| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
They say the film defamed and denigrated the Qur'an. Yet when the acts of violence it depicts were justified by their perpetrators by reference to the Qur'an, what did they say then?
"OIC condemns "in the strongest terms" release of anti-Islam film," from the Islamic Republic News Agency:
The Organization of the Islamic Conference added its voice to the growing criticism of a film released by a Dutch lawmaker, which features disturbing images of terrorist acts superimposed over verses from holy Quran.OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu condemned "in the strongest terms the release of the film 'Fitna' by Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders."
The organization added that the film defamed and denigrated "the Holy Quran, causing insult to the sentiments of more than 1.3 billion Muslims in the world.
"The film was a deliberate act of discrimination against Muslims" that aimed to "provoke unrest and intolerance," the organization said.
Posted by Robert at March 29, 2008 5:24 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Once upon a time, there was a warlord called Attila the Hun.
Attila had an imaginary friend called Alan.
Alan would often whisper in Attila’s ear, giving him advice and telling him what to do. And Attila would tell his people:
“Alan says .. be nice to other Huns”
“Alan says .. you shouldn’t eat cheese on a Thursday”
“Alan says .. it’s OK to invade and pillage”
“Alan says .. kill everyone who doesn’t believe he really exists”
When Atilla died, the other Huns wrote down everything he had said and done, and tried to live their lives according to what Alan had told them to do. And they called their new religion Alanism.
Alanism spread and thrived. Which wasn’t surprising really, considering that anyone who objected was killed.
Over the years some Alanists mellowed out and just made sure they were nice to other Alanists, and didn’t eat cheese on Thursday. These were called “moderates”.
Unfortunately, some Alanists still remembered the bits about invading and killing. These were called “extremists”.
The moderates said they were right, and the extremists said they were right.
And nobody lived happily ever after.
The End.
Posted by: Nokingofmine![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 29, 2008 5:38 AM
Once upon a time, there was a warlord called Attila the Hun.
Attila had an imaginary friend called Alan.
Alan would often whisper in Attila’s ear, giving him advice and telling him what to do. And Attila would tell his people:
“Alan says .. be nice to other Huns”
“Alan says .. you shouldn’t eat cheese on a Thursday”
“Alan says .. it’s OK to invade and pillage”
“Alan says .. kill everyone who doesn’t believe he really exists”
When Atilla died, the other Huns wrote down everything he had said and done, and tried to live their lives according to what Alan had told them to do. And they called their new religion Alanism.
Alanism spread and thrived. Which wasn’t surprising really, considering that anyone who objected was killed.
Over the years some Alanists mellowed out and just made sure they were nice to other Alanists, and didn’t eat cheese on Thursday. These were called “moderates”.
Unfortunately, some Alanists still remembered the bits about invading and killing. These were called “extremists”.
The moderates said they were right, and the extremists said they were right.
And nobody lived happily ever after.
The End.
Posted by: Nokingofmine at March 29, 2008 5:40 AM
Screw the OIC.
Posted by: Eastview at March 29, 2008 5:48 AM
If quoting the actual words of the 'holy' book and providing film of actual events to illustrate it provokes rage and subsequent violence, then the film has proved it's point!
Most of the enraged ones have probably never even seen the film. Just telling them that it exists is sufficient - proving their illogical mentality for all the world to see.
at March 29, 2008 6:40 AM
OK people...here's the deal. We see this sort of thing happening more often than not in today's world. However, if we care to actually study the Quran, we will see that these verses are taken from context (like verse 9:5 and 9:13.) When this is done, the verses seem to be telling us to cause violence. This is an example of arrogance on the part of both antimuslims, and the movie producers. I urge you to visit www.p-ifacts.com and take a look around. They also have a forum there where you can post your thoughts, and I encourage you to do so. Remember the movie Fahrenheit 911 was also full of lies even though it seemed authentic.-Please be aware of what you see, especially from this website, notwithstanding the title.
Posted by: Munawar at March 29, 2008 6:53 AM
OK people...here's the deal. We see this sort of thing happening more often than not in today's world. However, if we care to actually study the Quran, we will see that these verses are taken from context (like verse 9:5 and 9:13.) When this is done, the verses seem to be telling us to cause violence. This is an example of arrogance on the part of both antimuslims, and the movie producers. I urge you to visit www.p-ifacts.com and take a look around. They also have a forum there where you can post your thoughts, and I encourage you to do so. Remember the movie Fahrenheit 911 was also full of lies even though it seemed authentic.-Please be aware of what you see, especially from this website, notwithstanding the title.
Posted by: Munawar at March 29, 2008 6:54 AM
"We see this sort of thing happening more often than not in today's world. However, if we care to actually study the Quran, we will see that these verses are taken from context (like verse 9:5 and 9:13.) When this is done, the verses seem to be telling us to cause violence."
We see this thing happening because Muslims are doing these things.
When we study the Qu'ran we see that Mohammad killed Jews from his own tribe and slept with their wives afterwards. He encouraged his men to do the same. He also justified his acts by saying, "Allah made me do it."
Muslims cause violence every single day, in the name of establishing the Caliphate, because Mohammad told them to do so because Allah told him to do so.
Munawar, what are you, stupid?
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 29, 2008 7:02 AM
'The true black magicians are your fellow man, said Don Juan to Carlos Casteneda, 'If you don't believe that, try and break away from the path they have set for you'.
