Malaysia bans Irshad Manji's new book

@ "$50,000 U.S. dollars

to anyone who can disprove any of the dozen of the accusations that I have made against Muhammad. I accuse Muhammad of being:

a narcissist
a misogynist
a rapist
a pedophile
a lecher
a torturer
a mass murderer
a cult leader
an assassin
a terrorist
a madman
a looter"

YOUR OFFER STILL STANDS?

The offer was made by ex-Muslim Ali Sina, not by SaleemSmith.

So far, no-one has taken him up on it. I'd say Ali Sina's $50 grand is safe.

Rezali,

No matter how hard you try, no matter how many crackpot theories you share with us, you will never, ever convince any regular poster here that islam is anything but a cancer upon the earth.

If you are truly "an advocate of free speech", you are not a devout muslim. Your attempts to debunk Christian beliefs are laughable.
It also appears that you know next to nothing about Canada. Manji hardly hails from a "Canadian outback" full of elk and wolves!

Just imagine if that is true...just imagine..

Yes, just imagine! However, you'd have to imagine very hard indeed.
You'd have to imagine that the 'unprecedented attacks' on Islam, according to you, are nothing to do with the 18,000 jihad attacks by Islam on dar al-Harb since 9/11.
You'd have to imagine that the 'anomalies' in Al Qur'an are so few that native speaking Arab scholars who say that up to 20% of the revealed Word of Allah is unintelligble in Arabic are completely wrong.
You'd have to imagine that Jesus 'had a secret meeting with his disciples after hiding for 3 days,(and then)made up the resurrection story' just as the brainless bint Rezali fantasises in support of Islam.
You'd have to imagine that if Christianity was totally disproved and all the Christians in the world accepted Islam that Islam would not still have the genocide of the Jews at the top of its agenda, as commanded by Al Qur'an.

Yes, Rezali, you're a clown; but just keep imagining. The rest of us will stick with the reality that Islam is a brutal, 7th century barabarity that should be first contained and then consigned to the dustbin of History.

You're right. They've drunk the kool-aid, but I hope people realize this is not malice. It's ignorance. Most gays, or people in general for that matter, don't really know what Islam teaches, or think it's no worse than any other religion.

It's an easy mistake to make considering the condemnation in the west coming from Christians and the relative silence (at least in the west) coming from Muslims. Muslims aren't running for office talking about criminalizing gay sex and pornography. Muslims aren't out in droves opposing gay marriage. These are the majority issues in the west.

You can point to the Muslims countries and say "look at the horrors inflicted on gays", but then again those same horrors occur in "Christian" nations in Africa. South Africa is just about the only African country where homosexuality is legal. How often do Christian preachers come out and defend those gays, or at the very least argue that people in a civilized society should be allowed to "sin" without interference from the government.

Muslims, on the other hand, at least pretend to be tolerant. It's a lie, and that should be understood, but considering they fool 90% of the population, it's no surprise they can fool gays too.

One can hope. I wonder if she actually believes the stuff she pushes. It must take an extraordinary amount of cognitive dissonance -- to believe god wrote a book but somehow ignore parts of it. I hope she wakes up one day and declares herself an apostate.

Can you post official offer page
I googled "Ali Sina 50 000$ offer Muhammed" and similar
and could not find it
I am about to grab that money easily if the offer is official

Yeah, good luck with that. The offer is indeed official, and yet nobody has taken him up on it. You've got about as much of a chance of winning a debate with Ali Sina as are the chances of Wellington, Buraq, or Robert Spencer himself converting to islam. You'd do well to read his book, Understanding Muhhamad, first before you embark on such folly.

Ima

Mile

Hallo

Let me help you to go to the place where you going to find out that *easy* going to be difficult in trying to challenge Dr. Ali Sina .

The challenged was issued long time ago and no one was able to meet the challenge .

you will find it at '' faithfreedom.org …

Scroll down where you find a picture of a Painting of Muhammad when he was visited by Gabriel [ supposedly ] ……you'll find it their.

Go their and try … remember declaring your self as a winner without anyone verify it , only will make matters worse.

Good luck

Thx for the link
This is more like trick challenge - I thought he is a serious man

Why ? Two reasons (his conditions)
@ 1- "Muslims often ask: “Who will judge whether or not an attempt to disprove your accusations against Muhammad and Islam, was successful?” The READERS will be the jury."

