Watch the Undercover Mosque videos here. Note that Khalid Yasin, featured in the second video advocating harsh Sharia punishments, also speaks in America, and has been sponsored by mosques in doing so. And that 80% of mosques in the United States are controlled by the Saudis, who are blamed in this documentary (somewhat inaccurately) for all the radicalization in British mosques.
Note also that hate propaganda of just this kind has been found in American mosques -- which should not be surprising not only because of the Saudi connection but because much of this is mainstream Islamic teaching.
And finally, note that jihadist activity tends to increase during Ramadan.
Now in light of all that, when you see a headline like "NYPD beefs up security for Ramadan," you would think that the New York cops are on alert against terror attacks coming during the month in which Muslims redouble their efforts to serve Allah -- right? Wrong -- they're beefing up their protection of the mosques themselves, which are apparently under threat from venomous Islamophobes.
Any vigilante attack against any mosque in the U.S. is wrong and stupid, and to be condemned. But this is just another indication of how CAIR's hate crimes propaganda, trumped-up as it is, rules the day: the mosques are well-protected, but what about the potential victims of the jihadists who may be inside them?
"NYPD beefs up security for Ramadan," by Jonathan Lemire for the New York Daily News, August 26 (thanks to Twostellas):
The NYPD Tuesday announced heightened security for the city's mosques during the upcoming Islamic holy observance of Ramadan.Local precincts will dispatch more officers on foot patrol and in squad cars to patrol the areas surrounding the mosques during the month-long religious observance that begins on Monday.
"Collaboration with the public is a vital ingredient in our efforts to keep the city safe," said Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly during the NYPD's annual pre-Ramadan conference with 250 Muslim community leaders.
Cops will also be briefed on the religious guidelines specific to Ramadan in anticipation of the observances, Kelly said.
The community leaders were warned to be mindful of the mosque's donation boxes, some of which were robbed last year.
I do not know why the mosques need such protection. Islam is one of the few religions that allows and encourages its adherents to stockpile weapons as part of its religious rites. Moreover, islam encourages mayhem and murder in the promulgation of its evil conceptions. It is non muslims who need protection when the muslims are "at prayer." There are many kuffirs who earnestly believe as it is Ramadan, you should run for your life!
Let's see.
In the entire Western world, in North America -- the United States and Canada -- and in Western Europe -- Great Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland -- and in other parts of that West that are geographically farther afield, such as Israel and Australia -- has there ever been, despite every conceivable provocation, an attack on a single Muslim in a single mosque? No, there has not.
Now, in the entire world, Western and non-Western, have non-Muslims been attacked by those who have rushed out, no doubt inspired to their deeds by what they heard in the sermons (khutbas) at Friday Prayers, of their mosques? Oh yes, it has happened to Copts (and in the old days, to Jews) in Egypt. It happens today to Hindus in Bangladesh, and no doubt, unreported -- how much of this stuff does go unreproted -- elsewhere. And not always does the poison dripped into the ears of the imam's auditors work right away, but over time, so that later, they will take out the built-up hatred and hostility toward non-Muslims, in all kinds of miching mallecho. And mosques are used as points from which to fire on non-Muslims -- it happened in Iraq, in Lebanon, and possibly in Afghanistan. Mosques in the West, and not only in the mosque on Viale Jenner in Milan, have been found to contain false papers of every kind -- passports, national identity cards, visas -- sometimes hidden in false ceilings, and even weaponry, including explosives. What has been reported is quite enough, but if the full list were to be made public, it would make a deep impression on Western Infidels.
So who needs to be protected? Handy-dandy, which is the justice, and which is the thief?
Hugh,
Yes, I was trying to think of any times when a faith-enraged Lutheran drove a 3-ton SUV into a group of Moslems leaving a mosque, sending a dozen or so to hospital, or when a Torah-maddened Orthodox Jew stormed into a Moslem center and shot several believers, etc. I couldn't think of any.
But then it's probably due to the Zionist-controlled media covering things up.
"Cops will also be briefed on the religious guidelines specific to Ramadan in anticipation of the observances, Kelly said."
Translation: Cops will also be briefed on how to observe the "fast", and avoid angering the thugs.
Just let NYPD do their job, folks. They know exactly what they're doing here. And it ain't protecting these zealots from Lutheran attack.
Here's a question for the candidates to add to Robert's previous list:
"Would you support the US Government changing its official name for Saudi Arabia to "Wahaabistan"?
"Would you support reparations to the tune of several trillion $$ from Wahaabistan for its complicity in 9/11 and the losses and security costs born by the West as a result its promoting Wahaabism?"
"If such reparations were refused, would you support the use if military action to secure them?"
More nauseating public pandering to the scum of the earth.
Absolutely mind numbing.
Petro-dollars work in mysterious ways.
Ten years ago no Americans knew about Ramadan. Now I cannot escape it. Every year I am made aware of its start and finish
Most Muslims gain weight on Ramadan because the daily fasts are followed by pigging out. Plus no water and no smoking allowed either, makes for lots of Muslims on hair trigger during daylight hours
Petro-dollars work in mysterious ways.
Alert
Right on.
These Islamic people spread a lot of money around to politicians, even on a state level. The average person really has no idea.
It is hard to comprehend, a mosque full of homicidal maniacs wanting (and getting) protection from the predominately Christian public during Ramadan. Have any Christians blown up any mosques lately in NY?
Oh but I forgot, Islam is a religion of peace.
Not even after 15 Saudi Muslims, who were schooled from birth in the Wahhabist faith, took part with others led by an Egyptian, schooled in the doctrine of Qutb, murdered over three thousand people in cold blood did Americans look to take out their anger on mosques.
Now - I couldn't care less about the political correctness, the hate crime propaganda, any of it. After seven years, it should be obvious that it is a lie.
We can never please them enough so what's the point in even trying?
Another question: why is anyone even considering voting for a candidate who subscribes to the religion of peace mantra? Is McCain any better than Obama on this score?
As many years as I have read JW/DW can you believe I read the headline to this story and automatically assumed the NYPD was going to be alert for the increased Islamic terrorism associated with this 'religious holiday'.
Things are consistently WORSE than I imagine and my family thinks I'm 'paranoid'.
Things are consistently WORSE than I imagine and my family thinks I'm 'paranoid'.
Posted by: poetcomic1
well, your not alone there. i think everybody thinks were paranoid, until the next terrorist attacks on this country.
Now I beg to differ. I, for one, knew about Ramadan 20 years ago, and so did everyone in my office. In fact, we knew exactly when it began, and when it ended.
You see, back in the late 1980's, I had a job in a tall building on the Virginia side of the Potomac. A certain oil rich Islamic country had a cultural attache on the other side of the elevators. Think of the hallways as a capital 'H' shape, with the elevators in the center. Our company on one side of the 'H'; the Islamic oil rich country on the other. Every year during Ramadan, we would find stashes of doughnuts and coffee tucked around the fire extinguisher in the "back" hallway on our side of the building, out of sight from the front door of the cultural attache. As soon as Ramadan ended, the doughnut bags and coffee cups would disappear for another year.
Of course the whole thing that gets confused in this documentry is that these are all orthodox Islamic teachings. Not a misinterprtation in the least. Muhammed Abdul Whahhad purified Islam of all outside influence and brought back to the Quran, Hadith, and Sira.
One gets the impression watching this that there is the true good Islam out there and the Saudis have retarted it. The most misleading part is when the guy is talking about the few koranic verses at the end. I have the saudi translation in question and every verse that is translated is cross refernced with lots of supporting hadiths. He just cant admit that Islam is rotten to the core.
Great story CJ
Stashing all that infidel donuts and coffee was probably the only way to keep that Islamic office semi functional during Ramadan
We Americans know if a moslem is attacked, it will be a "hate crime".
We have read of SUV jihad, mall jihad, airport jihad, football stadium jihad....and the list goes on. Were any of these moslems charged with a "hate crime"? Nope. They were "mentally unstable".
Doug Hooper shouldn't worry, moslems are already a protected class.
We can never please them enough so what's the point in even trying?
Another question: why is anyone even considering voting for a candidate who subscribes to the religion of peace mantra? Is McCain any better than Obama on this score?
PMK
Your as frustrated as I am about this whole thing. All I know about McCain is that he is not afraid to call these Islamic creeps by some of their proper names...Islamofacists and Islamofanatics. But I do know that Obama has put Israel on notice that they better get ready to get along with a nuclear Iran if he is elected. (Obama didn't say how that can be accomplished.)
Supposedly Obama's father had 20 wives but no more than 4 at a time, which is in keeping with Islam. Obama has 54 half sisters and brothers in Africa, all of them Muslim. So I think that I read into all this that Obama will put us on notice to lay down and let the Muslims walk all over us whenever they want.
PMK: Of course, you know I share your disdain for Islam, but I would argue that there is a very specific reason to vote for McCain, even though like almost every other American politician, Democrat or Republican, he doesn't "get it" about Mohammedanism. And here's the reason, which I've stated before at JW: The judges the next President will appoint.
The kind of judges a President McCain will appoint to the bench, Supreme Court on downwards, will be far more likely to see no constitutional impediment to stricter laws monitoring Islam and Muslims in America, should they be passed and signned into law by a more realistic Congress and President some five, ten, twenty years down the road. The type of person a President Obama will appoint to the bench will be far more likely to see constitutional objections to laws that would protect America from the most voracious totalitarian system ever devised by man.
This is why staying home this Novemeber or wasting one's vote on a third party nominee is foolish. Save that for another election, not this one. No matter how aware a future President and Congress may become towards the Islamic threat, Far-Left judges (who will hold their appointments for life) could overturn virtually everything that such a Congress and President would understand is necessary for America's survival. In short, play the odds, while remembering there are no guarantees, and think about America decades from now. Doing so makes voting for McCain a no-brainer.
"I admire the Islam [sic]. There are a lot of good principles in it." -- John McCain
mccain is a dhimmi, just like the rest...
poetcomic, well I am the same way. Read the headline, assumed the same thing. I am called an "islamophobe" by some, instead of paranoid. That's okay, because I am!!!
It amazes me that the same city that suffered so badly on September 11/01 at the hands of these crazies, now bends over backwards for them. NY'ers must be seething.
mccain is a dhimmi, just like the rest...
Posted by: theygottago at September 2, 2008 12:02 PM
The patriotic statesman, who stood-up to resist Islamic onslaught is already rejected by America. Can you name him?
