Stealth Jihad Update: is it a violation of a Muslim woman's civil rights to have to remove her hijab at a security checkpoint? Or is it simply an unhappy consequence of the situation that her own coreligionists have forced upon us, and which she should be willing to put up with in the interests of protecting innocent civilians?
The real question is whether American law or Islamic law must give way when the two conflict. Underscoring that as the real issue here is the involvement of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas terror funding case, and a skillful practitioner of legal intimidation tactics.
"Ga. Judge Jails Muslim Woman Over Head Scarf," from AP, December 17 (thanks to all who sent this in):
ATLANTA (AP) -- A Muslim woman arrested for refusing to take off her head scarf at a courthouse security checkpoint said Wednesday that she felt her human and civil rights were violated.A judge ordered Lisa Valentine, 40, to serve 10 days in jail for contempt of court, said police in Douglasville, a city of about 20,000 people on Atlanta's west suburban outskirts.
Valentine violated a court policy that prohibits people from wearing any headgear in court, police said after they arrested her Tuesday.
Valentine, who recently moved to Georgia from Connecticut, said the incident reminded her of stories she'd heard of the civil rights-era South.
''I just felt stripped of my civil, my human rights,'' she said Wednesday from her home. She said she was unexpectedly released after the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations urged federal authorities to investigate the incident as well as others in Georgia....
Last year, a judge in Valdosta in southern Georgia barred a Muslim woman from entering a courtroom because she would not remove her head scarf. There have been similar cases in other states, including Michigan, where a Muslim woman in Detroit filed a federal lawsuit in February 2007 after a judge dismissed her small-claims court case when she refused to remove a head and face veil....
Hall said Valentine, an insurance underwriter, told the bailiff that she had been in courtrooms before with the scarf on and that removing it would be a religious violation. When she turned to leave and uttered an expletive, Hall said a bailiff handcuffed her and took her before the judge.
another brain dead convert
"...she turned to leave and uttered an expletive..."
allah permits swearing, murder, lying, steeling, and the like, but don't you dare remove your head scarf! What a backasswards "religion".
...uttered an expletive???? Like maybe eff-you mf?
This pious and modest Muslim woman is quite a bundle of contradictions n'est-ce pas?
Headscarves shouldn't be allowed in any federal buildings, public buildings, schools, airports, or banks. God, I hate those things. The judge did the right thing.
I never read about blacks wearing explicit death threats in the civil rights-era South. Anyone heard about this phenomenon? Headscarves violate my human rights. Creepy headgear is not a human right, just like wearing swastikas in public buildings is not a right.
I can't believe the authorities caved to CAIR. Whom do I write about this?
Just wait for the dhimmi sellouts from the ACLU to jump to her defense. They wouldn't do the same for our human rights though.
She is an insurance underwriter? That is curious considering insurance is haram according to Islamic Law. Seems she only cares for Shariah when she can use it to shove it in America's eye.
What's the next headline "Muslim Budweiser wholesaler demands prayer space at Brewery"?
What a joke.
To: CAIR
From: Ex-LEO (me)
The contempt of court charge was for the expletive - not the veil - but not that CAIR ... well, cares.
Just saw this on CNN. They actually talked to the woman who was wearing the actual headscarf. She was only held for four hours, then released. The female newscaster at the end of the story made a parting comment. "Maybe the Judge should learn more about the religion", before they went to another story. I couldnt believe it!
The contempt of court charge was for the expletive - not the veil - but not that CAIR ... well, cares.
Ed Zackery! This is smoke-and-mirrors taqiyya. Besides, I thought that CAIR was no longer extant - what gives?
You because of this hell hole of a religion look at all the people who have to suffer. All non Muslims have to suffer because of this barbaric and violent religion. More and more we have our lives and freedoms being challenged by this intolerant and sick and disgusting ideology.
At the same time appeasers and Muslims are silencing critics of Islam with threats.
The story in a local paper, with a photo:
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/stories/2008/12/17/muslim_scarf_hijab_arrest.html?cxntlid=inform_artr
Should Muslim women be required to removed their head scarves before they can enter a courtroom?
ppl on the link above go vote Yes , No is leading so far
" Take your f...in' hands off me m.... f....er, don't you know I'm a lady?"
" Take your f...in' hands off me m.... f....er, don't you know I'm a lady?"
Sorry..once was more than enough.
"Council on American-Islamic Relations, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C., denounced the arrest as a violation of civil liberties.
Spokesman Ibrahim Hooper called the Douglasville incident “troubling.”
“When somebody is denied access to our judicial system based on religiously mandated attire, then what does that say? No Muslim woman can have access to a courtroom in Douglasville, Georgia?” Hooper said."
This little exercise is merely an excuse to push for sharia courts in the US, similar to those in the UK, as evidenced by what I suspect Ibe is referring to in his quote above.
And the Stealth Jihad goes on.....
''I just felt stripped of my civil, my human rights,'' she said Wednesday from her home. She said she was unexpectedly released after the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations urged federal authorities to investigate the incident as well as others in Georgia...Spokesman Ibrahim Hooper called the Douglasville incident “troubling.”
“When somebody is denied access to our judicial system based on religiously mandated attire, then what does that say? No Muslim woman can have access to a courtroom in Douglasville, Georgia?”
-- from the article above
Of course this claim of any similarity between the need, for security reasons, to see what might be under that hijab (all kinds of people have been blown up by terrorists, in some cases men, who were wearing burqas and thus difficult to properly search), at the security entry-point (where hats, turbans, and no doubt skull-caps also had to be removed),has nothing to do with civil rights.
Certainly it is ludicrous to claim that this lady, so clearly looking for trouble, and the way to assert the superiority of Islam over mere security rules (rules, by the way, made ncessary all over this country, at considerable cost, and at great and annoying trouble for everyone, in large part precisely because of Islamic terrorism and its permanent threat) or by denying, as in another court, the right to wear such headgear (presumably it depends on how large or intrusive that headgear may be), is being "denied access" to the courts. No she isn't. It is she who is refusing to comply with a generally-applicable and sensible rule.
Hooper, and CAIR, are digging and digging and digging. And with each shovelful, they make it easier for the rest of us to see exactly what they are, what a menace, how mendacious and sinister they turn out, on every occasion, to be.
If I am not mistaken, I believe it was Kathy Shaidle from the blog "Five Feet of Fury" who made a personal decision to refuse to learn the names of the various head apparel. She referred to it plainly as "a rag".
But I do know the various names of those "things" and I believe in the interest of plain common sense that I will, from this time forward, determine to unmemorize them as well. When westerners clearly draw a line in the snow and keep the backward practices confined to the mid-east sands, then we will know that perhaps, just maybe we are on the road to pushing back creeping sharia.
This Muslim puta can't be offended, yet we must take off our belts and shoes off in public at the airport, holding our pants up lest they fall to the floor--and G-d only knows how many are freeballing--and have our toiletries perused in the open; we do all this in silence to not cause a problem, to maintain order and public safety, all because Muslims have target us for killing until we submit to their hate-ridden ideology they falsely call a faith.
A steady stream of Muslim terrorists have been caught hiding in this Islamic women's "clothing". And like Muslims theologically driven to rape non-Muslims, probably only 1/10th get caught.
Or is it simply an unhappy consequence of the situation that her own coreligionists have forced upon us, and which she should be willing to put up with in the interests of protecting innocent civilians?
---
We're not innocent in their eyes. We haven't been assimilated into the hive.
tell her to take a flying leap and she can move to her favourite cesspoostan. how dare these people want special want special treatment!
"Hall said Valentine, an insurance underwriter, told the bailiff that she had been in courtrooms before with the scarf on and that removing it would be a religious violation."
How can removing it be a "religious violation" when everyone knows the headscarf is totally voluntary???
islam is truly satanic. Period.
I just voted and said she must do what the judge said. THis is a good chance for all the JWs and lurkers to make an impact on the dhimmi vote so far.
What if I said that my "religion" said that I must run around in a full ice hockey goaltender outfit?
Ummah Gummah
wouldn't work , only mohamedans get special treatment
Problem is too many are ignorant of the ancient, yet unalterable "separate but equal" for believers and unbelievers, already long established before any Jim Crow. Yet ironically many (along with their progeny) who stood in the line of fire hoses and integrated schools during the civil rights era now ignorantly, or deliberately, seek to usher in a new era of segregation, this time invoking a more ancient, yet fully capable model which understands the art of premeditated victimization as well as any. One would be tempted to ask that CNN reporter just how much she "knows of the religion"?
How many battles did the "apostle" engage in?
What happened at the Khaybar Oasis?
Which tribe had nearly a thousand bound male prisoners executed?
What was the fate of a certain poet for merely composing mocking satirical prose toward this "pious" being?
Who was Aisha?
What is the prescribed fate for all who fail to
submit even to Muslim political power?
