Keep repeating, there is no compulsion in islam, there is no compulsion in islam, there is no compulsion in islam.........

Of course he's sane. He's the one that denounced islam.

Posted by: freewoman at March 22, 2006 8:11 AM

The thousand pound gorilla in the room - hateful intolerance of which we must be intolerant.

Time to have a realpolitic discussion with Karzai and discuss sharia.

If sharia is not subject to a constitution, why are we tolerating these people ? Are we that weak, or are we just that foolish ?

Posted by: dgene at March 22, 2006 8:35 AM

"I believe in the Injil (New Testament) and love Jesus Christ"

That courage is truly humbling. May the Lord make his face to shine upon him.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at March 22, 2006 8:38 AM

I pity the poor soul who has not used the chance to revert to Islam. A real pity.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 22, 2006 8:51 AM

I doubt that Abdul Rahman wanted to be a figurehead, but he is now. His dilemma is being splashed all over the blogosphere, but it's also all over Fox news, and that means all the Fox affiliates locally across the country. His case puts one question front and center in every American's mind (and Brit's and Aussie's): Is this what we fought and sacrificed lives for? The answer is a resounding "NO!" If Abdul Rahman is found guilty of any Sharia offense, whether or not Karzai executes the sentence, there will be Hell to pay. If only as a practical matter, Karzai would be wise to find a way to let Abdul Rahman go free.

Posted by: longtime lurker at March 22, 2006 8:54 AM

I pity the poor soul who has not used the chance to revert to Islam. A real pity.
Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 22, 2006 08:51 AM
---------------------

Ibramsha, God loves you too in-spite of your violent hate filled religion of Islam.

Come to America and try to execute a muslim for becoming a Christian and see what happens.

The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: Texican at March 22, 2006 9:01 AM

If I wasn't clear, I mean that this stands to join the Dubai ports deal and the cartoon riots as one more wedge of incomprehension that will separate the Bush administration from its loyal base. President Bush would likewise be wise to take the bully pulpit and use it to "advise" Hamid Karzai on the correct course of action. Perhaps he could mention that he's been told by numerous Muslims that there's no compulsion in religion, and ask for an explanation of how this can be happening if this is true.

Ah, when I run the White House...

Posted by: longtime lurker at March 22, 2006 9:04 AM

Question: "Do you believe in the Koran?"
Response: "I believe, it was inspired by Satan to control people of limited intellect and prone to violent outbursts.

Question: Why do you say these islamaphobic things?
Response: I read a few dozen historical texts.

Question: Convert back or we will kill you.
Response: I knew when I was brought in here I was doomed.

Question: Then why not convert back to islam?
Response: I want to go to heaven not hell.

Posted by: Ronin at March 22, 2006 9:16 AM

Mohideen......you are one sick puppy.

Posted by: marilyn at March 22, 2006 9:24 AM

Mr. Rahman's case has convincingly put the lie to the Islamic myth that "there is no compulsion in religion" and that "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance".

The Cartoon Jihad was a public relations disaster for Muslims which pales in comparison to the PR disaster of putting Mr. Rahman on trial for the shari'a crime of apostasy. Merely putting Mr. Rahman on trial is all the evidence one needs to convict Islam of extreme intolerance.

Have Muslims in the USA spoken out on the subject of Mr. Rahman? If so, what have they had to say? I ask that question because I believe the eventual fate of Muslims in the USA may be directly tied to the fate of Mr. Rahman.

Posted by: omvi at March 22, 2006 9:45 AM

The imposition of sharia law as defined through the teachings in the Quran once again trumps the full and real freedom of the human spirit that is so lacking in the Islamic world. It refuses to respect or recognise any other religion except its own without any compunction whatsoever.

Very little has changed, this is why these totalitarian Islamic societies continue to implode back into the 10th century while trying to pull the western civilisations back into that same abyss with them.

Posted by: Mackie at March 22, 2006 9:52 AM

"And fear not them who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul: but rather fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in hell". Mat 10:28

"Then they will deliver you up to be afflicted and will kill you. And you will be hated of all nations for My name's sake." Joh 15:18

Mr. Abdul Rahman, has found something worth dying for!

Of course all of his fellow Moslems from “the religion of peace” have found something worth killing for!

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:
Narrated 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

Posted by: Bar at March 22, 2006 10:11 AM

There is an established paradigm for handling cases like this. It's happened particularly in Pakistan, but also elsewhere.

The government in question is under alot of international pressure and realizes it can't go foward with a trial and execution without doing irreparable harm to the country's reputation. So the apostate is either acquitted or summarily released. Shortly afterwards (in some cases, when he is literally walking out of the jailhouse compound), he is shot dead by a private citizen acting on behalf of the ummah and Allah.

If the government even bothers to arrest the perpetrator...he is subsequently released for "lack of evidence."

The apostate is killed and the government is exonerated. Problem solved.

Posted by: Cornelius at March 22, 2006 10:16 AM

PS - Was watching an interview with a Muslim analyst about Abdul Rahman's case on Fox's 'Dayside' yesterday.

The analyst was denouncing the barbarity of the law on apostasy at the same time he was contextualizing (and thereby legitimizing) it by comparing it to treason in the West.

A young man asked the following question: "I'm taking Islamic studies at my university. We are taught that Islam is a religion of tolerance. How does this case square with what we're being taught.

The expert made a brief dodge by claiming that Sharia is "different" from Islam...and then - just as the music came in indicating the end of the segment and a commercial break - he admitted in a hurried (and nervous) voice that Islamic Law is based partly on the Quran.

The whole thing was bizarre and nauseating. One wished he would have said in no uncertain terms:

"The killing of apostates is part of Islamic Law. Whether or not this is "tolerance" is up to you to decide.

Not to be.

Posted by: Cornelius at March 22, 2006 10:34 AM

Even though I'm not a Christian, I applaud the courage of Abdul Rahman for converting from Islam to Christianity and admitting it knowing full well that his life could be in danger. I just wish Bush and other World leaders would show even one-tenth the courage of this man by demanding, in clear and forceful tones, that the Afghan government better set Rahman free or else they will be bombed.

Posted by: Razdan at March 22, 2006 10:46 AM

I am sick over this. I contacted the White House and my two senators. I will also begin donating money to the Barnabus Fund.

It is a one way street with these barbarians. We liberated them. Afghanistan should be a secular constitutional republic without Sharia law. I would not sacrifice the life of even one American soldier for a thousand of these people.

Is there any doubt that if they took control here or anywhere else that they don't have control now that women and people of other faiths or atheists or gays would be repressed and/or murdered.

Posted by: Founding Forefather at March 22, 2006 10:52 AM

I share your sentiments, Razdan. Even non-Christians know that this is crossing the line. While our government need not get into specifics, we can let Muslim-run, aid-receiving governments know that if they allow the prosecution and execution of a person for changing from Muslim to Christian, we will have to reconsider the definition of "acceptable tactics" in the WoT.

Posted by: guiltfree at March 22, 2006 10:53 AM

Cornelius,

I saw the weasel as well on Fox, but he didn't seem to gain any traction with his prevarications. I didn't catch his name, either, but he seemed like the usual Pakistani who can't shake Islam despite his British dressing.

Posted by: longtime lurker at March 22, 2006 11:03 AM

Question: Then why not convert back to islam?
Response: I want to go to heaven not hell.
Posted by: Ronin at March 22, 2006 09:16 AM

From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=gabriel+paradise+hell&translator=3&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
we find:
===
Narrated AbuHurayrah: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: When Allah created paradise, He said to gabriel: Go and look at it. He went and looked at it, then came and said: O my Lord! By Thy might, no one who hears of it will fail to enter it. He then surrounded it with disagreeable things, and said: Go and look at it, gabriel. He went and looked at it, then came and said: O my Lord! By Thy might, I am afraid that no one will enter it. When Allah created hell, He said: Go and look at it, gabriel. He went and looked at it, then came and said: O my Lord! By Thy might, no one who hears of it will enter it. He then surrounded it with desirable things and said: Go and look at it, gabriel. He went, looked at it, then came and said: O my Lord! By Thy might and power, I am afraid that no one will remain who does not enter it. (Book #40, Hadith #4726) (Sunan Abu Dawood)
===

Abdul Rahman, the Christian is desirous of going to the apparent heaven which is indeed hell.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 22, 2006 11:03 AM

It is a one way street
Posted by: Founding Forefather at March 22, 2006 10:52 AM

True. A non-Muslim is under no compulsion whatsoever to become a Muslim. However, a Muslim has no permission to leave Islam. Any Muslim who leaves Islam would be given three opportunities to revert back to Islam. If the one who left Islam refuses all three opportunities, he needs to be killed.

Islam is indeed a one way street. Please enter it only when you are convinced that it is the true religion; do not enter it for temporary benefits. Incidentally, Muslims have no permission to induce a non-Muslim to become a Muslim by offering worldly benefits.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 22, 2006 11:11 AM

Islam is indeed a one way street.

Thanks for clarifying that for us, Mohideen! I suppose this applies not only to the brain-dead people who wilfully convert to Islam but also to those who were born into it and thus did not subscribe to this cult out of their own free will, am I right?

Posted by: Razdan at March 22, 2006 11:16 AM

Mohideen, first I have no freaking idea whom AbuHurayrah was and could care less. I do not now and never will consider allah a divine being. I don’t think allah and the God worshiped by the other mainstream religions to be the same deity. I do not remember ever discussing my own religious faith or lack of on this or any list. I encourage you to believe whatever you wish but when you attempt to sell it to me you cross a line. According to my limited knowledge of islam I am already doomed to go to hell and I am good with that. If heaven is full of muslims I will gladly spend eternity elsewhere. Good day to you sir, (my apologies to Willy Wonka)

Posted by: Ronin at March 22, 2006 11:16 AM

Mohideen, your cult is based on a pedophile, thief, and all around BAD man. You have to threaten to kill these people, who have seen the light, to stay and worship him.

Why would anyone want to keep a person in their cult when it's obvious they don't want to be there? Why? To keep your numbers up? Why? Afraid they are right? Why?

Posted by: freewoman at March 22, 2006 11:19 AM

The heaven of Christians is a place of glorifying God, the heaven of islam is a place for continuous sex and flowing wine. The heaven of islam is a place for human satifaction, heaven is a place for the spirit in Christianity. One only has to compare the central figure in each religion to see who is trully following God and who is in the service of satan.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 22, 2006 11:29 AM

If the one who left Islam refuses all three opportunities, he needs to be killed.

What a sick mind!

And this is an apologist (although obviously one who can't read his audience very well).

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 22, 2006 11:36 AM

Hey, Mo, we all know that jihadists get 72 virgins when they die. hehe When a normal muslim dies, let's say old age, and say he never killed an infidel, does the old muslim get 72 virgins also, just cuz he's a muslim?

And please clarify what a female muslim gets when she dies. And don't say 72 mops and brooms.
If she had the same disillusions as male muslims, she should get 72 studs.

Posted by: freewoman at March 22, 2006 11:37 AM

Abdul Rahman, the Christian is desirous of going to the apparent heaven which is indeed hell.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha
Totally the opposite, Mohideen. Your allah is satan who appeared as an angel of light to a very bad example of humanity. Any true Christian would have to die before accepting allah....to accept him would be bending the knee to satan.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 22, 2006 11:39 AM

Well, Patriot, that wouldn't be any fun!!!

Posted by: freewoman at March 22, 2006 11:43 AM

Now let’s not be too hard on mohideen it will take him quite a while to formulate an answer to my apostate ways. BTW, I have always taken the extra time to uncapitalize islam, mohammud, and muslim and none of you caught it. It’s just my small way of sticking yet another stick in their eyes.

Posted by: Ronin at March 22, 2006 11:52 AM

You go Ronin. I usually try to do the same thing.

Posted by: freewoman at March 22, 2006 11:53 AM

So Mohideen's prenatal rule:

Do not get born into Islam, or we can kill you if you try to leave.

That's a religion for homicidal maniacs, not men.

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 22, 2006 12:00 PM

Mohideen

But I thought hell was full of ungrateful Moslem women?

Sahih Muslim
Book 001, Number 0142:

Allah observed: O womenfolk, you should give charity and ask much forgiveness for I saw you in bulk amongst the dwellers of Hell. A wise lady among them said: Why is it, Messenger of Allah, that our folk is in bulk in Hell? Upon this the Holy Prophet observed: You curse too much and are ungrateful to your spouses. I have seen none lacking in common sense and failing in religion but (at the same time) robbing the wisdom of the wise, besides you. Upon this the woman remarked: What is wrong with our common sense and with religion? He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Your lack of common sense (can be well judged from the fact) that the evidence of two women is equal to one man, that is a proof of the lack of common sense, and you spend some nights (and days) in which you do not offer prayer and in the month of Ramadan (during the days) you do not observe fast, that is a failing in religion. This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Abu Tahir with this chain of transmitters.

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

Sahih Infidel
Book 1, Number 1:

I wise man observed: O Moslem, you should give charity and ask much forgiveness for I saw you in bulk amongst the dwellers of Hell. A wise lady among them said: Why is it, wise man, that our folk is in bulk in Hell? Upon this the wise man observed: I have seen all lacking in common sense and promoting a false religion (at the same time) robbing the wisdom of the wise. Upon this the woman remarked: What is wrong with our common sense and with our false religion? He (the wise man) observed: Your lack of common sense (can be well judged from the fact) that you believe the evidence of two women is equal to one man, that is a proof of the lack of common sense, that is a failing in religion. This had-it has been re-narrated on the authority of nonentity.

Posted by: Bar at March 22, 2006 12:30 PM

Funny but there's another Abdul Rahman, in Indonesia, who has been charged with blasphemy. He is only faced with five years in jail though not an early exit from the world.

Posted by: patung at March 22, 2006 12:51 PM

Mohideen,

You often say things that are shocking to us here, but I will grant that, unlike many Islamic apologists, you give us what do appear to be your honest opinions. However, there are some inaccuracies in your previous posts in this thread.

You say “A non-Muslim is under no compulsion whatsoever to become a Muslim.”

This is false. First, you fail to comprehend what is happening in the above news story. This man was brought up from birth to be Muslim. It does not make sense, strictly speaking, to say he was truly a Muslim when he was an infant, because he would not have understood it. (And you say, quoted below, that one must be convinced that islam is the true religion. An infant does not have that capacity). So he was not a Muslim as an infant, but then he became a Muslim under external man-made conditions in which it is not permissible for him to choose any other religion or no religion (by the time he becomes an adult). He must be Muslim by the time he is an adult, otherwise he is considered an apostate. That is compulsion to become a Muslim. In fact, they (most Afghans) have no choice in the matter.

You also misunderstand the Koran. Verse 9:5 states that the idolators must be killed unless they convert to Islam. Verse 9:29 states that Christians and Jews must (a) convert to Islam or else (b) accept dhimmitude subjugation or slavery, or (c), failing to accept b, be killed.

You said “Islam is indeed a one way street. Please enter it only when you are convinced that it is the true religion; do not enter it for temporary benefits. Incidentally, Muslims have no permission to induce a non-Muslim to become a Muslim by offering worldly benefits.”

Being given a choice between death as a non-Muslim and life as a Muslim (convert) constitutes a worldly benefit. That’s stated in verses such as 9:5 (jihad policy: convert or die), 8:39, 2:193 [fight them until there is no more fitnah and all religion is for Allah, but if they cease fitnah, then only fight those “wrong-doers” (i.e., disbelievers, polytheists—those who produce fitnah; and disbelievers/polytheists produce fitnah by their mere presence in proximity to Muslims 8:73)]. The dhimmitude option from verse 9:29, under the conditions of a Muslim state, provides worldly benefits/inducements. Because dhimmitude is such a humiliating, onerous, and (literally) taxing condition, and because dhimmis may be executed or killed much more easily than a Muslim (the law of retaliation, life-for-life, does not apply if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim; it only applies when a Muslim is killed), there are considerable worldly benefit for becoming a Muslim (or declaring that one is a Muslim). Becoming a Muslim removes the humiliating condition, one’s life is better protected, one generally has to pay less tax, etc.

What the Christian in this story has demonstrated is great bravery in refusing to play the game. The Muslim authorities cannot know whether or not he is truly a Muslim. They simply want him to claim he is a Muslim once again, regardless of whether this is true or false. They are trying to manipulate outward appearances. They are trying to make an example of him, so that others may be warned. This is how Islam works in practice. This is why Islam is more of a political system than a true religion. Islam is so bad, people are dying to get out. No other religion today kills people for leaving.

Posted by: Archimedes at March 22, 2006 1:00 PM

Islam - the religion of force.

Posted by: Report at March 22, 2006 1:01 PM

islam=cult

Posted by: freewoman at March 22, 2006 1:06 PM

And I'm sure , given the choice, a muslim woman would not have been raised muslim.

Posted by: freewoman at March 22, 2006 1:07 PM

ISLAM: a religion of the stupid, by the stupid, for the stupid. [I give Mohideen's post as a proof.]

Posted by: Razdan at March 22, 2006 1:09 PM

": The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: When Allah created paradise, He said to gabriel: "..

AGAIN

": The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: When Allah created paradise, He said to gabriel: "

Islam is again displaying how it is decieved..

Mohammud, (the "apostle") never spoke to "alah", only gabriel. So, mohammud is only repeating what was implanted by the devil's apostle, Gabriel.

Is this all you can state to show a believer in Christ should be killed, Mohideen Ibramsha
?

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at March 22, 2006 1:13 PM

Either mohideen is at a loss for words, or he's been scared off.

Posted by: freewoman at March 22, 2006 1:19 PM

Founding Forefather said

Afghanistan should be a secular constitutional republic without Sharia law. I would not sacrifice the life of even one American soldier for a thousand of these people.

I agree literally with these two statements when taken individually. But put them together, and you get our current muddled policy. If they are going to have a constitutional republic without Shari'a, it's going to cost alot of American soldiers' lives to make that happen. If we agree that it is not worth the life of one soldier, then we have to accept that they will choose Shari'a. If they choose Shari'a, they will execute each other for not being Muslim, or not being the right kind of Muslim, or not being Muslim enough.