Hint: He visited Beslan, after the school-children were massacarred.
I remember reading that law enforcement personal in Los Angeles County where ordered to make security checks on local synagogues immediately following 9-11 because numerous threats where being made towards the Jewish Community right after 9-11. These security checks and contacts with local synagogues continued for months after 9-11.
Is the NYPD also offering up protected status to the synagogues during Ramadan as they are for Mosques? I wonder if the NYPD was also ordered to give security checks to New York Synagogues during the period immediately following 9-11 as was Los Angeles?
gymgal-
My favorite bumper sticker
"I'm an Islamophobe and So Are You"
The mind of the West is heading for a collective nervous breakdown because we are not being 'allowed' to hate what we (of course) fear.
The West will EXPLODE one day from this schizoid PC double-think. Boy, will it explode! And I will be singing 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic' as we "trample out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored"
heh, poetcomic, I like that bumper sticker too!!
My last words as I kiss my butt goodbye will be...
"told ya so!"
Dear Ebonystone,
"Torah-maddened Orthodox Jew stormed into a Moslem center and shot several believers, etc. I couldn't think of any."
I guess you forgot about Goldstein?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein
Truth
NYPD beefs up security for Ramadan
Maybe they're worried about roaming bands of rioting Leftists who've figured out that "useful idiot" is an insult. Of course, some of the idiots are still useful. For instance, check out this statement by Fatimah Ali of the Philadelphia Daily News:
"If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness - and hopelessness!"
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20080902_Fatimah_Ali__We_need_Obama__not_4_more_years_of_George_Bush.html
I guess you forgot about Goldstein?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein
Truth
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 2, 2008 1:30 PM
Indeed, Goldstein acted alone or in concert here but this by far the exception and not the rule. The same case for the converse can not be adequately made, however.
I guess you forgot about Goldstein?
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 2, 2008 1:30 PM
When the ratio of murderous incidents is literally on the order of 10000 to 1, yes it's easy to forget the one.
Wellington:
Barring a miracle, McCain will not get a sixty-vote Republican Senate. He will not be able to appoint a single judge that isn't personally approved by HRH Edward M. Kennedy, or Crown Prince Patrick Leahy. The judges argument is meaningless. It didn't do Bush any good. He had a MAJORITY and he still couldn't get his judges. He couldn't even make recess appointments because of all the pro forma sessions. The House adjourned for five weeks but the Senate has not yet gone out. It meets every three days.
Spot On:
Everyone's with the program when it comes to condemning acts of terrorism. Speaking out against violence AFTER it happens is easy. Is McCain prepared to go toe to toe with CAIR BEFORE we have sharia in everything but name and before 3,000 more people die? I don't care if he calls them jihadists or servants of the devil. What is he going to do with the ones who aren't blowing us up? My guess: they're the true Muslims and they're our friends and they're good Americans, yadda yadda yadda. We only have to worry about the ones who have hijacked a once great religion.
Translation: HE WILL DO NOTHING.
Isn't he just like Bush? Talks a good game. Give him a bloody nose and he'll fight back. But what about when they're all sitting around the table? Will McCain refuse to cave to the idea that speaking against Islam amounts to a hate crime? I don't see it.
Everyone thinks he'll be tougher on jihadists than Obama would be. But what does "tougher" mean? He might talk tough but that's it. They'll have to blow up an American city (as opposed to a few towers) before he gets serious.
Wellington
McCain was the inspiration behind the sabotage of a lot of Bush's conservative leanings. Thanks to him, other GOP senators decided to act like 'mavericks' - George Voinovich, for one, seeing to the sabotage of John Bolton as UN ambassador, McCain sabotaging ANWR (maybe someone should ask the new Grandmother-to-be running mate of his what she thinks about her boss's stance on the #1 issue that she's been right on).
And to crown it all, he led the Gang of 14 to shut down what only Senators can think of as 'nuclear' - shutting debate on Judges in the Judicial committee and the entire Senate voting on him/her with an up/down vote. Due to these endless prosecutorial hearings, some brilliant justices, such as Miguel Estrada, bowed out of contention and declined to be considered. If this was a situation that McCain created for Bush, what makes one think that he'd be less of a Lib, er Moderate, as President, than he was as Senator? He adores his Democratic Colleagues, much like a Bob Michel or a Jack Kemp, and would happily make any compromises that would make them comfortable, all in the name of bipartisanship. What makes you think that he'd even dream of appointing judges like Roberts and Alito (contrary to his public statements), when all he needs is just the entire Democrat bloc plus ~10 GOP moderate defectors, or maybe just some Senators who'd simply vote party line. And leaders like McConnell and Alexander aren't likely to organize opposition to their President.
Along with Gitmo, that's the #1 reason I loathe McCain, and much as I adore Sarah Palin, VP's are inconsequential, and there is a world of difference between Palin at the bottom of the ticket, vs. Palin at the top. Besides, she wasn't even his first choice - he'd have preferred Lieberman or Ridge, but decided that he already had enough problems with Conservatives as it is. Although it's high time even Conservatives realized how inconsequential a VP role is.
Wellington
I forgot to add - there is nothing that John McCain adores more than bipartisanship, and if he becomes president, he can adapt all Dem proposals and just get enough Republicans to sign on - he'll never need Conservatives again. And what's worse - Republicans will continue to be blamed for it even though they are the minority, since the president is from their party.
No, I strongly advocate voting in the Loyalist Party, despite the fact that they are an asterisk, and despite the fact that Palin is on the ticket.
Maybe the uptick in police patrols will have the positive effect of catching some jihadists before they strike, even if they are "facing the wrong way".
Re: Goldstein,
Apparently, there's some doubt he even did it:
http://members.tripod.com/~VaAm/Aug2198.html
Even, so, he apparently didn't publish theological tracts attempting to convert other Jews into massacring Muslims, by extensively quoting the Torah. Did he?
Because Al Qaeda does exactly that; quoting from the Qu'ran and Hadith over and over, finding many, many examples of verses that seem to say Muslims should hate and kill or subdue non-Muslims. And the scary thing is; many Muslims, even if they aren't actual core members, seem to agree with the sentiments, and actually act on them.
But, good to see you again, Abdullah.
OT:
I have a simple one for you; doesn't the fact that Muhammad ambushed caravans make him a thief and brigand?
Considering he probably killed people, and that these incidents were not defensive, I'd say that makes him a murderer, too.
Is that ok, if it helps Muslims?
PMK and Infidel Pride: With Barack Obama as President it is a virtual certainty that we will get a slew of very liberal judges. With John McCain as President it is possible, if not probable, that some conservatives will get confirmation, at least at the federal district level, if not the circuit court level. Also, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that a President McCain will not be able to appoint at least one conservative to the Supreme Court, even with a Democratic majority in the Senate. Quid pro quos happen all the time and McCain is very good at this game. McCain also voted for Roberts and Alito. Is McCain perfect? Far from it. But you know what you'll get from Obama. At least with McCain there are real possibilities for conservative (or at least not as liberal) appointments. Weigh a doubt (with McCain some conservative judges might get through) against a certainty (with Obama we'll get Far Left types strewn all through the federal judiciary). Again, I say it's a no-brainer and also that a vote for any third party is a wasted vote. Save that particular self-indulgence for another election.
Moe Foe,
Good to be here...
MF you asked "I have a simple one for you; doesn't the fact that Muhammad ambushed caravans make him a thief and brigand?"
Be specific, which incidence are you speaking of?
MF "Considering he probably killed people, and that these incidents were not defensive, I'd say that makes him a murderer, too."
Mohammad only killed two people in open battles that were declared and he fought in the open against them.
MF you asked, "Is that ok, if it helps Muslims?"
Don't understand what you are getting at? Rephrase the question?
Is McCain perfect? Far from it.
And he's 72 so chances are pretty good that he won't run for re-election, paving the way for Palin to be elected in 2012. And hopefully by then the rest of America may have a clue as to how big a threat islam really is.
Moe Foe-
While you are looking up Abdullahs request, could you do me a favor and let me know how many people Jesus killed in open Battle...oops I mean while spreading his religion?
Ladywolfnl,
But you are right, the first first part of Jesus ministry was benign and peaceful, but for one incident where he took a whip and beat the money lenders...can't say I blame him for that. : ).
But the $65,000 question is:
Who said this?
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
I await your answer, Ma'am, with bated breath, and whispring humblenesse.
I believe my $65,000 question was: How many did he KILL??
Abdullah,
First of all, you are changing the subject. We were talking about Muhammad, and you bring Jesus into it. Secondly, you haven't answered the question about Jesus' killing.
And here is your answer:
From Sirat Rasoul Allah
The earliest biography of Muhammad, by ibn Ishaq:
"When Allah made plunder permissible He allowed four parts to those who had won it, and one part to Himself and to His apostle, exactly as Abdullah had done with the captured caravan.
This was the occasion when the first booty was taken by the Muslims, when the first prisoners were taken by the Muslims and when the first man was slain by the Muslims. It was eighteen months since the Emigrants had arrived in Medina .
Soon the apostle of Allah heard that Abu Sufyan ‑ whom he had missed at al‑Ushayra ‑ was returning from Syria with a large caravan of merchandise, accompanied by thirty or forty men. Then he addressed the Believers, saying: 'Go forth against this caravan; it may be that Allah will grant you plunder.' The people soon assembled, though some were fearful and others hesitated because they had not thought the apostle would really go to war."
The actual website I found this on was http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sira/index.htm and you might object that this site is biased, but let's assume for the moment that the translation is accurate. What do you have to say?
Wellington,
Time will tell. Personally, judges are the least of my concerns in this election. It's why that argument doesn't hold much water. Taxes are at the bottom as well. We have more important issues to deal with.
Democrats expected to win in 2000. How you handle defeat says more about you than how you handle victory and the Democrats didn't acquit themselves there. They were almost, but not quite, as bad in 2004.
They won Congress in 2006 and what have they done? Here again, in 2008, the table is set and Democrats have every reason to expect to retake the White House. If McCain "steals" this one from them too, cooperation should not be expected. They had forty-six straight years of controlling one or two branches of government. Suddenly, in 2001, they had no seat of power. In an unfamiliar situation, they showed a different face. Too many of them think that the only way they can lose is if the election is stolen. (This from the party of the Daley machine!)
I have less faith in their statesmanship than you seem to have. May you be proved right.