This and much more would at the very least elicit a blank stare, if not the all too familiar arching of eyebrows followed by pupil dilation, and the contorted facial muscles whilst exclaiming: "Bigot, Hater!"
Interesting times.
Do they enforce the no-headgear regulation in the case of Catholic nuns and Orthodox Jews? For that matter, would the Pope have to take off his headgear?
Notice how the poll is worded:
"Yes, what the judge says, goes."
"No, that violates freedom of religion."
Are Rastafarians allowed to buy, sell and smoke dope freely anywhere in the U.S. now?
Does nothing, not even security, trump "freedom of religion"?
How is making a Muslim woman obey the same laws as the rest of us violate her freedom to believe what she believes? Her religion is a set of beliefs, not a head covering. The head covering is a rule, not a religious belief. No one is stopping her from believing in Allah or Mohammed; they just want her to obey the law of the land.
The outward symbol is meaningless to me without a corresponding modesty and piety of character, which this woman obviously lacks.
I think she has just offended my religious beliefs; where do I go to lodge a complaint? I feel humiliated, even. It's not fair!
"...she felt her human and civil rights were violated..."
===========================================
I am getting soooooo tired of how people FEEL when something doesn't go the way they want. I liked Robert's point about "the situation that her own coreligionists have forced upon us" in the West. Too bad no one in the courthouse thought to clarify that for her.
There are several grievance groups in the USA who apparently believe that ANY inconvenience their members might endure, for whatever reason, is an assault upon some imagined inalienable right to live without struggles, challenges, or limitations. These group-rights agitators deliberately ignore the other side of the "rights/freedoms/equality" coin: we who enjoy the freedom and prosperity of the West also must acknowledge and abide by the "duties/obligations/responsibilities" of civil society.
How do you say "Life is tough, get over it" in Arabic? Maybe we need to start posting that as well as Lan Astaslem (I will not submit)!
"No one is stopping her from believing in Allah or Muhammad; they just want her to obey the law of the land."
-Josephine
Such would be difficult because the crux of her beliefs trumps the secular laws of flawed subhuman infidel states, thus naturally a conflict ensues, the mere existence of which a great portion of the populace is regretfully unaware of.
Additionally, a new direction must be found in prisons to make more productive use of the labor and time currently afforded toward islamic proselytizing and indoctrination of those who have a beef to begin with. This attitude among law enforcement of: "let'um do what they want, so long as their quiet" has to stop. Killers like Reginald Mcfadden are just the tip of the iceberg.
I went to the site listed above, and voted "yes, what the judge says goes." I do not accept the premise that Islam is a religion, so my vote was totally correct.
"The head covering is a rule, not a religious belief." --Josephine
Oh, really? Where?
and G-d only knows how many are freeballing
Well, maybe G-d and airport security folks, depending on what equipment is used at the initial security screen. I understand the IR cameras that are used in Las Vegas casinos for security can see right through some clothing. I believe I read that they can look right through a red dress, for instance.
Food for thought - and a good reason for not going commando when you travel.
Let me see if I get this straight. The 10 commandments are not tolerated in court because they purportedly violate seperation of church and state. Now if our justice system makes special exceptions for Islamists, i.e., they can wear their wrappings in court, isn't our justice system espousing a preference for one religion over another thereby violating seperation of church and state?
A uniform, equally applicable to all, rule of no headgear period (unless you are law enforcment) is the correct approach to avoid such accusations.
In any event, I would love to see the ACLU dimwits argue this one.
Still wondering if I could wear my kippah in that court.
Let me see if I get this straight. The 10 commandments are not tolerated in court because they purportedly violate seperation of church and state. Now if our justice system makes special exceptions for Islamists, i.e., they can wear their wrappings in court, isn't our justice system espousing a preference for one religion over another thereby violating seperation of church and state?
A uniform, equally applicable to all, rule of no headgear period (unless you are law enforcment) is the correct approach to avoid such accusations.
In any event, I would love to see the ACLU dimwits argue this one.
If I were that judge I would have had her removed for wearing black and brown in the same outfit. People should be shot for doing that, but it looks like her owner already beat her up for it. Looking at that violates my right to not be forced to half-puke.
Jail is not the solution . A mandatory 10 years in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan should be the punishment . Go live where you are not allowed to take off your veil.
You must obey the law of this country or bye bye
''I just felt stripped of my civil, my human rights,'' she said Wednesday from her home.
Too late for that, sweetie, you can't become a Muslims twice.
"Let me see if I get this straight. The 10 commandments are not tolerated in court because they purportedly violate seperation of church and state. Now if our justice system makes special exceptions for Islamists, i.e., they can wear their wrappings in court, isn't our justice system espousing a preference for one religion over another thereby violating seperation of church and state?"
Posted by: Captain America
No, not really. If the courts started requiring people to pray towards Mecca, and making women cover their heads, then they would be violating the separation of church and state.
What this was about was security and deference to the judicial system. All people entering the courtrooms may be subject to a personal search. And all hats (including scarves and other head-gear) must be removed.
In every court I've been in (over 100), even law enforcement officers removed their hats. And in one courtroom, I saw a Jewish attorney remove his yarmulke.
So, if the Moslem mamas (or mau-maus) can wear their veils and headgear in court, I guess it's o.k. for me to appear in court in a Klan hood (old-style) or a Halloween mask.
tanstaafl, loved your line. Plus she can't ask for them back by leaving.
"Lan Astaslem" (I will not submit)! You've lost half the battle. "Go eff yourself" is more suitable.
The foxnews version of the story has a photo of the woman and a friend, Halimah Abdullah,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468785,00.html
My question is how do you know the friend is even a woman?
Sarcasm on/
But your honor, my religion mandates that I kill the infidel. It is my religious freedom to kill the infidel! Killing infidels is a religious civil right.
"''I just felt stripped of my civil, my human rights,'' she said Wednesday from her home."
If she really wants to know how it feels to be stripped of her civil and human rights, she should try being a Christian in an Islamic country, where a minor infraction, or no infractions at all, of Islamic law could cost her her life.
I shudder to think of the traction Valentine's argument will have after a couple Obama appointments to the Supreme court.
Since a few Muslims have tended to go berserk, including Muslim female suicide bombers lately, having people not wear potentially weapons-concealing headgear in a government building makes sense.
But then making sense and Islam are mutally exclusive.
From the "local article" posted here:
'Many Muslim women cover their heads to comply with modesty mandated by Islam. This practice has come up against policies aimed at maintaining decorum in public places across the country.'
Decorum?! Try security. Nice bit of sof-pedaling there, Ms. MSM "journalist". With the requisite taqqiya-echo by Dougie, of course.
Just another case of the Muslims using OUR laws against us! Can we use their laws against them? hm-m-m-m. Of course not! I say hurrah for the judge! He must read Jihad Watch!
OT (but not really, in a broader context), this is just one more example of why it is imperative to oppose gay marriage...because of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
In the abstract, I have no problem re-defining marriage to include gays, but legalized polygamy is a stepping-stone away. And legalized polygamy is a one-way ticket to patriarchal despotism...and for those of you with daughters, we've got to fight tooth-and-nail to insure that they grow up with the same opportunities and freedoms as their mothers had.
Gay marriage will open the door to broader definitions of marriage than the current one man/one woman, which will open the door to polygamy. Polygamy = Sharia.
"The foxnews version of the story has a photo of the woman and a friend, Halimah Abdullah,...
My question is how do you know the friend is even a woman?"
Posted by: eve_anne_gelical
My question is how do you know it's even human?
At first glance (and 2nd and 3rd glances, for that matter) I thought it was a left-over Halloween decoration from somebody's front porch.
"Let me see if I get this straight. The 10 commandments are not tolerated in court because they purportedly violate seperation of church and state. Now if our justice system makes special exceptions for Islamists, i.e., they can wear their wrappings in court, isn't our justice system espousing a preference for one religion over another thereby violating seperation of church and state?"
Posted by: Captain America
No, not really. If the courts started requiring people to pray towards Mecca, and making women cover their heads, then they would be violating the separation of church and state.
What this was about was security and deference to the judicial system. All people entering the courtrooms may be subject to a personal search. And all hats (including scarves and other head-gear) must be removed.
In every court I've been in (over 100), even law enforcement officers removed their hats. And in one courtroom, I saw a Jewish attorney remove his yarmulke.
Posted by: give me doughnuts at December 17, 2008 9:14 PM
I don't disagree that security and deference to our judicial system is paramount (I actually think that our system for all its faults is a great way of resolving disputes in a civilized manner, i.e., money talks..I digress) I too have been in courthouses more times than I can count, however, my point was that even passive acceptance is tantamount to a violation of the so-called seperation of church and state (incidentally, which I have always believed that Libs misinterpret).