I was more thinking of debating infront of independent/impartial schoolars not ignorant on the subject like most readers on both sides of the debate would be.
Furthermore - readers? which readers ? readers from his site (as he stated in second condition)? Of course they would not be impartial - most of them are there because they share his convictions and will not be persuaded by facts.
Also - this site faithfreedom.org.
states in "about us" page :"Faithfreedom International is a grassroots movement of ex-Muslims..."
So they can not be impartial.

@2- "It is not difficult to see which side is right once both arguments are presented without one side fearing the other. I will publish the debates in this site. My opponents are also encouraged to publish them in any Islamic site. Please note that I WILL NOT ACCEPT FACE TO FACE DEBATES"

Opponents can publish debate on their site too but the jurry is only HIS SITE readers - so for a 50000$ prize it is irelevant that I can post "debate" on some Islamic site and in that case the victory would be mine no matter how good or bad my arguments are - just like he will always win on his site no matter how good or bad his arguments are.

Most important condition for debate - I WILL NOT ACCEPT FACE TO FACE DEBATES - Why ? I mean its 50000$ - If I believe I can win I am willing (as I am) to pay travel expenses and to meet him in front of impartial jury of knowledgeable scholars

SO ALL in ALL He does not seem to be someone convicted of what he is preaching about and this 50000$ offer is just a good marketing trick.

In short as Americans would say - Put your money where your mouth is.
(in this case it would be - debate infront of jury where there is at least 50/50 chances to loose the money and not on his site where there is no chance to loose the money)

"BTW, there is a very interesting article in dailymail today:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2149227/Gospel-Barnabas-cause-Christianitys-collapse-Iran-claims.html.

It is a religious text, thought to date from the fifth century, & states that Jesus was never crucified and that he himself predicted the coming of the Prophet Muhammad, Written in Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, the gospel even predicts the coming of the last Islamic messiah."

I just looked up the word credulity in the dictionary and saw your name and face there. This so-called Gospel of Barnabas is a pious forgery and the one the Turks claim to possess probably dates no earlier than the 16th c CE. The fact that it was written on animal hide immediately raises questions, because papyri was far cheaper and more abundant at the time it was suppposedly written. Almost all of the early Christian writings the were papyri based and the vast majority in Koine Greek. But suddenly, out-of-the-blue, comes this tome made from rare writing materials and penned in gold Syriac letters. Somebody worked pretty hard to forge this item and I guess anachronistically thought that the hide pages and golden letters would lend it an air of authority. I'll bet they'll never subject this book to any independent investigation to verify the claims. I can hear the Turkish spokesperson now, "Oh, we can't let anyone see or touch this book. But trust us, it's the real deal!"

People like you are annoying because you don't bother to ever vet the info you present or investigate the facts. This supposed transformative theological find is an example of confirmation bias on your part, but I have learned that is part and parcel of the Muslim mind.

I'm sure that if a Saudi archeologist claimed he found a wooden box engraved with the name 'Muhammad' that was filled with dried, human feces, you'd be the first one to ticket a plane to KSA and visit the display to pay your respects. To that I say, "Holy S***!"

Another interesting thing about the Gospel of Barnabas, due to some of the colloquialisms in it it is believed to have been written by a native modern Italian speaker. Certainly someone who would not have existed at the time of Christ. Unless he or she had a time machine.

That's probably next on the long and fraudulent list of mohammadan claims.

"Most important condition for debate - I WILL NOT ACCEPT FACE TO FACE DEBATES - Why ?"
----
Isn't that obvious? He's one of those rare people who don't want to get murdered.

Ridiculous rezali writes ...

"Just imagine if that is true...just imagine...what it would do to the mindset of christian hardliners like champ ...suddenly the shoe really would be on the other foot, what a waste of life eh champ."

Your response to rezali ...

"This is just so silly and pathetic. As if the faith of Christians, based, I expect on reading the Bible, particularly the message of the New Testament, personal faith experiences etc, could be shaken by this patent forgery. If it could, it wouldn't be much of a faith."

I completely agree, Jan ...yeah no amount of lying about Jesus Christ and His death on the cross will undo this basic truth about our LORD; muslims can attempt to rewrite history to their hearts content, but they labor in vain against the one true God.

You wrote:

"I firmly believe that he was not crucified, someone else was, had a secret meeting with his disciples after hiding for 3 days, made up the resurrection story" ...

Your own comment clearly defines who you are, rezali: from the spirit of antichrist ...

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world." --1 John 4:1-4

In the above passage John is speaking to Christians (Beloved) on how to recognize the spirit of antichrist; and by your own comment, rezali, you have been found guilty when weighed against this verse.

