A").

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It Breaks Continuity to jump back and forth on Two Different Posts!

Please stand down 'til I straighten this out. reb

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mohamed said...

Mr. reb,

Answering your request, I'll send here my answer to the last comment by Amillennialist on Summary of WWll.

Mohamed said...

hmm, Hadith refute these claims about Dhimmis;

Read that Hadith;

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr:
The Prophet said, "Whoever killed a person having a treaty with the Muslims, shall not smell the smell of Paradise though its smell is perceived from a distance of forty years." Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 391.

If a Muslim killed a non-Muslim >> He won't go to paradise.

Maybe you didn't read that Hadith before!

>
Human decency?!!

In a local newspaper in Arizona, December 2, 1982, an article By Janine Warell, Staff writer, in a speech with Meir Kahane, a Rabbi after the massacre of Sabra & Shatila that happened in Lebanon, in an area located under the siege of Israeli army led by A. Sharon, by the hands of Lebanese Forces Christian Militia Group, when approx. 700 to 3500 of unarmed men, women, children and old were killed.

Kahane said; "Jews shouldn't feel guilty over the recent massacre of hundreds of Palestinian civilians by right-wing Christian militiamen in Lebanon.", "We have nothing to feel guilty about" he said. "In fact they should have gone into Lebanon earlier." He said not only should the Palestinians have been removed, but that Israel should have "used every possible weapon and wiped them out physically." He said; "There is nothing immoral about killing a people which is dedicated to killing you."

Human decency!!!!

>
They weren't terrified, just absent.

Yes, their schedule was full, that they couldn't arrange some appointment to fight. Or maybe they didn't notice the presence of 30.000 soldier on their ground.(!!!!)

When Muslims stayed 20 days at Tabuk waiting for the coming of Byzantine army, but they didn't come.
How should it be understood other than that Allah threw terror in the hearts of Byzantine army that they couldn't fight, and it was a victory made without a fighting, without a drop of blood, instead made by terror.

>
Still waiting for your answers about my last re-arranged paragraphs about Permanent Mercy Policy In Islam and Marriage To Aisha..

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Mohamed, please. I do not wish to be rude, but I asked a question on 7/28/09 - 10:11 AM, that was ignored. Instead of receiving an answer there, I found a nice compliment on "War And Our Freedom" (Post)! then a continuation with Mr "A" with Point/Counter-point. (Jumping around on two different posts is Not Helpful to Continuity.)

Please re-read the question.

If you wish to continue with an extended 'Point & Counter-Point' with Mr "A" that's fine, I have no objection.

Eventually, I believe that it's an absolute imperative to discuss Iran's Nuclear Ambitions, and how that would lead to utter domination of the MiddleEast, AND the 85% percent Majority of Sunni Nations!


Grand Ayatollah Ali Khomeinei is a bully, much like Saddam & his Gassy-Cousin, "Chemical Ali".

If the Persians are permitted Nuke Capability, there would be no stopping a "hand-off" of these weapons to their Hezbollah and/or al Queda Puppets! Think About It.

reb

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amillennialist said...

Mohamed complains:

you claimed that it's false that Islam prohibited killing women and children . . . exceptional incidents in exceptional conditions

No, I pointed out that Muhammad changed the rules whenever it was to his advantage:

"The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256).

Funny how many "exceptional conditions" Muhammad faced!

That poetess Asma bint Marwan with her nuclear-tipped verse would have oppressed and slaughtered thousands of Muslims with just one line!

Thank Allah for Umayr!

Mohamed continued:

About these texts in the Bible, Old Testament; We Muslims believe . . . The same messages of peace, love and forgiveness . . . we believe that such texts are made by Jewish rabbis who distorted and corrupted the Bible . . . So, these brutal commands in the Bible didn't came from God. Allah, Our Creator, The Most Merciful wouldn't order to kill infants and sucklings!

This is self-contradictory: You don't believe that YHWH gave Israel the command to complete the dispossession of Canaan (killing all who remained in the cities they approached), but you do believe that Allah commands, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" and "Fight against the People of the Book until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya" (Sura 9).

That's odd: You reject a one-time, one-place, one-target Divine judgment for great evil (including child sacrifice), but swallow whole open-ended, universal commands to enslave and slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam, including women, children, old men, and trees, when necessary.

(A side note: We have the Bible Jesus used, and He said the Law and the Prophets "cannot be broken," so no, your scholars are wrong about the Bible being "corrupted." That puts your prophet in a bad spot, doesn't it?)

As for your shaded attempt at tu quoque and false moral equivalence: Point out from the Biblical texts even one command for offensive warfare against all non-Hebrews to make the world Israel.

Find a report of Jews beheading Gentile schoolgirls to shouts of "YHWH is great!" then find another 13,694 acts of Judaic terrorism.

Then we'll have something to talk about.

Amillennialist said...

Hello, Gentlemen,

I intend to respond to Mohamed's posts as necessary.

I do not see that there is much to discuss regarding Iran. The Islamic Paradise already funds, supplies materiel, and trains and provides personnel to carry out terrorism against Israel and Lebanon -- even against Jews in Argentina -- and targets Americans in Iraq.

A-jad gives speeches about a world without Israel (and eventually, America), he's working to gain nukes while slaughtering his own people, he's expressed his willingness to trade one of his own cities for Israel in a nuclear exchange, and the Leader of the Free World, the Most Powerful Man on Earth, wants to talk.

Unless America replaces B. Hussein and his courtiers with people who understand jihad before Iran can gain their nukes, Israel's going to have to go it alone and defend themselves.