Your example was of a more active position. The bottom line is that public safety must always supercede individual demands regardless of the ratioale. I find it extremely disturbing that most Americans are so "domesticated" and "pc'd" that they cannot see the danger in front of their eyes. I can only presume that the attorney who removed his yarmulke either respected free access to the courts and the necessity of safety for all or was not happy about it but nonetheless he was respectfull of the need for safety protocols.
The Islamists who are offended by this don't care about the safety concerns of kuffars. Come hell or highwater, they will use our "sensitivities" to their advantge and undermine our democratic ideals for their purposes. This country is not so full of stupid people as it is full of ignorant people. I pray for our children.
There's no constitutional right to dress up like a bandit, much less to do so when entering a court house.
=========
Personally I hate the sight of a woman dressed like a bandit.
I call them the Frito Banditos.
It's degrading to the human form and an insult to the viewer.
Another example of the "Stealth Jihad" Robert so BRILLIANTLY writes about in his book.
This episode, had it happened during Robert's writing of "STEALTH JIHAD", would have made an appropriate inclusion.
Another example of the "Stealth Jihad" Robert so BRILLIANTLY writes about in his book.
This episode, had it happened during Robert's writing of "STEALTH JIHAD", would have made an appropriate inclusion.
In the current PC climate and with a Hussein as POTUS chances are that the judge will be sent out to pasture or (reeducation camp) while this twat (and those who come after her) will get away with it.
Here's another case of fleecing the kuffar:
Muslim waitress: I was sacked for refusing to wear ’sexually available’ red dress
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/12/18/see-the-girl-with-the-red-dress-on-she-do-the-compo-boogie-all-night-long/
Ah, the good ol south - where men are men, and women are women.
Ma'aam. You ain't in Paki-sta'an, ya-hear? said to tune of the judge in My Cousin Vinnie.
It is the fault of mohammedans like her that there is any security system AT ALL there. In many smaller county seats the courthouse was a meeting place. Usually a cheap (subsidised) cafeteria and a cool marble lobby. Now, thanks to the practitioners of this murderous cult, there are scanners, metal detectors, and cops dressed like the military.
Yeah. I went to the courthouse to get some tax stuff done, had to wait for the security guy, keys and change in the bucket, pass thru the metal detector; then was going to pick up my wife at a federal building, pulled up in front, just to pick her up, and the security guard comes up and says, Sir, you gotta move that vehicle; I had to park way up the street, get out, walk down... and another time at Logan, I was 'screened' by a Mooslem gal in the get-up, with contempt that I swear could have killed, figures.
Course Tim McVey didn't help matters did he, but he's no more as they say.
And these ladies want to waltz up in Burkas? Screw them.
Figuratively.
This is just one more example of Muslims in America seeking special rights. Oh the law of removing head coverings applies to everyone but Muslims in a court of law. Right.
Considering everything Islam represents why would any Muslim even want to live in our country? Any democracy is contrary to Islam, so other than world domination they would be so much closer to their "religion" living in SA. I suppose being so successful in transforming Great Britian especially the converts feel it is only a matter of time before they are just as successful here.
''I just felt stripped of my civil, my human rights,'' she said Wednesday from her home.
Can’t she be held for saying something that stupid? Kinda makes you want to toss a shoe her way.
She said she was unexpectedly released after the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations urged federal authorities to investigate the incident as well as others in Georgia....
Instead of letting her out, shouldn’t they have put CAIR in? Even she admits it was “unexpected”.
sheik yer'mami's Muslim waitress quote: "I was sacked for refusing to wear ’sexually available’ red dress"
At first I thought that was a punch line for a joke. Then, after looking at her story, I knew it was.
If the reported details are true, the problem here is the bailiff. When some foul-mouthed moron, denied entry to a court building, turns to leave, let her leave, instead of making her a martyr. Of course, if she wasn't leaving voluntarily, then, of course, cuff her
This waitress can serve alchohol but not wear a red dress? Actually that dress would be too revealing in the States because the Board of Health has a "no pits, no pubes" rule and it bares pits. She said that men propositioned her when she was wearing slacks, therefore the dress was discrimination. Sounds like she was just skanky. Then she said a bunch of derogatory stuff about Scandinavian women. Way to endear yourself, idiot.
Darcy -- I am not sure what you are asking in response to my comment.
In a sensible world... As much as a child loves her mother, she will never convince the sheriff to come to her school and force all the children to follow her own mother's rules. If that child then cries that the sheriff is preventing her from loving her mother by not enforcing her mother's rules as law, it would be the same difference.
Headscarves shouldn't be allowed in any federal buildings, public buildings, schools, airports, or banks. God, I hate those things. The judge did the right thing.
You are aware, I presume, that your rule would make it illegal for Catholic nuns who wear full habit (there are still a few) to enter federal buildings, public buildings, schools, airports, and banks?
The question of requiring people to remove religious headgear is actually a pretty old one, and is discussed by the ever-insightful Eugene Volokh at The Volokh Conspiracy:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_12_14-2008_12_20.shtml#1229525304 (Among the cases he discusses is that of William Penn, who refused to take his hat off in court, and was fined for contempt.)
Do they enforce the no-headgear regulation in the case of Catholic nuns and Orthodox Jews? For that matter, would the Pope have to take off his headgear?
Yes, at least in part. The Volokh post cited above cites cases involving Jewish headgear and Catholic and Episcopal clerical garb, and opines that the same issue would arise in the case of habit-wearing Catholic nuns: "Judges have, for instance, applied no-hat rules to demand that parties or witnesses remove yarmulkes, see, e.g., Close-It Enterprises, Inc. v. Weinberger, 64 A.D.2d 686 (N.Y. App. Div. 1978), or their Catholic or Episcopalian priestly garb, People v. Drucker, 418 N.Y.S.2d 744 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1979); O'Reilly v. New York Times Co., 692 F.2d 863 (2d Cir. 1982); Ryslik v. Krass, 652 A.2d 767 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1995). The priest cases didn't involve headgear, but one can easily imagine similar issues arising as to nuns' habits."
I would note, however, that Volokh concludes that, while it is constitutional (under the rule set forth in Employment Division v. Smith) to impose and enforce a nondiscriminatory rule that requires the removal of all headgear, he also presents arguments for why accommodating religious practice, while not constitutionally required, would be a good idea. He quotes a decision by Judge Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit: "It is difficult for us to see any reason why a Jew may not wear his yarmulke in court, a Sikh his turban, a Muslim woman her chador, or a Moor his fez. Most spectators will continue to doff their caps as a sign of respect for the judiciary; those who keep heads covered as a sign of respect for (or obedience to) a power higher than the state should not be cast out of court or threatened with penalties. Defendants are entitled to trials that others of their faith may freely attend, and spectators of all faiths are entitled to see justice being done."
Since this is a country is a Republic guided by
the constitution, the law is the law. If this
women wants to enter a court room, she must remove
her vail period. No exceptions or excuses. The
judge in any courtroom exercises his rights to
control his court. The refusal of anybody in the
courtroom to take direction from the judge will
result in a contempt charge. Whats not to understand...
Stay Safe
"Judge Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit"
A true Judge impartial and disinterested in the Islamophobic-petty-politics.
Respect for religious dress is civilized.
Requiring people to undress is savage.
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
you are a savage
Truth
Seamus-You had me until that last quotation. I got to thinking about how if I were in Saudi Arabia, I, as a Christian woman wouldn't even have a voice. Hell, I probably wouldn't even be allowed in the court! Just imagine if I were a nun in full blown habit in Saudia, for whatever infraction it may be, I would probably be stoned to death. No judge, no trial.
When I was strip-searched at Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv, I didn't consider it a violation of my civil-rights. I didn't utter expletives and I wasn't idiot enough to insult the Israeli woman who had pulled me aside for it. I did feel humiliated, but I had respect for the power she wielded. This woman has no respect for any other power than that of the muslim faith. Her lack of respect shows her ignorance. And ignorance of her peers, who are not muslim and out of necessity, security-minded, should not be an excuse for "religious" tolerance. Where is the example of "humility" that she could have taught by simply removing her head scarf and then replacing it later? Her scarf does NOT make her muslim, her heart should. But there is no humility, no respect for anyone other than herself. Because she, like islam, is self-serving and deceitful.
And Abdullah- you always open that trap of yours and prove what an idiot you are. Asking her to remove her scarf for security is not "uncivilized" it is necessity because YOUR compatriots have made it so! And removing a scarf is a far cry from the strip search they should have given her/him to make sure she/he wasn't carrying concealed weapons! When I read your posts, I often wonder where in the world you are. Probably in a "free" country, enjoying your freedom and beating your wives.
Abdullah,
Three points:
1) Identification is a paramount concern in the court room. The accused has the right to "face" the accuser and vice versa, and the judge has a right to know who is in the room.
2) Determining truth is a function of the judiciary, and this also involves reading facial countenance, inflections, expressions, observing autonomic responses such as flushing, perspiration, etc. We gave up the judges wearing hoods for the same reason.