Hey, you and your ilk did not invent the spirit of antichrist--the devil did, and it's abundantly clear to the reader whom you have chosen to serve. And many cults, like islam, fall into the category of being from the spirit of antichrist, so there's nothing unique about islam in this regard; and hell was created for the devil and his angels, so guess what.

It's time to make a much wiser choice, rezali. If you can. If you Dare ...

"But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord." --Joshua 24:15

@ "Isn't that obvious? He's one of those rare people who don't want to get murdered."

A meeting in any of western countries or any non muslim countries is not a problem. Nobody is asking him to debate in Afghanistan or Somalia.
Afterall you can find on youtube tons of muslim vs atheist , muslim vs christian , christian vs atheist , .... or any other kind of debates held in London Sweden Denmark USA etc -

anyway his other conditions are also very questionable
- readers of his site will be the jury (impartial jury like it would be if I would suggest readers of some Islamic site to be jury)
- he will post debate on his site (as he is the only one having acces to his site he can manipulate the content of the debate - post what he like remmove parts of the debate where he thinks he did not have good arguments etc)

Anyway if you really believe in what you saying - face to face debate infront of impartial jury would be no problem for anyone -right?

But under his conditions it is obvious that his 50000$ offer is just a good marketing trick - he does not really believe in what he is preaching about.

A very learned Christian man I met in the Sudan used to debate Muslim clerics in public. He told me he would win the debates but not be invited back! I myself argued quite openly about Islam. Of course, one wouldn't want to rant and rail, but a certain level of debate is okay.

That's very easy for you to say. Muslims don't fear being intimidated, threatened, beaten, or killed by Westerners very much over their religious or political viewpoints, do they? I'm pretty sure you're not too worried about the Pope putting out a fatwa on you. And Theo Van Gogh was murdered in a busy street in the Netherlands. Where did you say would be a safe place to debate?

Please. Do you really think Ali Sina can get away with editing the debate? You could call him out on it in the forum and post the deleted material for all to see. The forum IS open to everyone, you know. Including devout Muslims.

But I will agree with you that the majority of the posters on that site are anti-Islam, and I can't see anything you could come up with that would sway those people. But so what? Even if you don't win the $50K, why not show all those stupid unbelievers what you have to say? Maybe you'll win over some hearts and minds.

Come on. Give it a try. I for one would really like to hear you disprove the accusation that Mohammed was a caravan robber. IMO that is one of the most important questions. Everything that happened after that early period could be argued as reciprocal, "he hit me first" sort of defense. But arriving in Medina, and deciding to begin attacking whichever caravans he came across? That may have been a common business model in that time, but it is not a valid choice of vocation for a prophet of God. Mohammed had a choice at that moment in his life. He could have preached peace and passivity, and taken up a noble profession, but he chose banditry.

As I understand it, Ali Sina isn't calling for a "debate". He just wants someone to disprove a list of claims about Mohammed.

While this would entail a lot of complicated citation of sources (Koran, Hadiths, Tafsirs and Siras) + some argumentation based on the data which has been collected from those sources, this isn't rocket science. There is a finite amount of data, and reasonable inferences and interpretations to be made about them. Muslims continue forestalling the denouement of these inferences and interpretations and complicating the issue with obfuscations, prevarications and evasions.

Given Ali Sina's conditions, a Muslim or Mohammed apologist would have to disprove that list with slam-dunks the first time around. If the Muslim or Mohammed apologist attempts to do his usual game of tap-dancing bargain-basement sophistry, it will only compel Ali Sina to dispute the disproofs offered -- but this would open up the can of worms of an endless back-and-forth.

No: The only way out of this is to provide slam-dunking irrefutable disproofs of Ali Sina's claims the first time around -- and it will be published for all the world to see. Intelligent reasonable people will know whether it is Ali Sina, then, who is prevaricating, or whether the disproofs were inadequate.

But if this devolves into a debate it will be never-ending, because neither Ali Sina (because of his culture) nor the Muslim/Mohammed apologist knows how to debate, and instead we will have an interminable chest-thumping display of all fireworks, but no light.

The appalling Rezali Mehil wrote:

I am an advocate of free speech but I am thinking now that as there is an unprecedented attack on Islam, is unrelenting and 24*7 all types of context and from all angles .
......................................

Well, we all know that under Shari'ah no one is allowed to question Islam—much less criticize it. It seems that Rezali's impassioned defense of freedom of speech [sarc/off] does not allow for any actual, well, free speech.

More:

Attacks from non-believers is one thing ...but when "your own" join in on the abusing the pureness of Islam for corporate greed, one has to say that it has to stop somewhere.
......................................