Oh dear. Here we have a Muslim busy churning out the old tu quoque line - trying to make us believe that when Jesus said "think not that I have come to send peace on earth/ I came not to send peace but a sword' that this is no different from, for example,
Surah 9: 5 of the Qur'an which enjoins violent warfare by the Believers against the non-Muslims:
"when the sacred months are over, slay the idolators wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and pay the alms-tax, let them go their way. Allah is forgiving, merciful."
Looks pretty clear to me: the Muslims are to relentlessly, physically attack the 'idolators', or the non-Muslims, and kill them unless they convert to Islam. The whole of Surah 9 is similarly aggressive in its language. The Muslims are told to take up weapons and go on the offensive.
Now, let's have a good look at the Matthew passage, in context.
Chapter 10 begins with Jesus summoning his twelve disciples and sending them out - unarmed - to 'Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils; freely ye have received, freely give". I don't see any mention of weapons. This is NOT a military campaign. It's about healing and teaching and giving. And although in Matthew 10 this is the disciples going around the villages in the land of Israel - Jesus tells them to go to 'the lost sheep of the House of Israel' - all down through history Christians have taken that command to 'heal the sick' very much to heart, wherever they have gone, wherever they have lived. There's a whole Christian charity called "The Leprosy Mission" (or look up Father Damien), devoted to obeying Jesus' command in this chapter to 'cleanse the lepers".
Verses 11-15 explain that if the disciples come to a city and people won't listen, they are to leave it and go on to the next one. G-d - YHWH - will judge those people at an unspecified time in the future. His followers are not to do anything.
Verses 16-23 talk about how the disciples are to behave. Jesus tells them, 'I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves' (that doesn't sound very militant, does it?). Verses 17-23 tell the disciples that they will be attacked. It does not talk about battles and fighting; the disciples (and this passage has always been understood by the church to refer not only to the first disciples, but to Christian witnesses and evangelists ever since) will be accused, imprisoned, and put on trial, and will have to give an account of what they believe, to a hostile audience.
When it says in v 21 'brother shall deliver up brother to death' it clearly means that it is Jesus' followers who will be attacked by their own families. They are not attacking; they are being attacked (as, for example, people today who leave Islam, and become Christians, are attacked by their families...).
Verses 22-23 read "ye shall be hated of all men, for my name's sake; but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. But when they persecute you in one city, flee ye unto another: for verily I say to you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come." Verses 24-33 continue to spell out the persecution that Jesus' followers will suffer - insults and violence. They are, I repeat, *not* the ones handing out the violence; they are *suffering* violence.
THEN we have verse 34: "think not I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword".
In context, this verse sums up the simple fact - gone into in more detail in verses 35-37 that when people choose to follow Jesus, sometimes their own families and societies will turn against them, such that they will be forced to choose between their families, or following Jesus (again: this is exactly what happens to many Muslims who leave islam and become Christians - they encounter threats, their families disown them, throw them out, sometimes try to kill them).
The message of Christ 'provokes' division, as people choose to accept it, or to reject it. The violence comes from those who reject Jesus and attack those who follow him. Jesus does not, anywhere in this passage, even tell his followers to defend themselves, in this chapter; he tells them not to be afraid, he tells them to leave a place if they are being persecuted (and one may assume, if their family persecutes them or throw them out, they may leave if they can).
Christians do not reject their families - but sometimes their families and their societies reject *them*.
Verses 38-39 spell out the fact that sometimes a Christian will be killed by people who are hostile to the Christian faith. Again: there is NOTHING in this verse about Christians attacking, or fighting, or killing others; and certainly nothing in it can be read to say 'take up weapons and make other people believe in Jesus'.
No: the drift of the whole chapter is - 'if you follow me, you may well encounter people who want to kill you; and sometimes they will indeed kill you; but don't be afraid of them.'
Verses 40-42 emphasise the fact that Jesus identifies himself with his people, his followers - 'He that receiveth you, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me' (i.e YHWH, God the Father).
Those who reject and attack the peaceful, unarmed followers of Jesus, are rejecting and attacking Jesus...and also rejecting and attacking YHWH.
In the whole of Matthew Chapter 10, the disciples, the followers of Jesus, are NOT the aggressors, nor are they told to be aggressors or to take up the sword. It's clear throughout that it is the *persecutors* who are using the 'sword' of aggression, rejection and violence against the peaceful 'sheep', Jesus' followers. Jesus does NOT anywhere in this chapter tell his followers to take up the sword and fight.
Rather different from Surah 9 of the Qur'an in which, over and over, Muslims are explicitly told to go on the offensive, to perform acts of aggression and violence against non-Muslims.
Matthew 10 leaves this clear central picture in the mind: the unarmed followers of Jesus standing in the middle of a ring of hostile accusers. They do not use weapons against others - they are commanded to *heal* people - but they are warned that others will take up arms against them, and they are advised to imitate Christ, who died on the Cross.
Surah 9 paints a bloody picture of Muslims taking up arms and using them in open warfare against anybody who is not a Muslim; in Surah 9:5 it is 'the pagans' or 'the idolaters', but in Surah 9:29 Christians, and Jews, are also targeted by Muslim aggression, which seeks to force them to convert to Islam, or to make them grovel and cringe and pay jizya, or...kill them.
*The* symbol of Christianity is the Cross - where Jesus, alone and unarmed and defenceless, offers himself for the sins of the world. Thousands, indeed millions, of his followers, ever since, have died as he died; peaceful witnesses, slain by angry people who wished to silence them. Shall we remember one million defenceless Armenian Christians, men, women and children, slaughtered by Turkish and Kurdish and Arab Muslims who fell upon them in an ecstasy of blood-lust, howling Allahu Akbar and raping, torturing, stabbing, burning?
*The* symbol of Islam is - the Scimitar, symbol of the mass murders, the mass rapes, the mass pillagings and mass enslavements that characterise the Jihad, jihad fi sabil Allah, extended from Spain to the East Indies over 1300 years.
let me know how many people Jesus killed in open Battle...oops I mean while spreading his religion?
Posted by: Ladywolfnl
NONE
PMK: I submit to you that the appointment of future judges should be one of the two or three most important concerns when voting this November. We now have the imperial judiciary, courtesy of liberal thinking, and the only way to reverse this and bring back proper balance to the Constitutional separation of powers, as intended by the Founding Fathers, is to not vote Democratic for the foreseeable future.
If McCain becomes President, the worse that could occur, minus McCain himself nominating liberal judges, something that his track record on judicial appointments would not indicate in the least, would be the refusal to confirm his nominees. Well, so what? There would be vacancies aplenty on the federal bench. Wouldn't this still be far preferable to Far-Left judges appointed by a President Obama and confirmed by a Democratic Senate? I would vigorously argue that one of the keys to America surviving the totalitarianism that is represented by Islamic intentions is to have sensible judges for the next quarter or third of a century presiding over American couts of law. With Obama as President, this likelihood is almost non-existent. With McCain as President, this same likelihood is far higher. Again I assert the importance of playing the odds. As always, idealism not tempered by realism is largely worthless.
Now, on topic.
From the article:
"...the NYPD's annual pre-Ramadan conference with 250 Muslim community leaders."
Now: let's find out what this sentence sounds like if we substitute some different 'faith communities': "...The NYPD's annual pre-Hanukkah conference with 250 Jewish community leaders"? "...The NYPD'S annual pre-Lent (or, pre-Advent) conference with 250 Catholic and Orthodox and Anglican community leaders"? "...The NYPD's annual pre-Diwali conference with 250 Hindu community leaders".
No?
Frankly, I find the solemn concern for the safety of Mosques to be as laughable as would be a solemn concern for the security of known gang hangouts or of known headquarters of Mafia and neo-nazi bosses.
However: by all means let the New York Police Department keep a strong visible presence in the vicinity of the mosques in New York during Ramadan.
Not so much to protect the Muslims from kafir aggression; but rather to signal to any jihad-minded Muslims that the kafir law enforcement officers are right there on the scene, ready and waiting, just in case anyone emerging from those mosques, all fired up, like a Nazi fresh from a Hitler rally and feeling superior, decides to conduct any acts of jihad against all the nasty dirty kafir untermenschen.
I recall the big brave Muslim man in Canada who one fine Friday evening, (funny, that; Friday evening) marched up to a Jewish teenager on a railway platform and asked if she was Jewish; and, after she said Yes, at once assaulted her, hitting and pulling hair, and declaring "I'm a Muslim and hate Jews!".
I recall awhile ago, a story here about an Ethiopian Christian who, in a Muslim-dominated district of his own country, Ethiopia, was dragged into a mosque and there beaten to death, as punishment for being a Christian evangelist.
I recall also a report of a Hindu passer-by in Bangladesh who was seized by a crowd emerging from a mosque, and beaten to death.
Yes, NYPD, watch those mosques. Watch who goes in, and let them know you'll be watching their every move after they come out.
I cannot recall ever seeing a police buildup for Lent...
By all means, station a cop at every mosque in the greater NYC area. Then, maybe incidents like this one wouldn't happen.
Good lord!
When I saw the headline I was going to offer the police department's explanation as a joke.
They're really doing it!
Please, somebody tell me that this is a cynical lie for PR purposes. Please.
We are so boned.
It's attitudes like yours that's allowed the GOP to take Conservatives for granted the last 8 years - "What are those holy rollers going to do? Vote Dem?" In 2006, while vermin such as Lincoln Chafee, George Voinovich, Mike DeWine, et al were rooted out, it also had the side effect of punishing the House GOP. Voters who care about this issue should vote GOP in the House (except for the Darryl Issas of this world) and for Conservatives in the Senate (but not for traitors like Specter and Snowe). But for the president, avoid McCain or Obama, and vote for the Loyalist candidate. Don't set yourself up to be treated like a standby date.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at September 2, 2008 11:34 PM
IP,
Your overall advice is so illogical here, one can only wonder if you have been drinking, or worse.
Vote for the non-existent loyalist and stand for Obama's inauguration?
A major rethink is in order in my humble estimation.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at September 2, 2008 6:48 PM
That is a terrible, and actually the only terrible example from the NT to try to equivocate Jesus and Muhammad based on their collective actions.
Sad, Abby, that is all. Jesus was a true prophet that willfully laid his life down at the behest of his Father, not a desert warlord who raped and pillaged and created an entire faith favoring himself at the expense of all other dupes who were unfortunate enough to follow him willingly or unwillingly.
