The lies Muslims tell us about Islam

[stevecanuck]

Below is a rebuttal I wrote regarding a declaration by the Canadian Council of Imams. The original includes a link to the declaration, but it no longer exists, so you're going to have to take my word that I quoted it correctly:


The Canadian Council of Imams issued the following declaration in which they make claims that are not only not true, but in my opinion purposely deceitful:
Here are examples of deceptive quotes and outright lies from the declaration:


"All human beings are equal", "We believe in gender equity".

First, it must be understood that the Qur'an describes people only in terms of being either believers (moomneen) or unbelievers (kuffar), and second, that their standing in the eyes of God is anything but equal. Every description of good versus evil, or right versus wrong in the Qur'an is couched in terms of belief versus unbelief. The unfavourable comparison is relentless, and by way of example, here are but three of literally hundreds of verses I could have chosen to demonstrate the point: Verse 8:55 - "The worst of beasts before God are infidels", 2:98, "God is the enemy of infidels", and 3:34, "God does not love infidels".

Verse 4:92 makes it clear that an infidel's life is worth less than a Muslim's as it tells the faithful, "Never should a Muslim kill another Muslim". The message is reinforced in this hadith:

Bukhari, Volume: 1, Book Number: 3, Hadith Number: 111, Narrated Ash-Sha'bi:
.....no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever).

Muslims themselves are divided into two groups according to verse 4:95 - "Not equal are those Muslims who do not fight in the cause of Islam with those who do fight. God has granted a higher grade to those who fight". Much more disturbing than God's pecking order within Islam is the fact that it is based on a Muslim's willingness to take up arms against infidels in order to establish the rule of Islam.

Slavery is allowed in Islam, which alone belies any claim that "all human beings are equal". Verse 2:221 proves both the inferiority of infidels and the allowance of slavery as it says, "Do not wed idolatresses until they believe (become Muslim). A slave woman who believes is better than an unbeliever". That verse alone contains 3 Islamic tenets that have no place in today's world: 1). Muslims are better than infidels, 2) Slavery is acceptable, and 3) It is even allowable to enslave fellow Muslims.

A 4th implied tenet is that the Qur'an's intended audience is clearly male. In every verse of the Qur'an that makes clear to whom the god of Islam is speaking, it is to men. He speaks to men, but only about women. The fact that Sura 4 is called "Women", and describes how to treat them, proves the point. It's verse 34 contains the much-discussed admonition for men to beat their disobedient wives. The Arabic "wa iDrubu hunna" means "and beat them". Any attempt to give it a different meaning is a bare-faced lie.

Women are considered little more than property as demonstrated by 2:223, "Your wives are as a tilth unto you, so approach your tilth when or how you will". This verse is at the heart of Afghanistan's infamous marital rape law, an edict of overt misogyny as symbolized by the burqa, which is nothing more than a head to foot chastity belt signifying ownership. Especially at risk of sexual abuse are slaves (servants), captives, and young girls. Verses 70:29 and 30, in describing men who will be favoured by God, list, "those who guard their chastity, except for their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess". This clearly gives Muslim men divine permission to rape their slaves/captives of war, and is confirmed by the following hadith:

Bukhari, Volume: 7, Book Number: 62, Hadith Number: 137, Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that, repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection." (In other words, why restrict yourself to coitus interruptus when God has already ordained whether the rape victim will become pregnant?)

Verse 65:4 details how long a man must wait before turning out a divorced wife depending on her situation. Included in the list are "those who have not yet menstruated". This, along with the fact that Mohamed married a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when she was nine, gives Muslim men license to marry and have sex with prepubescent girls.

I would be hard pressed to imagine a belief less built around equality, and especially "gender equity".

"Islam is a religion that promotes peace, justice, equality, dignity, and freedom for all human beings".

The existence of dhimmitude (a category of second-class citizenship reserved for conquered infidels) is what passes for "freedom for all human beings" in Islam. Verse 9:29 tells Muslims to, "Fight the infidels until they pay the jizyah and are humiliated". This is a form of surrender that allows them to worship as they wish, but to live in total submission to Islamic rule, and therefore Sharia Law.

As previously stated, slavery is allowed and frequently mentioned in the Qur'an, and always in a matter-of-fact manner. Never is it said to be wrong, and never is it commanded to be abolished. I wonder how the council reconciles that with it's claim that Islam promotes equality and freedom for all human beings.

"The best Muslim is one....who avoids harming others with his/her hand or tongue". (underline mine)

This is an outright lie. Hadiths are the source of this statement, and as one can see below, the real wording contains a significant difference:

Bukhari, Volume: 1, Book Number: 2, Hadith Number: 9, Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr:
The Prophet said, "A Muslim is the one who avoids harming Muslims with his tongue and hands".

Bukhari, Volume: 1, Book Number: 2, Hadith Number: 10, Narrated Abu Musa:
Some people asked Allah's Apostle, "Whose Islam is the best? i.e. (Who is a very good Muslim)?" He replied, "One who avoids harming the Muslims with his tongue and hands."

To see for yourself, click on the following link, select "Search for Hadith" and enter "tongue". Both Bukhari and Muslim confirm that Muslims must refrain from harming only other Muslims. http://www.islaam.net/main/<wbr>hadithsearch.php (http://www.islaam.net/main/hadithsearch.php). This sentiment is confirmed by verse 4:92 of the Qur'an, which begins, "Never should a Muslim kill another Muslim".

"We believe in peaceful coexistence".

Rather than disprove this just by quoting the Qur'an, it would be more instructive to look at the history of the first Muslims. Unlike today's Muslims, they were a small, but completely unified group. They had no possibility of misinterpreting either the wording or the meaning of the Qur'an because they lived with the man who was "receiving" and teaching it, and all in their own language. They believed they were not only listening to a literal sermon from God, but were also receiving clarification of His message by observing the ultimate exemplar in Mohamed. Therefore, I believe it reasonable to assume that the actions of Mohamed and his followers represent the purest manifestation of the teachings of Islam. The fact that Mohamed raised an army rather than a flock speaks volumes, and that he directed it against the pagans of Mecca proves it was an army of conquest. He began his war on Mecca by raiding their caravans, either killing or taking captives, and made war against them until they surrendered and adopted Islam in 630 AD. Also in 629 he sent a raiding party against the Byzantines in what was to be a harbinger of the massive wars of conquest that were only a couple of years off.

Shortly after Mohamed's death, with his message and example still fresh, the Caliphs (his successors) set out to conquer the known world. First they established complete control over the Arabian Peninsula by defeating rival Muslim sects in the Ridda wars. Then they traveled north and attacked the Byzantine and Sassanian Persian Empires who were busy fighting each other over the Fertile Crescent, neither of whom had ever encroached on Muslim lands. This was a war of conquest, pure and simple, and completely absent was any need to fight in self defense. After successfully taking the Fertile Crescent including Egypt, armies of Muslims crossed northern Africa and eventually conquered the Iberian peninsula. To the east their invaders crossed the Oxus River reaching the frontiers of China. They extended Islamic rule as far as their military might would allow.

These irrefutable historical facts are conveniently ignored by all who claim Islam is a religion of peace and whose followers only fight in self-defense.

"The sanctity of human life overrides the sanctity of religious laws".

Some countries run by Sharia Law have the death penalty for apostasy, and like every law in Islam, it too has it's basis in scripture. This hadith clearly shows Mohamed giving apostasy as one of three reasons for putting another Muslim to death?

Bukhari, Volume: 9, Book Number: 83, Hadith Number: 17, Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam and leaves the Muslims."


The standard rebuttal to every quote I've provided, in an attempt at blanket dismissal minus any real counterpoint, is to say that I took them out of context or cherry-picked them. However, many of the statements in the Qur'an are stand-alone proclamations from God which Islamic terrorists are prone to use without regard to context as justification for their actions. I don't see any way that, "God is the enemy of infidels (2:98)" or, "God does not love infidels (3:32)" could mean anything other than what they so clearly state, regardless of context. As to cherry-picking, the Qur'an and hadiths are a veritable orchard of cherry trees.

The 43 signatories to the Council's declaration have demonstrated something I've know for a long time - the only way to make Islam sound compatible with the modern world is to lie about it.

[Drummond]

Below is a rebuttal I wrote regarding a declaration by the Canadian Council of Imams. The original includes a link to the declaration, but it no longer exists, so you're going to have to take my word that I quoted it correctly:


The Canadian Council of Imams issued the following declaration in which they make claims that are not only not true, but in my opinion purposely deceitful:
Here are examples of deceptive quotes and outright lies from the declaration:


"All human beings are equal", "We believe in gender equity".

First, it must be understood that the Qur'an describes people only in terms of being either believers (moomneen) or unbelievers (kuffar), and second, that their standing in the eyes of God is anything but equal. Every description of good versus evil, or right versus wrong in the Qur'an is couched in terms of belief versus unbelief. The unfavourable comparison is relentless, and by way of example, here are but three of literally hundreds of verses I could have chosen to demonstrate the point: Verse 8:55 - "The worst of beasts before God are infidels", 2:98, "God is the enemy of infidels", and 3:34, "God does not love infidels".

Verse 4:92 makes it clear that an infidel's life is worth less than a Muslim's as it tells the faithful, "Never should a Muslim kill another Muslim". The message is reinforced in this hadith:

Bukhari, Volume: 1, Book Number: 3, Hadith Number: 111, Narrated Ash-Sha'bi:
.....no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever).

Muslims themselves are divided into two groups according to verse 4:95 - "Not equal are those Muslims who do not fight in the cause of Islam with those who do fight. God has granted a higher grade to those who fight". Much more disturbing than God's pecking order within Islam is the fact that it is based on a Muslim's willingness to take up arms against infidels in order to establish the rule of Islam.

Slavery is allowed in Islam, which alone belies any claim that "all human beings are equal". Verse 2:221 proves both the inferiority of infidels and the allowance of slavery as it says, "Do not wed idolatresses until they believe (become Muslim). A slave woman who believes is better than an unbeliever". That verse alone contains 3 Islamic tenets that have no place in today's world: 1). Muslims are better than infidels, 2) Slavery is acceptable, and 3) It is even allowable to enslave fellow Muslims.

A 4th implied tenet is that the Qur'an's intended audience is clearly male. In every verse of the Qur'an that makes clear to whom the god of Islam is speaking, it is to men. He speaks to men, but only about women. The fact that Sura 4 is called "Women", and describes how to treat them, proves the point. It's verse 34 contains the much-discussed admonition for men to beat their disobedient wives. The Arabic "wa iDrubu hunna" means "and beat them". Any attempt to give it a different meaning is a bare-faced lie.

Women are considered little more than property as demonstrated by 2:223, "Your wives are as a tilth unto you, so approach your tilth when or how you will". This verse is at the heart of Afghanistan's infamous marital rape law, an edict of overt misogyny as symbolized by the burqa, which is nothing more than a head to foot chastity belt signifying ownership. Especially at risk of sexual abuse are slaves (servants), captives, and young girls. Verses 70:29 and 30, in describing men who will be favoured by God, list, "those who guard their chastity, except for their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess". This clearly gives Muslim men divine permission to rape their slaves/captives of war, and is confirmed by the following hadith:

Bukhari, Volume: 7, Book Number: 62, Hadith Number: 137, Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that, repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection." (In other words, why restrict yourself to coitus interruptus when God has already ordained whether the rape victim will become pregnant?)

Verse 65:4 details how long a man must wait before turning out a divorced wife depending on her situation. Included in the list are "those who have not yet menstruated". This, along with the fact that Mohamed married a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when she was nine, gives Muslim men license to marry and have sex with prepubescent girls.

I would be hard pressed to imagine a belief less built around equality, and especially "gender equity".

"Islam is a religion that promotes peace, justice, equality, dignity, and freedom for all human beings".

The existence of dhimmitude (a category of second-class citizenship reserved for conquered infidels) is what passes for "freedom for all human beings" in Islam. Verse 9:29 tells Muslims to, "Fight the infidels until they pay the jizyah and are humiliated". This is a form of surrender that allows them to worship as they wish, but to live in total submission to Islamic rule, and therefore Sharia Law.

As previously stated, slavery is allowed and frequently mentioned in the Qur'an, and always in a matter-of-fact manner. Never is it said to be wrong, and never is it commanded to be abolished. I wonder how the council reconciles that with it's claim that Islam promotes equality and freedom for all human beings.

"The best Muslim is one....who avoids harming others with his/her hand or tongue". (underline mine)

This is an outright lie. Hadiths are the source of this statement, and as one can see below, the real wording contains a significant difference:

Bukhari, Volume: 1, Book Number: 2, Hadith Number: 9, Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr:
The Prophet said, "A Muslim is the one who avoids harming Muslims with his tongue and hands".

Bukhari, Volume: 1, Book Number: 2, Hadith Number: 10, Narrated Abu Musa:
Some people asked Allah's Apostle, "Whose Islam is the best? i.e. (Who is a very good Muslim)?" He replied, "One who avoids harming the Muslims with his tongue and hands."

To see for yourself, click on the following link, select "Search for Hadith" and enter "tongue". Both Bukhari and Muslim confirm that Muslims must refrain from harming only other Muslims. http://www.islaam.net/main/<wbr>hadithsearch.php (http://www.islaam.net/main/hadithsearch.php). This sentiment is confirmed by verse 4:92 of the Qur'an, which begins, "Never should a Muslim kill another Muslim".

"We believe in peaceful coexistence".

Rather than disprove this just by quoting the Qur'an, it would be more instructive to look at the history of the first Muslims. Unlike today's Muslims, they were a small, but completely unified group. They had no possibility of misinterpreting either the wording or the meaning of the Qur'an because they lived with the man who was "receiving" and teaching it, and all in their own language. They believed they were not only listening to a literal sermon from God, but were also receiving clarification of His message by observing the ultimate exemplar in Mohamed. Therefore, I believe it reasonable to assume that the actions of Mohamed and his followers represent the purest manifestation of the teachings of Islam. The fact that Mohamed raised an army rather than a flock speaks volumes, and that he directed it against the pagans of Mecca proves it was an army of conquest. He began his war on Mecca by raiding their caravans, either killing or taking captives, and made war against them until they surrendered and adopted Islam in 630 AD. Also in 629 he sent a raiding party against the Byzantines in what was to be a harbinger of the massive wars of conquest that were only a couple of years off.

Shortly after Mohamed's death, with his message and example still fresh, the Caliphs (his successors) set out to conquer the known world. First they established complete control over the Arabian Peninsula by defeating rival Muslim sects in the Ridda wars. Then they traveled north and attacked the Byzantine and Sassanian Persian Empires who were busy fighting each other over the Fertile Crescent, neither of whom had ever encroached on Muslim lands. This was a war of conquest, pure and simple, and completely absent was any need to fight in self defense. After successfully taking the Fertile Crescent including Egypt, armies of Muslims crossed northern Africa and eventually conquered the Iberian peninsula. To the east their invaders crossed the Oxus River reaching the frontiers of China. They extended Islamic rule as far as their military might would allow.

These irrefutable historical facts are conveniently ignored by all who claim Islam is a religion of peace and whose followers only fight in self-defense.

"The sanctity of human life overrides the sanctity of religious laws".

Some countries run by Sharia Law have the death penalty for apostasy, and like every law in Islam, it too has it's basis in scripture. This hadith clearly shows Mohamed giving apostasy as one of three reasons for putting another Muslim to death?

Bukhari, Volume: 9, Book Number: 83, Hadith Number: 17, Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam and leaves the Muslims."


The standard rebuttal to every quote I've provided, in an attempt at blanket dismissal minus any real counterpoint, is to say that I took them out of context or cherry-picked them. However, many of the statements in the Qur'an are stand-alone proclamations from God which Islamic terrorists are prone to use without regard to context as justification for their actions. I don't see any way that, "God is the enemy of infidels (2:98)" or, "God does not love infidels (3:32)" could mean anything other than what they so clearly state, regardless of context. As to cherry-picking, the Qur'an and hadiths are a veritable orchard of cherry trees.

The 43 signatories to the Council's declaration have demonstrated something I've know for a long time - the only way to make Islam sound compatible with the modern world is to lie about it.:clap::clap:

... wow ! I can only say 'Thank you' for this post.

I doubt that Jafar will have the nerve to reply .. or if he does, it'll be with something scathing, yet devoid of substance.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Below is a rebuttal I wrote regarding a declaration by the Canadian Council of Imams. The original includes a link to the declaration, but it no longer exists, so you're going to have to take my word that I quoted it correctly:


The Canadian Council of Imams issued the following declaration in which they make claims that are not only not true, but in my opinion purposely deceitful:
Here are examples of deceptive quotes and outright lies from the declaration:


"All human beings are equal", "We believe in gender equity".

First, it must be understood that the Qur'an describes people only in terms of being either believers (moomneen) or unbelievers (kuffar), and second, that their standing in the eyes of God is anything but equal. Every description of good versus evil, or right versus wrong in the Qur'an is couched in terms of belief versus unbelief. The unfavourable comparison is relentless, and by way of example, here are but three of literally hundreds of verses I could have chosen to demonstrate the point: Verse 8:55 - "The worst of beasts before God are infidels", 2:98, "God is the enemy of infidels", and 3:34, "God does not love infidels".

Verse 4:92 makes it clear that an infidel's life is worth less than a Muslim's as it tells the faithful, "Never should a Muslim kill another Muslim". The message is reinforced in this hadith:

Bukhari, Volume: 1, Book Number: 3, Hadith Number: 111, Narrated Ash-Sha'bi:
.....no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever).

Muslims themselves are divided into two groups according to verse 4:95 - "Not equal are those Muslims who do not fight in the cause of Islam with those who do fight. God has granted a higher grade to those who fight". Much more disturbing than God's pecking order within Islam is the fact that it is based on a Muslim's willingness to take up arms against infidels in order to establish the rule of Islam.

Slavery is allowed in Islam, which alone belies any claim that "all human beings are equal". Verse 2:221 proves both the inferiority of infidels and the allowance of slavery as it says, "Do not wed idolatresses until they believe (become Muslim). A slave woman who believes is better than an unbeliever". That verse alone contains 3 Islamic tenets that have no place in today's world: 1). Muslims are better than infidels, 2) Slavery is acceptable, and 3) It is even allowable to enslave fellow Muslims.

A 4th implied tenet is that the Qur'an's intended audience is clearly male. In every verse of the Qur'an that makes clear to whom the god of Islam is speaking, it is to men. He speaks to men, but only about women. The fact that Sura 4 is called "Women", and describes how to treat them, proves the point. It's verse 34 contains the much-discussed admonition for men to beat their disobedient wives. The Arabic "wa iDrubu hunna" means "and beat them". Any attempt to give it a different meaning is a bare-faced lie.

Women are considered little more than property as demonstrated by 2:223, "Your wives are as a tilth unto you, so approach your tilth when or how you will". This verse is at the heart of Afghanistan's infamous marital rape law, an edict of overt misogyny as symbolized by the burqa, which is nothing more than a head to foot chastity belt signifying ownership. Especially at risk of sexual abuse are slaves (servants), captives, and young girls. Verses 70:29 and 30, in describing men who will be favoured by God, list, "those who guard their chastity, except for their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess". This clearly gives Muslim men divine permission to rape their slaves/captives of war, and is confirmed by the following hadith:

Bukhari, Volume: 7, Book Number: 62, Hadith Number: 137, Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that, repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection." (In other words, why restrict yourself to coitus interruptus when God has already ordained whether the rape victim will become pregnant?)

Verse 65:4 details how long a man must wait before turning out a divorced wife depending on her situation. Included in the list are "those who have not yet menstruated". This, along with the fact that Mohamed married a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when she was nine, gives Muslim men license to marry and have sex with prepubescent girls.

I would be hard pressed to imagine a belief less built around equality, and especially "gender equity".

"Islam is a religion that promotes peace, justice, equality, dignity, and freedom for all human beings".

The existence of dhimmitude (a category of second-class citizenship reserved for conquered infidels) is what passes for "freedom for all human beings" in Islam. Verse 9:29 tells Muslims to, "Fight the infidels until they pay the jizyah and are humiliated". This is a form of surrender that allows them to worship as they wish, but to live in total submission to Islamic rule, and therefore Sharia Law.

As previously stated, slavery is allowed and frequently mentioned in the Qur'an, and always in a matter-of-fact manner. Never is it said to be wrong, and never is it commanded to be abolished. I wonder how the council reconciles that with it's claim that Islam promotes equality and freedom for all human beings.

"The best Muslim is one....who avoids harming others with his/her hand or tongue". (underline mine)

This is an outright lie. Hadiths are the source of this statement, and as one can see below, the real wording contains a significant difference:

Bukhari, Volume: 1, Book Number: 2, Hadith Number: 9, Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr:
The Prophet said, "A Muslim is the one who avoids harming Muslims with his tongue and hands".

Bukhari, Volume: 1, Book Number: 2, Hadith Number: 10, Narrated Abu Musa:
Some people asked Allah's Apostle, "Whose Islam is the best? i.e. (Who is a very good Muslim)?" He replied, "One who avoids harming the Muslims with his tongue and hands."

To see for yourself, click on the following link, select "Search for Hadith" and enter "tongue". Both Bukhari and Muslim confirm that Muslims must refrain from harming only other Muslims. http://www.islaam.net/main/<wbr>hadithsearch.php (http://www.islaam.net/main/hadithsearch.php). This sentiment is confirmed by verse 4:92 of the Qur'an, which begins, "Never should a Muslim kill another Muslim".

"We believe in peaceful coexistence".

Rather than disprove this just by quoting the Qur'an, it would be more instructive to look at the history of the first Muslims. Unlike today's Muslims, they were a small, but completely unified group. They had no possibility of misinterpreting either the wording or the meaning of the Qur'an because they lived with the man who was "receiving" and teaching it, and all in their own language. They believed they were not only listening to a literal sermon from God, but were also receiving clarification of His message by observing the ultimate exemplar in Mohamed. Therefore, I believe it reasonable to assume that the actions of Mohamed and his followers represent the purest manifestation of the teachings of Islam. The fact that Mohamed raised an army rather than a flock speaks volumes, and that he directed it against the pagans of Mecca proves it was an army of conquest. He began his war on Mecca by raiding their caravans, either killing or taking captives, and made war against them until they surrendered and adopted Islam in 630 AD. Also in 629 he sent a raiding party against the Byzantines in what was to be a harbinger of the massive wars of conquest that were only a couple of years off.

Shortly after Mohamed's death, with his message and example still fresh, the Caliphs (his successors) set out to conquer the known world. First they established complete control over the Arabian Peninsula by defeating rival Muslim sects in the Ridda wars. Then they traveled north and attacked the Byzantine and Sassanian Persian Empires who were busy fighting each other over the Fertile Crescent, neither of whom had ever encroached on Muslim lands. This was a war of conquest, pure and simple, and completely absent was any need to fight in self defense. After successfully taking the Fertile Crescent including Egypt, armies of Muslims crossed northern Africa and eventually conquered the Iberian peninsula. To the east their invaders crossed the Oxus River reaching the frontiers of China. They extended Islamic rule as far as their military might would allow.

These irrefutable historical facts are conveniently ignored by all who claim Islam is a religion of peace and whose followers only fight in self-defense.

"The sanctity of human life overrides the sanctity of religious laws".

Some countries run by Sharia Law have the death penalty for apostasy, and like every law in Islam, it too has it's basis in scripture. This hadith clearly shows Mohamed giving apostasy as one of three reasons for putting another Muslim to death?

Bukhari, Volume: 9, Book Number: 83, Hadith Number: 17, Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam and leaves the Muslims."


The standard rebuttal to every quote I've provided, in an attempt at blanket dismissal minus any real counterpoint, is to say that I took them out of context or cherry-picked them. However, many of the statements in the Qur'an are stand-alone proclamations from God which Islamic terrorists are prone to use without regard to context as justification for their actions. I don't see any way that, "God is the enemy of infidels (2:98)" or, "God does not love infidels (3:32)" could mean anything other than what they so clearly state, regardless of context. As to cherry-picking, the Qur'an and hadiths are a veritable orchard of cherry trees.

The 43 signatories to the Council's declaration have demonstrated something I've know for a long time - the only way to make Islam sound compatible with the modern world is to lie about it.

A truly great post Steve. Very informative and I added it to my library of stored information on Islam. Thanks....

[aboutime]

A truly great post Steve. Very informative and I added it to my library of stored information on Islam. Thanks....


Everyone should save a copy of this to their PC or LAPTOP. It is an educational tool, and reality we have rarely been introduced to...behind all of the never-ending jafar BS.

Thank you Steve. Hopefully. If jafar is as sharp, and smart as he claims. There should be a terrible feeling in his stomach after finding out how he has been Perfectly Exposed for his Lies.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Below is a rebuttal I wrote regarding a declaration by the Canadian Council of Imams. The original includes a link to the declaration, but it no longer exists, so you're going to have to take my word that I quoted it correctly:


The Canadian Council of Imams issued the following declaration in which they make claims that are not only not true, but in my opinion purposely deceitful:
Here are examples of deceptive quotes and outright lies from the declaration:


"All human beings are equal", "We believe in gender equity".

First, it must be understood that the Qur'an describes people only in terms of being either believers (moomneen) or unbelievers (kuffar), and second, that their standing in the eyes of God is anything but equal. Every description of good versus evil, or right versus wrong in the Qur'an is couched in terms of belief versus unbelief. The unfavourable comparison is relentless, and by way of example, here are but three of literally hundreds of verses I could have chosen to demonstrate the point: Verse 8:55 - "The worst of beasts before God are infidels", 2:98, "God is the enemy of infidels", and 3:34, "God does not love infidels".

Verse 4:92 makes it clear that an infidel's life is worth less than a Muslim's as it tells the faithful, "Never should a Muslim kill another Muslim". The message is reinforced in this hadith:

Bukhari, Volume: 1, Book Number: 3, Hadith Number: 111, Narrated Ash-Sha'bi:
.....no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever).

Muslims themselves are divided into two groups according to verse 4:95 - "Not equal are those Muslims who do not fight in the cause of Islam with those who do fight. God has granted a higher grade to those who fight". Much more disturbing than God's pecking order within Islam is the fact that it is based on a Muslim's willingness to take up arms against infidels in order to establish the rule of Islam.

Slavery is allowed in Islam, which alone belies any claim that "all human beings are equal". Verse 2:221 proves both the inferiority of infidels and the allowance of slavery as it says, "Do not wed idolatresses until they believe (become Muslim). A slave woman who believes is better than an unbeliever". That verse alone contains 3 Islamic tenets that have no place in today's world: 1). Muslims are better than infidels, 2) Slavery is acceptable, and 3) It is even allowable to enslave fellow Muslims.

A 4th implied tenet is that the Qur'an's intended audience is clearly male. In every verse of the Qur'an that makes clear to whom the god of Islam is speaking, it is to men. He speaks to men, but only about women. The fact that Sura 4 is called "Women", and describes how to treat them, proves the point. It's verse 34 contains the much-discussed admonition for men to beat their disobedient wives. The Arabic "wa iDrubu hunna" means "and beat them". Any attempt to give it a different meaning is a bare-faced lie.

Women are considered little more than property as demonstrated by 2:223, "Your wives are as a tilth unto you, so approach your tilth when or how you will". This verse is at the heart of Afghanistan's infamous marital rape law, an edict of overt misogyny as symbolized by the burqa, which is nothing more than a head to foot chastity belt signifying ownership. Especially at risk of sexual abuse are slaves (servants), captives, and young girls. Verses 70:29 and 30, in describing men who will be favoured by God, list, "those who guard their chastity, except for their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess". This clearly gives Muslim men divine permission to rape their slaves/captives of war, and is confirmed by the following hadith:

Bukhari, Volume: 7, Book Number: 62, Hadith Number: 137, Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that, repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection." (In other words, why restrict yourself to coitus interruptus when God has already ordained whether the rape victim will become pregnant?)

Verse 65:4 details how long a man must wait before turning out a divorced wife depending on her situation. Included in the list are "those who have not yet menstruated". This, along with the fact that Mohamed married a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when she was nine, gives Muslim men license to marry and have sex with prepubescent girls.

I would be hard pressed to imagine a belief less built around equality, and especially "gender equity".

"Islam is a religion that promotes peace, justice, equality, dignity, and freedom for all human beings".

The existence of dhimmitude (a category of second-class citizenship reserved for conquered infidels) is what passes for "freedom for all human beings" in Islam. Verse 9:29 tells Muslims to, "Fight the infidels until they pay the jizyah and are humiliated". This is a form of surrender that allows them to worship as they wish, but to live in total submission to Islamic rule, and therefore Sharia Law.

As previously stated, slavery is allowed and frequently mentioned in the Qur'an, and always in a matter-of-fact manner. Never is it said to be wrong, and never is it commanded to be abolished. I wonder how the council reconciles that with it's claim that Islam promotes equality and freedom for all human beings.

"The best Muslim is one....who avoids harming others with his/her hand or tongue". (underline mine)

This is an outright lie. Hadiths are the source of this statement, and as one can see below, the real wording contains a significant difference:

Bukhari, Volume: 1, Book Number: 2, Hadith Number: 9, Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr:
The Prophet said, "A Muslim is the one who avoids harming Muslims with his tongue and hands".

Bukhari, Volume: 1, Book Number: 2, Hadith Number: 10, Narrated Abu Musa:
Some people asked Allah's Apostle, "Whose Islam is the best? i.e. (Who is a very good Muslim)?" He replied, "One who avoids harming the Muslims with his tongue and hands."

To see for yourself, click on the following link, select "Search for Hadith" and enter "tongue". Both Bukhari and Muslim confirm that Muslims must refrain from harming only other Muslims. http://www.islaam.net/main/<wbr>hadithsearch.php (http://www.islaam.net/main/hadithsearch.php). This sentiment is confirmed by verse 4:92 of the Qur'an, which begins, "Never should a Muslim kill another Muslim".

"We believe in peaceful coexistence".

Rather than disprove this just by quoting the Qur'an, it would be more instructive to look at the history of the first Muslims. Unlike today's Muslims, they were a small, but completely unified group. They had no possibility of misinterpreting either the wording or the meaning of the Qur'an because they lived with the man who was "receiving" and teaching it, and all in their own language. They believed they were not only listening to a literal sermon from God, but were also receiving clarification of His message by observing the ultimate exemplar in Mohamed. Therefore, I believe it reasonable to assume that the actions of Mohamed and his followers represent the purest manifestation of the teachings of Islam. The fact that Mohamed raised an army rather than a flock speaks volumes, and that he directed it against the pagans of Mecca proves it was an army of conquest. He began his war on Mecca by raiding their caravans, either killing or taking captives, and made war against them until they surrendered and adopted Islam in 630 AD. Also in 629 he sent a raiding party against the Byzantines in what was to be a harbinger of the massive wars of conquest that were only a couple of years off.

Shortly after Mohamed's death, with his message and example still fresh, the Caliphs (his successors) set out to conquer the known world. First they established complete control over the Arabian Peninsula by defeating rival Muslim sects in the Ridda wars. Then they traveled north and attacked the Byzantine and Sassanian Persian Empires who were busy fighting each other over the Fertile Crescent, neither of whom had ever encroached on Muslim lands. This was a war of conquest, pure and simple, and completely absent was any need to fight in self defense. After successfully taking the Fertile Crescent including Egypt, armies of Muslims crossed northern Africa and eventually conquered the Iberian peninsula. To the east their invaders crossed the Oxus River reaching the frontiers of China. They extended Islamic rule as far as their military might would allow.

These irrefutable historical facts are conveniently ignored by all who claim Islam is a religion of peace and whose followers only fight in self-defense.

"The sanctity of human life overrides the sanctity of religious laws".

Some countries run by Sharia Law have the death penalty for apostasy, and like every law in Islam, it too has it's basis in scripture. This hadith clearly shows Mohamed giving apostasy as one of three reasons for putting another Muslim to death?

Bukhari, Volume: 9, Book Number: 83, Hadith Number: 17, Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam and leaves the Muslims."


The standard rebuttal to every quote I've provided, in an attempt at blanket dismissal minus any real counterpoint, is to say that I took them out of context or cherry-picked them. However, many of the statements in the Qur'an are stand-alone proclamations from God which Islamic terrorists are prone to use without regard to context as justification for their actions. I don't see any way that, "God is the enemy of infidels (2:98)" or, "God does not love infidels (3:32)" could mean anything other than what they so clearly state, regardless of context. As to cherry-picking, the Qur'an and hadiths are a veritable orchard of cherry trees.

The 43 signatories to the Council's declaration have demonstrated something I've know for a long time - the only way to make Islam sound compatible with the modern world is to lie about it.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to stevecanuck again.