We went into Afghanistan to punish them for their terrorism and violence, not to reward them with our values and freedoms. Just in case there really were just a few bad apples (Taliban) oppressing the moderate masses, we got rid of those bad apples at the top. And now we know that the entire barrel was spoiled all along. If we were fighting to save the Afghans, we were wasting our precious resources.

I hope that this one brave Afghan's life is spared. If so, it will only be thanks to the compassion of Christians outside Afghanistan. But much more than this, I hope that our society learns a lesson about Islam from this story, and acts to protect ourselves from it. It is not a few extremist leaders hijacking Islam, it is an extremist religion to its core.

Posted by: special_guest at March 22, 2006 1:20 PM

How can a Muslim like Mohideen say something like “A non-Muslim is under no compulsion whatsoever to become a Muslim.”? It boggles the mind that he would think we are that gullible.

Posted by: Television at March 22, 2006 1:20 PM

Islam - the Religion of Death

Posted by: special_guest at March 22, 2006 1:23 PM

Islam is not only a religious cult; they also embody the "spirit of antichrist" the bible mentions.

Mohammad didn't worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; Mo worshipped some moon-god known as Allah.

In Islam they claim that Jesus was simply a prophet, and that Jesus was not the son of God. Islam is completely and totally against who Jesus himself said He was: the Son of God, and God in the flesh. Jesus said, "I and my Father are One". John 10:30

Posted by: champ at March 22, 2006 1:33 PM

Islam is no different than the cult David Koresh was infactuated with..child sex, death and brainwashing. Mo was also a child molestor..
NO Virgins for you Mujahadeen!
Carolyn...Hit the target bullseye.
The only satisfaction I see with the garbled ramblings of Muj is he will be in hell forever with Mohammed Atta and the rest of the brainwashed Islamic morons. Anyone notice the smoke column off the Twin Towers of Satan?
That's who greeted Atta and his murderous clan.
Arafathead is down there also so there is retribution believing in a Satanic cult like Islam. fake document, Koran...Fake prophet, Mojo, cult religion, Islam. I'd take the sword anyday over believing anything about Islam.
Bush says he's a Christian but haven't heard anything from that bimbo about talking to the Karzi regime....but he's created an enormously full plate to deal with at the moment.

Posted by: Siciliano at March 22, 2006 1:52 PM

Islam=Lucifer

Posted by: pythagoras at March 22, 2006 1:57 PM

Abdul Rahman, God Bless you brother for coming to faith in Christ. Welcome home to the Christian community. You are a true witness for the Christ and the Christian faith.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 22, 2006 2:20 PM

Carolyn2:

I do agree with you that Muhammed was a singular horror of a human being, but it is not clear that Muhammed had anything to do with the foundings of Islam actually. All we have to go on with regards to this assertion is the Arabs' word that this guy Muhammed was Islam's founder. And we all know what the word of the Arabs is worth...

BUT in the Israel-Palestine town of Hazor a MOSQUE was unearthed during the 1950s---AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE AT LEAST 3000 YEARS OLD! In it were found statues of humanoids bearing the Islamic crescent moon carvings on their chests. These statues included that of a large male and three smaller females which have been determined by archaeological scholars of the region to be likenesses of allah and his three daughters.

Islam therefore predates Muhammed by at least 1500 years. Much of what is in the Kuran is window dressing. As we all know, with Islam it is the KILLING that is the core of the religion--and, not really the scripted texts that have been presented to humanity.

Allah may very well be Satan. You'll remember that when Jesus exorcised a demon from a possessed man, the demon claimed "its name was legion". Not only does allah have 99 names that we (and the Muslims) are aware of; allah also went under the names of Sin, Marduk, ba-al (the root of the name Beelzebub used for Satan). It would seem that allah's name is also legion. Of course, what the demon told Jesus in effect was that he/she/it (your choice of pronoun), over the pasage of millennia, used name after name to trick people. Allah was one of its more successful ventures it seems.

Posted by: pythagoras at March 22, 2006 2:20 PM

As others have pointed out, this case presents a golden opportunity for civilization. Now is the time to contact your congressmen or M.P., and express your dismay. This is the best chance we've had in a long time to force Bush's and Blair's hand. All the rhetoric and b.s. about the need, or even the desireability, for muslim democracies should be put to rest, forever.

Posted by: Infidel33 at March 22, 2006 2:20 PM

Siciliano
Anyone notice the smoke column off the Twin Towers of Satan?

Someone here awhile back posted a link to a 14 minute Bush-bashing extravaganza. Contained within was the film clip which showed the "face" appearing out of the smoke. It was chilling to watch, even as your mind was telling you it had to be just an unusual chance occurrence.

On topic:

Is Abdul Rahman fated to become this war's Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

Unfortunately, as was stated earlier, he could possibly be released only to have muslim justice administered on the street.

Bush may be astounding me with his seeming ignorance of his errors, but that doesn't mean the Republican Party should be abandoned.

Posted by: zhu97 at March 22, 2006 2:31 PM

Archimedes,

Stories like the above article is proving to me everyday that the Muslim faith is now showing its true colors. The Muslim community is fearful of a much more growing in size Christian community. There is now over 2 billion Christians and more people coming into the Christian faith everyday. Not suprising why this trial of this Christian convert from Islam is going on is a fearful reaction from the Muslim world on the sucess of the spread of the Christian gospel. The truth of the matter is that there are more Muslims getting out of the Muslim faith and becoming Christian, even dying to be able to do so. What is being seen is a new era of Christian martyrs.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 22, 2006 2:36 PM

I agree Mr. rahman. You are an intelligent human being and I respect that.

It's just that Islam doesn't.

Posted by: pythagoras at March 22, 2006 2:37 PM

The more I read on this site, and on others similar to it, I have to say I get angryer by the second.

I watch US, British, Australian, Canadian etc. Troops fighting to impose democracy to regions that have never had it before.

Then we watch in terror and disbelief as Iraq elects a extremist cleric as its president, Iran elects a extremist wingnut to be president, Palestinians elect a full blown terrorist organization into parliament, and Egypt elects 30% of its parlamentary members that are from the Brotherhood of Muslim terrorist organization.

At what point do our leaders in the West wake up and say enough is enough. Lets do what every left wing freak who thinks peace is around the corner thinks we should do, and pull out of every Muslim country we are supporting, and stop doing business with them every way we can.

Lets make every commodity price soar for Arab countries, like $1000 a pound for tomatoes. Let's face it oil is a commodity and there is no reason for the west to be held hostage the way it is by oil producing countries.

Then give them a stern warning, every terrorist attack on western countries and citizens will be met with a nuke on the soil of the citizens that participated in it, ie: 2 Arabs cut off the head of a westerner, and one Iraqi blows up a bus etc.
Simple math 2 nukes for Saudi Arabia, 1 for Iraq problem solved.

I know this is an insane idea, but I feel that the cause is becoming so hopeless that something like this is what might be needed.

One seriuosly pissed off Niv.

Posted by: niv at March 22, 2006 2:44 PM

If you feel this case is unjust, and would like to do something more active than writing on a forum, you might consider picketing the Helmand restaurants operated by the Karzai family. They are located in Baltimore, Boston, and San Francisco.

as President, Mr. Karzai has final word on any decisions made about capital punishment, per article 129 of the Afghan Constitution:
http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/af00000_.html

This could be a more direct way for your words to reach Karzai, aside from letter-writing and petitioning Congress.

Posted by: jehana at March 22, 2006 3:26 PM

Granny W,

This story was discussed on the James O Brein show on LBC.
Was it you who e mailed it to him ?

We need to e mail this story to as many radio shows both here and abroad, local papers etc.

The word is seriously getting out.

Regards

AI

Posted by: apostate_islam at March 22, 2006 3:52 PM

No it was not me, but good luck and respect to whoever it was.
I had a news shot from the Barnabas Fund about him last night; O'Brien may have heard via that source.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at March 22, 2006 3:57 PM

jehana,

Thanks for the link.

My impression of Karzai is that he will do whatever is most expedient in his own interests, i.e., he will not in the end allow this man to be executed. He probably will play to the interests of the hard-line Islamists as well as the coaltion governments of U.S., etc., and come up with some kind of compromise. Perhaps Abdul Rahman will end up with a jail sentence of a few years length, similar to the sentences given for "blasphemous" journalists there.

Posted by: Archimedes at March 22, 2006 4:04 PM

give it up,Mohideen Ibramsha … your fighting a looseing battle here
Posted by: patriot2 at March 22, 2006 11:23 AM

Any search – Yahoo or Google or any – on a topic that is a darling of the MSM (Main Stream Media) would naturally yield very large number of hits. High volume does not imply high quality. Compare iron and gold. When you search on a topic that is favored by the MSM you are looking for iron and not gold.

The Traditions cannot be accepted just because Ibn Ishaq or Tabari says so. Please see “7. Consistency: Even present test of authenticity” in my blog http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/ . We accept consistent Traditions alone. So giving any number of unverified Traditions in support of your position does not influence our decision. We stand by 2:256 of the Holy Quran that clearly states that “There is no compulsion in Islam.”

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 22, 2006 4:36 PM

Oh yes there is mo.

Change to muslim.

or

Die.

If you are a muslim, stay that way or die.

Compulsion/coercion

Posted by: freewoman at March 22, 2006 5:04 PM

patriot2,

You may be right. Abdul Rahman is at risk as it is, now, with the public knowing that he is an apostate (he'd be endangered even in the U.S. All the more reason for us to try and do whatever we can.

I was looking through the Afghan Constitution from Jehana's link. The President can indeed override a decision involving captial punishment, Article 129.

In order to arrive at a decision, they will have to negotiate through a morass of conflicting statements in their constitution.
For example:

Article 2 [Religions]
(1) The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam .
(2) Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.

...and

Article 3 [Law and Religion]
In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.

...which contradict

Article 7 [International Law]
(1) The state shall abide by the UN charter, international treaties, international conventions that Afghanistan has signed, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

...in order to remove the contradiction, without changing the above wording, they have to change their interpretation of Islamic law. That is, they have to reject those Hadith reports of Mohammad calling for the execution of apostates. The Koran does not explicitly call for the execution of apostates simply on the grounds that they have apostatized. (I.e., it does not directly say this in one verse or passage).

What else in the constitution would executing an apostate contradict?

Article 29 [Torture]
(1) Torture of human beings is prohibited.
(2) No person, even with the intention of discovering the truth, can resort to torture or order the torture of another person who may be under prosecution, arrest, or imprisoned, or convicted to punishment.
(3) Punishment contrary to human integrity is prohibited.

Doesn't threatening someone with execution, in order to compel them to declare that they have re-accepted Islam (exclusively), constitute torture?

Article 22 [Equality]
(1) Any kind of discrimination and privilege between the citizens of Afghanistan are prohibited.
(2) The citizens of Afghanistan -- whether man or woman -- have equal rights and duties before the law.

Christians are not punished for converting to Islam. Therefore the law violates Article 22, and once again shows how Islamic law, as construed traditionally, conflicts with international law. Islamic law treats Muslims and non-Muslims as inherently unequal.

Ammendments

Article 149 [Islam, Fundamental Rights]
(1) The provisions of adherence to the fundamentals of the sacred religion of Islam and the regime of the Islamic Republic cannot be amended.
(2) The amendment of the fundamental rights of the people are permitted only in order to make them more effective.
(3) Considering new experiences and requirements of the time, other contents of this Constitution can be amended by the proposal of the President or by the majority of the National Assembly in accordance with the provisions of Article 67 and 146 of this constitution.

If the adherence to Islamic law cannot be changed, then they have to change their interpretation of Islamic law. Of course, Islamic law should not have been allowed into the constitution in the first place, but working with what's there, some practical solution will have to involve a reinterpretation of Islamic apostacy law, i.e., any form of penalty whatsoever must be removed. (Otherwise it violates Article 22).

Who's to blame for all of this? 1. Islamists. 2. The U.N., for allowing for so long this dual existence of Islamic standards and Universal standards. 3. The governments of the coalition countries for being uneducated with regards to Islam.

Posted by: Archimedes at March 22, 2006 5:09 PM

Mohideen,

You have an opportunity to respond to my post of March 22, 2006 01:00 PM

My own personal theory about the "no compulsion in religion" statement in 2:256 is that Allah had a mental lapse, like all those times he says he is forgiving and merciful while he burns the non-Muslims in hell-fire and refuses to accept their good works.

In any case, you think that executing apostates constitutes no compulsion in religion (never mind that Allah leads astray who he will). How can you seriously argue that this does not constitute compulsion in religion?

Posted by: Archimedes at March 22, 2006 5:16 PM

I pick # 2 and # 3. Our leaders really needed a crash course in islam before allowing this constitution to be ratified.

Anyone could see that, Afghanistan was in lousy shape when we went in, and when they started the new government and let it be islam based, it would become the sad shape it started out as.

Posted by: freewoman at March 22, 2006 5:17 PM

Have Muslims in the USA spoken out on the subject of Mr. Rahman? … I believe the eventual fate of Muslims in the USA may be directly tied to the fate of Mr. Rahman.
Posted by: omvi at March 22, 2006 09:45 AM

Why presume that Muslims in America would abandon Islam?

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 22, 2006 5:26 PM

"No compulsion in religion" in point of fact has a very narrow application.

It does NOT apply to polytheists (accept Islam or the sword). It does NOT apply to Muslims themselves (as we have seen, the penalty for leaving the faith is death, which is quite obviously the most severe form of compulsion). It applies only to 'People of the Book'...and to them, only if they pay the jizya and "feel themselves subdued."

Point this out anytime you hear a Muslim or apologist selling the concept of Islamic tolerance by reciting the "no compulsion in religion" quote. One need not even bother with arguments of abrogation; Islamic law speaks for itself.

Posted by: Cornelius at March 22, 2006 5:34 PM

"... He is not a normal person. He doesn't talk like a normal person..."
Of course not. He talks like a Christian. An intelligent, educated, Christian.
After a lifetime of hearing nothing but lies from the Quran and Mohammad, the truth does not sound "normal".
"For 30 years, we have fought religious wars in this country and there is no way we are going to allow an Afghan to insult us by becoming Christian," said Mohammed Jan, 38, who lives opposite Rahman's father, Abdul Manan. "This has brought so much shame."
Whatthey fail to realize is that it is Islam and the lies that go invariably go with it that have shamed them, not this man and his honesty.
Jesus Christ said "I am the (only) way, the (only) truth and the (only) life. NO MAN comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also." (John 14:16)
"Hear O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one." (Mark 12:29)
"I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)
"Whoever hates me hates my Father also." (John 15:23)

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 22, 2006 5:37 PM

I like Jehana's suggestion about picketing the Karzai family restaurants in the United States.While Karzai is little more than mayor of Kabul, and unlikely to survive if/when the protection of the United States is removed, he should be placed under as much pressure as possible to reform Afghan law. Americans of any faith are welcome to defend his government. Just don't openly practice a non-Islamic faith while on Afghan soil. One is reminded of the sickening policy of the Saudis who welcomed U.S. forces to defend the Kingdom from Saddam, then went out of their way to prevent U.S. military chaplains from carrying out their duties. To make matters worse, remember the weak response from the U.S.Government in giving in to Saudi demands.

Posted by: MP at March 22, 2006 5:47 PM

Abdul Rahman will be aquitted and released, and as Cornelius pointed out, will be killed soon after by any passing muslim. Thus all players, including Western governments will be satisfied. This has what has happened, in Pakistan and Iran, in cases such as this

Posted by: DP111 at March 22, 2006 5:50 PM

contd:

Abdul Rahman's life hangs in the balance whether he is released or not. That is the situation.

Please pray for Abdul Rahman. In church, when the minister asks for prayers of intercession, please think and pray for Abdul Rahman.

Posted by: DP111 at March 22, 2006 5:55 PM

DP111,

Should Abdul Rahman indeed be murdered, the Muslim propaganda-mill will respond to the chorus of indignation from the West by saying something to the effect:

"Muslims are dying every day in Iraq and Palestine and yet the West becomes so indignant at the death of a single Christian. This shows how truly racist the Western world is and how they care nothing about Muslims."

And the liberal/Left will be evvectively silenced (if they were ever inclined to speak out in the first place).

Posted by: Cornelius at March 22, 2006 6:54 PM

effectively

Posted by: Cornelius at March 22, 2006 6:54 PM

For those of you who attend church, especially those with the big screen on the wall. Take the time to make a slide about this incident and then ask for prayers on behalf of Mr Abdul Rahman. Use this as a sounding board to draw more attention to it. Follow up with calls to your local news about how many hundreds prayed in support. The more religions the better, I doubt any mosque will jump in but the rest of us could really up the pressure.

Posted by: Ronin at March 22, 2006 7:07 PM

“…., a Muslim has no permission to leave Islam. Any Muslim who leaves Islam would be given three opportunities to revert back to Islam. If the one who left Islam refuses all three opportunities, he needs to be killed.
Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 22, 2006 11:11 AM

We stand by 2:256 of the Holy Quran that clearly states that “There is no compulsion in Islam.” Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 22, 2006 04:36 PM

Mohideen - How do you reconcile those 2 statements?

(BTW - Don't even think of suggesting that the fact that an "opportunity" to return to Islam is extended before the apostate is killed in some sense proves noncompulsion or we will rightfully laugh your posterior straight out of here.)

Posted by: Caroline at March 22, 2006 7:23 PM

"Any search – Yahoo or Google or any – on a topic that is a darling of the MSM (Main Stream Media) would naturally yield very large number of hits. High volume does not imply high quality. Compare iron and gold. When you search on a topic that is favored by the MSM you are looking for iron and not gold."
-Mohideen Ibramsha at March 22, 2006 04:36 PM

A little OT. Hate to break it to you bucko, but unless you're making electronic devices or coating mylar fabric for infrared shielding for spacecraft, gold is pretty useless. Gold is pretty and looks good for decoration, but iron is useful and strong. I'll take my information made of metaphorical iron over gold any day. Our iron facts can scrape away the gold leaf façade of your excuses and obfuscations any day.