Christ and Muhammad are diametric opposites, regardless of Muhammad's futile attempt to re-write true religion otherwise.
Christ was the Savior, whreras Muhammad was a mere murdering raider in the deserts of Arabia, one who found it necessary to have more wives than even "Allah" sanctioned in the holy uncorrupted book.
Such are the perks of being Allah's prophet, I am sure.
I pity you.
dumbledoresarmy, I thought you were fresh?
Surah At Taubah, this same old drivel again, this same old worn out mantra?
You misunderstand the surrah entirely and the occasion surrounding it. The Idolaters broke the treaty of Hudeybiyah by committing mass murder of an encampment of unarmed Muslims and it resulted in this surrah being revealed about them.
This surrah dealt with a timed specific event, an order that the treaty with the treacherous Idolaters was canceled, a courteous four month warning for them to make peace or clear out, and finally a sweep and clear order for enemy forces that remained in the city after that.
It does not stand for all time. It served a purpose in a time specific event.
After the clearing out of enemy forces there was a just peace established for those that desired to remain and pay taxes rather than serve in the army or city administration and pay other fees that the Muslims had to.
And on this subject, Mathew 10: 28 – 34, I’d rather look at it exactly, then let others think about how you described it.
28And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
29Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
30But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.
32Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Yes, I can admit my quote was out of context similar to quotes you make, so I can let you take a point on this one. Fair enough, thanks for explaining it. But #34 is an unexplained item by you. Care to address it in specific?
After all, we Muslims believe, Jesus will not kill an enemy until he returns to finish his ministry, and the only one I have learned that he will kill is the Anti Christ, and his followers.
And the melodrama about people changing faith, it is a two way street…ignorant people behaving ignorantly. There is no compulsion.
And your focus on non aggression is only harmonizing with the Q’uran, as every verse that dictates self defense does so with the warning not to be aggressors, something many groups are not taking to heart today, and the news is oh so eager to characterize it and spread the word.
Weak close there as your wrap up that has about zero value in respect to what we are discussing.
We are not discussing actions on the field of people in the later days who have abandoned the order of God, because we in the US also have our horror stories as well…jellied gasoline bombs on civilian targets in Japan, or are you not old enough to remember that?
What's next between we two? Is this where you begin insulting?
awake,
You don't have to get so melodramatic about it, and it wasn't an equivalence argument I was making. It was a point of order that warranted an explanation.
The verses of the Bible are far more violent than the Quran, but what does that teach anyone?
Nothing.
You can count the words and learn something interesting: The Bible mentions war half as much but killing twice as much, and it mentions sword/spear/knife 467 times...the Quran only mentions spear 0 times, sword 1 time, and knife 1 time.
The Bible mentions more love and mercy, yet only half the forgiveness the Quran does.
And they are dead even on one thing: Fear
Well, almost, the Bible mentions fear 285 times the Quran 296...close but no prize...but what does it all mean out of context like that?
It is the context of the revelation that most of you miss, and that is why you are confused...no small wonder, much of the people engaged in aggression and violence have obviously ignored much of the Quran in preference for power or revenge...shameful trade to me that one.
Pity? No, all I need from you is your vote.
If we don't get McCain in the White House then we may have bigger problems to solve than you misunderstanding the Quran and Islam.
awake
Thank you, but at this moment, just the coffee ;-) However, the point of my above post was to send the GOP a message that we can't be taken for granted just by the fear of an Obama presidency. As PMK pointed out above, what's the difference between McCain and Obama on the ROP? And I'd add - Gitmo? Trying enemy combatants as POWs? Not drilling in ANWR?
You seem to have been agreeing on all these, so the next question is - what to do about it? Vote straight ticket GOP? How does that help? Wellington thinks that one should just balance out the possibilities (not even probabilities) and vote for the odds, despite all evidence to the contrary, and vote on a single criteria - judicial appointments, regardless of whether McCain can execute on that. Those who do that should not complain when McCain starts cutting deals with Kennedy, Leahy, Dodd, Dingell, et al - if he was happy doing it as a Senator, why stop now? After all, the last 8 years, we've been pulling our hair out on the compromises Bush had to make on a variety of issues, compromises necessiated by the activities of McCain, and somehow, McCain is expected to be better? Or do we simply vote for him on the lame pretext that Obama is worse?
Now, once one agrees that the GOP should not be blindly supported, but only those candidates who openly oppose Islam or Shariah or Jihad - even asymptotically - should be supported, question is - what to do with the vote? That's what I was outlining above. For Congressional (both House & Senate) races, see which one (R) or (D) has the cleaner record on this issue, and vote accordingly. If you just vote (R), you end up voting for Baath supporters like Darryl Issa and Dearborn Republicans in bed with Hizbullah. If you vote according to the individual profiles, you get better results. Here too, if neither (R) or (D) is satisfactory, abstain, or vote an alternative - even Loyalist, if he happens to be on the ballot.
The only case where I was recommending a support to the non-existant (actually minimal existant) Loyalists was in the McCain vs Obama race for the reasons articulated above. If there is a Loyalist candidate on the Presidential ballot, he just needs to be listed in every state for people like us to get the chance to vote for him - right now, they don't need a major national infrastructure. Yeah, while it gives the White House to Obama, it also forces at least one party, if not both, to pay attention to the problem of Islam. The difference between voting Loyalist, vs abstaining is huge - the media, and the parties, are free to put down abstentions to any factor - Gustav, Abortion, Immigration, Social Security, Medicare, Oil prices, you name it. But when they see Loyalists getting all the votes of a whole chunk of people, and they look into that, they'll see that there's a whole lot of people simply pissed about Islam.
And then let them do what they deem fit.
awake
Also, when you have someone like Abdullah rooting for McCain, doesn't that make you pause and wonder whether McCain's worth having in the WH?
Abdullah,
I notice that you haven't yet addressed what I wondered about; that is, Muhammad's caravan raiding.
I found this:
Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 402:
"Narrated Jabir:
The Prophet sent us as an army unit of three hundred warriors under the command of Abu 'Ubaida to ambush a caravan of the Quraish."
Notice the word "ambush". Now, I must admit, in the 10 minutes or so I looked on the net, I didn't find any historical references to Muhammad personally raiding a caravan, but The Godfather isn't innocent, just because he didn't pull the actual trigger.
I would totally respect it if you were just to come out and say "Hell yeah, Muhammad was a thief, and a damn good one. Anything that benefits Muslims is good, so theft, murder, rape, extortion, torture and slavery is just peachy, as long as it helps Muslims".
I would think you were a dangerous sociopath, and wouldn't want to meet you in a dark alley, or anyplace else for that matter, but I would respect your honesty.
Because it seems to me that the evidence is pretty clear about this and yet you seem to discount, ignore, obfuscate and do anything in your power to avoid the obvious conclusion.
Speaking of which, what Jesus did or didn't do or say is completely irrelevant to Muhammad and his character.
If you were trial for a murder, you wouldn't suddenly be innocent, just because you pointed out that Hitler killed way more than you. Even if Jesus were insanely violent, that wouldn't have anything to do with character of Muhammad.
Mo Foe
Like Mohammed, Hitler too didn't personally kill anyone - he just had the SS, the SA, the Luftwaffe et al do it for him.
Abdullah Mikail
Hitler was so innocent and misunderstood. Wouldn't you agree?
Infidel Pride,
Thanks for spelling my name right. Everyone seems to make it "Moe".
I forgot to include this in my last post:
Also from Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 67, Number 403:
"Narrated Ibn Abi Aufa:
We participated with the Prophet in six or seven Ghazawat, and we used to eat locusts with him."
And I believe the word "Ghazawat" means caravan-raiding, so I guess I did find a reference to Muhammad personally caravan-raiding.
A. M.
You do. not. understand. the. Bible.
I have read the entire Bible, more than once, with attention. I had read it all by the time I turned fifteen.
And I say that when I read the Qur'an I found it to be NOTHING like the Bible. The Qur'an gave me the cold creeps. It was ugly. It was boring. It was a scrambled mess. It was hateful. It was drenched with aggression and contempt. There was not one note of joyful song from one end of it to the other. Its god is a malicious trickster, a capricious and cruel Oriental despot. And such Bible stories as it retold were twisted out of all recognition, their meaning gone altogether or, worse, perverted, twisted and dirtied; like a beautiful woman raped and stripped and left lying in the gutter. The more I have learned about it, the more repelled I am by it.
And when I found out the 'context' claimed for the various verses I was *more* appalled, not less.
There is NOTHING in the Qur'an to equal Psalm 23, nor the Lord's Prayer, nor the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 -7; and for more of Jesus' teaching see Luke 6).
There is nothing in the Qur'an to match 1 Corinthians 13, St Paul's great prose poem on Love, Holy Charity; nor is there anything to match 1 John 3-5.
Oh, and by the way, a Danish researcher, Tina Magaard, with a PhD in Textual Analysis and Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne in Paris, spent three years on a research project comparing the original texts of ten religions, including Christianity and Islam.
(BTW - I'm married to a statistician and I can see that you can't base much of an argument on saying that one book, Qur'an, which is much shorter than another, the Bible, has fewer examples of this or that word in it, than there are in the Bible. Of course it might, being a shorter book and having fewer total words. Strictly speaking one would have to compare the number of words like 'sword' or 'kill' in the Bible, with the number of words like 'sword' or 'kill' in the Qur'an AND Sira AND Hadith combined).
Furthermore, the simple number of times words like 'sword' are mentioned, doesn't necessarily decide the issue. What matters is who is using the sword on whom, under what circumstances.
Book A might mention 'killing' ten times - but every time, the peaceful people of the religion of Book A are being attacked and killed by their neighbours. Book B might mention 'killing' 3 times: but if each time it involves telling people of the religion in Book B to go out and attack and kill people, then the religion of book B would have to be understood as more violent than the religion of Book A, even though book B mentions 'killing' fewer times.
Now for Tina Magaard's observations on Islamic texts:
“The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree.
"There are also straightforward calls for terror."
Now, back to Matthew 10: 34. The Matthew Henry commentary is a classic Protestant Christian commentary on the Bible.
Matthew Henry reads verses 19-42 as a description of the suffering that the world will inflict on Jesus' followers. The passage is NOT about violence they will do to others - we are NOT talking about a military campaign by the Christians! - but about violence that will be done to THEM, by others.