A shame that I can not give another rep... -Tyr

[Marcus Aurelius]

You're on Jahils shit list now, Steve:laugh2:

[stevecanuck]

I noticed Jafar isn't listed as having read this thread. Is it possible he read it as an unregistered guest, and if so, does this site not count the number of guests who read threads.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I noticed Jafar isn't listed as having read this thread. Is it possible he read it as an unregistered guest, and if so, does this site not count the number of guests who read threads.

Jahil tends to go through moping periods. When he's smacked down especially hard, he gets huffy and posts maybe once or twice in a span of several days. He'll claim to have you on ignore, but then will occasionally respond to something you posted, without directly replying to said post, so it still looks like he's ignoring you.

[stevecanuck]

Jahil tends to go through moping periods. When he's smacked down especially hard, he gets huffy and posts maybe once or twice in a span of several days. He'll claim to have you on ignore, but then will occasionally respond to something you posted, without directly replying to said post, so it still looks like he's ignoring you.

This is standard operating procedure for muslim propagandists. I've been on perspectives.com for a few years and I've managed to chase them all from that site. We had a new one show up recently, so I asked him if he was going to break the mold and actually answer questions. He responded that he was at my service and to ask away, so at random I asked him if islam condoned the rape of female captives. You guessed it - neither hide nor hair has been seen of him since.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This is standard operating procedure for muslim propagandists. I've been on perspectives.com for a few years and I've managed to chase them all from that site. We had a new one show up recently, so I asked him if he was going to break the mold and actually answer questions. He responded that he was at my service and to ask away, so at random I asked him if islam condoned the rape of female captives. You guessed it - neither hide nor hair has been seen of him since.

Muslim propagandists are pretty much used to being allowed to run along unopposed. Opposition scares hell out of them and they will bluff it for a while. When it lasts and uses that wicked thing called TRUTH they always run away or else slink off quietly like a snake to hide under a rock.

Odds are jafar has slid off to lick his wounds with his many forked tongue. Although he may give it another try as soon as his prayer rug pleadings and desperate cries for help give him some more false courage.
Steve coming to shed more light upon the subject was the icing on the cake most likely.
A false religion defended by a false man with false information stands not well when truth starts hammering away. I almost feel sorry for the dude.--:laugh:--Tyr

[jafar00]

My reply in green.....

Below is a rebuttal I wrote regarding a declaration by the Canadian Council of Imams. The original includes a link to the declaration, but it no longer exists, so you're going to have to take my word that I quoted it correctly:

That's convenient

The Canadian Council of Imams issued the following declaration in which they make claims that are not only not true, but in my opinion purposely deceitful:
Here are examples of deceptive quotes and outright lies from the declaration:


"All human beings are equal", "We believe in gender equity".

First, it must be understood that the Qur'an describes people only in terms of being either believers (moomneen) or unbelievers (kuffar), and second, that their standing in the eyes of God is anything but equal. Every description of good versus evil, or right versus wrong in the Qur'an is couched in terms of belief versus unbelief. The unfavourable comparison is relentless, and by way of example, here are but three of literally hundreds of verses I could have chosen to demonstrate the point: Verse 8:55 - "The worst of beasts before God are infidels", 2:98, "God is the enemy of infidels", and 3:34, "God does not love infidels".

Let's look at your mistranslations by giving translations of the verses in full from Abdullah Yusuf Ali's (easy to read) interpretation on the Qur'aan.

For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe. They are those with whom thou didst make a covenant, but they break their covenant every time, and they have not the fear (of Allah). (8:55-56)
Almost.....

These verses are referring to the Banu Qurayzah, a Jewish tribe who were executed for high treason in accordance with their own law and by their own judgement after they betrayed the Muslims during the battle of the trench. They do not refer to unbelievers of all time.

Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and messengers, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith. (2:98)

Naturally you missed the first bit out :p. I will let this hadith which is found in Tafsir explain a little....

Abu Bakr al-Asfahani informed us> al-Hafiz Abu'l-Shaykh [al-Asfahani]> Abu Yahya al-Razi> Sahl ibn 'Uthman> 'Ali ibn Mushir> Dawud> al-Sha'bi who said: “Said 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be well pleased with him: 'I used to go to the Jews upon their study of the Torah and was amazed to see the conformity of the Qur'an with the Torah and of the Torah with the Qur'an. On one occasion they said: 'O 'Umar! We do not like anyone more than we like you'. I asked: 'And why is that?' They said: 'Because you come to us and mix with us'. I said: 'I come to you only because of my amazement at how the different parts of the Book of Allah strengthen each other, and how the Qur'an is in conformity with the Torah and how the Torah is in conformity with the Qur'an'. As I was with them one day, Allah's Messenger, Allah bless him and give him peace, passed by behind me. The Jews said: 'Here is your man; go to him! He has just got to an alley of Medina'. I turned to them and asked: 'I adjure you by Allah and by that which was revealed to you of Scripture, do you know that he is Allah's Messenger?' Their chief said to them: 'He has implored you by Allah, so do tell him'. They said: 'You are our chief; you tell him'. Their chief said: 'We do know that he is Allah's Messenger!' I said: 'You are the one who shall be subject to the worst form of destruction if you all know that he is Allah's Messenger and then do not follow him'. They said: 'We have an enemy among the angels as we have an ally from amongst them'. I asked: 'Who is your enemy and who is your ally?' They said: 'Our enemy is Gabriel who is the angel of harshness and coarseness, burden and hardship'. I said: 'And who is your ally?' They said: 'Michael who is the angel of tenderness, gentleness and ease'. I said: 'In that case I bear witness that it is not allowable for Gabriel to declare enmity to the allies of Michael nor is it allowable for Michael to be an ally to the enemies of Gabriel, for both, including all those who are with them, are enemies to those who declare any one of them as an enemy, as they are allies to whomever is an ally to any one of them'.

The verse before (2:97) confirms the explanation..

Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel-for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by Allah's will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe (2:97)

2:97-98 refers to these Jews who hated the Angel Gabriel because he not only brought glad tidings to Mary (as) of her miracle son Jesus (as) but also brought the revelation of the Qur'aan to Mohamed (saw).

Allah did choose Adam and Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of 'Imran above all people Offspring, one of the other: And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (3:33-34)

How you got "God does not love infidels" from this I know not :p

Allah chose Adam (as) because he create him and commanded the Angels to bow down to him.

Allah chose Noah (as) because he was the first of many messengers to preach to the people who were worshiping idols and attributing partners to Allah. Those who shunned and persecuted him were drowned in the great flood.

Allah chose the family of Abraham (of which Mohamed (saw) is a member).
Allah also chose the family of Imran. Guess who is of the family of Imran?

Mary (as), the mother of Jesus (as) as the next verses point out!

Behold! a woman of 'Imran said: "O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service: So accept this of me: For Thou hearest and knowest all things." When she was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!"- and Allah knew best what she brought forth- "And no wise is the male Like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from the Evil One, the Rejected." (3:35-36)

So, again... How did you get "God does not love infidels" from 3:34??


Verse 4:92 makes it clear that an infidel's life is worth less than a Muslim's as it tells the faithful, "Never should a Muslim kill another Muslim". The message is reinforced in this hadith:

Again... the full verse for context...

Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running: by way of repentance to Allah: for Allah hath all knowledge and all wisdom. (4:92)

That verse was revealed after Harith Ibn Shadid, who was an enemy of the Muslims and was very harsh against the Prophet Mohamed (saw) was killed. Unknown to the killer was that Harith Ibn Shadid was actually on his way to secretly embrace Islam at the time. The verse deals with Qisas (The law of equality) and how to deal with the situation where A BELIEVER KILLS A BELIEVER BY ACCIDENT. It has nothing to do with whether an "infidel" is worth less than a Muslim's. If you believe that, your comprehension skills are lacking somewhat.

Bukhari, Volume: 1, Book Number: 3, Hadith Number: 111, Narrated Ash-Sha'bi:
.....no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever).

And with that I give you

O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.(2:178)

Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; - and any that does this (not only) meets punishment. (But) the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell therein in ignominy (25:68-69)

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)

Allah considers all life to be equally important and sacred. No distinction is made.

You must also consider this verse (referring to the story of Cain and Abel)

On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. (5:32)

There there is also this (http://www.sahih-bukhari.com/Pages/Bukhari_9_83.php) famous Hadith..


<tbody>
Volume 9, Book 83, Number 49 :


Narrated by 'Abdullah bin 'Amr



The Prophet said, "Whoever killed a Mu'ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling)."



</tbody>

It is clear that the Hadith you are referring to would be the disbeliever referred to in the part of the Hadith you quoted is referring to those at war with the Muslims.


Muslims themselves are divided into two groups according to verse 4:95 - "Not equal are those Muslims who do not fight in the cause of Islam with those who do fight. God has granted a higher grade to those who fight". Much more disturbing than God's pecking order within Islam is the fact that it is based on a Muslim's willingness to take up arms against infidels in order to establish the rule of Islam.

Why do you assume that fighting in the way of Allah is taking up arms? Walking a long way to the Mosque to pray is also considered to be jihad fii sabilillah. You have clearly not learned enough about Islam to know this. :)

In arabic وَالْمُجَاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ translates as "Mujahideen in the way of Allah". The Mujahideen are those who perform Jihad of which the aforementioned walking to the Mosque or just waking up at 4am to pray Fajr (morning prayer) is considered to be. It doesn't necessarily mean armed conflict.

If you changed the word "fight" to "strive" or "struggle" as some English interpretations do, perhaps you would not have the same misconception?

Case in point, William Pickthall's wonderful Shakespearean style of writing....

Those of the believers who sit still, other than those who have a (disabling) hurt, are not on an equality with those who strive in the way of Allah with their wealth and lives. Allah hath conferred on those who strive with their wealth and lives a rank above the sedentary. Unto each Allah hath promised good, but He hath bestowed on those who strive a great reward above the sedentary (4:95)

When you read that interpretation, do you see it more as a "Get off your butt, don't be lazy and get to the Mosque" rather than "Pick up your sword and kill people"?

Slavery is allowed in Islam, which alone belies any claim that "all human beings are equal". Verse 2:221 proves both the inferiority of infidels and the allowance of slavery as it says, "Do not wed idolatresses until they believe (become Muslim). A slave woman who believes is better than an unbeliever". That verse alone contains 3 Islamic tenets that have no place in today's world: 1). Muslims are better than infidels, 2) Slavery is acceptable, and 3) It is even allowable to enslave fellow Muslims.

That's ridiculous. Islam did a lot to free slaves. Slaves were commonplace in the world at the time and in fact the society would collapse if they were all freed at the same time. They did much of the agricultural work and building. Islam introduced a way to free them gradually such as described in this surah

Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer the (funds); for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to Truth); for those in bondage and in debt; in the cause of Allah; and for the wayfarer: (thus is it) ordained by Allah, and Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom. (9:60)

A portion of Zakat money which is paid by every Muslim who can in Ramadan is set aside to buy the freedom of slaves according to the above revelation.

One famous slave, Bilal was freed (paid for) by Abu Bakr after his (non Muslim) master placed a rock on his chest for embracing Islam. He later became the first to call the Adhan (call to prayer).

A 4th implied tenet is that the Qur'an's intended audience is clearly male. In every verse of the Qur'an that makes clear to whom the god of Islam is speaking, it is to men. He speaks to men, but only about women. The fact that Sura 4 is called "Women", and describes how to treat them, proves the point. It's verse 34 contains the much-discussed admonition for men to beat their disobedient wives. The Arabic "wa iDrubu hunna" means "and beat them". Any attempt to give it a different meaning is a bare-faced lie.

Verse 4:34 has been discussed at length for hundreds of years. For you to reject hundreds of years of scholarly opinion against your statement in order to propagate your lie that it gives men free reign to beat their wives is disgusting! I have provided more than enough in other threads to prove you wrong.

Women are considered little more than property as demonstrated by 2:223, "Your wives are as a tilth unto you, so approach your tilth when or how you will". This verse is at the heart of Afghanistan's infamous marital rape law, an edict of overt misogyny as symbolized by the burqa, which is nothing more than a head to foot chastity belt signifying ownership. Especially at risk of sexual abuse are slaves (servants), captives, and young girls. Verses 70:29 and 30, in describing men who will be favoured by God, list, "those who guard their chastity, except for their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess". This clearly gives Muslim men divine permission to rape their slaves/captives of war, and is confirmed by the following hadith:

2:223 was revealed when the Jews started spreading rumours that sexual intercourse from behind caused the resulting child to be cross eyed or backwards. The literal meaning of it is you can do it together any way you like. It has nothing to do with ownership. It is about permitting sexual relations as you and your wife wish to.

As for 70:29-30, I can explain more by quoting...

Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them) (24:33)

A master cannot force a slave into sex at all. Only by mutual consent!

Also from Hadith (http://www.hadithcollection.com/abudawud/238-Abu%20Dawud%20Book%2006.%20Divorce/16677-abu-dawud-book-006-hadith-number-2304.html)...Narated By Jabir ibn Abdullah : Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My master forces me to commit fornication. Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity)."
By the way, the Bible has no problem with slavery at all.

1 Peter 2:18 "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."<o:p></o:p>
Colossians 3:22 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord." <o:p></o:p>
"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. (From the NIV Bible, 1 Timothy 6:1)
Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."<o:p></o:p>
Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."

It can be argued that the Bible prescribes brutality for slaves. At least the Qur'aan gives them a way out of slavery!


Bukhari, Volume: 7, Book Number: 62, Hadith Number: 137, Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that, repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection." (In other words, why restrict yourself to coitus interruptus when God has already ordained whether the rape victim will become pregnant?)

Remember the slaves of this time were not like the slaves of old. It has already been established that they could get out of being a slave at any time, and could refuse sexual advances from their masters (THERE WAS NO RAPE), and had to be treated well living as a full member of the household where they stayed. They usually came from war where the men from the other side were decimated leaving women and children who needed taking care of.

The choice was either to turf them out on the road to fend for themselves, or take them in and care for them until they were granted freedom. Which would you choose?

Verse 65:4 details how long a man must wait before turning out a divorced wife depending on her situation. Included in the list are "those who have not yet menstruated". This, along with the fact that Mohamed married a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when she was nine, gives Muslim men license to marry and have sex with prepubescent girls.

65:4 makes sure that a divorced wife is not pregnant when she leaves. It protects HER. If you think it has something to do with sex with pre-pubescent girls, you are one sick puppy! It covers those of menopausal age and those who for some reason didn't menstruate. Just look up Amenorrhea if you were unaware of the condition before.

As for Mohamed (saw) and Aicha (ra), she was reported to have breasts when she went to live with Mohamed (saw) thus she had entered puberty.
Also discussed at length in other threads. Marriage in puberty was a normal thing at the time especially among nobles and to strengthen ties between clans where young children were betrothed at a young age (Achia was betrothed at 6).

The rest I may answer later. This lot already took several hours but I think I have so far shown that you have no idea what you are talking about and are just spouting opinions based on your personal crusade against Islam and not in any kind of reality.

[Marcus Aurelius]

My reply in green.....

Below is a rebuttal I wrote regarding a declaration by the Canadian Council of Imams. The original includes a link to the declaration, but it no longer exists, so you're going to have to take my word that I quoted it correctly:

That's convenient

The Canadian Council of Imams issued the following declaration in which they make claims that are not only not true, but in my opinion purposely deceitful:
Here are examples of deceptive quotes and outright lies from the declaration:


"All human beings are equal", "We believe in gender equity".

First, it must be understood that the Qur'an describes people only in terms of being either believers (moomneen) or unbelievers (kuffar), and second, that their standing in the eyes of God is anything but equal. Every description of good versus evil, or right versus wrong in the Qur'an is couched in terms of belief versus unbelief. The unfavourable comparison is relentless, and by way of example, here are but three of literally hundreds of verses I could have chosen to demonstrate the point: Verse 8:55 - "The worst of beasts before God are infidels", 2:98, "God is the enemy of infidels", and 3:34, "God does not love infidels".

Let's look at your mistranslations by giving translations of the verses in full from Abdullah Yusuf Ali's (easy to read) interpretation on the Qur'aan.

For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe. They are those with whom thou didst make a covenant, but they break their covenant every time, and they have not the fear (of Allah). (8:55-56)
Almost.....

These verses are referring to the Banu Qurayzah, a Jewish tribe who were executed for high treason in accordance with their own law and by their own judgement after they betrayed the Muslims during the battle of the trench. They do not refer to unbelievers of all time.

Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and messengers, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith. (2:98)

Naturally you missed the first bit out :p. I will let this hadith which is found in Tafsir explain a little....

Abu Bakr al-Asfahani informed us> al-Hafiz Abu'l-Shaykh [al-Asfahani]> Abu Yahya al-Razi> Sahl ibn 'Uthman> 'Ali ibn Mushir> Dawud> al-Sha'bi who said: “Said 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be well pleased with him: 'I used to go to the Jews upon their study of the Torah and was amazed to see the conformity of the Qur'an with the Torah and of the Torah with the Qur'an. On one occasion they said: 'O 'Umar! We do not like anyone more than we like you'. I asked: 'And why is that?' They said: 'Because you come to us and mix with us'. I said: 'I come to you only because of my amazement at how the different parts of the Book of Allah strengthen each other, and how the Qur'an is in conformity with the Torah and how the Torah is in conformity with the Qur'an'. As I was with them one day, Allah's Messenger, Allah bless him and give him peace, passed by behind me. The Jews said: 'Here is your man; go to him! He has just got to an alley of Medina'. I turned to them and asked: 'I adjure you by Allah and by that which was revealed to you of Scripture, do you know that he is Allah's Messenger?' Their chief said to them: 'He has implored you by Allah, so do tell him'. They said: 'You are our chief; you tell him'. Their chief said: 'We do know that he is Allah's Messenger!' I said: 'You are the one who shall be subject to the worst form of destruction if you all know that he is Allah's Messenger and then do not follow him'. They said: 'We have an enemy among the angels as we have an ally from amongst them'. I asked: 'Who is your enemy and who is your ally?' They said: 'Our enemy is Gabriel who is the angel of harshness and coarseness, burden and hardship'. I said: 'And who is your ally?' They said: 'Michael who is the angel of tenderness, gentleness and ease'. I said: 'In that case I bear witness that it is not allowable for Gabriel to declare enmity to the allies of Michael nor is it allowable for Michael to be an ally to the enemies of Gabriel, for both, including all those who are with them, are enemies to those who declare any one of them as an enemy, as they are allies to whomever is an ally to any one of them'.

The verse before (2:97) confirms the explanation..

Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel-for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by Allah's will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe (2:97)

2:97-98 refers to these Jews who hated the Angel Gabriel because he not only brought glad tidings to Mary (as) of her miracle son Jesus (as) but also brought the revelation of the Qur'aan to Mohamed (saw).

Allah did choose Adam and Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of 'Imran above all people Offspring, one of the other: And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (3:33-34)

How you got "God does not love infidels" from this I know not :p

Allah chose Adam (as) because he create him and commanded the Angels to bow down to him.

Allah chose Noah (as) because he was the first of many messengers to preach to the people who were worshiping idols and attributing partners to Allah. Those who shunned and persecuted him were drowned in the great flood.

Allah chose the family of Abraham (of which Mohamed (saw) is a member).
Allah also chose the family of Imran. Guess who is of the family of Imran?

Mary (as), the mother of Jesus (as) as the next verses point out!

Behold! a woman of 'Imran said: "O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service: So accept this of me: For Thou hearest and knowest all things." When she was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!"- and Allah knew best what she brought forth- "And no wise is the male Like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from the Evil One, the Rejected." (3:35-36)

So, again... How did you get "God does not love infidels" from 3:34??


Verse 4:92 makes it clear that an infidel's life is worth less than a Muslim's as it tells the faithful, "Never should a Muslim kill another Muslim". The message is reinforced in this hadith:

Again... the full verse for context...

Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running: by way of repentance to Allah: for Allah hath all knowledge and all wisdom. (4:92)

That verse was revealed after Harith Ibn Shadid, who was an enemy of the Muslims and was very harsh against the Prophet Mohamed (saw) was killed. Unknown to the killer was that Harith Ibn Shadid was actually on his way to secretly embrace Islam at the time. The verse deals with Qisas (The law of equality) and how to deal with the situation where A BELIEVER KILLS A BELIEVER BY ACCIDENT. It has nothing to do with whether an "infidel" is worth less than a Muslim's. If you believe that, your comprehension skills are lacking somewhat.

Bukhari, Volume: 1, Book Number: 3, Hadith Number: 111, Narrated Ash-Sha'bi:
.....no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever).

And with that I give you

O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.(2:178)

Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; - and any that does this (not only) meets punishment. (But) the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell therein in ignominy (25:68-69)

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)

Allah considers all life to be equally important and sacred. No distinction is made.

You must also consider this verse (referring to the story of Cain and Abel)

On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. (5:32)

There there is also this (http://www.sahih-bukhari.com/Pages/Bukhari_9_83.php) famous Hadith..


<tbody>
Volume 9, Book 83, Number 49 :


Narrated by 'Abdullah bin 'Amr



The Prophet said, "Whoever killed a Mu'ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling)."



</tbody>

It is clear that the Hadith you are referring to would be the disbeliever referred to in the part of the Hadith you quoted is referring to those at war with the Muslims.


Muslims themselves are divided into two groups according to verse 4:95 - "Not equal are those Muslims who do not fight in the cause of Islam with those who do fight. God has granted a higher grade to those who fight". Much more disturbing than God's pecking order within Islam is the fact that it is based on a Muslim's willingness to take up arms against infidels in order to establish the rule of Islam.

Why do you assume that fighting in the way of Allah is taking up arms? Walking a long way to the Mosque to pray is also considered to be jihad fii sabilillah. You have clearly not learned enough about Islam to know this. :)

In arabic وَالْمُجَاهِدُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ translates as "Mujahideen in the way of Allah". The Mujahideen are those who perform Jihad of which the aforementioned walking to the Mosque or just waking up at 4am to pray Fajr (morning prayer) is considered to be. It doesn't necessarily mean armed conflict.

If you changed the word "fight" to "strive" or "struggle" as some English interpretations do, perhaps you would not have the same misconception?

Case in point, William Pickthall's wonderful Shakespearean style of writing....

Those of the believers who sit still, other than those who have a (disabling) hurt, are not on an equality with those who strive in the way of Allah with their wealth and lives. Allah hath conferred on those who strive with their wealth and lives a rank above the sedentary. Unto each Allah hath promised good, but He hath bestowed on those who strive a great reward above the sedentary (4:95)

When you read that interpretation, do you see it more as a "Get off your butt, don't be lazy and get to the Mosque" rather than "Pick up your sword and kill people"?

Slavery is allowed in Islam, which alone belies any claim that "all human beings are equal". Verse 2:221 proves both the inferiority of infidels and the allowance of slavery as it says, "Do not wed idolatresses until they believe (become Muslim). A slave woman who believes is better than an unbeliever". That verse alone contains 3 Islamic tenets that have no place in today's world: 1). Muslims are better than infidels, 2) Slavery is acceptable, and 3) It is even allowable to enslave fellow Muslims.

That's ridiculous. Islam did a lot to free slaves. Slaves were commonplace in the world at the time and in fact the society would collapse if they were all freed at the same time. They did much of the agricultural work and building. Islam introduced a way to free them gradually such as described in this surah

Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer the (funds); for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to Truth); for those in bondage and in debt; in the cause of Allah; and for the wayfarer: (thus is it) ordained by Allah, and Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom. (9:60)

A portion of Zakat money which is paid by every Muslim who can in Ramadan is set aside to buy the freedom of slaves according to the above revelation.

One famous slave, Bilal was freed (paid for) by Abu Bakr after his (non Muslim) master placed a rock on his chest for embracing Islam. He later became the first to call the Adhan (call to prayer).

A 4th implied tenet is that the Qur'an's intended audience is clearly male. In every verse of the Qur'an that makes clear to whom the god of Islam is speaking, it is to men. He speaks to men, but only about women. The fact that Sura 4 is called "Women", and describes how to treat them, proves the point. It's verse 34 contains the much-discussed admonition for men to beat their disobedient wives. The Arabic "wa iDrubu hunna" means "and beat them". Any attempt to give it a different meaning is a bare-faced lie.

Verse 4:34 has been discussed at length for hundreds of years. For you to reject hundreds of years of scholarly opinion against your statement in order to propagate your lie that it gives men free reign to beat their wives is disgusting! I have provided more than enough in other threads to prove you wrong.

Women are considered little more than property as demonstrated by 2:223, "Your wives are as a tilth unto you, so approach your tilth when or how you will". This verse is at the heart of Afghanistan's infamous marital rape law, an edict of overt misogyny as symbolized by the burqa, which is nothing more than a head to foot chastity belt signifying ownership. Especially at risk of sexual abuse are slaves (servants), captives, and young girls. Verses 70:29 and 30, in describing men who will be favoured by God, list, "those who guard their chastity, except for their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess". This clearly gives Muslim men divine permission to rape their slaves/captives of war, and is confirmed by the following hadith:

2:223 was revealed when the Jews started spreading rumours that sexual intercourse from behind caused the resulting child to be cross eyed or backwards. The literal meaning of it is you can do it together any way you like. It has nothing to do with ownership. It is about permitting sexual relations as you and your wife wish to.

As for 70:29-30, I can explain more by quoting...

Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them) (24:33)

A master cannot force a slave into sex at all. Only by mutual consent!

Also from Hadith (http://www.hadithcollection.com/abudawud/238-Abu%20Dawud%20Book%2006.%20Divorce/16677-abu-dawud-book-006-hadith-number-2304.html)...Narated By Jabir ibn Abdullah : Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My master forces me to commit fornication. Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity)."
By the way, the Bible has no problem with slavery at all.

1 Peter 2:18 "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."<o:p></o>
Colossians 3:22 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord." <o:p></o>
"All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. (From the NIV Bible, 1 Timothy 6:1)
Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."<o:p></o>
Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."

It can be argued that the Bible prescribes brutality for slaves. At least the Qur'aan gives them a way out of slavery!


Bukhari, Volume: 7, Book Number: 62, Hadith Number: 137, Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that, repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection." (In other words, why restrict yourself to coitus interruptus when God has already ordained whether the rape victim will become pregnant?)

Remember the slaves of this time were not like the slaves of old. It has already been established that they could get out of being a slave at any time, and could refuse sexual advances from their masters (THERE WAS NO RAPE), and had to be treated well living as a full member of the household where they stayed. They usually came from war where the men from the other side were decimated leaving women and children who needed taking care of.

The choice was either to turf them out on the road to fend for themselves, or take them in and care for them until they were granted freedom. Which would you choose?

Verse 65:4 details how long a man must wait before turning out a divorced wife depending on her situation. Included in the list are "those who have not yet menstruated". This, along with the fact that Mohamed married a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when she was nine, gives Muslim men license to marry and have sex with prepubescent girls.

65:4 makes sure that a divorced wife is not pregnant when she leaves. It protects HER. If you think it has something to do with sex with pre-pubescent girls, you are one sick puppy! It covers those of menopausal age and those who for some reason didn't menstruate. Just look up Amenorrhea if you were unaware of the condition before.

As for Mohamed (saw) and Aicha (ra), she was reported to have breasts when she went to live with Mohamed (saw) thus she had entered puberty.
Also discussed at length in other threads. Marriage in puberty was a normal thing at the time especially among nobles and to strengthen ties between clans where young children were betrothed at a young age (Achia was betrothed at 6).

The rest I may answer later. This lot already took several hours but I think I have so far shown that you have no idea what you are talking about and are just spouting opinions based on your personal crusade against Islam and not in any kind of reality.

You are using mistranslations of hadiths and the Qur'aan. Your sources are all hate sites. You don't understand what you're talking about. You are not really Islamic.

Marriage to a 9 year old was never normal, nor was having sex with one. Mohammad was a pedophile and a rapist. How would you feel if Mohammad came back today, proved himself to you, and said he was going to marry your 9 year old daughter and screw her brains out???

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You are using mistranslations of hadiths and the Qur'aan. Your sources are all hate sites. You don't understand what you're talking about. You are not really Islamic.

Marriage to a 9 year old was never normal, nor was having sex with one. Mohammad was a pedophile and a rapist. How would you feel if Mohammad came back today, proved himself to you, and said he was going to marry your 9 year old daughter and screw her brains out???

Of course Jafar is a damn liar. An adult having sex with a 9 year old little girl has never been normal behavior. MOHAMMAD WAS A DAMN PEDOPHILE!!!
ISLAMISTS ALL lie trying to justify their false prophet's perversion. No 9 year old girl's body is ready for normal sex with an adult man. Mohammad just incorporated his perversion into the cult he was building. Now it is a glaring black mark against his sorry ass and goes along with his murdering innocent women and children and raping captives etc.--Tyr

[stevecanuck]

Jafar, you owe me an answer in the other thread. Tell me how the Fertile Crescent came under Islamic rule if not by invasion, and then I'll answer you here. I haven't even read your response, and I won't until you clear up this old business.

[Drummond]

You are using mistranslations of hadiths and the Qur'aan. Your sources are all hate sites. You don't understand what you're talking about. You are not really Islamic.

Marriage to a 9 year old was never normal, nor was having sex with one. Mohammad was a pedophile and a rapist. How would you feel if Mohammad came back today, proved himself to you, and said he was going to marry your 9 year old daughter and screw her brains out???:clap::clap::clap:

Very well said !

Jafar, are we supposed to believe that because a young girl happened to develop breasts at an unusually early age, THAT was all the justification Mohammed had for having sex with her ?? Do you really, SERIOUSLY, think that a pervert like that deserves the slightest RESPECT ??

'If you do' (and one must assume so), then that makes Islamists apologists for perversion, for disregard for decency, for callous disregard of human welfare.

So is it any wonder, Jafar, that so many have, over the ages, turned to the most savage means of carnage they can devise - and exultantly perpetrate ?

Little wonder that so many have turned to terrorism, and/or support of terrorism. And with such callous contempt for children feeding through the ages, Jafar, little wonder that Islamic exploitation of them sees, these days, some children TURNED INTO WALKING BOMBS !

[Drummond]

Of course Jafar is a damn liar. An adult having sex with a 9 year old little girl has never been normal behavior. MOHAMMAD WAS A DAMN PEDOPHILE!!!
ISLAMISTS ALL lie trying to justify their false prophet's perversion. No 9 year old girl's body is ready for normal sex with an adult man. Mohammad just incorporated his perversion into the cult he was building. Now it is a glaring black mark against his sorry ass and goes along with his murdering innocent women and children and raping captives etc.--Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Drummond]

Jafar - I'll concede this much. I was inclined to believe, after Steve's posting, that you were likely to have 'done a runner', as we say over here. I thought there was at least a reasonably good chance that you'd avoid Steve's posting altogether, and perhaps even consider quitting this forum rather than answer a knowledgeable challenge. But .. fair enough, you did come back with a reply.

It's a reply with a problem or two, though. One has been covered in response to your attempt to sanitise Mohammed's paedophilia.

Another, surely, comes from your attempt to ground a Quranic quote so completely in the context of the time it was written, that you're effectively trying to neutralise it entirely ? I refer to ..


For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe.

Does this mean what it says .. or not ? How does it fail to be a means of making a case to teach total intolerance to anyone not accepting the Islamic vision of their God ?

If you're saying that the context of the time of a Quranic entry is ALL important, tell me, how much of the Quran should be ignored by Muslims ?

.. and .. you go on to make your case through a qualification of a Hadith. OK .. see ...

http://www.mostmerciful.com/hadithbook-sectionone.htm


Often the revealed verses of the Qur'an and the reported versions of hadiths are quoted on the internet concurrently or simultaneously. Internet surfers are not necessarily educated to know that these two separate "texts" are independent of one another. It is now essential and imperative that the correct terminologies rather than generalized terms are used by Muslim writers to identify hadith texts and the Qur’an. To define "hadith" as "the literal or precise verbatim of the factual sayings, deeds or approvals of the Prophet of Islam (peace and blessings of Allah be upon all Prophets and their true companions)", could be technically inaccurate and in some instances fundamentally wrong.


There was a lapse of nearly two centuries from the year of the death of the Prophet to the time when most of the hadiths were compiled. This time factor alone is enough to make one question the accuracy of the written hadiths.

True, or false ?

There's an enormous amount to read from this link ... way too much to try and represent it in detail here. Suffice it to say, though, that all manner of 'authoritative' pronouncements are, and have proved to be over time, apparently 'dodgy' to varying degrees.

Oh, but ... of course, this must be a 'hate' site. Or .. maybe, a 'Nazi' one ? Or .. both ?

On the 'unfinished business' side of things, Jafar, are you yet prepared to supply any answer to THIS ? >>

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39881-Which-is-the-best-Islamic-country-to-visit&p=626478#post626478

Jafar, the Sufist Hamas supporter. How do you explain the inherent contradiction in that ? To say nothing of the revelation that Sufism isn't even mainstream Islam .. even though you claimed to have found Islam through Sufism ???

http://www.exoticindia.com/book/details/sufism-is-not-islam-comparative-study-IDE944/


Islam and Sufism are different from each other is evident from the fact that ever since the Sufis came in contact with the Muslims they have been waging a war against Islam.

