He didn't just snap: Fort Hood jihadist to be charged with premeditated murder

I am not an expert on military justice, but I assume Major Nasan can also be charged with treason.

"How important do you think it is that Major Nidal keep this word, this contract, this oath, that he signed upon the US Army granting his comission?"

--posted by abdullah

Answer: Not important at all as the oath was made to an infidel army at war with Muhammadans.

Undaunted,

If muslims are really up to no good, why has Pakistan not used any of its nuclear missiles ?

btw, here is a video of girls in muslim Lebanon showing a lot of skin and I have not heard of any Lebanese muslim attacking girls for wearing skimpy clothing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks79QzXPdvk&feature=fvw

Posted by Yankel, "Answer: Not important at all as the oath was made to an infidel army at war with Muhammadans."

The hadith details exactly that situation, yet, true to form, you shrugged your shoulders just enough for your hairy knuckles to stop dragging the pavement, and, seemingly, say "So what?"

So what? Well, Nidal did not do as he was commanded to in his professed faith, Islam.

Nidal was acting on his own personal issues.

Peace
Abdullah

"Nidal was acting on his own personal issues."

Dijjal Mikail,
He was acting on his own islamic issues. (Just like you.)

Mohammad was Dijjal, and islam is his donkey.

PVB,

At least you are making an attempt rather than just being an ass such as undaunted and Yankel.

The hadith you referred to means something you swore to do that was good with something you see that is better in goodness…it cannot be twisted to mean, if you swore to do good you are allowed to expiate that broken oath if you do something evil instead. Sorry, you have misunderstood the hadith you referred to.

Here is a section in context to Nidal’s broken oaths, and if he prememdiated his action as it seems for years it was brewing, then he is in big trouble and not from what we inflict upon him after conviction for his obvious murders:

The making of false Oaths:

From: Explanation of Important Lessons for Every Muslim, By Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baz, pg. 337-338

Surah Ghadir 40:28

‘Verify Allah guides not one who is a transgressing liar.”

Surah An-Nahl 16:94

“And make not your oaths, a means of deception amond yourselves, lest a foot may slip after being firmly plantes, and you may have to taste the evcil of having hindered from the path of Allah, and yours will be a great torment.”

The great sins are association of partners with Allah, being undutiful to one’s parents, killing someone, and a lying oath.

In Arabic, the word used to describe this oath is Ghamus ( an oath made with the intention of deception), which comes from Ghamasa, which means to dip, therefore it is an oath that dips the one who made it into sin (or into the hell fire.)

[my comment in brackets]

So Nidal in no way can claim he was acting on Islam and no one here can claim the same either out of anything other than bias and hatred.

Nidal is an evil person who committed evil acts of his own accord….nothing in the religion of Islam can be attributed as allowing what he did.

Peace
Abdullah

Yankel,

I never claimed that obtuse linguistic interpretation of dharaba, and my explanation of the associated verses is a matter of record here on JW.

You're just throwing mud, but it is not going to stick, you are a liar.

Peace
Abdullah

"Nidal is an evil person who committed evil acts of his own accord….nothing in the religion of Islam can be attributed as allowing what he did."

Correction: The so called religion of islam can be attributed as to allowing every thing that he did.

These crimes belong to you and the rest of your death worshipers.

You are right Nidal is an evil person, who would have never done what he did if he had never been inslaved by islam.

islam = Murder

AdDijjal Mikail = lies.

GFYS

Mobamad,

There's a little problem you have with lack of proof.

I state the truth, and I back it up.

Your opinion is just that, an opinion, and it is not based on fact.

Peace
Abdullah

@abdullah

YOU ARE A PROVEN LIAR!!!!

Here's your post:

Author Profile Page AbdullahMikail | September 25, 2009 2:57 PM

Explanation (tafsir) of Sura 4:34
“Men are the support of women as God gives some more means than others, and because they spend of their wealth (to provide for them). So women who are virtuous are obedient to God and guard the hidden as God has guarded it. As for women you feel are averse, talk to them suasively; then leave them alone in bed (without molesting them) and go to bed with them (when they are willing). If they open out to you, do not seek an excuse for blaming them. Surely God is sublime and great.”

Meaning of the Words

Daraba (to have intercourse, not to beat)
Raghib points out that daraba metaphorically means to have intercourse, and quotes the expression darab al-fahl an-naqah, 'the stud camel covered the she-camel,' which is also quoted by Lisan al-'Arab. It cannot be taken here to mean 'to strike them (women).' This view is strengthened by the Prophet's authentic hadith found in a number of authorities, including Bukhari and Muslim: "Could any of you beat your wife as he would a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?" There are other traditions in Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad bin Hanbal and others, to the effect that he forbade the beating of any woman, saying: "Never beat God's handmaidens."

Source:
Al-Qur'an: a contemporary translation by Ahmed Ali, Princeton University Press, 1988; pp78-79

In the past, some translators of this verse have mistakeningly used the word "beat" to represent the word "" in Arabic. This is not the opinion of all scholars especially Raghib and Zamakhshari as mentioned above and those who are well grounded in both Islam understanding and the English language.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/09/new-york-muslim-women-confront-domestic-violence-but-deny-islam-plays-a-role-in-it.html

Yankel,

Glad I have a catalofue of every post of significance...seems JW has wiped most of the comments on that thread but left the selective ones.

Here is the response to your stupid assertions that I was the author of the opinion you are braying about:

AbdullahMikail replied to comment from Yankel | September 28, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply

Yankel,

Darabha is a tap, and lightly as explained by the Prophet such that it does not even leave a mark and never on the face, he wa asked to explain it, and he held up a miswak, a tooth brush, and said, "With this." It is the last step in the series of actions prior to divorce. It does not mean "beat" in respect to what you are meaning. It can never mean that in respect to how it was explained.

Now if you still fail to understand we'll post it again for you one more time:

The excerpt I posted prior to walking out of my office was from “Al-Qur'an: a contemporary translation by Ahmed Ali, Princeton University Press, 1988; pp78-79”

The opinion on daraba was Ahmed's not mine...my opinion has been expressed here before straight forward and it is nothing akin to what you allude to. It is exactly what I issued above and not different from it.

Contact Ahmed if you want to discuss Arabic linguistics and his odd take on that word.

You are the only one who is hung up on that word and the way you want it represented.

Clear enough, yet?

Peace
Abdullah

END OF EXCERPT

So, again, Yankel, you are the one lying. My opinion on the verse is a matter of public record on more than just JW.