3) Security is a large concern in a court house where numerous criminals travel.
Another issue is ... what happened to you? You started out erudite and intellectually provocative. Now you just seem trivially intrusive and juvenile. Your personal jihad is less stealthy. Did you run out of cut and paste material? Have you been exposed so many times that all pretense is gone? "No hijab" = "savagery". Psshawh.
Oh, and did you see my last post of our previous interchange? You didn't respond before the bell. Found any pre-Mohametan archaelogy yet? It should be easy. Right? Thousands of years of Ishmaelites earnestly awaiting the fulfillment of all prophecy, the completion of their hallowed lineage. Surely they scratched something on a rock or something somewhere, like "Adam was 90 feet tall", "Ishmael was the intended sacrifice", "The 'Jews' are really Muslims --Al-Kilroy", "They burned my Classical Arabic scroll of the Real Islamic Tanakh", etc. Help me out here, what would you expect to find? Nothing? Come on, spin me some "Stealth Jihad" on this one.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at December 18, 2008 2:24 PM
“Another issue is ... what happened to you? You started out erudite and intellectually provocative.” Concerened
Sadly I have become a reflection of the crowd here…even your posts descended into childish insult and hyperbole, you became unable to ask even a single question without insulting and deriding in the asking…what did you expect?
There was in the end nothing altruistic in them, just feints at trying to discover a loaded argument which you could offer that really doesn’t have a substantive way for it to be answered…
Demanding “proof” like this is similar to the issue run into with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Each time they get close to a peace deal each side offers a caveat for closing the deal that they know the other can not and will not ever be able to come through on …then when the deal falls through each blame the other for the failure.
Let me offer one similar to yours:
“Prove, Archeologically, that the dead got up in Damascus and walked around in their grave clothes praising the Lord. Your Book is not acceptable proof.”
“Prove, Archeologically, that two foxes ran through the fields of the Philistines with a fire brand tied between their tails, Archeologically. Your Book is not acceptable proof.”
“Prove, Archeologically, that Jesus fed 5,000 from a single basked of fish, Archeologically. Your Book is not acceptable proof.”
“Prove, Archeologically, … Your Book is not acceptable proof.” do you get the point, yet?
Even though my book the Quran confirms many things (yeah I know, you don't read Arabic and thus don't accept the miracles...)
Back to the topic, not in specific, but the over all topic we are dealing with, is that all believers were Muslims.
The critical failure for you and most people here is when you read in reference to all believers in God the word “Muslim” you erroneously think: follower of Mohammad, prays five times per day, etc.
Muslims all those who submitted their wills to God, including today and all those who passed away in other ages that did the same.
All followers of any Prophet and that Prophet themselves were Muslims. Period.
I don’t need to dig up anything from a previous age to confirm what I hold in my hand today…there is enough science and fact confirmed by it to satisfy as evidence far beyond any ancient evidence I came up with.
And in closing one door and opening another, you have offered, uncharacteristically, a very trivial set of points:
1) First, neither a Hijab, yarmulke, a Sikhs turban, nor nun’s habit obscures the face.
(Nikab was an order for only the Prophet’s wives, not common Muslimahs.)
2) Your point #2 is mute as the faces of all the people noted above are not covered.
3) Mention of security is non-sequitor. People enter through metal detectors and are further searched by a hand held wand that detects any solid anomaly hidden by clothing.
There is no really no reason for a Judge to request people to remove any head covering they wear in order to honor and serve God, this is a violation of the right to freedom of religious expression.
I look forward to better discussions between we two.
I apologize for any literary stones I might have cast at you.
I forgive you the same, regardless.
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
Your descent into childishness is the other poster's influence. Yes, of course. Ah, it is always the infidel's fault, isn't it, Abbie?
Interesting.
Abdullah,
How does the contemptuous expletive fit into this? Confrontationally telling the bailiff the "what for"? Sorry, she's blown her credibility on piety. How does she think she has any right in a kafir country to expect that she can refuse to comply with one court's rules just because she previously experienced no requirement elsewhere? This policy applied EQUALLY to yarmulkes, Sikhs' turbans, and nuns' habits. Where are these adherents' examples of their dissension? Were their rights not violated by the same argument? Why not attempt to delay her appearance, working vicariously through counsel to guarantee her "right", rather than breaking a rule and then spouting an expletive? Who was the savage here?
I explained the nature of my concerns for you in the previous thread. I really would rather that you didn't have what many here see as a spiritual "cancer".
I freely admit I find many contradictions and deficiencies in Islam. It is rare to find a Muslim who offers any attempt at repair, and I appreciate your obliging me.
Your examples notwithstanding, the questions CAN be answered, and are unlike what you've posited as caricature. Mine take the form:
First,
The Qur'an and the Bible have narrative and doctrinal differences. The Bible has remnants from antiquity which document at least their continuity over time. If, as Islam claims (at least after Ibn Hazm), that these Biblical texts are corrupted, there should be SOME evidence of the Islamically "correct" form. Part B of this is that a generic hand waving charge of "corruption" of the entire Biblical text is ludicrous, so what parts may we know that Islam accepts as non-corrupted (please don't offer points of consonance as this of course may merely represent plagiarism and adaptation).
I have not asked you to prove that Satan pees in your nose every night, or to prove that the Islamic version of a miraculous narrative occurred as stated (historical narratives would be otherwise, however).
Second,
Historical and genetic linkage to the patriarch Ishmael as validation of Mohammad's supposed apostolic credentials has been challenged on many issues. These are critical. If Mohammad is a fraud at this point, little else matters of what came after. Surely, witness of the expectation, preparation, and protection of this lineage in the Arabian peninsula would be difficult to obscure. Merely produce some pre-Mohametan examples. You can't for example negate the Jews, or as some have even the presence of Jewish temples. There is just too much evidence. Where is the evidence of succession of Ishmaelic prophets, Ishmaelic tawhid theological texts, Ishmaelic tawhid mosque-equivalents and qiblas, and Ishmaelic geneologies for the consummation of prophetic history? What I've found doesn't look good for Islam. I'm asking you to do better. If you can. Consider it da'wa.
Puhleeze. Not that one again. 800 million Muslims don't either.
My God, have you STILL not read the Pact of Umar? What are those ayat about smiting of necks and crucification if we are ALL Muslims? Abdullah Mikail, Founder and Executive Imam, Universalitic Mosque of Muslim Universalism.
Not a Muslim,
Concerned Citizen
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at December 18, 2008 4:07 PM
“My God, ….What are those ayat about smiting of necks and crucification if we are ALL Muslims? ...”
Don’t bust a spring here, okay?
Those who were called to the final messenger and refused are not Muslims.
Those before them who accepted their Prophet and followed his message were Muslims = Submitted their wills to God by following their Prophet.
Jew, Sabians, Christians, etc. all fell under the definition of Muslims when they followed the message given them by their respective Prophets, with the special case being the Jews who were followed up with a succession of Prophets and who were always under the covenant to follow the successive Prophets until the last one came. They rejected the last one because he turned out to not be a Jew…those who rejected the last messenger are thus not “Muslims”, i.e. they did not follow the order of God.
The message in it’s pure form is not different: there is One God, Heaven, Hell, a day of Judgement, stop sinning, ask God forgiveness, it will be either Heaven or Hell for all nothing in between. Yes, in there is argument about who to ask for forgiveness…we Muslims go to the source, you seek another route. Yours is yours, mine is mine.
And yes, I will entertain you by trying to find the sacred cow you seek… I’ll try to find it for you, but remember, there will have to be a point where you stop spinning things and consider the evidence and then let us both move on…you already “spun” the only son I pointed out to you in your own Book, “the only son” you know…regardless of how you spin it, a man has an only son when he has only one son…Ishmael is the only time Abraham had an only son.
And lastly, a simple study in names and languages: Miguel, Mikail, Michael…how many different names did I just name? I didn’t…they are all three the same name for the same person.
Ishmael, Ismail, are the same, Ishaq, Issac, same, Ibrahim, Abraham, same, Musa, Moses, same …the name is in a different language so it sounds different but it means the same thing…it does not mean different people.
It really isn’t as hard as you are making it sound…I am not saying anything new to you that every Muslim believes…I don’t see how you pretend this is new information?
“The Executive” condescension? Come on…you can do better than that..
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
ABDULLAH: "All followers of any Prophet and that Prophet themselves were Muslims. Period."
Sir, how would you feel if we Christians usurped your religious patrimony and declared "all Muslims are Christian, they just don't know it."
You would obviously feel insulted. You don't believe in the divinity of Christ, and therefore, you are not a Christian.
We don't recognize Muhammad as a Prophet. Period.
We don't recognize the moniker 'Muslim' as applying to us. Period.