Describing Allah as "liberty" and "love" is 'abuse"? Ah, but of course it is. And while I believe Irshad Manji is rather a foolish person, ascribing her sugar-coated vision of Islam to "corporate greed" is odd.

Or perhaps not, since Rezali has previously posited Islam as having been created to counter "corporate greed" with such Islamic actions as caravan raiding, piracy, and slavery.

As for the decree that questioning Islam "has to stop somewhere", this is an obvious threat, which is how all too many Muslims respond to any challenge.

More:

The message of Islam is there in the Koran for all to see, I accept that there are anomalies that non-believers want answers to, but there will always be those, and I cannot help with those just as others cannot.
......................................

Aren't you concerned that this will be taken as heresy? After all, the Qur'an is supposed to be "perfect in its every syllable", and hence free of any "anomalies".

More:

Irshad, with her perverted sexual stance and lovey dovey book does indeed send confusing messages to the masses of muslims...
......................................

Allah forbid that Muslims would hear anything "lovey dovey" about their vile creed. Rezali has previously railed against any message of religious love. No surprise, given how violent and loveless Islam is.

More:

No harm should come to Irshad, let her recite her message from the Canadian outback to elk and wolves.
......................................

Well, it's certainly big of you not to call for Manji's death. If only all Muslims were so magnanimous!

And your vision of civilized Canada as a wilderness populated with nothing but elk and wolves is frankly laughable.

More:

BTW, there is a very interesting article in dailymail today:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2149227/Gospel-Barnabas-cause-Christianitys-collapse-Iran-claims.html.

It is a religious text, thought to date from the fifth century, & states that Jesus was never crucified and that he himself predicted the coming of the Prophet Muhammad, Written in Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, the gospel even predicts the coming of the last Islamic messiah.
......................................

More idiocy. The "Gospel of Barnabas" has been kicking around since the 16th-century. It may have originated with the Moroscos—Muslim converts to Christianity in Spain, many of whom were suspected of continuing to practice Islam.

There is a reference to a "Gospel according to Barnabas"
in two early Christian lists of apocryphal works: the 6th-century Latin Decretum Gelasianum, and a 7th-century Greek "List of the Sixty Books"—but there is no indication that what turned up in the 16th-century has any real link to this piece of Gnostic apochrypha.

Here's what British Qur'anic scholar George Sale wrote regarding this work in his "The Preliminary Discourse to the Koran":

"The Mohammedans have also a Gospel in Arabic, attributed to St. Barnabas, wherein the history of Jesus Christ is related in a manner very different from what we find in the true Gospels, and correspondent to those traditions which Mohammed has followed in his Koran. Of this Gospel the Moriscoes in Africa have a translation in Spanish; and there is in the library of Prince Eugene of Savoy, a manuscript of some antiquity, containing an Italian translation of the same Gospel, made, it is to be supposed, for the use of renegades. This book appears to be no original forgery of the Mohammedans, though they have no doubt interpolated and altered it since, the better to serve their purpose; and in particular, instead of the Paraclete or Comforter, they have, in this apocryphal gospel, inserted the word Periclyte, that is, the famous or illustrious, by which they pretend their prophet was foretold by name, that being the signification of Mohammed in Arabic; and this they say to justify that passage in the Koran where Jesus Christ is formally asserted to have foretold his coming under his other name Ahmed, which is derived from the same root as Mohammed and of the same import."

Sales wrote this in *1734*. So positing this as some sort of 'new discovery' that is going to shake Christian faith with its 'shocking revelations' is just ridiculous.

More:

I firmly believe that he was not crucified, someone else was...
......................................

There have been various traditions that hold that Jesus was not crucified, but the Muslim one must be regarded as by far the nastiest.

In most of these traditions, the idea is simply that no one was crucified at all—hardly canonical, but not in and of itself ugly. In Islam, the idea is that Jesus—really, the Muslim "Isa"—compelled someone else to *die nameless in his place*. this renders "Jesus" a sadistic coward. Ugh.

More:

Just imagine if that is true...just imagine...what it would do to the mindset of christian hardliners like champ ...suddenly the shoe really would be on the other foot, what a waste of life eh champ.
......................................

As I noted, this silly forgery has been knocking around for centuries—not exactly breaking news.

LemonLime wrote:

"But if this devolves into a debate it will be never-ending, because neither Ali Sina (because of his culture) nor the Muslim/Mohammed apologist knows how to debate, and instead we will have an interminable chest-thumping display of all fireworks, but no light."