Matthew Henry offers 4 points - 'they must expect to be hated', 'they must expect to be apprehended and arraigned as malefactors', 'they must expect to be put to death' [doesn't sound much like going out to battle sword in hand!]; they must expect to be called evil names; and, finally, point 5, 'these sufferings' (i.e. the persecution, the attacks upon Jesus' unarmed followers), 'are here represented by a sword and division'.
The whole chapter is read as a solemn warning - "if you follow Jesus, some people will attack you and try to kill you".
Anyway: if you are really trying to argue that the Bible is more violent than the Qur'an, then all I can say is this: you do not know how to read and you certainly do not understand the Bible. This is a plain statement of observable fact.
I am not, repeat not, going to waste any more time arguing with you in this comments field or anywhere else.
Instead, for the remainder of this month (3-30 September 2008) I am going to pray for you, by name, morning and night, asking Jesus (Yeshua) the Jew of the House of David, Son of the Living God, to deliver you from the spiritual bondage of Islam. May He have mercy on you, and set you free from the Powers of death and darkness, falsehood and violence. May you choose the path that Magdi Cristiano Allam and Mohammed Hegazy and Daniel Shayesteh and many others have chosen, the pathway of life, and find the holy and loving God, YHWH - who is God of faith and of reason, and who loves you not for anything you have done or could do, but simply because He created you in His image.
"NYPD porks up security for Ramadan,"
Couldn't help myself! Perhaps they should "beef up" security around churches, synagogues, and other gathering places of "unbelievers" in the moon god.
"...the Quran only mentions spear 0 times, sword 1 time, and knife 1 time."
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail
perhaps this is so, but Islam manipulates words well...how many time does the Qur'an say things like slay them where you find them, cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, punish them with terrible agony, seize them and slay them , they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides, "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them", dismay the enemy , besiege them , punish them, destroy them, strive against them with the utmost strenuousness....and there are many more..
At this time in history the main weapons were the sword, the spear, and the bow and arrow...just what was used to do all the violence?....just because the Qur'an simply does not mention the weapon does not indicate the weapon was not used...
here are some quotes from the Qur'an regarding Islamic violence as justified by the Religion of Peace:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm
"Now, once one agrees that the GOP should not be blindly supported, but only those candidates who openly oppose Islam or Shariah or Jihad - even asymptotically - should be supported, question is - what to do with the vote?"
Posted by: Infidel Pride at September 3, 2008 12:25 AM
I do not blindly follow the GOP. I am, in fact, a registered independent. I simply see that the fallacies of the two-prty system currently, that there is one choice that is far superior than the other.
"Also, when you have someone like Abdullah rooting for McCain, doesn't that make you pause and wonder whether McCain's worth having in the WH?"
Posted by: Infidel Pride at September 3, 2008 12:28 AM
I personally do not believe that Abby supports McCain. It was merely a statement without any reason behind it, like Abby trying to enlighten us that Christianity and the Christian texts are the root of the violence we see on a daily basis as seen by our lying eyes.
Mohammedans almost never admit to the violent inherent nature of Islam. They will defend Islam's peaceful facade, even to the point of killing in order to do so.
If McCain becomes President, the worse that could occur....
Posted by: Wellington at September 2, 2008 8:49 PM
If McCain becomes President, he will grant amnesty to the illegal immigrants. That alone will destroy this nation:
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/resources/video/recommended/immigration-numbers.html
Good Luck, America.
PMK,
John McCain is not the "conservatives'" choice. I cannot brag about him. Frankly, I have disliked him for his many attacks on conservatives. But I was in the military and understand his "military" personality.
The last President I really liked was RR. Since then, I have had to pick the lesser of two evils. That is really the only choice we are ever likely to get anymore. But if you want your voice to be heard by anyone, that is what you have to do. There are all types of shades of grey from liberal to conservative. This goes for both judges and politicians. A perfect liberal world would be hell on earth. Something like Cuba. A perfect conservative world does not exist anywhere. So we have to play the best cards we have. We should not "take or ball and go home", and refuse to play the game.
The encroachment by Islam will run its course and we will either win or lose the fight. But fight we must. The alternative is unthinkable.
This may be a little off topic, but does anyone know why they bury politicians and lawyers 20 feet deep?
A: Because deep down they are good people.
34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Jesus, being God Incarnate, saw this day.
He knew how many would reject Him, how many wars would follow.
Moslems like to tell us how they reverence Jesus, but when speaking of Jesus they only show hatred. The "Issa" they speak of is not the Jesus of the Bible. (See the Undercover Mosque videos)
Moslems are deceived, the "angel" who gave the terrifying "revelations" to Muhammad was anything but a messenger from God, maybe a fallen angel.
2 Corinthians 11:14 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
I have NO DOUBT who gave Muhammad the quran.
I know this thread has gone completely off topic, and it's largely my fault, but I wanted to continue the conversation Abdullah and I were having from another thread.
Interestingly, since he hasn't responded directly to me since I provided the incident he asked for... that makes me wonder if I haven't actually found a sensitive spot.
Anyway, if a Muslim is presented with evidence that Muhammad did things that seem pretty bad to most civilized people, he has these few options (imho):
-He can attack the accounts themselves; deny them outright, claim they are taken out of context, misinterpreted or simple Western minds just can't understand them correctly.
-He can keep the Perfect Model of Conduct idea, and say that what Muhammad did was right, because it helped the Muslims, and Western notions of right and wrong are infidel inventions that have no bearing.
-He can scrap the Perfect Model of Conduct idea, and say that Muhammad was human, had faults, and was a product of his time. (This would lead to a rejection of Qu'ranic literalism, since I'm pretty sure the idea that Muhammad was perfect comes from the Qu'ran.
-Or, finally, he can give up Islam.
So far, in my few exchanges with Muslims here, they choose the first one, usually saying they were misinterpreted or the creation of hostile islamophobes.
Moe Foe,
I do my own research in my library at home. I am not finished with what I started late last night, sorry for the delay.
If you want to do something right, you have to do it yourself. I am sure I could run and find an obscure bunch of things on the internet...but what would the quality be? Not sure.
I will follow up with you on the caravan raiding.
Peace
Wellington, et al,
I've been reading with interest the comments on the matter of filling judicial positions during the next administration. I agree that this is an important issue, but there are other issues as well, in which there is likewise good reason to reject Obama and vote for McCain, since no third-party candidate has any hope.
I recently looked at a composite scoring of the voting records of the senators, compiled from the scorings of several left-wing groups, including the ADA, NEA, NARAL, NAACP, ACLU, and others. Obama was one of three senators tying for the highest score of 98; the others were Durbin and Harkin; Hillary scored 95, Biden 93, and Kerry 90. McCain rated only 17.
An Obama presidency, combined with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress would mean: "reparations" to American blacks; statehood for D.C. -- meaning two more far-left Senators in near-perpetuity, and much greater difficulty in electing a conservative Senate; a socialized-medicine scheme that would be the con-man's paradise (it's estimated that nearly 1/3 of Medicaid expenditures are fraudulent); and an energy policy consisting of putting even more areas off-limits to exploitation, and levying heavier taxes on the oil companies. This is just a short list.
So, yes, McCain isn't much. But he's better than the alternative. It's 2000 and 2004 all over again; Bush wasn't much either, but he was better than Algore or (anti-)war hero Kerry.
To paraphrase the old advice to one's children: "Remember, dears, always hold tight to McCain; for fear of finding someone truly insane."
It isn't perfection that I, and I believe others like PMK are hankering for. We at least want somebody who agrees with us on the basic issues, and that ain't McCain. In fact, McCain as as close to a perfect Liberal that one could expect from the GOP, not counting the unlamented Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafees. Everything that could be a shot in the arm for us, he opposes - drilling in ANWR, Gitmo, recognizing enemy combatants as POWs. These things are basic - it's not so much the recognition of the evil of Islam, but if he is wrong on such things, how can we expect any headway in the 'WWOT'?
I know that there are shades of grey - between white and black. I'm willing to accept someone upto 40, maybe even 50% on the white side. But if someone is 60% black, how is it an argument that one should support him just because the other is 90%?
ebonystone
Those ratings by Liberal organizations don't mean much - they run on feelings and emotions rather than actual performances. On the Conservative side of such ratings, McCain has been shown to score pretty high over his entire period in the Senate. However, when one looks at his voting records more closely, one sees a very Conservative McCain until 1996, when after the defeat of Phil Gramm, he switched support to Bob Dole, and that was also when his pandering to Liberals started.
Bottom line - if you are willing to be treated like a doormat, you have no business complaining when those in DC walk all over you.
"Torah-maddened Orthodox Jew stormed into a Moslem center and shot several believers, etc. I couldn't think of any."
I guess you forgot about Goldstein?
posted by: Abdullah Mikail
Yes, I had forgotten; I stand corrected.
But it's interesting you had to reach back 14 years for your example. Since then Moslems have been committing similar massacres of non-Moslems on almost a weekly basis. Also one might note that following the Goldstein shootings, Moslems rioted and killed even more people than Goldstein. I don't recall any similar Christian riots following the Beltway-snipers' arrests.
Elsewhere you ask who said "I come with a sword"?
Well, Jesus said it, but He never used it on anyone; indeed He told Peter to put down his sword. Instead, Jesus used His "sword" to cut through the ties that bound the word of God so closely to the Hebrews, to proclaim that the word of God was for all nations.
dumbledoresarmy,
I guess you are not very good at picking up on the subtleties of the English language? I told you it was just a word count observation, nothing more. Your tear was a waste of your time, as all you did was agree with me. It is the context.
By the way, you will find equal measure of good and evil in the Quran, being that there is always a balance in mentioning heaven or hell, fighting or peace, etc. these are all mentioned equally, so your statements lack validity. It is not all one way or the other, if you only knew.
There is only one Quran, unchanged since it was standardized with accent marks and written down during the Caliphate of Uthman, approximately twenty years, or so, after the death of the Prophet, when the companions heard the Quran being mis-pronounced outside of their area, they called for all Quran’s to be returned. They punctuated them so that the pronunciation would be correct and destroyed the other copies. There is one of these original Q’uran in Istanbul as I type, one of the original 1,400 year old manuscripts of the Quran…it matches the one I hold today. So we have the origninal uneditted, un changed Quran in hand. I'll trust in it.