If Iran is successful in gaining nukes, Saudi Arabia will want its own arsenal. Jihadists in Pakistan only have to take control of their own. Then you've got an Islamic nuclear arms race.

At that point, non-Muslims around the world can only hope for a revitalized Sunni/Shi'ite "theological debate," something which President Bush, if he had understood Islam at all, would have been encouraging the moment Saddam fell and we did not find large quantities of WMD.

If the world's Muslims can steal trillions in jizya from infidels with only oil and name-calling, imagine what they'll be able to extract from the Spineless and Clueless with the threat of a really, really big bang.

Amillennialist said...

Mohamed Fadly, in defense of child rape as "Allah-pleasing," argues:

the sexual relathionship . . . is allowed ONLY when the girl reaches the age of puberty

Muhammad began raping 'Aisha when she was nine. According to your own texts, she was still playing with dolls, which demonstrates her "immaturity."

Mohamed continues:

it is the capability of the girl to bear the sexual relationship, according to the father's estimation.

No nine-year-old is "capable of bearing the sexual relationship."

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Mohamed adds:

So, everyone who claims that Islam allows marrying immature girls didn't understand what the texts say.

But your texts state that 'Aisha didn't know what her mother wanted "to do to me" (sacrifice her to Muhammad's vile lust). She was playing with her little friends the day he first raped her, bursting into laughter at his door:

“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches . . . I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap . . . The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

"my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me . . . Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age" (Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234).

"Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah . . . and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter" (Bukhari Book 41, Number 4915).

"Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)" (Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151).

Mohamed observes:

she was a grown girl, not a child.

Mohamed Fadly calls nine-year-old, prepubescent girls, "grown."

Mohamed misstates:

your dirty implication concerning the marriage of the prophet with Aisha

If I quoted 'Aisha, then "I" am not "implying" anything.

Mohamed obfuscates:

Can't you see that she talked normally about that early marriage!! Can't you see that she didn't say that she complained and morally suffered from that!!

Mohamed Fadly defends the 54-year-old Muhammad ejaculating into a nine-year-old prepubescent child.

"What do you call a man raping a 9-year-old girl? A pedophile. What do you call the founder of Islam who did the same thing? "The Seal of the Prophets."

Mohamed concludes:

Jealousy means Love.

So does pedophilia, right Mohamed?

'Aisha had it so good: "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 72, Number 715).

Amillennialist said...

Mohamed: You claimed that Islam supports taking revenge. That's a false claim.

"slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out . . ." (Qur'an 2:191).

"The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree)" (Qur'an 42:40).

Regarding the poetess Asma bint Marwan: "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?"

"A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet . . . and disparage him . . . One night she began to slander the Prophet . . . and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there.

[. . .]

Thereupon the Prophet . . . said: 'Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood'" (Dawud Book 38, Number 4348).

Amillennialist said...

Mohamed claimed erroneously:

about Naskh . . . I stated verses and Hadith refuting your misguiding lies that peace verses came only when Muslims were weak in Mecca, but when they became stronger, "killing" verses came!! I refuted that false claim . . . .

Later revelations abrogate earlier contradictory ones.

Muhammad ended with The Verse of the Sword, Allah's last word on offensive warfare (and it is offensive!):

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

Tafsir Ibn Kathir states of The Verse of the Sword:

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir."


Here are a few more Verses of Blood, Allah's War Against Humanity:

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67).

"Allah’s Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

"Allah's Apostle was asked, 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).' The questioner then asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause.' The questioner again asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To perform Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). . .'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25).

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do" (Qur'an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Thank you gentlemen.
----}}
Mohamed said, "I'll pause the discussion now, and give you three
days..."

Reb: That would signal a 'Time-Out', (And That's Fine With Me!)
----}}

When We Return in August, I would like the two gentlemen to really...seriously consider this:

Do we continue with endlessly discussing matters of 'who said what' 1400 years ago (?) Or...

Do we change gears, and begin anew,
Confronting 21st Century Issues?
The Most Obvious NUCLEAR THREATS, Are Not in Ten or Twenty Years, Mohamed, No!...but in a matter of Months.

Imminent Threats, Directly From The Mouths of Ali Khomeinei and his brash little mouth-piece - Maqmoud Amadinejad! The Mullahs In Tehran Are Squabbling!!!

>

Your Choice, Gentlemen.

reb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

THOUSANDS OF PROTESTERS DEMONSTRATE IN IRAN'S CAPITAL...

Police use Tear-gas to quell angry
mobs; angry voter signs say, "Death To The Dictator!"
>
Yesterday, our debate-momentum records 28 more printed pages in a single day! reb

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amillennialist said...

Anyone notice that Mohamed Fadly's defense of Muhammad's making a sex slave of nine-year-old 'Aisha is not that she was fourteen at the time or even that it never happened, but that she was "grown" and "loved" Muhammad.

So, in essense, Mohamed Fadly is saying that the prophet of Allah raped little 'Aisha, and she liked it.

Amillennialist said...

Mohamed Fadly claims he has "stated verses and Hadith refuting your misguiding lies that peace verses came only when Muslims were weak in Mecca"

I did not write "only."

Is that carelessness or dishonesty?

Pointing out that Sura 9 allows "asylum" for those who ask for it is no credit to Muhammad nor his allah, since from what did they need protection?

MUHAMMAD AND HIS ALLAH.

You can't point to Muhammad granting protection from himself as proof that Muhammad was a peaceful man.

You point to the people the genocidal monster didn't kill as proof he wasn't a genocidal monster, all the while drowning in an ocean of blood.

