Judeo-Christian-Islamic values update from the Greensboro News & Record, with thanks to Anthony and Thunder Pig:
GREENSBORO -- All Syidah Mateen wanted was to give Muslim witnesses the chance to be sworn in on the Quran before testifying in Guilford County courtrooms.But an attempt by the Greensboro Islamic center to donate copies of the Muslim holy text last week sparked a legal debate that has left state court officials scrambling to decide whether to allow the practice.
Officials with the Administrative Office of the Courts in Raleigh are trying to come up with a statewide policy on the issue before news of the controversy sparks a large outcry, spokesman Dick Ellis said....
An AOC lawyer's preliminary opinion last week said that state law allows people to be sworn in using a Quran rather than a Bible, Ellis said. But that conflicts with the view of top Guilford County judges, who told officials with the Islamic center Friday that they won't allow the practice in their courtrooms.
"An oath on the Quran is not a lawful oath under our law," Guilford Senior Resident Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright said earlier in the week. He sets policy for the county's nine Superior Court courtrooms.
Friday's news disappointed Mateen, who said she planned to pursue the issue further.
"This is a diverse world, and everybody does not worship or believe the same," she said. "We'll just have to get in touch with the right people and determine our next move."...
The issue surfaced for Mateen two years ago, when she came in front of Guilford District Judge Tom Jarrell. When she was asked to swear on the Bible before testifying in a domestic violence protective order hearing, the 40-year-old Greensboro woman asked Jarrell if there was a Quran.
"I was actually shocked that they didn't have any," she said.
She was allowed to testify after giving an affirmation to tell the truth, but the issue never left her mind.
Mateen recalls Jarrell telling her that day that all the courtrooms needed copies of the Quran.
Jarrell disagrees. He said he only told her he would look into the legality of such oaths if she wanted to bring a Quran in the future.
Mateen eventually went forward with her idea -- believing Jarrell approved. She got the backing of the Al-Ummil Ummat Islamic Center, which her late father established, to donate about 10 copies of the Quran to the county's courthouses.
The center's imam, Charles Abdullah, working through a judicial assistant, was prepared to hand over the Qurans last week.
"We do feel like it has some historical significance," Abdullah said. "We didn't want to make a big fanfare out of it."
But Jarrell said he was unaware of the donation until a reporter contacted him last week. He deferred any decision to the judges that set courtroom policy, and a meeting was postponed.
On Friday, Guilford Chief District Judge Joseph E. Turner said he told Abdullah that he could not accept the Qurans for the courtrooms.
But Turner asked whether Abdullah would donate a copy of the Quran to the law libraries in the county's two courthouses, and Abdullah agreed, he said.
Turner oversees policy for the county's 12 District Court courtrooms.
Both Turner and Albright said the language in the law -- which refers at one point to laying one's hand on the "Holy Scriptures" -- precludes someone from being sworn using the Quran.
Albright said he has nothing against other holy books, but he believes the statute is clear.
"Everybody understands what the holy Scriptures are," he said. "If they don't, we're in a mess."
AOC officials disagreed with that interpretation last week.
The law requires a person to fear both spiritual and temporal punishment if his testimony is false, and swearing on the Quran would satisfy that, Ellis said.
But AOC officials would rather Muslims give an affirmation instead of bringing another holy text into the mix, Ellis said.
State officials worry that would open the door to more problems. For example, Ellis asked, what if a person says they worship brick walls and should be allowed to swear on a brick?
"We don't want to complicate this simple procedure here," Ellis said.
Jarrell, the judge in Mateen's original case, said he's always been concerned about the utility of having atheists or non-Christians swearing an oath on the Bible.
"They might as well be swearing on a Sears catalog," he said.
If allowing people to swear on the Quran helps him get to the truth, Jarrell said, he has no problem with it. But he said he'll follow courthouse policy....
OK.
"Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief - except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty." (16:106)
"If allowing people to swear on the Quran helps him get to the truth," Jarrell said. But what if they are uttering unbelief under what they consider to be compulsion, in line with the verse above? This is just one element of a much larger problem: in relations with unbelievers, the Qur'an simply doesn't teach the values of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is, as we see from the above verse, permissible to lie to unbelievers. Other values come in for a similar treatment: for believers, they are upheld, but for believers alone.
It is considered impolite to point this out these days. This kind of politeness could be our undoing. Once again I ask anyone reading: please prove me wrong. Please show me where the Qur'an commands Muslims to be honest specifically to unbelievers, or even states the command not to lie in terms that unequivocally apply universally. I am familiar with the verses generally used to do this, and I warn you: I am also familiar with what the mainstream Muslim commentators on the Qur'an say about them. So fire away.
As a religious Jew, when I was once a witness in a US court, I affirmed (rather than swear an oath) that I would tell the truth.
I did not need a Bible (Jewish or anyone elses) to have to do this. Nor would I ever think of imposing on the court to obtain a Jewish version of the Bible. There simply is no such obligation, so why impose?
Where does Islam require such an imposition? That is, if you're a Muslim in a non-Islamic court, you have to swear/affirm on a Quran to confirm telling the truth?
I assume my question is rhetorical.
This is simply one more attempt to get everyone used to the idea of Islam, to domesticate Islam, to force others to accept Islam. It may seem to some to be a little matter; it is not.
Nowhere in the Muslim world does anyone "swear on the Qur'an." It is nonsense, therefore, to introduce the practice here. Someone who wishes not to swear on the Bible need not do so, but can simply promise to tell the truth.
And that is what this Mateen lady can do.
In any case, since the Qur'an, and the texts that were of course spun out from it by imaginative storytellers, the Hadith and Sira, contain the seeds of taqiyya and kitman -- the religiously-sanctioned dissimulation to be used with those for whom one's religion may be a problem (taqiyya originates in Shi'a Islam, as a way to deal with circumambient and hostile Sunnis) -- i.e., at this point, Infidels -- what would prevent a good Muslim, swearing by the very book that, whatever else it may be, is a manual of war, impregnated with hysteria and hate, then going on to practice what Muhammad preached -- "war is deception" and, whatever charges Infidels may bring in the land they still laughingly call their own (but which belongs to Allah, and to the People of Allah), they can be lied about not in spite of swearing an oath on the Qur'an, but because of it.
Oaths and affirmations by Muslims give me pause. After learning about , as should not be believed. The Koran does not value truth when speaking to non-believers. All that is said must be taken as a possible untruth.
She was 'shocked' to find that no Quran was available at an American court. Uh huh.
And let's see, here.
Would an official, Arabic version of the Quran be required?
And if so, what steps would be required of the impure, infidel court clerks who would descecrate Islam's 'holy book' by merely touching it with their bare hands? Wearing clean gloves, no doubt. And using the defendants own clean towel, too.
Or would an english language translation, printed by inhabitants of the 'great Satan', be o.k?
"I'd swear on a stack of Qurans....."
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you Allah?
The men and women who established America must be rolling in their graves...
Moose
Still, it would be useless. Lying is a part of islam so I'm told.
The muslims change their host society, by making one demand at a time, until the host becomes islamic. Canada has already surrendered part of her judiciary to their shariah court. What people don't get is that the muslims are not in your country to follow your civil code; they are there to implement their own code, the shariah, in your country.
The inflection point comes when their population reaches critical mass, at about 25-30% of the population. Then you get the 3 options:
1. Be an islamic country.
2. Partition your country.
3. Have a civil war then partition your country.
Someone suggested an Option 4: expulsion from the country. But that is no longer an option when they hit critical mass. Too many people.
Skidd:
We've only lost half of our heart. Ontario is in the process of introducing Sharia as a means of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) on a trial basis (lots of concerns about potential abuse), but Quebec has stated a resounding "non" to anything other than Civil Code for la belle Province.
Because of the principle of Taqqiya [lying permitted to advance Islam or to protect Islam or it's followers] swearing alliegance on the Koran is an exercise in futility.
Hugh while you are correct the great majority of Americans know absolutely nothing about the religion in question.
Why the expose' of the FBI's ignorance, these past days, should be enough said.
If anything can be used against infidels then Muslims will declare it offensive to Islam and inveigh against their enemy with the latest in their armoury.
If it is the name of a car parking lot, the drinking of wine on the sidewalk or the sudden creation of a new Islamic ritual of swearing on the Qur'an then so be it.
How many times do Americans, in this case, have to be lied to?
Why Abbas told Rice that anti-semitic invective has stopped. She has only to read PMW's recordings for the month to see that it is Yasser back in a suit.
Most courts are clearly secular in nature, --IE separation of Church and state. there are clear laws against giving false testimonies in court if they can be proven whether sworn or not .
waterdragon52, Thanks for the clarification on Canada. Happy to hear the sane citizens of Quebec are not confused about whose country they live in. It's Quebec eh! Not Quebecstan.
I fervently hope the rest of Canada will stay sane as well. And remember that their country has an established civil code, and that anyone coming in, who wants to be Canadian, should follow the Canadian code (duh!). If the muslims want to live under shariah code they should move to an islamic land. Canada is not islamic. So leave!
But it is a waste of breath to reason like this with the muslims. They don't do reason. All they do is implement their Islam. Period. In your land.
Cynic, you're absolutely right.
The muslims are very adept at exploiting western freedoms and the achilles heel, cultural relativisim: that all cultures are equally valid and should be supported. The muslims and their useful idiots will obfuscate, mislead, lie, deceive, hide ("You misunderstand...that is a mistranslation of the original Arabic...Islam is a religion of peace") their barbaric practices (mutilation and murder), and seditious agenda ("Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." -- Omar M. Ahmad, CAIR chairman).
We should educate everyone on what these people are and snub them in the bud, while their numbers are still small. It won't stay small for long.
This is the BEST thing that could have happened for the U.S. legal system to NOW come to some understanding of the Koran and for a PUBLIC examination of the foundation of Islam!
Hallelujiah!
This Muslim lady, like many of her recent colleagues in Allah, SHOT HERSELF IN THE METAPHYSICAL FOOT!
BULLSEYE!
Inshallah!
Everyone needs to contact this judge and send the relevant Koranic sura citations which advocate lying as a method of the Muslim to be used tactically for conqust.
We couldn't have engineered a better silver platter moment!
If the judge can rule that the Koran is a book which explicitly recommends dissembling, evasion, deception and outright LIES by its believers... for the CAUSE of Islam... and then rules this book to be ILLEGIMATE for use in any courtroom for the purpose of securing the truth, or for swearing to anything but a contempt for the law, itself, then the cause against the Imperialistic Islamic invasion of the courts, and the West, will be taking a GIANT STEP foreward.
A golden opportunity!
Thanks little lady!
I only wish I had thought of insisting on a Koran myself (but I have never been before a judge, except for one disputed traffic ticket a decade ago), so I didn't have the motivation to conceive of this SUBLIME challenge to the validity of the Koran.
The Bible, which includes the Ten Commandment injunction "NOT TO BEAR FALSE WITNESS" is an understandable volume to swear on, if you so desire. (Jehaovah's Witnesses, etc. can just "affirm" that they will be truthful, since "swearing" is forbidden to them.)
Get this judge to read the Koran, and he cannot help but declare it a document of deception, and render it invalid for any courtoom use... except maybe to level a wobbly desk.
Anybody have the judge's email or phone number?
This has made my month!
I'll be humming:
"Bring lawyers, guns and money!"
-with a BIG smile -all day!
Swearing to tell the truth on the Koran? That's an oxymoron...
"We do feel like it has some historical significance," Abdullah said. "We didn't want to make a big fanfare out of it."
Historical significance? How so? Not here. Islam has no claim to American history. Muslims can claim to be a part of America all they like, but they are not.
If they had been a part of the building of the United States, this nation would've been in the toilet long before 1900 rolled around, as they ruin everything they touch.
We have our own culture here. If we feel the need to visit the Stone Age, then we'll watch re-runs of the Flintstones.
They can keep their book of sickness out of American society altogether. If they didn't want to make a "big fanfare" out of it, then why are they pursuing the issue?
Pushy wannabes. This is not a Judeo-Christian-Muslim nation, no matter how much they lie in order to make it appear that way.
Every time one of these suicidal acts of conciliation takes place I’m briefly hopeful that this will be the straw, but it never is and it will never be.
What ever it was that made this country great I think is was the love of truth it is gone .
I believe it died on November 22nd 1963 and has gotten worse daily since.
Their is no one to draw a line in the sand , there is nowhere to retreat to .
Unfortunately there is not where to go where they wont pursuit.
I cant believe 3000 dead will not be enough.
As long as you make 'm promise to tell the truth and yank their muslim ass in jail if they don't, they can swear their oath on a monkey's dick, for all I care.
skidd:
There are a few Muslim organizations protesting Ontario's plans as well*, and we had Iranian Nobel prize winner Sharrin Abadi in town last week saying that it would be wrong to introduce Sharia into Canadian courts; one law should apply to all citizens. So, we'll have to see what happens. Even Marian Boyd, the author of the report, inserted a lot of caveats.
* Ontario has a Muslim community that came here long before the Saudis started exporting Wahhabism and it looks like a contingent of fairly articulate members of that community appreciate the societal norms of western countries. Yes, I'm sure it's small, but movements tend to start out small, don't they?
Muhammedan arrogance knows no bounds. The tail wags the dog, or at least is trying to. Of all the ungrateful immigrants who wash upon our shores the Muhammedans are the worst, bar none. (I have no problem with our legal immigrants who learn English, who contribute and live honorable lives)
Next they will be using the laws of that Qur'an they swear on to legally justify their actions in this country.
When and where will it end?
"This is a diverse world, and everybody does not worship or believe the same,"
King: I say, remove 100% of all of the religious B.S. within the court and make everyone swear on The Constitution. That will solve it.
BTW-is anyone here from the Bay Area?
Are you interested in finding out what is being presented in public schools in the San Fran area re Islam?