We don't recognize the concept of being "slaves to God". Our religion is much more about mutual love than about slavery.
Please don't project your beliefs and your labels onto us, OK? It's very insulting.
Posted by: Cornelius at December 18, 2008 4:48 PM
Cornelius,
You and CC offer the best conversation among any here, Mo Foe was good to a point, but burned himself out…hopefully he’ll return to the table his discussions were valuable.
Don’t misunderstand what I am saying, if the term “Christianity” were defined as those who submitted their wills to God I would have no argument with you. When we say all were “Muslims” the word has a different meaning than what you are thinking of.
Yes, they were known by their paths of worship, but what would you call the followers of Lot? Answer me that one? They were a small group, yet they were believers in God and followers of their Prophet. The same for Jonah, what do you call his people? We say they were Muslim simply because they followed their Prophets. It does not mean we lay claim to them, we merely state they were followers of God and obeyed their Prophets…that’s it…there is no “usurping.”
And it is okay that you don’t recognize him as a Prophet, otherwise we wouldn’t be arguing the point, would we? : ) And the “moniker”, by your own admission, no longer applies to you.
Is God not in total control of your life? Does God not feed you directly? Does God not provide the air you breathe and the water you drink?
Can you do any of these things for yourself?
Are you even sovereign over your own heart beat? Do you provide it to yourself?
You entirely miss the concept of “Slave of God” my friend, you are a Slave of God regardless of whether you are willing and appreciative of that fact.
You, me, we human beings, all of us are masters over nothing…we do not even alter the oxygen we breathe…we only have been blessed with life and been given this world to test us in who is grateful and who is not…in truth, the only thing we ever truly own is choice…we own the decision only for what path we choose to walk. God is in charge of and control of the outcome.
“Please don't project your beliefs and your labels onto us, OK? It's very insulting.”
By your own admission, you are clearly not following the original message of Tawheed, so, I did not project anything onto you personally.
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
Abdullah,
Whether or not you choose to recognize it, referring to Christians and Jews as "Muslims" is very insulting to us.
Posted by: Cornelius at December 18, 2008 5:17 PM
Then how about I say "Those who submitted their wills to God?"
Is that PC enough?
By the way, I appreciate the converesation.
As Churchill said, "Better Jaw-Jaw than War-War"
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
Abdullah,
You may call it "spin", but it was consistent spin for thousands of years before Mohammad. Did you think they did not notice the verse?
"After these things God tested Abraham, and said to him, ‘Abraham!’ And he said, ‘Here am I.’ He said, ‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I shall tell you’."
You claim that "Ismail" was replaced with Isaac. What is your proof from antiquity? Where is the thousands of years old copy of the original or documentation of the consternation of the Ishamaelites over the fraud? Would it have been so difficult to remove the entire account of Ishmael or at least removed the word only if it was felt to be problematic? Ahistorical outlandish claims without proof are known as naked assertions.
Why were ANY of them JEWS? YHWH continued to bless the Israelites with prophets and revelations. WHY if they perverted and corrupted his Word, writing His Chosen One out of the sacred account? Were any pre-Mohametan prophets or revelations given to the Ishmaelites? If not, why not? Did they handle and preserve them with proper respect and care due divine witness?
Christians prefer the terms friends and sons of God. We are also God's "slaves", but different from what you say.
Romans 6:19
I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness.
Romans 6:22
But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.
Romans 8:15
For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."
1 Corinthians 7:22
For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave.
John 15:15
I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.
And so on. Voluntary filial servitude. Not chattel slavery based on fear and no assurance of a favorable eternity.
Athanasius, On the Incarnation. Trust me, you won't get it until you read it.
I guess my challenge of Ms. Valentine's "savage" behaviour and piety was beneath comment?
Seamus, you wrote:
You are aware, I presume, that your rule would make it illegal for Catholic nuns who wear full habit (there are still a few) to enter federal buildings, public buildings, schools, airports, and banks?
Yeah, and they would happily remove it. The clergy at the Catholic school I attended wore their habits and such on laundry day. Being good citizens always comes before wearing "pieces of flair" to truly religious people.
When "pieces of flair" become an obligation then it's a cult. When all the members do recruiting and call each other "brother" and "sister" it's a cult.
But that doesn't matter because all Islam says is to cover your chest and "guard your crotch." Not your modesty, your crotch. There is no Arabic word for "modesty" that I know of, certainly not in any Islamic text, just like there's no word for "charity." Maybe Muslim women keep their crotches above their shoulders, but most of the chicks I know do not. If they're in a thong bikini they're good to go per Islamic law. She was being an ass and she was doing it for her sicko, supremacist, psychopath kicks.
And please, AM, don't tell me that the whole female body is just a vagina and is shameful. You know what it says and you know what it means and you twist it to suit your sicko worldview whereby you can degrade women like the Nazis did the Jews by depriving them of their dignity, their identity, and their humanity.
I'm going to bed.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at December 18, 2008 5:33 PM
Proof? “, your only son” you can not say it and include Issac in the sentence...issac had an older brother, Ishmael who was Abraham's only son until Issac was born. There never was an "only son" while Issac lived. It also says elsewhere simply, "your only son."
“YHWH continued to bless the Israelites”
Your argument is not logical.
If the police have to be sent to my neighborhood a dozen times does that mean we are blessed, or that mean we are a troublesome neighborhood?
How many times did God allow them to be overrun, their Temples razed, and their people thrown in to slavery as punishment?
No, I would not characterize it as “blessed” I would say they were in great need of guidance and policing.
"I guess my challenge of Ms. Valentine's "savage" behaviour and piety was beneath comment?"
Why would I take issue with that?
To me, the expletive earned her the heels cooling in the tank…I have no problem with that…by the way she did not have to serve, but the expletive was not the issue I was addressing …thus, I did not address your comment in respect to it.
(AM gets onto soap box)
My issue is with the ordering of anyone to remove a head covering simply “because” there is no reason for that order to be made in any of the cases I pointed out, none whatsoever. You may say “law” I say “precedent” is law…it has been permitted and it will be permitted in the future, God willing. The state has no place telling people what to do with their personal lives or their religious practices that do not infringe upon the rights of others and in no way does a yarmulke, a nun’s habit, a Sikh’s turban, or a Muslimah’s Hijab infringe upon anyone else’s rights. Insisting upon them removing it “because” is the same PC BS people whine about here all the time.
(AM gets down from soap box.)
“Not chattel slavery”
And I further assert, you still miss the point, but not entirely. It is not “chattel slavery”…it is a mere statement of fact that you simply control and own nothing, God owns it all including you.
The redeeming thought ( the quialifier for 'not entirely') is you expressed “Voluntary filial servitude.”
That is what ‘Abdullah’ is…the voluntary admission, the purposeful love, the freedom of self choice and the realization that to abide by the rule of God is the ultimate freedom.
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
Abdullah,
Wow. You really DO need to read The Book. Might take you more than 10 pots of coffee and a weekend, though. Three hours a day and you'll have it in under a month (there aren't 38 versions of Moses and Pharoah in the original, so it'll read a little slower then the Qur'an). And I'm not even going to require you to read ancient Hebrew or Κονιά Greek to "understand" the Bible. Even your own book, where it paraphrases and distorts the original, it depicts blessings of the Jews.
We don't disagree about God's power and unusurpable eternal dominion. We disagree on His nature, his imminence, immutability, holiness, goodness and his relationship with the created. The relationship is close and filial, not distant and servile. It's a vast difference, which is why I prefer you use your deity's name, Allah, when referring to Mohammad's god to avoid confusion.
I think we disagree on the meaning of a few of those, too. Expiating and propitiating soteriology which includes assurance of eternal destiny is the ultimate freedom, that is, freedom from the power of sin and death, not by works or rote rituals and prayers, but by God's grace through faith.
I honestly don't care if Ms. Valentine wears a gorilla suit as long it doesn't create a circus, obscure her identity, countenance, create a special privilege, etc. But if she acts like a hooligan jackass while whining about "religious rights", then she forgot to read a chapter in the Stealth Jihad Application Manual.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at December 18, 2008 6:59 PM
“The relationship is close and filial, not distant and servile.”
Apparently you missed some core concepts in Islam:
“God loves the believer more than the mother loves the child”, “closer to than the vein in our neck”, “walk to Me I will run to you, run to me, I will fly to you” God is not distant at all to a Muslim, not in the least...and without the servitude what are you but a miscreant and evil? Talk of God and absence of servility to God is just talk...the "word and the deed" remember?
The blessing on the Jews is there, yes, but that does not change the fact that the police had to be continuously sent to their neighborhood and they were put into shackles multiple times because of their disobedience.
“I think we disagree on the meaning …works, rote rituals, prayer… but by God's grace through faith.”
Take out your sotierology and we are not saying such different things. Works don’t get you into heaven, sacrifices of yourself or others does not get one into heaven, only the mercy and grace of God gets one into heaven.