Posted by: Eisenhund at March 22, 2006 7:32 PM

Caroline,

It is not suprising that one sees a contradiction in responding to Mohideen's statement about the reference to the "no compulsion in religion " stuff. Just reading some of the verses in the Quran can create a sense of confusion because of the contradictions found.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 22, 2006 7:35 PM

bigcatgirl13106 -

The cognitive dissonance must be so great I'm surprised it doesn't produce widespread spontaneous human head combustion in the Muslim population.

(I'm picturing here illustr8rg8r's colorful image - from another thread - of exploding heads, only occurring spontaneously rather than via remotely controlled detonation):-)

Posted by: Caroline at March 22, 2006 7:48 PM

I suppose this applies …to those who were born into it and thus did not subscribe to this cult out of their own free will, am I right?
Posted by: Razdan at March 22, 2006 11:16 AM

No, the Muslim children do have the option not to follow Islam, if they decide while they are children. From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=children+jew+revealed&translator=3&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
we have:
===
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: When the children of a woman (in pre-Islamic days) did not survive, she took a vow on herself that if her child survives, she would convert it a jew. When Banu an-Nadir were expelled (from Arabia), there were some children of the Ansar (Helpers) among them. They said: We shall not leave our children. So Allah the Exalted revealed; "Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error." (Book #14, Hadith #2676) (Sunan Abudawud)
===

It is generally accepted that when a girl gets her first period, she is no more a child; a boy loses his childhood when he reaches the age of puberty. Before that stage, the child born to a Muslim can leave Islam.

For example, a Muslim child adopted and brought up by Christian parents as a Christian is allowed to practice Christianity.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 22, 2006 7:52 PM

"a Muslim has no permission to leave Islam."
-Mohideen Ibramsha at March 22, 2006 11:11 AM

BTW, where the hell do you people get off telling anyone that someone needs your permission to change their religion? Who or what someone else worships is none of your damned business. The sheer ARROGANCE of Islam is nothing short of stunning. Like one giant antfarm. Oh sorry, ants are usually symbolic of industriousness. They don't sit on their posteriors or stick the same in the air, say inshallah, and hope that their genie "god" will cross his arms and nod. *poof* Everything is provided. The day Mohammedans start building, inventing, and farming, and worrying less about what diety their neighbor worships will be the day they'll be much happier and less of a pain in the a.. to the rest of us.

(deep breath)

Posted by: Eisenhund at March 22, 2006 8:00 PM

Great quote patriot2. I've often wondered what kind of god would give man/woman the capacity to question and reason, then punish someone for exercising it. Its like giving a child a toy then smacking him when he plays with it. Any god that can't stand his own reflection is a weak and insecure one indeed.

Posted by: Eisenhund at March 22, 2006 8:18 PM

Mohideen - you know damn well that a child is in no position to make an independent decision to leave the religion of their parents. They are dependent upon their parents for food and sustenance, so whatever the point you are making it is ridiculous and absurd. Stick with the adults here and answer my question. Reconcile your 2 previous statements with regard to adults:

“…a Muslim has no permission to leave Islam. Any Muslim who leaves Islam would be given three opportunities to revert back to Islam. If the one who left Islam refuses all three opportunities, he needs to be killed."
Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 22, 2006 11:11 AM

"We stand by 2:256 of the Holy Quran that clearly states that “There is no compulsion in Islam.”" Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 22, 2006 04:36 PM

Reconcile those statements for adults Mohideen....

Posted by: Caroline at March 22, 2006 8:35 PM

Archimedes' answer to Mohideen is brilliant. Indeed, at what time did Abdul Rahman "enter" Islam when it was the only thing that he was taught, or even be allowed to be taught? As sin itself, he was born into it and at no time in his life was he given a choice until the day came when he saw the truth of the gospel of Christ, and threw off (through redemption and grace from God) the shackles of sin and death.

It would seem to me that if Islam was truly a religion of "no compulsion," and a truth weightier than any other, then it would not need to threaten those who leave it. Surely those leaving it would, in time, realize the error of their misguided ways, and return to it with repentant hearts.

The god of Islam cannot afford this mercy to his followers, because this religion is one of hate, oppression, and death, and no one having experienced the forgiveness and grace of God would ever go back to it. I would also like to add that Abdul Rahman is just one of tens of thousands of Christ-followers who are martyred every year for their faith. Let him be a reminder to other believers here of what is in store for millions of fellow-believers all over the world, who are couragously standing up in the face of satan's lies of "no compulsion." Pray for them.

Posted by: yohannbiimu at March 22, 2006 8:53 PM

Abdul Rahman, the Christian is desirous of going to the apparent heaven which is indeed hell.
Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha

Wow! A made up religion and this guy gives us a brief made up story about his made up religion's allah..
The more this guy and others like him continue to talk the more people will wake up to the dangers of Islam. Ibramsha tells us that Islam is the religion of peace in one breath and in the other he says that Abdul Rahman has 3 chances to revert back to Islam or he will be killed. What kind of a sane person would believe that islam is a religion of peace while Mr. Rahman's life hangs in the balance since he left islam for Christianity?
I am sickened by the fact that my country has spent so much in the way of our soldier's blood and our country's dollars to "liberate" Afghanistan and for WHAT? This crap is going to stick in my craw and millions of other's craw until America and our allies wake up and do something positive in eliminating the menace of Islam and the deranged people who follow it. If this man's plight does not awaken America now then we, the people, will have to let our politicians know that we have had enough of this crap and something had better be done. Either get us the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq or make the people in their respective countries respect human rights and dignity. Otherwise we will have no other option but to eliminate those who are against us....ain't that right, Mr. Bush?

Posted by: ivehadenuff at March 22, 2006 8:55 PM

the heaven of islam is a place for continuous sex and flowing wine.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 22, 2006 11:29 AM

Wrong. There is no sex in Heaven. The wine given in Heaven is not an intoxicant. Islam forbids all intoxicants and not just wine.

Quoting from the Holy Quran, we have:
===
20:117 Then We said: “O Adam! Verily this is an enemy to thee and thy wife: so let him not get you both out of the Garden so that thou art landed in misery.
20:118 “There is therein (enough provision) for thee not to go hungry nor to go naked”
20:119 “Nor to suffer from thirst nor from the sun’s heat.”
20:120 But Satan whispered evil to him: he said “O Adam! Shall I lead thee to Tree of Eternity and to a kingdom that never decays?”
20:121 In the result they both ate of the tree and so their nakedness appeared to them: they began to sew together for their covering leaves from the Garden: thus did Adam disobey His Lord and allow himself to be seduced.
20:122 But his Lord chose him (for His Grace): He turned to him and gave him guidance.
20:123 HE said: “Get ye down both of you all together; but if as is sure there comes to you guidance from Me whosoever follows My guidance will not lose his way nor fall into misery.
===

It is the nature of Heaven that the inhabitants are not naked. Why should one assume that the Heaven changes its nature? Since the inhabitants of the Heaven do not go naked, there is no sex in Heaven.

Regarding wine, Inshah Allah, we hope to write on it in my blog http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/ soon.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 22, 2006 9:03 PM

Huh?
Qur’an 56:33 “Unending, and unforbidden, exalted beds, and maidens incomparable. We have formed them in a distinctive fashion and made them virgins, loving companions matched in age, for the sake of those of the right hand.” [Another translation reads:] “On couches or thrones raised high. Verily, We have created them (maidens) incomparable: We have formed their maidens as a special creation, and made them to grow a new growth. We made them virgins—pure and undefiled, lovers, matched in age.”

Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 22, 2006 9:09 PM

No sex? Then why do you need 72 virgins? Keep your version of heaven, I'm going someplace without so many freakin musloms. Call it hell if you want but I'll be there without you and the rest of your cult.

Posted by: Ronin at March 22, 2006 9:09 PM

Then the young "pearl-like" boys, what about that, Mo?

'Perfumed Garden' by Abu Nuwas:
O the joy of sodomy!
So now be sodomites, you Arabs.
Turn not away from it--
therein is wondrous pleasure.
Take some coy lad with kiss-curls
twisting on his temple
and ride as he stands like some gazelle
standing to her mate.
A lad whom all can see girt with sword
and belt not like your whore who has
to go veiled.
Make for smooth-faced boys and do your
very best to mount them, for women are
the mounts of the devils

Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 22, 2006 9:18 PM

I think I have it now, on earth you get 4 wives to abuse, in muslim heaven 72. You can not have sex so you get more frustrated than on earth so you need more women. You guys really thought this thing through.

Posted by: Ronin at March 22, 2006 9:18 PM

daveconcerned:

Hazor is a fairly well-known archaeological site internationally--Hugh Firzgerald was aware of it and asked me to refer to Hazor as part of Israel instead of merely as part of Palestine (I was happy to oblige him). There should be plenty of information concerning Hazor and its 3000 year old mosque on most search engines. There is also literature on Hazor as well. I think Serge Trifkovic mentioned it in The Sword of the Prophet (but I am not sure now that I think about it).

One thing is for certain: Islam was NOT big bang in 6th century Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: pythagoras at March 22, 2006 9:34 PM

Mohideen: There is very lttle in any religion that is provable. Now, just because YOU or anyone else accepts Islamic teachings as truth does NOT make them true even if you believe otherwise--BELIEF DOES NOT constitute real knowledge and cannot take the place of actual knowledge. Would you flavor your dinner with arsenic merely because someone TOLD you it would make a great flavoring? (I suspect that you wold not take this in "faith"). Would you spend your life's savings on something because someone TOLD YOU it was would repay itself? If you take someone's word for something there is still no guarantee that it is true. Most people --if they have-- any sense want PROOF to support claims they are asked to invest something in. Islam and shills thereof such as yourself are glaringly unable to fulfill this requirement. Violence is used in Islam where it might have used intelligence....

Muslims can utter all the religious proclamations they want "Christians go to the apparent heaven" bla bla bla. The point here is that Muslims have VIRTUALLY NO PHYSICAL PROOF TO CONFIRM ANYTHING THAT THEY BELIVE IN. AND IN FACT MUCH OF WHAT THE KURAN ASSERTS IS wrong!!!! The Kuran would have us believe the earth is flat! is it? NO!!!! The Kuran tells us that semen is manufactured in the pelvic bone! Is it?? No way. Would I kill somebody because this book tells me that I will go to heaven if I do? GET OUT OF TOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll stick to Christianity. Which at least has a coherent world view (including recognizing that its followers are INDIVIDUALS who think and act autonomously)and does NOT tell me to do crazy (and often terrible) things to people I do not know and who have done nothing to hurt me.

Posted by: pythagoras at March 22, 2006 9:52 PM

patriot2 I think humor is lost on old mo's faithful but I laughed. pythagoras give up on mohideen the fact that he stays for all this abuse shows he has pains with islam. He is ready to come to the light. Once he converts he will make a great Christain. Now we need to work on Naseem.

Posted by: Ronin at March 22, 2006 10:04 PM

Reconcile those statements for adults Mohideen....
Posted by: Caroline at March 22, 2006 08:35 PM

A non-Muslim adult has full freedom: the adult could continue to live as a non-Muslim or become a Muslim.

A Muslim adult must live as a Muslim only.

We said Islam is a one way street. An adult who has not entered the one way street has the full freedom to either keep away or to enter. However, once an adult has entered a one way street, that adult must continue on the permitted direction only.

Let us consider a physical example. An individual who has not learnt to read has the option to remain unread or exert and learn to read. Can an individual who has learnt to read unlearn? The Holy Quran is the book authored by God Almighty. You have either read it or not read it. Anyone who has not read it has the freedom to remain unread or read the book. How can someone who has read the book claim that she / he have not read it?

Another example: a female who has not become a mother might remain so, or become a mother. Can a female who has become a mother revert back to a state of being a non-mother?

Do not come to Islam unless you understand that it is a one way street. Once you have entered Islam, you have no permission – in an Islamic country – of leaving Islam.

Of course in a non-Muslim country anything goes.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 22, 2006 10:20 PM

Archimedes:

It's nice to know that some of us still believe in sitting down to read complex documents like a country's constitution! The following articles may also play a role in this case:

Article 129 [Legal Reasoning, Capital Punishment]
(1) The court is obliged to state the reasons for the decision it issues.
(2) All specific decisions of the courts are enforceable, except for capital punishment, which is conditional upon approval of the President.

Article 130 [Judicial Discretion]
(1) While processing the cases, the courts apply the provisions of this Constitution and other laws.
(2) When there is no provision in the Constitution or other laws regarding ruling on an issue, the courts' decisions shall be within the limits of this Constitution in accord with the Hanafi jurisprudence and in a way to serve justice in the best possible manner."
-----------------------

and Mohideen, asalaamulaikum!
but tell me this brother:

where in the Quran does it say that you,**or any other human being**, has the right to judge another person as not being a Muslim?

this person has already stated 1)that he believes in God, and 2)that he is not an apostate.

Posted by: jehana at March 22, 2006 10:21 PM

Mohideen,

The man in question, in the topic of this thread, is not a child.

The Hadith you cite refers to a woman converting a child to Judaism. Mohammad has one set of policies for Muslims, and another set of policies for non-Muslims. That last part "truth stands out clear from error" means Islam is the truth that stands out clear from error and that, at least in the context of that Hadith, no one should be compelled away from the truth (Islam). Being converted to Judaism is compulsion away from Islam. Mohammad has a problem with that, but he doesn't, anywhere in the Koran, have a problem with compelling people toward Islam. Neither does Allah (does the phrase "come willingly or unwillingly" sound familiar?). "Belief" in Islam is not simply belief in the existence of Allah. Even Satan believes Allah exists. It means submission, surrender, obedience.

49:14 The wandering Arabs say: We believe. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Ye believe not, but rather say "We submit," for the faith hath not yet entered into your hearts. Yet, if ye obey Allah and His messenger, He will not withhold from you aught of (the reward of) your deeds. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
49:15 The (true) believers are those only who believe in Allah and His messenger and afterward doubt not, but strive with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah. Such are the sincere.
49:16 Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Would ye teach Allah your religion, when Allah knoweth all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, and Allah is Aware of all things?
49:17 They make it a favour unto thee (Muhammad) that they have surrendered (unto Him). Say: Deem not your Surrender a favour unto me; but Allah doth confer a favour on you, inasmuch as He hath led you to the Faith, if ye are earnest.

Submit, obey, strive with your wealth and your lives in the cause of Allah (i.e., to make Allah's religion dominant, supreme, victorious over all religions and to destroy all polytheism and disbelief no matter how much the disbelievers may be averse), surrender, Allah conferred a favour unto you in leading you to Islam...sounds like compulsion to me...

Here's some more...

4:77 Hast thou not seen those unto whom it was said: Withhold your hands, establish worship and pay the poordue, but when fighting was prescribed for them behold! a party of them fear mankind even as their fear of Allah or with greater fear, and say: Our Lord! Why hast Thou ordained fighting for us ? If only Thou wouldst give us respite yet a while! Say (unto them, O Muhammad): The comfort of this world is scant; the Hereafter will be better for him who wardeth off (evil); and ye will not be wronged the down upon a date-stone.

But no compulsion in religion.

Posted by: Archimedes at March 22, 2006 10:30 PM

I think it is very apparent that Mohideen is not going to address issues here that he is uncomfortable with. He's going to continue to talk in circles and isn't going to address the obvious inconsistencies with his religion.

As for his initial post:

"I pity the poor soul who has not used the chance to revert to Islam. A real pity."

No, Mohideen, Abdul Rahman is not to be pitied, because he has the strength of the Almighty God within him, and regardless of what his fate will be in this life, he will receive the crown of life in the next. It does not take any amount of strength or fortitude to follow the flock and do what others tell you to do. Abdul Rahman is a man to be looked upon with admiration for his courage.

You, on the other hand, are to be pitied.

Posted by: yohannbiimu at March 22, 2006 10:36 PM

mohideen at last my friend we can agree on something. Islam is a one way street. BTW, I did read the koran but an English version. I didn't get a warm and fuzzy from it. Once I learn a little more Arabic I will read it again. How many times must I read it before I start to believe it? I read Tom Sawyer four times but I still do not believe it, liked it though. Now that we are friends and all let me ask you a serious question. You should be able to understand we non muslims would be resistant to change so I ask you. How does it make you feel when we are so strongly opposed to even giving it a try? At any point do you attempt to view this from our perspective?

Posted by: Ronin at March 22, 2006 10:38 PM

Caroline wrote that "The cognitive dissonance must be so great I'm surprised it doesn't produce widespread spontaneous human head combustion in the Muslim population."

Oh but it does, all day long.

Posted by: Television at March 22, 2006 10:43 PM

jehana,

Thanks. I did cite (but did not quote) Article 129. You posted what I was about to post next, re Article 130. There may be some difference of treatment depending on whether or not Rahman was originally Shia or Sunni. If he was Sunni (which is probable), I guess the Hanafi jurisprudence would be applied (at least according to article 130). But if he was Shia, Shia jurisprudence would be applied (Article 131). The Hanafi interpretation does not call for the death penalty in cases of simple apostacy (see below)*. For the death penalty to be applied, there has to be some other serious criminal actions that accompany the apostacy (e.g., some sort of combative or violent activity, etc.). On the other hand, the bits that I've read about the Shia interpretation suggest that the death penalty is to be applied even for simple apostacy. There are, of course, a wide variety of opinions on this issue within and between schools.

This case highlights once again two of the key areas where reform is needed: Penalties for leaving Islam and/or being critical of Islam need to be dropped, removed completely.

*
http://www.alislam.org/books/apostacy/17.html
"...We have just shown that leading jurists of the Hanafi school held to the position to which we adhere, that simple apostacy is not punishable with death. It is only a fighting apostate who is subject to that penalty on account of his rebellion or treason and not on account of his apostacy."

[That is consistent with Koran, 4:89-91, though that passage does not forbid the death penalty for simple apostacy. Rather, it grants permission to kill apostates who are combative and who are not protected by peace treaty].