For example, "roots of islam in America"????? Maybe we can retitle that "how the Arabs supported the US slave trade".
Please send response to borlancul@yahoo.com
I can bet that there are many items in this curriculum that are questionable, and that can be passed on to the CA Department of Education.
SPEAKERS BUREAU TRAINING: ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
>
>
> DATE 6/11/2005
>
> BEGINNING TIME 9 :00 AM
>
> END TIME 5 :00 PM
>
> DESCRIPTION ISLAMIC NETWORKS GROUP (ING) Presents
> "Presenting Islam in Schools & Other Public Institutions"
>
> ING speakers delivered over 800 presentations relating to Islam to
> public and private schools and other organizations in the San Francisco
> Bay
> Area last year, and over 3,000 in 12 others states.
>
> The training session includes the following:
> - A Demo of a Live Presentation
> - Introduction to New ING Presentations: "Islamic Contributions to
> Civilizations" & "Roots of Islam in America"
> - First Amendment Center Guidelines for Speaking About Islam in the
> Public Square
> - Training on How to Answer "Frequently Asked Questions"
> - Speaker's Tips & Use of Visual Aids
>
> Registration cost includes lunch and a Speaker's Kit. Registration is
> required.
>
>
> SPEAKER Trainers: Maha ElGenaidi, Maria Khani
>
>
> SPONSOR Orange County Islamic Centers
>
>
> MORE INFORMATION Maria Khani (714) 608-4555
>
>
> Send to a Friend
>
>
KingTolerance,
Unfortunately, an oath sworn on the Constitution means absolutely nothing to most Muslims. It is the Qur'an with its dictative dripping, the Shariah, which only can be tolerated.
Aiken: "Unfortunately, an oath sworn on the Constitution means absolutely nothing to most Muslims."
King: You know this to be a fact, do you? You've asked "most Muslims" this? Moreover - the one and only thing all American citizens have in common is our protection under the almighty Constitution.
I personally do not believe in the Bible so having me swear on it means absolutley nothing, perhaps about as much as swaering on the Constituion means to "most Muslims."
Here is an interesting section from their website
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON TERRORISM
In the course of our presentations and educational programs, we are frequently asked questions about Islam and its view on terrorism. Here are some of the most common questions and their answers:
1) What is the Islamic stand on terrorist attacks, such as those that took place in Madrid on March 11, 2004, NY on September 11, 2001, and repeated "suicide bombings" in Israel?
Terrorism is highly condemned in Islam. Terrorism, defined as the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes directly contradicts Islamic rules which prohibit targeting civilians, even in war. In Islamic law, fighting is to be between armies (combatants), not involving non-combatants, or even infrastructure that affects the lives of non-combatants, such as food sources, water, hospitals, roads, bridges, and other necessities of a civilian population. In fact, "haraba", a Qur'anic term defined as "sowing corruption and chaos on earth", is considered one of the most grievous crimes, subject to severe punishment.
2) Is there anything in the Quran, which encourages the terrorists?
Absolutely nothing in the Quran encourages terrorism. On the contrary, the Quran (Islamic Scripture which Muslims believe is the unchanged word of God) and hadith (Prophet Muhammad's sayings and traditions as recorded by his companions), which are the two primary sources of Islamic law places supremacy on the sacredness of life, security, and peace. Terrorists who base their actions on Islamic law misappropriate Islam, as terrorist anti-abortionists, white supremacists, and certain militia groups misappropriate Christianity.
3) Is there anything in Islam that leads to suicide bombings or terrorism?
Nothing in Islam leads to terrorism or suicide bombings, nor has it ever part of the ethos of Islam's 1400 years of history and traditions. This is a modern day aberration among a few extremists who have taken terrorism as a means for fighting personal wars. Suicide is strongly prohibited in Islam because no one has the right to take away the life that God has given, except God Himself. Committing terrorist acts, which kill innocent civilians, is also prohibited, even during war, especially against women, children, old people, and religious people such as monks and nuns. Even the cutting down of trees, killing animals, and destroying infrastructure are forbidden. In Islam, one can only fight a "just war", which is fought in self-defense, not as an act of aggression and is to be between two groups of military personnel, not with civilians.
4) Where do Muslim extremists get their textual justifications?
Some of the Qur'anic verses which lay out the purpose and nature of war include the following:
To stop oppression: "To those against whom war is made, permission is given to fight, because they are oppressed. Verily, God is Capable of aiding them. They are those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of what is just, for no other reason than that they say, "Our Lord is God." Had God not restrained one set of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues, temples and mosques wherein God's name if oft-mentioned would have been destroyed. God will certainly aid those who aid His cause. (Qur'an, Chapter 22:39-40). Notice the mention of all houses of worship.
In self-defense: "Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits by aggressing; surely God does not love transgressors." (Qur'an, Chapter 2:190.) Notice that permission is given to fight in self-defense, but not to transgress.
Peace is a desired state: "If they incline toward peace, then seek you peace also. And place your trust in God, for God hears and knows all things." (Qur'an, Chapter 8:61).
Muslim extremists get their textual interpretations by taking verses in the Qur'an out of their social-historical context, not considering the time, place, and specific circumstances in which these verses were revealed. The commonly quoted verse that follows must be understood in its proper context, namely during the struggle of the early Muslims against the specific group of Makkans who fought, persecuted and killed them first in Makkah, and then after they established a state in Medina, where early Muslims fought back for the first time. These verses can neither be used to justify killing non-Muslims, nor targeting innocent civilians.
"Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them and beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. But if they repent, and establish regular prayers, and practice regular charity, then open the way for them, for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. If any among them asks for asylum, grant it to him so that he may hear the word of God. Then escort him to his place of security. This is because they are without knowledge."
*Note that even in this social-historical context, not only were the perpetrators given a chance to repent, but that if they sought asylum, it must be granted.
5) What is Jihad?
"Jihad" is often mistranslated as "holy war", a word that does not exist in Arabic. "Jihad" literally means "striving". The greater jihad is described as the internal struggle to avoid negative actions and cultivate good character. The lesser jihad is described as the external striving for justice, in self defense or against oppression, which is a basic human right shared by all people. One can do this in one's heart, with one's tongue or pen, and if these are ineffective, by physically trying to change an oppressive situation, either in self-defense or to defend others against aggression (like the Revolutionary War by the founding fathers against the oppressive policies of the British; or World War II against the aggression of Hitler.)
It is this last type of jihad that Muslim extremists believe they are fighting, which the media mis-translates as "holy war".
6) Who can declare "Jihad"? Can Osama bin Laden declare "Jihad"?
Islam places a great emphasis on order in its political philosophy. Anarchy and arbitrary acts are greatly condemned. Basic principles relating to war are buttressed by these twin considerations. Islam teaches in the Quran: "O You who believe, Obey God, and obey the Messenger, and those in authority amongst you," (4:59). Quranic commentators mention that those in authority amongst you means legitimate political authorities and scholars. These are the people who can rightfully declare war. Firstly, legitimate political authorities can make such a call. Secondly, in their absence, those scholars who are universally recognized by the Muslims for their scholarship and piety. As Osama bin Laden is neither a scholar nor a government leader, he lacks the authority to call for war.
7) Do Muslims, particularly those in America, support Osama bin Laden?
The vast majority of Muslims do not support Osama bin Laden and in fact Muslims here and around the world do not know any more about Osama bin Laden than Americans of other faiths. A few Muslim groups overseas support him because they see him as standing up to America, which they regard as a superpower that is biased against Palestinians, and is harming Muslims in Iraq and other countries.
8) What does Al-Qaeda specifically want in these terrorist attacks?
No one knows for sure what motivates terrorists to do such evil acts. In dealing with the motivations of the perpetrators, we must remember that in the case of the attack on September 11th, they left no statement at all of their aims or purposes nor has any group taken responsibility. There may be unknown contexts. The motivation may have nothing at all to do with supposed religious commitments. Obviously, their intent was to kill many people and disrupt life and human society. According to media reports, in the Madrid bombings, their aim was to punish Spain for its alliance with America in the war in Iraq.
9) Does Islam teach hatred for non-Muslims?
Since Islam considers the diversity of people and nature as God's creation, respect for diversity is commanded. Especially noted in the Quran are "People of the Book", namely Jews and Christians, who were always given a special place in Muslim society. Muslims are commanded to safeguard their right to worship and their places of worship, a command that has been historically followed, as is evidenced by the existence of old churches and synagogues throughout the Muslim world in places like Turkey, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, and Bosnia. Contrary to the common stereotype, Islam was not "spread by the sword", nor people forced to convert, a fact again born out by the existence of non-Muslim populations throughout the Muslim world. This same respect and tolerance was extended to people of other faiths.
As Bernard Lewis states in his book, What Went Wrong, "Surely, the Ottomans did not offer equal rights to their subjects, a meaningless anachronism in the context of that time and place. They did however offer a degree of tolerance without precedent or parallel in Christian Europe. Each religious community - the Ottoman term was millet - was allowed the free practice of its religion. More remarkably, they had their own communal organizations, subject to the authority of their own religious chiefs, controlling their own education and social life, and enforcing their own laws, to the extent that they did not conflict with the basic laws of the Empire. While ultimate power - political and military - remained in Muslim hands, non-Muslims controlled much of the economy, and were even able to play a part of some importance in the political process."
10) Does the Quran order the subjugation of all non-Muslims?
According to Islamic teachings, the Quran is a revelation from God, which served as the basis for the formation of a sophisticated civilization. Like all other civilizations, Islamic civilization has rules, which govern the interaction of the Islamic polity with other nations and identity groups. Within the Muslim state, non-Muslims are free to continue the practice of their religion. Their forceful conversion is strictly forbidden. Islam teaches in the Quran: "Let there be no compulsion in [accepting] religion!" (2:256). Similarly, the Quran presents a set of teachings, which serve as the basis for a developed system of international relations. For example, Islam teaches in the Quran: "if your enemy inclines towards peace, then reciprocate, and trust in God," (8:61). Hence, we find in the Quran the basis for peaceful relations with non-Muslim nations, including truces, trade, educational exchanges, and other facets of normal life.
11) Are Martyrs guaranteed 70 virgins in Heaven?
This is not an authenticate Prophetic Tradition (Hadith). However, in Islam martyrs are promised a great reward from God, just as war heroes are honored in many societies. However, a Muslim who dies commandeering a plane-load of civilians into a building full of civilians, or blowing up innocent people on trains or buses, jeopardizing the safety and security of Muslims throughout the world, and opening the way for antagonistic forces to slander, denigrate, and vilify Islam cannot be considered a martyr. Terrorists are mass murderers, not martyrs.
12) Should I be afraid of anyone who is Muslim or from the Middle East?
Just as you should not stereotype, or make assumptions about an entire group of people based on their background, race, or religion, it is wrong to think of all people from the Middle East and those who are Muslim as being terrorists just because a few of them commit terrorism. One-fifth to one-fourth of the world's population is Muslim, but only a handful of criminals commit these deeds. This could be compared to asking if we should be afraid of all white young males because Timothy McVeigh was white, or afraid of all Christians because extremist anti-abortionists are Christian, or Irish people because of terror in Ireland. It is important to remember that there are good and bad people in all countries, races and religions.
To request a presentation about Islam and Muslims, click here
Bigsleep-
If you find out the Judge's email, please let me know.
Skidd - I'm the one that suggested Option 4 expulsion.It happen in the past Spain 1492 to the Moors after the fall of Granada and history has a way of repeating itself.I do agree with you we must stop it now when the numbers are low or else the cost of blood will be higher and the outcome uncertain.
To Treehugger: So what's your problem? I've heard many folks here ask for Muslims to speak out against terrorism and offer some moderate views on Islam. Here you have it, and you STILL take issue.
Not sure what else your issue it, other than that you hate what you do not understand.
WND BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
Islam studies required in California district
Course has 7th-graders memorizing Koran verses, praying to Allah
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
In the wake of Sept. 11, an increasing number of California public school students must attend an intensive three-week course on Islam, reports ASSIST News Service.
The course mandates that seventh-graders learn the tenets of Islam, study the important figures of the faith, wear a robe, adopt a Muslim name and stage their own jihad. Adding to this apparent hypocrisy, reports ANS, students must memorize many verses in the Koran, are taught to pray "in the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful" and are instructed to chant, "Praise to Allah, Lord of Creation."
The rest of the article is here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25997
What do you expect from the "LEFTcoast". These liberals just don't seem to get it... ever. The very thing that they are attempting to embrace and force others likewise, has no regard for their freedoms and will, if given half the chance, consume them. The stated goal of Islam. Idiots.
RD
KingTolerance,
You would do better at understanding this phenomenon by aquainting yourself with the concept of the ummah. Or better yet, the ideaology of the ummah making up the nation of Islam. And no, I'm not talking about Elijah Muhammad's creation either.
It is incumbent on all Muslims to propogate the faith peacefully or by violent jihad. The means to the end doesn't matter as long as Islam becomes dominant.
No offense, but if you believe otherwise you are either ignorant of Islamic concepts and history or are deluded by multiculture bombast.