As I said, I post the truth, and I back it up...try again, becayse you once again have failed.

(P.S. You are also lying about the CAIR thing...)

Peace
Abdullah

"Glad I have a catalofue of every post of significance...seems JW has wiped most of the comments on that thread but left the selective ones."

Dude, you are pathetic.

Whaaa Robert took my posts. Whaaa.

Whaaa. Poor me. Whaaa.

What a tool.

(P.S. You are also lying about the CAIR thing...)

Prove it Dijjal.

Where do you work? Like you even have a job.

Never mind I dont want to hear your lies.

??? Liar?

Dijjal? Are you there? Are you writing up some deep, and well thought out lie?

Just wondering.

You are a liar.
Mobamad

Hesperado,

It's really very simple... I don't know why you are making it so hard on yourself...let's try and simplify it more, shall we?

If you swear an oath to keep your oath how can it be considered something good to break your oath?

That is the least common denominator.

Peace
Abdullah

Spot on, you stated :

The less Muslim you are the more civil you are.

Comment :

So weak or less muslims do exist ?

In other words, islam is not more powerful than christianity and because it is not more powerful than christianity, islam cannot override the will power of any muslim, just as christianity cannot override the will power of any christian.

"In other words, islam is not more powerful than christianity and because it is not more powerful than christianity, islam cannot override the will power of any muslim, just as christianity cannot override the will power of any christian."

Christianity overrides the willpower of Christians every day. It helps them to make possitive choices in there, and in the lives of others.

Islam overrides a muslems willpower to do good in there own, and others lives. The more pious a muslem becomes the more radical he/she becomes. Becuse islam promices paradice for killing infidels, vs weighing good deed, and bad. The more pious a muslem, the more prone to murder he will become. Killing some one else vs going to hell for not enough good deeds?

islam is the pinnacle of selfishness.

PVB,

Once again a thoughtful inquiry, thanks.

The problem is what he did was not what he gave his word to do, an oath, that must be kept.

Previously I posted the direct order from Mohammad about the nature of keeping oaths even with sworn enemies, now, Nidal had an oath with sworn commrades.

We can not qualify that Nidal was doing something “better in goodness” by violating a direct order based in the Quran about oaths and keeping them, and further reinforced by the hadith I noted in a direct order by the Prophet in keeping oaths ( even sworn to open enemies.)

If he indeed thought he was “doing something better” then he was insane.

Many of the things detailed about Nidal’s actions leading up to the event prove he was not a “devout Muslim” and much of what he did falls into the same category, absolutely forbidden, so, for someone to try and say he was a “devout Muslim” is just a media spin.

We could even dig in to the rules of engagement for legal justified war conducted Islamically and we will find no legality to what he did…it is absolutely forbidden to gun down an unarmed soldier who is not actively attacking you even if you are in a legally declared war against them…which Nidal was not..these were people he swore an oath to protect and serve.

By breaking his service oath and gunning down unarmed soldiers he swore to protect and serve with he only proved he is insane.

I am not sure about when Nidal started his planning or his life style changes…he was insane for doing what he did and he will be held accountable for his actions both here and when he is judged before God.

Peace
Abdullah

champ,

They should charge him for everything he did...but there is easily enough to get a death sentence, so he'll get what is coming to him here in life, and before God he will have to answer to each of the people whose lives he took and that punishment is more grave than anything we could inflict upon him.

Peace
Abdullah

Correct.

David Hume nailed this, centuries ago. He saw - as Spencer also points out, in 'The Truth About Muhammad' and also in 'Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades', that 'good' in Islamspeak boils down to pure expediency, i.e. 'what is good for, or strengthens, Muslims' and 'bad' = 'what is bad for, or weakens, Muslims'.

David Hume:


"But would we know, whether the pretended prophet {i.e. Mohammed} had really attained a just sentiment of morals?

"Let us attend to his narration;

"and we shall soon find, that he bestows praise on such instances of treachery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, bigotry, as are utterly incompatible with civilized society.

"No steady rule of right seems there to be attended to;

"and every action is blamed or praised, so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers." 


David Hume (1711-1776) "Of the Standard of Taste: Paragraph 4" (1757) .

There it is - 'every action is blamed or praised so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers'.

Expediency.

I'll put it simply, for a proletariat like you, Mobamad, if you worked for an average American salary of $43,473 you would have to work for 4,945.5 years to earn the equivalent of what crossed my desk this year.

Peace
Abdullah

[Mobamad thinking hard, "Duh, gee, I didn't know CAIR paid that well? Wonder if they're hiring?"]

"he'll get what is coming to him here in life, and before God he will have to answer to each of the people whose lives he took and that punishment is more grave than anything we could inflict upon him."

All will stand before Jesus and account for their life, as will you one day stand before the living God.

Come out off the darkness of Islam, and stand for the TRUTH that is Jesus. He will forgive you if you ask him.

Is God's judgement an "in lieu of" judgement you're presenting, AM? Hasan needs to answer for his crimes here 'n now, and then God will administer his own judgement on this barbarian at the appropriate time. But for now, Hasan has a debt to pay to society and to the military. And Hasan deserves a military execution.

Home Builder? And you still have a job...okay, it's possible...then make that 2,584 years.

Peace
Abdullah

Actualy, that makes sense concidering that you are about half of the man that I am so...

Sex...in...space...

Your religon, just like your pay grade is nonsense.

GFYS
Mobamad

Duke Leto Atreides:

"Paul!" The Duke frowned at his son. "Knowing where the trap is - that is the first step in evading it. This is like single combat, Son, only on a larger scale - a feint within a feint within a feint... seemingly without end."

All the Kuffar needs to know .... Muslims always bend the rules, quote scripture to benifit the Muslims etc. Even Mohammed did it in regards to breaking prohibitions on caravan raiding ... when it suited the Muslims.

'Like talking to a man who isn't there'.

True. When he took the shahada, allah moved right in and started eating his soul.

Depending on how much of him there was, before he got sucked into Islam, there might be a few remnants of the old Michael Mackay left, as yet uneaten. Unfortunately, since he actively *chose* to be a Muslim, it's unlikely that what's left of his original self even wants or tries to get free, even if it becomes visible now and again.

So, most of the time, all one hears in his postings is 'the Islam' talking: drearily similar to quite a few other apologists for Islam who have appeared on this forum since 2004 and whose words can be read in the archives if one cares to investigate.

I suspect that it - The Islam Program - is simply angry with Major Hasan for choosing Fast Jihad and blowing Islam's cover at a time when Slow Jihad is still, in the USA, the officially-preferred method.