You point to the child-rape victim's apathetic acceptance of the only life she ever knew as proof she liked being raped by the pedophile prophet.

In defending Muhammad, you're pointing to patches of shade to prove the sun doesn't shine.

The more you do it, the more people will notice the light, sooner or later.

Amillennialist said...

Mohamed wrote:

your claims that Allah ordered Muslims to be peaceful only when they were weak . . . Allah ordered them to kill and enslave those who didn't accept the message of Islam, are false claims.

As I noted above, I did not write "only," I was discussing the evolution of Allah's revelations regarding warfare: First, cooperation, then self-defense allowed, then self-defense/retaliation required, then offensive warfare to make the world Islam.

And you can deny the command to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam, but Allah will not be pleased:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

Amillennialist said...

Mohamed wrote:

A first thing, you missed -or hided- some parts of the Hadith, so as to misguide readers. So, I'll remind you at first how you stated it, then I'll reveal the parts you hided.
A second thing, I won't explain the Hadith. I'll just copy&paste divine orders from your bible concerning the same thing.


Several points:

First, if you're going to "copy&paste divine orders from your bible concerning the same thing," isn't that a clumsy and accidental admission that Muhammad's words and deeds are "just as bad"?

Second, pointing out that Muhammad required that new converts to Islam be unharmed just shows that he was not only a religious tyrant, but practical.

When your goal is to conquer the world, you don't want to kill your newest recruits.

Third, the prohibition against embezzling and breaking pledges is for the benefit of Islam and Muslims, not the "infidels" to be enslaved or slaughtered.

We've already seen that Muhammad didn't mind killing children if it advanced his goals. We know also that he required "cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides."

So, there go your child protection and non-mutilation clauses, too.

Fourth, I hid nothing -- I provided a specific citation and ellipses to indicate missing text.

Now, if I had deleted the part at the end that said, "P.S.: I was only kidding! Invite the infidels over for beer and pork ribs!" that would be a misrepresentation on my part.

I'm just saving space.

I'm also making it easier for non-Muslims to ascertain the facts essential to their well-being, since no free man is going to care that Allah accepts him if he converts (that is to be expected); he's going to care that if he doesn't convert, it's slavery or death.

Fifth, you'll find in the Bible no open-ended, universal commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to Christianity.

Regardless of what they say, the Biblical texts have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Muhammad required offensive warfare to make the world Islam.

He did.

And anyway, you said the Bible was corrupted: "Jewish rabbis . . . distorted and corrupted the Bible, and wrote it the way how they wanted."

That means the Bible's "bad" stuff is fabricated, but the Islamic texts' actual bad stuff is just the way Allah ordered it!

So, are you going to copy and paste nonsense from Skeptics Annotated again?

Finally, thanks for focusing our attention on a passage that has Muhammad requiring non-Muslims who refuse his "invitation" to be subjugated or butchered.

All of which makes one wonder, why attempt to defend the indefensible?

Amillennialist said...

Part 1

So, I say "filthy things" about Muhammad?

But I report what Islam's authoritative texts record of those words and deeds of most relevance to non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls.

If quoting Muhammad and his allah is saying "filthy things," doesn't that make Islam's prophet and god both Islamophobes?

Notice that when Mohamed Fadly tries to defend Muhammad, he does not deny that his prophet carried out the slavery, rape, child-rape, and slaughter that his own texts state he committed.

Instead, Mohamed:

-brings up passages that have nothing to do with the question of Muhammad's vile depravity (red herrings, non sequiturs),

-attacks the Biblical texts (false tu quoque arguments, false moral equivalences, clumsy ad hominems), and

-misrepresents what I've written (straw man "arguments").

How does the fact that Muhammad didn't kill someone in a particular instance mean that he didn't enslave, rape, and slaughter thousands and command his followers to do the same, claiming Allah made him do it?

Neither do verses and ahadith which appear to be decent and peaceful -- but the meanings of which have been either abrogated or not what they seemed to be in the first place at all -- negate Muhammad's brutality and perversion.

For example, Muslim propagandists and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis love to bring up "no compulsion in religion," but never mention, "invite . . . demand the jizya . . . fight . . . until all religion is for Allah."

They always claim Muhammad was beheading this and butchering that in "self-defense," but they never point out that even "disbelief" is considered "opposing" and "waging war against" Allah," the punishment for which is "execution, crucifixion . . . the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides."

Funny how that sort of deception and misinformation keeps happening.

Below Mohamed Fadly tries to defend Muhammad's treatment of prisoners of war by citing a verse on feeding "captives" -- slaves according to Tafsir Ibn Kathir, not prisoners of war -- and by misinterpreting Qur'an 5:33.

Here's all you need to know about Muhammad's treatment of prisoners of war: The Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe defending itself against Muhammad and his minions, eventually surrendered. All the men -- 700-900 of them, except for a few who saw the decapitation on the wall (or, more accurately, in the trench) and "converted" to Islam -- were beheaded and their women and children enslaved, with Muhammad taking an especially attractive, newly-created widow as his sex slave.

No doubt, Mohamed Fadly will try to defend that by saying, "She wanted it!"

Indeed, I've found that nothing woos a woman like slaughtering all the men of her tribe and raping her as soon as practicable.

Muhammad was quite a ladies' man.

Amillennialist said...

Part 2

Mohamed Fadly obfuscates:

In Qur'an; "And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive,-" A verse that was revealed in Al-Madinah.

But it's fine to rape your slaves, even if they're married to another. At least they're well-fed: "Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . . " (Qur'an 4:24).