Maybe this is on topic. Maybe it isn't. Lest we forget, I would like to share with you some quotes I got by doing a Lexis/Nexis search of newspaper articles from 1981. Only the words in upper caste are mine. Otherwise, this juxtaposition speaks for itself. Behold:
PRE-EMPTION 101:
FRANCE, THE U.N., THE SECURITY COUNCIL, AND A FORMER NAZI EXCORIATE ISRAEL OVER ITS 1981 PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN'S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS:
Headlines from the NYT: "France and Britain Rebuke the Israelis" (NYT 6/16/81), "Draft at U. N. Seeks Israeli Punishment" (NYT 6/17/81), "Israelis Condemned by Security Council for Attack on Iraq" (NYT 6/20/81)
More from the NYT: "France today termed the Israeli air strike against Iraq's French-built nuclear reactor ‘unacceptable’ and, taking issue with Israel's official account, said that a French technician had been killed in the raid. …Kurt Waldheim, Secretary General of the United Nations, who was in Tokyo on a visit, issued a statement condemning the Israeli action as a 'clear contravention of international law.'" (Paul Lewis, "France Condemns Attack and Rejects Israeli Account," 6/9/81)
LEADING REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS DEFEND ISRAEL’S ACTION:
"Senator Alfonse D'Amato, a Republican, said the bombing was ‘perfectly proper, legitimate and it was a pre-emptive strike that should have been expected.'…Senator Daniel P. Moynihan, a Democrat, said the ‘Israelis did what they had to do,’ and added, ‘Anything that takes out a nuclear installation, I'm in favor of.’" (Bernard Gwertzman, "U.S., Citing Possible Violation of Arms Agreement, Suspends Shipment of 4 Jets to Israel," NYT 6/10/81)
"So long as Iraq pursued its drive to attain a nuclear-weapons capability, and so long as the United States Government was unsuccessful in dissuading France and Italy from halting their imprudent sales to Iraq of nuclear technologies and materials that could be used for weapons, such a strike by Israel was virtually inevitable. If a large superpower, the United States, felt such a defensive strike to be a serious option in l962, how can we condemn Israel today for making such a strike when its Government felt that the entire nation was imperiled?" (Alan Cranston, Democratic member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 6/10/81)
"Mr. Reagan went on to endorse at least some of Israel's justifications for the raid, saying: ‘I do think that one has to recognize that Israel had reason for concern in view of the past history of Iraq, which has never signed a cease-fire or recognized Israel as a nation, has never joined in any peace effort for that. So in other words it does not even recognize the existence of Israel as a country.'" (Steven Weisman, "Reagan Asserts Israel Had Cause to Misttrust Iraq," NYT 6/17/81)
THE NEW YORK TIMES MOCKS MENACHEM BEGIN'S HUMANITARIAN CONCERNS BY MARKING THE WORD "HOLOCAUST" WITH SNEER QUOTES:
"’I for one would have never made the proposal to my colleagues under such circumstances to send our air force and bomb the reactor,’ Mr. Begin said. The Baghdad residents ‘are innocent people,’ he said. ‘It is our ethics and always has been: fight the good fight, but armed men against armed men. Never use arms against innocent and unarmed civilians. 'We faced a terrible dilemma,’ Mr. Begin said. ‘Should we now be passive, and then lose the last opportunity, without those horrible casualties amongst the Baghdad population, to destroy the hotbed of death?’ (David K. Shipler, "Prime Minister Begin Defends Raid on Iraqi Nuclear Reactor; Pledges to Thwart a New ‘Holocaust,’" NYT 6/10/81)
"Last week's raid, timed when most workers were away, killed a French technician." ("Israel’s Raid on Iraq Produces Heavy Cloud of Diplomatic Fallout," NYT 6/14/81)
MARGARET THATCHER, THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, AND THE NEW YORK TIMES GET IT WRONG:
Headlines from the NYT: "Chances of Iraqis on Bomb Doubted" (NYT 6/11/81), "France Says Iraqis Couldn't Have Built A-Bomb Undetected" (NYT 6/18/81)
More form the NYT: "In London, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher stressed in the House of Commons that Britain, like France, did not believe the Iraqi plant had the capacity to make nuclear weapons. Noting that the plant had been inspected in January by members of the International Atomic Energy Agency, she condemned the Israeli raid as a 'grave breach of international law' that appeared certain to heighten tension in the Middle East." ("Soviet Charges U.S. Was Accomplice in the ‘Act of Gangsterism’ by Israelis," NYT 6/10/81)
"For all the brilliance of its execution, the raid incurred a terrible price. It further inflamed the Arab world and burdened the Moslem nations that are willing to accept the reality of Israel. It deepened the isolation of Egypt's President Sadat, whose diplomacy brought Israel more security than any of its recent military forays. It heightened distrust of America in the Middle East and opened new paths for Soviet intrusion. Yet Americans who never dreamed a week ago of urging an attack on Iraq's reactor suddenly argue that we should all be grateful to the intrepid Israelis. They condemn President Reagan for responding even with a ritual reprimand. They pronounce France liberated from Iraq's pressure for nuclear fuel and presume Saudi and Egyptian delight at its humiliation. The cause of nonproliferation is said to have found a bold new champion. 'Anything that takes out a nuclear installation, I'm in favor of,' says Senator Moynihan. f that's the new realism, why stop at Baghdad? Why not throttle the Indians and Pakistanis by kidnapping their scientists? Why not sabotage or bomb the plants of Europe's nuclear exporters? …It is no favor to Israel to keep admiring a military boldness that threatens to become a substitute for intrepid diplomacy. …A truly bold Israel would use this time of military superiority not to flaunt its power but to run more risks for accommodation, encouraging especially Palestinians to trade steps toward peace for hunks of territory." (Editorial Desk, "The Fallout from Baghdad," NYT 6/14/81)
THREE YEARS LATER, THE REAGAN ADMINSTRATION IS DUPED BY PAKISTAN:
"’If the word of the government of Pakistan and the word of the head of state is doubted, you can offer 200 explanations and you can't remove the doubt,’ he said. President Zia has repeatedly pledged to the Reagan administration that Pakistan's nuclear program is purely peaceful, as a condition for securing $3.2 billion in military and economic assistance, including the delivery by 1986 of 40 advanced F-16 jet fighters." (Karen Elliot and Peter Khan, Wall Street Journal 7/10/84)
ANY QUESTIONS?
Regarding Quebec's rejection of Sharia (mentioned above): As far as I know all that Quebec did was pass a resolution opposing the use of Sharia in her "National [i.e. Provincial] Assembly". Such resolutions have been of purely symbolic significance under the parliamentary system--even before the introduction of the "Charter of Rights" led to the frequent judicial overturning of laws in Canada. The seriousness of such resolutions may be gauged from the fact that in 1999(?) the Parliament of Canada passed a resolution confirming marriage as a union of a man and a woman, yet within a few years gay marriage was being implemented in several Canadian provinces.
Aiken: "It is incumbent on all Muslims to propogate the faith peacefully or by violent jihad."
King; You're simply regurgitating the radical view of Islam as it has been fed to the West. "Propagation of the faith" is not one of the 5 pillars, nor is it incumbent.
As I have said before, let me direct your attention to the filthy history of Christianity being violently spread into places like Central and South America, Africa, South Pacific, India. Not too long ago, either. Indigenous peoples of Brazil were almost wiped clean by Spanish and Portuguese settlers.
Aiken: "if you believe otherwise you are either ignorant of Islamic concepts and history or are deluded by multiculture bombast."
King: I beg to differ. You simply regurgitated a simplified version of one type of Islam and then call me "deluded by multiculture bombast." On the contrary - I have a rather comprehensive understanding of multiculturalism and have grown to tolerate and progress with the changing world around me. I live happily because of it. I do not have to agree with some of my fellow humans but that does not make them right or wrong.
An Islamic terrorist is a bad person. Period. An Islamic radical is a bad person. Period. Islam as a whole is a religion practiced by 1.2 billion humans on this planet and we have to live together. Period. You can continue to cling to your simplistic views...
KingTolerance,
This simple poster agrees with your view that we must live together, but on whose terms is really the question.
Must I bide my time in silent objection towards the relentless push by those who never tire at undermining my society and laws in order to implement their own agenda?
What is multiculturally correct about allowing my culture to be ridiculed and admonished to the point, if allowed to continue, of being absorbed into a fascist collective which rescinds human culture and promotes only submission?
Will your progressive tolerance matter at that point? The ummah will decide whether they will tolerate your existence. Your will -- your very essence will be absorbed or annihilated.
Aiken Bryce:
You're wasting your time arguing with KT; he's a muslim and insists that only a "few" radical muslims adhere to the teachings of the Qur'an and other relevant Islamic canonical texts. Did you know there were over a billion ersatz muslims practicing a sugar-coated version of Islam?
Islam is inherently vile to the core, but to admit that is to be "simplistic, bigoted, or Islamophobic." It's much better to pretend otherwise; that way we can all live in multicultural bliss while the muslims propagate like insects. For right now, they must create as many diversions as possible while they spawn and indoctrinate the next generation of jihadists.
KingTolerance-
First, I object to the incorrect and incomplete presentation of facts about Islam in MY public schools. This is not history, this is dawa. Read dawanet, in THEIR OWN WORDS they plan to use our public school system to convert children to Islam. In public school I got to hear quite a bit about how the US treated Native Americans and so forth (and rightly so). Fine, I want this same level of honesty applied to Islam, and to heck with the multicultural "isn't everything in Islam beautiful" PC c*&p as presented by ING.
I can also check the facts, and Islam is NOT a religion of peace. Look at violence around the world, the majority of it is Muslims who won't get along with their neighbors, including other Muslims. Read the ongoing list of violence by the ROP located at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Default.htm.
Yes, I do hate facism. I hate honor killings, FGM, stonings, beheadings, mistreatment of women, child abuse, sanctioned murder of gays, second class status for non muslims, the list goes on and on. Islam is a dangerous facist ideology, and I have gotten this impression by reading the words of Muslims, and by watching how Muslim countries and societies conduct themselves. They say that Islam and democracy are incompatible, I believe them. They say they want the hear the call to prayer from the White House, I believe them. They say they want to kill US citizens until this country is Islamic, I believe them. I would be estatic to hear the majority of American Muslims and Muslim groups speak out strongly and clearly against these atrocities. However, I am still waiting.
As far as my understanding of Muslim belief and culture, I can only hope to some day obtain the level of understanding of a Robert Spencer or Hugh Fitzgerald.
Aiken: "What is multiculturally correct about allowing my culture to be ridiculed and admonished to the point, if allowed to continue, of being absorbed into a fascist collective which rescinds human culture and promotes only submission?"
King: Absorbed into a fascist collective??? I'm afraid that this statement is quite paranoid and baseless. Once again, you are focusing on a MINUTE FEW who do not speak for the masses of people who want nothing more than to be left alone to practice their religion peacefully. Why can you not see this point?
Aiken: "your very essence will be absorbed or annihilated."
King: No, it won't. Here's a question for ya: What, then, is your solution? You've already called me deluded, and ignorant, so let's hear YOUR plan.
Susanp: "You're wasting your time arguing with KT; he's a muslim yak...yak...yak...."
King: I'm neither Muslim nor Middle Eastern. I've covered this ground with your obtuse mind several times already. If you want to pretend that I am a Muslim and argue with me and dole out useless "advice" to fellow posters have at it!
Susanp: "Islam is inherently vile to the core, but to admit that is to be "simplistic, bigoted, or Islamophobic." "
King: Yep - you're bigoted, simplistic and Islamophobic to make such a catch-all statement. Not realizing this also makes you ignorant and unfit for debate.
Susanp: "we can all live in multicultural bliss while the muslims propagate like insects."
King: Wow, you're a racist, too. I think the original Third Reich German sounded better. What do you suggest? Mass extermination next?
Honestly, Susan, I find your posts to be a treasure trove of information - of a sad human being, afraid of her own shadow.
Treehugger: "I object to the incorrect and incomplete presentation of facts about Islam in MY public schools."
King: I am a 100% separation of church and state fanatic. I object to the teaching of ANY sort of religious dogma or ideology. This being said, I have no problem at all with filling a need for education about a religion and or culture many know nothing about. I think your hang up here is with Islam as a whole and your unwillingness to accept that Islam can and is peaceful.
Treehugger: "Read dawanet, in THEIR OWN WORDS they plan to use our public school system to convert children to Islam."
King: So if one website from the Midwest says it we're all in trouble! Gimme a break.
Treehugger: "I want this same level of honesty applied to Islam, and to heck with the multicultural "isn't everything in Islam beautiful" PC c*&p as presented by ING"
King: I have never, ever said that everything Islam is beautiful! I admit that Islam has its problems right now and it will get over them.
What sort of 'honesty' are you after, then?
Tree: "Look at violence around the world, the majority of it is Muslims who won't get along with their neighbors, including other Muslims."
King: The US is currently killing people in Iraq in an illegal, unnecessary war based on lies, deceit and arrogance but we'll forget this for a second since this won't suit your needs.
The "violence" you speak of is also attributed to corruption, tribal conflict that we'll never understand, and a complete lack of competant leadership.
Tree: "I hate honor killings, FGM, stonings, beheadings, mistreatment of women, child abuse, sanctioned murder of gays, second class status for non muslims, the list goes on and on."
King: Me too. These are all archaic and need to stop.
Tree: "They say that Islam and democracy are incompatible, I believe them. They say they want the hear the call to prayer from the White House, I believe them. They say they want to kill US citizens until this country is Islamic, I believe them."
King: OK, so you're completely hysterical based on listening to radicals who not only know nothing but how to hijack their own religon and scare Westerners. The Koran actually mandates democracy. The Koran absolutely forbids murdering people.
I have a suggestion: You need to stop beleiving everything you read on the internet....
"Foolish is the person who does not know - and how does not know they do not know."
KingTolerance,
Being aware of an obvious threat is not paranoia. Ignoring it is total foolishness.
You mention the "minute few" as if those few are incapable of pushing forth an agenda of their own.
It has happened in the past and it will happen in the future.
What do I propose? I have no plan other than to keep myself and family aware of this threat. It all starts with the family.
I'm not sure I understand your solution other than being multiculturally correct and progressively tolerant.
If that is indeed your solution then it must work both ways.
Criminalize islam under the RICO Act. If a moslem wants to swear by the koran, fine, he just committed a crime and can be jailed for contempt of court.
Islam is NOT a religion, but a deranged practice of organized crime designed for world domination and conquest. The idea that our government would be forced to submit dhimmitude to moslem demands by allowing them to swear under the koran is insane.