*
http://www.answers.com/topic/apostasy-in-islam
"Mirza Tahir Ahmed (Murder in the name of Allah, Lutterworth Press 1989, ISBN 0718828054), the spiritual leader of the Ahmadis, a self proclaimed Muslim sect, but enforced into apostasy by being declared non-Muslims in many Muslim countries, concludes his book by "Apostasy which is not aggravated by some other crime is not punishable in this world. This is the teaching of God. This was the teaching of the Holy Prophet. This is the view confirmed by Hanafi jurists,26 Fateh al-Kadeer27 Chalpi,28 Hafiz ibn Qayyim, Ibrahim Nakhai, Sufyan Thauri and many others. The Maududian claim of consensus, concerning the tradition they hold to be true [i.e., that apostacy itself is punished with execution], is a mere fiction."

[Nevertheless, Maududi's argument that 9:11-9:14 could be interpreted as permission to kill apostates (who have broken their oaths and have gone against Islam) is compelling. It also does not require great leaps of interpretation to put together 9:73-74 "...Allah will doom them (hypocrites and apostates) in this world..." and 9:14's "...fight them and Allah will punish them at your hands..." (Also see 8:17, those non-Muslims slain in battle by Muslims were slain by Allah). This is effectively giving Muslims permission to punish the apostates and disbelievers with death. Fight them, for al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief) is worse than killing 2:191, 2:217; fight them until there is no more fitnah and all religion is for Allah 2:193, 8:39; conquer all religions no matter how much the disbelievers may hate this process 9:33, 48:28, 61:9. See 5:32-33, re mischief/corruption which receives the death penalty, and 33:60-62 where hypocrisy and spreading false news/sedition are each given the death penalty. Taking verses such as these into account, it must be admitted that the Koran itself provides grounds for inferring a death penalty for apostacy].

Posted by: Archimedes at March 22, 2006 11:25 PM

Mohideen- Islam is a cancer on the face of the earth.

Coercion and manipulation are at the root of Islam- not peace and love.

What motivates Muslims to threaten death to any Muslim who abandons his faith?

Answer: Violent religious teachings that are found in Muslim texts.

Well, let's take a look........

Sura II.217 reads: “… But whoever of you recants and dies an unbeliever , his works shall come to nothing in this world and the next, and they are the companions of the fire for ever.”

Koran XVI.106, “Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief –save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom.”

Koran III.90-91, “Lo! those who disbelieve after their (profession of) belief, and afterward grow violent in disbelief, their repentance will not be accepted.

Islam is an insecure faith that creates fear in its members if they want to become an apostate.

MIND CONTROL is at the heart of Islam- not the divinity of God.

Posted by: Johnathan at March 22, 2006 11:36 PM

thanks, patriot.

Posted by: jehana at March 23, 2006 12:10 AM

I know that most posters here know, but for those who think that RAHMAN is an isolated case, here is the bigger picture...

: March 22, 2006
CHRISTIAN FREEDOM INTERNATIONAL
CONTACT: Vickie Koth, 540-636-8907

FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA --- In a letter to President Bush, Christian Freedom International urged for the immediate release of Abdur Rahman, a man who is in prison for his faith in Afghanistan. Rahman faces the death penalty because he converted to Christianity.

"Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident," said Christian Freedom International President Jim Jacobson. "The persecution of Christians is an increasing, unintended consequence of the War on Terror. Minority Christians face severe and growing persecution in many Islamic nations including Indonesia, Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and elsewhere. This must be condemned at the highest levels wherever and whenever it occurs."

"The arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Rahman for converting to Christianity is a cause of major concern for all freedom-loving people, but it is the tip of the iceberg," said Jacobson. "His case is one of the few times in recent history the 'mainstream media' actually covered a story on Christian persecution."

"While we want Mr. Rahman to go free, there are thousands of other persecuted Christians in Islamic nations just like him," said Jacobson. "Becoming a Christian should not be considered a crime in Afghanistan or elsewhere."

Posted by: DhimmiNot at March 23, 2006 12:15 AM

Check this out Mo,
http://www.meforum.org/article/104
A lot of muslims are finding the truth.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 23, 2006 12:35 AM

From the article above "Christianity is life, Islam is death."

Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 23, 2006 12:37 AM

Here is another violent text from the Quran that really ought to be terminated:

Quran 47:
SHAKIR: So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

Posted by: Johnathan at March 23, 2006 1:06 AM

I don't mean to be a nuisance, but the word is spelled "apostasy", not "apostacy".

Posted by: Television at March 23, 2006 2:01 AM

Qur’an 56:33 “Unending, and unforbidden, exalted beds, and maidens incomparable. We have formed them in a distinctive fashion and made them virgins, loving companions matched in age, for the sake of those of the right hand.”
Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 22, 2006 09:09 PM

The site http://www.searchtruth.com/ has the translations of the Holy Quran by Yusuf Ali, Shakir, Pickthall, and Mohsin Khan. Let us consider the translation by Yusuf Ali first.

The translation of Verses 7 to 26 of Chapter 56 of the Holy Quran is given below:

7 And ye shall be sorted out into three classes.
8 Then (there will be) the Companions of the Right Hand;- What will be the Companions of the Right Hand?
9 And the Companions of the Left Hand,- what will be the Companions of the Left Hand?
10 And those Foremost (in Faith) will be Foremost (in the Hereafter).
11 These will be those Nearest to Allah.
12 In Gardens of Bliss:
13 A number of people from those of old,
14 And a few from those of later times.
15 (They will be) on Thrones encrusted (with gold and precious stones),
16 Reclining on them, facing each other.
17 Round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness),
18 With goblets, (shining) beakers, and cups (filled) out of clear-flowing fountains:
19 No after-ache will they receive therefrom, nor will they suffer intoxication:
20 And with fruits, any that they may select:
21 And the flesh of fowls, any that they may desire.
22 And (there will be) Companions with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes,-
23 Like unto Pearls well-guarded.
24 A Reward for the deeds of their past (life).
25 Not frivolity will they hear therein, nor any taint of ill,-
26 Only the saying, "Peace! Peace".

Where is the issue of sex in the above 20 Verses?

Let us continue with the translation of Verses 27 to 40.

27 The Companions of the Right Hand,- what will be the Companions of the Right Hand?
28 (They will be) among Lote-trees without thorns,
29 Among Talh trees with flowers (or fruits) piled one above another,-
30 In shade long-extended,
31 By water flowing constantly,
32 And fruit in abundance.
33 Whose season is not limited, nor (supply) forbidden,
34 And on Thrones (of Dignity), raised high.
35 We have created (their Companions) of special creation.
36 And made them virgin - pure (and undefiled), -
37 Beloved (by nature), equal in age,-
38 For the Companions of the Right Hand.
39 A (goodly) number from those of old,
40 And a (goodly) number from those of later times.

See the difference between the treatment given to the Foremost and the Companions of the Right Hand. The Foremost are served by attendants; the Companions of the Right Hand pick the fruits themselves from the trees. Again, where is the sex involved? How can a virgin pure companion be virgin pure if sex is allowed?

We appeal to you not to ascribe your imaginations to the Holy Quran and criticize Islam.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 5:05 AM

We could quote the other translations as well. However, the interested may read the other translations from http://www.searchtruth.com/ and convince himself / herself that there is no sex in Heaven. Just because there is a wife in Heaven does not imply sex in Heaven.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 5:07 AM

"We appeal to you not to ascribe your imaginations to the Holy Quran and criticize Islam. "

What is wrong with contructive criticism?

Besides I see a lot of contradictions here being presented. Because from what I hear, the teaching of the 72 virgins is taught bigtime.

There is nothing wrong with contructive criticism when it is an issue of contradictions.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 23, 2006 5:40 AM

As I mentioned earlier, poor Mohideen is not going to deal with the real issues here, but rather just imagining that he is. I thought we had gotten past the "sex in heaven issue," but he obviously cannot.

The issue, Mohideen, is your religion that compels those of other faiths to submit to your religion of oppression, hatred, and death. Your religion has historically beaten down all matter of progress and culture where it has been infested, to the point that people are willing to kill themselves "for it," rather than live in the hell of the squaller that has resulted from it.

Islam is a disease and an infestation. It is a problem that is in serious need of FIXING, and you do not want to admit that.

Posted by: yohannbiimu at March 23, 2006 6:20 AM

Mohideen, asalaamulaikum!
but tell me this brother:
where in the Quran does it say that you,**or any other human being**, has the right to judge another person as not being a Muslim?
this person has already stated 1)that he believes in God, and 2)that he is not an apostate.
Posted by: jehana at March 22, 2006 10:21 PM

Dear sister Jehana,

Assalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmathullahi.

I do not desire to become a judge with respect to Abdul Rahman, the Christian. All I would say is that the religion of Islam is different from Christianity. So, if any claims that a Christian is as good as a Muslim, refutes the very purpose of the act of sending Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, as a Prophet by Allah.

Don’t we agree that when the author of a book publishes a new edition of the book, we treat the latest edition as the correct one? In the case of the Prophets, peace be upon them, every one of them were given extracts from the same book with Allah SWT so that there can be no inconsistency between their Messages. Our position with respect to the New Testament is that it is a version written by the victorious Romans after Allah took Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them, to the Heaven without crucifying him. It is our interpretation that one of the disciples of Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them, got himself crucified in place of Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them, was resurrected by Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them, and was hanged by the Romans after the ascension of Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them to Heaven, and was accused of pointing out Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them after hanging him, and twisted the Message brought by Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them.

Wasn’t the Roman emperor considered to be a son of God? Does it sound unreasonable to think that the Roman emperor reduced the dignity of Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them, by calling him son of God to be on par with himself? Given the assertion by Allah SWT in 4:157 quoted from http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=crucified+Jesus&chapter=&translator=2&search=1&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
===
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #157) (Yusuf Ali translation)
===
do we have any doubt that Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him (after his descent in future) would be the enemy of the like of Abdul Rahman, the Christian?

If Abdul Rahman, the Christian remains a Muslim, he would not claim as he has done. Is believing in Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them, and not believing in Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, (though Abdul Rahman, the Christian does not state his refusal of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him explicitly) make Abdul Rahman, the Christian place him outside the fold of Islam? If he is not an apostate, who is?

Having said the above, I conclude by quoting from http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=kafir+true&translator=4&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
===
Malik related to me from Abdullah ibn Dinar from Abdullah ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "If a man says to his muslim brother, 'O kafir!' it is true about one of them." (Book #56, Hadith #56.1.1) (Malik’s Muwatta)
===

I leave the judgment on Abdul Rahman, the Christian to Allah SWT.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 6:29 AM

Mohideen: "Do not come to Islam unless you understand that it is a one way street. Once you have entered Islam, you have no permission – in an Islamic country – of leaving Islam."

As noted above, children born to Muslim parents who are dependent upon those parents for food and sustenance are not "free" to decide not to become Muslim, not unless they wish to be disowned and left as children to fend for themselves. And as you have pointed out, once one has entered Islam (at puberty) one has no permission to leave (should be killed even as you stated earlier). Hence YES Mohideen, there IS compulsion in Islam. For you to deny that fact is to rob the word "compulsion" of any meaning.

Posted by: Caroline at March 23, 2006 7:05 AM

The issue, Mohideen, is your religion that compels those of other faiths to submit to your religion of oppression, hatred, and death. Your religion has historically beaten down all matter of progress and culture where it has been infested, to the point that people are willing to kill themselves "for it," rather than live in the hell of the squaller that has resulted from it.

Islam is a disease and an infestation. It is a problem that is in serious need of FIXING, and you do not want to admit that.

Posted by: yohannbiimu at March 23, 2006 8:11 AM

Mohideen, you have some problems with your argument: You said "so that there can be no inconsistency between their Messages." The Quran says Jesus Christ (Isa) is a prophet. Yet Jesus Christ prophesied His own death on the cross and His resurrection from the grave. If Jesus Christ was correct in His prophecy of His death on the cross, (which he would have to be in order to be considered a true prophet of God) then the Quran is wrong. If Jesus Christ gave a false prophecy, then the Quran is wrong to call Him a prophet.
Fronm the Dead Sea scrolls we know that the Pentateuch (Tenach) which Jesus Christ used is the same one the Jews have today. If the Pentateuch had been corrupted, Jesus Christ would have said so. You are saying that God gave men a book (the Quran) but was not able to keep it from being corrupted until Mohammed came, yet the Quran was not written down until almost 150 years after Mohammed died, and parts of the Quran were lost when men who had memorized it died in the battle of Yermama and part of it was eaten by a goat. Looks like Allah didn't do a very good job of preserving it through Mohammed either.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 8:13 AM

Bohemond_1069,

Not just the Dead Sea Scrolls, but also the Bible archelogy discoveries, as well as the Shroud of Turin not only point out the historic facts of the New Testement, but also of the Old Testement as well. Mohideen's most recent post simply is presenting contradicting claims. In truth the latter's claim just do not hold up and that the Bible as we know of is the real deal, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 23, 2006 8:35 AM

As noted above, children born to Muslim parents who are dependent upon those parents for food and sustenance are not "free" to decide not to become Muslim, not unless they wish to be disowned and left as children to fend for themselves.
Posted by: Caroline at March 23, 2006 07:05 AM

First and foremost, it is God Almighty who supports life. From http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=kill+want+wisdom&chapter=&translator=2&search=1&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
we have:
===
Say: "Come, I will rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited you from": Join not anything as equal with Him; be good to your parents; kill not your children on a plea of want;- We provide sustenance for you and for them;- come not nigh to shameful deeds. Whether open or secret; take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.
( سورة الأنعام , Al-Anaam, Chapter #6, Verse #151) (Yusuf Ali translation.)
===

We are happy to say that the protection of a child is practiced in America. No parent can ill treat a child; the child can always opt for foster care and leave the compelling Muslim parent if the parent compels the child to follow Islam. Don’t forget that a child comes under many influences other than the parent: TV, school teachers, school mates, friends from the locality etc.

So, there is indeed no compulsion in Islam.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 8:39 AM

Mohideen, the Bible as I have stated in the prior post is the REAL DEAL and discoveries in th areas of Bible archelogy, including both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Shroud of Turin back up the New Testement and corrects the contradicting statement that I have read and that you have posted.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 23, 2006 8:42 AM

Shroud of Turin not only point out the historic facts of the New Testement
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 23, 2006 08:35 AM

The Shroud of Turin simply proves that it was a shroud of a crucified person. We do not claim that there was no crucifixion. All that we state is the real person who was crucified is not Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 8:44 AM

If the Pentateuch had been corrupted, Jesus Christ would have said so.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 08:13 AM

During the first Gulf war (1991) the Saudi authorities destroyed a book that claimed that more than 20,000 American soldiers would be captured by the enemy.

What stops the Romans to have destroyed all the books detailing the corruptions in the Pentateuch, if any, pointed out by Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them?

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 8:51 AM

You are saying that God gave men a book (the Quran) but was not able to keep it from being corrupted until Mohammed came
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 08:13 AM

Having given ‘free will’ to mankind, God Almighty lets some population corrupt His Message.

The entire attempt now going on claiming that the Holy Quran incites violence is simply because this Muslim Ummah has preserved the Message given to it.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 8:55 AM

Mohideen, the book the Saudis destroyed was not by God. God is able to preserve His word. To say that He did not, that He allowed men to corrupt it is to say that He is less than God. Besides, you offer no proof that this ever happened. Nowhere does your Quran say that the Torah, the Pentateuch/Tenach, or the bible have been corrupted. Muhammad already proclaimed the Jewish Torah/ Christian Old Testament (Taurat) as correct in Qur'an Suras 2:87, 3:48, 3:50, 5:44, 5:46; 5.68, 6:154, 6:155, 29:46, 32:23, 43:63, 46:12.
In Suras 2:87, 3:50, 5:44, 5:46 and 29:46 we are told that Muhammad is given the Qur'an as a confirmation of the Jewish/Christian Bible; that is - it is meant to prove the bible's authenticity.... In Sura 46:12 we are told.... "And before it the Book of Musa (Moses) was a guide and a mercy: and this is a Book verifying (it) in the Arabic language......"
trouble is, the Jews wrote in Hebrew, not Arabic, and the New Testament was written in Greek, not Arabic.........

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 9:10 AM

Islam has NOTHING bearing truth or authority with it, besides the threat of slavery and death. Islam is an abomination. Its god "allah" is an abomination. Its "prophet" Mohammad is an abomination. The muslim lifestyle and "culture" is an abomination.

The underlying spirit of islam is one of a raging, blood-thirsty monster, seeking nothing more than oppression, death, and destruction. It is an unending path of murder and deceit. It is a retardation to everything that is progressive and a benefit to humanity. It is an abomination in the eyes of God and His creation.

Abdul Rahman has seen this, because he knows the truth of the gospel of Christ. God's truth has been revealed to him, and he will never go back to the detestable death cult of islam. Islam is beneath the feet of the follower of Christ, and this truth has been revealed to Abdul Rahman. All authority of heaven is at Abdul Rahman's disposal.

Islam will pass away. Islam will burn away under its own destructive conflagration. The foolishness of it will convince its followers of its folly, and they will turn to the true God of the Holy scriptures. The prophet Isaiah spoke of it (Isa 19:21-25):

21: And the LORD shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the LORD in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the LORD, and perform it.
22: And the LORD shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it: and they shall return even to the LORD, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them.
23: In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians.
24: In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land:
25: Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.

The true God of grace and forgiveness will be the God to the people of the Middle East. The Arab world will someday turn back to Him.

Posted by: yohannbiimu at March 23, 2006 9:14 AM

yet the Quran was not written down until almost 150 years after Mohammed died, and parts of the Quran were lost when men who had memorized it died in the battle of Yermama
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 08:13 AM

The Holy Quran was collected during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, Allah be pleased with him. From the ALIM CD, we find:
===
On the 7th of Jamadi-ui-Akhir of the 13th A H. corresponding to the 8th of August 634 C.E, Abu Bakr fell sick, and out of this sickness he never recovered.
===

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad we find that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, died on June 8, 632. Thus, the difference between the date of death of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and Abu Bakr, Allah be pleased with him is just a matter of 2 years and 2 months.