... The entire Sufi ideology, is different from the Muslim theology. If it is not wholly anti- or un-Islamic.

Still, the Sufis claim to have inherited their doctrines directly from the teachings of the last Messenger, Muhammad, who, strictly speaking has given no dogmatic or mystical theology.

Sufism has often been described as Islamic mysticism, Shahid A. Chaudhary, challenges this definition of Sufism. He explores both Islam and Sufism (nay mysticism) in the light of the Quran and says that Sufism and Islam are two entirely different thoughts and this fact should be accepted as such.

[Marcus Aurelius]

On the 'unfinished business' side of things, Jafar, are you yet prepared to supply any answer to THIS ? >>

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...478#post626478 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39881-Which-is-the-best-Islamic-country-to-visit&p=626478#post626478)

Jafar, the Sufist Hamas supporter. How do you explain the inherent contradiction in that ? To say nothing of the revelation that Sufism isn't even mainstream Islam .. even though you claimed to have found Islam through Sufism ???

http://www.exoticindia.com/book/deta...-study-IDE944/ (http://www.exoticindia.com/book/details/sufism-is-not-islam-comparative-study-IDE944/)


Islam and Sufism are different from each other is evident from the fact that ever since the Sufis came in contact with the Muslims they have been waging a war against Islam.

... The entire Sufi ideology, is different from the Muslim theology. If it is not wholly anti- or un-Islamic.

Still, the Sufis claim to have inherited their doctrines directly from the teachings of the last Messenger, Muhammad, who, strictly speaking has given no dogmatic or mystical theology.

Sufism has often been described as Islamic mysticism, Shahid A. Chaudhary, challenges this definition of Sufism. He explores both Islam and Sufism (nay mysticism) in the light of the Quran and says that Sufism and Islam are two entirely different thoughts and this fact should be accepted as such.





Jahil will now claim that Sufi is the 'true' Islam, and that Muslims are 'not truly part of Islam'.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Jahil will now claim that Sufi is the 'true' Islam, and that Muslims are 'not truly part of Islam'.


http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/01/25/mystical_power/?page=full


(AP/Getty Images)An extremist presumed to be with Al Qaeda threatens Germany in a recent video.




Sufi rising (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/01/25/sufi_rising)




Sufis are the power that has made Islam the world's second-largest religion, with perhaps 1.2 billion adherents. Not a sect of Islam, but rather heirs of an ancient mystical tradition within both the Sunni and Shia branches of the faith, Sufis have through the centuries combined their inward quest with the defense and expansion of Islam worldwide. At once mystics and elite soldiers, dervishes and preachers, charismatic wonder-workers and power-brokers, ascetic Sufis have always been in the vanguard of Islam. While pushing forward the physical borders of Islam, they have been essential to the spiritual and cultural fullness of the faith. Today, the Sufi tradition is deeply threaded through the power structures of many Muslim countries, and the orders are enjoying a worldwide renaissance.
To look at Islam without seeing the Sufis is to miss the heart of the matter. Without taking account of the Sufis, we cannot understand the origins of most contemporary political currents in the Middle East and Muslim South Asia, and of many influential political parties. We can't comprehend the huge popular appeal of Islam for

According to this source they are the fighters and those that most often support and cheer on the Jihad WARRIORS! --TYR

[Drummond]

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/01/25/mystical_power/?page=full


(AP/Getty Images)An extremist presumed to be with Al Qaeda threatens Germany in a recent video.




Sufi rising (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/01/25/sufi_rising)




Sufis are the power that has made Islam the world's second-largest religion, with perhaps 1.2 billion adherents. Not a sect of Islam, but rather heirs of an ancient mystical tradition within both the Sunni and Shia branches of the faith, Sufis have through the centuries combined their inward quest with the defense and expansion of Islam worldwide. At once mystics and elite soldiers, dervishes and preachers, charismatic wonder-workers and power-brokers, ascetic Sufis have always been in the vanguard of Islam. While pushing forward the physical borders of Islam, they have been essential to the spiritual and cultural fullness of the faith. Today, the Sufi tradition is deeply threaded through the power structures of many Muslim countries, and the orders are enjoying a worldwide renaissance.
To look at Islam without seeing the Sufis is to miss the heart of the matter. Without taking account of the Sufis, we cannot understand the origins of most contemporary political currents in the Middle East and Muslim South Asia, and of many influential political parties. We can't comprehend the huge popular appeal of Islam for

According to this source they are the fighters and those that most often support and cheer on the Jihad WARRIORS! --TYR

Fascinating ! What research I'd done led me to believe that they were outside of mainstream Islam entirely. 'A part' of it .. in the sense that they represented some mystical 'take' on it .. but I thought I'd seen evidence of resistance to them by many Muslims ?

This is why I was questioning Jafar's very capacity to support Hamas, since, I thought, THEY were more mainstream than Sufists were.

So thanks for the input, Tyr. Happy to be corrected.

[jafar00]

:clap::clap::clap:

Very well said !

Jafar, are we supposed to believe that because a young girl happened to develop breasts at an unusually early age, THAT was all the justification Mohammed had for having sex with her ?? Do you really, SERIOUSLY, think that a pervert like that deserves the slightest RESPECT ??

'If you do' (and one must assume so), then that makes Islamists apologists for perversion, for disregard for decency, for callous disregard of human welfare.

So is it any wonder, Jafar, that so many have, over the ages, turned to the most savage means of carnage they can devise - and exultantly perpetrate ?

Little wonder that so many have turned to terrorism, and/or support of terrorism. And with such callous contempt for children feeding through the ages, Jafar, little wonder that Islamic exploitation of them sees, these days, some children TURNED INTO WALKING BOMBS !

By today's standard, it would not be ok. By the standards of the time comparing it with the customs ALL OVER THE WORLD, the marriage was normal. Aicha went on to become one of Islam's most revered figures.

[Marcus Aurelius]

By today's standard, it would not be ok. By the standards of the time comparing it with the customs ALL OVER THE WORLD, the marriage was normal. Aicha went on to become one of Islam's most revered figures.

You're a lying sack of camel shit. Marriage to a 6 year old and sex with a 9 year old was NEVER the norm all over the world. You worship a criminal, a pedophile, and a lunatic.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

By today's standard, it would not be ok. By the standards of the time comparing it with the customs ALL OVER THE WORLD, the marriage was normal. Aicha went on to become one of Islam's most revered figures.

Are you really going to try to present that marrying 6 year old and having sex with 9 year old little girls was the standard of times!! I guess surely they were for child molesters! Which gave permission for Mohammad's band of criminals and "later armies" to rape and molest the children of the millions that they conquered.
His perversion was multiplied and put to even far greater evil use !
Yes, Aicha is revered despite her child rape victim status...
That you now defend the pervert for his actions speaks volumes about how warped your mind is ..--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Fascinating ! What research I'd done led me to believe that they were outside of mainstream Islam entirely. 'A part' of it .. in the sense that they represented some mystical 'take' on it .. but I thought I'd seen evidence of resistance to them by many Muslims ?

This is why I was questioning Jafar's very capacity to support Hamas, since, I thought, THEY were more mainstream than Sufists were.

So thanks for the input, Tyr. Happy to be corrected.

That source indicates that the Sufi influence is a main part of Jihad and as we know Jihad is a core part of Islam.
I'd be interested in Steve's take on the accuracy of the information and conclusions of that source.
So perhaps reserving judgement until further discussion would be wise.
We must also understand that "modern" Islam as a strategy to keep in place the great lie about Islam being a religion of peace has done much to keep such information from being widely known to infidels. How much is propaganda and how much is true resistance to Sufists is not well known at this time IMHO.
So my friend , I am not sure how much or if I actually corrected your previous position.
Perhaps Steve with his vast knowledge on the subject can help us out on this one..-TYR

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Jafar - I'll concede this much. I was inclined to believe, after Steve's posting, that you were likely to have 'done a runner', as we say over here. I thought there was at least a reasonably good chance that you'd avoid Steve's posting altogether, and perhaps even consider quitting this forum rather than answer a knowledgeable challenge. But .. fair enough, you did come back with a reply.

I too, thought that Jafar would do a runner but appears he has chosen to defend his faith. That in itself points as evidence that he is Sufi. Sufi were fighters not runners. We already saw this previously when abso ran but jafar stayed to defend Islam... Hell, I even admire that jafar defends his beliefs instead of running but still his beliefs are based upon a worldwide cult that teaches convert , kill or enslave..with very great importance placed upon the killing part!!-Tyr

[stevecanuck]

That source indicates that the Sufi influence is a main part of Jihad and as we know Jihad is a core part of Islam.
I'd be interested in Steve's take on the accuracy of the information and conclusions of that source.
So perhaps reserving judgement until further discussion would be wise.
We must also understand that "modern" Islam as a strategy to keep in place the great lie about Islam being a religion of peace has done much to keep such information from being widely known to infidels. How much is propaganda and how much is true resistance to Sufists is not well known at this time IMHO.
So my friend , I am not sure how much or if I actually corrected your previous position.
Perhaps Steve with his vast knowledge on the subject can help us out on this one..-TYR

I haven't spent much time studying Sufism because it's such a minor player. I have an excellent book called "The Penguin Handbook the of World's Living Religions", and in it Sufism is described as a mystic offshoot of Islam. Here is a short excerpt, "Sufi belief and practice sometimes degenerated into saint cults and superstition that were clearly outside the realm of mainstream Islam".

The Whirling Dervishes are a sect of Sufism, and nicely demonstrate the degree to which practices and beliefs can diverge and still be claimed as being Islamic. While living in Egypt we went to a performance by the Dervish, and there was nothing traditionally Islamic about it. There was no speaking at all, allah mentioned not once, just whirling in a trance-like state. As an aside, our guide was jumpy and nervous through the whole performance, constantly looking at the door, and got us out of there the minute it was done. When I asked why the hurry, she told me she was afraid the locals would hear of the performance and violently try to disrupt it. She could have told us that up front, don't you think? We might not have gone.

[Drummond]

I haven't spent much time studying Sufism because it's such a minor player. I have an excellent book called "The Penguin Handbook the of World's Living Religions", and in it Sufism is described as a mystic offshoot of Islam. Here is a short excerpt, "Sufi belief and practice sometimes degenerated into saint cults and superstition that were clearly outside the realm of mainstream Islam".

The Whirling Dervishes are a sect of Sufism, and nicely demonstrate the degree to which practices and beliefs can diverge and still be claimed as being Islamic. While living in Egypt we went to a performance by the Dervish, and there was nothing traditionally Islamic about it. There was no speaking at all, allah mentioned not once, just whirling in a trance-like state. As an aside, our guide was jumpy and nervous through the whole performance, constantly looking at the door, and got us out of there the minute it was done. When I asked why the hurry, she told me she was afraid the locals would hear of the performance and violently try to disrupt it. She could have told us that up front, don't you think? We might not have gone.

Steve, thanks for your answer to Tyr's post. I think the answer broadly confirms my own understanding - to the extent I can claim to have any real knowledge of the subject at all - of the relatively 'fringe' nature of Sufism.

... So ... when Jafar claims, as he did in this post .. http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39646-For-Jahil-American-Muslim-women-discuss-their-choice-to-unveil&p=625865#post625865 ... the following statement to be true of him ..


It's interesting to note that I also came to know Islam through the Sufi
... what he's really doing is suggesting a non-mainstream identification with Islam.

So, then, I wonder to what extent, IF Jafar is being accurate, could he even be said to be representing the Islamic 'faith' when he furthers its cause ?

[Imagining Jafar to be a Whirling Dervish has its own entertainment value ..]

[Drummond]

By today's standard, it would not be ok. By the standards of the time comparing it with the customs ALL OVER THE WORLD, the marriage was normal. Aicha went on to become one of Islam's most revered figures.

Jafar, the non-bolded part of your quote has been adequately (and more than that ..) answered by Tyr and Marcus. I fully agree with them.

But as for the bolded part, your first sentence, Jafar .. if you're going to stick with that answer, you're pitting yourself in opposition to at least SOME Muslims, as they choose to behave TODAY.

Islam, Jafar, is the one religion that's so rooted in its barbaric past that it still clings to it, to a FAR greater extent than is remotely decent, or even human.

I shall now offer you some particularly loathesome evidence of what I'm talking about. Starting with ..

http://www.irinnews.org/Report/88138/YEMEN-I-d-rather-die-than-go-back-to-him


SANAA, 21 February 2010 (IRIN) - It was every little girl’s dream - she was to get a new dress, jewellery, sweets and a party for all her friends.

What 10-year-old Aisha* did not know was that after the wedding party she would have to leave school, move to a village far from her parents’ home, cook and clean all day, and have sex with her older husband.

“He took out a special sheet and laid me down on it,” Aisha told IRIN, wringing her small plump hands.

After a week of fighting off her husband every night, Aisha’s father was called. He had received 200,000 Yemeni Rial (US$1,000) for his daughter in `shart’, a Yemeni dowry, which he could not pay back.

“My Dad made a cup of tea and put some pills in it, which he gave me. The pills made me feel dizzy,” said Aisha. “My Dad told me to sleep with my husband, or he would kill me, but I refused.”

Instead Aisha broke a glass bottle over her head in a desperate attempt to stay awake. “My Dad hit me badly. I was bleeding from my mouth and nose,” she said.

After spending a few months in her husband’s home, where she said he would regularly drug her and beat her, Aisha managed to escape. Now, two years later, aged 12, she is unable to divorce him.

A bill passed in parliament in February 2009 setting the minimum age for marriage at 17 was rejected by the Islamic Sharia Codification Committee which said it was un-Islamic, according to local women’s rights organizations.

So, for now, there is no law protecting children against early marriages in Yemen.

”I don’t call it marriage, but rape,” said Shada Mohammed Nasser, a lawyer at the High Court in Sanaa. She has represented several child bride divorce cases in court, but admits she has lost most of them. Only a handful of child brides have successfully managed to divorce their husbands.

A girl can be married at just nine, but cannot legally seek a divorce until she is 15 or older. The money paid by the husband for his “wife” is a further obstacle to divorce, while the case can only be heard in a court in the governorate where the marriage took place.

“Usually the marriage will have been signed in the husband’s governorate and the judges may look more favourably on their own kinsmen,” said Nasser. “Many judges are governed by arcane views on women.”

In some governorates as many as half of all girls under the age of 15 are married, according to an unpublished study from 2007 on early marriage by Sanaa University’s Gender Development Research and Study Centre.

"These early marriages rob the girl of the right to a normal childhood and education. The girls are forced to have children before their bodies are fully grown instead of going to school and playing with other children," she said.

So come on, Jafar. Tell me how 'un-Islamic' all of this is. Or deny it's even true ...

MORE examples ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2216553/International-Day-Girl-Child-2012-Devastating-images-terrifying-world-child-brides.html


At age 11, Ghulam was married off to 40-year-old Jaiz in a rural Afghan village, making her only one of more than 10 million young girls who are being forced to wed men old enough to be their fathers or grandfather every year.

In an effort to start a global conversation about the devastating effects of early marriages, which are currently practiced in more than 50 developing countries, the United Nations designated October 11 as International Day of the Girl Child this year.

To mark the occasion and draw attention to the problem of child brides, photojournalist Stephanie Sinclair teamed up with National Geographic to create a series of heart-breaking photos depicting girls as young as five years old being married off to middle-aged men in countries like India, Yemen and Ethiopia.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2200555/The-British-child-brides-Muslim-mosque-leaders-agree-marry-girl-12--long-parents-dont-tell-anyone.html


British Muslim clerics are willing to carry out sharia marriages involving child brides as young as 12, an investigation has found.

Two imams said they would be prepared to officiate at the wedding of an underage girl to a man in his twenties, despite fears the pair would later have sex.

The revelations have led the Home Office to confirm that such ceremonies will be examined in the Government’s forthcoming Bill to outlaw forced marriages.

More than 1,000 of the 8,000 forced marriages of Britons each year are believed to involve girls of 15 or under, with one case last year allegedly involving a girl of five.

The clerics were approached by man posing as the father of a 12-year-old who wanted her to marry to prevent her being tempted into a decadent Western lifestyle.

Imam Mohammed Kassamali, of the Husaini Islamic Centre in Peterborough, stressed the need for secrecy with such a ceremony.

He allegedly said: ‘If it (the marriage) was not possible, I would have told you straight away... I would love the girl to go to her husband’s houses (sic) as soon as possible, the younger the better.

‘Under sharia (Islamic law) there is no problem. It is said she should see her first sign of puberty at the house of her husband.

‘The problem is that we cannot explain such things (the marriage) if the girl went tomorrow (to the authorities).

‘The other thing is the underage thing and if tomorrow the girl is, let’s say coerced or forced into this, and she goes and reports it to the police then she will put all of us into the problems.’

http://www.examiner.com/article/malaysia-number-of-muslim-child-brides-on-the-rise


They can't purchase alcohol nor drive a car, but Muslim girls as young as 12-years-old are permitted to marry in Malaysia, as reported by The Jakarta Post on 19 December, 2012.

Shari'a courts in the Southeast Asian nation are granting more applications for minor-aged girls to marry, usually to men who have already reached adulthood.

Nur Fazira Saad, a 12-year-old Muslim girl in the Malaysian town of Johor, was recently allowed to marry her 19- year-old boyfriend Mohd Fahmi Alias

According to her parents, they approved of the marriage "to prevent her from sinning and having premarital sex."

Crossing cultures from Morocco to Indonesia, child brides are widespread throughout the Muslim World, and have been so since the inception of Islam.

To exacerbate the situation, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah recently issued a fatwa (religious ruling) authorizing marriage for girls as young as 10-years-old.

Last year a similar fatwa by Salafi preacher Sheikh Mohamed al-Maghrawi allowing girls as young as nine to marry was condemned by Morocco’s Supreme Scientific Council.

The council said it lacked religious validity because it was based on only one case—the marriage of Prophet Mohamed to Aisha, who he wed when she was six and consummated the marriage when she reached the age of nine.

The US Army also recognized the widespread homosexual pedophilia in Afghanistan, citing both homosexuality and pedophilia as "taboo" Islamic subjects for American troops ever discuss with their Afghan allies for fear of insulting and very possibly being killed by them.

So then, Jafar. Are you enjoying this stench of Islamic degeneracy ??

I invite your admission that Islam, even today, is THE religion of choice for any wannabe paedophile pervert wanting to ruin the lives of child victims, for the sake of indulging their subhuman, bestial drives.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I wonder if Jahil would allow his 6 year old daughter to marry a 40 year old man, and have sex with him when she was 9???

After all, if it's good enough for Mohammad....

[jimnyc]

By today's standard, it would not be ok. By the standards of the time comparing it with the customs ALL OVER THE WORLD, the marriage was normal. Aicha went on to become one of Islam's most revered figures.

What she went on to become should have no bearing on whether or not the actions prior were OK or not.

Yes, Kings and other powerful people had arranged marriages and such with girls of similar ages back then. I don't excuse their behavior either. Let's be honest, humans have evolved, and there is scientific proof that our brains and bodies have evolved over time as well. This means that the brains and bodies were not quite as evolved back then. No way a 6yr old can understand and comprehend enough to agree to marriage. And no way was a 9yr old is ready to have sexual relations, physically or mentally. I will grant you the fact that what Muhammed did was similar to other rich people back then, with connections or whatever you want to call it. He was certainly not alone, but that doesn't make it right. And while maybe commonplace in some places back then, I find it hard to believe that all of the adults involved didn't know that these children couldn't fully comprehend.

[Drummond]

I wonder if Jahil would allow his 6 year old daughter to marry a 40 year old man, and have sex with him when she was 9???

After all, if it's good enough for Mohammad....

... yes, indeed ..

What about this, Jafar ? WOULD you allow all that to happen ?

If not - considering what a paedophile-promoting club Islam turns out to be, from the various examples of evidence available - aren't you concerned about not fitting in with these age-old degeneracies, which the REST of the world rejects in the name of civilised decency ?

[jafar00]

I haven't spent much time studying Sufism because it's such a minor player. I have an excellent book called "The Penguin Handbook the of World's Living Religions", and in it Sufism is described as a mystic offshoot of Islam. Here is a short excerpt, "Sufi belief and practice sometimes degenerated into saint cults and superstition that were clearly outside the realm of mainstream Islam".

The Whirling Dervishes are a sect of Sufism, and nicely demonstrate the degree to which practices and beliefs can diverge and still be claimed as being Islamic. While living in Egypt we went to a performance by the Dervish, and there was nothing traditionally Islamic about it. There was no speaking at all, allah mentioned not once, just whirling in a trance-like state. As an aside, our guide was jumpy and nervous through the whole performance, constantly looking at the door, and got us out of there the minute it was done. When I asked why the hurry, she told me she was afraid the locals would hear of the performance and violently try to disrupt it. She could have told us that up front, don't you think? We might not have gone.

I think what you saw was tanoura, not a dervish. It's a traditional Egyptian dance they put on for the tourists.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A13MsunA0k

I would also like to mention that Dhikr, Hadra etc.. Sufi practises have a firm basis in the Sunna.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 12, Number 802: Narrated Abu Ma'bad: (the freed slave of Ibn 'Abbas) Ibn 'Abbas told me, "In the lifetime of the Prophet it was the custom to celebrate Allah's praises aloud after the compulsory congregational prayers." Ibn 'Abbas further said, "When I heard the Dhikr, I would learn that the compulsory congregational prayer had ended."

I've participated in this Hadra which is performed in one of Egypt's largest Mosques, Al Hussain many times.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf8qIg6avMA

It's an Islamic tradition that really uplifts your spirit. If you ever visit Egypt, you can go to this Mosque as a tourist. Do so.


What she went on to become should have no bearing on whether or not the actions prior were OK or not.

Yes, Kings and other powerful people had arranged marriages and such with girls of similar ages back then. I don't excuse their behavior either. Let's be honest, humans have evolved, and there is scientific proof that our brains and bodies have evolved over time as well. This means that the brains and bodies were not quite as evolved back then. No way a 6yr old can understand and comprehend enough to agree to marriage. And no way was a 9yr old is ready to have sexual relations, physically or mentally. I will grant you the fact that what Muhammed did was similar to other rich people back then, with connections or whatever you want to call it. He was certainly not alone, but that doesn't make it right. And while maybe commonplace in some places back then, I find it hard to believe that all of the adults involved didn't know that these children couldn't fully comprehend.

As has been said before, you cannot judge what went on "back then" with today's standards. I'm sure people 1000 years from now would see us as barbaric and backward.


... yes, indeed ..

What about this, Jafar ? WOULD you allow all that to happen ?

If not - considering what a paedophile-promoting club Islam turns out to be, from the various examples of evidence available - aren't you concerned about not fitting in with these age-old degeneracies, which the REST of the world rejects in the name of civilised decency ?

If I lived 1400 years or so ago, I may have considered it as it was a custom of the time. However I live in the year 2013 (gregorian calendar) and it is not something we do these days.

[stevecanuck]

Don't tell me what I saw, Jafar. They were Devishes.

[jimnyc]

As has been said before, you cannot judge what went on "back then" with today's standards. I'm sure people 1000 years from now would see us as barbaric and backward.

I'd like to agree with you, Jafar, but it's not that simple. There is scientific proof that both the brain and the body has evolved over such a long time. Hell, we were cavemen once. There is little doubt that woman's bodies weren't as evolved back then and there's also little doubt of their physical capabilities via comprehension and such. While it may not have seemed to be barbaric or backwards back then, it was still wrong.

People used to take babies and toss them into huge pits of fire and such to appease the Gods at one point as well. We no longer do that today either, at least not in a civilized society. I would also say that this was always wrong as well, even if it were par for the course.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Don't tell me what I saw, Jafar. They were Devishes.

he was there, you weren't.... in his tiny little mind anyway.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I wonder if Jahil would allow his 6 year old daughter to marry a 40 year old man, and have sex with him when she was 9???

After all, if it's good enough for Mohammad....

no response. what a hypocritical douche.

[aboutime]

no response. what a hypocritical douche.


Marcus. You must forgive jafar. He's probably praying again, hoping more Jews, and Israeli's get murdered by the PEACE LOVING Hamas.

[Drummond]

If I lived 1400 years or so ago, I may have considered it as it was a custom of the time. However I live in the year 2013 (gregorian calendar) and it is not something we do these days.

This is ridiculous ! I've presented you with PROOF that Islamic-based paedophilia is still rife in a number of parts of the world .. not excluding my own !! Some of it is Sharia Law sanctioned !!! You don't address the post links directly, or any of the reports directly, do you ? Yet, there they are, staring you in the face if you care to read them.

Be candid. Are you saying that some or all are LIES ? YES OR NO ?

If you're not saying they're lies, then you're just indulging in denial, and the very worst of propagandist excess, AND YOU SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY ASHAMED. If you ARE saying they're lies, then PROVE IT.

[jafar00]

Don't tell me what I saw, Jafar. They were Devishes.

In Egypt? Nope. Unless they were just put on for the tourists.

Is this what you saw? Whirling comes from the Mevlevi Sufis of Turkey. It is a dance that Jalaluddin Rumi used to do because he was so in love with God.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqKwrusqbTc


I'd like to agree with you, Jafar, but it's not that simple. There is scientific proof that both the brain and the body has evolved over such a long time. Hell, we were cavemen once. There is little doubt that woman's bodies weren't as evolved back then and there's also little doubt of their physical capabilities via comprehension and such. While it may not have seemed to be barbaric or backwards back then, it was still wrong.

People used to take babies and toss them into huge pits of fire and such to appease the Gods at one point as well. We no longer do that today either, at least not in a civilized society. I would also say that this was always wrong as well, even if it were par for the course.

At the time I guess they thought that it was the right thing to do.... at the time....

Today we wouldn't do that.


This is ridiculous ! I've presented you with PROOF that Islamic-based paedophilia is still rife in a number of parts of the world .. not excluding my own !! Some of it is Sharia Law sanctioned !!! You don't address the post links directly, or any of the reports directly, do you ? Yet, there they are, staring you in the face if you care to read them.

Be candid. Are you saying that some or all are LIES ? YES OR NO ?

If you're not saying they're lies, then you're just indulging in denial, and the very worst of propagandist excess, AND YOU SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY ASHAMED. If you ARE saying they're lies, then PROVE IT.

What proof? Bad people are still bad no matter where you find them or how they try and justify it.

Why do I say they are bad people even though you claim to have given Islamic evidence?

I give you firm evidence to the contrary. This is the last word....

O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness (4:19)

The stories you posted were of young women who were FORCED into marriage and thus in clear and direct violation of the Qur'aan.

[tailfins]

Jahil tends to go through moping periods. When he's smacked down especially hard, he gets huffy and posts maybe once or twice in a span of several days. He'll claim to have you on ignore, but then will occasionally respond to something you posted, without directly replying to said post, so it still looks like he's ignoring you.

Maybe he is just busy running his business. My main reason for posting on DP is that it's more interesting than watching a spinning blue circle while code runs.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Maybe he is just busy running his business. My main reason for posting on DP is that it's more interesting than watching a spinning blue circle while code runs.

Far more likely it is a blend of the two. At times being too busy and at other times it is ever so convenient not to have to refute a truth well represented by the opposition.
I know the second part is true because Jafar has taken the easy way by avoiding my presenting the truth. He conveniently accused me of being rude as an excuse to place me on ignore yet others are far more rude and he replies to them. That is cowardice in anybody's book that isn't biased or stupid.--Tyr

[stevecanuck]

Yes Jafar, that's what I saw. The brown conical headgear and all that whirling is the giveaway.

Now it's your turn to answer a question: If the Fertile Crescent didn't come under Muslim control by military conquest, how did it happen? You have yet to provide anything other than a gratuitous denial. How about a fact or two for a change.

[stevecanuck]

O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness (4:19)

The stories you posted were of young women who were FORCED into marriage and thus in clear and direct violation of the Qur'aan.

Nice try, Jafar, but the above quote has nothing to do with forcing young unmarried women into marriage. According to Yusuf Ali, it's about forbidding the old Arab custom that allowed stepsons or brothers to inherit a dead man's wife or wives, and therefore their possessions. Another trick mohamed forbade by saying, "nor should ye treat them with harshness", was to treat such a woman so badly that she sued for divorce, thereby forfeiting her dowry.

This was actually an improvement of the treatment of women for the time, but of course it still leaves women far short of the rights they now enjoy in civilized (ie: non-Muslim) countries.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=627484#post627484) I wonder if Jahil would allow his 6 year old daughter to marry a 40 year old man, and have sex with him when she was 9???

After all, if it's good enough for Mohammad....


... yes, indeed ..

What about this, Jafar ? WOULD you allow all that to happen ?

If not - considering what a paedophile-promoting club Islam turns out to be, from the various examples of evidence available - aren't you concerned about not fitting in with these age-old degeneracies, which the REST of the world rejects in the name of civilised decency ?

the sick thing is... I fully believe Jahil would allow his 6 year old daughter to marry a 40 year old man, and allow him to have sex with her when she was 9. Anything to please Allah.

[Drummond]

In Egypt? Nope. Unless they were just put on for the tourists.

Is this what you saw? Whirling comes from the Mevlevi Sufis of Turkey. It is a dance that Jalaluddin Rumi used to do because he was so in love with God.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqKwrusqbTc



At the time I guess they thought that it was the right thing to do.... at the time....

Today we wouldn't do that.



What proof? Bad people are still bad no matter where you find them or how they try and justify it.

Why do I say they are bad people even though you claim to have given Islamic evidence?

I give you firm evidence to the contrary. This is the last word....

O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness (4:19)

The stories you posted were of young women who were FORCED into marriage and thus in clear and direct violation of the Qur'aan.

Your so-called 'firm evidence to the contrary' is a Quranic quote easily open to subversion, AND by present-day paedophiles ??

You talk of 'women' (.. even though we're discussing CHILDREN, NOT WOMEN !!) .. and I gave you clear proof of paedophilia, rife in the 'Islamic world'. Jafar, even SHARIA COURTS ARE PREPARED TO RULE IN FAVOUR OF ALL THIS, AS I HAVE PROVED TO YOU.

Tell me, if you can, that children can make adult decisions for themselves, or are immune to coercion from adults.

Jafar. You're in propagandist denial of the shameful, disgusting truth of what goes on in the name of your religion - as it was with Mohammed, so it is TODAY.

And you refuse to face the truth.

[gabosaurus]

This thread is better titled "The lies DP members tell about Islam." :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

This thread is better titled "The lies DP members tell about Islam." :rolleyes:

Rather than be a troll - why not point out what specifically is being lied about and debate?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This thread is better titled "The lies DP members tell about Islam." :rolleyes:

Really? Rather than make false accusations why not present and prove which ones are lies?

That is if you can...--:laugh:--Tyr

[jafar00]

Nice try, Jafar, but the above quote has nothing to do with forcing young unmarried women into marriage. According to Yusuf Ali, it's about forbidding the old Arab custom that allowed stepsons or brothers to inherit a dead man's wife or wives, and therefore their possessions. Another trick mohamed forbade by saying, "nor should ye treat them with harshness", was to treat such a woman so badly that she sued for divorce, thereby forfeiting her dowry.

This was actually an improvement of the treatment of women for the time, but of course it still leaves women far short of the rights they now enjoy in civilized (ie: non-Muslim) countries.

It has everything to do about about forcing women into marriage without consent. Both my wives were asked 3 times for their consent and 3 times they had to say yes (or say nothing if they are shy which assumes consent). I was asked once.

I can back up the verse with a Hadith too.


<tbody>
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 67 :


Narrated by Abu Huraira



The Prophet said, "A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission." The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! How can we know her permission?" He said, "Her silence (indicates her permission)."


</tbody>

[aboutime]

This thread is better titled "The lies DP members tell about Islam." :rolleyes:


Gabby. Thanks. But we aren't talking about your experiences here in this thread. But thanks for pointing it out, and reminding the rest of us about what you do here..much like jafar.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It has everything to do about about forcing women into marriage without consent. Both my wives were asked 3 times for their consent and 3 times they had to say yes (or say nothing if they are shy which assumes consent). I was asked once.

I can back up the verse with a Hadith too.


<tbody>
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 67 :


Narrated by Abu Huraira



The Prophet said, "A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission." The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! How can we know her permission?" He said, "Her silence (indicates her permission)."



</tbody>


Both your wives you say!!!!

Now we get the flavor of it all Jafar.
Are your wives also sisters too?
I find it amazing that you have two wives, no disrespect to the women intended....
I do not want another false accusation lodged against me. --Tyr

[Marcus Aurelius]

This thread is better titled "The lies DP members tell about Islam." :rolleyes:

Mohammad didn't marry a 6 year old? He didn't have sex with her when she was 9?

Really? Islamic writings say different, dumb ass.