Again, islam is NOT a religion, so the sooner we begin prosecuting moslems for racketeering, rather than submitting to their demands of Sharia, the better off we'll all be.
If a moslem out their is willing to renounce Sharia, dhimmitude, and jihad I will consider you above the criminal element, but then again, that would disqualify you from being a moslem, now, wouldn't it.
-MZ
www.madzionist.com
www.neoconblogoff.blogspot.com
King:"Foolish is the person who does not know-and how does not know they do not know".
Swami:Now that was as clear as mud. Dont bogart that joint, my friend, pass it over to me...you have had enough...
Seriously King, I almost agree with you that religion should be taken out of the courtroom. Swearing on any religious book is no guarantee that the testifier is telling the truth.
Lots of people have sworn and then lied.
I doubt if the constitution would be any different for the same reasons.
King Tolerance,
If someone says they want to destroy your civilization, it's a good idea to take them seriously. Witness the rise of Nazi Germany.
The US is currently killing people in Iraq in an illegal, unnecessary war based on lies, deceit and arrogance but we'll forget this for a second since this won't suit your needs.
I disagree about the illegality of the war in Iraq. Whether or not we should even be involved in the Middle East's problems or not is another issue.
The "violence" you speak of is also attributed to corruption, tribal conflict that we'll never understand, and a complete lack of competant leadership.
And their religious beliefs don't affect how their society and leadership functions? Please!!!!
Where in the Koran does it mandate democracy in the SAME FORM as it is practiced in the US today? E.G. separation of church and state, for example.
I also note that you did not comment about the ongoing lack of support for this country from American Muslims.
treehugger-
Will do with any email, etc. contact info I can dig up on the NC judge in this case.
King Tut Tut-
Completely agree with you on the secularization of the courts. I swear.
(I guess two clocks running in different directions can agree at least twice a day.)
Welcome back King. I would also like to see how the tiny minority of extremists can be shown to have misunderstood Islam. I find your "5 pillars" argument unconvincing. The first pillar is "I bear witness that there is no God other than Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammed is His messanger." That suggests to me that a Muslim will feel compelled to follow the teachings of the Qur'an. There are plenty of radicals out there teaching that the Qur'an commands Muslims to wage violent jihad against the infidels and impose sharia on them. It is necessary to explain to those who hear the radical message how it is wrong, and how a more credible interpretation of the Qur'an forbids violence and terror (we'll get on to separation of church and state another time). Do you know of any Islamic school of theology that does this? I'm not asking for evidence that peaceful Muslims exist, since that fact is abundantly clear. What I would like to see is an argument based on Islamic grounds that can convince the pious that the jihadist theology is in error.
King of Fake Tolerance,
First go ask your Muslim leaders why Christians cannot have a church in Saudi Arabia? Why Christians in Arab world are treated as second class citizens (dhimmi)? Why Copts are killed and forcibly converted In Egypt? Why leaving Islam is punishable by death and yet Muslims are encouraged to do DAWA?
Hi all
>>The first pillar is "I bear witness that there is no God other than Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammed is His messanger." That suggests to me that a Muslim will feel compelled to follow the teachings of the Qur'an.
I would remind the reader that the Muslim is under the same Law that the Jews were given by Moses (decalogue)and which were verified by Christ, this same Law has judged and sent Mohammed to the darkest hell, and this same judgement awaits any muslim who follows him. The Spirit of Truth will render all Islams lies to be searing coals which will torment their consciences.
You cannot get to heaven for being a Muslim, but it is possible despite being one , but not by violence.
"filthy history of Christianity" I need no other evidence to convince me of KT's being a muslim. Always direct the argument towards Christianity, isn't that right KT? Be tolerant of islam but Christianity is "filthy.
Viking5 wrote:
"I'm not asking for evidence that peaceful Muslims exist, since that fact is abundantly clear. What I would like to see is an argument based on Islamic grounds that can convince the pious that the jihadist theology is in error."
To which I would add--
And if such an argument can be made, to have peaceful Muslims deliver it, publicly and collectively, to their pious, jihadist bretheren.
60 Questions to ask Muslims
Now that you know Muslims will get mad easily by asking them too many questions they don’t want to answer, we suggest the following:
-Pick one or two questions.
-Be very kind in your tone.
-Be patient for their answer.
-Do not condescend.
-Pray for them to see the truth.
1. Muslims claim, that a proof the Koran was from God, is that it contains scientifically accurate information about Embryology before man discovered it for himself. However, all the information in the Koran regarding Embryology is copied from three sources, 1. A Greek doctor named Galen, who lived of 150 AD. 2. A Jewish doctor named Samuel ha-Yehudi who lived 150 AD. 3. the Greek father of medicine Hippocrates who lived 400 BC. My question is: in light of the fact that all the information contained in the Koran was already in print by these three doctors, will you retract the argument on Embryology? If not, will you supply one detail revealed in the Koran about Embryology, that was not already revealed or that was new?
2. Muslims claim, that a proof that the Koran was from God is that it contains scientifically accurate information about Embryology, yet in 86:6-7 the Koran says, "man was created from ejected liquid- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs". This echoes the scientific error of Hippocrates who believed semen originates, from the brain down the spinal chord, before passing through the kidneys and finally out of the body. (Hippocratic Writings, Penguin Classics, 1983, p. 317) My question is: do you reject modern science and believe the Koran when it says sperm originates from the mid-gut section of a man's body.
3. Muslims quote an article written in 1957 by the Jehovah's Witnesses who stated there were 50,000 errors in the translation of the King James version. My question is: Even if this were true, (which of course it is not), how does this prove there is corruption in the original Greek MSS from which the King James version was translated?
4. Muslims claim, that the many different translations of the English Bible will render a single text with many different words and phrases. You said this was proof the Bible is corrupted and that the Koran reads exactly the same way everywhere in the world in Arabic. My question is: Since the many English translations of the Koran also render a single text with many different words, does that proof that the Koran is corrupted?
5. Muslims believe the word Allah was used by Jesus when he hung on the cross. The Bible records that Jesus said "Eli Eli lama sabachthani", but you say Jesus really cried out to Allah and said "Allah, Allah lama sabachthani" My question is: Would you please explain why you would use this argument when you don't believe Jesus ever hung on the cross? And second, since Jesus was quoting Ps 22:1 on the cross, isn't rather unlikely that both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament are wrong using Eli, a Hebrew word, rather than Allah, an arab word?
6. Muslims chide Christians because the earliest complete copies of the Bible were written 300 years after the originals of the first century. Yet Muslim scholars state the earliest copy of the Koran was written no earlier than 150 years after Muhammad died. My question is: in light of this fact, how could the Koran possibly be better than the Bible and would you please state the name and location and date of the earliest Koran you believe to be in existence?
7. Both the Samarqand MSS is in Tashkent, and the MSS housed in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul are written in the script style called "Kufic". And not the earlier style known as Ma'il or Mashq. This fact is the reason Muslim scholars date these manuscripts no earlier than 200 years after Muhammad died. My question is: leaving aside blind faith and wishful thinking, what evidence do you supply that these MSS were written any earlier?
8. The British Museum in London has an ancient copy of the Koran written in the Ma'il style of script, but practicing Muslim scholar Martin Lings, who is the former curator for the manuscripts of the British Museum, dates this manuscript at 790 AD. My question is: Apart from just making the claim, what evidence do you supply that this MSS were written any earlier?
9. The text of the Koran in 37:103 reads "they had both submitted their wills (became Muslims)" while the Arabic text of the Tashkent MSS gives the exact opposite meaning, "they did not submitted their wills" (they did NOT become Muslims.) My question is: have you actually read the Tashkent MSS for yourself in this passage and how do you explain this textual variation given your comments on the miracle of the perfect Koran?
10. Qur’an 18:9, makes into real history, the second century myth of 7 Christian youths who were persecuted for their faith and went to sleep in a cave for 300 years and then woke up with no ill effects. In the original myth the hero is a Christian, but in the Koran the hero is a Muslim. My question is: in the absence of any copyright laws when the Koran was written, are you at least prepared to pay compensation to the living relatives of the author of this myth? If not, would you be in favor of going starting up a charity fund to compensate for damages of copyright infringement?
11. Koran 5:116, represents Christians as worshipping Mary which is a historical error. Given the fact that the pagan Arabs did worship Mary’s idol in the Kaba, and that history records no group of Christians had ever worshiped Mary at this time, my question is would you please name the sect of Christians who worshiped Mary at the time of Muhammad?
12. Muslim's reject the doctrine of inherited sin of Adam but teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The reason the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was invented was to remove inherited sin. My question is: since you reject the doctrine of inherited sin and believe all men are born without sin, why do Muslim's teach the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary?
13. In Koran 7:125, death by crucifixion is stated to exist at the time of Moses in 1500BC. Yet Encyclopedia Britannica, in harmony with all records of history, reports that crucifixion did not exist any earlier than 500 BC. My question is: to how do you explain this blaring historical error, and do you just disregard the history of the world merely because the Karen says otherwise?
14. Muslim scholar, Tabbarah, said in his book, The Spirit of Islam, "Moslems do not worship the Black Stone, but only show special reverence and veneration for its dignity and they kiss it only after the example of the Prophet and to keep their Covenant with God to obey His Will and avoid His disobedience." (Tabbarah, The Spirit of Islam, p. 173, Muslim). Focusing on Tabbarah’s key phrase of showing reverence and veneration to the Black Stone, My question is do you see any difference between the Muslim practice of kissing showing reverence and venerating the Black Stone and the Catholic practice of pope John Paul II kissing the statute of the Virgin Mary with reverence and veneration?
15. Informed Christians know there is no passage and the Koran that says the Bible is lost altered or corrupted. My question is would you please list all the passages you know where the Qur'an says the Bible that was in the hands of the Christians at the time of Muhammad had been corrupted?
16. Muslims will quote Quran 2:79 as a verse where the Koran says the canon of the Bible is corrupted, "Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: "This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!" My question is: If this verse refers to the corruption of the Bible, then why did Muhammad command Christians to follow the Bible they possessed in 600 AD in Quran 2:89; 7:157? And is this the only verse in the Koran that says the Bible is corrupt? (see also Quran 2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51, 69,71-72; 6:91; 10:37,94; 21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11)
17. Muslims will quote Jer 8:8 as proof that the Old Testament canon is corrupt, "How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie" Yet this verse is clearly speaking of the written scribal interpretations of the Bible as Jesus condemned in Mt 15:1-14. Here Jesus accused the Scribes of the same thing regarding washing of hands and Corban, "
18. you invalidate the written word of God for the sake of your tradition." My question is: is this the only text in the Bible where you claim the canon was corrupted? If not quote the other texts. How can Muslims claim there are no textual variations in the Koran, when the Tashkent MSS differs from the modern Egyptian Qur’an in 5 passages: 2:284, 2:283, 3:37, 3:109 and 5:119. The Tashkent MSS uses the word 'Allah' while the modern Egyptian Qur'an, uses the word 'huwa' (the pronoun 'he'). My question is: Which word do you believe are in the "preserved master tablet" and "mother of all books" in heaven?
19. The yearly Passover ritual began the same year it was initiated in the 10th plague and continued uninterrupted for 1500 years. The weekly Lord’s supper ritual began the same week that Christ was crucified and has continued ever since for 2000 years. The Islamic rituals just come out of nowhere, 2600 years after Abraham lived. Being as unbiased as you possibly can, My question is: are not the Jewish and Christian rituals more likely to be based on real history since the rituals of Islam that just pop out of nowhere 2600 years later?
20. The "Throw" is a reenactment ritual based upon Abraham and the "Run" is a reenactment ritual based upon Hagar. My question is: Did Adam perform the throw and the Run, and if not exactly when did they become part of Islamic ritual and do you have any actual historical evidence to support such?
21. Given the fact that Isaac Watt, said in his book, Islam and Christianity Today, "By the standards of modern historiography, the crucifixion of Jesus is one of the most certain events in past history" (Watt, Islam and Christianity Today, p. 144). My question is: What historical evidence do you give outside of the Qur'an that Jesus did not die on across?
22. If all Muslim's must reject the crucifixion of Christ based on the Koran and all Christians must reject Muhammad as a prophet based on the Bible, my question is: on exactly what basis do you believe Christianity and Islam are compatible religions?
23. Given the fact that the gospel of Barnabas is the 15th century forgery by Muslims, my question is: why do you quote this document as proof that early Christians denied the crucifixion of Christ and what proof do you offer that it is not a Muslim forgery?
24. Muslim's will quote Yusuf Ali’s comment in footnote 663, as proof that the three early Christian sects of Marcion, Docetism, Basilides, denied the crucifixion of Christ. Given the fact the three sects are condemned as false teachers, deceivers and the anti-Christ in six Bible passages (1 John 1:1,14; 2:22; 4:1-3; 5:6; 2 John 7) My question is: on what basis do you claim they are Christian sects and isn't it as much of a misrepresentation for you to quote these Gnostic sects as Christians who deny the crucifixion, as it would be a misrepresentation for Christians to quote the Baha'i faith as proof Muhammad was not the final Prophet? (The holy Qur’an, text, translation and commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. 1872-1952, First published in 1938, 1973 ed., p. 230, footnote 663, commenting on 4:157)
25. The Koran says in 4:157, that God causes someone who looked like Jesus to die on the cross in his place, therefore tricking the apostles of Christ into thinking he was crucified. My question is: how can you escape the fact that the rise of Christianity to the largest religion in the world is ultimately the result of the divine action of Allah?
26. The deity of Jesus is affirmed four times in Hebrews chapter 1. Jesus Christ is called the son of God, worshiped by Angels, called God by the Father and stated to be the creator. Given the fact that you would say that this is a textual corruption of the original gospel message, my question is would you not agree that this corrupted text does indeed call Jesus God?