Now I was 100% agreed with your comment until the last paragraph, where you declared Ali Sina somewhat defective based on his obvious Arabic culture.

With that, I must disagree. Although a majority of Islamic supremacist Muslims are indeed Arabs, not to be side-tracked to buy into the mantra that ethnic "Albanians" or African or African-American born "reverts" are nothing more than numbers, for a variety of reasons, to offset the unmistakable fact that the 9/11 Muslim murderers weren't almost exclusively Arabic, because they indeed were.

Hugh Fitzgerald aptly pointed out that Islam is indeed, was, and will be primarily be, a vehicle for Arab supremacy, mainly because they as a group, continue to maintain and control the doctrine of Islam, and have for about 1,000 + years now.

That said, Sina's inherent Arab culture as an Islamic apostate is not automatically adulterated because of his "Arab-ness", not unlike Arab Christians like Raymond Ibrahim, or any Arab Christian for that matter.

mile wrote:

I am about to grab that money easily if the offer is official
..............................

And yet, it seems that we shall never get to hear your iron-clad arguments as to why the "Prophet" Muhammad cannot be characterized as a narcissist, misogynist, rapist, pedophile, lecher, torturer, mass murderer, cult leader, assassin, terrorist, madman, and looter—all because Ali Sins is so terribly, terribly unfair.

Really, you'd think you would want to exhibit your shining logic here, in any case. If your argument is as stellar as you claim, we'll be urging Mr. Sina to pony up as promised.

Why don't you give it a shot?

Whether Christ lived or not is immaterial. His legacy of the lessons of tolerance, love, forgiveness and kindness are immortal. Unlike the evil of the koran they do not need taqquiya to stand the test of time. Unlike Islam they are morally clear and universal, unlike islam they can stand any criticism.

TtcycctW

mile wrote:

In this case (50000$ offer to prov any of his 12 accusations about Mohammed pbuh) I was only after money but since under
conditions guarantee him victory (his site readers would be the jury - impariality questioned) I see no point in wasting my time on this.
................................

So, you have no interest in defending your own "Prophet", even in a venue where there is no risk to yourself and where you might change a few minds? And you are "only after money"? Not much of a "defender of Islam", are you?

More:

Also @those that claim that Ali Sina is affraid for his life so he is declining FACE to FACE debates even in western countries - I say again "than he does not believe his words by his heart"
Eventhough the probability of being killed is veeeery small (Salmana Rushy is still alive and well decades after a Fatwa was issued) and there are only few examples when someone was killed because preaching against any religion.
................................

It's not just "any religion" that is regularly issuing death Fatwas over any criticism—it is only the vile creed of Islam.

And yes, "Salmana Rushy" (sic) is still alive, but the same cannot be said for his Japanese and Italian translators, nor the people killed in rioting over his work. There were also assassination attempts on his Norwegian publisher, and his Turkish translator survived an attempt on his life, but then 37 people were killed in the ensuing Sivas Massacre of poets and intellectuals. There were also firebombings of publishers and book stores, including Cody's Books in Berkeley. My future husband and I shopped there the evening before the shop was bombed.

Hey—no big deal, right? sarc/off

More:

Furthermore if he really believes what he is preaching about the risk of being killed for the right cause is nothing.
People lay their lives on daily basis because they believe they are fighting for their freedom conviction ...
................................

And yet, you won't stand up for your own beliefs in a venue—posting on Jihad Watch—where there is absolutely no risk to yourself. Hypocrisy...

More:

Take for example soldier who enlist themselves into Army and going to fight in Iraq Afghanistan ...because they believe they are fighting for higher ideals
(just to add that I do not share their convictions and that I believe that they are being deceived into thinking they are fighting for freedom but that does not deminish their belief)
................................

After all, you don't believe in any sort of freedom yourself—just the slavery of Islam. So how can freedom be regarded as anything but a "deception"?

Now, our goals in these conflicts—to bring freedom to those who are philosophically committed to slavery—is foolish and suicidal, but that is a separate issue.

More:

Ali Sina's life worth more than any life of the soldiers?
Or more than a life of any man died because he was not affraid to lay his life and stand up against any form of tyrany throughout history ?

Ali Sina is just a fraud who earn his living by preaching something he does not fully believe in.
................................

Actually, Ali Sina is a brave man who puts himself at considerable risk on a regular basis to fight the tyranny of Jihad.

That doesn't mean—as you seem to believe—that he should be rushing to bare his throat for every murderous Jihadist who wants to see him dead.