[Marcus Aurelius]

It has everything to do about about forcing women into marriage without consent. Both my wives were asked 3 times for their consent and 3 times they had to say yes (or say nothing if they are shy which assumes consent). I was asked once.

I can back up the verse with a Hadith too.


<tbody>
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 67 :


Narrated by Abu Huraira



The Prophet said, "A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission." The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! How can we know her permission?" He said, "Her silence (indicates her permission)."



</tbody>

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/12/islam-in-america-forced-marriage-on-the-rise-it-is-a-growing-problem.html


To many in the United States, forced marriage sounds like an ancient and alien practice, something that might happen in remote corners of India or Pakistan, not in the heart of 21st century America. But it is indeed occurring in the United States, and “it is a growing problem,” according to Manon DeFelice, executive director of the New York-based AHA Foundation (http://www.theahafoundation.org/), which protects and defends the rights of women and girls in the West from oppression committed in the name of religion and culture.
Hidden behind the closed doors of urban apartments and suburban houses around the country, hundreds of girls and women are believed to be forced into marriage every year, often too frightened to protest and coerced in ways difficult for authorities to detect.
For some girls nearing high school graduation, the summer school holidays are the most dangerous time of the year. A young woman is sent to visit relatives in her ancestral homeland and arrives to find not only that she’s been engaged to a man she’s never met, but that she is expected to sponsor a U.S. visa for him.




Respondents identified as many as 3,000 known and suspected cases of forced marriage in just the last two years involving women from 56 different countries and diverse faiths, though many involved Muslim families.


Sixty-seven percent of the respondents felt there are cases of forced marriage in their communities which are not being identified, “indicating there is a potentially large hidden population of individuals at risk,” the report said.

[gabosaurus]

Mohammad didn't marry a 6 year old? He didn't have sex with her when she was 9?

Really? Islamic writings say different, dumb ass.

Have you read the Koran in the original Arabic?
If not, you can't say you understand it.
There are dozens of different translations of the Bible. How can you say there aren't that many of the Koran?

You are choosing translations and interpretations that fit your agenda.

[stevecanuck]

Have you read the Koran in the original Arabic?
If not, you can't say you understand it.
There are dozens of different translations of the Bible. How can you say there aren't that many of the Koran?

You are choosing translations and interpretations that fit your agenda.

There are several translations of the qur'an by both muslim and infidel writers, and they all concur with each other. Different words are sometimes used, but the message never changes. I can read some Arabic, and every passage that I've looked at makes sense in terms of the translation used.

For you to say lies are being told minus ANY knowledge of the subject proves you're a troll. Get back under your bridge.

[stevecanuck]

It has everything to do about about forcing women into marriage without consent. Both my wives were asked 3 times for their consent and 3 times they had to say yes (or say nothing if they are shy which assumes consent). I was asked once.

I can back up the verse with a Hadith too.


<tbody>
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 67 :



Narrated by Abu Huraira





The Prophet said, "A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission." The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! How can we know her permission?" He said, "Her silence (indicates her permission)."



</tbody>


Pay attention. The quote YOU provided earlier is what I was talking about, and I gave you Yusuf Ali's explanation of it, which contradicted your version of what it meant.

As for a virgin giving consent through silence??? Are you serious? Of course a girl's going to remain silent when she knows it would dishonor and embarass her parents by saying no. Do you really expect us to believe she has an option? All you're doing is proving my signature line. You lie with every post.

[stevecanuck]

Have you read the Koran in the original Arabic?
If not, you can't say you understand it.
There are dozens of different translations of the Bible. How can you say there aren't that many of the Koran?

You are choosing translations and interpretations that fit your agenda.

Got an example? Just one. No, you say? Didn't think so.

[gabosaurus]

I asked my neighbor (a Muslim who speaks Arabic) about this. She sent me this link. It's rather lengthy, but if you read it all, it explains a lot.

http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-prophet-muhammad-marry-6-year-old.html

[jafar00]

I asked my neighbor (a Muslim who speaks Arabic) about this. She sent me this link. It's rather lengthy, but if you read it all, it explains a lot.

http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-prophet-muhammad-marry-6-year-old.html

That is true that there has been some debate over her actual age. Whether 9 or 19, it is widely reported that she didn't go to live with Mohamed (saw) until she had breasts and her periods. Marriage at puberty was not uncommon at the time.

Now for the others here who are spouting insult after insult at our beloved Prophet.....

How about the Mother of Jesus (as)? She was 12-14 at the time of her marriage to Joseph (as). Are you calling him a paedophile too?

Child brides of 8 years old were not uncommon among the nobility of the Byzantine empire.


According to William of Tyre, Agnes was only eight on her arrival at Constantinople, while Alexius (http://www.roman-emperors.org/alexiicom.htm) was thirteen; in fact Alexius (http://www.roman-emperors.org/alexiicom.htm) was born on 14 September 1169.[[3]] (http://www.roman-emperors.org/aggiefran.htm#N_3_) Child brides, whether Byzantines or foreign princesses, were the norm rather than the exception, especially from the late twelfth century. Irene Ducaena, wife of Alexius I Comnenus (http://www.roman-emperors.org/alexicom.htm), was twelve at her marriage, and empress before she was fifteen; the Byzantine princess Theodora, Manuel's (http://www.roman-emperors.org/mannycom.htm) niece, was in her thirteenth year when she married Baldwin III of Jerusalem; and Margaret-Maria of Hungary married Isaac II Angelus (http://www.roman-emperors.org/isaaciiang.htm)at the age of nine. Agnes's age, then, was not unusual, especially as it was customary for young engaged couples in Constantinople to be brought up together in the house of the socially superior partner.[[4]] (http://www.roman-emperors.org/aggiefran.htm#N_4_)
http://www.roman-emperors.org/aggiefran.htm (damn it, why am I posting all this crap AGAIN?)

In 1880 the minimum age for marriage in Delaware USA was SEVEN Years old, and 10 in other states. Can you judge the people of Delaware in the 19th Century by the standards and customs commonplace in the 21st Century, AND keep a straight face? No? Then don't condemn Mohamed (saw) a countless others who lived 1400 years ago by the standards of 2013!!

[red states rule]

This thread is better titled "The lies DP members tell about Islam." :rolleyes:

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/185495.jpg

[red states rule]

I asked my neighbor (a Muslim who speaks Arabic) about this. She sent me this link. It's rather lengthy, but if you read it all, it explains a lot.

http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-prophet-muhammad-marry-6-year-old.html

Hey Gabby a question for you

Why does the Muslim Brotherhood get FREE F-16 fighter jets yet liberals do not trust American citizens with guns and common hunting rifles?

[jafar00]

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/185495.jpg

Careful, your bias is showing.

It is also very insulting.

[red states rule]

Careful, your bias is showing.

It is also very insulting.

Excellent!! I never attempt to hide my bias and I am delighted you took the post in the spirit it was intended

[jafar00]

Excellent!! I never attempt to hide my bias and I am delighted you took the post in the spirit it was intended

It was classy, I'll give it that :poke:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Have you read the Koran in the original Arabic?
If not, you can't say you understand it.
There are dozens of different translations of the Bible. How can you say there aren't that many of the Koran?

You are choosing translations and interpretations that fit your agenda.

And you choose whichever sanitized version that Islam has created for ignorant infidels(mostly American) to swallow. Talk about bragging about one's blindness, you take the cake..-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Pay attention. The quote YOU provided earlier is what I was talking about, and I gave you Yusuf Ali's explanation of it, which contradicted your version of what it meant.

As for a virgin giving consent through silence??? Are you serious? Of course a girl's going to remain silent when she knows it would dishonor and embarass her parents by saying no. Do you really expect us to believe she has an option? All you're doing is proving my signature line. You lie with every post.

Jafar posted this:


It has everything to do about about forcing women into marriage without consent. Both my wives were asked 3 times for their consent and 3 times they had to say yes (or say nothing if they are shy which assumes consent). I was asked once.

Jafar readily admits to having two wives!! So of course he is going to call you a liar for posting the TRUTH about Islam's treatment of women . He is in deep with the traditional hard line that women are inferior and property for the muslim male to own.

As my good old timer friend on another forum would say,
" two wives(!), the greeeedy bastard".-:laugh:. Either greedy or a damn glutton for punishment."- :laugh2:-Tyr

[stevecanuck]

The fact that Jafar keeps avoiding the issue of the muslim acquisition of the Fertile Crescent proves he can't back up his lie that it was through defensive action. And I'm never going to let him forget it. Jafar is a liar, pure and simple.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=628009#post628009)
Mohammad didn't marry a 6 year old? He didn't have sex with her when she was 9?

Really? Islamic writings say different, dumb ass.



Have you read the Koran in the original Arabic?
If not, you can't say you understand it.
There are dozens of different translations of the Bible. How can you say there aren't that many of the Koran?

You are choosing translations and interpretations that fit your agenda.

You DO realize Jahil has openly admitted this is fact, written in the Qur'aan, right?. His defense is it was normal at the time. What's your defense?

[Marcus Aurelius]

In 1880 the minimum age for marriage in Delaware USA was SEVEN Years old, and 10 in other states.



link???

never mind, dumb ass, here...

http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primarysources&source=24

In Delaware, it was 7 in 1880. In every other state, it was 10 to 12. So, you use an abortion to prove that it was commonplace? Wow... any lie for Allah, eh?

[Marcus Aurelius]

let me guess, Jahil... this guy isn't 'really' islamic... right?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkPUVwFh8gk

[jimnyc]

I asked my neighbor (a Muslim who speaks Arabic) about this. She sent me this link. It's rather lengthy, but if you read it all, it explains a lot.

http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-prophet-muhammad-marry-6-year-old.html

Factually speaking, the ages were as we stated, and this is in Islamic writing too.

At any rate, didn't you just tell us that we should have to read the Quran, and in Arabic? And then you point to an English written site? Why should that be any different than the endless things others have posted about Aisha/Aicha and the age thing?

[jimnyc]

Have you read the Koran in the original Arabic?
If not, you can't say you understand it.
There are dozens of different translations of the Bible. How can you say there aren't that many of the Koran?

You are choosing translations and interpretations that fit your agenda.


I asked my neighbor (a Muslim who speaks Arabic) about this. She sent me this link. It's rather lengthy, but if you read it all, it explains a lot.

http://quraan-today.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-prophet-muhammad-marry-6-year-old.html

The argument on standards can continue, but the fact of the ages isn't disputable. Those talking negatively about the ages of Aisha/Aicha are doing so based on Islamic readings or teachings that show this age.

[jimnyc]

How about the Mother of Jesus (as)? She was 12-14 at the time of her marriage to Joseph (as). Are you calling him a paedophile too?!

Mary was BETROTHED to Joseph when she was 12, but later married. This is still DOUBLE the 6 we were discussing. Muhammed had married AND consummated the marriage long before Mary was betrothed to Joseph.

[jimnyc]

If I'm reading right, Mary was 14, not 12. That's a HUGE difference than marrying someone at 6 and having sexual relations at 9.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_of_the_Virgin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Joseph

[stevecanuck]

Have you read the Koran in the original Arabic?
If not, you can't say you understand it.

Do you apply that "logic" to all things written in Arabic? Can Arabic newspaper stories not be understood when translated? And why stop at Arabic? Please give us a list of languages that are unintelligable to us regardless of the effort put into the translation.

In other words, I'm calling BS on your cop-out.

[Voted4Reagan]

Do you apply that "logic" to all things written in Arabic? Can Arabic newspaper stories not be understood when translated? And why stop at Arabic? Please give us a list of languages that are unintelligable to us regardless of the effort put into the translation.

In other words, I'm calling BS on your cop-out.

Steve... Asking Gabby for valid sources to back her assertions is like asking Lensy and Alias Emily to Vote for Reagan...

[stevecanuck]

I said I wouldn't respond to this until Jafar cleared up a few unanswered questions, but since this is my thread, I guess I feel obligated to respond. I'll take it a point or two at a time, because covering everything in one post would be too time consuming for me, and perhaps tedious to the reader.


My reply in green.....

Below is a rebuttal I wrote regarding a declaration by the Canadian Council of Imams. The original includes a link to the declaration, but it no longer exists, so you're going to have to take my word that I quoted it correctly:

That's convenient

The Canadian Council of Imams issued the following declaration in which they make claims that are not only not true, but in my opinion purposely deceitful:
Here are examples of deceptive quotes and outright lies from the declaration:


"All human beings are equal", "We believe in gender equity".

First, it must be understood that the Qur'an describes people only in terms of being either believers (moomneen) or unbelievers (kuffar), and second, that their standing in the eyes of God is anything but equal. Every description of good versus evil, or right versus wrong in the Qur'an is couched in terms of belief versus unbelief. The unfavourable comparison is relentless, and by way of example, here are but three of literally hundreds of verses I could have chosen to demonstrate the point: Verse 8:55 - "The worst of beasts before God are infidels", 2:98, "God is the enemy of infidels", and 3:34, "God does not love infidels".

Let's look at your mistranslations by giving translations of the verses in full from Abdullah Yusuf Ali's (easy to read) interpretation on the Qur'aan.

For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe. They are those with whom thou didst make a covenant, but they break their covenant every time, and they have not the fear (of Allah). (8:55-56)
Almost.....

These verses are referring to the Banu Qurayzah, a Jewish tribe who were executed for high treason in accordance with their own law and by their own judgement after they betrayed the Muslims during the battle of the trench. They do not refer to unbelievers of all time.

The general denegration of infidels in the qur'an is relentless to the point that it's one of it's main tenets. The fact that unfavorable descriptions of infidels are meant to refer to unbelievers of all time is obvious and undeniable. In 2:89 god is ranting against the Jews (again), and ends by saying, "But the curse of god is on those without faith (al kafereen)". In his footnote, Yusuf Ali says the folllowing after explaining why the Jews are so richly deserving of god's wrath, "Again the lesson applies to a much wider circle than the Jews".

There are literally hundreds of verses I could quote that prove the point, and here are a few (btw, al kafereen is Arabic for infidels):

2:8 to 20 - A 13-verse rambling rant against infidels.
2:24 - ...fear the fire whose fuel is men and stones, which is prepared for al kafereen.
2:98 - God is the enemy of al kafereen.
2:161 - Those who reject faith (deny the qur'an) and die rejecting, on them is God's curse.
2:174 to 176 - Another rant against infidels.
2:254 - Al kafereen are wrong-doers.
3:10 to 13 - Another rant. Verse 3:12 especially shows god's hatred of infidels. It says, "Say to those who reject faith, 'soon will you be vanquished and gathered together to Hell, an evil bed indeed'". Note: When the qur'an says, "Say" it's god telling mohamed what to preach.
3:56 - As to those who reject faith (Islam of course), I will punish them with terrible agony.
4:56 - Those who reject our signs we shall soon cast into the fire.
4:101 - ...al kafareen are unto you open enemies.
8:20 to 24 are very clear because they begin a new section, so the Jafar's of the world can't claim they're taken out the context. In them, god once again calls infidels the worst of beasts. The universality of these verses is unmistakeable.

I could do this for days and still not finish. If someone were to address this issue properly it would become a book.





Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and messengers, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith. (2:98)

Naturally you missed the first bit out :p. I will let this hadith which is found in Tafsir explain a little....

Abu Bakr al-Asfahani informed us> al-Hafiz Abu'l-Shaykh [al-Asfahani]> Abu Yahya al-Razi> Sahl ibn 'Uthman> 'Ali ibn Mushir> Dawud> al-Sha'bi who said: “Said 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be well pleased with him: 'I used to go to the Jews upon their study of the Torah and was amazed to see the conformity of the Qur'an with the Torah and of the Torah with the Qur'an. On one occasion they said: 'O 'Umar! We do not like anyone more than we like you'. I asked: 'And why is that?' They said: 'Because you come to us and mix with us'. I said: 'I come to you only because of my amazement at how the different parts of the Book of Allah strengthen each other, and how the Qur'an is in conformity with the Torah and how the Torah is in conformity with the Qur'an'. As I was with them one day, Allah's Messenger, Allah bless him and give him peace, passed by behind me. The Jews said: 'Here is your man; go to him! He has just got to an alley of Medina'. I turned to them and asked: 'I adjure you by Allah and by that which was revealed to you of Scripture, do you know that he is Allah's Messenger?' Their chief said to them: 'He has implored you by Allah, so do tell him'. They said: 'You are our chief; you tell him'. Their chief said: 'We do know that he is Allah's Messenger!' I said: 'You are the one who shall be subject to the worst form of destruction if you all know that he is Allah's Messenger and then do not follow him'. They said: 'We have an enemy among the angels as we have an ally from amongst them'. I asked: 'Who is your enemy and who is your ally?' They said: 'Our enemy is Gabriel who is the angel of harshness and coarseness, burden and hardship'. I said: 'And who is your ally?' They said: 'Michael who is the angel of tenderness, gentleness and ease'. I said: 'In that case I bear witness that it is not allowable for Gabriel to declare enmity to the allies of Michael nor is it allowable for Michael to be an ally to the enemies of Gabriel, for both, including all those who are with them, are enemies to those who declare any one of them as an enemy, as they are allies to whomever is an ally to any one of them'.

The verse before (2:97) confirms the explanation..


Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel-for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by Allah's will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe (2:97)

2:97-98 refers to these Jews who hated the Angel Gabriel because he not only brought glad tidings to Mary (as) of her miracle son Jesus (as) but also brought the revelation of the Qur'aan to Mohamed (saw).

Just read the underlined part, and you'll see you're making my point for me.


Allah did choose Adam and Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of 'Imran above all people Offspring, one of the other: And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (3:33-34)

How you got "God does not love infidels" from this I know not :p

That's because I should have said 3:32. "Allah la yeheb al kafereen" means, "God does not love infidels". You can't deny that, but somehow you do.

[jafar00]

The fact that Jafar keeps avoiding the issue of the muslim acquisition of the Fertile Crescent proves he can't back up his lie that it was through defensive action. And I'm never going to let him forget it. Jafar is a liar, pure and simple.

I already said the wars were defensive in nature.


Factually speaking, the ages were as we stated, and this is in Islamic writing too.

At any rate, didn't you just tell us that we should have to read the Quran, and in Arabic? And then you point to an English written site? Why should that be any different than the endless things others have posted about Aisha/Aicha and the age thing?

Her age is not written in the Qur'aan otherwise there wouldn't be need for discussion :)


Mary was BETROTHED to Joseph when she was 12, but later married. This is still DOUBLE the 6 we were discussing. Muhammed had married AND consummated the marriage long before Mary was betrothed to Joseph.

Isn't 12 considered too young by TODAY's standards? Joseph was 90. Doesn't that make him a paedophile by your standards? Why do you insult him along with Mohamed (saw)?


If I'm reading right, Mary was 14, not 12. That's a HUGE difference than marrying someone at 6 and having sexual relations at 9.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_of_the_Virgin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Joseph

or 14. Still too young by the standards of today am I right?


Do you apply that "logic" to all things written in Arabic? Can Arabic newspaper stories not be understood when translated? And why stop at Arabic? Please give us a list of languages that are unintelligable to us regardless of the effort put into the translation.

In other words, I'm calling BS on your cop-out.

Arabic can be translated in many ways according to the context of the words. The way you say them is important too


I said I wouldn't respond to this until Jafar cleared up a few unanswered questions, but since this is my thread, I guess I feel obligated to respond. I'll take it a point or two at a time, because covering everything in one post would be too time consuming for me, and perhaps tedious to the reader.



The general denegration of infidels in the qur'an is relentless to the point that it's one of it's main tenets. The fact that unfavorable descriptions of infidels are meant to refer to unbelievers of all time is obvious and undeniable. In 2:89 god is ranting against the Jews (again), and ends by saying, "But the curse of god is on those without faith (al kafereen)". In his footnote, Yusuf Ali says the folllowing after explaining why the Jews are so richly deserving of god's wrath, "Again the lesson applies to a much wider circle than the Jews".

There are literally hundreds of verses I could quote that prove the point, and here are a few (btw, al kafereen is Arabic for infidels):

2:8 to 20 - A 13-verse rambling rant against infidels.
2:24 - ...fear the fire whose fuel is men and stones, which is prepared for al kafereen.
2:98 - God is the enemy of al kafereen.
2:161 - Those who reject faith (deny the qur'an) and die rejecting, on them is God's curse.
2:174 to 176 - Another rant against infidels.
2:254 - Al kafereen are wrong-doers.
3:10 to 13 - Another rant. Verse 3:12 especially shows god's hatred of infidels. It says, "Say to those who reject faith, 'soon will you be vanquished and gathered together to Hell, an evil bed indeed'". Note: When the qur'an says, "Say" it's god telling mohamed what to preach.
3:56 - As to those who reject faith (Islam of course), I will punish them with terrible agony.
4:56 - Those who reject our signs we shall soon cast into the fire.
4:101 - ...al kafareen are unto you open enemies.
8:20 to 24 are very clear because they begin a new section, so the Jafar's of the world can't claim they're taken out the context. In them, god once again calls infidels the worst of beasts. The universality of these verses is unmistakeable.

I could do this for days and still not finish. If someone were to address this issue properly it would become a book.






Just read the underlined part, and you'll see you're making my point for me.



That's because I should have said 3:32. "Allah la yeheb al kafereen" means, "God does not love infidels". You can't deny that, but somehow you do.


That should be Allah la yuhib ul kaafireen. Please read it correctly ;) Tashkeel is very important and while your error in pronunciation may not affect the meaning of this ayah, it can change the meaning in others. It was the reason the diacritical marks were added to aid in this.

And yes. God doesn't like unbelievers. It says the same in the Bible.

John 3:36
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him

Romans 1:30-32
<tbody>
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,


Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:


Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

</tbody>

I could also do this all day, except I fail to see what it would achieve.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jimnyc http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=628126#post628126)

Factually speaking, the ages were as we stated, and this is in Islamic writing too.

At any rate, didn't you just tell us that we should have to read the Quran, and in Arabic? And then you point to an English written site? Why should that be any different than the endless things others have posted about Aisha/Aicha and the age thing?



Her age is not written in the Qur'aan otherwise there wouldn't be need for discussion :)



So, you're going back to 'if it's not in the Qur'aan, it's not true'. Funny how you cite hadiths when they suit you, but diss them when they don't.

pathetic little pedophile worshiper.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I already said the wars were defensive in nature.

Except they were not defensive in nature!--Tyr

http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/onlinediscipleship/understandingislam/IslamHistory0212.aspx (http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/onlinediscipleship/understandingislam/IslamHistory0212.aspx)

We will talk about "bloody" as we proceed. Because the U.S. News article related only to the Christian west against the Muslim east, except in this paragraph I will not describe the almost 1,500 years of Muslim imperialistic, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war to the east of Arabia in Iraq, Persia, and much further eastward, which continues to this day.
In any event, because it was the closest geographically, Palestine was the first Western non-Arab area invaded in the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others. At the time, Palestine was under the rule of the so-called Eastern Roman Empire, ruled from Istanbul by Greek speaking people, and was Eastern Orthodox Catholic. The Eastern Orthodox rule was despotic and the Eastern Roman Empire was in serious decline. The Eastern Orthodox rulers were despots, and in Palestine had subjugated the large population of local Jews and Monophysite Christians. Because the Orthodox were imperialist, colonialist, and bloody, and majored in religious persecution to boot, the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of Palestine, and then Egypt, was made easier. Because of Orthodox weakness and the relative speed of the conquest of Palestine and Israel, I have often seen this Muslim, imperialist, colonialist bloody conquest described by Muslim and PC writers as "peaceful" or "bloodless." This statement is simply not true.
The Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of Palestine began with a battle, the August 20, 636, battle of Yarmk (it is believed that 75,000 soldiers took part -- hardly bloodless). With the help of the local Jews who welcomed the Muslims as liberators, the Muslims had subjugated the remainder of Palestine but had not been able to capture Jerusalem. Beginning in July 637, the Muslims began a siege of Jerusalem which lasted for five (hardly bloodless) months before Jerusalem fell in February 638. Arabs did not sack the city, and the Arab soldiers were apparently kept in tight control by their leaders. No destruction was permitted. This was indeed a triumph of civilized control, if imperialism, colonization, and bloody conquest can ever be said to be "civilized." It was at this conquest that many significant hallmarks of Muslim colonialism began. The conquered Christian and Jewish people were made to pay a tribute to the colonialist Muslims. In addition, Baghdad used the imperialist, colonialist, bloody wars of conquest throughout the life of its empire to provide the Caliphate with a steady stream of slaves, many of whom were made eunuchs.
The Muslim conquest of (Christian) North Africa went relatively easily until the native peoples of North Africa (most importantly the Berbers) were encountered west of Egypt. The North African people fought so strongly against the Muslims that the Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest in the west was brought to an almost complete stop between Tripoli and Carthage for more than a quarter century. The Muslims broke through in a series of bloody battles followed by bloody (revenge) massacres of the Muslim's (largely Christian) opponents. This Muslim imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest continued through North Africa and through what is now Spain, Portugal, and southern France, until they were stopped at the battle of Poiters (hardly bloodless) in the middle of France

[stevecanuck]

I already said the wars were defensive in nature.

This is stupid. Everyone knows what a lie that is as any book or google search will confirm. Read the facts from TZS above.

[stevecanuck]

And yes. God doesn't like unbelievers. It says the same in the Bible.

A hatred he emphasises hundreds of times in the qur'an, and not just hatred, but enmity. No muslim who reads and believes the qur'an can come away from it without feeling as though he too is our enemy. Where is the peace in that?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This is stupid. Everyone knows what a lie that is as any book or google search will confirm. Read the facts from TZS above.

Sorry Steve but Jafar can not read my words unless somebody quotes them as he has me on ignore. WANT HIM TO REFERENCE MY WORDS YOU'LL HAVE TO QUOTE THOSE WORDS. Running from the TRUTH that I present has been a tactic he decided was best for him a while back.
My guess is as soon as he finds he can not defeat the TRUTH you present he will start completely ignoring you.
Perhaps he will even use the same ,lying excuse that he used to hide his cowardice when running from the TRUTH that I present..
Right now his ego told him he knows the Koran far better than you and can defeat you with presenting plausible denials to the Koranic verses you may cite. As if the Koran is the source that presents ALL of what Islam is today!
As if Islam's current worldwide murder program is not a part of ITS convert the world by sword agenda that it has ALWAYS HAD AND ALWAYS USED..-TYR

[jafar00]

A hatred he emphasises hundreds of times in the qur'an, and not just hatred, but enmity. No muslim who reads and believes the qur'an can come away from it without feeling as though he too is our enemy. Where is the peace in that?

But we are also supposed to deal with those who aren't trying to kill us with justice, equity and fair dealing too, but you already knew that right?

I don't see you as an enemy until you raise a gun and point it at me. Since you are just debating with me, even if I see you as misguided, I do not see you as an enemy at all. :cheers2:

[aboutime]

But we are also supposed to deal with those who aren't trying to kill us with justice, equity and fair dealing too, but you already knew that right?

I don't see you as an enemy until you raise a gun and point it at me. Since you are just debating with me, even if I see you as misguided, I do not see you as an enemy at all. :cheers2:


jafar. Once again. History seems to have failed you. The World was once convinced...as you asserted above, that other notorious people also said "I do not see you as an enemy."
Funny thing is. Neville Chamberlain from the U.K. also assured the rest of the world the very same things. Just before the outbreak of World War Two In Europe.

In a nutshell jafar. We are growing very tired of listening to FALSE PROPHETS who say such things, while keeping your finger on the trigger, or knife behind your back...convincing the Easily Led...you want to be friends...unless you disagree.

[Drummond]

But we are also supposed to deal with those who aren't trying to kill us with justice, equity and fair dealing too, but you already knew that right?

I don't see you as an enemy until you raise a gun and point it at me. Since you are just debating with me, even if I see you as misguided, I do not see you as an enemy at all. :cheers2:

I'm reminded of 9/11.

What guns were those in the Twin Towers pointing at any Muslims ?

That attack, like other terrorist attacks, are not 'defensive' in nature. Nonetheless, they are carried out by Islamic terrorists. Terrorists who call their victims 'enemies'.

And Hamas, terrorists YOU have admitted supporting, make it clear in their Charter that they reject peace as any way to resolve their conflict with Jews they hate. No, they prefer attacks, instead. With missiles, and bombs strapped to children.

What kind of 'defensive' action is it to turn helpless children into walking bombs, Jafar ?

[jafar00]

I'm reminded of 9/11.

What guns were those in the Twin Towers pointing at any Muslims ?

That attack, like other terrorist attacks, are not 'defensive' in nature. Nonetheless, they are carried out by Islamic terrorists. Terrorists who call their victims 'enemies'.

And Hamas, terrorists YOU have admitted supporting, make it clear in their Charter that they reject peace as any way to resolve their conflict with Jews they hate. No, they prefer attacks, instead. With missiles, and bombs strapped to children.

What kind of 'defensive' action is it to turn helpless children into walking bombs, Jafar ?

And terrorist acts like 9/11 have been universally condemned by Muslims and Islamic leaders worldwide. They were criminals who were somehow able to circumvent all US defenses that day to carry out the attacks. Imagine beating your defenses that cost hundreds of billions per year with only box cutters.

Your point is?

[Marcus Aurelius]

But we are also supposed to deal with those who aren't trying to kill us with justice, equity and fair dealing too, but you already knew that right?

I don't see you as an enemy until you raise a gun and point it at me. Since you are just debating with me, even if I see you as misguided, I do not see you as an enemy at all. :cheers2:

Then you are not following the will of Allah, or the Qur'ann. You are not 'really' Islamic.

[Marcus Aurelius]

And terrorist acts like 9/11 have been universally condemned by Muslims and Islamic leaders worldwide. They were criminals who were somehow able to circumvent all US defenses that day to carry out the attacks. Imagine beating your defenses that cost hundreds of billions per year with only box cutters.

Your point is?

Really? Not a single Muslim cheered the attacks of 9/11?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k
let me guess... the Palestinians are not really Muslims, right?


http://www.usnews.com/news/religion/articles/2008/04/07/why-did-so-many-muslims-seem-to-celebrate-911

...why did so many inhabitants of the long Muslim "street," stretching from Morocco to Indonesia, appear to be overjoyed by what Osama bin Laden's henchmen had accomplished?
Let me guess... not really Islamic, right?

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/14928/told-ya-so-arab-muslim-students-admit-sweatshirts-were-belligerence-about-911-flight-253/


http://www.debbieschlussel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/911sweatshirt.jpg

On Tuesday Morning, I told you about 15 Arab Muslim students at Dearbornistan’s Edsel Ford High School, and the sweartshirts they made glorifying the 9/11 attacks (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/14788/dearbornistan-muslim-arab-students-sweatshirts-glorify-911/) in which nearly 3,000 Americans were murdered by Arab Muslims just like the students.
“I was foolish to do it and I’m very sorry,” said Wadhah Almadhagi, one of the students behind the sweatshirts. “I can promise that as long as I’m in Edsel Ford I’ll do my best to ensure something like this, as foolish and naive as this, will never happen again.”
Another student told Local 4 the design was made out of frustration over some media portrayals of Arab-Americans in the wake of the Christmas day terror attack.

Again, not 'really' Islamic... right?



you're such a tool, Jahil.

[Marcus Aurelius]

And terrorist acts like 9/11 have been universally condemned by Muslims and Islamic leaders worldwide. They were criminals who were somehow able to circumvent all US defenses that day to carry out the attacks. Imagine beating your defenses that cost hundreds of billions per year with only box cutters.

Your point is?

you sound very proud, you sick little pedophile worshiping fuck.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Then you are not following the will of Allah, or the Qur'ann. You are not 'really' Islamic.