All of you “pun-tifical” statements aside, I agree…one may wear whatever religiously required clothing as a freedom of religious expression in this country as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
Abdullah,
Perhaps the point is too subtle for you. I'll try again. I hope you had a good relationship with your father. If not, for this exercise, imagine that you did.
The reverential awe a young child holds for his father, includes an appropriate "fear" of that father. That is, his desire is to not displease the father based solely on love for him and the warmth and value of the bond.
Contrast that with what I'm describing as a servile fear; vigilantly following the task master's prescriptions so as to avoid punishment.
Do Christians serve God? Of course. Your caricature is ludicrous. But it is out of love, not out of prescription. Empty works are useless, insulting to God. They are described in the New Testament as like menstrual rags.
What is the "passing" grade to get into heaven as a Muslim? 75%? 90%? 95%? Do you know? Christians consider the passing grade to be 100% You did everything you were supposed to do, and none of what you weren't. From the time you were conceived until the last nanosecond that your neuronal membranes are still polarized. Because God is infinitely holy, and all besmirching of his honor must be cleared.
050.016
YUSUFALI: It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein.
In context this reads as a statement of omniscience, not the close relationship of a father and son.
I find these in your post at FrontPage, but not elsewhere.
You seem to be trying to quote this:
Unfortunately, however, I cannot validate these, as I do not find them in Sahih Muslim at the USC MSA site. Perhaps you can clarify their authenticity and provide sourcing for context.
Otherwise, you cannot tell me that so many Muslims and so many tomes have gotten the pure transcendence and unknowability of the Islamic deity so wrong, and that Islam actually teaches exactly as Christianity does about the intimate relationship of the redeemed with their transcendant AND immanent Father, "Abba", literally "Daddy".
And what of the forgotten Ishmaelites? Who was sent to the carriers of the seed of the final prophet? It is a gross overgeneralization to assume their predominance (or even presence) in the Medinan demographics, but from what we know of the pre-Mohametan era, they were pagans, even of Jewish or Christian faith at times. Who policed them? Weren't their records worth recording?
If a man came to you and said I'm a prophet of God, run as fast as you can, a meteor is going to strike where you stand, RUN NOW! You run, but mostly because he seems crazy. BAM! Huge dust cloud, clearing, massive space rock. Wow, how did he know, he must have been a prophet. He recites what sounds like scriptures you've heard, sort of garbled versions actually, but he speaks eloquently. However, as you get to know him, you learn his parentage wasn't what he said it was, and that he had done some really terrible things, like chop off heads, rape women, amputate hands, burned a fire on a man's chest for money, left people to die in the desert, married a little girl and had sex with her, and spent most of the last several years leading warring parties... even if something supernatural did happen with the rock, do you still think he came from God... or from Satan?
Concerned Citizen, way to hand that "vile cretin" his ass, but I have to ask which "prophecy" or miracles Mo ever produced. I can think of exactly none. The whole last part of that post is kind of meaningless without that. He was just a truly horrible person. Prophets don't screw up their message and then abrogate it. They, by definition, get 100% of it right 100% of the time and they either predict future events or produce miracles. I just think that any comparison between a pedophilic warlord polygamist and a prophet is wholly invalid. No part of the message is correct or defensible. None of it. It is all either sheer evil, evil bound-overstepping (i.e., Sharia - politics posing as a religion, thereby invalidating any claim to be so), or just ridiculous nonsense.
What is the "passing" grade to get into heaven as a Muslim? 75%? 90%? 95%? Do you know? Christians consider the passing grade to be 100% You did everything you were supposed to do, and none of what you weren't. From the time you were conceived until the last nanosecond that your neuronal membranes are still polarized. Because God is infinitely holy, and all besmirching of his honor must be cleared.
Muslims aren't required to get any of it right. Islam has no standards. They can be horrible people and horrible Muslims (which means being pretty decent people by actual moral standards) and still go to janaat. They just have to have done all the "bad" stuff prior to the hajj, or die killing non-Muslims, or be buried on a Thursday or a Friday. That's it. All the rest is cultish brainwashing. Islamic dogma itself undermines the need for Sharia. Sharia exists because it upholds the cultish necessities of milieu control and self-policing. Going to janaat has nothing to do with Sharia, prayers, or anything else.
He recites what sounds like scriptures you've heard, sort of garbled versions actually, but he speaks eloquently.
He did not speak eloquently. I would refer you to the writings of Mumin Salih. First, the English translations serve to hide the grammatical errors. He didn't even rhyme while using proper grammar, and rhyming still does not explain all the grammatical errors. He was reppetitive. He was nonsensical. How anyone could find that to be "eloquent" is beyond me. The Koran is unpublishable by thinking people's standards. In fact, the pathetic quality of the Koran is one of the best cases for Perv Mo's illiteracy. The poets of his time were pretty brilliant by all accounts. Arabic poetry - just the verbal acrobatics alone - is a feat unto itself. He mastered neither the verbal acrobatics nor the conveyance of a good or even good-sounding message. It's nonsensical craziness, linguistically, poetically, structurally, and in terms of content. Eloquent my ass. Those illiterate, uneducated, Bedouin barbarians of the time didn't buy it. That anyone today could is simply pathetic. That's why Muslims are required to stay away from literature and art: it might instill them with standards and one cannot be a Muslim and have standards.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at December 19, 2008 1:04 AM
A pathetic jab? I expected better from you, much better:
“Contrast that with what I'm describing as a servile fear; vigilantly following the task master's prescriptions so as to avoid punishment.”
What you describe is only your opinion, only your understanding, taken from a few verses pulled out of context. Once again (audible sigh) you are taking a few valves and a gauge off of the ship and trying to describe the whole submarine.
Yes my quotes were from my understanding of the subject, not a blind search as you have done for words…understanding.
“Otherwise, you cannot tell me that so many Muslims and so many tomes have gotten the pure transcendence and unknowability of the Islamic deity so wrong,”
Again you enlist the classic elementary “emperor’s clothing” debate tactic.
Your pontifical comment lacks viability and is flawed. This is only YOUR presumption of understanding of the subject and a false projection of error onto others.
What God loves and what God hates is clearly expressed, and a Muslim aspires, or should aspire, to be what God loves.
“And what of the forgotten Ishmaelites?”
It only took one Police man being sent to them.
And as you noted many of the descendants of Ishmael did not live by Tawheed and thus were not given guidance…this is plainly stated in the Quran as being such, that God would not guide those descendants of Abraham who did not seek to be guided, but instead engaged in the pursuit of other things.
Your last paragraph is a projection of your own lack of knowledge. You mischaracterize everything and implant a negative bias in it.
Mohammad was known as the Truthful, never told any lie to any one, was highly respected and trusted, and many miracles came with his message as a validation of it.
If you recall for years he preached the message and only a handful believed. The miracles are the credentials of the Prophets that support that their message is true. After they went public and hte miracles became manifest the religion was entered into in droves...Hadiths document all of this.
“you learn his parentage wasn't what he said it was,”
Mohammad’s lineage is traced all the way back to Ishmael and thus Abraham. This is common knowledge.
Mohammad only killed one person and that was in a battle.
He executed a gang of murderers who got what they deserved.
“burned a fire on a man's chest for money,”
Mohammad did not do this. We discussed this claim of yours about Kinana and the "evidence” surrounding it…in the end, it is just your claim that you choose to believe. The evidence that I choose to believe is otherwise.
Kinana of Khaybar violated the terms of his surrender and the family of someone he killed then sued for and was given the right to execute him for that killing...he wasn't tortured for money. He was executed for killing by the family of his victim.
The chopping off of heads?
Man, you really are stretching things, aren’t you?
What head chopping incident do you refer too?
The seditious traitors of Banu Quraiza perhaps?
Also, we discussed that…they were judged by Judaic law, and mercifully I must add, because they were convicted of the lesser charge of “sedition of a far neighbor”, when it should have been “sedition of a close neighbor” and all that that entailed under Judaic law.
How you marginalize all the weight of all the miracles and all the history after that…it’s no wonder you can’t add 1 and 1 and come up with the right answer…you are too emotional and too bent on insult to consider all the facts rationally.
Heraclius deposed Phocus, the usurper of the Byzantine throne, in 610, the same year the Prophet was notified of his mission by God.
And later the Quran predicted the Romans would defeat the Persians (Iranians) and at the time of the prophecy the Romans were crushed and in total retreat from the Persians:
Surat Ar Rum 2& 3
“#2 The Roman Empire has been defeated- #3 In a land close by; but they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious”
What do you know? The unthinkable happened then as it was predicted.
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
"Hall said Valentine, an insurance underwriter, told the bailiff that she had been in courtrooms before with the scarf on..."