@ ""So, you have no interest in defending your own "Prophet", even in a venue where there is no risk to yourself and where you might change a few minds? And you are "only after money"? Not much of a "defender of Islam", are you?""

1-I said IN THIS CASE I was only after the money (and you conviniently ommited that)
2-I never "defend" Prophet pbuh or Islam , because there is nothing to defend him or Islam from
We can only debate and as you can see I am doing it when I have time and if I change few minds thank God.
3-You seem to find something wrong when I said "in this case I am only after the money"? Why? If as a westerner you assumed I would keep the money for myself or spend it on expensive cars watches or whatever - you are wrong.
If it was a fair offer of debating infront of independent jury that easy taken money could help many students where I live so I would take the challenge.
4-I do not consider myself as a defender of Islam because only God is defender of Islam I am just trying to be a good muslim.
_____________________________________________________

@"Hey—no big deal, right? sarc/off"

1-No big deal compared to what Westerners driven by their ideology are doing in muslim countries and in occupied Palestine , or what Israel supported by Western countries is doing to neighbouring countries - one could say not worth mentioning if you wanna see things from both perspective e.g. someone openminded enough.
2- most of the incidents you mentioned are done by former or current CIA and other countries Secret Service's operatives (take for example latest incident in France when Sarkozy thought he could win elections by being tough on muslims so he needed and incident to react to but he failed)
---------------------------------------------------

@"And yet, you won't stand up for your own beliefs in a venue—posting on Jihad Watch—where there is absolutely no risk to yourself. Hypocrisy"

1- but I am posting as you can see
And "at no risk for myself" as you said earlier is not a truth. hundreds of muslims from Europe alone were sent to various concentration camps around the world (Guantanamo and other secret american torture chambers in Europe Africa and Asia) without being charged or given a right to defend themselves.
So there is a risk , but unlike Sina I am not affraid of FACE to FACE or any kind of debate if I see it usefull in any way - debate under his condition is just a waste of time , and is just a marketing trick

_______________________________________________________

@"After all, you don't believe in any sort of freedom yourself—just the slavery of Islam. So how can freedom be regarded as anything but a "deception"?"

1-It is a matter of perception and it could be debated for hours. Some rules must exist in life otherwise it would be chaos
2-If you consider living under Gods rules non-freedom
I could say the same for your kind of life the same
- lets say You want to get up one day and walk naked through the streets of crowded city - you would be arrested and punished right? Should I consider your system of life as non-freedom?
3-What does freedom means to you? Everything you think is OK to be done or everything your neighbour think is OK to be done?
Lets say you decide to walk dressed as Nazzi soldier in school eventhough you do not share their ideal but you like their clothing and style or whatever and they do not allow you to wear it in school because it offends someone eventhough he knows you have nothing against the jews?
Is your freedom to wear whatever you want broken?

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

@"Actually, Ali Sina is a brave man who puts himself at considerable risk on a regular basis to fight the tyranny of Jihad.

That doesn't mean—as you seem to believe—that he should be rushing to bare his throat for every murderous Jihadist who wants to see him dead"

1 - I never said he should rush to kill muslims or whatever you are trying to imply - we are talking about simple debate - but by refusing a face to face debate while other like him are doing it non-stop without problems - he showed he is just a fraud.
you have a debate posted on todays first page of this site
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/05/david-wood-and-robert-spencer-to-debate-muhammads-existence.html

and you can find various religion vs religion , atheist vs religion , .... debates on youtube

So "being affraid" is just a way not to do it, because people are doing it all the time for decades now.

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

So after we established that there is no reason for him to refuse face to face debate in front of independent knowledgable jury and yet he still does
the only logical conclusion is that his offer of 50000$
under condition that his supporters and followers are jury
is a big scam.
That tells about him that he is a fraud and a coward who earns his life by deceiving people

You're rambling to gravenimage and not making a lot of sense but definitely putting forth a lot of propaganda (Muslims are so good at this). Meanwhile, almost 19,000 Islamic terrorist attacks have occurred worldwide just since 9/11. Meanwhile also, Israeli Arabs enjoy more freedoms than do Arabs in any of the twenty-some Arab nations. Meanwhile again, you show you have been brainwashed by Mo's creed, which, by the way, doesn't allow for anyone to cease being a Muslim without the threat of death hanging over their head (how enlightened).