Jafar typed those words but he knows it was only to fool those readers gullible enough to believe that he actually means it.

http://www.radicalislam.org/content/muslims-use-taqiyya-deceive-non-muslims-about-islam

Muslims Use "Taqiyya" to Deceive Non-Muslims About Islam

by:
Clare M. Lopez



<iframe id="f32b2683d8" name="f340348f4" scrolling="no" title="Like this content on Facebook." class="fb_ltr" src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?api_key=365384093517553&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.facebook.com%2F connect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D20%23cb%3Df2a 80639a%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.radicalis lam.org%252Ff3cf133384%26domain%3Dwww.radicalislam .org%26relation%3Dparent.parent&href=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.radicalislam.org%2Fcontent%2 Fmuslims-use-taqiyya-deceive-non-muslims-about-islam&node_type=link&width=130&layout=button_count&colorscheme=light&action=recommend&show_faces=false&send=false&extended_social_context=false" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-style: none; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: transparent; position: absolute; overflow: hidden; height: 20px; width: 114px;"></iframe>

The Arabic word Taqiyya means “deceit” or “dissimulation.” Unlike the Christian or Jewish religions, Islam not only permits its believers to lie but actually commands it in some circumstances. For the most part, Muslims are not supposed to lie to one another; but, exceptions are made for smoothing over differences between friends (“He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar,” Bukhari vol. 3:857 p.533.), lying to one’s wife, and lying in warfare. (Recall: Muhammad himself said, ‘War is deceit,” Bukhari vol. 4:267 and 269)
Lying to non-Muslims, though, is another matter. In fact, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened. Taking it a step further, if there is an objective to be achieved that is desirable in Islam, then it is permissible for Muslims to lie in order to achieve that objective. The book of Islamic law, Reliance of the Traveller (or the ‘Umdat al-Salik), states on pg. 746:
"Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible…”
This principle of lying in order to advance the cause of Islam results in serious consequences when it comes to the issue of Muslims seeking to spread Islam around the world and especially in places like the United States (U.S.) and the West, where the majority of people are not Muslim. Shariah-compliant Muslims routinely use deceptive tactics to polish Islam’s image while at the same time avoiding, obscuring, or omitting any of the negative aspects of Islamic doctrine, history, law, and scriptures. This is often done with prospective converts as well as with audiences Muslims hope will be gullible, like academics, government officials, members of the media, and the public at large.
For example, Muslims often will cite verses from the (chronologically) earlier portions of the Qur’an (which generally were moderate, peaceful, and tolerant), while neglecting to mention that this was the period in Muhammad’s life when he and his tiny band of followers lived in Mecca, where they were ridiculed, powerless, and mostly unaccepted. Yet, even as they cite such passages, they are fully aware that most of these early verses were abrogated (cancelled and replaced) by later passages of the Qur’an that Muhammad produced after the hijra (migration) to Medina. The replacement verses, from a time when Muslims grew powerful, reflect harsh intolerance for non-Muslims and command violence to subjugate infidels (unbelievers) to Islamic law (shariah).
Shariah Muslims do not always express their hostility to unbelievers openly, though. This is where taqiyya comes in. Based on verses from the Qur’an and hadiths (sayings of Muhammad), Muslims can pretend to befriend infidels (in violation of the teachings of Islam) and even display adherence with their unbelief, if this will advance the cause of Islam and protect the believer from harm. Here is one of those verses from the Qur’an:
"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 (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." (Q 3:28)
Ibn Kathir was an Islamic scholar who wrote one of the most authoritative commentaries (or Tafsirs) on the Qur’an. This is what he said about this particular Qur’anic verse regarding Muslims pretending to befriend infidels:
“Unless you indeed fear a danger from them’ meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly.…‘We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.’” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol. 2, 141)
So, according to this Islamic principle, if under pressure or threatened with force, not only may Muslims deceive non-believers, it is even legitimate for Muslims to behave in ways normally completely contrary to their faith. For instance, given such circumstances, a Muslim may drink alcohol, skip prayers and fasting during Ramadan, renounce belief in Allah and even pretend homage to a deity other than Allah, and utter insincere oaths. It is important to understand the concept of taqiyya so as not to be taken in by such tactics.
The Arabic word Taqiyya means “deceit” or “dissimulation.” Unlike the Christian or Jewish religions, Islam not only permits its believers to lie but actually commands it in some circumstances. For the most part, Muslims are not supposed to lie to one another; but, exceptions are made for smoothing over differences between friends (“He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar,” Bukhari vol. 3:857 p.533.), lying to one’s wife, and lying in warfare. (Recall: Muhammad himself said, ‘War is deceit,” Bukhari vol. 4:267 and 269)
Lying to non-Muslims, though, is another matter. In fact, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened. Taking it a step further, if there is an objective to be achieved that is desirable in Islam, then it is permissible for Muslims to lie in order to achieve that objective. The book of Islamic law, Reliance of the Traveller (or the ‘Umdat al-Salik), states on pg. 746:
"Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible…”
This principle of lying in order to advance the cause of Islam results in serious consequences when it comes to the issue of Muslims seeking to spread Islam around the world and especially in places like the United States (U.S.) and the West, where the majority of people are not Muslim. Shariah-compliant Muslims routinely use deceptive "wolf in sheep's clothing" type tactics to polish Islam’s image while at the same time avoiding, obscuring, or omitting any of the negative aspects of Islamic doctrine, history, law, and scriptures. This is often done with prospective converts as well as with audiences Muslims hope will be gullible, like academics, government officials, members of the media, and the public at large.


Jafar is muslim and is employing a well known and absolutely 100% approved tactic to defeat Allah's enemies!!
Lying (Taqiyya) is considered a virtue when it is done to defend Allah, Islam, Koran and THE PEDOPHILE FOUNDER/LEADER-- Mohamboy.
Odds are a hundred to one that should you ever face Jafar over there he'd blast your ass faster than you could say-- "Dumb ass " TO HIM.- :laugh:--Tyr

[jimnyc]

Her age is not written in the Qur'aan otherwise there wouldn't be need for discussion :)

Isn't 12 considered too young by TODAY's standards? Joseph was 90. Doesn't that make him a paedophile by your standards? Why do you insult him along with Mohamed (saw)?

or 14. Still too young by the standards of today am I right?

Her age came from the hadiths. By almost every single account, from Muslims own words, Aisha was 6 years old when married and 9 years old when the marriage was consummated.

Mary was only betrothed to Joesph around 14, and then had Jesus shortly thereafter, by immaculate conception of course. Mary died a virgin. Not even in the same universe of a pedophile.

[jimnyc]

Her age came from the hadiths. By almost every single account, from Muslims own words, Aisha was 6 years old when married and 9 years old when the marriage was consummated.

Mary was only betrothed to Joesph around 14, and then had Jesus shortly thereafter, by immaculate conception of course. Mary died a virgin. Not even in the same universe of a pedophile.

Forgot to say, it's laughable to say Joseph was 90. I think there are a few things out there from the new advent, but nothing to back it up. The only other place you will find that information is on a bunch of Islamic sites, likely trying to find an argument to return fire with over the facts of Muhammed's actions. Joseph they say was more likely in the late 30's to 40's.

[jafar00]

Forgot to say, it's laughable to say Joseph was 90. I think there are a few things out there from the new advent, but nothing to back it up. The only other place you will find that information is on a bunch of Islamic sites, likely trying to find an argument to return fire with over the facts of Muhammed's actions. Joseph they say was more likely in the late 30's to 40's.

Still. Can a 30-40 year old marry a 9 (or 14) year old in today's society, and escape criticism?
The same situation would not cause anyone to bat an eyelid a few hundred years ago.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Still. Can a 30-40 year old marry a 9 (or 14) year old in today's society, and escape criticism?
The same situation would not cause anyone to bat an eyelid a few hundred years ago.

Would you allow your 6 year old daughter to marry, and have sex at 9? After all, it was the will of Allah.

[Marcus Aurelius]

caught in yet another lie about Islam, Jahil hides from the thread & the truth...again.

[jimnyc]

Still. Can a 30-40 year old marry a 9 (or 14) year old in today's society, and escape criticism?
The same situation would not cause anyone to bat an eyelid a few hundred years ago.

No, a 30-40yr old marrying a 14yr old today would certainly raise eyebrows.

Comparing 6 to 14 is a HUGE difference. Comparing one who had sex with a 9yr old to someone who stayed with a woman who remained a virgin, not even close.

[Drummond]

Still. Can a 30-40 year old marry a 9 (or 14) year old in today's society, and escape criticism?
The same situation would not cause anyone to bat an eyelid a few hundred years ago.

Do I really need to remind you of what I've already posted, earlier in this very thread ?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39913-The-lies-Muslims-tell-us-about-Islam&p=627475#post627475

.. in particular ..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2216553/International-Day-Girl-Child-2012-Devastating-images-terrifying-world-child-brides.html


British Muslim clerics are willing to carry out sharia marriages involving child brides as young as 12, an investigation has found.

Two imams said they would be prepared to officiate at the wedding of an underage girl to a man in his twenties, despite fears the pair would later have sex.

The revelations have led the Home Office to confirm that such ceremonies will be examined in the Government’s forthcoming Bill to outlaw forced marriages.

More than 1,000 of the 8,000 forced marriages of Britons each year are believed to involve girls of 15 or under, with one case last year allegedly involving a girl of five.

The clerics were approached by man posing as the father of a 12-year-old who wanted her to marry to prevent her being tempted into a decadent Western lifestyle.

Imam Mohammed Kassamali, of the Husaini Islamic Centre in Peterborough, stressed the need for secrecy with such a ceremony.

He allegedly said: ‘If it (the marriage) was not possible, I would have told you straight away... I would love the girl to go to her husband’s houses (sic) as soon as possible, the younger the better.


‘Under sharia (Islamic law) there is no problem. It is said she should see her first sign of puberty at the house of her husband.


‘The problem is that we cannot explain such things (the marriage) if the girl went tomorrow (to the authorities).

The message is clear. If certain Imams had their way, and if Sharia Law had universal acceptance, society would slip BACK to accepting paedophilia as 'normal'.

After all, Jafar .. Mohammed the Paedophile was quite the trendsetter, wasn't he ?

Jafar, you really must tell us. How do you feel about having such loyalty, reverence even, to a 'religion' that doubles as a Pervert Sanctioning Club ? Marcus has asked you some questions on that which you should be willing to tackle .. after all, paedophilia is an ever-recurring perversion that Islam KEEPS trying to sanction ...

[jafar00]

No, a 30-40yr old marrying a 14yr old today would certainly raise eyebrows.

Comparing 6 to 14 is a HUGE difference. Comparing one who had sex with a 9yr old to someone who stayed with a woman who remained a virgin, not even close.

But, you use today's values and customs to ridicule Mohamed (saw), yet you ignore Joseph (as) and the 10s of thousands of others who did the same throughout history. This is called a double standard.


Do I really need to remind you of what I've already posted, earlier in this very thread ?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39913-The-lies-Muslims-tell-us-about-Islam&p=627475#post627475

.. in particular ..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2216553/International-Day-Girl-Child-2012-Devastating-images-terrifying-world-child-brides.html



The message is clear. If certain Imams had their way, and if Sharia Law had universal acceptance, society would slip BACK to accepting paedophilia as 'normal'.

After all, Jafar .. Mohammed the Paedophile was quite the trendsetter, wasn't he ?

Jafar, you really must tell us. How do you feel about having such loyalty, reverence even, to a 'religion' that doubles as a Pervert Sanctioning Club ? Marcus has asked you some questions on that which you should be willing to tackle .. after all, paedophilia is an ever-recurring perversion that Islam KEEPS trying to sanction ...

Mohamed (saw) was not a pervert at all. All of his other wives were older women and some much older. Khadija was 15 years his senior for example. Regardless, his marriage to Aicha (ra) was consensual and in keeping with the customs of the time worldwide!

[jimnyc]

But, you use today's values and customs to ridicule Mohamed (saw), yet you ignore Joseph (as) and the 10s of thousands of others who did the same throughout history. This is called a double standard.

Eh, no. I condemn Mohamed for HAVING SEX with a NINE year old. I also think SIX is a tad younger than 14. There is no double standard, as these examples are totally different. Mary was never violated in any way.

[aboutime]

But, you use today's values and customs to ridicule Mohamed (saw), yet you ignore Joseph (as) and the 10s of thousands of others who did the same throughout history. This is called a double standard.



Mohamed (saw) was not a pervert at all. All of his other wives were older women and some much older. Khadija was 15 years his senior for example. Regardless, his marriage to Aicha (ra) was consensual and in keeping with the customs of the time worldwide!

jafar. That is a false defense...again. Did you know Mohamed personally? Did you ever meet him? Did you ever see him in person?
No human being alive, anywhere on Earth can prove...as you insist. That he wasn't, or was anything you claim, or deny.

So. Unless you can prove it. We are not ridiculing Mohamed. Just stating facts...you know? Like you do about how Peace Loving Hamas, and Palestinians are?????

[Marcus Aurelius]

But, you use today's values and customs to ridicule Mohamed (saw), yet you ignore Joseph (as) and the 10s of thousands of others who did the same throughout history. This is called a double standard.



Mohamed (saw) was not a pervert at all. All of his other wives were older women and some much older. Khadija was 15 years his senior for example. Regardless, his marriage to Aicha (ra) was consensual and in keeping with the customs of the time worldwide!

lying pedophile worshiper.

you STILL have not come out and said you'd forbid your 6 year old daughter to marry a 40 year old man, or that you'd forbid her to have sex with him at 9. You area a pedophile enabler.

Joseph didn't screw a 9 year old. that pig Mohammad did.

[Drummond]

But, you use today's values and customs to ridicule Mohamed (saw), yet you ignore Joseph (as) and the 10s of thousands of others who did the same throughout history. This is called a double standard.



Mohamed (saw) was not a pervert at all. All of his other wives were older women and some much older. Khadija was 15 years his senior for example. Regardless, his marriage to Aicha (ra) was consensual and in keeping with the customs of the time worldwide!

They say that 'those who are victorious tend to write history that favours them'.

And .. isn't it true ?

In Mohammed's case, wouldn't he fashion a faith which has him as an especially revered figure, central to its teachings, in such a way that it somehow FAILED to be critical of him, no matter how reprehensible his actions ?

Here, what do we have ? An account of a paedophilic relationship which is shaped so as to see to it that Mohammed is seen in the best light possible .. and more, effectively a religion which looks 'kindly' on such things .. from the perpetrator's perspective, not that of the victim.

Surprise, surprise .. Islam's adherents are pleased, as are YOU, Jafar, to claim that Mohammed's 'marriage to Aicha (ra) was consensual'. UTTER ROT .. HOW ON EARTH CAN A CHILD THAT YOUNG BE CAPABLE OF MAKING A PROPER, CONSENSUAL DECISION ??? And, even if the people of the time thought it was possible, TODAY, WE ARE EVOLVED ENOUGH TO KNOW OTHERWISE ....

.... EXCEPT FOR PAEDOPHILIAC-SYMPATHISING ISLAMISTS, APPARENTLY !!!!

You want to sanitise what Mohammed got up to. More, you do not speak out against Imams, and Sharia court judgments of TODAY, which seek to continue child marriages (I have posted evidence of that). WHY IS IT THAT THE WORLD HAS MOVED ON, EVOLVED FAR MORE HUMANE AND DECENT STANDARDS, WHEREAS ISLAM SEEKS TO MAINTAIN THE OLD EVILS ??

I put it to you, Jafar, that this alone proves how sick and twisted that creed is .. how deserving it is of the strongest of opposition. And, really .. isn't this yet more proof, over and above that provided by Islamic terrorism, of just how valueless human existence is seen to be within Islam ?

[Drummond]

4809

Islamic progress ... impressive, eh, Jafar ? :laugh:

[jafar00]

Surprise, surprise .. Islam's adherents are pleased, as are YOU, Jafar, to claim that Mohammed's 'marriage to Aicha (ra) was consensual'. UTTER ROT .. HOW ON EARTH CAN A CHILD THAT YOUNG BE CAPABLE OF MAKING A PROPER, CONSENSUAL DECISION ??? And, even if the people of the time thought it was possible, TODAY, WE ARE EVOLVED ENOUGH TO KNOW OTHERWISE ....

What of the thousands of other children of that age who were betrothed and married at the time? Why make a special case out of Aicha? (ra)

You are just singling out Mohamed (saw) because you hate him.



4809

Islamic progress ... impressive, eh, Jafar ? :laugh:

Now your insults are just becoming silly. Besides, the blue Burqa is AFGHAN, not Iranian :laugh2:

[Marcus Aurelius]

What of the thousands of other children of that age who were betrothed and married at the time? Why make a special case out of Aicha? (ra)

You are just singling out Mohamed (saw) because you hate him.



Link to a credible source showing marrying at six and sex at 9 was ever normal. Specific numbers please.

[Drummond]

Link to a credible source showing marrying at six and sex at 9 was ever normal. Specific numbers please.

Yes, I'd like to see you answer this as well, Jafar. Link(s) ... verifiable statistics ... let's see if you can deliver ANY of that ...

... and if you CAN'T ... then accept the criticisms applicable to Islam on these grounds, as being specific to perversity sanctioned within Islam.

[Drummond]

What of the thousands of other children of that age who were betrothed and married at the time? Why make a special case out of Aicha? (ra)

You are just singling out Mohamed (saw) because you hate him.




Now your insults are just becoming silly. Besides, the blue Burqa is AFGHAN, not Iranian :laugh2:

I don't know Mohammed, Jafar .. he was just a little before my time, after all (!!!) ... so I can't claim to 'hate him'.

No, Jafar, 'all' I can claim is to hate all he did, all he created, and the eons of hatreds, barbarities, carnage and suffering that's followed in his wake, spawned by savagery done in the name of the religion he is to blame for.

As for the blue 'car burkha' .. it's an Afghan colour, eh ? What ... Muslims wear different colours according to nationality, just a bit like Star Trek uniforms ??

So tell me this. How do you know that the picture wasn't of Afghans driving around in Iran ... no doubt trying to prove how 'Muslim' they were, to avoid being stoned ....

[stevecanuck]

I don't see you as an enemy....

Simply put, your god says he's my enemy, therefore you're obligated to share his view. If you doubt that, verse 2:98 of the qur'an proves it:

مَن كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّلّهِ وَمَلآئِكَتِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَجِبْرِيلَ وَمِيكَالَ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ عَدُوٌّ لِّلْكَافِرِينَ

The first underlined part (to the right) means, "whoever is an enemy of allah". Topping the list of that which makes one an enemy of allah is the sin of not being a muslim. Verse 39:32 says, "Who does greater evil than he who lies against Allah and belies the truth when it comes to him? Is there not a lodging in Gehenna (Hell) for the unbelievers"? Telling a lie against allah, for example not accepting that he imparted the qur'an to mohamed, is described as the greatest evil, apparently even worse than murder. The left underlined phrase summarizes your god's view of such people by saying, "allah is the enemy of infidels". It couldn't be more clear.

[jimnyc]

Telling a lie against allah, for example not accepting that he imparted the qur'an to mohamed, is described as the greatest evil, apparently even worse than murder.

And in many places it is considered blasphemy, and a harsh sentence, including death, is often meted out. Jafar states that this is nothing to do with Islam though and is simply a human thing I suppose. :dunno:

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jafar00 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=628408#post628408)

I don't see you as an enemy....



Simply put, your god says he's my enemy, therefore you're obligated to share his view. If you doubt that, verse 2:98 of the qur'an proves it:

مَن كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّلّهِ وَمَلآئِكَتِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَجِبْرِيلَ وَمِيكَالَ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ عَدُوٌّ لِّلْكَافِرِينَ

The first underlined part (to the right) means, "whoever is an enemy of allah". Topping the list of that which makes one an enemy of allah is the sin of not being a muslim. Verse 39:32 says, "Who does greater evil than he who lies against Allah and belies the truth when it comes to him? Is there not a lodging in Gehenna (Hell) for the unbelievers"? Telling a lie against allah, for example not accepting that he imparted the qur'an to mohamed, is described as the greatest evil, apparently even worse than murder. The left underlined phrase summarizes your god's view of such people by saying, "allah is the enemy of infidels". It couldn't be more clear.

Allah is a false god. He doesn't exist. Mohammad made him up.

Now... am I your enemy, Jahil? Or will you go against the will of your false god, Allah, and still claim I am not your enemy unless I point a gun at you?

[jimnyc]

Allah is a false god. He doesn't exist. Mohammad made him up.

Now... am I your enemy, Jahil? Or will you go against the will of your false god, Allah, and still claim I am not your enemy unless I point a gun at you?

I'll tell you how my Muslim friend tells me - I am in fact an infidel to him, but not a sworn enemy. He sees me as someone denying the will of Allah and denying the word of the Quran. He said he would try his entire life to keep me from going to hell, but ultimately that it is my choice to make, and he wouldn't forcefully do anything to me. BUT, BUT, BUT - And this applies to ALL of my friends.... I asked them, if there was ever some sort of world war 3, and it was Islam countries versus America, what would they do now that they are American citizens? A lot of beating around the bush, but Islam wins out. I would further ask, what if it's like America against Iran, Palestine, Syria... and it wasn't a religious war, but based on military differences and nukes and such - Islam wins out.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I'll tell you how my Muslim friend tells me - I am in fact an infidel to him, but not a sworn enemy. He sees me as someone denying the will of Allah and denying the word of the Quran. He said he would try his entire life to keep me from going to hell, but ultimately that it is my choice to make, and he wouldn't forcefully do anything to me. BUT, BUT, BUT - And this applies to ALL of my friends.... I asked them, if there was ever some sort of world war 3, and it was Islam countries versus America, what would they do now that they are American citizens? A lot of beating around the bush, but Islam wins out. I would further ask, what if it's like America against Iran, Palestine, Syria... and it wasn't a religious war, but based on military differences and nukes and such - Islam wins out.

Then he is not following the will of Allah, as written in the Qur'aan, and is therefore not 'really' Islamic.

[jimnyc]

Then he is not following the will of Allah, as written in the Qur'aan, and is therefore not 'really' Islamic.

Fwiw - he also "thinks" that Iran isn't Muslim. Sound familiar? In an argument he concedes, but would rather deny them.

It's the equivalent of us stating that rednecks aren't American, because we may disagree with their actions or their actions aren't representative of all of America.

[stevecanuck]

JimmyC, would you feel comfortable giving your muslim friends my OP and asking for their comments and/or rebuttal?

(Btw, are you a Penguins fan, and if so how did you like the deal for my man Iggy?)

[jimnyc]

JimmyC, would you feel comfortable giving your muslim friends my OP and asking for their comments and/or rebuttal?

(Btw, are you a Penguins fan, and if so how did you like the deal for my man Iggy?)

I most certainly will. I just printed it out and will keep it with me. I might only get the perspective of just one guy, depending, as the owner of the place I go to is looking for me to fix his laptop (software/OS) and I'm avoiding him! He paid me with dried peas once before, he no longer gets priority. :)

I was there a little while ago. My friend from Morocco was there and he had a friend from Saudi Arabia there. He told me his name, which I can't recall, and I never asked again as didn't want to look dumb. He was a younger fella, looked to be about 18-21 or so, real friendly. The only question I was able to fire off to him was about the article we had about the Grand Mufti wanting to destroy all churches. He said this was untrue and that there were churches within the kingdom itself. Then we chatted about some stuff in and around the US Embassy. While drinking is forbidden, the embassy has plenty on tap, and a guy he knows smuggles alcohol through there somehow and kind of sells it on the black market. Considering how hard it is to get for a muslim, he said it's like gold.

Only a Steelers fan from Pittsburgh! How you guys got Iginla is beyond me, and how Calgary let him get away after 16 years with them is crazy! Damn, I'm a Rangers fan (no jokes). While he hasn't been that great lately, he's an awesome player - the Rangers traded Marion Gaborik to beat the deadline earlier today.

[jafar00]

Yes, I'd like to see you answer this as well, Jafar. Link(s) ... verifiable statistics ... let's see if you can deliver ANY of that ...

... and if you CAN'T ... then accept the criticisms applicable to Islam on these grounds, as being specific to perversity sanctioned within Islam.

I've posted links before the other 3 or 4 times we have discussed this subject. Go and read the previous long winded circular arguments we had before or google it!

Meanwhile here are some freebies....

Isabella of Valois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_of_Valois) married King Richard II at the age of 6. Nobody called King Richard II a paedophile.

Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Beaufort,_Countess_of_Richmond_and_Derby# First_marriage) was married to John de la Pole (2nd Duke of Suffolk) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_la_Pole,_2nd_Duke_of_Suffolk) at the ripe old age of ONE. A wedding that was annulled 3 years later by the Pope because they were too closely related. Before that marriage was even annulled, she was betrothed by Henry VI to Edmund Tudor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Tudor,_1st_Earl_of_Richmond) and married him at the age of 12. Incidentally John de la Pole went on to marry Elizabeth of York, Duchess of Suffolk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_of_York,_Duchess_of_Suffolk) who was 13.

Nobody called King Richard II, John de la Pole, or Edmund Tudor a paedophile even though they would be charged as such by today's standards.

Do I really need to offer more evidence that child brides were the custom of the time, or are you going to continue to blindly accuse Mohamed (saw) of being a pervert while ignoring everyone else and the evidence against your accusation?


As for the blue 'car burkha' .. it's an Afghan colour, eh ? What ... Muslims wear different colours according to nationality, just a bit like Star Trek uniforms ??

So tell me this. How do you know that the picture wasn't of Afghans driving around in Iran ... no doubt trying to prove how 'Muslim' they were, to avoid being stoned ....

I don't know why but the Taliban made the women in Afghanistan all wear Burkhas that are a particular shade of blue. Maybe Mullah Omar is colour blind out of his one eye and thinks they are wearing black?




Simply put, your god says he's my enemy, therefore you're obligated to share his view. If you doubt that, verse 2:98 of the qur'an proves it:

مَن كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّلّهِ وَمَلآئِكَتِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَجِبْرِيلَ وَمِيكَالَ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ عَدُوٌّ لِّلْكَافِرِينَ

The first underlined part (to the right) means, "whoever is an enemy of allah". Topping the list of that which makes one an enemy of allah is the sin of not being a muslim. Verse 39:32 says, "Who does greater evil than he who lies against Allah and belies the truth when it comes to him? Is there not a lodging in Gehenna (Hell) for the unbelievers"? Telling a lie against allah, for example not accepting that he imparted the qur'an to mohamed, is described as the greatest evil, apparently even worse than murder. The left underlined phrase summarizes your god's view of such people by saying, "allah is the enemy of infidels". It couldn't be more clear.

مَن كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّلَّهِ وَمَلَائِكَتِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَجِبْرِيلَ وَمِيكَالَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَدُوٌّ لِّلْكَافِرِينَ

Please go back and read the hadith I posted about that verse (2:98) being about a particular group of people who hated the Angel Gabriel because he brought the revelation of the Qur'aan to Mohamed (saw).

So, as I mentioned before, God is not fond of disbelievers. This theme is all through the Bible too so it shouldn't be a surprise to you if you are a Christian.

[jimnyc]

^^"nobody called so and so a pedophile" - NOT TRUE - I've already told you that I equally condemn any comparable acts with toddlers/children. They are all equally disgusting IMO. 'Cept the thing is, there is pretty much only one person I can think of, from present day, that is held up on a pedestal as a prophet. Do you see me making excuses for the actions of others that do similarly?

ALL WRONG ALL WRONG ALL WRONG. Being a custom doesn't make it ok, Jafar. Coming up with some examples won't make it OK for the examples you gave, nor for Muhammed. ALL EQUALLY WRONG if done at such an age. But again, only one I can think of that stood the test of time and has a lot of people holding him up as someone to be revered.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I've posted links before the other 3 or 4 times we have discussed this subject. Go and read the previous long winded circular arguments we had before or google it!

Meanwhile here are some freebies....

Isabella of Valois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_of_Valois) married King Richard II at the age of 6. Nobody called King Richard II a paedophile.
They never lived together, and he died 3 years later. Nice try.

Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Beaufort,_Countess_of_Richmond_and_Derby# First_marriage) was married to John de la Pole (2nd Duke of Suffolk) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_la_Pole,_2nd_Duke_of_Suffolk) at the ripe old age of ONE.
Margaret was bethrothed at a young age to John de la Pole, but the marriage never took place.
http://tudorhistory.org/people/beaufort/

A wedding that was annulled 3 years later by the Pope because they were too closely related. Before that marriage was even annulled, she was betrothed by Henry VI to Edmund Tudor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Tudor,_1st_Earl_of_Richmond) and married him at the age of 12. Incidentally John de la Pole went on to marry Elizabeth of York, Duchess of Suffolk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_of_York,_Duchess_of_Suffolk) who was 13.

Nobody called King Richard II, John de la Pole, or Edmund Tudor a paedophile even though they would be charged as such by today's standards.
I did. Oh, and it pedophile

Do I really need to offer more evidence that child brides were the custom of the time, or are you going to continue to blindly accuse Mohamed (saw) of being a pervert while ignoring everyone else and the evidence against your accusation?
So, are you going to continue to blindly support and worships a pervert and pedophile?



I don't know why but the Taliban made the women in Afghanistan all wear Burkhas that are a particular shade of blue. Maybe Mullah Omar is colour blind out of his one eye and thinks they are wearing black?



مَن كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّلَّهِ وَمَلَائِكَتِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَجِبْرِيلَ وَمِيكَالَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَدُوٌّ لِّلْكَافِرِينَ

Please go back and read the hadith I posted about that verse (2:98) being about a particular group of people who hated the Angel Gabriel because he brought the revelation of the Qur'aan to Mohamed (saw).

So, as I mentioned before, God is not fond of disbelievers. This theme is all through the Bible too so it shouldn't be a surprise to you if you are a Christian.
God doesn't tell us to kill all non-believers


My comments in RED above

[Marcus Aurelius]

I wonder why Jahil has not come out and said he'd prevent his 6 year old daughter from marrying a 40 year old man in Islam, and from having sex at 9. Very telling.

[stevecanuck]

مَن كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّلَّهِ وَمَلَائِكَتِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَجِبْرِيلَ وَمِيكَالَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَدُوٌّ لِّلْكَافِرِينَ

Please go back and read the hadith I posted about that verse (2:98) being about a particular group of people who hated the Angel Gabriel because he brought the revelation of the Qur'aan to Mohamed (saw).

So, as I mentioned before, God is not fond of disbelievers. This theme is all through the Bible too so it shouldn't be a surprise to you if you are a Christian.

I'm sorry, but "not fond" is a gross understatement. عَدُوٌّ means "enemy", which is a completely different thing. I'm "not fond" of lots of people, but I don't consider them my enemy. Your god orders his followers to قَاتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ and that means, "Kill those who don't believe in allah". As for the middle part of the quote above, that's just more ways of saying infidel, and you know it. You also know it's open ended, as is the entire qur'an, otherwise what would be the point of teaching it. If it only applied to the specific instances surrounding mohamed and his time, it would simply be a history book (a VERY poor one) and not an instrument of instruction. It would also contradict the qur'an itself which at least twice states that it's a series of similitudes presented for the purpose of giving Man admonition. Any instruction from the qur'an is forever. Deny that.

Every time you post, you prove my signature line.

[jafar00]

I'm sorry, but "not fond" is a gross understatement. عَدُوٌّ means "enemy", which is a completely different thing. I'm "not fond" of lots of people, but I don't consider them my enemy. Your god orders his followers to قَاتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ and that means, "Kill those who don't believe in allah". As for the middle part of the quote above, that's just more ways of saying infidel, and you know it. You also know it's open ended, as is the entire qur'an, otherwise what would be the point of teaching it. If it only applied to the specific instances surrounding mohamed and his time, it would simply be a history book (a VERY poor one) and not an instrument of instruction. It would also contradict the qur'an itself which at least twice states that it's a series of similitudes presented for the purpose of giving Man admonition. Any instruction from the qur'an is forever. Deny that.

Every time you post, you prove my signature line.

Context is everything. If you knew what you are talking about you wouldn't mistranslate Qatilou as kill. It means fight. Furthermore, the verse you took your small slice from (9:29) refers to the Battle of Tabouk. Anyone who studies with Tafsir would know that.

Edit: Even wikipedia says so!
According to Saif ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri, many verses of Surah Tawbah (chapter 9 of the Quran) are related to the Battle of Tabuk.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-autogenerated1-2) The Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Kathir) mentions that verses 9:42-48, 9:49,[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-Saed_Abdul-Rahman_107-6)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-tafsir.com-7) 9:81,[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-Saed_Abdul-Rahman_137-8)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-ReferenceA-9) and 9:29 are all related to the Battle of Tabuk or were revealed during the Battle of Tabuk.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-Saed_Abdul-Rahman_107-6)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-ReferenceB-10)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk

I also checked 11 English translations to see where you got your mistranslation, and all of them translate Qatilou as "Fight", not "Kill". Even the French ones I have say "Combattez"

[Marcus Aurelius]

Context is everything. If you knew what you are talking about you wouldn't mistranslate Qatilou as kill. It means fight. Furthermore, the verse you took your small slice from (9:29) refers to the Battle of Tabouk. Anyone who studies with Tafsir would know that.

Edit: Even wikipedia says so!
According to Saif ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri, many verses of Surah Tawbah (chapter 9 of the Quran) are related to the Battle of Tabuk.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-autogenerated1-2) The Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Kathir) mentions that verses 9:42-48, 9:49,[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-Saed_Abdul-Rahman_107-6)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-tafsir.com-7) 9:81,[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-Saed_Abdul-Rahman_137-8)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-ReferenceA-9) and 9:29 are all related to the Battle of Tabuk or were revealed during the Battle of Tabuk.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-Saed_Abdul-Rahman_107-6)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-ReferenceB-10)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk

I also checked 11 English translations to see where you got your mistranslation, and all of them translate Qatilou as "Fight", not "Kill". Even the French ones I have say "Combattez"

So, the various parts of the Qur'aan only refer to specific incidents in history, and nothing else? They are not meant to guide you now, or teach you anything to use now?