"Hadith - Sahih Bukhari 1:35, Narrated Abu Huraira

The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause"

Abdullah Mikail: "If he indeed thought he was “doing something better” then he was insane."

Looks pretty simple to me. Fight in Allah's battles = ticket to heaven. Simple reading and basic logic would have led him to renounce his oath because he is now on a path to do something better!

Abdullah, I really appreciate what you're trying to do here. Honestly, I do. You seem to be the voice of peace and reason. Your problem is not that we don't believe you. Your problem is that your fellow Muslims don't believe you. If yours was the voice we hear chastising other Muslims in public, then hooray for you! But it's not. There is no such voice.

But no, you would rather chastise us. If everyone of us here believed you and Jihad Watch ceased to exist, the attacks in the name of Islam would continue. Telling us that night is day and black is white does nothing for your religion. Specifically, telling us that Nidal is not acting out of some kind of Islamic belief treats us like idiots.

Tell you what; how much would you be willing to bet that when this comes to trial Nidal won't justify his actions based on Islamic teachings?

It's a bit of a mug's bet, because any half decent lawyer will go straight to insanity and tell Nidal to keep his mouth shut at all times. But I'll take the risk that he won't be able to help himself.

Undaunted,

Thanks for your comment.

I am not a rookie here. And I have never once said that I speak for anyone other than myself. If you object to the use of the words "we" and "us" in my post - read closer. He directs his comments to all and I respond on behalf of myself.

Maybe I should make that clearer; is this your main concern? If so, I'll consider adding a disclaimer to the end of all of my postings from now on. But I would have thought that I would need a statement such as "Speaking for myself and I think many others" before people would think I was speaking on their behalf.

"He lies. On purpose." So? I have picked Abdullah Mikail up several times on his lies and mistakes. Maybe Hesperado, Cornelius and Dumbledoresarmy would like to confirm this. All have commented on my posts in the past (sometimes vehemently disagreeing with me - but we're cool)

"He is consistently the voice of division and prevarication" Does that mean that the only people who should be allowed to write to JW are the ones that agree with you? The solution is simple: enjoy creating your own Little Green Footballs website.

I am allowed to disagree with Abdullah Mikail - much as I am with you right now. This does not mean I have to be rude to him.

And I'll keep my own counsel on what I will and will not say.

Once again, thanks for your feedback.

Actually, note that he has such sums crossing his desk. That really is not the same as income. He could simply be in accounts payable and a 10-key jockey. Or, perhaps if such sums actually pass over his desk, he could be involved in a Tex/Mex drug cartel. That might make some sense. From what I have seen, there is not enough candlepower there to generate such sums legitimately. Also, our friend does spend alot of time online that a genuine entrepreneur would not have if he hoped to make anything.

@AdullahMikail.

Adullah, The problem with Islam is there are many ways of interpreting it. You must partake in mental gymnastics just to defend the indefensible. So why even bring up the Hadith about the Toothbrush? Are you claiming this a general fact in Islam? Like in all religions this most certainly is not a general fact. Yet you claim you understand the general truth? You understand a personal truth but not the general truth. Noone who belongs to a religion understands what the complete truth is they only understand their personal truth of it.

For example:

1.) In the Arabic form of the Quran you will not find the word "lightly". The word "lightly" was thrown in apologetically by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. Yet it does not exist in the Arabic form.

"Alrrijalu qawwamoona AAala alnnisai bima faddala Allahu baAAdahum AAala baAAdin wabima anfaqoo min amwalihim faalssalihatu qanitatun hafithatun lilghaybi bima hafitha Allahu waallatee takhafoona nushoozahunna faAAithoohunna waohjuroohunna fee almadajiAAi waidriboohunna fain ataAAnakum fala tabghoo AAalayhinna sabeelan inna Allaha kana AAaliyyan kabeeran"

"Men are caretakers of women, since Allah has made some of them excel the others, and because of the wealth they have spent. So, the righteous women are obedient, (and) guard (the property and honor of their husbands) in (their) absence with the protection given by Allah. As for women of whom you fear rebellion, convince them, and leave them apart in beds, and beat them. Then, if they obey you, do not seek a way against them. Surely, Allah is the Highest, the Greatest." - Mufti Taqi Usmani translation.

2.) Surah/Ayah(33:21) "Laqad kana lakum fee rasooli Allahi oswatun hasanatun liman kana yarjoo Allaha waalyawma alakhira wathakara Allaha katheeran."

"There is indeed a good model for you in the Messenger of Allah for the one who has hope in Allah and the Last Day, and remembers Allah profusely." Mufti Taqi Usmani translation.

3.) Sahih Muslim: Book 004 No. 2127.

"She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed."

Nothing about "lightly tapping" with a "Toothbrush" here. He hit her with his hand right in the chest and caused her pain. It doesn't get any clearer than that.(Now go back and read 33:21 at this time)Clearly, there is a contradiction here between the tap lightly toothbrush Hadith and the using of your hand to strike a female in the chest and cause pain Hadith.

So based on this islamic evidence will you admit the hadiths are only purportedly the words & deeds of the prophet, and are nothing more but a compilation(not authorised by god ) of rumors falsely attributed to the prophet intended for the fulfillment of personal self-interests and ideas that are mostly radical, that were compiled 400 years after the prophet's death and have portrayed the prohet as a figure greater than god? moreover, annecdotes in the hadiths have repeatedly contradict via quranic principles. (refer to Qu'ran 6:38)

"Wama min dabbatin fee alardi wala tairin yateeru bijanahayhi illa omamun amthalukum ma farratna fee alkitabi min shayin thumma ila rabbihim yuhsharoona."

"There is no creature moving on the earth, nor a bird flying on its two wings, but they are all communities like you. We have not missed anything in the Book. Then, to their Lord all of them shall be gathered." - Mufti Taqi Usmani translation.

"Do not write anything from me except the Qur'an. Whoever wrote must destroy it." — Muhammad, narrated by Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri.

The Quran and muhammad himself are even telling you nothing has been "omitted from the Book." Both are confirming that all necessary instruction can be found within the Quran, without resorting to the Hadith.

Jami' Al-Bayan 1/67: "I wanted to write the Sun'an, and I remembered a people who were before you, they wrote other books to follow and abandoned the book of God. And I will never, I swear, replace God's book with anything'"

The quote above comes after Muhammad's death. It belongs to Omar. Omar was quoted as stating that he had desired to write down a collection of the prophet's sayings, but refrained for fear of the Muslims choosing to abandon the teachings of the Quran in favour of the Hadith.