From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=Yamama+collect+bosom&translator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
we quote:
===
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit Al-Ansari: who was one of those who used to write the Divine Revelation: Abu Bakr sent for me after the (heavy) casualties among the warriors (of the battle) of Yamama (where a great number of Qurra' were killed). 'Umar was present with Abu Bakr who said, 'Umar has come to me and said, The people have suffered heavy casualties on the day of (the battle of) Yamama, and I am afraid that there will be more casualties among the Qurra' (those who know the Qur'an by heart) at other battle-fields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost, unless you collect it. And I am of the opinion that you should collect the Qur'an." Abu Bakr added, "I said to 'Umar, 'How can I do something which Allah's Apostle has not done?' 'Umar said (to me), 'By Allah, it is (really) a good thing.' So 'Umar kept on pressing, trying to persuade me to accept his proposal, till Allah opened my bosom for it and I had the same opinion as 'Umar." (Zaid bin Thabit added:) Umar was sitting with him (Abu Bakr) and was not speaking. me). "You are a wise young man and we do not suspect you (of telling lies or of forgetfulness): and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. Therefore, look for the Qur'an and collect it (in one manuscript). " By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Qur'an. I said to both of them, "How dare you do a thing which the Prophet has not done?" Abu Bakr said, "By Allah, it is (really) a good thing. So I kept on arguing with him about it till Allah opened my bosom for that which He had opened the bosoms of Abu Bakr and Umar. So I started locating Quranic material and collecting it from parchments, scapula, leaf-stalks of date palms and from the memories of men (who knew it by heart). I found with Khuzaima two Verses of Surat-at-Tauba which I had not found with anybody else, (and they were):-- "Verily there has come to you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty He (Muhammad) is ardently anxious over you (to be rightly guided)" (9.128) The manuscript on which the Quran was collected, remained with Abu Bakr till Allah took him unto Him, and then with 'Umar till Allah took him unto Him, and finally it remained with Hafsa, Umar's daughter. (Book #60, Hadith #201) (Sahih Bukhari)
===

So, the Holy Quran was collected and preserved within 2 years and 2 months of the death of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

As regards the purity of the Holy Quran, look at the picture (Graphical Representation Miracle) in my blog http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/ and its explanation.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 9:29 AM

you NEED to talk to naseem
Posted by: patriot2 at March 23, 2006 09:08 AM

On the word of a non-Muslim, we do not question a Muslim. In case sister Naseem is monitoring this discussion, if she posts, Inshah Allah, her post would be considered. Sorry, I do not reply to sister Naseem on the strength of your persuation.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 9:33 AM

Mohideen,

The Shroud of Turin proves that the image is of the crucified/dead Jesus during the three days that he was in the tomb before rising from the dead. It proves what you have posted, and what is being posted in response to is a contradiction.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 23, 2006 9:37 AM

the New Testament was written in Greek,
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 09:10 AM

This is one of the main reasons to suspect that the Romans manipulated the real message given to Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 9:38 AM

In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians.
Posted by: yohannbiimu at March 23, 2006 09:14 AM

These prophesy is music to my ears. Great, the Suez Canal would be closed and the Holy Land would continue to support Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Great! God Almighty willing, I would be very happy to extend my services in the fulfillment of the above prophesy.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 9:45 AM

Mohideen, you claim "because this Muslim Ummah has preserved the Message given to it."
But it hasn't. Portions of the Quran were lost at the battle of Yermama , when men were killed who knew verses noone else did. Uthman commanded the Quran to be written at that time, over 100 years after Mohammed's death. So those verses were lost forever. Part of some verses under Mohammed's bed were eaten by a goat according to his last wife, Aiesha. When Aiesha was still alive, one Surah of the Quran had 200 verses. After she died, it had 37 verses. So is this how the Umma "preserved" it? By letting a goat eat part of it and losing some of the rest?

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 9:53 AM

Mohideen, again, you offer no proof that the bible was changed or corrupted. Even the Quran doesn't make or support such an absurd claim. In fact, this would have been like someone today trying to rewrite history and say that President Kennedy had not been killed but taken away by aliens in a flying saucer. In addition to changing every book and newspaper, they would have to find a way to silence every person who saw or read about the event. Public knowledge would smply not permit it. There is no first person account of Jesus Christ's life in the Quran. Mohammed never saw Jesus Christ. the only eye witness accounts of Jesus Christ's life, trial, death on the cross and resurrection from the dead are in the New Testament. His disciples were given the chance by the Romans to recant their stories, They all died martyr's deaths rather than do so. Furthermore, Jesus Christ's death on teh cross was prophesied in teh Old Testament also. So the Romans would have had to change not only the new books coming out in Greek (and if they were rewriting them, why not in Latin?) but also rewrite all the Jewish texts too, so that thye would prophesy Christ's crucifixion. Your claim is unsupported and utterly ridiculous.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 10:12 AM

As regards the purity of the Holy Quran, look at the picture (Graphical Representation Miracle) in my blog http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/ and its explanation. Posted by :
Mohideen

Mohideen, how can a picture prove the Qur’an is the word of God?

Just because you think the “picture” is pretty, it certainly doesn’t offer any evidence as to the purity of the Qur’an.

Your standards for proof of purity are pretty low, while your lack of logic is extremely high.

If Islam is good at anything, it excels at sucking its adherents brains out!

Posted by: Bar at March 23, 2006 10:13 AM

Mohideen

You still fail to answer one essential question. How is it any of your business how or who your neighbor worships? No more of your Qur'anic mumbo-jumbo either. Try answering for yourself.

Posted by: Eisenhund at March 23, 2006 10:20 AM

Mohideen, The Qur'an had not been collected into one volume prior the third Caliph, some 25 years after Muhammad's death.
Caliph Uthman ordered the Qur'an collected into one volume: Hadith 709 & 507
* 709. Narrated Anas: Uthman called Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, Said bin Al-As and Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham, and then they wrote the manuscripts of the Holy Quran in the form of book in several copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi persons." If you differ with Zaid bin Thabit on any point of the Quran, then write it in the language of Quraish, as the Quran was revealed in their language." So they acted accordingly. (Zaid bin Thabit was an Ansari and not from Quraish). Vol. 4 - Prophet and His Companions - Hadith 709
Some translation was necessary to put portions of it back into the Quarish dialect.
* 507. Narrated Anas bin Malik: (The Caliph Uthman ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Said bin Al-As, Abdullah bin Az-Zubair and Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham to write the Quran in the form of a book (Mushafs) and said to them." In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit (Al-Ansari) regarding any dialectic Arabic utterance of the Quran, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish, for the Quran was revealed in this dialect." So they did it. Vol. 6 -Virtues of the Quran - Hadith 507
2. Claims that the Qur'an was collected during Muhammad's life are contradicted by one who is alleged to have collected it. Compare with Hadith 201 of Volume 6
* 155. Narrated Qatada: Anas said, "The Quran was collected in the lifetime of the Prophet (SAW) by four (men), all of whom were from the Ansar: Ubai, Muadh bin Jabal, Abu Zaid, and Zaid bin Thabit." I asked Anas, "Who is Abu Zaid?" He said, "One of my uncles." Vol. 5 - Merits of the Ansar - Hadith 155
3. Zaid bin Thabit Al-Ansari's First Account of the Compilation of the Qur'an: Hadith 201
The following things are proven from Hadith 201:
1. Abu Bakr had to be persuaded to compile the Qur'an into one volume.
2. Muhammad had not commanded the Qur'an to be compiled into one volume.
3. Zaid had to be persuaded to compile the Qur'an into one volume.
4. Zaid declared it would be a "mountain moving" task.
5. Two verses were not generally known and found only with one man.
* 201. Narrated Zaid bin Thabit Al-Ansari who was one of those who used to write the Divine Revelation: Abu Bakr sent for me after the (heavy) casualties among the warriors (of the battle) of Yamama (where a great number of Qurra were killed). Umar was present with Abu Bakr who said, Umar has come to me and said, 'The people have suffered heavy casualties on the day of (the battle of) Yamama, and I am afraid that there will be more casualties among the Qurra (those who know the Quran by heart) at other battle-fields, whereby a large part of the Quran may be lost, unless you collect it. And I am of the opinion that you should collect the Quran, "Abu Bakr added, " I said to Umar, "How can I do something which Allah's Apostle (SAW) has not done?' Umar said (to me), 'By Allah, it is (really) a good thing.' So Umar kept on pressing, trying to persuade me to accept his proposal, till Allah opened my bosom for it and I had the same opinion as Umar." (Zaid bin Thabit added:) Umar was sitting with him (Abu Bakr) and was not speaking. Abu Bakr said (to me), "You are a wise young man and we do not suspect you (of telling lies or of forgetfulness): and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle (SAW). Therefore, look for the Quran and collect it (in one manuscript)." By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place), it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Quran. I said to both of them, "How dare you do a thing which the Prophet (SAW) has not done?" Abu Bakr said, "By Allah, it is (really) a good thing. So I kept on arguing with him about it till Allah opened the bosoms of Abu Bakr and Umar. So I started to search for the Quranic material and to collect it from parchments, scapula, leafstalks of date palms and from the memories of men (who knew it by heart). I found with Khuzaima two Verses of Surat-at-Tauba which I had not found with anybody else, (and they were): 'Verily there has come to you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty. He (Muhammad (SAW)) is anxious over you (to be rightly guided.) (9:128) The manuscript on which the Quran was collected, remained with Abu Bakr till Allah took him unto Him, and then with Umar till Allah took him unto Him, and finally it remained with Hafsa, Umar's daughter. Vol. 6 - Interpretation of the Quran - Hadith 201
4. Zaid bin Thabit's Second Account of the Collection of the Qur'an: Hadith 509
The following things are proven from Hadith 509:
1. It was feared that portions of the Qur'an would be lost. This indicates that there was not yet a complete recognized cannon.
2. Abu Bakr was not familiar with a collected Qur'an and said that Muhammad had never decreed it be collected.
3. The best that was available was "fragmentary scripts."
4. When ordered to compile the Qur'an, Zaid at first refused on the grounds that Muhammad had not done so.
5. Zaid declared that it would be a difficult task.
6. There were three methods of recording Zaid searched out - palm leaf stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart.
7. One verse was found only in the possession of one man.

509. Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed (ie. a number of the prophet's Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), Umar has come to me and said: Casualties were heavy among the Qurra of the Quran (ie. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yamama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra in other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Quran may be lost.
from http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-quran-changed-editing-process.htm

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 10:23 AM

Too long to copy/paste, just go here and read it all:
http://www.bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 10:30 AM

Mohideen wrote:

"These prophesy is music to my ears. Great, the Suez Canal would be closed and the Holy Land would continue to support Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Great! God Almighty willing, I would be very happy to extend my services in the fulfillment of the above prophesy."

Wrong. Islam will fall away, and if you read the verses preceeding the ones I showed, you will see that Egypt is being smitten as we speak. The Nile river is becoming dry, due to the Aswan High Dam, and the ecological results of it. Egypt will collapse, this prophesy will be revealed to its people, and they will return to God.

If you wish to extend your services to fulfill this prophesy, then turn from your satanic religion, and accept God's love and grace that He extends to all men.

Posted by: yohannbiimu at March 23, 2006 10:37 AM

go there and read for yourself mohideen
Posted by: patriot2 at March 23, 2006 09:58 AM

Dear patriot2,
Sister Naseem seems to have ignored you. Don’t you think it would be better for you not to bother her anymore?
I have no interest in taking up your request. Sorry.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 11:06 AM

Mohammed never saw Jesus Christ.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 10:12 AM

Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, received revelation from God Almighty. God Almighty is indeed a witness to all events. The highest witness a Muslim has to offer is that his / her witness is God Almighty. Once the Holy Quran has given a verdict, no Muslim would see beyond that. As far as we are concerned, the Holy Quran says Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them was not crucified. That is the strongest evidence. We need no more.

For a Muslim, the evidence of the Holy Quran is weightier than the witness of the whole of mankind.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 11:15 AM

Too long to copy/paste
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 10:30 AM
I am sorry I do not have the time to read all Islamophobic literature and reply.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 11:17 AM

The Nile river is becoming dry
Posted by: yohannbiimu at March 23, 2006 10:37 AM

They have the ocean. We have the desalination technology. Don’t worry, they would survive, Inshah Allah.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 11:21 AM

Mohideen will never admit to mistakes in the qur'an or give any thought to the Bible being true....that would blow his world apart.
If Jesus was a "prophet", what did he accomplish, Mo? He said he came to give his life for all mankind, if he failed (and allowed Judas to die in his place) how would he rate being a "prophet"?

Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, was buried in a borrowed tomb, and was resurrected on the third day.
23At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time.

26"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

out in the desert,' do not go out; Pretty specific wasn't he?! It was almost like he farsaw islam and the deception of so many. /sarcasm

Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 23, 2006 11:42 AM

sorry for the typo, should be foresaw

Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 23, 2006 11:51 AM

"They have the ocean. We have the desalination technology. Don’t worry, they would survive, Inshah Allah."
-Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 11:21 AM

Hate to break it to ya Mo, but most of those plants in the Middle East are constructed and operated by Infidels. Not to mention the fact that they're based on Infidel technology and engineering and built with Infidel manufactured parts. They break easily too, if you get my meaning.

Posted by: Eisenhund at March 23, 2006 12:30 PM

Our position with respect to the New Testament is that it is a version written by the victorious Romans. For a Muslim, the evidence of the Holy Quran is weightier than the witness of the whole of mankind. ~ Posted above

The Qur’an
The manuscripts for the Qur’an simply do not exist! The primary sources we have are from 150-300 years after the events they describe. The earliest documents we can refer to today are the hadith which wasn’t compiled until the 9th century, some 200-250 after the fact.

Islam cannot provide a single manuscript until well into the 8th century.
We have no reliable proof that these later Moslem traditions speak truly about the life of Mohammad, or even of the Qur’an. In fact we have absolutely no evidence for the original Qur’anic text. Nor do we have any of the alleged four copies which were made and sent to Mecca, Medina, Basra and Damascus.

Because of time few secular historical documents exist today. For instance, only 8 copies of Herodotus’s (482-425 BC) historical works exist, only 5 copies of Aristotle’s writings have survived. 10 copies of Caesar’s writings along with 20 copies of the historian Tacitus, and 7 copies from the historian Pliny, all who originally wrote in the 1st century. The shortest time span between original and the copy is 750 years (Pliny), the longest is 1,400 years (Caesar).

The Bible
We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions, giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament today. Though we do not have the originals, we still have a wealth of documentation to compare, so we can delineate quite well what the originals contained, most of which is written between 25-400 years after the death of Christ.

Early church fathers such as Polycarp70-156 A.D., Clement 30-95 A.D., Ignatius 70-110 A.D., quoted the New Testament so extensively, it can almost be reconstructed in its entirety, except for 11 verses.

If Christians could retain so many thousands of ancient manuscripts, all written long before the Qur’an, at a time when they depended on papyrus which disintegrates with age, one wonders why Moslems cannot produce one single manuscript from this much later period, during which the Qur’an was presumably revealed.

Posted by: Bar at March 23, 2006 12:32 PM

I can't believe that there are actually people like this mohideen who are ready to kill somebody because of his faith.

Can you imagine yourself taking the sword and cutting the head of this poor man off?

Because he prefers another religion?
Can you imagine yourself doing it? you with the sword cutting his throat, seeing the blood on your hand, blood on your clothes, feeling the death caused by you, feeling the pain of a fellow human being made of flesh and bones, just like you.

Thinking about his mother, killing the son of a poor woman, seeing the baby he used to be, the baby she used to sherish, the innocent boy he once was.

killing the young man who used to dream about happiness, a work, a wife, a family. Such a simple life, a humble way.
killing the father of an innocent child, thinking about all the pain you will cause to his relatives. The immense pain his children will have to live with until their death?

See this horrible picture. This is a MAN, mohideen. The most complex being who has ever existed, the most beautiful things God has ever created, the only free soul on earth. Do you still strongly believe that what you are doing is right?

Do you seriously think that if there is a God above us, he would agree with you. He would agree that such an atrocity is his will?

Listen to your heart. This is God's voice Mohideen, the one inside of you. The one that can't accept such an horrible crime. The one telling you that such a crime is wrong, unbearable, evil. You are lost into the darkness, go back to the light.

Olivier

Posted by: olivier laurent at March 23, 2006 1:08 PM

most of those plants in the Middle East are constructed and operated by Infidels.
Posted by: Eisenhund at March 23, 2006 12:30 PM

I have something else in my mind, not the reverse osmosis technology currently in use. God Almighty willing, the new plants shall be built by the Muslims and operated by the Muslims for the benefit of the whole mankind.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 1:14 PM

one wonders why Moslems cannot produce one single manuscript
Posted by: Bar at March 23, 2006 12:32 PM

The Holy Quran is a living miracle; it is a proof of its own divinity. Why should the Muslim have the so called historical document, when the current document itself establishes its divinity?

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 1:21 PM

Do you seriously think that if there is a God above us, he would agree with you.
Posted by: olivier Laurent at March 23, 2006 01:08 PM

Let me first and foremost state that there is indeed a God Almighty governing His creation. If public chaos could be averted by sacrificing one life, God Almighty surely approves of it, that too when that life deserves to be killed by law. We do recommend the death penalty to a murderer. One reason being it deters future murderers.

What is the justification for us losing more than 2,300 lives in Iraq? Are we not hoping that their sacrifices would keep this mainland safe from suicide attacks? It is a different story that this mainland is under environmental attack with the spring starting with 28 inches of snow on March 20, 2006!

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 1:31 PM

Why should the Muslim have the so called historical document, when the current document itself establishes its divinity? Posted by : Mohideen

That says it all, and a whole lot more!

Posted by: Bar at March 23, 2006 2:23 PM

Mohideen,

Is this the real you?

"I pity the poor soul who has not used the chance to revert to Islam. A real pity."

He was familiar with Islam, familiar with Christianity, and he chose Christianity. The fact that the Afghan government was foolish enough to allow this case to be prosecuted has drawn even more public attention to Islam. Consequently, Islam is closer to being disabled (by reformists) or dismantled.

"Abdul Rahman, the Christian is desirous of going to the apparent heaven which is indeed hell."

And you know this how?

"If the one who left Islam refuses all three opportunities, he needs to be killed."