Interesting.

[stevecanuck]

Context is everything. If you knew what you are talking about you wouldn't mistranslate Qatilou as kill. It means fight. Furthermore, the verse you took your small slice from (9:29) refers to the Battle of Tabouk. Anyone who studies with Tafsir would know that.

Another big lie from Jafar. The root qatl ( قتل ) means kill. Period. It's used frequently in the qur'an and always in the context of physical fighting (ie: making war). Even if it did mean fighting, it would mean it in the context of making war, so what's your point?

As for 9:29 referring to a specific battle, yes it does, as many verses refer to specific instances. So what? It's used as another "similitude from which Man is to take adominition". Again I ask, if it's not meant as a lesson, what's it doing in the qur'an?

Enter قتل in any translator and see what you get.

[aboutime]

Context is everything. If you knew what you are talking about you wouldn't mistranslate Qatilou as kill. It means fight. Furthermore, the verse you took your small slice from (9:29) refers to the Battle of Tabouk. Anyone who studies with Tafsir would know that.

Edit: Even wikipedia says so!
According to Saif ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri, many verses of Surah Tawbah (chapter 9 of the Quran) are related to the Battle of Tabuk.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-autogenerated1-2) The Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Kathir) mentions that verses 9:42-48, 9:49,[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-Saed_Abdul-Rahman_107-6)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-tafsir.com-7) 9:81,[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-Saed_Abdul-Rahman_137-8)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-ReferenceA-9) and 9:29 are all related to the Battle of Tabuk or were revealed during the Battle of Tabuk.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-Saed_Abdul-Rahman_107-6)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-ReferenceB-10)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk

I also checked 11 English translations to see where you got your mistranslation, and all of them translate Qatilou as "Fight", not "Kill". Even the French ones I have say "Combattez"


4817

[Marcus Aurelius]

Enter قتل in any translator and see what you get.


http://translation.babylon.com/arabic/to-english/

v. dispatch, kill, slay, murder, despatch, butcher, immolate, lay out, knock off, take for a ride, end, croak, finish, put to death, poleaxe, fire, shoot, procure, bag, put down

[stevecanuck]

Below are verse numbers with snippets showing the use of qatl and jihad. I put the Arabic root word in brackets. In all cases note that they are used in the context of waging war. All quotes are from the Yusuf Ali translation at http://www.islaam.net

2:191 - Kill (qatl) them wherever you find them...
2:216 - fighting (qatl) is obligatory for you...
4:74 - ...whoever fights (qatl) in the way of Allah, and is killed (qatl) or conquers, We shall give him a great wage.
4:76 - And those who believe fight (qatl) in the way of Allah,...
4:84 - Therefore, fight (qatl) in the way of Allah.
4:95 - Believers who stay behind, having no injury, are not equal to those who fight (jihad) in the way of Allah...
8:65 - O Prophet, urge the believers to fight (qatl).
9:5 - ...slay (qatl) the idolaters wherever you find them...
9:29 - Fight (qatl) those who neither believe in Allah...
9:30 - Allah fights (qatl) them! How perverted are they!
9:36 - ...and fight (qatl) against the unbelievers...
9:41 - ...and fight (jihad) for the Way of Allah...
9:111 - They fight (qatl) in the Way of Allah, slay (qatl) and are slain (qatl)...
9:123 - Believers, fight (qatl) the unbelievers who are near you...
33:60, 61 - If the hypocrites and those who have a disease in their hearts, and those who make a commotion in the City do not desist, We will surely urge you against them. Then they will be your neighbors for only a little (while), cursed wherever they are found, they will be seized and put to death (qatl).
61:4 - Allah loves those who fight (qatl) in His Way lining up as if they were a stacked building.

Of particular note are verses 2:191, 4:74 (second usage of qatl), 9:5, 9:111 (second and third usages of qatl), and 33:61 as they indisputably translate qatl to mean "kill".

Perhaps of even more importance is that if a = b, and c = b, then a = c. By that I mean that qatl is used interchangeably as both fight and kill, while jihad is translated as fight. Therefore, if kill = fight, and jihad = fight, then jihad = kill.

Just in case Jafar thinks he can cause a distraction by claiming that qatl and jihad are not used as I've said, know that various conjugations and tenses of them are used as Arabic grammar demands, but for simplicity, I supplied the root word.

[jimnyc]

Edit: Even wikipedia says so!

So since you recognize what Wiki posts - I assume that means you agree with what I posted, and they have on their site, about apostasy and blasphemy. :thumb:

[jimnyc]

Go to Google Translate - http://translate.google.com/

Then enter this and tell me what it states - قتل

[stevecanuck]

The verse that best demonstrates that 'qatl' means 'kill' is 4:74, as it contains the word three times, and the context makes the third use of it crystal clear as to it's meaning. Here are translations of 4:74 from other MUSLIM web sites (with the translation of 'qatl' underlined) that support my claim:

<!-- m -->http://www.dar-us-salam.com/TheNobleQuran/index.html<!-- m --> - ...fight in the Cause of Allah, and whoso fights in the Cause of Allah, and is killed or gets victory, We shall bestow on him a great reward.
<!-- m -->http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh ... 4&verse=74 (http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse%3A&ch=4&verse=74)<!-- m --> - Let those then fight in the cause of Allah who would sell the present life for the Hereafter. And whoso fights in the cause of Allah, be he slain...(this is shown as verse 4:75).
<!-- m -->http://quran.com/4<!-- m --> - So let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed ...
<!-- m -->http://www.universalunity.net/quran4/004.qmt.html<!-- m --> (here's a 4-fer for you) - YUSUFALI: Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
PICKTHAL: Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.
SHAKIR: Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.
KHALIFA: Those who readily fight in the cause of GOD are those who forsake this world in favor of the Hereafter. Whoever fights in the cause of GOD, then gets killed, or attains victory, we will surely grant him a great recompense.

Not only is that seven references that agree, they were the first seven in my google list.

Now let's see what various translation sites have to say about the word qatl:

http://translation.babylon.com/english/to-arabic/<!-- m --> translates 'kill' as 'قتل' (qatl)
<!-- m -->http://translate.google.ca/#auto/ar/<!-- m --> translates 'kill' as 'قتل' (qatl)
<!-- m -->http://www.stars21.com/translator/engli ... rabic.html (http://www.stars21.com/translator/english_to_arabic.html)<!-- m --> translates 'kill' as 'تقتل' (taqatl - the second person conjugation)
<!-- m -->http://webtranslation.paralink.com/Arab ... anslation/ (http://webtranslation.paralink.com/Arabic-English-Translation/)<!-- m --> translates 'kill' as 'قتل' (qatl)
<!-- m -->http://imtranslator.net/translation/eng ... anslation/ (http://imtranslator.net/translation/english/to-arabic/translation/)<!-- m --> translates 'kill' as 'قتل' (qatl)
<!-- m -->http://en.bab.la/dictionary/english-arabic/<!-- m --> translates 'kill' as 'القتل' (al qatl - meaning 'the killing')
<!-- m -->http://online.ectaco.co.uk/main.jsp;jse ... ar&source= (http://online.ectaco.co.uk/main.jsp;jsessionid=bc305104907443333744?do=e-services-dictionaries-word_translate1&direction=1&status=translate&lang1=23&lang2=ar&source=)<!-- m --> translates 'kill' as 'قتل' (qatl)

And these weren't cherry-picked. They were the first 7 sites that appeared. That's 14 sites that all agree that qatl means kill.

[jimnyc]

Steve - can you share with me what YOU know about apostasy and blasphemy? I have posted "proof" that much of Islam will condemn to death those who leave the faith, or those charged with blasphemy. As you saw, Jafar says this isn't the case, and not in the writings, which if course I provided for him. Admittedly, I'm not a Muslim, nor do I speak/read Arabic - but I doubt SO MANY places out there, including Wikipedia, are going to list strict details as I have posted if it weren't true. Not to mention, over the years, I have posted endless examples of people being killed for leaving Islam, and for blasphemy.

[stevecanuck]

Steve - can you share with me what YOU know about apostasy and blasphemy? I have posted "proof" that much of Islam will condemn to death those who leave the faith, or those charged with blasphemy. As you saw, Jafar says this isn't the case, and not in the writings, which if course I provided for him. Admittedly, I'm not a Muslim, nor do I speak/read Arabic - but I doubt SO MANY places out there, including Wikipedia, are going to list strict details as I have posted if it weren't true. Not to mention, over the years, I have posted endless examples of people being killed for leaving Islam, and for blasphemy.

I had this in my OP:

Bukhari, Volume: 9, Book Number: 83, Hadith Number: 17, Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam and leaves the Muslims."

Finding such a blantant call for death in the qur'an is harder, because it's not as direct to the best of my knowledge. That will make an interesting research project.

Saudi Arabia has the death penalty for apostasy, so if anyone can be counted on to get it right, it's the people live in the birth place of islam, speak the language of the qur'an, and who have been practicing it unabated for 1400 years, so logic says it must be clearly understood that death is the penalty for apostasy.

[Voted4Reagan]

The verse that best demonstrates that 'qatl' means 'kill' is 4:74, as it contains the word three times, and the context makes the third use of it crystal clear as to it's meaning. Here are translations of 4:74 from other MUSLIM web sites (with the translation of 'qatl' underlined) that support my claim:

<!-- m -->http://www.dar-us-salam.com/TheNobleQuran/index.html<!-- m --> - ...fight in the Cause of Allah, and whoso fights in the Cause of Allah, and is killed or gets victory, We shall bestow on him a great reward.
<!-- m -->http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh ... 4&verse=74 (http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse%3A&ch=4&verse=74)<!-- m --> - Let those then fight in the cause of Allah who would sell the present life for the Hereafter. And whoso fights in the cause of Allah, be he slain...(this is shown as verse 4:75).
<!-- m -->http://quran.com/4<!-- m --> - So let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed ...
<!-- m -->http://www.universalunity.net/quran4/004.qmt.html<!-- m --> (here's a 4-fer for you) - YUSUFALI: Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
PICKTHAL: Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.
SHAKIR: Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.
KHALIFA: Those who readily fight in the cause of GOD are those who forsake this world in favor of the Hereafter. Whoever fights in the cause of GOD, then gets killed, or attains victory, we will surely grant him a great recompense.

Not only is that seven references that agree, they were the first seven in my google list.

Now let's see what various translation sites have to say about the word qatl:

http://translation.babylon.com/english/to-arabic/<!-- m --> translates 'kill' as 'قتل' (qatl)
<!-- m -->http://translate.google.ca/#auto/ar/<!-- m --> translates 'kill' as 'قتل' (qatl)
<!-- m -->http://www.stars21.com/translator/engli ... rabic.html (http://www.stars21.com/translator/english_to_arabic.html)<!-- m --> translates 'kill' as 'تقتل' (taqatl - the second person conjugation)
<!-- m -->http://webtranslation.paralink.com/Arab ... anslation/ (http://webtranslation.paralink.com/Arabic-English-Translation/)<!-- m --> translates 'kill' as 'قتل' (qatl)
<!-- m -->http://imtranslator.net/translation/eng ... anslation/ (http://imtranslator.net/translation/english/to-arabic/translation/)<!-- m --> translates 'kill' as 'قتل' (qatl)
<!-- m -->http://en.bab.la/dictionary/english-arabic/<!-- m --> translates 'kill' as 'القتل' (al qatl - meaning 'the killing')
<!-- m -->http://online.ectaco.co.uk/main.jsp;jse ... ar&source= (http://online.ectaco.co.uk/main.jsp;jsessionid=bc305104907443333744?do=e-services-dictionaries-word_translate1&direction=1&status=translate&lang1=23&lang2=ar&source=)<!-- m --> translates 'kill' as 'قتل' (qatl)

And these weren't cherry-picked. They were the first 7 sites that appeared. That's 14 sites that all agree that qatl means kill.


I told you all that Steve knows all of this... I really expected Jafar to provide a more meaningful discourse with someone who is well versed in Quranic Study.

and Jafar... Steve is not Christian.. I believe he is Atheist or Agnostic. He comes from a totally intellectual perspective, not one that is mired in theology.

[stevecanuck]

Btw, JimmyC, I think you misunderstood me before about the Penguins. I'm a Calgarian (long suffering), and assumed you might be a Pens fan because of the Steelers avatar.

Hey, I just noticed I've been reading your name wrong all this time. I see it's jimnyc. Now I get it. Duh.

[jafar00]

Another big lie from Jafar. The root qatl ( قتل ) means kill. Period. It's used frequently in the qur'an and always in the context of physical fighting (ie: making war). Even if it did mean fighting, it would mean it in the context of making war, so what's your point?

As for 9:29 referring to a specific battle, yes it does, as many verses refer to specific instances. So what? It's used as another "similitude from which Man is to take adominition". Again I ask, if it's not meant as a lesson, what's it doing in the qur'an?

Enter قتل in any translator and see what you get.


Google translate is not always right. If you ask an actual translator who does it for a job, you would get a different answer.

[11:01:46] Jafar Calley 195: habibi
[11:01:54] Jafar Calley 195: how would you translate قتل ?
[11:02:02] Eman Mostafa: Kill
[11:02:11] Jafar Calley 195: ok
[11:02:24] Jafar Calley 195: but in all English Qur'aan translations they say fight
[11:02:47] Eman Mostafa: yes , it could be...
[11:03:03] Eman Mostafa: اقتتل..أقتتال
[11:03:13] Eman Mostafa: means fight
[11:03:13] Jafar Calley 195: وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ
[11:03:27] Eman Mostafa: yeah means fight
[11:04:13] Jafar Calley 195: So the root is kill but in context it changes to fight?
[11:07:06] Eman Mostafa: yes
[11:07:15] Eman Mostafa: it depends on the context
[11:07:23] Eman Mostafa: like the words in english
[11:07:58] Eman Mostafa: because if he meant kill in this sentence..it would be in Arabic like this
[11:08:10] Eman Mostafa: و أقتلوا فى سبيل الله
[11:08:41] Eman Mostafa: but قاتلوا
[11:08:58] Eman Mostafa: means fight


So the root Qatil means kill but when used in context, it means fight.



Go to Google Translate - http://translate.google.com/

Then enter this and tell me what it states - قتل

Yes, correct but do you see this word anywhere in what has been quoted thus far in the thread?


I had this in my OP:

Bukhari, Volume: 9, Book Number: 83, Hadith Number: 17, Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam and leaves the Muslims."

Finding such a blantant call for death in the qur'an is harder, because it's not as direct to the best of my knowledge. That will make an interesting research project.

Saudi Arabia has the death penalty for apostasy, so if anyone can be counted on to get it right, it's the people live in the birth place of islam, speak the language of the qur'an, and who have been practicing it unabated for 1400 years, so logic says it must be clearly understood that death is the penalty for apostasy.

Again, this has been debated at length in other threads. The death penalty imposed was not for apostasy, but for high treason. At the time, Muslims were at war and hypocrites were defecting and aiding the enemy in their attacks against the Muslims.

Also I must state again that Saudi Arabia is ruled by the Wahhabi elite and I do not agree with their misguided extremism.


I told you all that Steve knows all of this... I really expected Jafar to provide a more meaningful discourse with someone who is well versed in Quranic Study.

and Jafar... Steve is not Christian.. I believe he is Atheist or Agnostic. He comes from a totally intellectual perspective, not one that is mired in theology.

That explains why he twists Islam with the skill of an Al Qaeda spokesperson. Are you sure he is not working with them? :laugh:

[aboutime]

Google translate is not always right. If you ask an actual translator who does it for a job, you would get a different answer.

[11:01:46] Jafar Calley 195: habibi
[11:01:54] Jafar Calley 195: how would you translate قتل ?
[11:02:02] Eman Mostafa: Kill
[11:02:11] Jafar Calley 195: ok
[11:02:24] Jafar Calley 195: but in all English Qur'aan translations they say fight
[11:02:47] Eman Mostafa: yes , it could be...
[11:03:03] Eman Mostafa: اقتتل..أقتتال
[11:03:13] Eman Mostafa: means fight
[11:03:13] Jafar Calley 195: وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ
[11:03:27] Eman Mostafa: yeah means fight
[11:04:13] Jafar Calley 195: So the root is kill but in context it changes to fight?
[11:07:06] Eman Mostafa: yes
[11:07:15] Eman Mostafa: it depends on the context
[11:07:23] Eman Mostafa: like the words in english
[11:07:58] Eman Mostafa: because if he meant kill in this sentence..it would be in Arabic like this
[11:08:10] Eman Mostafa: و أقتلوا فى سبيل الله
[11:08:41] Eman Mostafa: but قاتلوا
[11:08:58] Eman Mostafa: means fight


So the root Qatil means kill but when used in context, it means fight.




Yes, correct but do you see this word anywhere in what has been quoted thus far in the thread?



Again, this has been debated at length in other threads. The death penalty imposed was not for apostasy, but for high treason. At the time, Muslims were at war and hypocrites were defecting and aiding the enemy in their attacks against the Muslims.

Also I must state again that Saudi Arabia is ruled by the Wahhabi elite and I do not agree with their misguided extremism.



That explains why he twists Islam with the skill of an Al Qaeda spokesperson. Are you sure he is not working with them? :laugh:


Wow jafar. Proving your lies with documented lies? That's amazing, and it really must hurt. But then. Since you have no feelings. It doesn't matter as long as you can applaud terror...HAMAS style.

[jimnyc]

Again, this has been debated at length in other threads. The death penalty imposed was not for apostasy, but for high treason. At the time, Muslims were at war and hypocrites were defecting and aiding the enemy in their attacks against the Muslims.

I will ask again - do you believe in Sharia? Do you follow Sharia? I am told that Sharia and Islam are enjoined and one and the same, is this not correct? Do you deny what Islamic Sharia Law states about Sharia, or do you deny what it states?

A refresher:

In Islamic law (sharia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia)), the consensus view was that a male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder) or converted under duress, for example, due to an imminent danger of being killed. A female apostate must be either executed, according to Shafi'i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafi%27i), Maliki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maliki), and Hanbali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbali) schools of Sunni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni) Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh)), or imprisoned until she reverts to Islam as advocated by the Sunni Hanafi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanafi) school and by Shi'a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27a) scholars.[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-EI_Murtadd-60) A minority of medieval Islamic jurists, notably the Hanafi jurist Sarakhsi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarakhsi) (d. 1090),[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-Saeed-12) Maliki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maliki) jurist Ibn al-Walid al-Baji (d. 494 AH) and Hanbali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbali) jurist Ibn Taymiyyah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Taymiyyah) (1263–1328), held that apostasy carries no legal punishment.[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-Kamali-61)
Contemporary Islamic Shafi`i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafi%60i) jurists such as the Grand Mufti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mufti) Ali Gomaa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Gomaa),[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-Gomaa-62)[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-Tawab-63) Shi'a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27a_Islam) jurists such as Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Ayatollah_Hossein-Ali_Montazeri),[64] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-Jami-64) and some jurists, scholars and writers of other Islamic sects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_Islam), have argued or issued fatwas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa) that either the changing of religion is not punishable or is only punishable under restricted circumstances, but these minority opinions have not found broad acceptance among the majority of Islamic scholars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulema)

[jimnyc]

I had this in my OP:

Bukhari, Volume: 9, Book Number: 83, Hadith Number: 17, Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam and leaves the Muslims."

Finding such a blantant call for death in the qur'an is harder, because it's not as direct to the best of my knowledge. That will make an interesting research project.

Saudi Arabia has the death penalty for apostasy, so if anyone can be counted on to get it right, it's the people live in the birth place of islam, speak the language of the qur'an, and who have been practicing it unabated for 1400 years, so logic says it must be clearly understood that death is the penalty for apostasy.

I guess Jafar isn't a big follower of the Kabba and Medina and such, or believe that Saudi Arabia is the Holy Land. Or maybe he believes in those things, but denies Saudi Arabia as true muslims as well, as its too much for him to defend? LOL

[jimnyc]

Btw, JimmyC, I think you misunderstood me before about the Penguins. I'm a Calgarian (long suffering), and assumed you might be a Pens fan because of the Steelers avatar.

Hey, I just noticed I've been reading your name wrong all this time. I see it's jimnyc. Now I get it. Duh.

Ok, in that case, how the hell did your team let that man go? I know he's used an abused, but I think he still has some wheels, and he's inspirational to the team alone is enough!

Years and years ago I started the name, to be Jim and reference me working in NYC. I know, lame!

[jafar00]

Bukhari, Volume: 9, Book Number: 83, Hadith Number: 17, Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam and leaves the Muslims."


Ahad Hadiths (Hadiths with only one person in the chain of transmission) are not allowed to be used as a basis of Sharia law since what was transmitted may have happened, but there is no verification as there is with Hadiths with more than one person in the chain (Mutawatir). Only Wahhabi use ahad hadiths as their basis of law because they reject the opinions of scholars that came before them. They are kind of like a man that reads a few medical books and without any formal training, decides that he is a Doctor and makes up his own way of treating his patients. This is why little extremist groups like Al Qaeda, and Al Shabab exist. They are stupid, misguided people who are misusing powerful information in a way that is dangerous.

You are falling into the same trap.

There is also no evidence that the Prophet Mohamed (saw) ever had anyone killed for leaving Islam alone.

[aboutime]

Ahad Hadiths (Hadiths with only one person in the chain of transmission) are not allowed to be used as a basis of Sharia law since what was transmitted may have happened, but there is no verification as there is with Hadiths with more than one person in the chain (Mutawatir). Only Wahhabi use ahad hadiths as their basis of law because they reject the opinions of scholars that came before them. They are kind of like a man that reads a few medical books and without any formal training, decides that he is a Doctor and makes up his own way of treating his patients. This is why little extremist groups like Al Qaeda, and Al Shabab exist. They are stupid, misguided people who are misusing powerful information in a way that is dangerous.

You are falling into the same trap.

There is also no evidence that the Prophet Mohamed (saw) ever had anyone killed for leaving Islam alone.

And...there is no evidence you can provide to prove he didn't!

[jafar00]

I will ask again - do you believe in Sharia? Do you follow Sharia? I am told that Sharia and Islam are enjoined and one and the same, is this not correct? Do you deny what Islamic Sharia Law states about Sharia, or do you deny what it states?

A refresher:

In Islamic law (sharia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia)), the consensus view was that a male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder) or converted under duress, for example, due to an imminent danger of being killed. A female apostate must be either executed, according to Shafi'i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafi%27i), Maliki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maliki), and Hanbali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbali) schools of Sunni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni) Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh)), or imprisoned until she reverts to Islam as advocated by the Sunni Hanafi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanafi) school and by Shi'a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27a) scholars.[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-EI_Murtadd-60) A minority of medieval Islamic jurists, notably the Hanafi jurist Sarakhsi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarakhsi) (d. 1090),[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-Saeed-12) Maliki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maliki) jurist Ibn al-Walid al-Baji (d. 494 AH) and Hanbali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbali) jurist Ibn Taymiyyah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Taymiyyah) (1263–1328), held that apostasy carries no legal punishment.[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-Kamali-61)
Contemporary Islamic Shafi`i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafi%60i) jurists such as the Grand Mufti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mufti) Ali Gomaa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Gomaa),[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-Gomaa-62)[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-Tawab-63) Shi'a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27a_Islam) jurists such as Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Ayatollah_Hossein-Ali_Montazeri),[64] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#cite_note-Jami-64) and some jurists, scholars and writers of other Islamic sects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_Islam), have argued or issued fatwas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa) that either the changing of religion is not punishable or is only punishable under restricted circumstances, but these minority opinions have not found broad acceptance among the majority of Islamic scholars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulema)

Whoever filled in that Wiki is wrong.

No matter what you say or what weak Hadiths you think you can use to justify an extremist position that there is a death penalty for leaving Islam, it can be easily countered with a single verse from the Qur'aan. (4:37)

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ثُمَّ كَفَرُوا ثُمَّ آمَنُوا ثُمَّ كَفَرُوا ثُمَّ ازْدَادُوا كُفْرًا لَّمْ يَكُنِ اللَّهُ لِيَغْفِرَ لَهُمْ وَلَا لِيَهْدِيَهُمْ سَبِيلًا
Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way.

Thus there is no worldy punishment for leaving Islam or how could people believe then reject then believe again then reject again. Surely they could only reject once if they were put to death?

There are other verses describing afterlife punishment for turning away only.

I can't believe you are so ready to accept an extremist point of view. It's like you WANT Al Qaeda or the Taliban to be right?

[jimnyc]

Whoever filled in that Wiki is wrong.

No matter what you say or what weak Hadiths you think you can use to justify an extremist position that there is a death penalty for leaving Islam, it can be easily countered with a single verse from the Qur'aan. (4:37)

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ثُمَّ كَفَرُوا ثُمَّ آمَنُوا ثُمَّ كَفَرُوا ثُمَّ ازْدَادُوا كُفْرًا لَّمْ يَكُنِ اللَّهُ لِيَغْفِرَ لَهُمْ وَلَا لِيَهْدِيَهُمْ سَبِيلًا
Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way.

Thus there is no worldy punishment for leaving Islam or how could people believe then reject then believe again then reject again. Surely they could only reject once if they were put to death?

There are other verses describing afterlife punishment for turning away only.

I can't believe you are so ready to accept an extremist point of view. It's like you WANT Al Qaeda or the Taliban to be right?

I believe there is good and bad out there on the issue. But I've seen MORE than enough evidence to know that this practice exists today and still happens often. Whether written in the hadiths as the page explained, or they are wrong as you say, it's still Muslims dying and the people killing are doing so because the other left the faith. Even if they are doing so incorrectly, it's an issue within Islam, even if not something the religion projects. But are you saying that Muslims in countries all over the world should ignore when this happens, because they aren't true Muslims because it's not written in the Quran or hadiths?

[jafar00]

I believe there is good and bad out there on the issue. But I've seen MORE than enough evidence to know that this practice exists today and still happens often. Whether written in the hadiths as the page explained, or they are wrong as you say, it's still Muslims dying and the people killing are doing so because the other left the faith. Even if they are doing so incorrectly, it's an issue within Islam, even if not something the religion projects. But are you saying that Muslims in countries all over the world should ignore when this happens, because they aren't true Muslims because it's not written in the Quran or hadiths?

No, it shouldn't be ignored, and it is wrong. It is also wrong to say that Islam has the death penalty for Apostasy when it clearly doesn't. The bad practices of bad people do not represent the religion any more than the LRA are a group of good Christian soldiers.

[Marcus Aurelius]

No, it shouldn't be ignored, and it is wrong. It is also wrong to say that Islam has the death penalty for Apostasy when it clearly doesn't. The bad practices of bad people do not represent the religion any more than the LRA are a group of good Christian soldiers.

when the vast majority of a groups does something, it's the group, not some 'bad individuals'. The vast majority of Islamic countries kill people who try to leave Islam. They have to flee to live.

You support this by lying about it.

[stevecanuck]

Ahad Hadiths (Hadiths with only one person in the chain of transmission) are not allowed to be used as a basis of Sharia law since what was transmitted may have happened, but there is no verification as there is with Hadiths with more than one person in the chain (Mutawatir). Only Wahhabi use ahad hadiths as their basis of law because they reject the opinions of scholars that came before them. They are kind of like a man that reads a few medical books and without any formal training, decides that he is a Doctor and makes up his own way of treating his patients. This is why little extremist groups like Al Qaeda, and Al Shabab exist. They are stupid, misguided people who are misusing powerful information in a way that is dangerous.

You are falling into the same trap.

There is also no evidence that the Prophet Mohamed (saw) ever had anyone killed for leaving Islam alone.

Have it your way. Here's another:

12: Volume: 9, Book Number: 83, Hadith Number: 37
Narrated Abu Qilaba: Once 'Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz sat on his throne in the courtyard of his house so that the people might gather before him. Then he admitted them and (when they came in), he said, "What do you think of Al-Qasama?" They said, "We say that it is lawful to depend on Al-Qasama in Qisas, as the previous Muslim Caliphs carried out Qisas depending on it." Then he said to me, "O Abu Qilaba! What do you say about it?" He let me appear before the people and I said, "O Chief of the Believers! You have the chiefs of the army staff and the nobles of the Arabs. If fifty of them testified that a married man had committed illegal sexual intercourse in Damascus but they had not seen him (doing so), would you stone him?" He said, "No." I said, "If fifty of them testified that a man had committed theft in Hums, would you cut off his hand though they did not see him?" He replied, "No." I said, "By Allah, Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

[jimnyc]

Have it your way. Here's another:

12: Volume: 9, Book Number: 83, Hadith Number: 37
Narrated Abu Qilaba: Once 'Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz sat on his throne in the courtyard of his house so that the people might gather before him. Then he admitted them and (when they came in), he said, "What do you think of Al-Qasama?" They said, "We say that it is lawful to depend on Al-Qasama in Qisas, as the previous Muslim Caliphs carried out Qisas depending on it." Then he said to me, "O Abu Qilaba! What do you say about it?" He let me appear before the people and I said, "O Chief of the Believers! You have the chiefs of the army staff and the nobles of the Arabs. If fifty of them testified that a married man had committed illegal sexual intercourse in Damascus but they had not seen him (doing so), would you stone him?" He said, "No." I said, "If fifty of them testified that a man had committed theft in Hums, would you cut off his hand though they did not see him?" He replied, "No." I said, "By Allah, Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

That's exactly what I found last night and showed my friend from Morocco. First he said there is no death for leaving the faith. I asked him "Not even in remote tribal regions, or places that are a little more 'hardline'" and he still said no. I showed him the wiki entry and what you just posted. He then said, yes, some people still follow that stuff but that it was in reference to a long time ago. I then asked "Are there still places around the world that take this writing literally, in todays time, and people are getting killed or sentenced to death for leaving" and he replied yes. Not sure what the difference in my questioning was!

I'm not saying ALL of Islam adheres to this. Shoot, it's probably even an extreme minority of people/places. But my contention was, that there ARE still places that follow hardline Sharia and punish MUCH more harshly than other areas. I know that in Saudi he was telling me that if you got caught stealing, CHOP, off comes the hand! LOL He said there is little to no stealing though, so I guess it's a decent deterrent. But they don't do this in Morocco or Jordan. But just because it doesn't happen everywhere, doesn't mean it doesn't happen in some places. Some of the older punishments need to be left in the past, IMO.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Have it your way. Here's another:

12: Volume: 9, Book Number: 83, Hadith Number: 37
Narrated Abu Qilaba: Once 'Umar bin 'Abdul 'Aziz sat on his throne in the courtyard of his house so that the people might gather before him. Then he admitted them and (when they came in), he said, "What do you think of Al-Qasama?" They said, "We say that it is lawful to depend on Al-Qasama in Qisas, as the previous Muslim Caliphs carried out Qisas depending on it." Then he said to me, "O Abu Qilaba! What do you say about it?" He let me appear before the people and I said, "O Chief of the Believers! You have the chiefs of the army staff and the nobles of the Arabs. If fifty of them testified that a married man had committed illegal sexual intercourse in Damascus but they had not seen him (doing so), would you stone him?" He said, "No." I said, "If fifty of them testified that a man had committed theft in Hums, would you cut off his hand though they did not see him?" He replied, "No." I said, "By Allah, Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

Number 3: Jahil will claim it was meant only for that one incident, and not as policy.

[stevecanuck]

He still hasn't explained why, if muslims are supposed to follow the hadiths, it took over 2 centuries for them to be compiled. I guess allah isn't much for planning or foresight.

[Voted4Reagan]

He still hasn't explained why, if muslims are supposed to follow the hadiths, it took over 2 centuries for them to be compiled. I guess allah isn't much for planning or foresight.

But according to the Quran, aren't those the words of Men and not those of the Prophet (may peace be upon him)?

I quote...


"Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this book sufficiently detailed?" Those to whom We have given the book know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt. The word of your Lord has been completed with truth and justice; there is no changing His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower.

[Quran 6:114-115]

[stevecanuck]

But according to the Quran, aren't those the words of Men and not those of the Prophet (may peace be upon him)?

I quote...


"Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this book sufficiently detailed?" Those to whom We have given the book know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt. The word of your Lord has been completed with truth and justice; there is no changing His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower.

[Quran 6:114-115]

True, but it also says to obey god and his prophet, which is where the hadiths come in. The illogic that should be readly apparent is if the qur'an is "sufficiently detailed", then why is there any need for further hallucination, er I mean elucidation?

So, Jafar, which is it? Is the the qur'an sufficiently detailed, or do you have to listen to mohamed for more clarity? Good point, V4R.

[Marcus Aurelius]

But according to the Quran, aren't those the words of Men and not those of the Prophet (may peace be upon him)?

I quote...


"Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this book sufficiently detailed?" Those to whom We have given the book know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt. The word of your Lord has been completed with truth and justice; there is no changing His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower.