Yet you have abandoned the Qu'ran for the hadith after the Quran, Muhammad, and Omar specifically advised against it.
Now the question is why? Why have you done this? You've done this because in Quran 4:34 the Arabic word for "LIGHTY" is nowhere to be found. Thus, it logically follows that Muslims are instructed by Quran 4:34 to just BEAT their wives.

Your religion is a illogical joke.

Oh bugger off.

Who cares about your barbaric and stupid shar'ia law except for you Throwbacks?

How soon can he be condemned to an horrible and gruesome death, preferably on television and beamed all over the Islamic world? Since he's paralyzed from the waist down, let's cut off that bit first and send it to the nutcase in Iran so they can martyrize and pray to it just like good little savages. We could save the waist-up bit to impale on a pike at a public location where it would be the target of rocks, garbage, pig blood, and dog shit.

Proxy,

Tafsir.

That is what you are missing in your slighting of Yusuf Ali in his “throwing in” the word “lightly.”

Once again, as often, it isn’t really your fault because you are not studying the issue to determine the truth, yet only looking around for a stone to throw.

The hadith that discusses the verse specifically has been addressed by both Dr. Musammil H Siddiqi and Dr. Jamal Badawi who are both qualified to issue fatwa:

Commenting on this issue, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America, states:

"According to Quran the relationship between the husband and wife should be based on mutual love and kindness. Allah says: "And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect." (Quran: Ar-Rum 21)

The Holy Quran urges husbands to treat their wives with kindness. (In the event of a family dispute, Quran exhorts the husband to treat his wife kindly and not to overlook her positive aspects). Allah Almighty says: “Live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good.” (Quran: An-Nisaa 19)

It is important that a wife recognizes the authority of her husband in the house. He is the head of the household, and she is supposed to listen to him. But the husband should also use his authority with respect and kindness towards his wife. If there arises any disagreement or dispute among them, then it should be resolved in a peaceful manner. Spouses should seek the counsel of their elders and other respectable family members and friends to batch up the rift and solve the differences.

However, in some cases a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife, but this is only applicable in extreme cases and it should be resorted to if one is sure it would improve the situation. However, if there is a fear that it might worsen the relationship or may wreak havoc on him or the family, then he should avoid it completely.

Quran is very clear on this issue. Almighty Allah says: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more strength than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore, the righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in the husband's absence what Allah would have them to guard. As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance); for Allah is most High and Great (above you all). If you fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers. If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation; for Allah has full knowledge and is acquainted with all things." (Quran: An-Nisaa 34-35)

It is important to read the section fully. One should not take part of the verse and use it to justify one's own misconduct. This verse neither permits violence nor condones it. It guides us to ways to handle delicate family situation with care and wisdom. The word "beating" is used in the verse, but it does not mean "physical abuse". The Prophet (p.b.u.h.) explained it "dharban ghayra mubarrih" which means "a light tap that leaves no mark". He further said that face must be avoided. Some other scholars are of the view that it is no more than a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush.

Generally, the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) used to discourage his followers from taking even this measure. He never hit any female, and he used to say that the best of men are those who do not hit their wives. In one Hadith he expressed his extreme repulsion from this behavior and said, "How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her?” (Al-Bukhari, English Translation, vol. 8, Hadith 68, pp. 42-43)

It is also important to note that even this "light strike" mentioned in the verse is not to be used to correct some minor problem, but it is permissible to resort to only in a situation of some serious moral misconduct when admonishing the wife fails, and avoiding from sleeping with her would not help. If this disciplinary action can correct a situation and save the marriage, then one should use it."

Dr. Jamal Badawi, professor at Saint Mary's University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, and a cross-appointed faculty member in the Departments of Religious Studies and Management, adds:

"If the problem relates to the wife's behavior, the husband may exhort her and appeal for reason. In most cases, this measure is likely to be sufficient. In cases where the problem persists, the husband may express his displeasure in another peaceful manner, by sleeping in a separate bed from hers. There are cases, however, in which a wife persists in bad habits and showing contempt of her husband and disregard for her marital obligations. Instead of divorce, the husband may resort to another measure that may save the marriage, at least in some cases. Such a measure is more accurately described as a gentle tap on the body, but never on the face, making it more of a symbolic measure than a punitive one.

Even here, that maximum measure is limited by the following:

a. It must be seen as a rare exception to the repeated exhortation of mutual respect, kindness and good treatment. Based on Quran and Hadith, this measure may be used in the cases of lewdness on the part of the wife or extreme refraction and rejection of the husband's reasonable requests on a consistent basis (nushuz). Even then, other measures, such as exhortation, should be tried first.

b. As defined by Hadith, it is not permissible to strike anyone's face, cause any bodily harm or even be harsh. What the Hadith qualifies as "dharban ghayra mubarrih", or light striking, was interpreted by early jurists as a (symbolic) use of siwak! They further qualified permissible "striking" as that which leaves no mark on the body.

c. The permissibility of such symbolic expression of the seriousness of continued refraction does not imply its desirability. In several Hadiths, the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) discouraged this measure. Here are some of his sayings in this regard:

"Do not beat the female servants of Allah";

"Some (women) visited my family complaining about their husbands (beating them). These (husbands) are not the best of you."

In another Hadith the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) is reported to have said: “How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?”

d. True following of the Sunnah is to follow the example of the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) who never resorted to that measure, regardless of the circumstances.

e. Islamic teachings are universal in nature. They respond to the needs and circumstances of diverse times, cultures and circumstances. Some measures may work in some cases and cultures or with certain persons but may not be effective in others. By definition, a "permissible" act is neither required, encouraged or forbidden. In fact it may be to spell out the extent of permissibility, such as in the issue at hand, rather than leaving it unrestricted or unqualified, or ignoring it all together. In the absence of strict qualifiers, persons may interpret the matter in their own way, which can lead to excesses and real abuse.

f. Any excess, cruelty, family violence, or abuse committed by any "Muslim" can never be traced, honestly, to any revelatory text (Quran or Hadith). Such excesses and violations are to be blamed on the person (s) himself, as it shows that they are paying lip service to Islamic teachings and injunctions and failing to follow the true Sunnah of the Prophet (p.b.u.h.)."

Allah Almighty knows best.

END OF EXCERPT

This is the correct opinion and the verse cannot be pulled out of context to mean anything other than that expressed above…only the ignorant or the willfully dispbedient and evil people do as such and say as such.