Mohamed:

Verse 5:33 don't apply on war prisoners, but those who commit Haraba crimes like the man who raped a child then killed him and his father.

Good thing Muhammad didn't kill 'Aisha and her dad, or he'd have to have killed himself.

One out of three will get you a spot in the Big Leagues.

The verse says:

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).

It says, "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger . . . ."

How can you crucify someone "waging war" against you unless they're captured, in which case they are, by definition, a prisoner of war? Do you hope they ride their horse into your cross?

Not only is your reading of that verse questionable, so is your interpretation. Ibn Kathir says of it: `Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil."

So, in trying to show that Muhammad treated prisoners of war decently, you've highlighted instead the fact that Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief."

Now for a little target practice:

The amnesty of the prophet to the people of Mecca; "Go you're free." after his conquest to Mecca in 8th year after his immigration to Al-Madinah.

He "conquered" Mecca, warring againt his own tribe.

The prophet's prayer to the other warring party; "O Allah, guide my people because they are men without knowledge.", after the defeat of Muslims in Ohod battle, the killing of many of Muslims including his uncle and his injuries.

Allah chastised the Muslims for losing the Battle of Uhud. Too many of them had chosen to go after Meccan booty (literally) rather than do their duty in battle:

When Muhammad's minions “saw the women fleeing lifting up their clothes revealing their leg-bangles and their legs,” they began shouting, “The booty! O people, the booty!”

"O mankind! We created you .., that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other) .." 49 : 13(Revealed in Medina)

Plagiarizing badly the Biblical creation story does nothing to negate, "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not .. from dealing kindly and justly .." 60 : 8 (Revealed in Medina)

So, it's okay with Allah if a Muslim is kind to a dirty kafir who's not fighting with him?

It is a religion of peace!

Amillennialist said...

Part 3

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, .." 8 : 60 (Revealed in Medina)

That's verse 61. Here's the actual verse 60, followed by a few others from the same sura:

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly."

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'" (Qur'an 8:12).

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67).

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do" (Qur'an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).

Mohamed continues:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion, .." 2:256 (Revealed in Medina)

Of course, no one can force inner belief, but words and actions? That's a different story. Perhaps someone should have told Muhammad:

"...he [Muhammad] said [to Abu Sufyan], ‘Isn’t it time that you should recognize that there is no God but Allah?’

"He answered, ‘You are dearer to me than father or mother. How great is your clemency, honour, and kindness! By God, I thought that had there been another God with God he would have continued to help me.’

"He said, ‘Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn’t it time that you should recognize that I am God’s apostle?’

"He answered, ‘As to that I still have some doubt.’

"'I said to him, "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head," so he did so'" (Ishaq, 547).

No doubt, another one of those pesky "exceptional incidents."

Amillennialist said...

Mohamed:

let us see what the Bible say, the book you believe in as your holy book, that I believe it has been corrupted, what it set as courses for fighting other cities..

In contrary; the Bible (Old Testament) says about war prisoners;" And when the LORD thy God delivereth it into thy hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword .." Deuteronomy Chapter 20: 13


False moral equivalence, false tu quoque.

Where's the open-ended, universal commands to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to YHWH (and no, the limited, one-time Divine judgment against Canaan is not morally-equivalent to offensive jihad)?

This verse doesn't mean what you're implying (or hoping); Ancient Israel was often under attack, and unlike Islam, its enemies were not "disbelievers," but those who actually waged war against it.

When Ancient Israelites start running around wiping out Canaanites, then we can talk.

Mohamed said...

Mr. reb,

I told you before the starting of that discussion that it will be a test for Amillenialist. And here you're the marks paper..

---------------------------
>> Dishonesty
>> Lieing
>> Twisting Texts
>> Hiding parts of the text to lead to the contrary

____
Mark: 0/100
____
[Tester Notification]
Tested Student Must Got Intensive Sessions In The Following Subjects:
-Listening to the Other
-Honesty
-Good Mouth
-Respecting the other
-Understanding
-Modesty
-& LOVE
---------------------------

I decided to quit that Wrestling circuit for the following reasons;

-He never aimed at "discussing", but instead he always aimed at "insulting" my beliefs.

-He's a bad mouth guy, that don't worth even listening to him.

-He's a very bad listener, and never cares to the evidences that I provide.

-No thing would stop him from his dirty, filthy and false accusations. Not the logical thinking, not the speech of mind, not the strong clear evidences.

-He cut the texts to make them lead to exactly the contrary of what they really say. Just an example; talking about the allegedly invitation of Islam to revenge, He stated verse 42:40 that way;
"The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree)" When the complete verse says;
"The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah. for ((Allah)) loveth not those who do wrong. "
Conclude a thing according to the first quotion, and the exact opposing thing when verse is read completed.
That's just an example of his twisting and misguiding and hiding parts of the texts!

A last question to you Mr. reb, would you anyway call that a civilized discussion between two parties respecting each other and trying to understand the beliefs of each other?

You yourself said that you owe me an apologies, why?

>
About the other subjects; Polygamy, Beating Wives and Inheritance, I'll publish them on my blog, as soon as possible.

***
Amillenialist (A follower of Amillenialism),

No thing to say to you. Will you contemplate about it?!!

I doubt.

With every word you say, I can see the matching counter-evidence. But they all depend on something that you will not understand, some language that you didn't learn, the language of mind-speech!

All what I can say is that; I'll pray for God that He don't guide you to the path of Islam.

Mohamed said...

"Say: "We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam)." 3:84

"And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)." 29:46

Mohamed said...