[Quran 6:114-115]

according to Jahil, the Qur'aan is not sufficiently detailed, thus we have the hadiths to help. After all, Jahil knows more about Islam than Allah... so he seems to always imply to us.

[stevecanuck]

I'm still waiting for him to explain how it's possible to capture the territory of those who have never attacked you and still call it defensive. Perhaps he means that after the muslims attacked the byzantines and persians, they started to fight back thereby causing the muslims to have to "defend themselves".

[Marcus Aurelius]

I'm still waiting for him to explain how it's possible to capture the territory of those who have never attacked you and still call it defensive. Perhaps he means that after the muslims attacked the byzantines and persians, they started to fight back thereby causing the muslims to have to "defend themselves".

I'm still waiting for him to tell us if he'd allow his 6 year old daughter to marry a 40 year old man, and have sex with him at 9. After all, if it was good enough for Mohammad.....

[jafar00]

(3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

Did you even read what you posted? Thanks for backing up what I said before. The Prophet (saw) never killed anyone for leaving Islam alone.



True, but it also says to obey god and his prophet, which is where the hadiths come in. The illogic that should be readly apparent is if the qur'an is "sufficiently detailed", then why is there any need for further hallucination, er I mean elucidation?

So, Jafar, which is it? Is the the qur'an sufficiently detailed, or do you have to listen to mohamed for more clarity? Good point, V4R.

Yes. The Qur'aan is about us. The Hadiths are the howto. For example, the hadiths tell us how many times to pray, how to determine those times, how to actually do it, what to recite, what to do in certain situations (like travel or if you fear for your safety) etc... It is a way for us to follow the example of the Prophet (saw) and his companions.


I'm still waiting for him to explain how it's possible to capture the territory of those who have never attacked you and still call it defensive. Perhaps he means that after the muslims attacked the byzantines and persians, they started to fight back thereby causing the muslims to have to "defend themselves".

Defensive wars can result in captured territory can't they? Wasn't the response to 9/11 a defensive war?

[aboutime]

NOTE TO ALL MEMBERS.

This is for jafar. Since nothing anyone else says means anything to him.

Let's let him have his own place to tell it all....4826

[stevecanuck]

Is there anyone reading this thread, other then Tyr, jimnyc, V4R, Marcus, and abouttime, who thinks Jafar is making reasonable points? Show of hands please. If there is anyone who needs to be disabused of that notion I'll be happy to detail just exactly how full of 5h!t he is. Otherwise, I'm certain his lies are falling on deaf ears.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by stevecanuck http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=629294#post629294)


...So, Jafar, which is it? Is the the qur'an sufficiently detailed, or do you have to listen to mohamed for more clarity? Good point, V4R.



Yes. The Qur'aan is about us. The Hadiths are the howto. For example, the hadiths tell us how many times to pray, how to determine those times, how to actually do it, what to recite, what to do in certain situations (like travel or if you fear for your safety) etc... It is a way for us to follow the example of the Prophet (saw) and his companions.



So... the Quar'aan (the supposed word of Allah) itself claims it is sufficiently detailed... yet Jahil says the hadiths give the details. again, Jahil claims to know more than Allah.

Sounds a lot like blasphemy.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Is there anyone reading this thread, other then Tyr, jimnyc, V4R, Marcus, and abouttime, who thinks Jafar is making reasonable points? Show of hands please. If there is anyone who needs to be disabused of that notion I'll be happy to detail just exactly how full of 5h!t he is. Otherwise, I'm certain his lies are falling on deaf ears.

I know that Jafar plays games with his answers. He also cleverly avoids answering certain hard questions about Islam.

Anybody here that thinks his answers are not feeble attempts to spin a lie big enough to give cover for the great lie that is the Koran should just join in with him and answer in defense of Islam too! Do not be shy , speak out with your posts . Otherwise we will know that Jafar stands alone and can FIND NO SUPPORT FOR HIS RELIGION. Know that Allah sent Jafar no help.

How can that be!!????--Tyr

[stevecanuck]

Did you even read what you posted? Thanks for backing up what I said before. The Prophet (saw) never killed anyone for leaving Islam alone.

Yes, I read it. Did you? I don't think so, otherwise you wouldn't have posted such a ridiculous rebuttal. Read it again, this time focusing on the word in blue.

I said, "By Allah, Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."




Yes. The Qur'aan is about us. The Hadiths are the howto. For example, the hadiths tell us how many times to pray, how to determine those times, how to actually do it, what to recite, what to do in certain situations (like travel or if you fear for your safety) etc... It is a way for us to follow the example of the Prophet (saw) and his companions.

If the qur'an doesn't include how many times to pray, it can't possibly be called "sufficiently detailed", but please go on pretending otherwise. Pretending is all you have.




Defensive wars can result in captured territory can't they? Wasn't the response to 9/11 a defensive war?

Please tell us who attacked first, the muslims or the byzantines and persians.

[tailfins]

True, but it also says to obey god and his prophet, which is where the hadiths come in. The illogic that should be readly apparent is if the qur'an is "sufficiently detailed", then why is there any need for further hallucination, er I mean elucidation?

So, Jafar, which is it? Is the the qur'an sufficiently detailed, or do you have to listen to mohamed for more clarity? Good point, V4R.

A sidebar question here: Steve, what would happen if you refactored your posts in this thread into a letter to the editor and sent it off the Toronto Globe and Mail?

[stevecanuck]

A sidebar question here: Steve, what would happen if you refactored your posts in this thread into a letter to the editor and sent it off the Toronto Globe and Mail?

It would have to be apropos of something as opposed to a shot out of the blue. However, I do frequently respond to muslim's lies that appear in the Calgary Herald.

[Voted4Reagan]

Prophet Muhammad himself commanded his people not to write his hadith, this is documented in the collection of 'Muslim' and other books:

"Do not write down anything from me except the Quran. Whoever writes other than that should delete it" (Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Vol. 1, page 171 also Sahih Muslim, Book 42, Number 7147)

For the first 150 years to 200 years after the death of the prophet, and in accordance to his commands, the writing of his hadith was forbidden. The first one to document a comprehensive collection of hadith was Al-Bukhari, note that Al-Bukhari was born in the year 194 After Hijrah. What this means is that the first of what is regarded as authentic hadith (sahih) to be compiled was written more than two whole centuries after the death of the Prophet!




Even if we were to follow the hadith (something which is clearly prohibited in the Quran), we would still be faced with the question: how accurate can a collection of sayings documented two centuries after the death of the Prophet be?


http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/a_dozen_reasons_%28P1153%29.html

[stevecanuck]

Verse 65:4 details how long a man must wait before turning out a divorced wife depending on her situation. Included in the list are "those who have not yet menstruated". This, along with the fact that Mohamed married a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when she was nine, gives Muslim men license to marry and have sex with prepubescent girls.

65:4 makes sure that a divorced wife is not pregnant when she leaves. It protects HER. If you think it has something to do with sex with pre-pubescent girls, you are one sick puppy! It covers those of menopausal age and those who for some reason didn't menstruate. Just look up Amenorrhea if you were unaware of the condition before.

The tranlation that appears in http://www.islaam.net (a clearly muslim web site) begs to differ. Verse 65:4 says this, "As for your women who have despaired of further menstruating, if you are in doubt, then their waiting period is three months as well as those who have not yet menstruated." It would be difficult to be more clear that this means prepubescent girls. You make my signature line look smarter with every post.

[Drummond]

Is there anyone reading this thread, other then Tyr, jimnyc, V4R, Marcus, and abouttime, who thinks Jafar is making reasonable points? Show of hands please. If there is anyone who needs to be disabused of that notion I'll be happy to detail just exactly how full of 5h!t he is. Otherwise, I'm certain his lies are falling on deaf ears.

I would've thought my own opinion was clear by now ?

Jafar is intent upon sanitising Islam to anyone who'll listen. We get spin. We get ducking and diving. We get avoidance of posts, or threads, which Jafar knows he can't reasonably turn to match any propagandist line he wants to feed us. And when Muslims do things so heinous that he cannot possibly defend them, or offer countering spin, he just calls them 'un-Islamic'.

One example was concerning child brides. Islam fights for this perversity to this very day (I've posted evidence of Imams and Sharia courts that are prepared to rule in favour of this). Jafar says that in Mohammed's time, marriages to children were far more acceptable across religions (in an effort to sanitise Mohammed's paedophilia, of course). The 'examples' he belatedly offered involved royal 'marriages' which were clearly POLITICAL ARRANGEMENTS.

He has yet to answer Marcus directly as to whether he'd let any child of his marry an elderly man. He's been repeatedly asked - and gets silence in return.

Jafar will never admit Islam's failings and its true nature. He is a propagandist voice for it .. pure and simple.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I would've thought my own opinion was clear by now ?

Jafar is intent upon sanitising Islam to anyone who'll listen. We get spin. We get ducking and diving. We get avoidance of posts, or threads, which Jafar knows he can't reasonably turn to match any propagandist line he wants to feed us. And when Muslims do things so heinous that he cannot possibly defend them, or offer countering spin, he just calls them 'un-Islamic'.

One example was concerning child brides. Islam fights for this perversity to this very day (I've posted evidence of Imams and Sharia courts that are prepared to rule in favour of this). Jafar says that in Mohammed's time, marriages to children were far more acceptable across religions (in an effort to sanitise Mohammed's paedophilia, of course). The 'examples' he belatedly offered involved royal 'marriages' which were clearly POLITICAL ARRANGEMENTS.

He has yet to answer Marcus directly as to whether he'd let any child of his marry an elderly man. He's been repeatedly asked - and gets silence in return.

Jafar will never admit Islam's failings and its true nature. He is a propagandist voice for it .. pure and simple.

When I first started beating the drum about Mohammad, Koran and Islam 's evil Jafar tried his sanitizing on me. He saw it did not and never would work on me . So he placed me on ignore. During that time his early defenders here(he a few) apparently decided his answers were not jiving too well.
Now Steve comes in and shoots his posts full of holes each time he tries his newer spins.
Jafar revealed his true self when he ran from me, falsely accused me and then placed me on ignore using that silly my being rude line.
I challenge him to post any quote by me that has any merit as being more rude than replies he has received from several other members here than he does not put on ignore.
Its not about truth with him. It's about who he thinks he can persuade. Who he thinks he can cause to doubt and thus "win" over for Allah.
As soon as he is sure he can never will you over you will go on his ignore list. Even if he doesn't announce it as he did about me to gabby if memory serves me well.

Victoria goes ut Deus of Abraham , verum sits altus super suus per.-Tyr

[Marcus Aurelius]

Prophet Muhammad himself commanded his people not to write his hadith, this is documented in the collection of 'Muslim' and other books:

"Do not write down anything from me except the Quran. Whoever writes other than that should delete it"(Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Vol. 1, page 171 also Sahih Muslim, Book 42, Number 7147)

For the first 150 years to 200 years after the death of the prophet, and in accordance to his commands, the writing of his hadith was forbidden. The first one to document a comprehensive collection of hadith was Al-Bukhari, note that Al-Bukhari was born in the year 194 After Hijrah. What this means is that the first of what is regarded as authentic hadith (sahih) to be compiled was written more than two whole centuries after the death of the Prophet!




Even if we were to follow the hadith (something which is clearly prohibited in the Quran), we would still be faced with the question: how accurate can a collection of sayings documented two centuries after the death of the Prophet be?


http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/a_dozen_reasons_%28P1153%29.html


Mohammad knows nothing of Islam. Jahil it the one true authority... so he keeps trying to tell us.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jafar00 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=627020#post627020)
Verse 65:4 details how long a man must wait before turning out a divorced wife depending on her situation. Included in the list are "those who have not yet menstruated". This, along with the fact that Mohamed married a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when she was nine, gives Muslim men license to marry and have sex with prepubescent girls.

65:4 makes sure that a divorced wife is not pregnant when she leaves. It protects HER. If you think it has something to do with sex with pre-pubescent girls, you are one sick puppy! It covers those of menopausal age and those who for some reason didn't menstruate. Just look up Amenorrhea if you were unaware of the condition before.




The tranlation that appears in http://www.islaam.net (a clearly muslim web site) begs to differ. Verse 65:4 says this, "As for your women who have despaired of further menstruating, if you are in doubt, then their waiting period is three months as well as those who have not yet menstruated." It would be difficult to be more clear that this means prepubescent girls. You make my signature line look smarter with every post.


Islam.net knows nothing of Islam. Only Jahil, the all knowing knows what is truly Islam.

[stevecanuck]

I would've thought my own opinion was clear by now ?

Jafar is intent upon sanitising Islam to anyone who'll listen. We get spin. We get ducking and diving. We get avoidance of posts, or threads, which Jafar knows he can't reasonably turn to match any propagandist line he wants to feed us. And when Muslims do things so heinous that he cannot possibly defend them, or offer countering spin, he just calls them 'un-Islamic'.

One example was concerning child brides. Islam fights for this perversity to this very day (I've posted evidence of Imams and Sharia courts that are prepared to rule in favour of this). Jafar says that in Mohammed's time, marriages to children were far more acceptable across religions (in an effort to sanitise Mohammed's paedophilia, of course). The 'examples' he belatedly offered involved royal 'marriages' which were clearly POLITICAL ARRANGEMENTS.

He has yet to answer Marcus directly as to whether he'd let any child of his marry an elderly man. He's been repeatedly asked - and gets silence in return.

Jafar will never admit Islam's failings and its true nature. He is a propagandist voice for it .. pure and simple.

Yes your opinion is indeed clear and had I been more diligent with my list of names, yours would definitely have been included.

[jafar00]

Prophet Muhammad himself commanded his people not to write his hadith, this is documented in the collection of 'Muslim' and other books:

"Do not write down anything from me except the Quran. Whoever writes other than that should delete it"(Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Vol. 1, page 171 also Sahih Muslim, Book 42, Number 7147)

For the first 150 years to 200 years after the death of the prophet, and in accordance to his commands, the writing of his hadith was forbidden. The first one to document a comprehensive collection of hadith was Al-Bukhari, note that Al-Bukhari was born in the year 194 After Hijrah. What this means is that the first of what is regarded as authentic hadith (sahih) to be compiled was written more than two whole centuries after the death of the Prophet!




Even if we were to follow the hadith (something which is clearly prohibited in the Quran), we would still be faced with the question: how accurate can a collection of sayings documented two centuries after the death of the Prophet be?


http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/a_dozen_reasons_%28P1153%29.html


Ok, that Hadith was for earlier times where people were recording the revelation of the Qur'aan and wanted to make sure that hadiths were not recorded on the same pages as the Qur'aan thus causing confusion. It was later allowed in other hadiths but most famously in the Last Sermon of the Prophet Mohamed (saw)....


O People, NO PROPHET OR APOSTLE WILL COME AFTER ME AND NO NEW FAITH WILL BE BORN. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the QURAN and my example, the SUNNAH and if you follow these you will never go astray.
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/lastserm.HTM


The tranlation that appears in http://www.islaam.net (a clearly muslim web site) begs to differ. Verse 65:4 says this, "As for your women who have despaired of further menstruating, if you are in doubt, then their waiting period is three months as well as those who have not yet menstruated." It would be difficult to be more clear that this means prepubescent girls. You make my signature line look smarter with every post.


The verse is not for pre-pubescent girls. It is for those who had already been married. You know women don't have their period for some time after they give birth right?



One example was concerning child brides. Islam fights for this perversity to this very day (I've posted evidence of Imams and Sharia courts that are prepared to rule in favour of this). Jafar says that in Mohammed's time, marriages to children were far more acceptable across religions (in an effort to sanitise Mohammed's paedophilia, of course). The 'examples' he belatedly offered involved royal 'marriages' which were clearly POLITICAL ARRANGEMENTS.

Let me make it clear for you. You do know that Mohamed (saw) didn't choose Aicha right? She was chosen for him by his aunt, Khawlah bint Hakim because he spent so long being unmarried after his wife Khadijah died. It is also interesting to note that she was already engaged to be married to another man before this. If it wasn't a normal custom of the time, why the hell were they trying to marry her off?

As for POLITICAL ARRANGEMENTS, Mohamed's (saw) marriage to Aicha was intended to strengthen the ties between his family and that of Abu Bakr. It was a political union. European royalty married at a young age for the same reason. To strengthen ties between families.

I stand by my defence of Mohamed (saw) while you continue to be two faced about blindly accepting the customs of Christian European noble families yet rejecting the same from Mohamed (saw) singling him out for ridicule and insults.


He has yet to answer Marcus directly as to whether he'd let any child of his marry an elderly man. He's been repeatedly asked - and gets silence in return.

I have him on ignore. Just a reminder. And yes, I would let my young daughter marry at an early age IF I LIVED 1400 YEARS AGO WHEN THIS CUSTOM WAS NORMAL AND ACCEPTED. I would not do it in the 21st century though. We have different customs now don't we? Which is the point really. You cannot judge people who lived 1400 years ago by the customs, morals and laws of now!

[red states rule]

Muslims Riot Over Having Nothing To Riot About (http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/muslims-riot-over-having-nothing-to-riot-about-t9744.html)




Scores were injured and numerous buildings were burnt to the ground in the city of Itsnotsobad in the Islamic Republic of Whereizitstan, after a riot was started by peaceful Muslims who expressed outrage over five straight days of no provocation or insults from the West.

Mahmoud Iwannariotbad, a local businessman who sells detonators, wire, and dynamite to the local mosque construction industry, stated that the violence began when a group of men hanging around in his store began discussing the fact that no new anti-Islam films, subway advertisements, or Pamela Geller blog postings had appeared for a number of days.

One of them began shouting, "They are NOT INSULTING us because they think we are all violent, stupid thugs and not peace-loving sons of the prophet. This is an insult to Islam! Let's kill them!"

"Suddenly, they all wanted to buy detonators, wire, and dynamite," Mr. Iwannariotbad continued. "I thought they were going to break ground for a new Islamic cultural center or something. There's no reasoning with peaceful religious types when they get in the mood to build new mosques - they're like animals."
~
The small group, which became larger as it roamed through the town visiting other retailers of detonators, wire, and dynamite, decided to target the American consulate in Itsnotsobad.

Upon arrival, they discovered that the consulate had not yet been rebuilt after its destruction during last month's riot and film seminar. Many felt offended by the fact that America no longer wished to have a consulate in their peace-loving religious nation, which was perceived as a sign of Western racism and yet another insult to Islam.

http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples_resource/image/16251
At this point, the crowd went on a largely peaceful but enthusiastic rampage, destroying most of the commercial enterprises in the city, which were predominantly warehouses storing detonators, wire, and dynamite.

President Obama made no immediate comment, having a prior commitment to appear on "Bowling for Dollars" hosted by Whoopi Goldberg's cousin Yippee.

The State Department described the violence as a "pre-scheduled terrorist attack," which had nothing to do with a lack of anti-Islam films. "President Obama's policy is to defend freedom of speech and improve relations with the Muslim community by arresting anyone who insults Islam - or doesn't insult Islam as an underhanded way to insult Islam," stated Phillipe Rains, Hillary Clinton's personal spokesman. "This policy is working, so you'll do well to shut your pie-hole," he added.

White House Press Secretary James Carney reiterated earlier president's statement, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam, don't slander the prophet of Islam, and anyone in between. We can't be allowed to use free speech for selfish purposes, such as, expressing our opinions."

Having praised the President's determination to protect free speech, the professional American media quickly resumed their important work of playing Mitt Romney's speeches backwards in the hopes of uncovering hidden gaffes and dog whistles.

However, speculations by unprofessional bloggers and second-rate foreign media insinuate that the "true facts" (as they put it) were being covered up in an attempt to avoid damage to President Obama's re-election prospects - a ludicrous reasoning, since not even Univision could possibly damage his 20-pt lead in the national polls.


http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/muslims-riot-over-having-nothing-to-riot-about-t9744.html

[jafar00]

Muslims Riot Over Having Nothing To Riot About (http://thepeoplescube.com/current-truth/muslims-riot-over-having-nothing-to-riot-about-t9744.html)

You really do go to high class websites. :laugh:

[red states rule]

You really do go to high class websites. :laugh:

As long as my posts get under your thin skin - mission accomplished

[stevecanuck]

The verse is not for pre-pubescent girls. It is for those who had already been married. You know women don't have their period for some time after they give birth right?

Yet another black-is-really-white argument proving again that the only way to make islam sound compatible with the modern world is to lie about it. Just combine your first 2 sentences and you'll be closer to the truth. It's for pre-pubescent girls who are married (and about to be divorced).

Btw, still waiting to hear why the first muslims had to defend themselves from the byzantines and persians, and on which front they were attacked. If it really happened the way you say, it should be easy to provide a reference. :laugh:

[stevecanuck]

Jafar, just for something different, could you tell us what PEPSI really stands for?

[Drummond]

Let me make it clear for you. You do know that Mohamed (saw) didn't choose Aicha right? She was chosen for him by his aunt, Khawlah bint Hakim because he spent so long being unmarried after his wife Khadijah died. It is also interesting to note that she was already engaged to be married to another man before this. If it wasn't a normal custom of the time, why the hell were they trying to marry her off?

No, I didn't know any of this. But I see nothing in your description which offers a justification.

Mohammed's aunt ... maybe she was as much of a pervert as Mohammed was ? Or, could it be that his aunt feared whatever power base Mohammed had, and did what she had to in order to look after her own skin ?

Or maybe Mohammed came from a family of perverts ?

And your point about Aicha is spurious. EVEN if true (and I've not bothered to check), it has to be. Children of that age CANNOT make proper decisions about marriages, or relationships of that type, at such an early age !! WE know this, in today's world.

But I have to wonder how it is that - if you offer the defence you do - YOU DO NOT.


As for POLITICAL ARRANGEMENTS, Mohamed's (saw) marriage to Aicha was intended to strengthen the ties between his family and that of Abu Bakr. It was a political union. European royalty married at a young age for the same reason. To strengthen ties between families.

I stand by my defence of Mohamed (saw) while you continue to be two faced about blindly accepting the customs of Christian European noble families yet rejecting the same from Mohamed (saw) singling him out for ridicule and insults.

And I stand by MY arguments, considering this following issue, which I've raised already .. in Islam, there are Imams, Sharia Court judges, who look favourably TO THIS DAY on marriages conducted within Islam between elderly men AND CHILDREN. I have already posted evidence of that. That evidence had NOTHING TO DO WITH ATTEMPTS AT POLITICAL ARRANGEMENTS .. JUST THE PERVERSITY WHICH ISLAM CONTINUES TO BOTH 'RECOGNISE' AND REVERE AS 'ACCEPTABLE'.


We have different customs now don't we? Which is the point really.

And I've just covered that. Indeed, the point is that certain Islamists do NOT have different 'customs', or at least, they PREFER not to have. Besides, this is not just an issue regarding 'customs' ..

.. but about DECENCY !!!

... such a pity that I have to explain this to you.

[Marcus Aurelius]

No, I didn't know any of this. But I see nothing in your description which offers a justification.

Mohammed's aunt ... maybe she was as much of a pervert as Mohammed was ? Or, could it be that his aunt feared whatever power base Mohammed had, and did what she had to in order to look after her own skin ?

Or maybe Mohammed came from a family of perverts ?

And your point about Aicha is spurious. EVEN if true (and I've not bothered to check), it has to be. Children of that age CANNOT make proper decisions about marriages, or relationships of that type, at such an early age !! WE know this, in today's world.

But I have to wonder how it is that - if you offer the defence you do - YOU DO NOT.



And I stand by MY arguments, considering this following issue, which I've raised already .. in Islam, there are Imams, Sharia Court judges, who look favourably TO THIS DAY on marriages conducted within Islam between elderly men AND CHILDREN. I have already posted evidence of that. That evidence had NOTHING TO DO WITH ATTEMPTS AT POLITICAL ARRANGEMENTS .. JUST THE PERVERSITY WHICH ISLAM CONTINUES TO BOTH 'RECOGNISE' AND REVERE AS 'ACCEPTABLE'.



And I've just covered that. Indeed, the point is that certain Islamists do NOT have different 'customs', or at least, they PREFER not to have. Besides, this is not just an issue regarding 'customs' ..

.. but about DECENCY !!!

... such a pity that I have to explain this to you.

why doesn't Jahil comment about letting his 6 year old daughter marry a 40 year old man, then have sex with her 'husband' when she's 9? After all, if it's good enough for Mohammed, and Muslims are supposed to behave like Mohammed...

[jafar00]

As long as my posts get under your thin skin - mission accomplished

I just giggled.


Jafar, just for something different, could you tell us what PEPSI really stands for?

I've heard a few.

1) It was originally a stomach tonic. Pep as in Peptic-> Pepsi
2) Pay Every Penny to Save Israel
3) PEople Piss is the Secret Ingredient.


No, I didn't know any of this. But I see nothing in your description which offers a justification.

Mohammed's aunt ... maybe she was as much of a pervert as Mohammed was ? Or, could it be that his aunt feared whatever power base Mohammed had, and did what she had to in order to look after her own skin ?

Or maybe Mohammed came from a family of perverts ?

And your point about Aicha is spurious. EVEN if true (and I've not bothered to check), it has to be. Children of that age CANNOT make proper decisions about marriages, or relationships of that type, at such an early age !! WE know this, in today's world.

But I have to wonder how it is that - if you offer the defence you do - YOU DO NOT.



And I stand by MY arguments, considering this following issue, which I've raised already .. in Islam, there are Imams, Sharia Court judges, who look favourably TO THIS DAY on marriages conducted within Islam between elderly men AND CHILDREN. I have already posted evidence of that. That evidence had NOTHING TO DO WITH ATTEMPTS AT POLITICAL ARRANGEMENTS .. JUST THE PERVERSITY WHICH ISLAM CONTINUES TO BOTH 'RECOGNISE' AND REVERE AS 'ACCEPTABLE'.



And I've just covered that. Indeed, the point is that certain Islamists do NOT have different 'customs', or at least, they PREFER not to have. Besides, this is not just an issue regarding 'customs' ..

.. but about DECENCY !!!

... such a pity that I have to explain this to you.

While you continue to ignore the thousands of others who had young and arranged marriages throughout history, your argument is invalid since it was completely normal in those days to do so.

[red states rule]

http://tpc.pc2.netdna-cdn.com/images/Taliban_Chicago_Peace_Mission.jpg

[jafar00]

http://cdn.motinetwork.net/demotivationalposters.net/image/demotivational-poster/0809/ignorant-americans-muslim-jihad-islam-muslims-dating-service-demotivational-poster-1220484172.gif

[red states rule]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/adultery-lower.jpg

Muslim countries have lower rates of adultery.

[red states rule]

<tbody>
Picture of the Week


http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/jamaat-e-islam-bangladesh.jpg
You can really feel the peace of Islam in this photo as members of
a student Islamic group bash a policeman in Bangladesh.
They wound up finishing the job (http://blogs.reuters.com/fullfocus/2013/04/05/editors-choice-18/#a=2) with a brick.








Islam's Latest Contributions to Peace
"Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are harsh
to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" Quran 48:29


<tbody>
2013.04.06 (Baqubah, Iraq) - A Fedayeen suicide bomber sends two dozen souls to Allah.


2013.04.06 (Qalat, Afghanistan) - American civilians and a doctor are among six killed by a Shahid suicide bomber.


2013.04.05 (Hayatabad, Pakistan) - A young boy is killed when Islamic terrorists shell a town.


2013.04.05 (Medan, Indonesia) - Eight Buddhists are beaten to death by Muslims in an attack at a detention center.


2013.04.04 (Batikot, Afghanistan) - Three schoolchildren are dismantled by a Taliban roadside bomb.


2013.04.03 (Baghdad, Iraq) - al-Qaeda gunmen enter a home and shoot a woman and her two sons to death.

</tbody>


</tbody>

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

[stevecanuck]

Time to tweak Jafar again. Nothing has proved you to be a lying propagandist like your refusal to back up your laughable claim that the islamic empire of the 7th and 8th centuries were gained through defensive action. Here's the question for you again. Get used to this:

Still waiting to hear why the first muslims had to defend themselves from the byzantines and persians, and on which front they were attacked. If it really happened the way you say, it should be easy to provide a reference. :laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Time to tweak Jafar again. Nothing has proved you to be a lying propagandist like your refusal to back up your laughable claim that the islamic empire of the 7th and 8th centuries were gained through defensive action. Here's the question for you again. Get used to this:

Still waiting to hear why the first muslims had to defend themselves from the byzantines and persians, and on which front they were attacked. If it really happened the way you say, it should be easy to provide a reference. :laugh:

His flat out refusal to address that question proves that he lied in his original answer and knows it.
Another example of his cowardice just as is his placing me on ignore while giving a one time flimsy and false excuse.
Jafar represents Islam (so he swears) but refuses to defend Islam against the truth that I present and have previously presented here..
ABSO ran , jafar stays and lies . When cornered and caught in his lie he simply ignores that and goes forth as if it never happened. Its total denial and his religion teaches it to its followers.
Also I believe Jafar must be in some kind of minority sect of Islam. -Tyr

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.islamreview.com/articles/lyingprint.htm


Bluntly stated, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime that they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened.


An example of Islamic deception is that Muslim activists always quote the passages of the Quran from the early part of Mohammed's ministry while living in Mecca. These texts are peaceful and exemplify tolerance towards those that are not followers of Islam. All the while, they are fully aware that most of these passages were abrogated (cancelled and replaced) by passages that came after he migrated to Medina. The replacement verses reflect prejudice, intolerance, and endorse violence upon unbelievers


In conclusion, it is imperative to understand, that Muslim leaders can use this loop-hole in their religion, to absolve them from any permanent commitment. It is also important to know that what Muslim activists say to spread Islam may not always be the whole truth. When dealing with Muslims, what they say is not the issue. The real issue is, what they actually mean in their hearts.

Other articles by the same author...
http://www.islamreview.com/articlesabdullah.htm


Introduction (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/introduction.shtml) - the hidden side of Islam.
Background into Islam (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/background.shtml) - the Messenger and the Message.
Islam: the Facade, the Facts (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/facade.shtml) - shows the rosy picture Muslims are painting about their religion, and the truth they try to hide.
The True Face of Islam (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/trueface.shtml) Lying in Islam (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/lying.shtml) The Issues of Life According to the Quran (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/issuesoflife.shtml) - exposes what the Quran teaches on issues such as Women s Rights, Sex and Marriage, Human rights, Democracy, and Eternal Security.
Incredible Teachings of Mohammed (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/incredibleteachings.shtml) - presents quotes from Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, on various issues of life.
Neither Black nor African (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/neitherblacknorafrican.shtml) - responds to the claim that Islam is the religion of the Black man, that Islam is African, and Mohammed was Black.
Being a Muslim's Wife (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/beingamuslimswife.shtml) - describes the kind of life is in store for American women who marry Middle-Eastern Muslim men.
To Kill and to Die in the Name of Allah (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/tokill.shtml) - tells why Muslims are willing to kill and die for their religion. Tells what the term "Jihad" means.
If Islam Ruled America (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/ifislam.shtml) - describes what will happen to our American values and institutions if America became ruled by Islam.
The Bible vs. the Quran (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/biblevsquran.shtml) - discusses the shortcomings of the Quran. Answers the question: "which book is God's revelation: the Bible or the Quran?"
God vs Allah (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/godvsallah.shtml) - answers the questions: "Are Allah's attributes in the Quran, the same as those of God in the Bible?" and "do Muslims worship the same God of the Bible?"
Nothing in Common (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/nothingincommon.shtml) - responds to Muslim activist's claim that Islam agrees with and is an extension to Christianity.
The Christian Difference (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/thechristiandifference.shtml) - explains what makes Christianity different from Islam. Poses the questions: What do you think of Jesus? What will you do with Jesus Christ?


ON THE ROAD TO THE NEW WORLD
(http://www.islamreview.com/articles/theroad.shtml)Examining Islam's Expansionist History
MASTERS OF DECEPTION (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/masters.shtml) - Deceptive Iraqi Tactics Of War Are Based On Islamic Principles
Why don't they go back to their countries? (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/goback.shtml) - By, Ibrahim Saada Akhbar Al Youm Newspaper, May 10, 2003
Translation from Arabic by Abdullah Al Araby
Save America (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/saveamerica.shtml) Democracy in the Middle East? (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/democracy.shtml) - A response to President Bush's speech calling for the establishment of democracies in the region
The Terror of Islam (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/terrorofislam.shtml) “Nikah” (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/nikah.shtml) - The Islamic “N” Word; What Does It Exactly Mean?