It does not mean “beat” it can never mean “beat” in the sense you are conveying based solely on the Quran, and furthermore strengthened by the hadith.

I hope this clears the issue up for at least you.

Peace
Abdullah

I will say it again: the Slave is not a man of peace and reason and if you insist on saying for me that he is, then I think you need to go with the disclaimer, mikey.

As for being rude to him, I'll handle that since he's evidently got you handing him tissue.

PURE BULLSHIT.

Every comment of this ass-clown abdullah mikhail (a paid misinformer from CAIR Dallas) has been debunked.

Foolster,

You should listen to me because I post the truth and proof...

Let’s address your closing whine first, then go through each point, shall we?

Foolster you wrote “The Truth hurts. If you can address ALL of these issues then you're free to criticize people here. If you ignore this topic and continue to attack, I will simply post this again and again and again.”

[Well, gee, thanks for the permission to criticize…coming from someone who programs kiddy games for people to waste time with as a living this is real high on my list of personal accomplishments.]

You wrote “Abdullah: Don't worry, I've been keeping records of what you've said for posterity.”

Pulling selective quotes out of context as if I haven’t responded?

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

#1) AM cited "From a Canadian National News Paper 2006:" about a tank being destroyed inside Lebanon. When called on the factualness of this, he doesn't give any further citations to prove it.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/01/the-jihad-widens-hezbollah-attacks-israel.html

I posted the link to the paper on JW as well as FPM…the Canadian National News has wiped the original story, but I copied it and archived it, as well as found it here:

http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org/arab-israeli-conflict/3282-what-purpose-israeli-conflict.html

It has the map showing where the tank sat burning through the entire 34 day conflict.

“The supposed "cross border raid" that occurred was mis-represented by the western media...they kept implying that Hezbollah entered Israel to abduct the soldiers when it was the other way around.

An IDF tank invaded Lebanon and was destroyed...six ( or eight?) IDF soldiers unfortunately lost their lives and two were captured INSIDE Lebanon.

EXCERPT

Israel launches war against Lebanon based upon Disinformation

Israeli soldiers were actually captured in Lebanon.

Having consulted foreign correspondents and reliable independent editorial sources, it appears that Israel has launched a war against Lebanon, under the cover of dissembled media reports. These independent sources include the U.S.-based Associated Press. The Canadian National Newspaper originally reported that Israel's launched war was a reactionary response to Hezbollah venturing into Israel, and kidnapping Israeli soldiers. However, it is apparent that members of the Israeli army were captured well inside Lebanon.

Hezbollah has demanded for years now the release of prisoners held by Israel, such as Samir el Kantar, imprisoned since 1978, Nassim Nisr and Yahia Skaff, imprisoned since 1982. On innumerable occasions Hezbollah made it known that, in turn, it would not hesitate to capture Israeli soldiers- if they enter Lebanon -- and to use them as bargaining counters. “

END OF EXCERPT

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

#2) Foolster posted [AM said: "“Manifest Destiny”, the white man’s religion of Western Expansionism, twenty five million Native Americans died because of it." But when this number was challenged by another poster he didn't back it up, or retract it.]

Figures vary, so yes, stating 25,000,000 is not absolute fact, but an estimate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples

8 million to 112 million

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1357826/Native-American/273135/North-America-and-Europe-circa-1492

9.8 M to 12.2 M to 18.8 M

http://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/0289.htm

112M

http://www.historycentral.com/Indians/Before.html

15M to 20M

Now the evidence against the accused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Amherst,_1st_Baron_Amherst

http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/webpages/indianssmallpox.html

Atlas of the North American Indian [NY: Facts on File, 1985].

Waldman writes, in reference to a siege of Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) by Chief Pontiac's forces during the summer of 1763:

“Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort -- an early example of biological warfare -- which started an epidemic among them. Amherst himself had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer. [p. 108]”

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

#3) AM said: "THE ATTACKERS WERE HINDU NATIONALISTS:"

Based upon media reports and personal eye witness reports. This position was recanted in less than 24 hrs.

I note despite having things proven to you none of you ever recants their lies or “errors” in understanding despite proof and remain insistent on your erroneous positions.

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

#4) When confronted on the issue of a woman's testimony being 1/2 that of a man in the Quran, AM said: "Foolster41 you asked “RE: Woman witnesses” “Yes, but then why do they need an extra woman to "correct" the other woman?" Don’t project your sexist bias onto me. "

Using the rubber/glue kindergartner defense."

(Audible Sigh) Again with the selective outtakes…cowardly for you to pretend you were not answered then mischaracterize the answer:

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at December 15, 2008 1:24 PM

“Foolster41 you asked “RE: Woman witnesses”

“Yes, but then why do they need an extra woman to "correct" the other woman?"

Don’t project your sexist bias onto me.

You need to study the issue more…men and women have different physiologies…we are not the same as much as people want to try and force us both into that mold, we are not the same. Women are stronger in ways that men are not and vice versa...women are not better men are not better, we are different. God is the One who knows the differences better than you and I.”

END OF EXCERPT

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

#5) Foolster you posted “AM has stated that FGM =/= Female Circumcision, irrespective of scientific opinion to the contrary, and has not yet clarified how they are different.”

“Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is not circumcision as defined in Sharia. FGM is a tribal African custom practiced by both Christian and Muslim tribes in Africa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

“The traditional cultural practice of FGC predates both Islam and Christianity. A Greek papyrus from 163 B.C. mentions girls in Egypt undergoing circumcision and it is widely accepted to have originated in Egypt and the Nile valley at the time of the Pharaohs. Evidence from mummies have shown both Type I and Type III FGC present.[32] While the spread of the practice of FGC is unknown, the procedure is now practiced among Muslims, Christians, and Animists.[33] ”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting :

See Diagram 1, Foolster to define FGM. Note there is no attempt to tie in this with circumcision.

Circumcision of male and female is not equivalent to FGM. Since you want to get graphic (audible sigh, again) it is not the same at all.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&pagename=Zone-English-HealthScience%2FHSELayout&cid=1157365852965

“Sunnah circumcision (3rd degree circumcision) includes excision and paring of the adjacent parts of the labia minora above the plane of the labia majora, or the removal of the whole of it.”

The removal of a small piece of flesh, not unlike that in the male circumcision.

I don’t see you jumping up and down and squealing like a stuck pig for male circumcision. Why is that?