There are so many miracles surrounding this Quran that it would make you sick for me to post them all. Your wife is a statistician? Great. Have her look up these and then tell us what she thinks:
http://www.kalemat.anwaar.net/eng/sgn/dt/sgn-02.htm
http://www.submission.info/quran/miracle/
And in respect to your comments on the solemn warning,
Bukhari Hadith, Book 1 Hadith #3:
“…Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" Allah's Apostle described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, "This is the same one who keeps the secrets (angel Gabriel) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out."
Allah's Apostle asked, "Will they drive me out?"
Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, "Anyone (man) who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly..."
END of Excerpt
Jesus was informing his disciples this very same thing in the verse you mentioned…people will not like to hear true faith preached and they will attack you and turn you out. Many people have perished because of the rejection of their Prophets.
I’ll pray for you to be guided as well.
It is a much better pact than throwing stones or invective! : )
Peace
I know that there are shades of grey - between white and black. I'm willing to accept someone upto 40, maybe even 50% on the white side. But if someone is 60% black, how is it an argument that one should support him just because the other is 90%?
Infidel Pride
You are right. McCain is more liberal than conservative. The only case I have seen for voting for Obama, who is 100% liberal to the core, is that he would do such a bad job, that liberals would be discredited for a long time to come. But my biggest fear of this would be that he would legalize hugh numbers of illiterate immigrants who would be reliable liberal votes on into the future. This way he could water down the conservative vote more than it is now. So I don't think this is a viable option.
Also,the war with Islam. While McCain is not tuned in to Islam, he at least realizes the value of fighting. I don't believe that McCain would want to be Ahmadinejad's friend any time soon. While Obama, I believe, would handle foreign policy much like Israel's current discredited leader. Both are attornies, and both very liberal.
Any way we look at it, we will have to hold our nose if we vote this time.
"Those ratings by Liberal organizations don't mean much - they run on feelings and emotions rather than actual performances."
Posted by: Infidel Pride
The ratings I cited were claimed to be based on the senators' voting records, not on "feelings".
"There are so many miracles surrounding this Quran that it would make you sick for me to post them all."
Miracles? Post but ONE miracle! Yeah, I'm sick of your lies.
Since the Muslims and their apologists are making such a lot of noise about Ramadan, it might be worth while to compare it with the nature and meaning of the fasts observed by practising members of other religions.
First, here is Isaiah the great Hebrew prophet in the TaNaKh, the Hebrew Scriptures, telling people that going without food and sitting in sackcloth and ashes and making yourself miserable is meaningless unless it is accompanied by acts of justice and compassion. YHWH, the 'LORD' is not interested in religious melodrama, but in how people treat each other.
"Wherefore have we fasted, say they, and thou seest not? Wherefore have we afflicted our soul, and thou takest no knowledge?'
"Behold, in the day of your fast ye find pleasure, and exact all your labours.
Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness; ye shall not fast as ye do this day, to make your voice to be heard on high.
"Is it such a fast that I have chosen, a day for a man to afflict his soul? Is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the LORD?
"Is not this the fast that I have chosen? - to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?
"Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out, to thy house? When thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?"
"Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily; and thy righteousness shall go before thee: the glory of the LORD shall be thy reward."
Isaiah 58: 3-8.
Second, here is Yeshua of Nazareth, teaching about fasting, in Matthew 7: 16-18:
"Moreover, when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites [i.e. the 'show-offs', the 'play-actors'] of a sad countenance; for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward
But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in heaven; and thy Father, which is in heaven, shall reward thee openly".
Practising Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox Christians observe a forty-day fast before Easter, and a lesser fast during Advent (the four weeks before Christmas).
For modern Catholics and Anglicans this generally means identifying something - be it some type of food, or coffee, or whatever else has a strong hold on your life - for example, the TV or the computer...or the motorcar! - and then doing without that altogether for the full forty days of Lent or 28 days of Advent, in order to break any potential addiction, while freeing up physical resources and time and 'head space' for acts of charity and devotion. Someone who normally spends their coffee break scoffing coffee and donuts at a cafe, might choose not to do so, while giving to charity the money thus saved.
Last Lent, I went on a 'fast' from...jihadwatch! I had decided I needed 'time out'. Years ago, during Lent, I went on a 'radio fast' - turned off the radio. Silence in the background, 24 hours a day, for forty days. You don't realize what power such things have over your life, till you try to step away from them for a significant period of time.
Needless to say, no-one is forced to do this - it is entirely up to individuals and families to take part, and to ask God to guide us as to what we would be wise to give up for the duration, and how we might fulfil Isaiah's teaching about the kind of fast that pleases God. All subject to Jesus' strong teaching, in Matthew 7, that we must NOT make a 'show' of our religious practice, be it alms-giving, prayer or fasting.
The Orthodox have traditionally observed quite strict fasts. Timothy Ware in 'Orthodoxy' argues that fasting is viewed as a discipline for the body: "The Orthodox Church, regarding the human person as a unity of soul and body, has always insisted that the body must be trained and disciplined, as well as the soul. 'Fasting and self-control are the first virtue, the mother, root, source, and foundation of all good' [from the Philokalia].
He goes on to explain: "the rules of fasting in the Orthodox Church are of a rigour which will astonish and appall many Western Christians. On most days in Great Lent and Holy Week, for example, not only is meat forbidden, but all fish and animal products (lard, eggs, butter, milk, cheese) together with wine and oil." {And note: unlike the Muslim Ramadan, where people abstain by day but then make up for it at night, the Orthodox Lent involves giving up certain prized foods altogether, for a full forty days, day AND night - dda}.
"In practice, however, many Orthodox - particularly in the western world - find that under the conditions of modern life, it is no longer practicable to follow exactly the traditional rules...and so certain dispensations are granted. Yet even so Great Lent - especially the first week, and Holy Week itself - is still, for devout Orthodox, a period of genuine austerity and serious physical hardship."
I remember reading somewhere that the giving up of the more costly foods, such as meat and eggs, for such a long period, over a month, is meant to release resources for charitable giving.
Perhaps Mr Spencer, as an Eastern Catholic, could tell us more about what fasting means in that tradition - why people fast and what they refrain from, and the spiritual disciplines that are encouraged.
Jewish posters here might like to tell us about the fasts observed within Judaism; what is abstained from, and why, and for how long, and the mental and spiritual attitude that is encouraged.
champ - are you familiar with M Scott Peck's 'People of the Lie'? If you are - reread chapter 5. If you're not - get hold of a copy, and read chapter 5. Also read chapter 2 - and note every place where he mentions 'confusion'.
Champ,
Here’s just one for you:
The Earth is rounded, but not just rounded, thicker in the middle:
Surah Az-Zumar, 39:5
He created the heavens and the earth in true (proportions): He makes the Night overlap the Day and the Day overlap the Night: He has subjected the sun and the moon (to His law) each one follows a course for a time appointed. Is not He the Exalted in Power He Who forgives again and again?
END OF EXCERPT
The light and darkness cannot enfold one another on other than a rounded shape.
And more smoothly explained by:
Harun Yahah, Author
THE EARTH'S GEOID SHAPE
After that He smoothed out the Earth. (Qur'an, 79:30)
In the above verse, the word "dahaa" is used in the original Arabic. It, translated as "smoothed out," comes from the word "dahaw," meaning "to spread." Although the word "dahaw" also means to cover or to set out, the meaning of the verb is more than just a prosaic setting out, since it describes setting out in a circle.
The concept of roundness is also present in other words derived from "dahaw." For example, the word "dahaw" also refers to children dropping a ball into a hole in the ground, games involving throwing stones into holes and games played with walnuts. Words derived from that root are also used for an ostrich making a nest, cleaning stones from where it is about to lie down, the place where it lays its eggs and the egg itself.
Indeed, the Earth is round, in a manner reminiscent of an egg. The slightly flattened spherical shape of the Earth is known as geoid. From that point of view, the use of the word "dahaa" contains important information about the shape that Allah has given to the Earth.
For hundreds of years, people imagined the Earth to be completely flat and only learned the truth thanks to technology. Yet, this fact was revealed in the Qur'an fourteen centuries ago.
END OF EXCERPT
This is a simple one, just for you. Wow! What do you know, it is scientifically accurate.
Peace
Mo Foe,
Sorry about the misspellings (shrug).
Something to keep in mind when you are reading hadiths, is that in them you find narrations of a story, a scene, a setting, people who were there…but the only “hadith” is the sayings of the Prophet. That is what hadith is = speeches. The best value is learning from his descriptions of how to do things according to Islam. And yes, the gad flies will chime in about orders to fight and such…but you know what? If some slope head criminal comes traipsing into my home he is getting carried out…anyone knows the right to self defense sometimes means a fight.
I am still researching the caravan raiding issue you brought up to determine the time frame it occurred in, and perhaps if there were more incidences such as this, and to see what I can learn about them, for your sake, and mine…I usually don’t research things like this as they don’t interest me, or have anything that can add to my success in life…mostly just a military journal of what went down somewhere long ago on a battle field.
I’ll follow up when I have something worth posting for you.
Thanks for your patience…don’t hack on me too hard while I’m away.
: )
Peace
Abdullah Mikail -
The Qur'an is not the first to talk about a Round Earth. The Prophet Isaiah (see below) spoke of a round earth long before Muhammad was ever born. Muhammad borrowed from other religions, so this "miracle", as you call it, did not originate with him or the Qur'an, not at all.
The Bible teaches that the Earth is ROUND. The Bible also teaches that the Earth is suspended in space. Here, check these passages out...
The Old Testament prophet ISAIAH (circa 700 B.C.) quotes as follows:
"It is he that sitteth upon the *CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the
heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." --Isaiah 40:22
*Circle = Hebrew "chuwg", meaning "sphere"
Muhammad The Borrower:
http://debate.org.uk/topics/coolcalm/borrow.html
Muhammad (blood be upon him) was a false prophet, and your decision to follow after him will cost you your soul. Don't say I didn't warn you.
Thanks, dumbledoresarmy. I will make a point of getting the book and reading it. Take care!
Abdullah Mikail,
Actually I went back to our discussion in the "Energizer" thread (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022372.php#comments), and in it you said,
"Mohammad was a human being and did have his faults, and these were forgiven."
So, it appears that you have rejected the idea that Muhammad was a perfect man or an excellent model of conduct and was, after all, human.
This would then also mean that you have rejected Qu'ranic literalism, because (and I'm copying and pasting Spencer here:
"Muhammad is called in the Qur'an "uswa hasana" -- an excellent model of conduct (33:21)....[And] it also says that Muhammad demonstrates “an exalted standard of character” (68:4), and that “he who obeys the Messenger [Muhammad], obeys Allah” (4:80)."