THE ISLAMIZATION OF AMERICAN SCHOOLS (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/islamschool.shtml) - A critique of the course and textbook on Islam taught to the 7th grade students in California Public Schools - The Pen vs. The Sword

The Quran's Doctrine of Abrogation (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/quransdoctrine.shtml) - Prepared by Abdullah Al Araby

The Islamization of Europe (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/islamizationeurope.shtml) - America, take note before it’s too late
By Abdullah Al Araby

America’s Values can contribute to its Vulnerability (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/americasvalues.shtml) By Abdullah Al Araby

Apostasy in Islam - The Point of No Return (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/apostasyinislam.shtml)

American Muslims and the Question of Loyalty (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/American_Muslims_and_the_Question_of_Loyalty.shtml )

What Could Possibly Be Wrong About Building A Mosque Named Cordoba at Ground Zero? (http://www.islamreview.com/articles/What_Could_Possibly_Be_Wrong_About_Building_A_Mosq ue_Named_Cordoba_at_Ground_Zero.shtml)

[Drummond]

Yes your opinion is indeed clear and had I been more diligent with my list of names, yours would definitely have been included.

Appreciated, Steve, and thanks.

I'm also wholly with Tyr in his comments here. Jafar's approach to the opposition he gets is exactly as described. I also don't believe he puts anyone on 'ignore', as Marcus has illustrated recently himself.

From Jafar's point of view .. he expects readers here to swallow his propaganda. When effectively countered, though, like all propagandists, he will never acknowledge he's wrong ... a bit like pulling a loose thread on a tapestry ... which, if he ever ONCE risked it by conceding anything, would risk unravelling it entirely.

I hope you keep up the momentum, though, Steve. The more obvious it becomes that Islam-serving propaganda cannot withstand the clear truth, the better.

[Drummond]

why doesn't Jahil comment about letting his 6 year old daughter marry a 40 year old man, then have sex with her 'husband' when she's 9? After all, if it's good enough for Mohammed, and Muslims are supposed to behave like Mohammed...

... YES.

Jafar is consistently ignoring this issue: no matter how much he tries to make the case of the supposed 'normality' of child brides many hundreds of years ago (.. which I don't accept in any case), Jafar KEEPS ignoring that there are Islamists out there who are fighting for this to happen TODAY.

I've made that point more than once. And you, Marcus, by repeatedly asking Jafar about what he'd allow his own underage daughter to go through, ONLY TO HAVE JAFAR EVADE ANSWERING, shows an acknowledgment that there is an issue there which Jafar will not candidly address.

But then, this is highly understandable.

Isn't it, Jafar ?

[jafar00]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/adultery-lower.jpg

Muslim countries have lower rates of adultery.

Just to be more accurate, she was executed for murder, not adultery. (not that I agree with such a public display. Just thought I would throw that out there before someone accuses me of supporting the Taliban)


The woman, identified only as Zarmeena, a mother of seven children, was found guilty of beating her husband to death with a steel hammer as he slept.
http://www.rawa.org/murder-w.htm


Time to tweak Jafar again. Nothing has proved you to be a lying propagandist like your refusal to back up your laughable claim that the islamic empire of the 7th and 8th centuries were gained through defensive action. Here's the question for you again. Get used to this:

Still waiting to hear why the first muslims had to defend themselves from the byzantines and persians, and on which front they were attacked. If it really happened the way you say, it should be easy to provide a reference. :laugh:

It started with the Battle of Tabouk and went on from there. Incidentally, your Byzantine empire was also expanding itself as was the Chinese Tang Dynasty and the Khazars. The Muslims were not the only ones fighting wars and winning/losing lands and influence.


... YES.

Jafar is consistently ignoring this issue: no matter how much he tries to make the case of the supposed 'normality' of child brides many hundreds of years ago (.. which I don't accept in any case), Jafar KEEPS ignoring that there are Islamists out there who are fighting for this to happen TODAY.

I've made that point more than once. And you, Marcus, by repeatedly asking Jafar about what he'd allow his own underage daughter to go through, ONLY TO HAVE JAFAR EVADE ANSWERING, shows an acknowledgment that there is an issue there which Jafar will not candidly address.

But then, this is highly understandable.

Isn't it, Jafar ?

I thought I made my position clear on this. I say again, if I lived during that time, I probably would, but I live in the 21st century where we do not do that sort of thing.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Drummond http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=629698#post629698)
... YES.

Jafar is consistently ignoring this issue: no matter how much he tries to make the case of the supposed 'normality' of child brides many hundreds of years ago (.. which I don't accept in any case), Jafar KEEPS ignoring that there are Islamists out there who are fighting for this to happen TODAY.

I've made that point more than once. And you, Marcus, by repeatedly asking Jafar about what he'd allow his own underage daughter to go through, ONLY TO HAVE JAFAR EVADE ANSWERING, shows an acknowledgment that there is an issue there which Jafar will not candidly address.

But then, this is highly understandable.

Isn't it, Jafar ?


I thought I made my position clear on this. I say again, if I lived during that time, I probably would, but I live in the 21st century where we do not do that sort of thing.

So, according to Jahil, it was only cool to act like Mohammed when Mohammed was alive. Now, not so much. Very Muslim of you, Jahil.

[stevecanuck]

(From my OP) - Women are considered little more than property as demonstrated by 2:223, "Your wives are as a tilth unto you, so approach your tilth when or how you will".

(Jafar's obfuscation) - 2:223 was revealed when the Jews started spreading rumours that sexual intercourse from behind caused the resulting child to be cross eyed or backwards. The literal meaning of it is you can do it together any way you like. It has nothing to do with ownership. It is about permitting sexual relations as you and your wife wish to.

There is absolutely nothing in verse 2:223 to suggest that a wife has any say in the matter, in fact the opposite is clearly stated. How do you argue with someone who lies with such ease.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Here's one for you, Jahil...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235763/Pictured-Islamic-militants-stone-man-death-adultery-Somalia-villagers-forced-watch.html

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/14/article-1235763-0796C749000005DC-686_634x448.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/14/article-1235763-0798A090000005DC-484_634x667.jpg

Pictured: Islamic militants stone man to death for adultery in Somalia as villagers are forced to watch

[aboutime]

Just to be more accurate, she was executed for murder, not adultery. (not that I agree with such a public display. Just thought I would throw that out there before someone accuses me of supporting the Taliban)


http://www.rawa.org/murder-w.htm



It started with the Battle of Tabouk and went on from there. Incidentally, your Byzantine empire was also expanding itself as was the Chinese Tang Dynasty and the Khazars. The Muslims were not the only ones fighting wars and winning/losing lands and influence.



I thought I made my position clear on this. I say again, if I lived during that time, I probably would, but I live in the 21st century where we do not do that sort of thing.



Double standard jafar. You should have said....She was MURDERED for murder. That is how YOU justify the Peaceful Religion you defend by using rhetoric, and semantics to hide your ignorance based on Hatred.

[stevecanuck]

It started with the Battle of Tabouk and went on from there. Incidentally, your Byzantine empire was also expanding itself as was the Chinese Tang Dynasty and the Khazars. The Muslims were not the only ones fighting wars and winning/losing lands and influence.

From Wikipedia:

The Battle of Tabouk (also called the Battle of Tabuk) was a military expedition, which, according to Muslim biographies, was initiated by the Prophet Muhammad in October 630. Muhammad led a force of as many as 30,000 north to Tabouk in present-day northwestern Saudi Arabia, with the intention of engaging the Byzantine army. Though not a battle in the typical sense, if historical the event would represent the opening conflict in the coming Byzantine-Arab wars. There is no contemporary Byzantine account of the events, and much of the details come from later Muslim sources. Noting this, as well as the fact that the armies never met, some Western scholars have questioned the authenticity of the details surrounding the event; though in the Arab world it is widely held as historical.

The Byzantines simply never went south to attack the Muslims. Tabouk was their territory at the time. Btw, I never said the Byzantines, and many others, didn't gain territory by way of war. What I'm saying is that Islam can't claim to be a religion of peace given their history and the words of the qur'an and hadiths. It was a 7th century creed invented by a would-be war lord and reads like it.

[Drummond]

I thought I made my position clear on this. I say again, if I lived during that time, I probably would, but I live in the 21st century where we do not do that sort of thing.

Your 'position', Jafar, IS TO DENY WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN TO BE TRUE.

Clearly, and 'strangely', I obviously need to refresh your memory !!

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39913-The-lies-Muslims-tell-us-about-Islam&p=628555#post628555

.. to remind you FURTHER ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39913-The-lies-Muslims-tell-us-about-Islam&p=628555#post628555


British Muslim clerics are willing to carry out sharia marriages involving child brides as young as 12, an investigation has found.

Two imams said they would be prepared to officiate at the wedding of an underage girl to a man in his twenties, despite fears the pair would later have sex.

The revelations have led the Home Office to confirm that such ceremonies will be examined in the Government’s forthcoming Bill to outlaw forced marriages.

More than 1,000 of the 8,000 forced marriages of Britons each year are believed to involve girls of 15 or under, with one case last year allegedly involving a girl of five.

The clerics were approached by man posing as the father of a 12-year-old who wanted her to marry to prevent her being tempted into a decadent Western lifestyle.

Imam Mohammed Kassamali, of the Husaini Islamic Centre in Peterborough, stressed the need for secrecy with such a ceremony.

He allegedly said: ‘If it (the marriage) was not possible, I would have told you straight away... I would love the girl to go to her husband’s houses (sic) as soon as possible, the younger the better.

‘Under sharia (Islamic law) there is no problem. It is said she should see her first sign of puberty at the house of her husband.

‘The problem is that we cannot explain such things (the marriage) if the girl went tomorrow (to the authorities).

A choice for you, Jafar.

1. Prove that the report is FALSE .. or ..

2. Admit that in Islam, paedophilia is still rife, still seen as 'normal' and 'acceptable', not least by those having authority in Islamic court proceedings !!!

Oh, but of course, you may prefer a third option.

EVASION.

[Marcus Aurelius]

It started with the Battle of Tabouk and went on from there. Incidentally, your Byzantine empire was also expanding itself as was the Chinese Tang Dynasty and the Khazars. The Muslims were not the only ones fighting wars and winning/losing lands and influence.

point 1: Said battle is widely held NOT to have ever occurred... unless you ask a Muslim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk

The Battle of Tabouk (also called the Battle of Tabuk) was a military expedition, which, according to Muslim biographies, was initiated by the Prophet Muhammad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad) in October 630. Muhammad led a force of as many as 30,000 north to Tabouk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabuk,_Saudi_Arabia) in present-day northwestern Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia), with the intention of engaging the Byzantine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire) army. Though not a battle in the typical sense, if historical the event would represent the opening conflict in the coming Byzantine-Arab wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine-Arab_Wars). There is no contemporary Byzantine account of the events, and much of the details come from later Muslim sources. Noting this, as well as the fact that the armies never met, some Western scholars have questioned the authenticity of the details surrounding the event;[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk#cite_note-1) though in the Arab world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_world) it is widely held as historical.

So, you use a fictitious battle, an fictitious OFFENSIVE battle allegedly started by Mohammed himself, as proof that Muslims battles were all DEFENSIVE in nature?

Are you high? Seriously... are you?

[Marcus Aurelius]

From Wikipedia:

The Battle of Tabouk (also called the Battle of Tabuk) was a military expedition, which, according to Muslim biographies, was initiated by the Prophet Muhammad in October 630. Muhammad led a force of as many as 30,000 north to Tabouk in present-day northwestern Saudi Arabia, with the intention of engaging the Byzantine army. Though not a battle in the typical sense, if historical the event would represent the opening conflict in the coming Byzantine-Arab wars. There is no contemporary Byzantine account of the events, and much of the details come from later Muslim sources. Noting this, as well as the fact that the armies never met, some Western scholars have questioned the authenticity of the details surrounding the event; though in the Arab world it is widely held as historical.

The Byzantines simply never went south to attack the Muslims. Tabouk was their territory at the time. Btw, I never said the Byzantines, and many others, didn't gain territory by way of war. What I'm saying is that Islam can't claim to be a religion of peace given their history and the words of the qur'an and hadiths. It was a 7th century creed invented by a would-be war lord and reads like it.

Essentially, Jahil has gone from 'they never did that', to 'well, everyone else was doing it'.

[jafar00]

There is absolutely nothing in verse 2:223 to suggest that a wife has any say in the matter, in fact the opposite is clearly stated. How do you argue with someone who lies with such ease.

I found something with a link to explain it to you which is pretty much as I said before.

From Tafsir
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=223&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

(Your women are a tilth for you…) [2:223]. Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn al-Hasan al-Qadi informed us> Hajib ibn Ahmad> 'Abd al-Rahim ibn Munib> Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah> Ibn al-Munkadir that he heard Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah say: “The Jews used to say that whoever penetrates the vagina of his wife from a back position, the child born as a result of this intercourse will be cross-eyed. To deny this, Allah, exalted is He, revealed (Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will)”. This was narrated by Bukhari from Abu Nu'aym and by Muslim from Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah, and Abu Nu'aym and Abu Bakr related it from Sufyan. Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya informed us> Abu Sa'id Isma'il ibn Ahmad al-Khalali> 'Abd Allah ibn Zayd al-Bajali> Abu Kurayb> al-Muharibi> Muhammad ibn Ishaq> Aban ibn Muslim> Mujahid who said: “I read the Qur'an out of memory, from beginning to end, under Ibn 'Abbas' supervision three times, stopping at each verse to ask him about its meaning until he got to this verse (Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will). He said: 'The men of this part of Quraysh used to have sexual intercourse with their wives while the latter lay down on their front. They enjoyed their wives from the front and back positions. When they migrated to Medina and married the women of the Helpers, they tried to do with them what they were in the habit of doing in Mecca. But the women of the Helpers objected, saying: 'This is something that we did not do before'. The talk spread until it reached the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace. Allah, exalted is He, then revealed (Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will). He said: If you want you can penetrate your wives from a back position or from a front position, or if you want from a kneeling down position. He meant by this, penetrating their women's vaginas from any of these positions. He said: go to your tilth as you will' ”. This was narrated by al-Hakim Abu 'Abd Allah in his Sahih from Abu Zakariyya al-'Anbari from Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Salam from Ishaq ibn Ibrahim from al-Muharibi.

As for wives having rights over their husband...

But turn not away (from a woman) altogether, so as to leave her (as it were) hanging (in the air). (4:129)

and..

And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable (2:228)

And the Mohamed (saw) in his Final Sermon said..


"O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allah’s trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers.

Women do have the right to refuse, however it is better for them not to so as not to tempt their husbands into straying or marrying another.


Double standard jafar. You should have said....She was MURDERED for murder. That is how YOU justify the Peaceful Religion you defend by using rhetoric, and semantics to hide your ignorance based on Hatred.

Don't they have the death penalty in the USA too? Only the method of execution is different.


From Wikipedia:

The Battle of Tabouk (also called the Battle of Tabuk) was a military expedition, which, according to Muslim biographies, was initiated by the Prophet Muhammad in October 630. Muhammad led a force of as many as 30,000 north to Tabouk in present-day northwestern Saudi Arabia, with the intention of engaging the Byzantine army. Though not a battle in the typical sense, if historical the event would represent the opening conflict in the coming Byzantine-Arab wars. There is no contemporary Byzantine account of the events, and much of the details come from later Muslim sources. Noting this, as well as the fact that the armies never met, some Western scholars have questioned the authenticity of the details surrounding the event; though in the Arab world it is widely held as historical.

The Byzantines simply never went south to attack the Muslims. Tabouk was their territory at the time. Btw, I never said the Byzantines, and many others, didn't gain territory by way of war. What I'm saying is that Islam can't claim to be a religion of peace given their history and the words of the qur'an and hadiths. It was a 7th century creed invented by a would-be war lord and reads like it.

Western Scholars and Arab Scholars do tend to disagree on the nature of the wars during the period where the Arabs gained a lot of territory.

These times were sometimes brutal (we are talking about the 7th century remember). There were battles, and wars. There was territory gained and lost on a daily basis. Battles and Wars fought are all politics right?

Islam teaches that peace is better than war, but allows the right to self defense.


Your 'position', Jafar, IS TO DENY WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN TO BE TRUE.

Clearly, and 'strangely', I obviously need to refresh your memory !!

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39913-The-lies-Muslims-tell-us-about-Islam&p=628555#post628555

.. to remind you FURTHER ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39913-The-lies-Muslims-tell-us-about-Islam&p=628555#post628555



A choice for you, Jafar.

1. Prove that the report is FALSE .. or ..

2. Admit that in Islam, paedophilia is still rife, still seen as 'normal' and 'acceptable', not least by those having authority in Islamic court proceedings !!!

Oh, but of course, you may prefer a third option.

EVASION.

I have no idea where you are finding these little taliban councils, but if they are ruling against the law in the UK, then they are ruling against Sharia which specifies that Muslims must obey the rules of the land where they reside as long as those rules do not contradict Islam. For example, the govt passes a law that everyone must drink a pint of beer at lunch time on Fridays and have a mandatory Bacon breakfast on Sundays. Muslims could not follow such a law.

So if these councils are ruling against British law, they are wrong on all accounts.

[Drummond]

I have no idea where you are finding these little taliban councils, but if they are ruling against the law in the UK, then they are ruling against Sharia which specifies that Muslims must obey the rules of the land where they reside as long as those rules do not contradict Islam. For example, the govt passes a law that everyone must drink a pint of beer at lunch time on Fridays and have a mandatory Bacon breakfast on Sundays. Muslims could not follow such a law.

'These little Taliban councils' are nothing of the sort. They are bona fide Sharia courts.

Did you not see that the very OLDEST Council, i.e the first one to 'officially' be set up in the UK, was one that's been involved in such shenanigans ??

You paint an interesting picture, by the way, of Sharia courts being mandated not to disobey the laws of the country they're practising in ... EXCEPT when THEY CHOOSE IT. So far as British law is concerned, no Sharia court has the right to defy our law AT ALL. If they do so, obviously it's actionable. Though .. of course, our Lefties, when they were in power, solved that one by 'somehow not noticing' if such defiance emerged ..

This, of course, does nothing to dissuade Muslims from a path of arrogance. I say this: if a Sharia Court gets set up in the UK, it has NO RIGHT to defy the law of the land, EVER - NO EXCEPTIONS. If Muslims don't like that, then they should abandon those courts and INSTEAD be fully law-abiding citizens .. and if they're not prepared to respect and obey the laws of the country they settle in, then THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Muslims should never have a 'free pass' to pick and choose what laws they'll respect, and what ones they'll defy. For them to think otherwise is monumental arrogance, NOT to be tolerated.

[What's next ? Muslim kiddie porn, with obligatory reverential message praising Mohammed tacked on to every production ?]


So if these councils are ruling against British law, they are wrong on all accounts.

Well said, Jafar. Though .. this contradicts your idea that Islam must win through, come-what-may.

You need to make your mind up about that one. Indigenous laws .. or, Sharia Law ? Which are you MORE loyal towards .. REALLY ?

Here's the real truth, though. Muslim pressure groups spend years lobbying for ever-greater concessions to their beliefs, their lifestyle, so that, over time, the law is bent in their favour. This is in fact a never-ending process, for as long as the society in question fails to be Islamic itself.

But then, such is the arrogance of Islam. It seeks to dominate by whatever means it can contrive to be successful. And the process, for as long as it remains incomplete, just carries on.

[jafar00]

'These little Taliban councils' are nothing of the sort. They are bona fide Sharia courts.

Did you not see that the very OLDEST Council, i.e the first one to 'officially' be set up in the UK, was one that's been involved in such shenanigans ??

You paint an interesting picture, by the way, of Sharia courts being mandated not to disobey the laws of the country they're practising in ... EXCEPT when THEY CHOOSE IT. So far as British law is concerned, no Sharia court has the right to defy our law AT ALL. If they do so, obviously it's actionable. Though .. of course, our Lefties, when they were in power, solved that one by 'somehow not noticing' if such defiance emerged ..

This, of course, does nothing to dissuade Muslims from a path of arrogance. I say this: if a Sharia Court gets set up in the UK, it has NO RIGHT to defy the law of the land, EVER - NO EXCEPTIONS. If Muslims don't like that, then they should abandon those courts and INSTEAD be fully law-abiding citizens .. and if they're not prepared to respect and obey the laws of the country they settle in, then THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Muslims should never have a 'free pass' to pick and choose what laws they'll respect, and what ones they'll defy. For them to think otherwise is monumental arrogance, NOT to be tolerated.

[What's next ? Muslim kiddie porn, with obligatory reverential message praising Mohammed tacked on to every production ?]



Well said, Jafar. Though .. this contradicts your idea that Islam must win through, come-what-may.

You need to make your mind up about that one. Indigenous laws .. or, Sharia Law ? Which are you MORE loyal towards .. REALLY ?

Here's the real truth, though. Muslim pressure groups spend years lobbying for ever-greater concessions to their beliefs, their lifestyle, so that, over time, the law is bent in their favour. This is in fact a never-ending process, for as long as the society in question fails to be Islamic itself.

But then, such is the arrogance of Islam. It seeks to dominate by whatever means it can contrive to be successful. And the process, for as long as it remains incomplete, just carries on.


Wow, even when I agree with you, you are against me, then come the insults.

[Drummond]

Wow, even when I agree with you, you are against me, then come the insults.

No insults. Just simple truth.

Would you care to stop ducking this following question ? Repeating this, now, from my post ...


Indigenous laws .. or, Sharia Law ? Which are you MORE loyal towards .. REALLY ?

... CHOOSE.

[tailfins]

Don't they have the death penalty in the USA too? Only the method of execution is different.



The death penalty in the US has a different focus. When someone is convicted of a capital crime, they are put to death because they are beyond rehabilitation and it serves as a guarantee they will never again be a threat to public safety. Revenge isn't the intent.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No insults. Just simple truth.

Would you care to stop ducking this following question ? Repeating this, now, from my post ...



... CHOOSE.

Remember ....

http://www.islam-watch.org/Warner/Taqiyya-Islamic-Principle-Lying-for-Allah.htm

Understanding Taqiyya ― Islamic Principle of Lying for the Sake of Allah
by Warner MacKenzie (http://www.islam-watch.org/Warner/index.html)30 April, 2007Lying and cheating in the Arab world is not really a moral matter but a method of safeguarding honor and status, avoiding shame, and at all times exploiting possibilities, for those with the wits for it, deftly and expeditiously to convert shame into honor on their own account and vice versa for their opponents. If honor so demands, lies and cheating may become absolute imperatives.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle” An interpretation of the Arabs, p4]
“No dishonor attaches to such primary transactions as selling short weight, deceiving anyone about quality, quantity or kind of goods, cheating at gambling, and bearing false witness. The doer of these things is merely quicker off the mark than the next fellow; owing him nothing, he is not to be blamed for taking what he can.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle”, p38]
The word "Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing, precaution, guarding.” It is employed in disguising one's beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies. In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking. It is currently employed in fending off and neutralising any criticism of Islam or Muslims.

You are not likely to get an honest answer amigo... Infidels are to be lied to whenever it suits a muslim's purpose to do so. -Tyr

[aboutime]

Essentially, Jahil has gone from 'they never did that', to 'well, everyone else was doing it'.


jafar is merely trying to justify bad behavior with bad behavior. Asking about our Death Penalty, as compared to the public MURDER of a murderer just doesn't compute for jafar.

Because we have our laws, and constitution. Even MURDERERS have rights, and are protected from Public, Street Justice as shown by that photo of the man with the gun...shooting another man.
Obviously. Jafar is attempting to compare Rights in America, with Street justice in whatever country he APPLAUDS as Peace Loving.

[Marcus Aurelius]

jafar is merely trying to justify bad behavior with bad behavior. Asking about our Death Penalty, as compared to the public MURDER of a murderer just doesn't compute for jafar.

Because we have our laws, and constitution. Even MURDERERS have rights, and are protected from Public, Street Justice as shown by that photo of the man with the gun...shooting another man.
Obviously. Jafar is attempting to compare Rights in America, with Street justice in whatever country he APPLAUDS as Peace Loving.

Honesty and Jahil went to different schools together.

[jafar00]

No insults. Just simple truth.

Would you care to stop ducking this following question ? Repeating this, now, from my post ...



... CHOOSE.

Local laws first except where they would force me to commit a sin. I have not found an incompatible local law yet.


The death penalty in the US has a different focus. When someone is convicted of a capital crime, they are put to death because they are beyond rehabilitation and it serves as a guarantee they will never again be a threat to public safety. Revenge isn't the intent.

The end result is the same.

[aboutime]

Honesty and Jahil went to different schools together.


Marcus. In Northern Virginia, USA. The school jafar (Jahil) might have attended is disguised as a school, called a Madrasa (Arabic: مدرسة‎, madrasa pl. مدارس, madāris) is the Arabic word (of Semitic origin; viz Hebrew midrash) for any type of educational institution,

Our schools haven't all been ordered by the Obama/Unions to switch over to teaching children like jafar.

[Voted4Reagan]

Funny thing is.... By Jafar showing that the Code of Hammurabi is a basis for Sharia Law, He has answered the question that STEVECANUCK has been asking him.

The attack against the Babylonians/Byzantines in the Fertile Crescent was indeed one of Conquest.

And the theory of QISAS or "AN EYE FOR AN EYE" was adopted from the ancient Cuneiform /Byzantine and Hittite Laws.

Jafar has indeed avoided answering my points because he knows them to be true.

as well as Steves.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Here's one for you, Jahil...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235763/Pictured-Islamic-militants-stone-man-death-adultery-Somalia-villagers-forced-watch.html

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/14/article-1235763-0796C749000005DC-686_634x448.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/14/article-1235763-0798A090000005DC-484_634x667.jpg

Pictured: Islamic militants stone man to death for adultery in Somalia as villagers are forced to watch



They hide their faces as they murder because they deep down know it is wrong but to look obedient they readily murder the man.. Savage and animalistic = Islam at its best. -Tyr

[stevecanuck]

Western Scholars and Arab Scholars do tend to disagree on the nature of the wars during the period where the Arabs gained a lot of territory.


Ok, name just one scholar of either stripe who says the muslims didn't invade the areas they conquered.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Ok, name just one scholar of either stripe who says the muslims didn't invade the areas they conquered.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to stevecanuck again.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by stevecanuck http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=632105#post632105)

Ok, name just one scholar of either stripe who says the muslims didn't invade the areas they conquered.




You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to stevecanuck again.

I took care of it for you.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I took care of it for you.

Bravo--:beer:.
Truth needs to be applauded... TY..--Tyr

[stevecanuck]

Jafar has yet to provide the name of a historian who says the first muslims did not invade the territories they conquered.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Jafar has yet to provide the name of a historian who says the first muslims did not invade the territories they conquered.

Jahil has not posted since the bombings in Boston. Hmmmmmmmmmmm....................

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Jahil has not posted since the bombings in Boston. Hmmmmmmmmmmm....................

and tailfins went to Mexico.. hmmmmmmmmm

Don't suppose they met there, eh?? --:laugh:--Tyr

[stevecanuck]

My reply in green.....


Verse 4:92 makes it clear that an infidel's life is worth less than a Muslim's as it tells the faithful, "Never should a Muslim kill another Muslim". The message is reinforced in this hadith:

Again... the full verse for context...

Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running: by way of repentance to Allah: for Allah hath all knowledge and all wisdom. (4:92)

That verse was revealed after Harith Ibn Shadid, who was an enemy of the Muslims and was very harsh against the Prophet Mohamed (saw) was killed. Unknown to the killer was that Harith Ibn Shadid was actually on his way to secretly embrace Islam at the time. The verse deals with Qisas (The law of equality) and how to deal with the situation where A BELIEVER KILLS A BELIEVER BY ACCIDENT. It has nothing to do with whether an "infidel" is worth less than a Muslim's. If you believe that, your comprehension skills are lacking somewhat.

Then why doesn't it say, "Never should a believer kill another person"? The opening phrase, "Never should a believer kill a believer" is a clear admonition not to kill another muslim, and the rest of it is just an explanation of what to do should that happen by accident. If infidels were to be similarly protected, allah would have said so.


Bukhari, Volume: 1, Book Number: 3, Hadith Number: 111, Narrated Ash-Sha'bi:
.....no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever).

And with that I give you

O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.(2:178)

Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; - and any that does this (not only) meets punishment. (But) the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell therein in ignominy (25:68-69)

Yes, "except for just cause". Bit of a loophole there. The qur'an says if anyone should worship any other than allah, never will it be accepted. Then there's 10:17, "Who does greater evil than he who forges a lie about Allah or belies His verses? Indeed, the evildoers do not prosper." That clearly means there can be no greater evil than not being a Muslim. Does that not sound like "just cause" to you, Jafar?


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)


We all know there are a few verses in the qur'an that actually sound accomodating, and this is one of them. They came earlier in islam's history and are at odds with those written later, such as surah 9. They are also very much in the minority. The vast majority of the qur'an, including many of the earlier verses, is spent denegrating infidels, and you know it.


Allah considers all life to be equally important and sacred. No distinction is made.

"No distinction is made"? You have GOT to be kidding. Countless verses compare "those who believe" with "those who beleive not". It's the main theme of the qur'an.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Allah considers all life to be equally important and sacred. No distinction is made.
"No distinction is made"? You have GOT to be kidding. Countless verses compare "those who believe" with "those who believe not". It's the main theme of the qur'an.



He meant all 'real Muslim' life.

[jafar00]

Then why doesn't it say, "Never should a believer kill another person"? The opening phrase, "Never should a believer kill a believer" is a clear admonition not to kill another muslim, and the rest of it is just an explanation of what to do should that happen by accident. If infidels were to be similarly protected, allah would have said so.



Yes, "except for just cause". Bit of a loophole there. The qur'an says if anyone should worship any other than allah, never will it be accepted. Then there's 10:17, "Who does greater evil than he who forges a lie about Allah or belies His verses? Indeed, the evildoers do not prosper." That clearly means there can be no greater evil than not being a Muslim. Does that not sound like "just cause" to you, Jafar?
We all know there are a few verses in the qur'an that actually sound accomodating, and this is one of them. They came earlier in islam's history and are at odds with those written later, such as surah 9. They are also very much in the minority. The vast majority of the qur'an, including many of the earlier verses, is spent denegrating infidels, and you know it.


"No distinction is made"? You have GOT to be kidding. Countless verses compare "those who believe" with "those who beleive not". It's the main theme of the qur'an.




If your defence is the order of revelation, what about 5:32? Prefaced with the story of Cain and Abel, is "if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people." acceptable for you? Since that was revealed only a few years before the Prophet's (saw) death, it comes well after all of the verses you say are commands to go out killing unbelievers.

There remains no command or even suggestion in the Qur'aan to kill someone for simply not believing. On the contrary, "fire and brimstone" punishments are proscribed for them IN THE AFTERLIFE.

[stevecanuck]

If your defence is the order of revelation, what about 5:32? Prefaced with the story of Cain and Abel, is "if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people." acceptable for you? Since that was revealed only a few years before the Prophet's (saw) death, it comes well after all of the verses you say are commands to go out killing unbelievers.

There remains no command or even suggestion in the Qur'aan to kill someone for simply not believing. On the contrary, "fire and brimstone" punishments are proscribed for them IN THE AFTERLIFE.

Look at the first part of that verse: That was why We wrote for the Children of Israel that who ever killed a soul, except for a soul slain, or for sedition in the earth, it should be considered as though he had killed all mankind; and that who ever saved it should be regarded as though he had saved all mankind.

This is a story that predates mohamed and the muslims. By the time allah got around to them, the command became, "Never should a muslim kill a muslim". Meanwhile, you conveniently failed to respond to the rest of my post.

Btw, what was the name of the historian who said muslims only captured land in self defense? I must have missed that.

[aboutime]

Everyone reading this thread should instantly realize, and understand how the False Prophet...jafar should be ignored. Most importantly. A RED flag from jafar, whenever someone so dedicated to the Death of Non-Muslim/Islamic people, pretends to preach about the Holy Bible.

[jafar00]

Look at the first part of that verse: That was why We wrote for the Children of Israel that who ever killed a soul, except for a soul slain, or for sedition in the earth, it should be considered as though he had killed all mankind; and that who ever saved it should be regarded as though he had saved all mankind.

This is a story that predates mohamed and the muslims. By the time allah got around to them, the command became, "Never should a muslim kill a muslim". Meanwhile, you conveniently failed to respond to the rest of my post.

The story of Cain and Abel is for all time, not just for a specific people or time. This was just first revealed to them way back then. It is as valid now and it was then.

Anyone who tries to twist it any other way is a friend of Al Qaeda. Do you work for them?


Btw, what was the name of the historian who said muslims only captured land in self defense? I must have missed that.

I can't remember that. I have studied Islam and some history offline. I don't have links. I just remember details.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The story of Cain and Abel is for all time, not just for a specific people or time.

You're a complete hypocrite. When you are confronted with passages in the Qur'aan of violence, death, murder and such, YOU claim they were 'only for that specific time or incident'.

You can't have it both ways, Jahil.

[aboutime]

You're a complete hypocrite. When you are confronted with passages in the Qur'aan of violence, death, murder and such, YOU claim they were 'only for that specific time or incident'.

You can't have it both ways, Jahil.


Marcus. But Jahil obviously doesn't care about having it both ways IF...he goes both ways anyhow.