27. The Islamic religion teaches that Jesus Christ was a practicing Muslim. My question is: is this any less ridiculous than if Christians said Muhammad was a practicing Buddhist?
28. Muslim's claim that Isaiah 42 is a prophecy of Muhammad. Yet Isaiah 53 is one of the foremost prophecies of the crucifixion of Christ in the entire Old Testament. My question is: on what basis do you feel Isaiah 42 is uncorrupted which prophecies Muhammad, but Isaiah 53 is corrupted that prophesies the crucifixion of Christ?
29. My question is:
30. If you feel the Bible is so corrupted, than why do you quote Deut 18:18 and John 16:13 as uncorrupted prophecies of Muhammad’s comment in the sixth century AD. Acts 19:23-41 mentions a religion that worshipped the great goddess Artemis and her meteorite which fell down from heaven. Taking note that this religion centered around a meteorite, my question is: is it possible that this is a pagan corruption of the Black Stone and meteorite that fell at the foot of Adam and that at the time of Christ the Black Stone was actually in Ephesus Asia minor?
31. Galatians 1:6-9 Apostle Paul says "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Christ for a different religion. But even if an angel from heaven, should preach to you a different religion, let him be accursed." My question is: Do you think it possible that this is a genuine text from God and he foresaw that both Muhammad and Joseph Smith would be taught a new religion by an angel?
32. Before the discovery of the dead sea scrolls in 1947 the earliest copy of the Old Testament was the Massoretic Text dated at 1000 AD. The dead sea scrolls are dated at 100 B.C. contain 19 copies of Isaiah, 25 copies of Deuteronomy and 30 copies of Psalms that are virtually identical to what we have in our Bible's today. My question is: since you believe the Old Testament was corrupted long before the dead sea scrolls were written in 100 B.C., will you at least admit that there has been no further corruption of the Old Testament since 100 B.C. right down to the present?
33. In Jude 3; 2 Peter 1:3; John 16:13 and 2 Tim 3:16 the Bible is called an all sufficient book with no need for anything else in regards to how we live our lives or worship God. You claim the same thing for the Qur'an. My question is: how can the Qur'an be all sufficient in our worship of Allah, if it does not even mention something as important as praying five times a day and does this not prove that the Koran without the Hadith is like a car without an engine?
34. The Huleatt Manuscript was written in 50 AD and is actually a prayer addressed to Jesus and calls Jesus "God". Therefore, Christians have in their possession archeological inscriptions within 20 years of Christ’s resurrection that say he is God. My question is: Do you know of any archeological inscription dated within 100 years of Muhammad's death where he is called a prophet? If so, please name it.
35. The Bible contains over 60 distinct prophecies of Jesus Christ 1000 years before hand. My question is: what is the single most remarkable prophecy that Muhammad made that was fulfilled?
36. Muslim's believe the Bible is corrupted. Yet in Isa 40:22 and three other passages. (Prov 8:27; Amos 9:6 Job 26:10) it says the earth is round and not flat. Job 26:7 says the earth is free-floating in space: "he hangs the earth on nothing." Both these facts are scientifically accurate, and revealed in the Bible long before man discovered it for himself. My question is: Are these passages scientifically accurate corruption's?
37. Muslims proudly quote several passages in the Koran 30:48; 24:43, as scientifically accurate explanations of the hydrologic water cycle. My question is: given the fact the Bible had already fully documented the hydrologic water cycle 1600 before the Koran in Job 36:27-28, and 3 other passages (Eccl 11:3; Job 26:8; Eccl 1:6-7), doesn't this proof Muhammad merely copied the scientific facts of the hydrologic water cycle directly from the Bible?
38. (Clouds hold water: Eccl 11:3; Job 26:8; Rivers recycle water: Eccl 1:6-7; Evapouration: Amos 9:6) The 66 books of the Bible were written by 40 different men over a period of 1600 years with multiple threads of unified themes that span cover to cover. My question is: would you not agree that in contrast to the Bible, that the Qur'an is a jumble of disjointed material, without order, continuity or unity of any kind?
39. Muslims authorities refuse to release photographs of the ancient Topkapi manuscript in Istanbul, one of the three oldest Korans in existence. My question is: do you have any idea why Muslim authorities refuse to release documentary photographs of the Topkapi manuscript in Istanbul and what they are afraid for the world to see?
40. Muslims have repeatedly claimed that Muslim women have more rights in Islam then Western women do in the civilized world. The proof you supplied with the fact that Islam gave women the right to vote 1400 years ago but women in the West only got the right to vote 100 years ago. My question is: would you please name one country in the world today that is ruled by a Islamic "Shariah" law where women are permitted to vote?
41. Muslim's claim that their growth rate is 235 percent and 47 percent for Christianity. This statistic came from the Readers Digest Almanac and Yearbook 1983, and represents 235 percent increase over 50 years. A simple review of the readers Digest study shows that the growth rate of Islam vs. Christianity is directly linked to the birth rate in Third World countries where Islam dominates and not actual conversions to each religion. My question is: do you have any more recent statistics on an annualized basis?
42. Muslims claim that Jesus prayed using the Muslim prayer posture, along with all the prophets. Yet Jesus instructed his disciples to pray while standing up. (Mark 11:25), King David prayed while sitting in (2 Sam 7:18), and Paul instructed prayer in church with hands lifted up in the air. (1 Tim 2:8) My question is: If Jesus was a Muslim, why would he instruct his disciples to pray standing up? And when it says Jesus fell on his face and prayed, how do you know he was not fully prostrate?
43. Muslims claim that Muhammad always worshipped Allah in a 100% correct way, without the need for any restoral. My question is: If this is true, then why did Muhammad pray towards Jerusalem for the first 5 years of his prophethood, and later redirected his prays towards Mecca? And did Jesus pray towards Mecca 5 times a towards Jerusalem or Mecca?
44. The Bible defines a miracle as something that defies the laws of nature. Muslims claim the Koran is a miracle merely because it was allegedly transmitted perfectly without alteration and flaw till the second coming. Since the Harry Potter books will certainly be transmitted perfectly without alteration or flaw, and be around until the second coming, my question is: does this make the Harry Potter books a miracle like the Koran?
45. Muslims claim that in Isa 42:1 Muhammad fulfilled the expression "bring forth justice to the nations" indicating that the immoral pagan Arabs before Muhammad’s time were reformed into a just moral society. My question is: Even though you believe the New Testament is corrupt, had the Immoral Pagan Arabs all become Christians and followed the moral standards revealed in the corrupted New Testament, would they not have also transformed into a just moral society? If no why not? And how is the moral standard in the Koran superior to the moral standard of the Bible?
46. Muslims claim that the Angel Gabriel is the Holy Spirit who came upon Mary and caused her to conceive based upon Luke 1:26:38. My question is: If this is true, then why did Gabriel say to Mary in verse 35, "the power of the Holy Spirit will come upon you" rather than "my power will come upon you"?
47. Muslims quote Luke 22:43 as proof that when Jesus cried out to God not to be crucified, that an angel came and saved him from crucifixion. However the next verses says that Jesus was arrested by the mob for crucifixion. My Question is: on what basis do you accept the first passage as uncorrupted scripture, but reject the next verse as corrupted scripture?
48. Muslims claim it was medically impossible for blood and water to come out of Jesus when his side was pierced with spear because all the blood in Jesus body would have been clotted. The universal opinion of forensic scientists say that blood takes days to clot. My question is: Is this another example of where you reject all known science simply because Islam says this?
49. Muslims quote liberal agnostic Bible trashes who claim that the four gospels were copied from a lost original gospel known as the "Q document". This is a mythological document invented by these skeptics who reject Christianity, because they simply cannot accept the Bible is a book inspired from God. My question is: are you aware that the "Q Document" is a purely theoretical document that has never been found and is a complete fabrication and invention of the mind? And what is the value of quoting those who reject Christianity and Islam equally?
50. Muslims claim that the heading at the beginning of the four gospels "Gospel according to John", for example indicated the words came from John alone and prove the Bible to be a book of human authorship? In fact, that this text, like chapter and verse numbers, was added much later and are not part of the Bible? My question is: where did you learn that this text was part of the Bible?
51. Muslims state that they believe that the Bible is a book filled with pornography, and quoted Gen 19:32 where Lot made his two daughters pregnant. My Question is: Do you feel that the Bible should be removed from every library in Canada? And are you comfortable with the fact that your prophet Muhammad married a six year old child, when he was 55 years old? Do you think this is a good story to tell children?
52. Muslims teach Muhammad was sinless. However the Koran specifically limits the number of wives a Muslim man can marry to 4. Yet Muhammad married at least 12 women. My question is: Is Muhammad above the very law he gave in the Koran and isn’t the definition of sin violating the law of God?
53. Muslims quote George Bernard Shaw who said, "The Bible is the most dangerous book in the world, keep it lock and keyed." My question is: What value is there for you to quote an atheist like Shaw who also said: "There is not one single established religion that an intelligent, educated man can believe."
54. (George Bernard Shaw quoted in "2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous People with the Courage to Doubt", by James A. Haught, Prometheus Books, 1996) Shaw also said: "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality. (George Bernard Shaw, Androcles and the Lion, Preface, 1916) To prove the Bible text is corrupted, Muslims quote a newspaper article in the "Daily News" of Durban South Africa, Tues. May 22, 1990, where you claimed the Church of Scotland had deleted the virgin birth from the Bible. The article actually said that the church of Scotland had merely deleted the teaching from their local church creed and statement of faith. My question is: Would you please explain how a church deleting the virgin birth from their church doctrine books, in any way proves the Bible is corrupted?
55. Muslims quote Isa 42 as a prophecy of Muhammad and say that Christians teach it is a prophecy of the Holy Spirit. (In fact Christians apply the text to Christ.) You also said that Isa 42 can only be fulfilled by Muhammad because Jesus is never called "my servant". My question is: why did Matthew quote Isa 42 and apply the whole text to Jesus in Matthew 12:18?
56. Muslims claim that the prophecy of the coming prophet in Deut 18:18 cannot be fulfilled by Jesus but could be fulfilled by Muhammad because the text says the prophet must arise from among their own brethren. Muslims say that if a Hebrew was intended, that the Bible would have said, "from among yourselves" rather than the expression "from among their own brethren". Hence Muslims claim the expression, "from among their own brethren" excludes all Hebrews and specifically Jesus. My question is: Since Deut 17:15 uses exactly the same expression, when it said, "you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses, one from among your own brethren" why did God appoint Saul and David as King and not an Ishmaelite? And in Deut 18:2 it says, "The Levites shall have no inheritance from among their brethren." Did the Ishmaelites share the inheritance of the promised land of Palestine with the Hebrews?
57. The Koran says in 4:157, that God causes someone who looked like Jesus to die on the cross in his place, therefore tricking the apostles of Christ into thinking he was crucified. Apostle John wrote in1 John 1:1 concerning the crucifixion: "What we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life". My question is: Was not John accurately reporting the things he actually saw, things that Allah made appear to happen?
58. Muslims claim that the New Testament story of Jesus dying on the cross is a corruption of the truth and that Allah made it appear that Jesus died on the cross, as per Q4:157. My question is: How can Muslims claim that they believe any of the New Testament was originally revealed by God, since the corruption must have begun at the cross.
59. Muslims believe that the whole concept of blood atonement is an invention of the Christian church. My question is: What were the Jews doing since 1500 BC on the "day of atonement".
60. Muslims reject the gospel story of Jesus being a substitute for our sins, the just for the unjust. They use the illustration of a man having to pay for a speeding ticket he did not commit. My question is: How do you explain that in the Muslim view of the cross, someone completely innocent died in Jesus place, after God made him appear to be Jesus? Was not this a Substitutionary sacrifice?
Written by Brother Andrew
The 45 Bonus Questions for Muslims:
by Robert Morey
The outline below contains the very answers to the very questions Muhammad did not want his followers to know, namely that Islam is a sanitized version of ancient polytheistic moon worship which he invented to exercise military control.
1. Does the Qur’an define the word "Allah"? No.
2. Was the name "Allah" revealed for the first time in the Qur’an? No
3. Does the Qur’an assume that its readers have already heard of "Allah"? Yes
4. Should we look into pre-Islamic Arabian history to see who "Allah" was before Muhammad? Yes.
5. According to Muslim tradition, was Muhammad born into a Christian family and tribe? No
6. Was he born into a Jewish family or tribe? No
7. What religion was his family and tribe? Pagans
8. What was the name of his pagan father? Abdullah (Abd + Allah)
9. Did Muhammad participate in the pagan ceremonies of Mecca? Yes
10. Did the Arabs in pre-Islamic times worship 360 gods? Yes
11. Did the pagans Arabs worship the sun, moon and the stars? Yes
12. Did the Arabs built temples to the Moon-god? Yes
13. Did different Arab tribes give the Moon-god different names/titles? Yes
14. What were some of the names/titles? Sin, Hubul, Ilumquh, Al-ilah.
15. Was the title "al-ilah" (the god) used of the Moon-god? Yes
16. Was the word "Allah" derived from "al-ilah?" Yes
17. Was the pagan "Allah" a high god in a pantheon of deities? Yes.
18. Was he worshipped at the Kabah? Yes.
19. Was Allah only one of many Meccan gods? Yes
20. Did they place a statue of Hubul on top of the Kabah? Yes.
21. At that time was Hubul considered the Moon-god? Yes.
22. Was the Kabah thus the "house of the Moon-god"? Yes.
23. Did the name "Allah" eventually replace that of Hubul as the name of the Moon god? Yes.
24. Did they call the Kabah the "house of Allah"? Yes
25. Did the pagans develop religious rites in connection with the worship of their gods? Yes.
26. Did the pagans practice the Pilgrimage, the Fast of Ramadan, running around the Kabah seven times, kissing the black stone, shaving the head, animal sacrifices, running up and down two hills, throwing stones at the devil, snorting water in and out the nose, praying several times a day toward Mecca, giving alms, Friday prayers, etc.? Yes.