Useful Links:

Fatwa Against Terrorism

The Prophet's Marriage to Aisha

Freedom of Non-Muslims: Fiction or Reality?

****
Good websites:

IslamOnLine

Discover Islam

and
Ummah Films

Mohamed said...

"15. O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary). There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book,-

16. Wherewith Allah guideth all who seek His good pleasure to ways of peace and safety, and leadeth them out of darkness, by His will, unto the light,- guideth them to a path that is straight.

17. In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things."

18. (Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)"

19. O People of the Book! Now hath come unto you, making (things) clear unto you, Our Messenger, after the break in (the series of) our apostles, lest ye should say: "There came unto us no bringer of glad tidings and no warner (from evil)": But now hath come unto you a bringer of glad tidings and a warner (from evil). And Allah hath power over all things."
5:(15:19)

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Mohamed, I thought at the time, if I offered an apology, that it might tend to cool things down a bit...lead us to more enlightenment, and understanding.

My father often cautioned me when I was young, that it is prudent to listen and remain silent when the discussion dealt with religion and/or politics, especially when outside the home.

He said, "All religions have strong points, and also some weak points. Study them before you choose." My father was a very wise man.

Here, we see two highly qualified men, each well-schooled in these diciplines, presenting their evidences, boldness and pride in their positions, and as expected, giving small appreciation for the other fellow's perspective. That's the nature of debate.
----
Mr "A" - Being a curious fellow, I looked at your 'Link', "Thoughts of a Nationalist Indian" (Hindu), and read "Islam's Six Destructions of Somnath", saw for the first time the photo of the ancient architectural genius of that great temple - Six times rebuilt, after Islamic armies destroyed it!

How many generations tasted the bitterness of those times? War!

Then I read another article on that site, that pictured Bamiyan Buddha statues destroyed by the Taliban in 2001...Intolerance! Then the five pages of "Islam's Creed - Convert or Die!", March 14, 2009.

Until I read this yesterday, I had only vague ideas of India's long history of wars, and the ubiquitous urge of men everywhere, to dominate other cultures.

It's as old as the mountain top!

I would hope that these two gentlemen are not asking this referee to take a side, to voice an opinion in the middle of this heated discussion.

I respectfully decline! reb

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amillennialist said...

Mohamed,

"The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah. for ((Allah)) loveth not those who do wrong. "

You're citing an exception to the command. That does not negate the rule, it highlights it.

Your exceptions to Muhammad's bloodlust did not prevent obedience to commands resulting in the slaughter of 70 to 80 million Hindus over centuries of jihad, the enslavement, rape, and slaughter of Christian North Africa, Spain, eastern Europe, and the Holy Land, the destruction of Constantinople (including the rape of nuns dead on the floor of the Hagia Sofia), the beheadings of Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia to shouts of "Allahu akbar!" the murder and rape of Beslan, nor your coreligionists' use of civilian planes as bombs in NYC.

You think that allowing exceptions to the carnage, rape, and rapine required by Muhammad exonerates him, but it only focuses "infidel" attention on the fact that . . . Muhammad commanded and practiced carnage, rape, and rapine as "divine."

Hitler liked puppies. Big deal. He's still in hell, and he still put millions through hell on Earth.

Muhammad would call that, "a start."

You're not upset because I "lie" and use "filthy" language (I've demonstrated irrefutably that what you call "filthy lies" are just what your god and prophet commanded and practiced), you're upset because I don't approve of what Muhammad and his allah said and did.

No honest and moral person can do otherwise.

Amillennialist said...

Mohamed quotes Muhammad:

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ

The only problem is, Christ said that He is God Incarnate.

That means you're calling Christ a "blasphemer":

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the
life was the light of men.

[. . .]

the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

[. . .]

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known" (John 1:1-18).

Whom shall we believe? Christ and Muhammad cannot both be telling the truth. Either one is true or the other true, or both are false, but they cannot both be true.

It should be easy to determine who deserves our trust: One Who raised the dead, spoke only the truth, committed no sin, died for all to reconcile the world to His Father, and Himself rose from the dead or. . .

. . . one who endorsed, commanded, and committed blasphemy, genocide, murder, pedophilia, rape, slavery, theft, and deceit and taught others to do the same, all in the name of a deity.

We know what Christ said and did because we have the written records of eyewitnesses preserved faithfully over millennia.

Muhammad erred, lied, or was deceived when he claimed that the Bible had been corrupted.

He did not know that we would possess Biblical manuscripts dating to the time of Christ which demonstrate that the texts have been transmitted faithfully down through the ages.

The name by which God revealed Himself to Moses is YHWH, I AM, the name Jesus applied to Himself:

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58).

Christ calls Himself the Son of God, the Judge of the World:

"as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

"Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment" (John 5:19-29).

How can you hope to escape that judgment, when not only to you endorse Muhammad's "sacralized" evil, you make the Son of God a liar?

Christ died for your sins too, Mohamed. He says to you, as He says to all of us:

"Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And whoever sees me sees him who sent me. I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness.

"If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.

"For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment--what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life.

"What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me" (John 12:44-50).

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Mohamed,

Please Allow Me To Explain Something...

IN ANY DEBATE, The Two Participants
Should Know That IF One Of These Men...Resort To "Reviles & Name-Calling...And Stupid Insults", and Fail To See the Value Of Fact-Based
Evidences...The Viewers May Then Frown and Switch Sides!

Always Maintain Your Dignity, If You Wish to Impress The Audience!

We have 126 printed pages permanently recorded on this blog.