I am glad that seems to be the case, because Al Qaeda, Wahhabists, and jihadists of all stripes take a lot of the violent, anti-kuffar stuff literally.
How do we get them to stop?
Mo Foe,
Mohammad is the perfect example to follow in matters of relgion. Don't make sweeping statements...he was human, like you, like me.
In the battle of the trench Mohammad sought advice of an experienced soldier and agreed, the trench was dug and the battle was eventually won.
If he were as you say "perfect" then he would wave aside any suggestion. No, he was a consummate leader who listened to his people in matters other than religion.
Clear?
As far as getting a terrorist to stop attacking?
Usually a bullet does the trick...I haven't really figured out how to stop the active ones otherwise, but I am working on a solution.
And on your caravan question, I have a valid opinion, yet I need to sort out the evidence and support for it before I state it.
In this venue, much like FPM, if you step out you need to do it with guns loaded and the safetly off, in other words, I should prove my salt, or remain quiet, and I am not commenting in detail on something I can not prove.
Have a good day.
Champ,
You missed the point, it was not "round" Earth, it was Geoid, thicker in the middle.
And since you claim Mohammad “copied it”, then show us where Isaiah says the earth is not just rounded, but thicker in the middle. Can you?
Look up the force of gravity equation at the pole and remove the centripetal force from the equation, and tell us where is gravity greater, the equator or the pole? This is the evidence of greater mass at the equator becuase the Earth is thicker in the middle.
Wow, what do you know, the Quran describes the shape of the Earth down to the subtle shape that you can not even see from the Apollo 11 pictures of Earth. It is not “round”, it is thicker in the middle, but you can’t even see it…you have to measure it in other ways scientifically to note this.
Show me where Isaiah says THAT.
And next from the Quran,
Shall we discuss insemination of the ovum?
Or the stages of birth?
Or how about black holes and quasars?
Or deep ocean saline magnetic waves?
Or geophysics and the science of a mountain?
Or the formation of clouds and rain?
Or the speed of light?
Or the absence of light in the ocean depths deeper than a human can dive to and return alive to tell the tale.
Choose any one you like, we’ll discuss it, then show me where he copied it from, if what you say is true?
Truth
Abdullah,
The problem is that I didn't say Muhammad was perfect, but the Qu'ran is the place that says he's an excellent model of conduct. (Frankly, I'm not sure where the "perfect man" (al-insan al-kamil) comes from--the Hadith somewhere?
But Islamic sites say it repeatedly, as in:
"Another thing about his life is that it is most comprehensive and perfect and can serve as an ideal for men and women of all ages, working in all professions and trades. "
(From http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/muhammad/perfect_man.html)
That makes it difficult for us rational, human-rights oriented Westerners to reconcile an "excellent model of conduct" with a man who owned sex-slaves, had sex with a 9-year old, and (to our eyes) acted like a playground bully with a sword and an actual army (at least after he made it to Medina).
See? Do you get our difficulty here?
On the one (Muslim) hand, Muhammad is a great example that everyone should follow.
And on the other hand, he was a man who did things we find distasteful and even terrible today.
And as for the terrorists, I think you know I meant--how do we get them to stop believing that there should be constant war and enmity with the infidels, when it's there repeatedly, in clear black and white in the Islamic holy books?
All the terrorists/jihadists have to do is point out the passages and say "Look!"
Modern peaceful Muslims like yourself have to say, "Well, it's in a historical context, or it's not meant to be taken literally..."
Who has the more powerful argument?
Mo Foe,
As in “Bad to the Bone” Mo Foe…good conversation!
The key factor is war is not a requirement of faith, and even the surrah that deals with it is the only one that does not begin with “in the name of God, the Merciful, the Giver of continuous mercy.”
So, there is no “holy war”, a misnomer, period.
Otherwise, God would have issued that the war detailed and allowed was “in His name”…it is clearly not, it is only a burden of leadership if necessity requires it.
War is a fact of statehood, period.
We are engaged in one now. Does that make George W the most evil and vile human on the Earth right now?
No. He’s a leader who had to make a decision, however much I dislike it, disagree with it, it was his decision to make as leader of this nation and he made it.
In Mecca the Muslims were a minority whose people were sanctioned against, attacked, tortured, and murdered many times.
This minority emigrated to escape this difficulty and formed a state in Madina. That is when you see a change in the revelation from one of core faith to one of societal building, and this is by Design, from the Ultimate Planner. [How do you like those melodramatic capitalizations? : ) ]
So, keep this in mind when reading hadiths that deal with the Madina era. Statehood, national defense, a continuous state of war with enemies that attacked.
Madina Muslims did not arrive at the gates of Mecca attacking, they went there unarmed and in peace for Hajj and were assailed, and ended up signing a treaty, that was then violated by the Pagans…thus the state of War existed.
This is the era when caravans were ordered as a strategy of war to be attacked. I am still gathering the support for this opinion and will publish it to you when it is complete, God willing.
As for the “distasteful” things you mention, I mentioned before our modern leadership that engaged in the same thing only as a sample of “check yourself and your opinions, we are not to far removed from that cultural norm here in the US.”
And War is never a “tasteful” subject, and the ownership of slaves was a societal plague that is not either, but it was eventually eradicated in Islam for those who obey, but as you see, there are many today who still do not obey.
And as for “who has the more powerful argument” ask yourself. It is usually the man holding the gun.
The point I am making is, I feel there is no way to truly change the radical Muslim once he is radical.
The only way is to deal with him now in the terms which we are able to, and hope to raise the next generation behind him in a better way – the plan I was telling you about.
I am working very hard on that one, but it is a long term project and the fruit is not what people are used to today, the “instant gratification, I want my war time video in real time now, and I want Osama dead on prime time” not going to happen that way at all, in my humble, yet wordy, opinion.
I work closely as I am able establishing Islamic Schools here in America that will raise Islamic Scholars from our culture who have our cultural values in mind and heart when they learn.
When they graduate from our schools they will be ready to study at home or abroad and become the Scholars and leaders of the Islamic World of tomorrow…these are the hope.
If we in this country do not wake up and realize that we can not cure radicalism by occupation, yet only through education, we will continue to invest in this problem. Occupation will not end radicalization, it only contributes to it…one cannot put out a fire with gasoline, even in vast quantities…one must use dry chemical powder ( be smarter than the fire, in other words.)
Here’s to a brighter future of the world in the hands of American Scholars of Islam, because in most things we, the American people, lead the world, and it is only just and fitting that we should also lead the Islamic world by example.
Peace.
Abdullah,
I sincerely wish you well with your Islamic schools; and hope you can create Islamic scholars who value peace and pluralism, debate and democracy, and who don't want a state of enmity between Muslims and the rest of the world, and who don't want sharia law imposed on everyone.
Sincerely, good luck with that. I know you have a tough road ahead, considering that the Qu'ran says not to take non-believers as friends, states that Allah's law is the only right one, and that there are only 3 choices for the kuffar; conversion, submission or death.
Also, the distateful things I mentioned, and you claim we are not that far from, is sex-slavery. Muhammad had slaves, some of whom he had sex with. I call that rape, and that's distasteful.
As for his example of conduct in the world today, it is because of his exmaple that:
-Slavery is still rampant in the Muslim world (mainly Africa)--there are more slaves under Muslim masters TODAY than there were in the US at the start of the civil war!
-Men can have multiple wives
-It's legal in Iran to marry at nine.
-Jihadists everywhere want to make everyone Islamic, a dhimmi or dead.
This is what I see as the legacy of an "excellent model of conduct" who happened to be a raping, thieving warlord.
But, despite my harsh words just now, I do indeed wish you the best of luck with your American Scholars of Islam project, and really do hope that you aren't killed or bombed by other Muslims who think your project is heresy.
Mo Foe,
You wrote “…considering that {1} the Qu'ran says not to take non-believers as friends, {2} states that Allah's law is the only right one, and {3} that there are only 3 choices for the kuffar; conversion, submission or death.”
[{} brackets are my edit]
Well considering you are only wrong on two, that’s not bad.
{1} You are wrong. It says don’t take those of other faiths as influencers in your affairs (religious), protectors, people who cause you to make decisions based upon them, and not what is best for you (Muslims)…in other words, no one but a Muslim will advise you what is best for you in matters of faith…all others will only advise you what is best for THEM. Think about it.
{2} Is true, in the end of all things, when all is said and done, and the graves empty, and we are judged, this is what will be the only important thing to men, the law and judgment of God.
{3} Wrong. The Quran says, paraphrased, “Thou wouldst only, perchance, fret thyself to death, following after them, in grief, if they believe not in this Message.” [ Mohammad, stop worrying about them not believing…it is not your concern], “it is not up to you” [how they, disbelievers, respond to the message] , and “leave them to me” [in respect to those who reject],
Mo Foe you wrote, “-Slavery is still rampant in the Muslim world (mainly Africa)--there are more slaves under Muslim masters TODAY than there were in the US at the start of the civil war!”
Prove your source and show me stats. I am interested in this as to whether it is factual or glittering generality. I could just as easily say with the American porn industry there are humdreds of thousands of female "sex slaves"...can you deny that glittering generality?
Mo Foe, you wrote, “-Men can have multiple wives”
Yes, in Islam it is allowed under conditions that are restrictive, and the strongest advice and a stern warning in the Quran is to marry just one…if you could only read the meaning of the Quran and not focus on one verse.
By the way, on the "nine Iranian wives thing"
Prove your source on this one, if you don’t mind. The Quran expressly forbids this, and it is supported by hadiths as well.
Mo Foe you wrote “-Jihadists everywhere want to make everyone Islamic, a dhimmi or dead.”
I say this is propaganda intoxication.
Most of them don’t give a rat's ass about you or me for that matter…just the people that are in their face at the moment…if no one was in their face, you and I would never hear about them.
Moe Foe you wrote, “But, despite my harsh words just now,”
You only speak them in ignorance, and I don’t say that to be harsh…it’s just a fact.
And as far as other human beings, Muslim or other, I am not afraid of any one or for that matter anything.
I know that wisdom is the better part of valor, and I am wise enough not to walk into a place that I can’t walk out of.
Hope you have a good weekend.
Abdullah,
I'm really starting to wonder if you know the Qu'ran at all because you claim that I'm wrong about it saying not to take non-believers as friends.