27. Did Muhammad command his followers to participate in these pagan ceremonies while the pagans were still in control of Mecca? Yes (Yusuf Ali, fn. 214, pg. 78).
28. Did Islam go on to adopt these pagan religious rites? Yes. (Yusuf Ali: fn. 223 pg. 80).
29. Were al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat called "the daughters of Allah"? Yes.
30. Did the Qur’an at one point tell Muslims to worship al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat? Yes. In Surah 53:19-20.
31. Have those verses been "abrogated" out of the present Qur’an? Yes.
32. What were they called? "The Satanic Verses." Yes.
33. Was the crescent moon an ancient pagan symbol of the Moon-god throughout the ancient world? Yes.
34. Was it the religious symbol of the Moon-god in Arabia? Yes
35. Were stars also used as pagan symbols of the daughers of Allah? Yes
36. Did the Jews or the Christians of Arabia use the crescent moon with several stars next to it as symbols of their faith? No
37. Did Islam adopt the pagan crescent moon and stars as it religious symbol? Yes.
38. As Islam developed over the centuries, did it adopt pagan names, pagan ceremonies, pagan temples and pagan symbols? Yes
39. Is it possible that most Muslims do not know the pagan sources of the symbols and rites of their own religion? Yes.
40. Are they shocked to find out the true sources of their ceremonies and stories? Yes
41. Can Islam be the religion of Abraham if it is derived from paganism? No
42. What then is Islam? A modern version of one of the ancient fertility cults.
43. Is the "Allah" of the Qur’an, the Christian God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? No
44. Do the Jews say that the Muslim "Allah" is their God too? No
45. Then whose god is Allah? Paganism
Written by Brother Andrew
Honestly, Susan, I find your posts to be a treasure trove of information - of a sad human being, afraid of her own shadow.
Posted by: KingTolerance at June 21, 2005 04:28 PM
Honestly King Taqiyya, I find your posts to be the typical narcisisstic, condescending rhetoric of either a deluded left-wing diversicrat or a guileful propagandist.
Last time I checked, there has been no referendum for the American people to decide if we want a "multicultural" nation. Multiculturalism is an insidious scourge that divides and destroys nations; it NEVER strengthens them. If your idea of a racist is someone who believes in a unified country with a unique culture and BORDERS, I'm GUILTY! Call the PC Gestapo and the Thought Police but be sure to warn them that I (gasp!) own guns. Firearms provide a warm and fuzzy sense of security to us psycho xenophobes.
I've lived long enough to overcome most of my fears with one exception---roaches, especially the huge, flying ones. They terrify me. I have a healthy and quite normal apprehension of predators, like muslims and other feral, man-eating beasts.
Holy cow, KT, you say the koran forbids murder?
Then explain this...
MURDER:
Tabari IX:69 “Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us.”
Tabari VIII:141 “The battle cry of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah that night was: ‘Kill! Kill! Kill!’”
Bukhari:V5B59N512 “The Prophet had their men killed, their woman and children taken captive.”
Ishaq:489 “Do the bastards think that we are not their equal in fighting? We are men who think that there is no shame in killing.”
Qur’an 2:191 “And kill them wherever you find and catch them. Drive them out from where they have turned you out; for Al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief, oppression) is worse than slaughter.”
Qur’an 33:60 “Truly, if the Hypocrites stir up sedition, if the agitators in the City do not desist, We shall urge you to go against them and set you over them. Then they will not be able to stay as your neighbors for any length of time. They shall have a curse on them. Whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy—a fierce slaughter—murdered, a horrible murdering.”
Bukhari:V4B52N270 “Allah’s Messenger said, ‘Who is ready to kill Ashraf? He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.’ Maslama got up saying, ‘Would you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet proclaimed, ‘Yes.’ Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to lie so that I will be able to deceive him.’ Muhammad said, ‘You may do so.’”
Ishaq:368 “Ka’b’s body was left prostrate [humbled in submission]. After his fall, all of the Nadir Jews were brought low. Sword in hand we cut him down. By Muhammad’s order we were sent secretly by night. Brother killing brother. We lured him to his death with guile [cunning or deviousness]. Traveling by night, bold as lions, we went into his home. We made him taste death with our deadly swords. We sought victory for the religion of the Prophet.”
Tabari VII:97/Ishaq:368 “We carried Ka’b’s head and brought it to Muhammad during the night. We saluted him as he stood praying and told him that we had slain Allah’s enemy. When he came out to us we cast Ashraf’s head before his feet. The Prophet praised Allah that the poet had been assassinated and complimented us on the good work we had done in Allah’s Cause. Our attack upon Allah’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.’”
Tabari VII:97 “The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, ‘Kill any Jew who falls under your power.’”
Ishaq:369 “Thereupon Mas’ud leapt upon Sunayna, one of the Jewish merchants with whom his family had social and commercial relations and killed him. The Muslim’s brother complained, saying, ‘Why did you kill him? You have much fat in you belly from his charity.’ Mas’ud answered, ‘By Allah, had Muhammad ordered me to murder you, my brother, I would have cut off your head.’ Wherein the brother said, ‘Any religion that can bring you to this is indeed wonderful!’ And he accepted Islam.”
Bukhari:V1B1N6 “Just issue orders to kill every Jew in the country.”
Ishaq: 676 “‘You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?’ Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, ‘Will no one rid me of this woman?’ Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, ‘You have helped Allah and His Apostle.’ Umayr said. ‘She had five sons; should I feel guilty?’ ‘No,’ the Prophet answered. ‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.’”
Bukhari:V1B11N626 “The Prophet said, ‘No prayer is harder for the hypocrites than the Fajr. If they knew the reward they would come to (the mosque) even if they had to crawl. I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes.’”
Tabari VIII:178/Ishaq:550 “Muhammad ordered that certain men should be assassinated even if they were found behind the curtains of the Ka’aba. Among them was Abdallah bin Sa’d [the Qur’an’s one and only scribe]. The reason that Allah’s Messenger ordered that he should be slain was because he had become a Muslim and used to write down Qur’an Revelation. Then he apostatized [rejected Islam].”
Tabari VIII:179 “Abdallah bin Sa’d fled to Uthman, his brother, who after hiding him, finally surrendered him to the Prophet. Uthman asked for clemency. Muhammad did not respond, remaining silent for a long time. Muhammad explained, ‘By Allah, I kept silent so that one of you might go up to him and cut off his head!’ One of the Ansar said, ‘Why didn’t you give me a sign?’ Allah’s Apostle replied, ‘A prophet does not kill by pointing.’”
Tabari VIII:179/Ishaq:550 “Among those who Muhammad ordered killed was Abdallah bin Khatal. The Messenger ordered him to be slain because while he was a Muslim, Muhammad had sent him to collect the zakat tax with an Ansar and a slave of his.... His girls used to sing a satire about Muhammad so the Prophet ordered that they should be killed along with Abdullah. He was killed by Sa’id and Abu Barzah. The two shared in his blood. One of the singing girls was killed quickly but the other fled. So Umar caused his horse to trample the one who fled, killing her.”
Ishaq:551 “Another victim was Huwayrith. He used to insult Muhammad in Mecca. Huwayrith was put to death by Ali. The Messenger ordered Miqyas’ assassination only because he had killed an Ansar who had killed his brother by mistake and then became a renegade by rejecting Islam.”
Tabari VIII:180 “Also among those eliminated were Ikrimah bin Abu Jahl and Sarah, a slave of one of Abd Muttalib’s sons. She taunted Muhammad while he was in Mecca.”
Tabari VIII:181 “The Messenger ordered six men and four women to be assassinated. One of these women was Hind, who swore allegiance and became a Muslim.”
Bukhari:V4B52N281 “They took Khubaib to Mecca after the battle of Badr. He had killed Harith, a Meccan nobleman. The Quraysh gathered to kill him in retribution.… Khubaib wanted to offer two Rakat (prayers). They allowed this and he said, ‘O Allah, kill them all with no exception.’ He then recited the poetic verse: ‘I’m being martyred as a Muslim. I do not mind how I am killed in Allah’s Cause. For my killing is for Allah’s Sake. If Allah wishes, He will bless the amputated parts of my torn body.’ Then the son of Harith [the man Khubaib had murdered] killed him.”
Ishaq:597 “When the Apostle returned to Medina after his raid on Ta’if, word spread that he had killed some of the men who had satirized and insulted him. The poets who were left spread in all directions.”
Tabari IX:76 “Malik has reported to me that you were the first from Himyar to embrace Islam and that you have killed infidels, so rejoice at your good fortune.”
Tabari IX:121 “When it was feasible for me, I struck him with my sword and killed him. Then I departed, leaving his women to throw themselves at him. When I returned to the Prophet, he asked, ‘Is your mission accomplished?’ ‘Yes. I have killed him.’”
Ishaq:308/Tabari VII:65 “When the Apostle was in Safra, Nadr was assassinated. When Muhammad reached Irq al-Zabyah he killed Uqbah. When the Prophet ordered him to be killed, Uqbah said, ‘Who will look after my children, Muhammad?’ “Hellfire,’ the Apostle replied, and he was killed.”
Tabari VII:85 “Muhammad killed many Quraysh polytheists at Badr.”
Tabari VII:99 “In this year, the killing of Abu Rafi the Jew took place. The Messenger sent some Ansar under the command of Abd Allah and Abd Allah against the Jew. Abu Rafi used to injure and wrong the Prophet.... Abd Allah said to the others, ‘Stay where you are, and I will go and ingratiate myself with the doorkeeper to gain entrance.’”
Tabari VII:100 “Every time I opened a door, I shut it behind me from the inside, saying to myself, ‘If they become aware, they will not have time to stop me from killing him.’ When I reached Rafi, he was in a dark room with his family. As I did not know where he was in the room, I said, ‘O Abu Rafi.’ When he replied, I proceeded toward the voice and gave him a blow with my sword. He shouted and I came back, pretending to be a helper. I said, ‘O Abu,’ changing the tone of my voice. He asked me, ‘I don’t know who came to strike me with his sword.’ Then I drove my sword into his belly and pushed it forcibly till it touched the bone. I hit him again and covered him with wounds, but I could not kill him, so I thrust the point of my sword into his stomach until it came out through his back. At that, I knew that I had killed him [in front of his wife and children]. I came out, filled with puzzlement, and went towards a ladder in order to get down but I fell into a moonlit night and sprained my foot. I bound it with my turban and moved on. I came to my companions and said, ‘By Allah, I will not leave till I hear the wailing of their women.’ So, I did not move till I heard them crying for the Jewish merchant. I said, ‘Deliverance! Allah has killed Abu Rafi.’ I got up, feeling no ailment, and proceeded till we came upon the Prophet and informed him.”
Tabari VII:101 “The Khazraj asked the Prophet for permission to kill Sallam Huqayq, who was in Khaybar. He granted this.” Ishaq:482 “One of the favors which Allah conferred upon his Prophet was that these two tribes of the Ansar, the Aws and the Khazraj, used to vie with one another like stallions to carry out the will of Muhammad. The Aws did not do anything which benefited him without the Khazraj saying, ‘By Allah they will not gain superiority over us in Islam in the eyes of the Messenger by doing this.’ And they would not cease until they had done something similar. Thus when the Aws killed Ka’b Ashraf on account of his hostility to Muhammad, the Khazraj conferred to find a man comparable to Ka’b in hostility and called to mind Sallam Huqayq in Khaybar. They asked the Prophet for permission to kill him, and it was granted.”
Tabari VII:101/Ishaq:483 “Sallam’s wife came out and we told her that we were Arabs in search of supplies. When we entered, we bolted the door on her so she gave a shout to warn him of our presence. We rushed upon him with our swords as he lay in his bed. He took his pillow and tried to fend us off. Abd Allah thrust his sword into his stomach and transfixed him while he was shouting, ‘Enough! Enough!’ At once we went out but Abd Allah had bad eyesight, and he fell off the stairway, bruising his leg or arm. ‘How shall we know that the enemy of Allah is dead?’ one of us asked. ‘I will go and look,’ one replied. He set off and mingled with the people. He said, ‘I found him with the men of the Jews, and with his wife, who had a lamp in her hand, peering into his face. She said, ‘By the God of the Jews, he is dead.’ I never heard any more pleasing words than these. We went to the Messenger of Allah and told him that we had killed the enemy of Allah. We disagreed in his presence about the killing of Sallam, each of us claiming to have done it. The Prophet said, ‘Bring me your swords.’ We did and he looked at them. He said, ‘This sword of Abd Allah killed him. I can see the marks left by bones on it.’”
Ishaq:483 “Allah, what a fine band you have, one willing to kill Sallam and Ashraf! We went with sharp swords, like fighting lions. We came upon their homes and made them drink death with our swift-slaying swords. Looking for the victory of our Prophet’s religion, we ignored every risk.”
Tabari VII:112/Ishaq:372 “When a blind Jew became aware of the presence of the Messenger and the Muslims he rose and threw dust in their faces, saying, ‘Even if you are a prophet, I will not allow you into my garden!’ I was told that he took a handful of dirt and said, ‘If only I knew that I would not hit anyone else, Muhammad, I would throw it in your face.’ Sa’d rushed in and hit him on the head with his bow and split the Jew’s head open.”
Ishaq:403 “Allah killed twenty-two polytheists at Uhud.”
