Nonie Darwish vs. Islamic apologists on the Glazov show

OT- but sort of related to the new world of "Arab spring".

Sudan president seeks to 'liberate' South Sudan

That didn't take long. In under a year since South Sudan's independence from the Sharia compliant North, it is now target for reconquista Jihad.

"Sudan President Omar al-Bashir has said his main goal is now to "liberate" the people of South Sudan from its rulers following recent border clashes.
The former rebel Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) has ruled South Sudan since it seceded from Sudan in July 2011.
President Bashir described the SPLM as "insects" that needed to be eliminated."

Calling the African Christian/animists 'kufr' of South Sudan "insects" is standard Islamic operating 'logic'. The liberal use of "disease" for the people there, and their (Sharia demanded) forced "liberation" is right out of the Jihad playbook. What will the United Nations do? …. Nothing, no doubt, they never do against Islam… Anyone for 'dialogue'?

BTW, Nonie Darwish and Jamie Glazov are brilliant in this broadcast. They clearly showed callers (I presume all Muslims, some rather inarticulate) when they were falling into circular reasoning, or themselves were not well enough versed in Koranic and Hadith scriptures to defend their statements protecting Mohammad and Islamic Jihad. Moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam? Or the frustrating "moral equivalence" that Christianity is as evil, more so, than Islam? No, that is not according to their respective theological teachings. Mohammad was gay? ... Wow, had no idea!

Very well done, 60 minutes worth listening to, even for us hardened Jihad Watchers. Bravo!

A couple of points raised by callers I wanted to address:

Re one caller's apologetic claim about Quran verse 2:62, which apologists use to try and portray Islam as accepting of Christianity and Judaism, here is the verse:

2:62 "Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve."

"Believes" = believes in Islam and Muhammad, as understood by Muhammad (e.g., 7:157-158; 2:137). "Does good" = obeys Islam and Muhammad (e.g., 4:80; 48:13). This is consistent with the main theme of the Quran that Christians and Jews have to accept Islam as a religion, and Muhammad as a prophet, now that Muhammad has delivered the Quran. There is no contradiction between this verse and 3:85, which more clearly states that Islam is the only acceptable religion; no other religion is acceptable to Allah. Verse 9:29 also makes it clear what Muslims must do to Christians and Jews who do not accept Islam and Muhammad (i.e., that Christians and Jews should "fear" and Muslims will make them "grieve", cf. 2:62).

Look at it this way: If Christianity and Judaism were okay, then there would be no need for Islam. The main premise of Islam is that Christianity and Judaism are inadequate and erroneous, and so Muhammad had to be sent by Allah to correct them and bring them to the true faith (i.e., Islam).

------------------

Another caller, the maudlin "Tommy," went on and on about how Muhammad, despite his other problems, was at least not homophobic and was pro-homosexuality and supported cross-dressing. To support his absurd claim, Tommy cited a hadith in which Muhammad kissed a boy, and another in which Muhammad supposedly said he did not get revelations unless he wore one of Aisha's garments.

The idea that Muhammad supported either homosexuality or cross-dressing, as acceptable behaviours for his fellow human beings in this world, is ridiculous, unfounded, and directly contradicted by (a) the Quran which classifies homosexuality as a terrible sin warranting terrible punishment, (b) clear rulings in the hadith stating that those who engage in homosexual acts must be put to death, (c) clear statement in the hadith from Muhammad expressing strong hostility toward effeminate men. That Muhammad or his men* might have occasionally wore some women's garments in rare circumstances does not indicate that he approved of that as a regular behaviour, i.e., cross-dressing just for fun or personal expression or as a lifestyle choice. Moreover, if there is a sound hadith saying that Muhammad didn't get revelations unless he wore Aisha's garments (and I do vaguely recall something cited by Zakaria Botros along these lines), it is literally incorrect according to the Islamic chronology because Muhammad had already revealed a large part of the Quran (i.e., in Mecca) before Aisha was even in the picture, and before he married her. The hadith may have limited relevance; it doesn't suggest that Muhammad was claiming that Muslim men ought to wear women's clothing under normal circumstances. The Muslim man would have to have a very good excuse for doing something effeminate, an excuse such as jihad or something related to defending or promoting Islam.

*E.g., Khalid bin Walid wore a burqa as a disguise in order to assassinate an enemy leader.

"Tommy cited a hadith in which Muhammad kissed a boy..."

1. Muhammad probably did not consider this homosexuality, since there may not have been any sexual intent.

2. On the other hand, if there was sexual intent, then Tommy is even more foolish for citing it because then the hadith would actually be supporting pedophilia, not homosexual relations between two freely consenting adults.

3. Tommy's silliness aside, it must be acknowledged that throughout many parts of the Islamic world, there is an ambivalent attitude toward homosexuality among pious Muslims, especially see Afghanistan and Pakistan, where pedophilia and homosexual pedophilia is rampant.

Do camels and goats count as homosexuals? All joking aside, only a complete and utter liar would claim that Mohamed was against homosexuality. His fevered mind came up with Allah's Celestial Whorehouse which is full of unearthly women and pretty earthly boys!