So, Keep You Cool, Through Each Stage Of The Discussion. Don't Allow The Other Fellow to Rattle You..."Stay With The Hard Evidences, And The Truth, As You See It."
>
Old Motto:
"Sticks & Stones May Break My Bones, But Vile Names Can Never Hurt Me!"

reb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anonymous said...

-----------------------------------------

Computer Glitch!

Apparently, we have regained some lost pages...Now the last page is #142, and counting! reb
__________________________________

Anonymous said...

-----------------------------------------

Good Grief!!! Now we are back to 127 Printed Pages, Again! reb

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anonymous said...

Debate Analysis on 8/2/2009

Comments > MFadly - Mr "A" - S-H

-----------------45---------53-----31

>

Total > 129 Debate Comments.

___________________________________

Days > from start to 8/02/2009

Anonymous said...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FORTY-TWO REMARKABLE DAYS !

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amillennialist said...

Mohamed,

On the chance that another reader might miss my prior refutations of these false charges, I wouldn't want to leave them unanswered so as to give the impression that they possess any more substance than does a vapor.

Dishonesty . . . Lieing . . . Twisting Texts . . . Hiding parts of the text to lead to the contrary

A person cannot be accused of deceit when they provide sura and ayat for a passage and ellipses to indicate missing text.

Leaving out a clause stating that Allah forbids harming the non-Muslim who converts is not "the contrary" of "invite . . . If they refuse demand the jizya . . . If they refuse . . . then fight," it is its fulfillment.

He never aimed at "discussing", but . . . "insulting" my beliefs . . . He's a bad mouth guy

If 'Aisha said Muhammad began raping her when she was nine, and your own texts state that she had not yet reached puberty, and Muhammad says that Allah made him do it, how is it "bad-mouthed" of me to say so?

Contrary to what you want to convince others -- and yourself -- I am not claiming anything about Muhammad and his allah that is not directly verifiable from your own "sacred" texts by any human being who can read.

that don't worth even listening to him . . . He's a very bad listener

That's ironic.

and never cares to the evidences that I provide.

On the contrary, I've dealt fairly and effectively with every "evidence" you've provided.

What you really mean is that I won't approve of what your god and prophet require be done to me and mine, apostates, women, and little girls.

For example, you defend the mistreatment of non-Muslims and apostates under Islam by saying that a society has rules to follow for its security.

So, basically, we "infidels" ought to accept the mistreatment mandated for us.

Just like with 'Aisha: You can't deny that Muhammad began raping a prepubescent girl when he was in his fifties and she was nine; all you can say is, "She liked it."

No thing would stop him from his dirty, filthy and false accusations.

Quoting Allah and his apostle is "dirty, filthy, and false"?

I agree, but don't blame me, blame Muhammad.

He cut the texts to make them lead to exactly the contrary of what they really say. Just an example; talking about the allegedly invitation of Islam to revenge, He stated verse 42:40 that way;
"The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree)" When the complete verse says;
"The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation . . . Conclude a thing according to the first quotion, and the exact opposing thing when verse is read completed.


No one who can read will conclude the "exact opposing thing" from including the second clause. Muslims have not been concluding the "exact opposing thing" by including the second clause.

Your deity says, "Pay back what they did." Forgiveness is an option, an exception to the main command, not the "exact opposing thing."

Amillenialist (A follower of Amillenialism)

That's funny. You looked up my name to find out something about me.

I'm flattered.

Don't put too much confidence in what a Google search turns up, though.

I've checked before when others have done the same thing in an effort to character assassinate me. There wasn't much useful material out there then; judging from your definition, things have not improved.

If you want to know something, don't be afraid to ask.

Amillennialist said...

"Say: "We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets

Then you should believe this:

"the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" [which means, "GOD with us"' (Isaiah 7:14).

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore" (Isaiah 9:6-7).

"he [Messiah, the Christ] . . . was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned--every one--to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:2-6).

"Many bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me; they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast; my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death. For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet" (Psalms 22:12-16).

"No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God" (John 3:13-21).

"in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them . . . be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:19-21).

Amillennialist said...

Useful Links:

Fatwa Against Terrorism
The Prophet's Marriage to Aisha
Freedom of Non-Muslims: Fiction or Reality?

IslamOnLine
Discover Islam
Ummah Films


If you've read through my comments here, you've seen for yourself what Islam's authoritative texts state on a variety of topics, and you've seen some of the apologetics for those texts refuted.

If you prefer to avoid propagandists trying to convince you that Islam's "sacred" texts don't say what they actually say -- and haven't been put into practice the way they've been put into practice for fourteen hundred years (and currently in nearly 14,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone) -- you can read the documents for yourself at: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/search.html

Many other sources are available.

You'll find authoritative, Islamic commentary on Qur'anic verses at: http://www.tafsir.com/

Here's outstanding analysis of current events in light of Qur'an, ahadith, and sira: http://jihadwatch.org

And of course, my little contribution here and throughout my 'blog: http://amillennialist.blogspot.com/2004/07/allah-and-his-false-prophet-command.html

When you examine those texts for yourself, you'll find:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67).

"Allah’s Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

"fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world)" (Qur'an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).

A little tidbit: Perhaps Mohamed can share with the audience the punishment for apostasy under Islam.

I don't think it was, "Celebrate freedom of conscience." Neither was it, "Cross them off your iftar dinner list, but otherwise leave them alone."

No, as in every other topic on which Muhammad spoke, imagine the worst act possible, and you're pretty close:

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

Amillennialist said...

Here's why Mr. Fadly's recommended sites should not be trusted, especially in light of his own less-than-forthcoming "analysis" of Islam's foundational texts:

On truthfulness, or rather, the lack of it, as long as it aids Allah's cause:

"War is deceit" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).