Yeah, and I've been to the airport pre 9/11 without having to be subjected to a search. It's a new world, Ms. Valentine. Deal with it.
jdamn,
Analogies, caricatures and allusions, like parables, are not expected to get up and walk on all fours, much less do the Canterbury gallop. I thought the word "eloquent", being in the eye of the beholder, would be engaging.
Regarding prophecies, like all all military commanders, Mohammad predicted victories. Those commanders who failed, we do not remember, generally. Had Mohammad's followers failed him in this, we wouldn't be discussing him. This does not make him divinely inspired, any more than Napoleon, despite Abdullah's protests above. Mohammad's other "prophecies" were careful to be eschataological, and are not claimed to be fulfilled at this time.
Regarding miracles and signs, Mohammad admittedly brought none, except the ayat of the Qur'an, whose "perfection" you've addressed above. Abdullah will have to clarify his claims above.
Abdullah,
Once again, you have been caught presenting as fact your opinions. Please produce actual Qur'anic quotations to support your contentions.
Abdullah,
That's incredible that such an important lineage was so pleasing to Allah while living in paganism. How many of them went to heaven? Only the sons of Isaac "sought to be guided"? Whay was that?
That is a fantastic claim. He certainly approved such. Do you forget the lies commended for the victims of his assassinations. Taqiyya? Kitman?
Prove it. Name them. Why your appeal to the ahadith when alternately (Kinana) you reject them? Why did Allah spare Mohammad from miracles, but bestow them on those after, making them dependent on isnad and subject to debate?
It is common knowledge that this is not generally accepted by all as fact, and is quite problematic historically and genetically. This is part of what I've asked you to justify, and you return with more naked assertions.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at December 19, 2008 10:40 AM
You said, “Mohammad admittedly brought none”
Once again, ignorantly assert a boldy incorrect statement, yes, the Quran is the continuous miracle, but yes, there were many others that came in his time as proofs.
I offered to you before just to “prime the pump”…Jesus fed five thousand from a single basket of bread and fish, right? That is a miracle. Multiple times the same occurred with Mohammad.
Food Multiplication:
Volume 3, Book 47, Number 773:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
My father was martyred on the day (of the battle) of Uhud and his creditors demanded the debt back in a harsh manner. So I went to Allah's Apostle and informed him of that, he asked them to accept the fruits of my garden and excuse my father, but they refused. So, Allah's Apostle did not give them the fruits, nor did he cut them and distribute them among them, but said, "I will come to you tomorrow morning." So, he came to us the next morning and walked about in between the date-palms and invoked Allah to bless their fruits. I plucked the fruits and gave back all the rights of the creditors in full, and a lot of fruits were left for us. Then I went to Allah's Apostle, who was sitting, and informed him about what happened. Allah's Apostle told 'Umar, who was sitting there, to listen to the story. 'Umar said, "Don't we know that you are Allah's Apostle? By Allah! you are Allah's Apostle!"
Supplication for Rain
Volume 8, Book 73, Number 115:
Narrated Anas:
A man came to the Prophet on a Friday while he (the Prophet) was delivering a sermon at Medina, and said, "There is lack of rain, so please invoke your Lord to bless us with the rain." The Prophet looked at the sky when no cloud could be detected. Then he invoked Allah for rain. Clouds started gathering together and it rained till the Medina valleys started flowing with water. It continued raining till the next Friday. Then that man (or some other man) stood up while the Prophet was delivering the Friday sermon, and said, "We are drowned; Please invoke your Lord to withhold it (rain) from us" The Prophet smiled and said twice or thrice, "O Allah! Please let it rain round about us and not upon us." The clouds started dispersing over Medina to the right and to the left, and it rained round about Medina and not upon Medina. Allah showed them (the people) the miracle of His Prophet and His response to his invocation.
Lights to guide Companions
Volume 1, Book 8, Number 454:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Two of the companions of the Prophet departed from him on a dark night and were led by two lights like lamps (going in front of them from Allah as a miracle) lighting the way in front of them, and when they parted, each of them was accompanied by one of these lights till he reached their (respective) houses.
Crying of the stem of the Date-palm Tree
Volume 4, Book 56, Number 783:
Narrated Ibn Umar:
The Prophet used to deliver his sermons while standing beside a trunk of a datepalm. When he had the pulpit made, he used it instead. The trunk started crying and the Prophet went to it, rubbing his hand over it (to stop its crying).
Glorification of Allah by the Prophet's meals
Volume 4, Book 56, Number 779:
Narrated 'Abdullah:
We used to consider miracles as Allah's Blessings, but you people consider them to be a warning. Once we were with Allah's Apostle on a journey, and we ran short of water. He said, "Bring the water remaining with you." The people brought a utensil containing a little water. He placed his hand in it and said, "Come to the blessed water, and the Blessing is from Allah." I saw the water flowing from among the fingers of Allah's Apostle , and no doubt, we heard the meal glorifying Allah, when it was being eaten (by him).
The explusion of a Christian liar's corpse by the Earth
Volume 4, Book 56, Number 814:
Narrated Anas:
There was a Christian who embraced Islam and read Surat-al-Baqara and Al-Imran, and he used to write (the revelations) for the Prophet. Later on he returned to Christianity again and he used to say: "Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him." Then Allah caused him to die, and the people buried him, but in the morning they saw that the earth had thrown his body out. They said, "This is the act of Muhammad and his companions. They dug the grave of our companion and took his body out of it because he had run away from them." They again dug the grave deeply for him, but in the morning they again saw that the earth had thrown his body out. They said, "This is an act of Muhammad and his companions. They dug the grave of our companion and threw his body outside it, for he had run away from them." They dug the grave for him as deep as they could, but in the morning they again saw that the earth had thrown his body out. So they believed that what had befallen him was not done by human beings and had to leave him thrown (on the ground).
The Speech of the Wolf
Volume 3, Book 39, Number 517:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "While a man was riding a cow, it turned towards him and said, 'I have not been created for this purpose (i.e. carrying), I have been created for sloughing." The Prophet added, "I, Abu Bakr and 'Umar believe in the story." The Prophet went on, "A wolf caught a sheep, and when the shepherd chased it, the wolf said, 'Who will be its guard on the day of wild beasts, when there will be no shepherd for it except me?' "After narrating it, the Prophet said, "I, Abu Bakr and 'Umar too believe it." Abu Salama (a sub-narrator) said, "Abu Bakr and 'Umar were not present then." (It has been written that a wolf also spoke to one of the companions of the Prophet near Medina as narrated in Fatah-al-Bari:
Narrated Unais bin 'Amr: Ahban bin Aus said, "I was amongst my sheep. Suddenly a wolf caught a sheep and I shouted at it. The wolf sat on its tail and addressed me, saying, 'Who will look after it (i.e. the sheep) when you will be busy and not able to look after it? Do you forbid me the provision which Allah has provided me?' " Ahban added, "I clapped my hands and said, 'By Allah, I have never seen anything more curious and wonderful than this!' On that the wolf said, 'There is something (more curious) and wonderful than this; that is, Allah's Apostle in those palm trees, inviting people to Allah (i.e. Islam).' "Unais bin 'Amr further said, "Then Ahban went to Allah's Apostle and informed him what happened and embraced Islam.)" palm trees or other trees and share the fruits with me."
I guess you missed these, huh? There are more, but this is enough.
Let's move beyond this erroneous assumption of yours that there were "no miracles", okay?
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at December 19, 2008 11:35 AM
I see we are tripping on each others tails here?
War is deceit, it still is today…that destroys the position of your post…of course you do not inform an open enemy of your tactics…duh, that is standard operational procedure in the military even today.
And you emphasis on the “his”, by no means did I imply he was the source…he was the one who brought THE message. Talk about cheap debate tactics…stick with the principle meaning and not the syntax errors, you know my position on this so don’t be cheap like that.
The lineage is more solidly known and traceable than that which Christian scholars produced for Jesus. The famous Shirosh Adedat debate, remember it? Adeedat produced the two different lists from two different Christian Theologians, one list was several feet longer than the other, and Adeedat said, paraphrased, “On these two lists no two names are the same except for one, which doesn’t belong there: John the Carpenter (as was supposed.)”
So if you want to throw stones in a glass house, go ahead.
“Prove it. Name them. Why your appeal to the ahadith when alternately (Kinana) you reject them?”
My reasons are valid.
Research all things as a teacher not as a student. Verify. If something does not jive research it and discover as much about it as you can.
Case in point, Tafsir of Ibn Kathir has some wonderful content, and some you must be wary of and that cannot be taken as fact by itself, but must have supporting sahih hadiths to support it.
Tabari has an issue such as this in the hadith I researched along with such quotes he makes to a work that no longer exists and his quotes on that work as thus “heresay” only from Tabari.
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
@December 19, 2008 12:08 PM
Abdullah,
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Muhammad's_Miracles%3F
This issue of "miracles" is hardly resolved.