Thus they are in no way the same. Read the page references, and, since I know retaining knowledge is hard for you, look at the picture (See Diagram 1)… even you are not stupid enough to deny there is no correlation between FGM and Sunnah Circumcision.

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

#5) Foolster you posted“AM has cited cites with clearly racist agendas. At the same time he claims that Mr. Spencer joining that racist Facebook group (which Mr. Spencer claims was a trick, and I believe him) and AM shows himself a hypocrite.”

Yeah, right, he was “tricked.” Anyone with a hate based agenda against his targeted group is fair game for Robert…as long as they are smearing the same group he is after he is on board with them…that is until he gets called on it, which happened. Yeah, maybe he was set up…doesn’t matter, he was willing to join until he got called on it.

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

#6) Foolster you posted, “AM quoted known racist Mark Glenn to defend a point.”
What the hell are you blathering about?

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

#7) Foolster you posted: AM cited this site (http://www.rense.com/general34/cart.htm) as proof of bad actions by Isreal, when is full of clearly anti-semetic conspiracy theorist mumbo-jumbo to the core.

What the hell are you blathering about? The man cited his proof and stood by it, and I recall, this was just the tip of that iceberg, wasn’t it? Among those you challenged were the 1948 UN Bunche Report,

“The Bunche Report can be independently verified evidenced from when I posted the confessions to the initial assassination, by Stern Gang members, of Count Folke Bernadotte.

The opening comment of the report was thus verified:

“The UN Report Prepared in 1948 for Ralphe Bunche, New UN Commissioner to Palestine.

Foreword: In view of the tragic assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte by identified Jewish terrorists on September 17 of this year, the following report has been prepared for the use of Dr. Bunche, Count Bernadotte's immediate replacement. “

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/09/18/p28759
http://www.etzel.org.il/english/index.html

Repost this whine of yours as many times as you want in the future, as far as I am concerned, except for #6), these issues were answered and closed.

Now if you repost your full comment on #6) I can address that for you.

After that, can you move on to a current issue?

Peace
Abdullah

@Adullah.

I didn't slight anyone, but you are slighting the Qu'ran, Muhammad, and Omar.

1.) The Arabic words for "A Light Tap" simpely do not exist in verse 4:34. Sorry, The arabic words "dharban ghayra mubarrih" do not appear anywhere in 4:34. The word "lightly" was incorrectly and apologically thrown in by your muslim apologists. It simplely doesn't exist in the arabic version of 4:34. The English translations with the word ("lightly") in 4:34, were done by muslims apologist. They put the word (lightly) in parentheses/Brackets for a
reason. An-Nisaa/Ali did so in order to change the obvious meaning, remind us of Jehovah's Witnesses who inserted the word [other] several times in Col 1:16-17, into their New World Translation (sectarian paraphrase). Jehovah's Witnesses inserted the extra word several times in order to soften the plain fact that the passage teaches Jesus is not a creature. Likewise, An-Nisaa/Ali inserted the word (lightly) to soften what the Koran says. If Allah really wanted the word softly inserted, he should have done it himself.

Hadith muslims rely on fabricated sources. Yes, all hadiths are fabricated sources, even the ones you think are authentic. You have no authority to rely on hadith. Infact, your main authorities tell you strictly not to rely on them. To rely on Hadith as you rely on Qu'ran makes you shirk. Ie. you've made muhammad a demi-god. You can not just rehash your same old talking points as if I did not make a quran only point to you. I clearly pointed out a truth about islam, but you are too dogmatic to acknowledge it.

2.) I already established how the hadith contradicts itself, how its historicity makes it unreliable, and how it is therefore not a relevant source worth considering. The Quran, Muhammad, and Omar all advised against following any other source beside the Quran. ie. No hadith. It's not my fault your so-called scholars are too stupid to figure this out. I expect to see you use some logic. I do not expect you to throw dogma against the wall to see what sticks and what does not, especially when I've already refuted it. You have a personal truth, but not a general truth,just like I said.

3.) What is being said here is "Live with them in kindness" of course, unless they show lewdness. ie. disobedience. This is only part of it. (4:19 takes place during caluse 1. ie. when admonishing them) The husband may take away something he gave his wife to show he's displeased with her behavior. Ergo, to beat them is the last resort. Thus, taking something away might work and he won't have to beat her. You also have to remember the Quran comprises 114 suras (not to be confused with the Sira, which refers to the life of the Prophet) of varying lengths, which may be considered chapters. To confuse matters further, though the Quran was revealed to Muhammad sequentially over some twenty years' time, it was not compiled in chronological order. When the Quran was finally collated into book form, the suras were ordered from longest to shortest with no connection whatever to the order in which they were revealed or to their thematic content.

3a.) Al-Mutawah explains: We should solve our problems with dialogue, in truth, we must solve our problems, with mutual understanding because we are human, civilized people. Therefore, every problem in marriage, or every educational problem, we encounter we handle with mutual understanding The Qur'an states: First of all guidance, advice, and admonition; then, banishment from the bed, and then "beat them." When the Qur'an presented this verse, it did not present it for all cases, but for one case out of all ways of female behavior, the case of "disobedience".

3b.) The lane lexicon translates "daraba" to mean "beat" as well. Moreover, sura 30:21 & 4:19 and sura 4:34, those sura verses are all apart of the package on how to deal with ones wife in islam. Of course if the wife rebels she must be beat, but this command is done only as the last resort inorder to save the failing relationship. If the beating does not work, and she still rebels, then he gets a divorce from her. If she stops rebeling after the beating then everything goes back to being fine and dandy (ie."love and mercy" or "living with them in kindness") as Mufti Taqi Usmani, translated. "Then, if they obey you, do not seek a way against them. Surely, Allah is the Highest, the Greatest." Just as sura 4 verse 34 states.

4.) FYI: If you rely on the schizophrenic hadith you have to admit your prophet did hit a female. He hit little Aishah. There is no denying this.

You also have to admit to more contradictions...

4a.) Book 11, Number 2141:
Narrated Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab:

Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) as saying: Do not beat Allah's handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.

Seems you twisted that last part out of context. Muhammad is clearly talking about the Females who complain. Even if he wasn't (which he is) he did not say that the muslim men who beat their wives weren't muslims. It would of simplely meant they were not the best muslim men among you.

further more...

4b.) Book 11, Number 2142:
Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.

Once again I have shown you how the hadith contradicts itself, How the Qu'ran, Muhammad, and Omar all advised against following it, Therefore it is not a relevant source even worth considering. It is clear, the Qu'ran (4:34) sanactions physical abuse toward wives. You have failed to prove otherwise. Now, Will you display more mental gymnastics or will you admit you were wrong and renounce islam?