"Allah's Apostle said, 'Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?' Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, 'O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?' The Prophet said, 'Yes,' Muhammad bin Maslama said, 'Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).' The Prophet said, 'You may say it' (Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369).

"Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah" (Qur'an 3:28).

“The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath'" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427).

Anonymous said...

"...expiate my oath"

to put an end to; to extinguish.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amillennialist said...

Until I read this yesterday, I had only vague ideas of India's long history of wars, and the ubiquitous urge of men everywhere, to dominate other cultures.

In India's case, it's been "Muhammad's urge," just as it was in pagan, Christian, and Jewish Arabia, the Christian and Jewish Holy Land, Zoroastrian Persia, Christian Byzantium, Christian North Africa, Christian Spain, Christian eastern Europe, Buddhist and Hindu Greater India, Christian and animist Sudan, Christian Nigeria, etc., and is today still in many nations.

And pity the non-Muslim enduring in Muslim lands Muhammad's "sacralized" humiliations, degradations, and barbarities.

India has endured jihad almost since it exploded out of Arabia; it is one of the few nations that was able to defend itself.

(Spain took eight hundred years to reconquer its lands and defeat the last of its Muslim overlords.)

Most nations were not so fortunate.

The urge is "ubiquitous;" what makes Muhammad's work uniquely depraved was that he took all of Man's most base, most vile, most ungodly impulses and made them "divine."

Muhammad made violating the Ten Commandments "holy."

And so all non-Muslim nations must consider each other allies in The War of Self-Defense Against Allah:

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor . . . nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world)" (Qur'an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur'an).

"Narrated Jubair bin Haiya: ''Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans . . . 'Umar said to him [Al-Hurmuzan] "I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade."

'Al-Hurmuzan said, "Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs . . . if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless.

'The head stands for Khosrau [Persia], and one wing stands for Caesar [Byzantium] and the other wing stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau."

'So, 'Umar sent us (to Khosrau) . . . When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, "Let one of you talk to me!" Al-Mughira replied, "Ask whatever you wish." The other asked, "Who are you?" Al-Mughira replied, "We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life: we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us.

'Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says: "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386).

Amillennialist said...

Mr. R.,

From my post here, with links: http://amillennialist.blogspot.com/2009/08/language-of-death-and-where-to-learn.html

Please offer suggestions and corrections as necessary.

I. The vocabulary of Islam

Ahl al-Kitāb: See the "People of the Book."

ayah: (plural, ayat): Literally, "sign" or "miracle;" a verse in Qur'an

caliphate: The rule of the Caliph, the supreme leader over all of Islam. Only he has the authority to call for offensive jihad; since the caliphate was destroyed by Kemal Ataturk in 1924, today's jihadists cast their violence against non-Muslims as "defensive."

Dar al-harb: The "Abode of War," i.e., all non-Muslim lands, lands where shari'a is not in effect

Dar al-Islam: The "Abode of Islam," i.e., all lands under Islamic rule

dhimma: The "protection" offered to non-Muslims willing to submit to the egregious, vile, discriminatory abuses and humiliations required toward non-Muslims by shari'a. Offered to the "People of the Book" (mainly Jews and Christians), it was a recognition by Muhammad that living slaves are more useful than corpses.

He probably also wanted to punish them for their refusal to accept his "revelations."

dhimmi: A non-Muslim living under dhimma.

female genital mutilation (FGM): Though not specifically commanded in Qur'an or Sunnah, the practice is widespread throughout the lands of Islam. It flows naturally from the position of the female in Islamic society as a piece of meat whose primary purpose in life is to gratify on-demand the "marital urge" of her husband.

ghazi/razzia: Originally, battles in which Muhammad participated personally. Later, battles to expand Muslim territory. Al-Ghazali, “acclaimed in both the East and West as the greatest Muslim after Muhammad," observed with regard to jihad:

"[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year . . . one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them . . . If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – primarily Jews and Christians] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked . . . One may cut down their trees . . . One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide . . . they may steal as much food as they need . . . .

hadith (plural, ahadith): Saying of or about Muhammad. Since Allah calls him a "beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please" him, what Muhammad said and did is determinative for Islamic doctrine and practice. Several collections considered traditionally most reliable include Bukhari, Muslim, Abu-Dawud, and Muwatta.

Part 2 follows . . .

Amillennialist said...

I. The vocabulary of Islam, Part 2

honor killings: Sunni Islam says that parents (and grandparents) will not be punished for murdering their own children:

A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).

Couple that with Muhammad's totalitarian demand for absolute obedience, and you've got a recipe for horror, as can be seen in growing numbers of Islamic honor killings in the West.

jihad: Literally, "struggle," it refers primarily to warfare against non-Muslims, though one questionable hadith has Muhammad referring to the much-hailed "inner struggle" as the "greater jihad."

jizya: Oppressive Muslim poll tax demanded of non-Muslims under dhimma, the second of three options allowed to some non-Muslims facing Islam: "invite . . . demand the jizya . . . fight."

infidel: In Islam, a non-Muslim.

Islam: Literally, "submission," as in: "You submit."

kitman: Mental reservation and dissimulation or concealment of intentions, including malevolent ones

mujahid (plural, mujahideen):

Muslim: "One who submits" to Allah.

pagan: idolaters, non-Muslims who are not "People of the Book." They were allowed conversion or death.

People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitāb): Jews and Christians (and some others included later, for example, Zoroastrians, Mandeans, and, in some areas, Hindus and Buddhists). Significantly, this group was allowed -- in addition to conversion or death -- a third option when facing jihad, slavery as dhimmis.