Tabari VII:147 “Amr was sent by Muhammad to kill Abu Sufyan [the Quraysh leader and merchant]. The Prophet said, ‘Go to Abu Sufyan and kill him.’ …When I entered Mecca I had a dagger ready to slay anybody who laid hold of me. My Ansar companion asked, ‘Should we start by circumambulating the Ka’aba seven times and praying two rak’ahs?’ I said, ‘I know the Meccans better than you do.’ But he kept pestering me until in the end we went to the Ka’aba, circumambulated it seven times, and prayed.” Tabari VII:148 “One of the Meccans recognized me and shouted, ‘That is Amr!’ They rushed after us, saying, ‘By Allah, Amr has not come here for any good purpose! He has come for some evil reason.’ Amr had been a cutthroat and a desperado before accepting Islam.”
Tabari VII:148 “Amr said, ‘Let’s wait here until the cry has died down. They are sure to hunt for us tonight and tomorrow. I was still in the cave when Uthman bin Malik came riding proudly on his horse. He reached the entrance to our cave and I said to my Ansar companion, ‘If he sees us, he will tell everyone in Mecca.’ So I went out and stabbed him with my dagger. He gave a shout and the Meccans came to him while I went back to my hiding place. Finding him at the point of death, they said, ‘By Allah we knew that Amr came for no good purpose.’ The death of their companion impeded their search for us, for they carried him away.”
Tabari VII:149 “I went into a cave with my bow and arrows. While I was in it, a one-eyed man from the Banu Bakr came in driving some sheep. He said, ‘Who’s there?’ I said [lied], ‘I’m a Banu Bakr.’ ‘So am I.’ Then he laid down next to me, and raised his voice in song: ‘I will not believe in the faith of the Muslims.’ I said, ‘You will soon see!’ Before long the Bedouin went to sleep and started snoring. So I killed him in the most dreadful way that anybody has ever killed. I leant over him, struck the end of my bow into his good eye, and thrust it down until it came out the back of his neck. After that I rushed out like a wild beast and took flight. I came to the village of Naqi and recognized two Meccan spies. I called for them to surrender. They said no so I shot and arrow and killed one, and then I tied the other up and took him to Muhammad.” Tabari VII:150 “I had tied my prisoner’s thumbs together with my bowstring. The Messenger of Allah looked at him and laughed so that his back teeth could be seen. Then he questioned me and I told him what had happened. ‘Well done!’ he said, and prayed for me to be blessed.”
Ishaq:434 “Amr and an Ansari waited until they were asleep. Then Amr killed them, thinking that he had taken vengeance for the Muslims who had been slain. When he came to the Messenger, he told him what had happened. The Prophet said, ‘You have killed men for whom I shall have to pay blood-money.’”
Tabari VIII:22 “Hassan was with the women and children. A Jew passed by and began to walk around his settlement. There was no one to protect them while the Apostle and his Companions were at the Meccans’ throats. So I said: ‘Hassan, this Jew is walking around. I fear he will point out our weakness while the Muslims are too busy to attend to us. So go down to him and kill him.”
Tabari VIII:22/Ishaq:458 “‘Allah forgive you, daughter of Abd al-Muttalib,’ Hassan said. ‘You know that I am not the man to do it.’ When he said that to me I saw that nothing could be expected from him. I girded myself, took a club, and, having gone down from the fortress to the man, I struck him with the club until I killed him. When I had finished with him, I returned to the fortress and said, ‘Hassan, go down to him and strip him—only his being a man kept me from taking his clothes.’ Hassan replied, ‘I have no need for his spoils.’”
Ishaq:464 “The Jews were made to come down, and Allah’s Messenger imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went out into the marketplace of Medina, and he had trenches dug in it. He sent for the Jewish men and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in batches. They numbered 800 to 900 boys and men.” Tabari VIII:40 “The Messenger commanded that furrows should be dug in the ground for the Qurayza. Then he sat down. Ali and Zubayr began cutting off their heads in his presence.”
Tabari VIII:38 “The Messenger of Allah commanded that all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded. Then the Prophet divided the wealth, wives, and children of the Banu Qurayza Jews among the Muslims.”
Tabari VIII:90 “Abu Basir went out with his companions. When they stopped to rest he asked one of them, ‘Is this sword of yours sharp?’ ‘Yes,’ he replied. ‘May I look at it?’ Basir asked. ‘If you wish.’ Basir unsheathed the sword, attacked the man, and killed him. The other Muslim ran back to the Messenger, saying, ‘Your Companion has killed my friend.’ While the man was still there, Abu Basir appeared girded with the sword. He halted before Muhammad and said, ‘Messenger, your obligation has been discharged.’”
[Honestly King Taqiyya, I find your posts to be the typical narcisisstic, condescending rhetoric of either a deluded left-wing diversicrat or a guileful propagandist.] -Susanp
That is one hell of a great line. Well done, Susanp! Love the clever, spot-on linguistics.
-MZ
www.neoconblogoff.blogspot.com
www.madzionist.com
Susanp-
***LOL with tears rolling down cheeks***
Nice comeback.
It made my day!!!!
Can we stay on topic please?
This actually brings up an interesting question, and it must vary from state to state.
It one of the core values of America is separation of religion and politics, why are we swearing an oath of truth on the Bible when we testify? Are we going to go to hell if we lie?
I'm pretty sure we don't do that in Detroit. It's merely something to the effect of 'if you lie under oath, you go to jail.'
Does anyone know if this varies from state to state?
[Can we stay on topic please?]
Lighten up, Francis...er, Rupert.
[If one of the core values of America is separation of religion and politics, why are we swearing an oath of truth on the Bible when we testify? Are we going to go to hell if we lie?]
Your premise is wrong: it isn't a core value it is a rule of law that states the State shall not establish or endorse a religion.
The bible oath is not a law, it is a CUSTOM. If you don't believe in that book you don't swear upon it. We live in a nation that is predominately Christian, therefore that majority is entitled to incorporate religious traditions into the nation's culture without it being considered a State sponsored religion.
I, as a Jew, obviously would not swear under oath with the Christian Bible since it is not my religion, so I would simply swear in without a religious text at all.
Regarding Hell, if you are worried about going there, I suggest you speak to an expert in your religion and not consult the masses on line. However, if it is a big concern of yours, my advice would be to just tell the truth so you'll have peace of mind.
-MZ
www.neoconblogoff.com
www.madzionist.com
[Can we stay on topic please?]
Lighten up, Francis...er, Rupert.
[If one of the core values of America is separation of religion and politics, why are we swearing an oath of truth on the Bible when we testify? Are we going to go to hell if we lie?]
Your premise is wrong: it isn't a core value it is a rule of law that states the State shall not establish or endorse a religion.
The bible oath is not a law, it is a CUSTOM. If you don't believe in that book you don't swear upon it. We live in a nation that is predominately Christian, therefore that majority is entitled to incorporate religious traditions into the nation's culture without it being considered a State sponsored religion.
I, as a Jew, obviously would not swear under oath with the Christian Bible since it is not my religion, so I would simply swear in without a religious text at all.
Regarding Hell, if you are worried about going there, I suggest you speak to an expert in your religion and not consult the masses on line. However, if it is a big concern of yours, my advice would be to just tell the truth so you'll have peace of mind.
-MZ
www.neoconblogoff.com
www.madzionist.com
[Can we stay on topic please?]
Lighten up, Francis...er, Rupert.
[If one of the core values of America is separation of religion and politics, why are we swearing an oath of truth on the Bible when we testify? Are we going to go to hell if we lie?]
Your premise is wrong: it isn't a core value it is a rule of law that states the State shall not establish or endorse a religion.
The bible oath is not a law, it is a CUSTOM. If you don't believe in that book you don't swear upon it. We live in a nation that is predominately Christian, therefore that majority is entitled to incorporate religious traditions into the nation's culture without it being considered a State sponsored religion.
I, as a Jew, obviously would not swear under oath with the Christian Bible since it is not my religion, so I would simply swear in without a religious text at all.
Regarding Hell, if you are worried about going there, I suggest you speak to an expert in your religion and not consult the masses on line. However, if it is a big concern of yours, my advice would be to just tell the truth so you'll have peace of mind.
-MZ
www.neoconblogoff.com
www.madzionist.com
Still half asleep and not wording this as well as I would like, but what it comes down to with king tolerance is:
Christianity did bad things.
So NO ONE has the right to criticize islam doing bad things.
Therefore this site, these discussions, should not exist.
(But he'll still be happy to criticize Christianity, while secretly cheering on the jihadists. Shoulder to shoulder with Durbin and the Leftist Academia. Eh, kj, giaour?).
Buddha: "First go ask your Muslim leaders why Christians cannot have a church in Saudi Arabia?"
King: They are not my Muslim leaders. I can, however, offer that one of the answers to this question is because Saudi Arabia's corrupt government and equally corrupt, radical clerics are so far up each other's ass that oppression of all sorts proliferates.
Buddha: "Why Christians in Arab world are treated as second class citizens (dhimmi)? Why Copts are killed and forcibly converted In Egypt?"
King: Besdies the deep religious rifts in Arab nations, there are also equally deep tribal and ethnic rifts that have been present for millenia. Extremists do not help this situation at all.
Buddha: "Why leaving Islam is punishable by death and yet Muslims are encouraged to do DAWA?"
King: Once again, a radical interpretation that is certainly not representive of all of Islam.
Susanp: "Firearms provide a warm and fuzzy sense of security to us psycho xenophobes."
King: I am sure they do. Go hole up with your guns and make sure the cockroaches cannot fly.
Madzionist: I went to your website and found it to be as radical as the Islamists you seem to hate.
"It's really a sad, pathetic state of affairs when fallen Jews resort to this self-loathing fixation in their quest to please Palestinian terrorists."
I, too, think its a sad state of affairs when the genuine need to do something to stop the violence and live in peace is thwarted by "zionism" and other forms of radical ideas. Have you not learned that it is the radicalism in Judaism and Islam alike that has caused things to burst into flames? Something has to be done and I applaud Sharon for at least trying. So sorry that the settlers have to 'relocate' but as this issue comes up over, and over, and over again perhaps its time for Israel to make concessions. If Israeli zionists are living on illegally gotten land and this is pising off the Palestinians who have and will strab bombs to themselves, the cycle will continue. If that's what you want, that's what you shall have.
Gary: "what it comes down to with king tolerance is:Christianity did bad things."
King: No, Gary - this is only a reminder to you that your beloved religion is certainly not innocent of its own share of violence, takeover, land grabs, conversion, mysogyny, homophobia, corruption, radicalism, etc. Sorry you keep missing this point.
[Madzionist: I went to your website and found it to be as radical as the Islamists you seem to hate.] "Tolerance"
Thank you! Coming from a moslem apologist like yourself, I find your disdain for my website most pleasurable. If you liked it I'd be concerned.
[I, too, think its a sad state of affairs when the genuine need to do something to stop the violence and live in peace is thwarted by "zionism" and other forms of radical ideas.] "Tolerance"
Again, I take that as a compliment from an intolerant fundamentalist progressive like you. The idea that "Zionism = Racism" is classical leftwing anti-Semitism, and was the official policy of the leftist, Jew hating U.N. until John Bolton forced them to remove it from their charter.
[Have you not learned that it is the radicalism in Judaism and Islam alike that has caused things to burst into flames?] "Tolerance"
Oh, sure. Those pregnant mothers and schoolchildren who get murdered by the moslems in the name of allah had it coming to them. You should add, mr. tolerance, that the Jewish families who were killed in the pogroms, the gulags, the gas chambers, etc. also had it coming to them because of the "radical" Jewish element.
[If Israeli zionists are living on illegally gotten land and this is pising off the Palestinians who have and will strab bombs to themselves, the cycle will continue. If that's what you want, that's what you shall have.]
Zionists living on land illegaly? Hmm..that means Jews should not be permitted to settle anywhere that they are not the democratically elected majority, which means...Yes, I know, within the borders of Green Line Israel!
What's that you say? Green Line Israel itself is land the Jews aquired illegally by expelling the Arab majority and land grabbing in the 1948 War of independence? So they need to return to the 1947 charter?
Oh, and the Jews also illegally settled the land of Israel in violation of the White Paper to begin with, so the 1947 borders were wrongfully obtained, too?
Hmmm...ok, how about full return of all moslem refugees from 1948, and of course their entire families, too, and the Jews will leave their homes and belongings behind for them, of course, plus pay them enormous reparations, and go to the country they really belong in. umm...ok, they don't belong, so they can beg for dhimmitude, or, better yet, just die and stop being such a burden on the fundamentalist left's quest to make the world a utopian egalitarian paradise!
"Tolerance", you are almost the perfect characature of the radical, evangelical, leftist
anti-Semite. I plan to use your comments for future stories I will be writing.
Saying it three times zionist, doesn't make your point any clearer.
Go back and read the article. Clearly this is a law, not a custom.
"An oath on the Quran is not a lawful oath under our law," Guilford Senior Resident Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright said earlier in the week. He sets policy for the county's nine Superior Court courtrooms."
One of many quotes from the article. So my point stands. I suspect as America becomes less a Christian nation, these issues will become more visible.
And my hell question was obviously rhetorical. Keep *trying* to be funny though.
[Saying it three times zionist, doesn't make your point any clearer.] -Rupert
Actually, that was a pretty funny line. I'm sure you intended it to be an insult, but I found humor in it, anyway.
[Go back and read the article. Clearly this is a law, not a custom.
"An oath on the Quran is not a lawful oath under our law," Guilford Senior Resident Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright said earlier in the week. He sets policy for the county's nine Superior Court courtrooms."] -Rupert
You are confused, my boy. I was not saying that the law pertaining to moslems having a legal right to making an oath with the koran was custom: It is a lawful fact that moslems are not entitled to making an oath on that deviant rag.
My point was, using the Christian Bible is custom and not law, as people who are not believers in Christianity are NOT legally required to swear on that bible.
"I suspect as America becomes less a Christian nation, these issues will become more visible." -Rupert
What facts do you have to back up your statement that America is becoming LESS of a Christian nation? We are certainly not becoming a Jewish majority, or Hindu, Budhist, Zoroaster, or Atheist either. Are you suggesting a future moslem majority is coming to America in which all infadels will be living in dhimmitude? Not gonna happen, Rupster.