5.) "It is important that a wife recognizes the authority of her husband in the house. He is the head of the household, and she is supposed to listen to him. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more strength than the other, and because they support them from their means."

Here we see Islam's misogyny and sexism on display.
You claim that it is a fact that men are emotionally and physically stronger than women. Men are physically stronger than women, no doubt. But may I ask the titles of the study or studies which lend to the claim that women are emotionally weaker than men? Could this just possibly be an indication of an Islamic upbringing or, at least, of an upbringing close to an Islamic society? On the other hand, any decent (secular) library will provide you with psychological studies which indicate quite the opposite. A cursory search of the world-wide web will provide similar results from secular sources which do not answer to any religion or are predisposed towards one.

Your religion is a bad illogical joke, and you have just proven this. You are a walking piece of dogma stuck on repeat.

Foolster you wrote,“What does demonizing what I do for a living have anything to do with anything? This is just you being a jerk.”

[I’ll grant you that one, but I felt you deserved it in response to your arrogant presumption that I need to do anything to “earn the right” as it were to throwing a few flamers at that ass Mobomad…you don’t want to get shot at, don’t step in the firing line.]

Foolster you wrote “#2 –… But as it was pointed out in the same topic, there is no proof it was carried out, only discussed.”
Foolster, did you read the citation at the source? The fact it occurred after it was discussed is proof. The letter is there, the action was discussed, the smallpox outbreak followed…gee, that looks like a lot of smoke, I wonder if there is a fire? (Duh.)

Foolster you wrote “#3: I say, bring the proof. There are holes in more than a few of your arguments such as "beat (lightly)" and others.”
Fine, we’ll post it one last time for you, okay?

http://www.islamicfinder.org/articles/article.php?id=307&lang=

I can only refer you to the fatawas of Dr. Muzzamil H SiddiqiSiddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America, and Dr. Jamal Badawi,

I can't understand them for you.

"Member of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) Fiqh Council. Dr. Jamal Badawi Professor Emeritus Hallifax Nova Scotia said “b. As defined by hadith, it is not permissible to strike anyone’s face, cause any bodily harm or even be harsh.

What the hadith qualified as dharban ghayra mubarrih, or light striking, was interpreted by early jurists as a (symbolic) use of miswak (a small natural toothbrush)! They further qualified permissible "striking" as that which leaves no mark on the body. It is interesting that this latter fourteen-centuries-old qualifier is the criterion used in contemporary American law to separate a light and harmless tap or strike from "abuse" in the legal sense. This makes it clear that even this extreme, last resort, and "lesser of the two evils" measure that may save a marriage does not meet the definitions of "physical abuse," "family violence, " or "wife battering" in the 20th century law in liberal democracies, where such extremes are so commonplace that they are seen as national concerns."

It does not and can never mean "beat" in the red neck sense you and other people try to say it does.

Like I said, I can only explain it to you, I can't understand it for you.

“#4 …Do you mean I misunderstood and you to mean you do not support the Quran's position on women's testimony being half that of a man?”
No, to put it bluntly, you are absolutely wrong. The testimony of one woman is just as valid as a man…there are conditions set in Sharia for the evidence provided by one woman that she have a woman with her to support her. The testimony is from one woman, a fact you fail to understand or acknowledge…it is not testimony from two women. Got it?

Foolster you wrote “#6: If you can't excuse it, pretend it doesn't exist. Classic trick. Your post is long and here:”

So, according to your opinion anyone who says anything negative about Israel is a “racist” or an “anti-Semite,” am I wrong?

Now I recall…someone forwarded Mark Glenn’s article to me and it had a lot of good points in it, it doesn’t matter to me his personal bias, the information was valid…. we really need to re-evaluate the strategic benefit versus the obvious detrement of some of our international relations…and it seems the current administration is at least producing rhetoric to that affect…we’ll see what comes of it.

Foolster you said, “You've again shown hypocrisy. You still harp on how you beleive RS is a racist because of that group, but you're pretty remorseless about associating with racists yourself when you cite facts from them!:”

No. I have never said RS is a racist.

He is a bigot, look it up.

And I noted he will throw in with anyone as long as they are slinging the same mud he is, and that’s the truth.

Now, can you move on to a current affair and stop scratching the same old wound on your mind? It will never heal unless you move on.

Peace
Abdullah

“I didn't slight anyone, but you are slighting the Qu'ran, Muhammad, and Omar.”

You fail in miserably in your assumptions.

These are your projections based upon your misunderstanding of Islam. Many people, orientalists, attempt to approach the religion with the mind set, “I will disprove this!” And they never afford themselves the opportunity of learning the truth, the meaning.

You are picking things that appear to you to be “contradictory” when in reality there is no contradiction in any of it.

Oh, no, you tell me?

Then tell me who was addressed in that speech and what was the scene, setting, and political situation surrounding the hadith you mentioned?? What was the status of the revelation of Quran at that time and how does that hadith relate to that period of the message?

You can’t tell me any of this, can you?

How the can you even begin to compare this with anything when you can not tell me the proper context of it? In other words, when you know nothing about the hadith but your limited understanding based upon the mere sentence you read standing alone, because that is the reality of what you are basing your opinion on.

I can play the same game in front of others for effect…I can bring up the hadiths about not praying drunk.

What? You mean I can get hammered as long as I am not drunk during prayer? Why, that is an obvious contradiction in the hadiths and the Quran itself, right?

No, wrong.

Or lets pick two hadiths answering the same question:

“What is the best thing in Islam?”

Answer 1: To pray their prayers early in their proper times.
Answer 2: Control your anger.

What? Wait a minute! Those are two totally different answers to the exact same question…and you begin to squeal, “Contradiction! Contradiction!”

No….clontext. You don’t know the context.

This is the pathetic game you are playing.

One must start at the start and understand everything in context as it flows from that point and then the whole of the Quran and Hadiths in context in their relation to the completed message,

“Your religion is a bad illogical joke, and you have just proven this. You are a walking piece of dogma stuck on repeat.”

And you are an orientalist that will fail as all others like you that passed away before you have failed.

Peace
Abdullah

P.S. on your darabha claims, see the references above to Foolster…you and he are two peas in a pod.

Foolster41, here is a letter to an islamic militant :

Dear Yousef,

If you did happen to go to the website jihadwatch.org and see the hate filled messages, I apologize on behalf of all decent American people.