An observer's note on the ongoing debate…
Being pretty much the quintessential, unbelieving Infidel, I've always felt that debates over what could be proved or disproved in matters of faith were, by definition, doomed to failure. But, comparing the recorded words and actions of the philosophers that inspired Islam and Christianity, it easy for me to reach a conclusion about which tradition is one of peace, and allows freedom and opportunity to everyone. Even lacking faith, my concern for the maintenance and advancement of a tolerant, civil society, the rule of law, freedom of expression and economic freedom, all continue to make me appreciate the values and intellectual achievement that has grown out of the West's Judeo-Christian heritage.
So, after scanning through the exchange between Abdullah and others, and in keeping with the latest leftist politically correct, feel good, everyone's a winner even if it's obvious they're a loser merit system, I propose a new category be added to Dhimmi and Anti-Dhimmi awards:
The Abdullah Mikalarkeyovitch IslamoChomsky Propaganda Prize for Fantastic Religious Bushitery
...to be given each year to those who show the most determined commitment to taqiyya and prosthelization in the service of enslaving themselves and others to a life of unthinking, senseless intolerance and violence, and for inhibiting the general progress of the human species for no particular reason at all.
Congratulations Abdullah, you're our first winner.
(Disclaimer, to be read as rapidly as possible: No insult intended or implied for Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, atheism, or any other isms not explicitly defined by the promoters of said isms to subjugate, intimidate, kill, enslave, or in any other way make life unbearable for adherents or innocent bystanders, no matter what their definitions of innocent or bystander may entail. Contest rules may vary depending on location; check your local imam for details and limitations.)
… and I still spelled the prize wrong:
The Abdullah Mikalarkeyovitch IslamoChomsky Propaganda Prize for Fantastic Religious Bullshitery
I hate it when that happens.
Abdullah,
Sorry, Mohammad, you say, was a prophet, thus held to higher standards of conduct. This did not include assassinations being acceptible. Or justifying the lying required thereof.
Jesus lineage was published before the destruction of the Temple records. It was easily verified, and would have been an immediate issue with the Pharasees as it would have been used to disqualify him as Messiah. You accept him as the "Messiah" per your texts. What exactly are you taking issue with?
Mo, on the other hand, had no records. His "geneology" was published hundreds of years after his death. So, no, I don't accept your "glass house" argument as an adequate response to my requests for archaelogical sourcing of the sira geneology.
It would be easier to determine if your "validity" statement were valid, if you supplied said reasons, instead of just pronouncing it so. Please discuss why you consider the ahadith you quoted as able to trump the Qur'an verses I supplied of whether or not Mo practiced miracles.
I would like to return to something you wrote earlier. "Except for the soteriology....". There are many more differences, but this IS the pivotal one. Islam has no soteriology. Just Allah's capricious will.
Oh, and the "teacher" "student" analogy has worn thin.
"Oh, and the "teacher" "student" analogy has worn thin."
Only to those who refuse to learn.
"This issue of "miracles" is hardly resolved."
You, as always, miss the entire point and meaning of each verse you quoted, and if you note the splitting of the moon was finally the "Okay, here is a miracle for you." instance.
Did the Quraish learn? Nope. Like you they stuck their heads in the sand and denied.
They said it was "mere magic" and said to wait a year rather than admit what they saw with their own eyes...they waited until those came for the hajj the next year, and asked the pilgrims if they saw the moon split...the pilgrims from all over Arabia admitted it. The Quraish said, "You bewitched us you must have bewitched them, too."
And no, producing the hadiths that verify my comments will not do you any good as you have proven to be a very poor student.
Go study.
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
Abdullah,
(Reposting for clarity)
Abdullah,
When all else fails, claim victory. I would love to believe that you are merely opaque. But comparing you to other Muslim apologists, you all resort to the same when backed into a corner:
It doesn't say that.
That's not what it means.
It's not in context.
The isnad is not valid.
Everybody back then did that.
Your religion has flaws, too.
Your argument does not follow (bald assertion).
I win (Muslim pronounces baseless victory).
YOU have proven to be not only a poor student, but a waste of talent. I had hopes for you. There you are again, your sole criterion:
Good for Islam = good
Bad for Islam = bad
Sorry. If you just admitted you can't produce the hadiths, you would have more credibility.
By the way, the moon did not split. And I'm in "good" company:
From Wiki:
There's some more who are slow to learn. Saddening that your declension slid into mere insults. Insult your brethren above, also.
This is borrowed. If I knew who wrote it originally I would give credit.
Some guides to logical fallacies to supplement the last post:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
BTW, where is AM?
Imsak: 5:36 AM
Fajr: 5:45 AM
Sunrise: 7:10 AM
Zuhr: 12:17 PM
Sunset: 5:24 PM
Maghrib: 5:44 PM
A list of fallacious arguments with which to further analyze AM
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#beard
“Sorry. If you just admitted you can't produce the hadiths, you would have more credibility.”
I can produce them, I am just not going to waste the time…that’s all. There is no need to labor you or me in digging it up, you only argue.
You asked for miracle, I produced exactly the same miracle Jesus came with, multiplication of food.
What did you do? Scoffed and rejected, so what is the use?
You ask for proof, it was produced…yet, you still want to argue?
No insult intended, you are a rejector, it is just your nature.
“This is borrowed. If I knew who wrote it originally I would give credit.”
I have seen the list before.
If I say 1 + 1 = 2, and all other Muslims say the same, you will find someone like yourself who will argue about it, say it is some grand conspiracy since all Muslims say 1 + 1 =2, and for everyone reading to just ignore it…it’s a conspiracy…it has nothing to do with validity in the responses…no, really…it’s just a pat answer they prepare ahead of time…just don’t listen to them even if they are saying the same thing…no, really, we can dig up one of them who says something different…I have read posts from your like before many times.
You are like the Pagans who stood around clapping and whistling when the message was being recited…not only are you a rejector yourself, but you bent on impeding others in hearing the message and in making up their own minds…you attempt to create noise and distraction.
All the same, peace to you, and we both will witness the truth in the end.
You can argue until then if you like.
: )
Abdullah Mikail
Abdullah,
Your projection and splitting are in full bloom. First you say Cornelius and I are the best ones to correspond with here, now I'm..."your like...like the Pagans...bent on impeding others...attempt[ing] to create noise and distraction."
I did not ask you to "prove" any Mohametan "miracle", I asked you to give an example, since as I pointed out above, you are not in unanimity with many of your coreligionists, or consonant with some of the renderings of the statements of your "prophet" from the Qur'an.
You are the queen bee of distraction. Every time we honor someone who died in service to anti-jihad efforts, or died due to lack of them, there you are with your "look at me" distractions and noise.
I "scoffed and rejected"? I showed you where your coreligionists "scoffed and rejected". Get your stories straight.
That's the point. You don't. You're not like them. You know it, that's part of why you hang out with us.
You've got your own version of "Islam", and for some reason you want to foist it on us as the only, long-lost "true", original, caliph/ummah/ulema accepted strain, and it's just not. Early on, you tried to get us to believe that you recognized that, and that you were trying to sway others. Now you just state your opinions as fact. We don't buy it. They (other Muslims) don't buy it.
Now you have a new word for me, "Rejecter", as though that somehow typecasts and simultaneously nullifies my arguments. Sorry, they're there in print, hanging above, and you haven't dealt with them. There is not unanimity about my questions regarding the pre-Mohametan Ishmaelite era, and you have provided no substantive argument as to why not, except to ridiculously attempt to downgrade expectations, in effect saying in their rank Paganism, Allah was pleased with them, and they needed neither prophet nor chastisement.
Are you that dense? Those Pagans are the Quraysh, the same tribe you're in effect trying to say was destined by Allah to be the garden that grew your final "prophet". You haven't explained in any meaningful way how Allah otherwise inapparently blessed them between Ishamael and Mohammad. You haven't explained in any meaningful way why the sons of Isaac were BLESSED, meanwhile the sons of Ishmael were FORGOTTEN for thousands of years (except for your absurdity that all of the divine provenance, blessings, miracles, signs, epiphanies, wise writings and realized predictive prophecy granted Israel were just window trappings of divine retributive justice. You trivialize 4000 years of divine history into a series of Deuteronomy 28 moments. How shallow. Meanwhile, while the sons of Ismael were following every creed of the day, they somehow pleased Allah such that they didn't need a prophet. Do you even read what you type?
AND, you trivialized all of soteriology to say we are more alike than our differences. God help you! That is the crux of our existence. How are our indignities upon God's holy honor repaired in a way that exalts His mercy and justice? Islam has no plan. Just a shahada, and all of the f-you's to Allah's intentions are forgotten. Just forgotten. You're off to screwing the virgins. Or not. Allah's choice.
No, sir, we are not alike. Not at all. Still I will pray for you and your family, that you and they will see Islam for what it is, and leave it, safely.