The Koran does not say directly that simple apostacy is punished by execution. Are you so sure of your interpretations that you would put a man to death? Would you personally go and kill him yourself? Depending on how you answer this question, I will be contacting JW to notify the police.

"On the word of a non-Muslim, we do not question a Muslim."

This shows your bigotry, plus your willingness to make dishonest excuses in failing to respond. So you would not even trust the word of a non-Muslim who is quoting the Koran? Anyways, plenty of Muslims disagree with you on your interpretation of the apostacy law. You don't seem to listen to them either. Only Mohideen has the correct interpretation of the Koran, right? The entire Hanifi school is wrong?

"I am sorry I do not have the time to read all Islamophobic literature and reply."

Well, you should, Mohideen. It might help you formulate better and more direct responses. Certainly, some of us have spent a lot of time reading your infidelophobic literature (a.k.a., Koran), not so much out of interest as out of understanding the problem we need to solve.

Next, you say:

"The Holy Quran is a living miracle; it is a proof of its own divinity."

#1.
Then why would this miracle permit marriage to pre-pubescent girls?

(Sher Ali) 65: 5. And if you are in doubt as to the prescribed period for such of your women as have despaired of monthly courses, then know that the prescribed period for them is three months, and also for such as do not have their monthly courses yet. And as for those who are with child, their period shall be until they are delivered of their burden. And whoso fears Allah, HE will provide facilities for him in his affair. http://www.alislam.org/quran/translation/65.html

All four respected commentators which I have checked refer specifically to wives who do not yet menstruate due to immaturity (Ibn Kathir, al-Jalalayn, Ibn Abbas, Maududi).

As Robert Spencer writes (pp.68-69, P.I.G to Islam): “The Qur’an takes child marriage for granted in its directives about divorce.” (p. 68).
(In regards to verse 65:4) “In other words, Allah is here envisioning a scenario in which a pre-pubescent woman is not only married, but is being divorced by her husband.”
“Child marriages were common in seventh-century Arabia…” (this fact is also footnoted in the N.J. Dawood translation of The Koran published by Penguin). The following translations specify those who do not have their (menstrual courses yet) Dawood, Arberry, Sher Ali, Hilali-Khan, Rodwell, Sale, all refer to wives who do not yet have menstrual course. The textual and historical context favours that translation. Khalifa, Palmer, Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, and Shakir leave the phrase rather ambiguous but do allow this statement to apply to wives who are too young to menstruate.

#2.
Why would this miracle tell non-Muslims to go hang themselves (i.e., commit suicide)?

http://muttaqun.com/quran/e/nobe022.htm
22:15. “Whoever thinks that Allâh will not help him (Muhammad SAW) in this world and in the Hereafter, let him stretch out a rope to the ceiling and let him strangle himself. Then let him see whether his plan will remove that whereat he rages!”

Tafsir confirms that this verse really does say “go hang yourself” (if you oppose Mohammad and his goals). Some translations say cut himself off, but this still means kill himself.

#3.
Why would this miracle state as fact that a man's sperm originates in a man's lower back area (a belief that was plagiarized from the ancient Greeks)?

a man’s semen comes from the kidney area of the lower back http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/semenproduction.htm (sexual fluid from man’s backbone and from woman’s ribs is what joins to create a human life (see Ibn Kathir)).
----------------------

Therefore, according to these passages and what is now known according to science and what is now understood in modern ethics, "Allah" is immoral and stupid. If Allah is immoral and stupid, then the Koran is a false document. If you believe a false document, well, I'll let you fill in the rest...

Posted by: Archimedes at March 23, 2006 2:36 PM

"I have something else in my mind, not the reverse osmosis technology currently in use. God Almighty willing, the new plants shall be built by the Muslims and operated by the Muslims for the benefit of the whole mankind."
-Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 01:14 PM

And what exactly would that be? Multi stage flash? Multi-effect distillation? Electrodialysis? Nanofiltration? Once again, all Infidel technologies. Keep trying, though. Your Qur'anian schizophrenia is amusing.

Oh yeah, btw, we don't need or want your help. The price is too high.

Posted by: Eisenhund at March 23, 2006 3:07 PM

Then why would this miracle permit marriage to pre-pubescent girls?
http://www.alislam.org/quran/translation/65.html
Posted by: Archimedes at March 23, 2006 02:36 PM

From http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=65&mac=
We have:
===
Yusuf Ali 4: Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy.
Shakir 4: And (as for) those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, if you have a doubt, their prescribed time shall be three months, and of those too who have not had their courses; and (as for) the pregnant women, their prescribed time is that they lay down their burden; and whoever is careful of (his duty to) Allah He will make easy for him his affair.
Pickthal 4: And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months, along with those who have it not. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him.
M. Khan 4: And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses ((i.e. they are still immature) their Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death) . And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their Iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens), and whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to Him, He will make his matter easy for him.

However, this is reported in http://www.alislam.org/quran/translation/65.html
As:
===
65: 5. And if you are in doubt as to the prescribed period for such of your women as have despaired of monthly courses, then know that the prescribed period for them is three months, and also for such as do not have their monthly courses yet. And as for those who are with child, their period shall be until they are delivered of their burden. And whoso fears Allah, HE will provide facilities for him in his affair.
===

The difference in numbering between Ahmadiyya (65:5) and others (65:4) is due to Ahmadiyya counting “In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful” as a Verse while others do not do so. With respect to meaning all of them are similar.

Why should there be marriage to pre-pubescent girls? The reasoning involves two commands. The first one is about visits. From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=mahram+hajj&translator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
we have:
===
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The Prophet said, "A woman should not travel except with a Dhu-mahram (her husband or a man with whom that woman cannot marry at all according to the Islamic Jurisprudence), and no man may visit her except in the presence of a Dhu-mahram." A man got up and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I intend to go to such and such an army and my wife wants to perform hajj." The Prophet said (to him), "Go along with her (to hajj)." (Book #29, Hadith #85) (Sahih Bukhari)
===

A woman, irrespective of whether pre-pubescent or mature cannot be visited by a male unless in the company of her husband or a relation who cannot marry her at all. How does this impact the following?

From http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=4&translator=2&mac=
we find:
===
4:3 If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. (Yusuf Ali translation)
===

When is a woman an orphan? Is a woman an orphan when a male who cannot marry her is alive? No. A woman is an orphan only when all her guardians are dead. What should we do with such women? Leave them out as destitute? In order to provide support for such pre-pubescent orphan girls, they are taken in marriage. Do not forget that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, married mother Aisha, Allah be pleased with her, at the age of six, but consummated the marriage after 3 years. So, marriage does not automatically imply sexual relations. An orphan girl gains a guardian through marriage irrespective of her age.

There could be other reasons as well.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 3:28 PM

Why would this miracle tell non-Muslims to go hang themselves (i.e., commit suicide)?
Posted by: Archimedes at March 23, 2006 02:36 PM

The worst crime in Islam is not to believe in Allah. That crime is sufficient to put a person in Hell. So, such a person committing suicide does not incur any further penalty. Since death takes the soul away from earth, may be the angry person might find out about the nature of the Hereafter by hanging himself / herself. The advice is not given to every non-Muslim. It is given to only those who doubt the prophetic office of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 3:36 PM

Mohideen wrote:

"They have the ocean. We have the desalination technology. Don’t worry, they would survive, Inshah Allah."

You are ignorant of the whole ecological catastrophe that is resulting from the Aswan High Dam. It is effecting all of central Africa with drought, and the whole of what used to be a flood plain along the Nile basin is becoming completely barren. The water level of the Nile delta is so low that the Mediterranian Sea is taking it over. Silt, that used to come during flood season (which now is an impossibility) remains bottled up in Lake Nassar. What used to be land that could feed the entire region is now becoming a wasteland.

Allah is not going to save anyone. Your god is a god of ignorance, rage, and death. He cannot save, but rather he screams for more and more blood and souls to burn in hell. In time, the people of the Middle East will realize this.

Posted by: yohannbiimu at March 23, 2006 3:41 PM

Why would this miracle state as fact that a man's sperm originates in a man's lower back area
Posted by: Archimedes at March 23, 2006 02:36 PM

The above criticism possibly refers to Verses 5 to 7 of Chapter 86 of the Holy Quran. From http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=86&translator=2&mac=
the translation is found to be:
===
5 Now let man but think from what he is created!
6 He is created from a drop emitted-
7 Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
===

From http://www.sexinfo101.com/pm_maleejaculation.shtml we extract the following:
===
During sexual stimulation, semen collects in the ejaculatory ducts located where the vas deferentia join seminal vesicles within the prostate gland. When stimulation reaches climax, a spinal reflex causes contractions to the muscles within the penis, urethra, and the prostate gland. These contractions propel the semen through the urethra and out of the tip of the penis.
===

(I apologize for the above graphic language, given in the URL referred.)

Pray tell me, where is the prostrate gland located? The Holy Quran is correct.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 4:21 PM

The Holy Quran is correct.~ Posted above

Who was the first Moslem?
Was it Muhammad or Moses or some Egyptians or Adam or Abraham ?
(Sura 6:14, 163, 7:143, 26:51, 2:127-133, 3:67)

I guess its “all of the above”!

Posted by: Bar at March 23, 2006 4:36 PM

Who was the first Moslem?
Was it Muhammad or Moses or some Egyptians or Adam or Abraham ?
Posted by: Bar at March 23, 2006 04:36 PM

Every Prophet, peace be upon him, is the first Muslim in his community. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is sent to all of mankind and devil-kind. The earlier Prophets, peace be upon them, were sent to their local communities. Thus, each Prophet, peace be upon him, is a first Muslim.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 5:17 PM

Ok Mohideen
All of these “Moslem” prophets but one, believed in a Jewish God that predates Islam by over four thousand years, and you know what Mohammad said about Jews!

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

It is ridiculous to suggest that a Jewish God would hate Jews!

This god of the Qur’an is not the same as the God of the Bible, no matter how unhinged you are.

Posted by: Bar at March 23, 2006 5:35 PM

Funny thing Mohideen, you only try to answer questions you think you can back up with your book of mumbo-jumbo. You made a statement about desalination plants. I called you on it and asked you what you meant. You refuse to answer. You know that without Infidel technology and skill,within two generations the Middle Eastern Mohammedans would be back to riding camels, living in tents, and swinging swords at each other (not to mention there'd be a helluva lot less of 'em).You think allah is going to send you a genie to give y'all fresh water? Little Green Men? The Mole People?

Posted by: Eisenhund at March 23, 2006 6:36 PM

Mohideen,

The Jewish scriptures refer to the prophets as being Jewish. Islam was not around at the time of the events of the Old Testement. Please get your facts straight.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 23, 2006 6:51 PM

You think allah is going to send you a genie to give y'all fresh water?
Posted by: Eisenhund at March 23, 2006 06:36 PM

Possibly. We hope God Almighty would give us water as He gave water to the Companions of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, as found in http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=woman+magician&translator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
===
Narrated 'Imran: Once we were traveling with the Prophet and we carried on traveling till the last part of the night and then we (halted at a place) and slept (deeply). There is nothing sweeter than sleep for a traveler in the last part of the night. So it was only the heat of the sun that made us to wake up and the first to wake up was so and so, then so and so and then so and so (the narrator 'Auf said that Abu Raja' had told him their names but he had forgotten them) and the fourth person to wake up was 'Umar bin Al-Khattab. And whenever the Prophet used to sleep, nobody would wake up him till he himself used to get up as we did not know what was happening (being revealed) to him in his sleep. So, 'Umar got up and saw the condition of the people, and he was a strict man, so he said, "Allahu Akbar" and raised his voice with Takbir, and kept on saying loudly till the Prophet got up because of it. When he got up, the people informed him about what had happened to them. He said, "There is no harm (or it will not be harmful). Depart!" So they departed from that place, and after covering some distance the Prophet stopped and asked for some water to perform the ablution. So he performed the ablution and the call for the prayer was pronounced and he led the people in prayer. After he finished from the prayer, he saw a man sitting aloof who had not prayed with the people. He asked, "O so and so! What has prevented you from praying with us?" He replied, "I am Junub and there is no water. " The Prophet said, "Perform Tayammum with (clean) earth and that is sufficient for you." Then the Prophet proceeded on and the people complained to him of thirst. Thereupon he got down and called a person (the narrator 'Auf added that Abu Raja' had named him but he had forgotten) and 'Ali, and ordered them to go and bring water. So they went in search of water and met a woman who was sitting on her camel between two bags of water. They asked, "Where can we find water?" She replied, "I was there (at the place of water) this hour yesterday and my people are behind me." They requested her to accompany them. She asked, "Where?" They said, "To Allah's Apostle ." She said, "Do you mean the man who is called the Sabi, (with a new religion)?" They replied, "Yes, the same person. So come along." They brought her to the Prophet and narrated the whole story. He said, "Help her to dismount." The Prophet asked for a pot, then he opened the mouths of the bags and poured some water into the pot. Then he closed the big openings of the bags and opened the small ones and the people were called upon to drink and water their animals. So they all watered their animals and they (too) all quenched their thirst and also gave water to others and last of all the Prophet gave a pot full of water to the person who was Junub and told him to pour it over his body. The woman was standing and watching all that which they were doing with her water. By Allah, when her water bags were returned the looked like as if they were more full (of water) than they had been before (Miracle of Allah's Apostle) Then the Prophet ordered us to collect something for her; so dates, flour and Sawiq were collected which amounted to a good meal that was put in a piece of cloth. She was helped to ride on her camel and that cloth full of food-stuff was also placed in front of her and then the Prophet said to her, "We have not taken your water but Allah has given water to us." She returned home late. Her relatives asked her: "O so and so what has delayed you?" She said, "A strange thing! Two men met me and took me to the man who is called the Sabi' and he did such and such a thing. By Allah, he is either the greatest magician between this and this (gesturing with her index and middle fingers raising them towards the sky indicating the heaven and the earth) or he is Allah's true Apostle." Afterwards the Muslims used to attack the pagans around her abode but never touched her village. One day she said to her people, "I think that these people leave you purposely. Have you got any inclination to Islam?" They obeyed her and all of them embraced Islam. Abu 'Abdultah said: The word Saba'a means "The one who has deserted his old religion and embraced a new religion." Abul 'Ailya said, "The Sabis are a sect of people of the Scripture who recite the Book of Psalms." (Book #7, Hadith #340) (Sahih Bukhari)
===

No harm in seeking the Mercy of God Almighty.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 7:06 PM

The Jewish scriptures refer to the prophets as being Jewish.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 23, 2006 06:51 PM

Prophet Moses, peace be upon him, being the last one at his time claimed all the preceding Prophets, peace be upon them, as Jewish. Likewise, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, being the Seal of the Prophets, peace be upon them, claims all the preceding Prophets, peace be upon them, as Muslim. Both Prophets Moses and Muhammad, peace be upon them, have done the same thing.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 7:15 PM

Really, these Muslims being quoted are going to need to get their story straight. They keep telling us, in these ‘Times of the Mohammed Cartoons’ (phrase for an age if there ever was one), that they would NEVER think of showing cartoons of Jesus Christ, the prophet who they say they also honor in Islam. Then they say it’s right to execute a man for changing his allegiance from one prophet of God’s word (Mohammad) to another (Jesus).

Pick a principle and stick with it, you unmerciful robots of Allah. Adjust your antenna so that you can directly channel his bloodlust, because your shut-off consciousness apparently cannot decide for mercy on its own.

“Let us consider a physical example. An individual who has not learnt to read has the option to remain unread or exert and learn to read. Can an individual who has learnt to read unlearn?”

You parallel the process of learning to read with the process of knowing God. Look at the people around you. Nearly everyone can learn to read by applying some principles to print, but no person on earth is any better than another at knowing God. They can be better mouthers of texts, more resplendent hypocrites, more self-absorbed egotists-but each person, if he is honest and humble enough to admit God is greater than he, knows he can not comprehend who God is. The good folks try to understand and do the best they can, and try not to imitate God by being smug, pompous copycats.

Claiming that the process to know God is about the same as the process of learning to read is really quite insulting to God, whatever your interpretation of his existence is: heresay (the Koran) or personal encounter ().

BTW-God didn’t write the Koran. Humans wrote that God wrote the Koran. Humans will be held back a grade for this presumption and deceit.

Looks like this thread has just been made into a soundtrack-"Dueling Religions". I fear, however, by sheer dint of its ability to sink readers into complete boredom, Mohideen’s Koranic/Hadith posts win as “most boring religious dogma of all time”.

Well said, Olivier Laurent.

Posted by: guiltfree at March 23, 2006 7:19 PM

It is ridiculous to suggest that a Jewish God would hate Jews!
Posted by: Bar at March 23, 2006 05:35 PM

God Almighty is one. The God that gave the Holy Torah, Holy Bible, and Holy Quran is the same. The Muslims are obedient; the Christians have lost the Way; and the Jews have rebelled. Accordingly, the treatment differs.