[And my hell question was obviously rhetorical. Keep *trying* to be funny though.] -Rupert
Well, I think I'm funny. I know a lot of people who think I'm funny. Perhaps you only appreciate humor when it is Left making jokes about the Right? I'll keep trying either way, so don't worry.
BTW, was it rhetorical because you don't buy the going to hell thing, or because you felt it was obvious that if there is a hell, lying would certainly work in your favor getting there?
-MZ
www.neoconblogoff.blogspot.com
www.madzionist.com
Isn't it amazing that the most intolerant among us are always the one's bragging of how tolerant they are?
KT: Your protestations of moral superiority are, in and of themselves, hypocritical, insofar as you show no tolerance for those who do not agree with you -- your general disdain for those with religious beliefs or other strongly held positions that disagree with your own. Additionally, your posts reek of the sophmoric "logic" of moral relativism. Additionally, your preference for ad hominem attacks and insults for those who disagree with you belie and undercut many of the points you effort to make.
The Dutch, prior to the terroristic murder of Van Gogh, probably would have agreed with many of your statements. They have since learned otherwise. Pray that those whom you apologize for don't do the same for you.
"You are confused, my boy."
Indeed I was. I understand now.
"What facts do you have to back up your statement that America is becoming LESS of a Christian nation? We are certainly not becoming a Jewish majority, or Hindu, Budhist, Zoroaster, or Atheist either. Are you suggesting a future moslem majority is coming to America in which all infadels will be living in dhimmitude? Not gonna happen, Rupster."
Well, it's certainly less Christian than 50 years ago. But more to the point, in large cities such as LA and New York, there is a large population of non-Christian immigrants( although this article was interesting ), and as they become more entwined in the system, these issues come to the forefront. It takes only one person to challenge a law.
Madzionist: "I plan to use your comments for future stories I will be writing."
King: Anything you say Kenny "Madzionist" Ostroff! I'm sure the silly little website you've shamelessly plugged will be well recieved.
Mad = crazy
Cthulhu: "Your protestations of moral superiority are, in and of themselves, hypocritical, insofar as you show no tolerance for those who do not agree with you"
King: Allow me to package my position to make it easier for you to follow me. Given that you and I have had little if any exchange, I feel your comment is completely incorrect and clouded by the mudslinging, so here goes:
1. I agree that there is a very bad form of radical Islam that has achieved a high profile.
This Islam is a volitile blend of corrupted religion and politics which work together to oppress, repress, and control.
2. I agree that something needs to be done.
3. I understand that there are many reasons for this radical brand of religion to have such a high profile status. I feel that many of you here either ignore these reasons or do not care to grasp them. Either way, "counter hate" solves nothing.
4. I deplore the radical interpretations and applications of certain verses in the Koran, as I deplore the radical interpretations and applications of other religious texts. All radicalism is poison and it does not speak for the religion as a whole.
5. I see Islam as a peaceful religion, as has been proven by the many who practice this religion without so much as a whisper.
6. I understand that Islam comes from roots and traditions and cultures that are foreign to mine and do not make sense to me. I do not see them as wrong, however.
7. I understand that Christianity has a blood stained history and find it ironic that this goes largely ignored within these "walls."
8. I see a tremendously huge need to actaully be progressive and move along with the changing tides of the world. As an American, this means accepting that my country is a huge immigrant draw and that thre will be populations coming and going, as they always have.
9. I consider myself an independant thinker, free of party ties (I am an Independant). I am a 100% church and state separatist and live a 100% secular life. I came here to share my strong opinions and met nothing but ad hominem myself.
10. I think 90% of what I read on this website is hate under the guise of being "intellectual surveillance" of Islam. Everything from the completely stupid, immature jokes to the machismo strutting of Arabic terms shows me nothing but ignorance, immaturity and closed-mindedness. This may not have been the original intention of this web site's design but it sure has become this in my opinion.
Clearer?
Cthulhu: "Your protestations of moral superiority are, in and of themselves, hypocritical, insofar as you show no tolerance for those who do not agree with you"
King: Allow me to package my position to make it easier for you to follow me. Given that you and I have had little if any exchange, I feel your comment is completely incorrect and clouded by the mudslinging,
If you had cleaner hands, KT, such a comment might have a little more impact. You are as guilty as others of the things you complain about.
KT: "so here goes:
1. I agree that there is a very bad form of radical Islam that has achieved a high profile.
This Islam is a volitile blend of corrupted religion and politics which work together to oppress, repress, and control.
2. I agree that something needs to be done.
3. I understand that there are many reasons for this radical brand of religion to have such a high profile status. I feel that many of you here either ignore these reasons or do not care to grasp them. Either way, "counter hate" solves nothing."
You start to lose the path by #3. They have high profile status because of several factors, not the least of which they are performing acts of terrorism, such as in the Middle East, and other outrages, such as in the Sudan, currently, in "real time," one might say. Likewise, Islam has always had "a bloody mouth," so to speak.
"4. I deplore the radical interpretations and applications of certain verses in the Koran, as I deplore the radical interpretations and applications of other religious texts. All radicalism is poison and it does not speak for the religion as a whole. "
However, in more recent decades and centuries, most Chrisitian sects have, for lack of a better term, mellowed... or maybe just gotten lazy, preferring to yell slogans and march, rather than make war. Even the Crusades and the Islamic conquests which preceded them, religion was largely a canard, a fig leaf to hide more material issues, such as the control of trade-routes and loot. Likewise, when a Christian radical blows up, say, an abortion clinic, there is an outcry from Christian groups, even those who might agree with the general beliefs / goals of the radical re: abortion. However, Islamic terrorism is usually greeted with either cheers, such as in Palestian camps re: September 11th or deafening silence, such as CAIR's typical response to terrorism.
"5. I see Islam as a peaceful religion, as has been proven by the many who practice this religion without so much as a whisper."
Ah, but their stony silence includes a lack of denunciation of terrorism, generally speaking (see above).
"6. I understand that Islam comes from roots and traditions and cultures that are foreign to mine and do not make sense to me. I do not see them as wrong, however."
Really? Does commsumating a marriage to a nine year old seem as something you could write up under "not wrong?" Wife beating? Female circumcision? Honor killings? As a religion, their mores have not advanced much past the Middle Ages, in part due to the lack of a Reformation-equivalent. The level of corruption within their religions and states, which, in a number of cases, is hand in glove, if not one of the same, is astounding and has a cultural root. Is this "not wrong?" Their belief system allows casual murder, as evidenced by the honor killings and the lack of public outcry. Even the Deep South, which I have no doubt you regard as backwards, has retained duelling, let alone outright premeditated murder as a method of maintaining the social structure and mores of their community.
"7. I understand that Christianity has a blood stained history and find it ironic that this goes largely ignored within these "walls." "
It goes largely ignored as it is precisely what you note it to be: history, as opposed to Muslim outrages, which include both history and current events.
"8. I see a tremendously huge need to actaully be progressive and move along with the changing tides of the world. As an American, this means accepting that my country is a huge immigrant draw and that thre will be populations coming and going, as they always have. "
The problem is that "progressive" tactics do not work with these populations, as evidenced by the problems with Muslim immigrant populations in Sweden and France, two of the more "progressive" regiemes on the planet. America has largely been spared for other reasons, including relative size and a more guarded approach to immigration. Likewise, "progressive" groups, such as the ACLU, with their anti-Christian and Muslim tolerant behavior, as evidenced in lawsuits against Christian use of public facilities and in support of Muslims (no Christianity in the classroom, but multicultural programs designed to create a sympathetic image of muslims, Eid banners and Ramadan prayers in school without equal time for Christain groups) will only enbolden these populations to demand more. Appeasement is not a workable solution.
"9. I consider myself an independant thinker, free of party ties (I am an Independant). I am a 100% church and state separatist and live a 100% secular life. I came here to share my strong opinions and met nothing but ad hominem myself. "
Your disdain and insulting tone for those who do not agree with your positions does nothing to still the waters. You are as guilty as those whom you accuse of intolerance. Likewise, strong opinions from *any* perspective, presented in *any* forum, are apt to draw someone's ire, just as rain is wet and ice is cold. As I have pointed out to you before, less bombast and more factual presentation would go a long way, esp. if you came here for an arguement, rather than abuse.
"10. I think 90% of what I read on this website is hate under the guise of being "intellectual surveillance" of Islam. Everything from the completely stupid, immature jokes to the machismo strutting of Arabic terms shows me nothing but ignorance, immaturity and closed-mindedness. This may not have been the original intention of this web site's design but it sure has become this in my opinion."
So why do you choose to add to it with your sneering tone and ad hominem comments of your own? Likewise, just because someone does not immediately kow-tow to your perceived "superior" position and beliefs does not make them ignorant. You know nothing of anyone on this site who isn't Robert. Gauge your responses accordingly -- you show more tolerance for Islam than you do for the people on this site. Your experiences are not the same as kj's or Gary's or mine, let alone some of the others. Do not assume. It will save all a great deal of spleen.
"tolerance",
We don't care what you think, as your posts have already told us everything we need to know about you.
You are our play toy, the "village idiot" if you will. We laugh at your childish and inane rants, we snicker at your feeble comebacks and barbs, and find our positions strengthened by your flawed logic and clueless anger.
I welcome your continued buffoonery, as we all need a little comic relief once in a while, but responding to your infantile, communist tantrums is now growing tedious.
Therefore, I will no longer engage you, as you are not capable of contributing intellect or relevance, but I will continue reading your unintentionally funny attempts to sound important.
-MZ
www.neoconblogoff.blogspot.con
www.Madzionist.com
Even the Deep South, which I have no doubt you regard as backwards, has retained duelling, let alone outright premeditated murder as a method of maintaining the social structure and mores of their community.
=========================
That should be *NOT* retained duelling...
*grumble*
King Tolerance, say these words....*filthy history of islam*....I'm waiting. If you are not a muslim, just a LLL apologist you can admit islam has a bloody past & present. You said Christianity has a "filthy history". So where is the condemnation of islam?
Madzionist: "We don't care what you think, as your posts have already told us everything we need to know about you."
King: Either your use of "we" is consistent with your madness, or you somehow have elevated yourself to speaking for mosre than one person.
Madzionist: idiot, childish, inane, flawed, feeble, clueless, buffoonery, communist...
King: Whew! You managed to cram a whole lot of intellect in there yourself, Kenney!
Madzionist: "I will no longer engage you, as you are not capable of contributing intellect or relevance"
King: I think your above rant and radical knock-off website speaks volumes of the intellect you're capable of too, that is, regurgitation. So shaddup!
Carolyn2: "King Tolerance, say these words....*filthy history of islam*....I'm waiting."
King: So, wait.
Carolyn2: "You said Christianity has a "filthy history". So where is the condemnation of islam?"
King: You apparantly have not been reading any of my posts where I say things like; "I hate radical Islam" or "I think Islam is in a bad place right now."
No, you're still stuck on me being a Muslim or my thoughts on Christianity to even get with the program.
I have said the things I have about Christianity to point out that all religions are capable of being radicalised and violent - even Christianity. That's been my point - there's enough blood to fill the cups of all religions, even yours....
King: You apparantly have not been reading any of my posts where I say things like; "I hate radical Islam" or "I think Islam is in a bad place right now."
No, you're still stuck on me being a Muslim or my thoughts on Christianity to even get with the program.
I have said the things I have about Christianity to point out that all religions are capable of being radicalised and violent - even Christianity. That's been my point - there's enough blood to fill the cups of all religions, even your
==============================================
Again, you confuse history with current events. And, as a matter of fact, before you decide to get superior again, I would point out that the godless have been known to commit atrocities as well, such as the French Revolution.
I have said the things I have about Christianity to point out that all religions are capable of being radicalised and violent - even Christianity. That's been my point - there's enough blood to fill the cups of all religions, even yours....~ kt
So What?
What does any of this have to do with the murders being committed around the world EVERY DAY, in the name of islam? How does knowledge of things Christians did Centuries ago affect the current state of affairs? We've learned from the grievous errors in past thinking. When can we expect islam to?
Dearest KT,
Thankfully there are no huge, flying roaches infesting my hideout so I use beer cans for target practice.
You're such an astute and perceptive individual; it didn't take any time for you to analyze everyone on this site and reach the conclusion that we're all bigots, Islamophobes, racists, borderline illiterates, and just plain ignorant.
Why is it that such a
Oops, sorry, I didn't finish. I hit the wrong key. I'm curious, are you oblivious to sarcasm?
Susanp: "I'm curious, are you oblivious to sarcasm?"
King: Certainly not, I actually love sarcasm IN THE RIGHT SETTING! Not sure a very serious discussion about a pressing current event is the time and place for it. Go back to shooting your beer cans and worrying about your cockroaches and Islamic boogey men.
King Tut Tut-
You remind me of the kind a person who says something like:
"This lowlife degenerate scum has failed to show me the least amount of common courtesy."
And then expects their protest to be taken seriously. As if it din;t include its own negation within its wordiong.
Reread your own postings before castigating others for splinters and toothpicks while blinded by the rough-sawed plank in your own eye.
Ad hominem could be your middle name (maybe hypenated, if you are in England... judging from your diction and metaphors).
Intolerance, your subtext, hidden behind a masque of a name.
Instead of offering anything useful to help combat the ACTUAL threat to the group undermining the very idea of "tolerance", and the "100% seperation of church and state" you declare you uphold, you seem to prefer to just natter along with noisome name-calling of those who are disgusted with the behavior of radical jihadists/ Islamic Imperialists.
Any ideas?
Perhaps about what could be done, other than the redundant hiccough about how so many Muslims are peaceful and that it is basically a religion of peace?
We're not concerned about the people NOT trying to kill us.