Those views are not the views of the majority of the American people who are mostly a decent and generous people who are ignorant of what our govt. is doing to them and the people in the muslim world.

There are dissenting voices in Jihadwatch.org from not only me but there are muslims who are allowed to express their views in jihadwatch.org.

Since you do not like clicking on links, I reproduce here a response from a muslim ( Abdullah Mikail ) on jihadwatch.org :

AbdullahMikail | November 12, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply
Beyond the condemnation of our secular US Law, we can even condemn what Nidal did under Sharia.

Read the rules for engagement in a justified legal conflict goverened by Islam and nowhere in them will you find it allowed to attack unarmed soldiers whom you had sworn an oath to protect...furthermore, I note there is a hadith about the keeping of one’s word even with an open and sworn enemy:

Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4411:

"It has been reported on the authority of Hudbaifa b. al-Yaman who said: Nothing prevented me from being present at! he Battle of Badr except this incident. I came out with my father Husail (to participate in the Battle), but we were caught by the disbelievers of Quraish. They said: (Do) you intend to go to Muhammad? We said: We do not intend to go to him, but we wish to go (back) to Medina. So they took from us a covenant in the name of God that we would turn back to Medina and would not fight on the side of Muhammad (may peace be upon him). So, we came to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and related the incident to him. He said: Both, of you proceed (to Medina) ; we will fulfil the covenant made with them and seek God's help against them."

So here is a desperate situation, the Battle of Badr, where the Muslims where grossly outnumbered and in need of every fighting man available.

Two Muslims were accosted by the Pagan Quraish and, under coercion, forced to swear they would not fight the Pagan Quraish, their sworn open enemies.

Mohammad ordered those two to keep their oaths and leave the battlefield and not fight the enemy.

How important do you think it is that Major Nidal keep this word, this contract, this oath, that he signed upon the US Army granting his comission?

“I Nidal Hasan having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”

What would Mohammad say about Nidal breaking this oath and murdering the people he swore he would protect? To answer my own question, I think Nidal would be in deep shit with our Prophet.

Rest assured, Nidal is in deep shit with our Armed forces, and he will receive whatever justice we can arrive at through the UCMJ.

Peace
Abdullah (end of quote )

Yousef, do you think one day, conservative muslim countries would allow debate, however crude, that is going on in forums like Jihadwatch.org ?

@Abdullah.

Orientalists is Orwellian-islamic-speak for: You can't possibly be correct about Islam because your a westerner with a faulity mind-set. Analogously-speaking, Abdullah is thinking of me as a N-word with an African mind-set, thus I am therefore uncapable of learning. Especially, when it comes to learning about the one and only correct/true path, Islam. This is nothing more Islamic supremism. It's meant as an ad hom attack because he can't prove me wrong and he knows it. He's redherring the subject via the Hadith because he knows he's not suppose to be relying on it. He knows full well by relying on it he has commited an act of shirk. However, lying maybe permissible to him inorder to protect his faith. Therefore, technically-speaking in his heart he hasn't commited shirk. However, I will continue to say that he has until he renounces the Hadiths.

What do you mean my assumption? Sorry but, "daraba" the root word of "waidriboohunna" in 4:34 was interpeted properly by Mufti Taqi Usmani as just "beat them". "Hunna" being the feminine plural ie; "them" - wives. There is no Arabic word in there for (LIGHTLY). My argument from my last reply on sura 4 ayah 34 stands. I also saw what you said to Foolster41. It's the same argument you already made via Hadith. I already told you the hadiths are not permissible in islam. True islam anyway. Therefore, You are corrupting your own religion by relying on them.

"Answer 1: To pray their prayers early in their proper times. Answer 2: Control your anger."

Yet, like a unquestioning immaterial agent of Islam you keep reling on a book that contradicts itself? Yet, you keep following this contradictionary religion? Have you no mind of your own?

More proof: Omar Ibn Al Khattab, the second Caliph, was visiting Egypt after his troops had conquered it, he stood in front of the largest and most precious library in world at the time, in Alexandria, and asked, "What is this?" He was told it was a library. He stated, "If its books say what the Koran says, then it is "superfluous". If it doesn’t, it must be destroyed." And it was destroyed.

Note the word: "Superfluous", now apply that word to all of the hadiths.

So Abdullah thinks anyone who disagree with him is a redneck? Well, Muhammad, Omar, and Usmani, all disagree with him. As I already pointed out, Muhammad and Omar both unequivocally said never to rely on any other book other than the QU'RAN. Ie. No hadiths. Usmani interpets 4:34 correctly as just "beat them".

Thus it follows,

Muhammad,

Omar,

and

Mufti Taqi Usmani

are

all

RED NECKS.

Now, do you still want to keep up this little charade?
Or do you want to do the logical thing here and renounce Islam? You've already renounced the Qu'ran, Muhammad, Omar, and Usmani. You might as well. You're pretty much there already.

Yes, your political-religion does sanction domestic violence. Yes, your political-religion is illogical.
Once you understand this the quicker you will become a material agent.

proxywar,

(long audible sigh)

To reiterate to you,

“Yet, like a unquestioning immaterial agent of Islam you keep reling on a book that contradicts itself? Yet, you keep following this contradictionary religion? Have you no mind of your own?”

There is no contradiction.

You only think there is because you are not able to or willing to learn what it takes to understand the proper context. I gave you the “Reader’s Digest” version, and I see you still failed to grasp the concept.

Look, you’ve told me you are a kaffir, fine by me…I have no other opinion of you, nothing akin to your (insane?) racist rambling…I don’t care where you come from, I only care that you tell the truth which you are not doing.

You are a rejecter, so no proof however detailed will ever lead you to the right conclusion. There were people before you that were just like you and there will be many many more before the end.

Nothing personal, it is just your choice to reject.
(Audible sigh) One more time, just for the record:

You claim this: “As I already pointed out, Muhammad and Omar both unequivocally said never to rely on any other book other than the QU'RAN. Ie. No hadiths. Usmani interpets” ****

Have you read the Quran? Did you understand any of it? How about this one thing:

The Quran says what means “Follow the Prophet.”

Now, show me where it details exactly where the Quran says how to make wudu (washing for prayer) and where it says exactly how and when to pray the proper way, since, the first thing a Muslim will be questioned about is their prayer and you cannot do this without a proper wudu.

You will fail, because it is not in there.

Your premise (****) has just been destroyed, the very order to abide by the Quran is an order to abide by the Sunnah, and the Sunnah is not detailed in the Quran itself completely.

Peace
Abdullah