Here's just a small sample I found in a quick search at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchquran.html (All I did was type "friends" into the search engine. I didn't even include them all.
Are you going to tell me that these don't actually say what they plainly say?
--------------------
003.028
YUSUFALI: Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
003.118
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom.
004.089
YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
004.139
YUSUFALI: Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with Allah.
004.144
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?
005.051
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
Abdullah,
Note 2--When I wrote "Allah's law", I meant sharia; which to me is a barbaric, inhuman code of the desert which has no place in civilized society.
Note 3--conversion, submission or death. Again, look what I found in the Qu'ran:
009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
That's pretty close to what I said is in there.
Re: Modern Slavery (excerpts from http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_today/index.html):
"Chattel slavery is typically racially-based; in the North African country of Mauritania, for example, black Africans serve the lighter-skinned Arab-Berber communities. Though slavery was legally abolished there in 1980, today 90,000 slaves continue to serve the Muslim Berber ruling class. Similarly, in the African country of Sudan, Arab northerners are known to raid the villages in the South — killing all the men and taking the women and children to be auctioned off and sold into slavery."
Sudan - Over 100,000 remain in bondage today, serving as domestics and concubines.
United Arab Emirates - Approximately 19,000 young boys have been trafficked into the UAE as slaves, arriving from Southeast Asia when they are between two and five years old."
Abdullah,
Finally, I said that "-It's legal in Iran to marry at nine." That is, I meant one can marry when one is nine years old--not have nine wives.
Source:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2872/is_1_27/ai_71563378
"The Iranian Council of Guardians has ruled that girls as young as 9 can be married with parental permission, quashing an attempt by the country's reformist Parliament to raise the minimum age to 15 for girls and 18 for boys.
The council, the oversight body that rules whether legislation complies with Muslim law, said the measure passed by Parliament late last month was contrary to Islamic law. Marriage has been promoted by Iranian authorities to prevent 'social corruption.'"
As to my "harsh words", I believe they come from knowledge, not ignorance
"raping" - Muhammad own sex-slaves (4:24, 33:27, 33:50, 66:1-5) and had sex with a 9-year old, which is statutory rape by our laws.
"thieving" - He had caravans raided, and there are verses in the Qu'ran about booty (goods taken from someone else). (8:41 & 48:20, for example)
"warlord" - He led armies into war, and expanded his territory thru the sword and "terror" (3:151, 8:12, 8:60)
Mo Foe,
You are pulling verse out of context.
People who don't read the Quran for understanding, but pick it up for the purpose of taking issue with two or three sentences can always find something they misunderstand to get upset about.
It would take too much of my time to explain the context to you and straighten out your misconceptions on those verses you quoted out of context, and I truly feel it won't benefit you any way.
You have your mind made up, just as the radical Muslim has his mind made up...on both sides of that coin...you on one side, and him on the other...you both only want to believe your self, regardless of the fallacy in your conclusions.
Have a good weekend, I gotta go.
Abdullah,
Here's the issue for me; I said the Qu'ran says "don't take unbelievers for friends."
You said I'm wrong.
Then, I show where, over and over and over, the Quran literally says "Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers".
And, as I predicted, you go on to say that there is a context that would take too long to explain how I mistakenly thought that "Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers" REALLY MEANT "Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers".
Just like the jihadists, who has the stronger argument here?
-Any idiot who can read can see that the Qu'ran says not to take unbelivers for friends. It doesn't take a PhD to read simple words.
-but, according to you, it takes a subtly comprehending intellect to understand the context and know what "Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers" REALLY means.
So, in the end, you are right about one thing: your explanation of the complex and mysterious context that changes simple words into sublime truth won't benefit me, because I'm just an idiot who happens to think "Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers" REALLY MEANS "Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers".
So, save your time.
Now I know why there are so many jihadists, because there are a lot of Muslims who can understand simple words, and not enough with the incredible wisdom it takes to understand the hidden truth BEHIND and APART from the actual words.
I get it now!
Mo Foe,
No, you still "don't get it."
I'll make one more effort to clarify it for you, and hopefully you'll understand, and can make your own choice as to what you want to believe. The problem is in the translation.
Sorry to leave you hanging last night, I had an event to go to…and some to take care of. IN my response I note {MY COMMENTS}.
The word Khalil = friend.
The word 'Awliya' singular 'wali' comes from the root word of 'wilaya'. This is the word used in teh Quran in these verses, and the last one is plain in stating "protectors".
'Wilaya' is the opposite of enemity (adawaa). The Wali is therefore the “one who is close”, “the representative”, “one who serves your interests”, it can also be translated as “friend”…it often happens in translations that when they choose they limit meaning.
It means in this context “a protector”, “one whom you follow”, “one whom you obey”, “one who serves your interests”, "one who represents you".
Those who believe take Allah as their Wali as mentioned in the Quran in
Surah Baqara 2 : 257
"Allah is the protector of those who have Faith: from the depths of darkness he will lead them forth into light. "
Those who disbelieve take Satan as their Awliya
2:257".. Of those who reject Faith the patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead into the depths of darkness."
This is the meaning of the warning, do not take them as “a protector”, “one whom you follow”, “one whom you obey”, “one who serves your interests”, "one who represents you".
You posted:
004.089
YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends {AWLIYAH} from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
004.139
YUSUFALI: Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers {AL KAFIRIN AWLIYAH} rather than believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with Allah.
004.144
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers {AL KAFIRIN AWLIYAH} rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves?
005.051
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
The verse is cautioning not to take as “one who is close”, “a protector”, or “one whom you follow”, or “one whom you obey”, or “one who serves your interests” from among other than your own faith.
That's the best I can do in trying to help you understand the meaning in context...the whole book is interrelated in meaning, and much of it goes beyond much of us, as you noted.
And on this verse:
Surah AL Tawbah 9:29
The verse to which you refer has nothing to do with the world outside of 7th century Mecca and the response to a violation of the Treaty of Hudabiyya.
It was Quranic legislation that the Pagan Idolaters had proven beyond doubt through mass murdering a group of unarmed muslims during the time of treaty that they, the Pagan Quraysh were never to be trusted.
They were given consideration of a four month moratorium in which to evacuate, surrender and make peace, or after that period those who refused to surrender, or leave, yet insisted on remaining and fighting would have to fight.
You misunderstand the context of this verse. It was a fixed order in time “four months” and then the action took place. The Pagans were treasonous and had to be dealt with and subjugated, and they were.
It does not stand for all time and it does not cover the whole world. It is not a pontifical statement. It was a justified response to treachery and the violation of a peace treaty.
That's my two cents.
I hope you have a great weekend, and I wouldn't mind being your friend at all, only I am not going to ask you how I should pray, how I should fast, what I should eat, what I should invest in...we'd be friends, but neither of us would take the other as "awliyah"...do you understand now?
Peace
Abdullah,
If as you say, that word could be translated as friend and many other things, then I find it simply incredible that out of the 4 translations I checked (the 3 at the USC compendium, and my own Dawood hard copy) ALL of them use the word friend, without exception.
I would think that someone would use one of the other terms you claim it means, maybe in different versions, but that simply isn't the case.
So, I believe your explanation is but one, and that my explanation; that the Qu'ran advises believers not to take unbelievers as friends, advisors and confidants, is equally justified.
It could also mean things like "don't have unbelievers as bosses", "don't have unbelievers as bodyguards", "don't have unbelievers as representatives", which still means to me that the Qu'ran is preaching separateness and superiority, however you translate it.
In the end, what I believe is that there are indeed elements with in Islam that seem to preach hatred and enmity for the unbeliever, that there is and ought to be a state of constant war with the unbelievers, that those who kill for Allah are given great reward -- and that these elements are what are causing jihadists to kill and destroy for their religion.
To deny these elements is to deny reality.
I see how it works now, all the stupid Kuffar are misunderstanding the translations. So the seemingly endless parade of islamic terrorists who say they are motivated by their so called religion, and have committed over 10,000 acts of violence in the last short number of years, is probably just a figment of our over active imaginations. Everybody can relax now and go about concentrating on more important things like, who will win Dancing with the Stars this Fall. Whew, I'm sure glad I read this thread. Now I've got time ot call Vince and place my order for ShamWow.
Mo Foe,
"To deny these elements is to deny reality."
Reality is what you make of life and what you focus on. You keep your eyes locked on the minutae, yeah, I said minutae.
World wide the conflicts are going to subside as they always do. War does not last forever...and when you remove the cause you remove the effect.
Once conflicts are resolved those incidences of resultant violence will diminish as well.
There are 8 million Muslims in the US, sp, according to your drum beating, there should be thousands upon thousands of them engaging in violence...but look around and what do you see?
Me at my keyboard like a few million others doing the same things you do in support of this country.
Hope you have a good week.
Eight million!!!, that can't be true Isn't America's muslim population eight hundred thousand billion trillion? Isn't that CAIR's latest estimation? This just keeps on getting better, and better and better. LOL
Abdullah,
You wrote: "War does not last forever...and when you remove the cause you remove the effect."
But, doesn't the Qu'ran, the Hadith, the violent example of Muhammad and warrior history of Islam have something, just a teensy little bit to do with the cause?
Not even just a teensy bit?
Ask Osama bin Laden!
Or this guy: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022606.php#comments
or any of the seemingly not-so-tiny minority.
I bet you they would have a lot to say about Islam's role as a cause.
Abdullah,
In fact, as I keep telling you OBL and Al Qaeda say it is BECAUSE of Islam that they are doing what they are doing.
Now, you may object that Al Qaeda is a tiny organization, but they have massive influence around the Muslim world, and were responsible for the minutia of 9/11 where 3.000 or so non-combatants were incinerated.
Why? OBL would say "for Islam!"
Again, I come back to reading what Al Qaeda themselves publish. Interestingly, for a Western audience, they harp on "causes" such as Palestine, Iraq, and even stuff like the Kyoto Accord.
But, for a Muslim audience, they suddenly become Qu'ran-thumping evangelists, quoting the Qu'ran and Hadith over and over. One would suspect these guys have read the whole thing in context, maybe even in the original Arabic, and have concluded that Islam teaches:
-Loyalty to Muslims, Enmity to everyone else.
-Jihad is a central duty.
-Moderate Islam is a Western innovation, and heresy.
-Democracy, Human rights, equality and rule of law are un-Islamic.