Even in the case of governance by men, the law abiding citizens, the indifferent ones, and the law breakers are treated differently. We do not say that there are different governments.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 7:27 PM

Mohideen, you have failed to defend Islam. You are either a coward who is afraid to answer the issues I have posted, or a fraud who cannot defend the obvious lies in your unholy Quran. You have failed to prove the unholy Quran is God given, or that it is unchanged. I have produced evidence from Mohammedean sources that prove it HAS changed, and is therefore not from God as you claim, but manmade. There is not one single prophecy or miracle by Mohammad in the unholy Quran,, yet you maintain that Mohammad (Pigs Be Upon Him)is a prophet and dictating a book (that was not codified into its' current form until almost 2 centuries after his death) is a "miracle".
You use a circular logic: Mohammad dictated the Quran which says that Mohammad is a prophet. Mohammad says the unholy Quran is from God, the Quran says Mohammad is a prophet.
You make a false claim that the bible and the Pentateuch have been corrupted, without a single shred of evidence to support your assertions, other than "the Quran says so". The Quran also says the earth is flat ("rolled out like a carpet") and that the sun "sets in a muddy pool". These are grave errors and have been proven by modern science to be wrong. If your unholy Quran was from God, it would not have these simple errors. You fail to address these issues.
FYI There are at least 5,300 manuscripts of the whole or part of the Greek text of the New Testament (Injil) pre-dating Muhammad that are still in existence. Worldwide, there are 24,800 copies of these original manuscripts. These include the Codex Vaticanus (325-350 AD) located in the Vatican library and the Codex Siniaticus (350 AD) located in the British Museum. There are also 80,000 quotations in the works of early Christian writers which are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the actual New Testament documents. Then there is the obvious fact that the Christian Gospels were so widely distributed both before and after Muhammad, that any attempt to change (add/subtract) something in the Christian Gospels would have resulted in immediate discovery and condemnation. Nowhere in the Qur'an there is even a suggestion that the Biblical text has been altered or corrupted. The word "tahrif" is never used with reference to the Bible itself. The Qur'an occasionally accuses the Jews of concealing the truth but it never levels this accusation at Christians. It in no way implies that the text of the Bible has been corrupted. In fact, the Qur'an attests to the validity of the Christian Gospels and the Torah.
There are NO original copies of the Quran in existence, anywhere in the world. It does not matter how many times you reprint a book of lies unchanged, it is still a book of lies.
Islam doesn't even have an original Qur'an. It was made up supposedly from "memory" and a few scraps found under a bed. This was about 150 - 200 years after Muhammad died at his wife Ayish's home in Medina.
Zaid b. Thabit said: “The Prophet died and the Qur’an had not been assembled into a single place.” (p. 118, Ahmad b. `Ali b. Muhammad al `Asqalani, ibn Hajar, "Fath al Bari", 13 vols, Cairo, 1939/1348, volume 9, page 9)
Zuhri reports, 'We have heard that many Qur'an passages were revealed but that those who had memorized them fell in the Yemama fighting. Those passages had not been written down, and following the deaths of those who knew them, were no longer known; nor had Abu Bakr, nor `Umar nor `Uthman as yet collected the texts of the Qur'an.
“During the battle of Yamama, 450 reciters of the Quran were killed.” (The True Guidance, An Introduction To Quranic Studies, part 4 [Light of Life - P.O. BOX 13, A-9503 Villach, Austria], p. 47- citing Ibn Kathir’s Al-Bidaya wa al-Nibaya, chapter on Battle of Yamama)
Muhammad's child wife said this after Muhammad died: "The verse of the stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my bed. When the messenger of Allah expired and we were preoccupied with his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper."
References: Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. vol. 6. page 269; Sunan Ibn Majah, page 626; Ibn Qutbah, Tawil Mukhtalafi 'l-Hadith (Cairo: Maktaba al-Kulliyat al-Azhariyya. 1966) page 310; As-Suyuti, ad-Durru 'l-Manthur, vol. 2. page 13
Again, you fail to address the issue of the Quran's dubious origins, verses lost when men died and Aiesha's goat eating part of it.
It is ignorance and avoidance like this that is why Islamic nations have lagged behind Western technology for centuries. Even today with huge oil reserves im most Mohammadean countries, all Mohammadean nations are third world countries. The GNP of all Mohammadean nations is not even equal to the GNP of Spain.
Again I point my finger and accuse you: you shame yourself, the Umma and Islam by your failure to adequately defend it. I await your response.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 7:31 PM

BTW-God didn’t write the Koran.
Posted by: guiltfree at March 23, 2006 07:19 PM

True. God Almighty wrote the Tablets given to Prophet Moses, peace be upon him. God Almighty revealed the Holy Quran to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, who dictated the Revelations, which were recorded by the Companions, and finally the Holy Quran was assembled and collated as it was recited in the month of Ramadan. The process is different; the author is the same. The author of the Tablets and the Holy Quran is the same God Almighty.

As Muslims, we say that any difference between the Holy Quran and the other scriptures, the Holy Torah, and the Holy Bible is due to corruption. Please remember that these scriptures do have substantial agreement, even though not identical.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 7:39 PM

Mohideen

Moslems kill nonbelievers in the belief they will enter a paradise.

Christians practice what Jesus taught, “lover your neighbor as yourself”.

Yes, Mohideen you are correct, it is obvious that the Christians are by far the more corrupt ones!

But wine according to sura 5:90 is called Satan’s handiwork.

Then how come in sura 47:15 it claims your paradise has rivers of Satan’s handiwork flowing through it? Could Allah’s paradise really be a pseudo-paradise, better known to the western world as hell?

Posted by: Bar at March 23, 2006 7:53 PM

Again I point my finger and accuse you: you shame yourself, the Umma and Islam by your failure to adequately defend it. I await your response.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 07:31 PM

Contestants cannot be judges as well. Whether I defend or fail is left to those who are not contestants.

I have no intention of answering the same questions again and again and again.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 7:53 PM

Mohideen, you have just destroyed your claim that Mohammad is like Moses: You confirmed that God himself gave Moses the tablets with the ten commandments, while Mohammad was visited by an angel who "squeezed" him until he "recited". Moses saw part of God and talked with God directly. Mohammed never saw God, or spoke with him "face to face as a man speaks with a friend (Exodus 33:11)", as the Pentateuch/Old Testament/Tenach says. God spoke with Moses, Mohammad got to talk with a servant. You are not only failing to defend your faith, you are helping to destroy it!

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 7:55 PM

finally,now ya said it,the koran is corrupted.
Posted by: patriot2 at March 23, 2006 07:45 PM

Corruption is in the current versions of the Holy Torah and the Holy Bible. We say that the original versions of the Holy Torah and the Holy Bible are lost. There is no corruption in the Holy Quran.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 7:57 PM

You have not even answered my question adequately once, but then you cannot, can you? It is not I who judges you but God almighty, as he judges us all. I say again: you have failed to defend Islam. Maybe you could do a better job of it if Aiesha's goat hadn't eaten those verses.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 7:58 PM

Mohideen, you have just destroyed your claim that Mohammad is like Moses
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 07:55 PM

Both Moses and Muhammad, peace be upon them, are Prophets. In that sense, obviously they are similar.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 8:02 PM

Mohideen, you said "... We say that the original versions of the Holy Torah and the Holy Bible are lost." So you think God is unable to preserve His holy word? You also calim that the unholy Quran is not corrupted. Have they found those verses the goat ate? Or did Allah reveal the verses a second time that were lost after the men died in the battle of Yermama so that they would not be lost again?

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 8:03 PM

Mohideen, if Mohammed is a prophet, then show me one prophecy he made in the Quran. I can show you numerous ones that Moses made. It's quite a simple equation really; no prophecy = no prophet.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 8:05 PM

You guys are talking to a stone. Let him lie.

Posted by: yohannbiimu at March 23, 2006 8:06 PM

Mohammad the prophet who never prophesied!

Posted by: Bar at March 23, 2006 8:08 PM

Maybe you could do a better job of it if Aiesha's goat hadn't eaten those verses.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 07:58 PM

I performed a search on – goat ate – in the ALIM CD. It gave four Traditions as result. They are:
===
Narrated Al Bara bin Azib
On the day of Nahr Allah's Apostle delivered the Khutba after the 'Id prayer and said,
"Anyone who prayed like us and slaughtered the sacrifice like we did then he acted according to our (Nusuk) tradition of sacrificing, and whoever slaughtered the sacrifice before the prayer, then that was just mutton (i.e. not sacrifice)." Abu Burda bin Naiyar stood up and said, "O Allah's Apostle! By Allah, I slaughtered my sacrifice before I offered the (Id) prayer and thought that today was the day of eating and drinking (nonalcoholic drinks) and so I made haste (in slaughtering) and ate and also fed my family and neighbors." Allah's Apostle said, "That was just mutton (not a sacrifice)." Then Abu Burda said, "I have a young she-goat and no doubt, it is better than two sheep. Will that be sufficient as a sacrifice for me?" The Prophet replied, "Yes. But it will not be sufficient for anyone else (as a sacrifice), after you."
Volume 2 Number 99 Sahih Al-Bukhari

Narrated Jabir
We were digging (the trench) on the day of (Al-Khandaq ( i.e. Trench)) and we came across a big solid rock. We went to the Prophet and said, "Here is a rock appearing across the trench." He said, "I am coming down." Then he got up, and a stone was tied to his belly for we had not eaten anything for three days. So the Prophet took the spade and struck the big solid rock and it became like sand. I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Allow me to go home." (When the Prophet allowed me) I said to my wife, "I saw the Prophet in a state that I cannot treat lightly. Have you got something (for him) to eat?" She replied, "I have barley and a she-goat." So I slaughtered the she-kid and she ground the barley; then we put the meat in the earthenware cooking pot. Then I came to the Prophet when the dough had become soft and fermented and (the meat in) the pot over the stone trivet had nearly been well-cooked, and said, "I have got a little food prepared, so get up O Allah's Apostle, you and one or two men along with you (for the food)." The Prophet asked, "How much is that food?" I told him about it. He said, "It is abundant and good. Tell your wife not to remove the earthenware pot from the fire and not to take out any bread from the oven till I reach there." Then he said (to all his companions), "Get up." So the Muhajirn (i.e. emigrants) and the Ansar got up. When I came to my wife, I said, "Allah's Mercy be upon you! The Prophet came along with the Muhajirin and the Ansar and those who were present with them." She said, "Did the Prophet ask you (how much food you had)?" I replied, "Yes." Then the Prophet said, "Enter and do not throng." The Prophet started cutting the bread (into pieces) and put the cooked meat over it. He covered the earthenware pot and the oven whenever he took something out of them. He would give the food to his companions and take the meat out of the pot. He went on cutting the bread and scooping the meat (for his companions) till they all ate their fill, and even then, some food remained. Then the Prophet said (to my wife), "Eat and present to others as the people are struck with hunger."
Volume 5 Number 427 Sahih Al-Bukhari

Narrated Salamah ibn al-Akwa'
We set out on an expedition with Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him). We faced hardship (in getting provisions) until we decided to slaughter some of our riding-animals.
Allah's Apostle (peace be upon him) commanded us to pool our provisions of food. So we spread a sheet of leather and the provisions of the people were collected on it. I stretched myself to measure how much that was (the length and breadth of the sheet on which the provisions were laid). I measured it and (found) that it was (in length and breadth) of (the size) on which a goat could sit. We were fourteen hundred people. We (all) ate until we were fully satisfied and then filled our bags with provisions. The Allah's Apostle (peace be upon him) said: Is there any water for performing ablution. Then there came a man with a small bucket containing some water. He tipped it into a basin. We all fourteen hundred persons performed ablution using the water. Then eight people came after that and said: Is there any water for performing ablution? Thereupon Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: The ablution has already been performed.
Number 803 Sahih Muslim

Narrated AbuHurayrah
Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) went out (of his house) one day or one night, and there he found AbuBakr and Umar also. He said: What has brought you out of your houses at this hour? They said: Allah's Messenger, it is hunger. Thereupon he said: By Him in Whose Hand is my life, what has brought you out has brought me out too; stand up. They stood up with him, and (all of them) came to the house of an Ansari, but he was not at home. When his wife saw him she said: Most welcome. Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said to her: Where is so and so? She said: He has gone to fetch some fresh water for us. When the Ansari came and he saw Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) and his two companions, he said: Praise be to Allah, no one has more honourable guests today than I (have). He then went out and brought them a bunch of ripe dates, some dry dates and fresh dates, and said: Eat some of them. He then took hold of his long knife (for slaughtering a goat or a sheep). Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said to him:
Beware of killing a milking animal. He slaughtered a sheep for them and they ate of it and of the bunch of dates and drank. When they had taken their fill and had been fully satisfied with the drink, Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said to AbuBakr and Umar: By Him in Whose Hand is my life, you will certainly be questioned about this bounty on the Day of Judgment. Hunger brought you out of your house and you did not return until this bounty came to you.
Number 959 Sahih Muslim
===

There is no Tradition about a goat eating the papers on which some Verses were written. I did not like to enter into this discussion and show that you had relied on unauthentic Traditions. Well, you forced my hand.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 8:20 PM

Mohideen, I don't know about you, but as far as I'm concerned, once they've passed through a goat's intestines, those verses are going to be pretty corrupted. Do you then revere the goat after he's eaten the verses, or the goat pellets? Gives new meaning to the phrase "holy shit!", huh?

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 8:21 PM

Force your hand? LOL! Mohideen, I ask you to show me what's in your right hand and you show me your left. Typical taqiyyah. BUt then you aren't required to be honest with infidels, are you?
"The verse of the stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my bed. When the messenger of Allah expired and we were preoccupied with his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper."
References: Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. vol. 6. page 269; Sunan Ibn Majah, page 626; Ibn Qutbah, Tawil Mukhtalafi 'l-Hadith (Cairo: Maktaba al-Kulliyat al-Azhariyya. 1966) page 310; As-Suyuti, ad-Durru 'l-Manthur, vol. 2. page 13
Narrated by Hazrat Ā’ishah that ayat-e-Rajm and ayat Raza’at were revealed, they were written on something. I kept them under the cart, meanwhile the holy prophet died and we became busy and one goat came and ate those ayyat” (Ibn-e-Maja).
You still evade the question of the lost verses from the deaths at Yermama. Nice try, but you have still failed to defend Islam.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at March 23, 2006 8:33 PM

It is extremely rare that I post without first reading every single post preceding mine. But in this case of what may well be a record number of posts at JW, I have no choice in lieu of reading through them all but to respond to Mohideen's post to me at 8:39 this morning, claiming, after acknowledging that any Muslim does indeed deserve the death penalty for leaving Islam, "that there is no compulsion in Islam".

To which I respond

You Sir are a liar. Claiming the right to murder someone who leaves Islam is the VERY definition of COMPULSION, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Words have meanings. The word COMPULSION has meaning. You ARE NOT personally entitled to redefine the meaning of that word to support your totalitarian ends, in some Orwellian fashion, in order to deprive that word of all its meaning merely in order to support your own self-interested fascistic, totalitarian ends. I don't care whether you are merely personally deluded or whether you represent one of the collectively brainwashed species of homo Islamus. It doesn't matter. YOU Sir - and your apparent cult of like minded fascists included, are not entitled to reinterpret the basic meaning of the word "compulsion." The rest of us completely understand the meaning of that word, whether you choose to honestly acknowledge its meaning or not.

Posted by: Caroline at March 23, 2006 9:35 PM

Mohideen,

You make my job a lot easier, in one sense. You agree with what I say about the Koran, for the most part (but see the sperm topic below). In another sense, my job seems impossible, because you seem beyond the reach of modern Western morality.

You state:
"Do not forget that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, married mother Aisha, Allah be pleased with her, at the age of six, but consummated the marriage after 3 years. So, marriage does not automatically imply sexual relations. An orphan girl gains a guardian through marriage irrespective of her age." March 23, 2006 03:28 PM

You have no problem with Ayesha's age, and further you have no problem with the Koran's lack of a lower age limit for the female to be married. On whether sexual relations are permitted with the pre-pubescent female, here is the understanding of the single most critical component of the marriage contract:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 81:
Narrated 'Uqba:
The Prophet said: "The stipulations most entitled to be abided by are those with which you are given the right to enjoy the (women's) private parts (i.e. the stipulations of the marriage contract)."

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3302:
'Uqba b. Amir (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The most worthy condition which must be fulfilled is that which makes sexual intercourse lawful. In the narration transmitted by Ibn Muthanna (instead of the word "condition" ) it is "conditions".

Hence, Maududi comments on 65:4 as follows:
Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible. (Maududi, vol. 5, p. 620, note 13, emphasis added)

Also note that, marriage aside, verses 70:29-30 permit the Muslim male to be "lewd" with his slave girls, which Ibn Kathir interprets as being permission for the man to put his private parts into hers. Note: the Koran puts no lower age limit on slave girls either.

"The worst crime in Islam is not to believe in Allah. That crime is sufficient to put a person in Hell. So, such a person committing suicide does not incur any further penalty. Since death takes the soul away from earth, may be the angry person might find out about the nature of the Hereafter by hanging himself / herself. The advice is not given to every non-Muslim. It is given to only those who doubt the prophetic office of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him."
Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 03:36 PM

Yes, you don't value human life, therefore it is expendible. Nearly all non-Muslims, by definition, doubt the prophetic office of Mohammad.

"Pray tell me, where is the prostrate gland located? The Holy Quran is correct."
Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 23, 2006 04:21 PM

Do you need an anatomy lesson, Mohideen? The prostate area is not the kidney area of the lower back, nor is it between any ribs. Nevertheless, your interpretation shows graphically how far you will go to defend an outdated belief, an error that was plagiarized from the ancient Greeks.

Posted by: Archimedes at March 23, 2006 10:01 PM

Mohideen,

"A woman is an orphan only when all her guardians are dead."

Context, Mohideen, context. Why were the girls orphaned? Simple: Mohammad's men killed the parents (killing of women and children is permissible if it cannot be avoided in pursuing Allah's cause). Allah's cause is to fight to make Allah's religion superior, to destroy polytheism and disbelief. In the process, those jihadists who are not martyred will receive the war booty in this world, and that includes the female orphans.

But none of that bothers you, does it?

Posted by: Archimedes at March 24, 2006 12:20 AM

Archimedes: Nice job of exposing the many contradictions and lies that are part and parcel of the Koran.

I appreciate your knowledge of Muslim texts and Islam.

Mohideen seems like an unapologetic Muslim who doesn't possess much intellectual rigor to think critically about his Islamic faith.

Posted by: Johnathan at March 24, 2006 2:57 AM

Mohideen sez:

"...The Holy Quran is the book authored by God Almighty..."

Nonsense. The rubbish in the Koran reveals Mohmmeds perversion.

"...Both Moses and Muhammad, peace be upon them, are Prophets. In that sense, obviously they are similar..."

Rubbish. Moses was a Jew. Mohammed was a primitive, a barbarian desert Arab. No similarities here.

"...Since the inhabitants of the Heaven do not go naked, there is no sex in Heaven..."

Mohammed used sex as a lure to overcome fear of death, that's why he promised his followers plenty of 'houri's', that would have their virginity magically 'restored' after each act of sex. And don't forget the 24 boyz, Mohideen, for the sodomizing Arabs. What for deny the obvious?