Qur'an: "Recitation;" The perfect, verbatim word of Allah, revealed to Muhammad over the course of his prophetic career. It's chapters are organized by size, with Sura 9 being Allah's (second to) last word before Muhammad died (too late).

razzia: See ghazi.

shahada: The Muslim declaration of faith: “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." When you hear the Obamination that Causes Desolation pronounce it during a State of the Union or a press conference, run for the hills.

shari'a: Islamic law as derived from Qur'an and Sunnah.

sira: The biography of Muhammad. The oldest was composed by Ibn Ishaq, portions of which have survived over the centuries in the Sirat Rasul Allah.

Sunnah: Literally, "trodden path." The example of Muhammad, ahadith and sira.

sura: A chapter in Qur'an

taqiyya: Precautionary dissimulation or deception and keeping one's convictions secret

ummah: the whole Muslim world


II. Book recommendations for anyone desiring facts, not propaganda:

Anything by Robert Spencer, especially:

The Politically-Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), by Robert Spencer

The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion, also by Robert Spencer

The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, by Andrew Bostom

The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History, also by Andrew Bostom

Bat Ye'or has done outstanding work.

Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries, by Paul Fregosi


III. Online resources

Compendium of Muslim Texts

Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Jihad Watch

Muslims Against Sharia

Andrew Bostom

Atlas Shrugs

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MOHAMED FADLY...

On 7/31/ 2009 > You decided to terminate the debate between yourself and Amillennialist with these words...

" I decided to quit that Wrestling Circuit..."

This is very disappointing to me personally for the following reasons:

For over a year, we have had very fruitful discussions re Islam, including your favorite subject > Palestine.

I've tried very hard to reach Phase III, where you could have discussed every detail (a) of Zionism, (b) every detail of the perceived "illegal occupation" of Palestine, also (c) the locations and dates (these names & dates are still a mystery to me) of perceived atrocities committed by the 'Zionist Invaders' (Israeli)...

However, you have allowed Mr "A" to sidetrack you, away from the Main Issue, PALESTINE.

I now suggest...that you record your final statement on the above subjects, before we close this discussion.

Respectfully, reb

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

As A Matter of Courtesy, we will hold this space - Open - for Mr. Mohamed, should he wish to record a final statement...on Palestine.

If there is no response within 48 hours, we extend the same privilege to Mr. Amillennialist.

Stand by, please. reb

reb
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE...

This fine debate sequence has not yet reached a conclusion!

Perhaps, because Mohamed Fadly felt he was losing badly to a superior intellect, he decided to withdraw, back into a more comfortable position... Understanding Islam Weblog...the debate continues now, where there is Less Traffic, Less Exposure!

In doing so, his Open-Forum Format
has allowed the debate to become corrupted by a No-nothing Atheist -
Rory Stafford of Wexford, Ireland.

Please go there now (See Our Links, for Mohamed Fadly's Weblog)
---- reb

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

__________________________________
>
>

NOTICE: For Unexplained Reasons...

Mohamed Fadly has chosen to terminate his valued contribution to this Epic, And Often Hectic Debate Sequence with Sir Amillennialist.

THEREFORE: Memorial Parade Post Is Now Declared OPEN For Reasonable & Courteous Discussion.
>

All those with an identity or profile are preferred, and will receive first consideration.

Anonymous Hecklers & Kibitzers Displaying Rudeness & Crude Name-calling, or Filthy language, or long-winded off-topic
remarks, demeans this effort, and will not be published. reb
>
>
_________________________________

Tom the Redhunter said...

Well, there's certainly quite a bit here. Amillennialist is quite in command of his facts. Mohamed has met his match.

My position on all this is pretty straightford; Islam is like any other religion in that it can be interpreted for good or bad. Right now it's stuck in the Middle Ages. The Salafists rule the day under the doctrines established by ibn Taymiyyah (1263 – 1328).

Muslims (and I know I'm speaking broadly here) spend too much time complaining that all of their problems are someone else's fault, and not enough time trying to solve their problems. Thus I hear a lot of complaining that "we're stereotyped as terrorists" and not enough time asking themselves "how is it that alone among religions Islam has spawned so many terrorists and what can we do to fix it."

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

Tom the Redhunter Knows Whereof He
Speaks, writes candidly, and with an eloquent gift. Concise - just three short paragraphs too!

We'd like to hear more from him.

We hope this encourages others to
visit 'Understanding Islam' and 'Amillennialist Contra Mundum',
and also Tom's Weblog (!) where we have added a great amount of quality insight, and broad new perspectives.

Also, Try Our Links For:

*Dr Washburn's 'When Evil Prospers'
*Debbie Hamilton's 'Right Truth'

reb
_________________________________

Amillennialist said...

Perhaps, because Mohamed Fadly felt he was losing badly to a superior intellect, he decided to withdraw, back into a more comfortable position... Understanding Islam Weblog...the debate continues now, where there is Less Traffic, Less Exposure!

And from where I am banished.

It's hard to lose a debate when the opposition is silenced.

One quick point about "Medieval" Christianity vs. Salafism: Whatever crimes Christians committed then were violations of Christ's commands, whereas whatever "medieval" things Islam commits is consistent with Allah's command and Muhammad's example.

No major school of Islamic jurisprudence rejects offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

Regards,

Amillennialist

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

To quote another famous 20th Century Muslim, Sayyid Qutb said, "true peace would prevail in the world just as soon as Islam had conquered it."
_______________________