Yep, you really don't comprehend just how much Islam has become detested over the past twenty years or so by more and more millions as each year goes on (this will only increase exponentially). In fact, in the world in which we live, Islam has managed to bungle things so badly that it has become the most detested religion of all time. Yeah, you're clueless---and gravenimage isn't. Done here.

gravenimage,

On the subtopic of Jesus's crucifixion, you wrote:

"In most of these traditions, the idea is simply that no one was crucified at all—hardly canonical, but not in and of itself ugly. In Islam, the idea is that Jesus—really, the Muslim "Isa"—compelled someone else to *die nameless in his place*. this renders "Jesus" a sadistic coward. Ugh."

Actually, there were certain heretical writings and possibly cults in the centuries before Mohammed which implied that a "double" or "copy" or simulacrum resembling Jesus was crucified in his place. Scholars have come to call these heretical views "Docetist" (from the Greek word dokeo, which means "to seem to be").

Koran 4:157 has a passage the remarkably resembles the Docetist heresy, where the key phrase of the verse is:

...but they did not kill him, and they did not crucify him, but a similitude was made for them...

The idea is that Allah created a copy resembling Jesus to fool everybody into thinking Jesus died on the cross (and I believe some Muslims believe Allah but some other human up there, perhaps Judas); then Allah took Jesus "up" to himself -- cf. the following verse, 158:

...but God took him up to Himself. And God is Mighty, Wise!

While Ibn Kathir's tafsir on verse 157 does say, as you said, that Isa asked other men to take his place on the cross, it also goes on to say (because apparently according to the hadith Kathir is relaying Isa couldn't find a good enough lookalike) that "Allah made the young man [whom Isa finally chose] look exactly like `Isa..."

Then: "...a hole opened in the roof of the house, and `Isa was made to sleep and ascended to heaven while asleep."

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=585&Itemid=59

Muslims believe Isa has been alive, up in some hiding place in the air (or perhaps in outer space) all these centuries, from where he will re-descend in the Last Days in order to become the final Caliph and lead the final Jihad against all Christians (and Jews) in preparation for the end of history.

mile wrote:

@"Hey—no big deal, right? sarc/off"

1-No big deal compared to what Westerners driven by their ideology are doing in muslim countries and in occupied Palestine , or what Israel supported by Western countries is doing to neighbouring countries - one could say not worth mentioning if you wanna see things from both perspective e.g. someone openminded enough...
.......................................

Actually, I understand the Muslim perspective all too well—threatening and murdering anyone having the temerity to speak freely about Islam: completely Halal. Defending against Jihad terror: utterly Haram.

More:

2- most of the incidents you mentioned are done by former or current CIA and other countries Secret Service's operatives (take for example latest incident in France when Sarkozy thought he could win elections by being tough on muslims so he needed and incident to react to but he failed)
.......................................

Typical Islamic cognitive dissonance. Waging violent Jihad is just fine-oh, but most acts of violent Jihad were actually committed by filthy Kaffirs to make Muslims 'look bad'.

Do you even realize how profoundly illogical this is?

Few Westerners knew anything about violent Jihad when the Ayatollah issued his Fatwa against Salman Rushdie back in 1989. Many didn't believe he could possibly be serious in calling for murder over a work of fiction.

But we have learned since—to our great sorrow—just how common this Muslim view on both free speech and the use of violence to crush it really are.

Your further implication that President Nicolas Sarkozy was—somehow—responsible for Mohammed Merah's Jihad murders of French military personnel, a Rabbi, and Jewish children is both ludicrous and despicable. The actions of your savage coreligionist was absolutely canonical Jihad terror.

More:

@"Actually, Ali Sina is a brave man who puts himself at considerable risk on a regular basis to fight the tyranny of Jihad.

That doesn't mean—as you seem to believe—that he should be rushing to bare his throat for every murderous Jihadist who wants to see him dead"

1 - I never said he should rush to kill muslims or whatever you are trying to imply...
.......................................

What? I never implied that you were advocating that Ali Sina kill Muslims—how does that even make any sense? Instead, it is all too many Muslims who have made violent threats to Ali Sina for daring to tell the truth about Islam.

More:

- we are talking about simple debate - but by refusing a face to face debate while other like him are doing it non-stop without problems - he showed he is just a fraud.
you have a debate posted on todays first page of this site
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/05/david-wood-and-robert-spencer-to-debate-muhammads-existence.html
.......................................

Well, this example is unintentionally hilarious. Of course, the brave Robert Spencer has faced off against Muslims in debate many times—this is, in fact, one reason why he finds it necessary to have security at all times whenever he appears in public.

But in this case, he is debating the entirely decent David Wood, who is not only an utterly civilized man, but a fellow staunch Anti-Jihadist.

I'm familiar with all the examples you cited, LemonLime.