But anyway, this Mohideen simply claims the world begun with Mohammed and his conquest, and the Koran is the 'only' book come hell or high water. When somebody is that badly brain-damaged it is beyond reason to find something to argue about. Mohideen knows very well that Islam has no substance, it is lies based on lies and if you scratch the surface you find more lies. Therefore you'll never get an answer, but a lot of 'piss on him' and milk from 'she-camels' etc. etc.

Did you have some more of that black cumin seed up your nose again, Mohideen? Got around to taste that good old camel-piss remedy?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 24, 2006 3:26 AM

Mohideen,

I believe that you earlier stated that there was no sex in Paradise. That's not what they tell the Palestinian teenage boys when they are being programmed for martyrdom. Anyways, here's some of what the Koran and hadith have to say (from Sam Shamoun)

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/semenproduction.htm
-----------------------------

"Based on his mistaken interpretation, Yusef Ali was obliged to mistranslate all the obvious references to the physical pleasures of paradise. For example, in Soorah an-Naba (78) he translates verse 33 (wa kawaaiba atraaban) as companions of Equal Age, (The Holy Quran, (Trans.), p. 1676). Atraaban does mean of the same age according to Ibn Abbaas (Mukhtasar Tafseer Ibn Katheer, vol 3., pp 434 and 593),

however Kawaaiba does not mean companion. Kawaaib is the plural of Kaaib which means a girl whose breasts are beginning to swell or one WHO HAS PROMINENT BREASTS (E. W. Lane, Arabic English Lexicon, vol. 2, p. 2616). Kawaaib means BUXOM GIRLS (J. Milton Cowan, ed., A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, (Beirut: Libraire Du Liban, 1980), p. 831).

Ibn Katheer quoted both Ibn Abbaas and Mujaahid as saying, Kawaaib means Nawaahid. He then went on to explain, They (Ibn Abbaas and Mujaahid) meant that their (women of paradises) breast are prominent and not sagging because they are virgins (see also Soorah al-Waaqiah 56:35-37 (Mukhtasar Tafeer Ibn Katheer, vol. 3, p. 593). Thus, the verse actually refers to the women of paradies as HIGH BREASTED females all having the same age). This view of Yusef Ali has been refuted at length by Mujlisul-Ulama of South Africa's book, A Discussion of the Errors of Yusuf Ali, (Transvaal, Rep. South Africa: Young Mens Muslims Association, n.d.) pp. 16-26, 44-50." (Ibn Taymeeyahs ESSAY ON THE JINN (DEMONS), Abridged, Annotated and Translated by Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips [Published by International Islamic Publishing House, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1998], pp. 28-30, fn. 2; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Even more amazing is Ibn Kathir's commentary on S. 56:35-37:

Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded that Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said,

Anas said, "I asked, 'O Allah's Messenger! Will one be able to do that?

He said,

> At-Tirmidhi also recorded it and said, "Sahih Gharib." Abu Al-Qasim At-Tabarani recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that

the Messenger of Allah was asked, "O Allah's Messenger! Will we have sexual intercourse with our wives in Paradise?"

He said,


Al-Hafiz Abu 'Abdullah Al-Maqisi said, "In my view, the Hadith meets the criteria of the Sahih, and Allah knows best." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Abridged, Volume 9, Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun, pp. 429-430; bold and capital emphasis ours)"
---------------------------------

Posted by: Archimedes at March 24, 2006 6:59 AM

Mohideen,

Some parts got cut from my previous post. Here's the full quote from Shamoun's article:

Even more amazing is Ibn Kathir's commentary on S. 56:35-37:
Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded that Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said,

Anas said, "I asked, 'O Allah's Messenger! Will one be able to do that? He said,
At-Tirmidhi also recorded it and said, "Sahih Gharib." Abu Al-Qasim At-Tabarani recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah was asked, "O Allah's Messenger! Will we have sexual intercourse with our wives in Paradise?" He said,

Al-Hafiz Abu 'Abdullah Al-Maqisi said, "In my view, the Hadith meets the criteria of the Sahih, and Allah knows best." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Abridged, Volume 9, Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun, pp. 429-430; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Posted by: Archimedes at March 24, 2006 7:04 AM

I'll try again. Got to remove those arrows!

Even more amazing is Ibn Kathir's commentary on S. 56:35-37:
Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded that Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said,
In Paradise, the believer will be given such and such strength for women.
Anas said, "I asked, 'O Allah's Messenger! Will one be able to do that? He said,
He will be given the strength OF A HUNDRED (MEN) At-Tirmidhi also recorded it and said, "Sahih Gharib." Abu Al-Qasim At-Tabarani recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah was asked, "O Allah's Messenger! Will we have sexual intercourse with our wives in Paradise?" He said,
The man will be able to have sexual intercourse WITH A HUNDRED VIRGINS IN ONE DAY.
Al-Hafiz Abu 'Abdullah Al-Maqisi said, "In my view, the Hadith meets the criteria of the Sahih, and Allah knows best." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Abridged, Volume 9, Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun, pp. 429-430; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Posted by: Archimedes at March 24, 2006 7:07 AM

Abu Al-Qasim At-Tabarani ...
Posted by: Archimedes at March 24, 2006 07:07 AM
Tabarani's collections have long been rejected by Muslims. You are looking at unauthentic Traditions and getting carried away.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 24, 2006 9:11 AM

Do you need an anatomy lesson, Mohideen?
Posted by: Archimedes at March 23, 2006 10:01 PM

From http://www.mspine.com/Spinal-Anatomy.htm we have:
===
The spinal column, or backbone, consists of 33 bones (vertebrae) and can be divided into five segments (Fig. 1A). The uppermost 24 vertebrae are separated from one another by fibrous cartilage pads, called intervertebral discs (Fig. 1B), which allow the spine to bend and act as shock absorbers during activity. In the lowest part of the spine, the vertebrae are naturally fused to form the sacrum and the coccyx (tail bone).
===

See figure 1A in the URL given above. It is immediately clear that the prostrate gland (indeed the actual part – the seminal vesicle which is above the gland) is above the coccyx and below the rib.

Just to refresh:
Verses 5 to 7 of Chapter 86 of the Holy Quran. From http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=86&translator=2&mac=
the translation is found to be:
===
5 Now let man but think from what he is created!
6 He is created from a drop emitted-
7 Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
===

So, the Holy Quran is not only correct, it is accurate as well.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 24, 2006 9:14 AM

It is time to get ready for the Friday prayers. God Almighty willing, I might visit this page during the week end.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 24, 2006 9:15 AM

Don't let anyone stop you from banging your head on the floor of the next mosque, Mohideen!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 24, 2006 12:27 PM

It is interesting that when Muslims are challenged with a question, they just continue to spout Muslim propaganda instead of addressing the issue.

Posted by: ralphyboy at March 24, 2006 2:23 PM

From Mohideen,
"For a Muslim, the evidence of the Holy Quran is weightier than the witness of the whole of mankind."
Great. If the whole planet says that this car is red but the Quran says it's green, a Moslem will say it's green. There's a word for that: brainwashed. Blind, intolerant, dumb, cattle-like brainwashing.

Posted by: ralphyboy at March 24, 2006 2:33 PM

Mohideen, Everyone Else,

" the Holy Quran is not only correct, it is accurate as well. "

Got a few questions to study on for the weekend, if the Holy Quran is so highly regarded because it is correct and accurate, why is the Holy Bible the # 1 and greatest best selling book of all time?
Is not the Holy Bible correct and accurate also?

A great way to think on this weekend.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at March 24, 2006 3:13 PM

Mohideen,

That's not much of an anatomy lesson. If that's how loose you interpret the phrasing, then the verse could be referring to ANY organ or body part that is located between the ribs and backbone (the head, torso, and anything in the pelvic area). By the way, the Koran does not say tailbone. If we are using the skeleton as a guide, the prostate is more accurately between the pubic bone and the tailbone. The ribs are too high. The Koran is incorrect because it says ribs. In this case, the Koran must be accurate and not misleading to be correct. But the Koran is inaccurate by specifying a huge area instead of a small one, and it is misleading because it says ribs.

Secondly, you can reject whatever traditions you like, but you can't reject the Koran, which describes the virgins in Paradise, and describes them in a sexually enticing way (see my quotes from the Shamoun article, above).

Posted by: Archimedes at March 24, 2006 8:07 PM

"Tabarani's collections have long been rejected by Muslims. You are looking at unauthentic Traditions and getting carried away."
Mohideen Ibramsha at March 24, 2006 09:11 AM

That is actually false. Some Muslims accept some of Tabarani, but you say Muslims reject Tabarani. I'll bet most Muslims don't know who Tabarani is.

Anyways, it appears that some Muslims accept some of Tabarani. (And that's all I needed to show to falsify your statement).
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/law/fiqhussunnah/fus2_16.html

"This is related by al-Hakim and at-Tabarani and its narrators are trustworthy. Ahmad, at-Tirmizhi, Abu Dawud, and an-Nasa'i relate it on the authority of Na'im al-Ghatfani with a good chain. At-Tirmizhi's wording is: "Son of Adam, pray four rak'at for Me in the early day and it will be sufficient for you for the latter part of the day."

Posted by: Archimedes at March 24, 2006 8:28 PM

Mohideen,

You claim Paradise does not involve sex? Which of your Lord's blessings would you deny? (see below).

Recall from my above post that the most critical aspect of the marriage contract is Allah's permission to have sexual intercourse. This was reported in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.
see Archimedes at March 23, 2006 10:01 PM

Now, explain away these quotes from the Koran:

44:54. Even thus: and We shall wed them to dark-eyed houris.

52:20. They shall recline on couches ranged in rows. To dark-eyed houris We shall wed them.

Ask: Why does Allah need to "wed" them (or "join" them) to the Muslim male? All this means is that Allah approves of the sex between the Muslim male and the houris. This is why Mohammad Atta packed his wedding suit in his luggage on Sept. 11, 2001.

Here's more. Remember that your explanation would have to dismiss all of these beautiful women as mere decorations, if you assume that the Muslim males will not have sex with them.

78:31. Theirs shall be gardens and vineyards, and high-bosomed maidens for companions: a truly overflowing cup.

37:40 But the true servants of God shall be well provided for, feasting on fruit, and honoured in the gardens of delight.
Reclining face to face upon soft couches, they shall be served with a goblet filled at a gushing fountain, white, and delicious to those who drink it. It will neither dull their senses nor befuddle them.
They shall sit with bashful, dark-eyed virgins, as chaste as the sheltered eggs of ostriches.

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

Now read this and ask, first, is the Muslim male supposed to eat the fruit? And then ask, is the Muslim male supposed to have sexual relations with the virgins?

55:51 Each is watered by a flowing spring. Which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?
Each bears every kind of fruit in pairs. Which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?
They shall recline on couches lined with thick brocade, and within reach will hang the fruits of both gardens. Which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?
Therein are bashful virgins whom neither man nor jinnee will have touched before. Which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?
Virgins as fair as corals and rubies. Which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?
55:60 Shall the reward of goodness be anything but good? Which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?
And beside these there shall be two other gardens (which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?) of darkest green. Which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?
55:66 A gushing fountain shall flow in each. Which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?
Each planted with fruit-trees, the palm and the pomegranate. Which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?
55:70 In each there shall be virgins chaste and fair. Which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?
Dark-eyed virgins, sheltered in their tents (which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?), whom neither man nor jinnee will have touched before. Which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?
They shall recline on green cushions and fine carpets. Which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?
55:78 Blessed be the name of your Lord, the Lord of majesty and glory!

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

56:28 They shall recline on couches raised on high in the shade of thornless sidras and clusters of talh (fruit trees); amidst gushing waters and abundant fruits, unforbidden, never-ending.
We created the houris and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right hand: a multitude from the men of old, and a multitude from the latter generations.

Posted by: Archimedes at March 24, 2006 9:59 PM

Mohideen,

...and not all of the traditions were from Tabarani anyway. Here's more:

It was narrated that al-Miqdaam ibn Ma’di Yakrib said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The martyr has six blessings with Allaah: he will be forgiven from the first drop of blood shed; he will be shown his place in Paradise; he will be protected from the torment of the grave; he will be safe from the greater terror; a crown of dignity will be placed on his head, one ruby of which is better than this world and everything in it; he will be married to seventy-two wives from al-hoor al-‘iyn; and he will intercede for seventy of his relatives.”

Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 1663; Ibn Maajah, 2799; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.

Abu Na’eem narrated in Sifat al-Jannah from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “A man will go to one hundred virgins in one day – i.e., in Paradise.” Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in al-Silsilah al-Saheehah, 367.

It was narrated that Zayd ibn Arqam said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to me: “A man in Paradise will be given the strength of one hundred men in eating, drinking, desire and intercourse.” A Jewish man said: “The one who eats and drinks will need to relieve himself.” The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to him, “The way in which one of them will relieve himself will be by means of sweat which will come out through his pores, and thus the food in his stomach will be digested.”

It was narrated from Anas that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The believer in Paradise will be given such-and-such strength for intercourse.” It was said, “O Messenger of Allaah, will he really be able to do that?” He said, “He will be given the strength of a hundred (men).” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 2536; classed as saheeh by Ibn Hibbaan, 16/413; and by Shaykh al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, 8106.

Posted by: Archimedes at March 24, 2006 10:04 PM

Congratulations to all who argued on behalf of Abdul Rahman, the Christan.

See http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Page=articleView&id=2066&theType=NR
and enjoy.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 26, 2006 4:59 AM

"If public chaos could be averted by sacrificing one life, God Almighty surely approves of it, that too when that life deserves to be killed by law. We do recommend the death penalty to a murderer. One reason being it deters future murderers."

I'm not talking about a potential future (civil wars between an expanding christian community and Muslims), i'm talking about the act in itself: killing a man who represents no threat to your life, your family, your people or any other human beings.

This is a crime, a sin.

You refer to a 1500 years book. I refer to a older book, written for million of years generation after generation. We all know instinctively that such a thing is wrong. I don't need any book or argument to show you my point. I point my finger to your feelings. This is where God is, this is the message of God.

Accept it.

Olivier

Posted by: olivier laurent at March 26, 2006 8:44 AM

...and not all of the traditions were from Tabarani anyway.
…
It was narrated from Anas that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The believer in Paradise will be given such-and-such strength for intercourse.” It was said, “O Messenger of Allaah, will he really be able to do that?” He said, “He will be given the strength of a hundred (men).” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 2536; classed as saheeh by Ibn Hibbaan, 16/413; and by Shaykh al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, 8106.
Posted by: Archimedes at March 24, 2006 10:04 PM

Dear Archimedes,

Thanks. The above Tradition is found as Tradition numbered 1482 in Tirmidhi collection in ALIM CD. It is:
===
Narrated Anas ibn Malik
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "In Paradise the believer will be given such and such power to conduct sexual intercourse." He was asked whether he would be capable of that and replied that he would be given the capacity of a hundred men.
Tirmidhi transmitted it.
===

Thanks for pointing the Tradition to me. I agree that this issue of sex in Paradise needs to be analyzed further as there are other Traditions indicating that the skin would not be seen. As we believe sex is skin deep, one does not know how sex could be indulged when skin itself is not seen. While sex is skin deep, love is not.

I would like to remind that the mere presence of a Tradition in the approved collections (say in ALIM CD) does not make that authentic. It still has to pass the “Test of Consistency.”

Thanks again.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 27, 2006 10:03 AM

I point my finger to your feelings. This is where God is, this is the message of God.
Posted by: olivier laurent at March 26, 2006 08:44 AM

An apparent good might hide immense evil; an apparent evil might hide immense good. The rule that an apostate who refuses to revert must be killed is an apparent evil that hides immense good.

From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=transgressed+kill&translator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all
we quote:
===
Narrated Ibn Abbas: Some pagans who committed murders in great number and committed illegal sexual intercourse excessively, came to Muhammad and said, "O Muhammad! Whatever you say and invite people to, is good: but we wish if you could inform us whether we can make an expiration for our (past evil) deeds." So the Divine Verses came: 'Those who invoke not with Allah any other god, not kill such life as Allah has forbidden except for just cause, nor commit illegal sexual intercourse.' (25.68) And there was also revealed:-- 'Say: O My slaves who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah.' (39.53) (Book #60, Hadith #334) (Sahih Bukhari)
===

Another related Tradition quoted below is numbered 752 in Tirmidhi collection:
===
Narrated Thawban
Thawban heard Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) say, "I would not give this verse for the whole world, 'My servants who have transgressed against their souls, do not despair....'" A man asked whether that included those who had associated partners with Allah, and after remaining silent for a time the Prophet said three times, "Yes, it includes even those who have associated partners with Allah'"
Ahmad transmitted it.
===

The translation of the Verse 53 of Chapter 39 of the Holy Quran by Abdullah Yusuf Ali is:
===
39:53 Say: “O my servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.”
===

In a society where religion is immaterial, a murderer would be tried and punished by the law of the land irrespective of his / her faith. It does not happen so in a land governed by the Shariah. What happened to those pagans who committed murders when they embraced Islam? Were they punished for the murders committed by them? No. As embracing Islam forgives all sins, they cannot be punished.

Why do we insist that an apostate who refuses to revert must be killed? Such an apostate might feel justified in killing a Muslim after he becomes free. If he is afraid he could be caught, he then re-enters Islam. What are the Muslims to do? Are they to kill him or are they to accept him as their brother on the strength of Verse 53 of Chapter 39 of the Holy Quran? If they forgive him, it opens the way for the criminals to rule the roost. Whenever they desire, they would declare that they are Christians, commit the crimes, and then just after having committed the crimes, would declare themselves to be Muslims again. Sorry, we cannot have chaos and we need to kill an apostate who does not repent.

In any case, my opinion is of no consequence; looks like the pressure to revise Islam is indeed very strong. For example see
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/faisal_bodi/2006/03/faisal_bodi_post.html
The above URL concludes with
===
For Muslims the stakes are much higher. Sending him to the gallows would be to indict Islam on a charge of which it is wholly innocent.
===

Allah knows best.

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha at March 27, 2006 10:50 AM