I don't believe we are really in any disagreement here.

gravenimage,

The Docetist angle amplifies your statement that only contained the information that Muslims believe that Isa wanted someone to take his place on the cross. I was just offering additional information. Did I say anywhere that I disagreed with you? Why are JWers so touchy?

(The Docetist angle may incidentally also ultimately be where the whole notion came from (a borrowing from a heretical text), with the Isa anecdote just made up along the way to fit in with it. Or perhaps that too comes from pre-Islamic Docetists.)

Awake

Neither Ali Sina nor Raymond Ibrahim are Arabs. Ali is Iranian, while Ray is Coptic Egyptian.

Ali normally does a fine job of taking apart Muslim apologists. One thing, however, that he does after that, is rub it in. It is entertaining to read, and the reason why those who agree w/ him would love him for doing it (myself included). However, there are 2 ways of debating - one is to just state the facts and logical conclusions, so that all arguments against it are shredded. The other is to do that, but on top of that, rub it in w/ some somewhat gratuitous remarks, which can have the effect of putting off fence sitters. I have no idea whether this is what LL meant when he suggested that Ali doesn't know how to debate, but from the POV of convincing that 'great unwashed', I can see where he's coming from if he did have that in mind.

I've read Ali's debates and interviews w/ various people on FFI. There was one that he and Robert both did on the status of women in Islam. Both did well, but Sina at times would make remarks like 'when Mohammed was still in his father's testacles', which was entertaining and funny to read, but depending on the audience, bordering on double-edged.

LemonLime wrote:

The Docetist angle amplifies your statement that only contained the information that Muslims believe that Isa wanted someone to take his place on the cross. I was just offering additional information. Did I say anywhere that I disagreed with you? Why are JWers so touchy?
..........................................

Actually, I really was just being friendly here. Perhaps I could could have phrased it better, or perhaps we're all a bit touchy at times. In any case, I certainly meant no ill, LemonLime.

More:

(The Docetist angle may incidentally also ultimately be where the whole notion came from (a borrowing from a heretical text), with the Isa anecdote just made up along the way to fit in with it. Or perhaps that too comes from pre-Islamic Docetists.)
..........................................

I quite agree. There are a lot of aspects of "heretical" Christianity, including the Gnostics, that show up in Islam. There were all sorts of Christian heresies and non-standard aspects of worship in Arabia then, as there were in many outposts of the Christian faith at the time.

One of the few stories that is simply non-canonical, but actually rather sweet, is the story of Jesus—"Isa"—breathing life into a clay bird as a child. This was a common story in Christian Arabia at the time, was not to be found in mainstream Christianity.

With the crucifixion story, it is just notable that Islam put a particularly nasty spin on the whole thing. I think you're quite correct in attributing the idea that Jesus was never crucified to the Docetists, though.

This also fits in with the whole ethos of Islam, though—where no religious figure is permitted to appear "weak". A creed that idealizes a brutal war-lord like the "Prophet" Muhammed would have no use for a gentle character like the Jesus of the Gospels—and yet, he was too influential a figure for Islam not to claim him along with the Jewish prophets.

So they had to considerably alter the story. And its not just that "Isa" was not crucified—he is also not a healer or a peacemaker, and there is certainly no "suffer the little children to come unto me" in Islam.

As always, I appreciate your erudite observations, LemonLime.

I get the impression that those who cooked up Islam never met a heresy that they didn't like. Or, more broadly - as in the case of the absorption and perpetuation of FGM - they never met a *bad idea* (from just about any source) that they didn't like...

Dumbledore's Army wrote:

Or, more broadly - as in the case of the absorption and perpetuation of FGM - they never met a *bad idea* (from just about any source) that they didn't like...
....................................

Very, very true, DDA.

Certainly, all sorts of ugly things such as taking booty, wife beating, slaving, and rape all much pre-date Islam; yet this is the only faith that not only condones such viciousness, but actually *sacralizes* it.

Rezali, how is it did jesus predict the coming of a "LAST ISLAMIC MESSIAH" when Islam didn't originate until the 7th century? and Muhammad was the only "Prophet" of islam. but do you know what jesus predicted?

Matthew 7:15-20: "15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."

and believe me islam bore some really bad fruits, and continues to do so today.

so in a sense jesus did make a prediction about mohammed, and he calls him a FALSE PROPHET. name one prophecy that mohammed ever made? name me one miracle that he ever did?

"name me one miracle that he ever did?"

It's amazing that he convinced even one person that he's a prophet. That's astonishing, to me.

...it's a "miracle", of sorts :)