The dhimmi rage is not against the film particularly, nor is dhimmi rage due to concern for muslims 'feelings'. Nope, the rage of the dhimmi's and superdhimmi's is at Wilder. He broke away from the path they had set for him. They advised, and told him not to show this film, but he ignored them.
The bugger went against the grain, now he must pay.
The good thing about it is that the dhimmi's and the superdhimmi's are exposing themselves for all to see. Lovers of freedom will remember who these people are at election time...Maybe sooner...
at March 29, 2008 7:14 AM
The organization added that the film defamed and denigrated "the Holy Quran, causing insult to the sentiments of more than 1.3 billion Muslims in the world.
By quoting from it?
Those are the very passages which the jihadists use as their marching orders and to recruit others.
Posted by: Always On Watch at March 29, 2008 7:23 AM
Munwar,
Are you suggesting Mo-bomb-ed took the Qur'an out of context when he took the sword for Islam?
Posted by: Elric66 at March 29, 2008 7:24 AM
The Road Not Taken
by Robert Frost
TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
at March 29, 2008 7:28 AM
Munawar: However, if we care to actually study the Quran, we will see that these verses are taken from context (like verse 9:5 and 9:13.) When this is done, the verses seem to be telling us to cause violence.
Have you informed other muslims of this revelation?
I don't think many know that the Quran only 'seems' to cause violence. Once they all know, all jihad will stop then, right? Once they know that they were just misunderstanding the Quran, they will abandon jihad and go back to farming, or shoe repair?
And I thought the Quran was the 'living' word of Allah, applicable to all time. Now I see that it is just a history book, it's all in context. Nothing comes to us live from Allah, the Quran is dead writing, from dead men, about dead men, and their dead god Allah. If Allah does not speak his words to muslims live from the Quran, then Allah is dead...
at March 29, 2008 7:39 AM
That's the road Geert took. I wont take the road to dhimmihood either.
Posted by: Elric66 at March 29, 2008 7:41 AM
Munawar, that's not the deal at all. It's not we who need to pay attention to the context of the Qura'nic verses. It's the criminals who use them to justify murder and mayhem in the name of Allah who have brought attention to these versus. You need to lecture them, not their victims.
Posted by: Eastview at March 29, 2008 7:50 AM
Munawar: "However, if we care to actually study the Quran, we will see that these verses are taken from context (like verse 9:5 and 9:13.)"
It doesn't matter if its out of context or not. Islamic militants are using these verses to promote hatred and violence, and all you "moderate" muslims care about is how non-muslims perceive islam.
Why can muslims not answer a simple question: if islam is a religion of peace, why are many violent people drawn to it?
We don't see Christian extremism or Buddhist radicalization, certainly not to the extent of muslim extremists.
Muslims make up about 20% of the worlds population, and yet over 87% of religiously-based terrorist groups are muslim. A majority of all world conflicts involve islam. One fifth of the religious population is responsible for virtually all major world conflicts and systematic religious violence.
The problem *is* islam, not misunderstanding.
at March 29, 2008 7:50 AM
I think it's time for Fitna to be shown in movie theaters across America along with the previews. It will help the Army's recruitment drive and provide educationally oriented entertainment.
All this opposition by Islamic organizations should help spark interest in it.
at March 29, 2008 8:19 AM
The film was a deliberate act of discrimination against Muslims" WHO aimed to "provoke unrest and ARE intolerT," the organization said.
there fixed it
at March 29, 2008 8:30 AM
As the film contents are almost completely muslim-islamic - i.e. koranic verse - any and all who rail against it are proven to be what they are -hypocrites (and very violent ones to boot).
The video has caused the muslims to show their fundamental nature - as they self-expose and confess the monumental hypocrisy of what is falsely proclaimed "the religion of peace".
Best of all - all muslims ranting against this are in fact apostates as they are raging against their own "religious teachings"!
Posted by: TINBH at March 29, 2008 8:36 AM
OIC: “This film defames and denigrates the Qur'an. It’s a deliberate act of discrimination against Muslims.
”Reporter: “Please point out some of the scurrilous lies, misstatements, and calumnies so
that our readers, who like myself know absolutely nothing about your peaceful faith and culture, can understand your justifiable outrage.”
OIC: “This film defames and denigrates the Qur'an. It’s a deliberate act of discrimination against Muslims.”
Reporter: “Yes, sir, I understand this and of course agree, but could you please
specifically point out some of the biggest lies, misstatements, and calumnies. ”
OIC: “I have already answered this question!”
Posted by: patagonianplato at March 29, 2008 8:47 AM
Munawar you cretin
Did you even see the movie? Neither of the verses you cited was even mentioned in the film.
As for the 'out of context' taquiyya, try a new one on us - we aren't those mainstream morons who buy all the bs as well as trans-Bosphorus bridges you try to sell us
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 29, 2008 8:49 AM
Exposure to sunlight...a proven disinfectant.
I guess the Muslims won't be taking over after all.
Boo hoo.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 29, 2008 8:50 AM
"OIC condemns "in the strongest terms" release of anti-Islam film"
"In the strongest terms?" What does that mean, anyway?
If telling the truth about Islam is "anti-Islam," then how has it managed to survive this long?
"I have been made victorious with terror" ~Bukhari (Vol. 4, Book 52, Number 220).
Bingo!
Posted by: Lex at March 29, 2008 9:01 AM
Hey guys,
Ever notice how when a new troll comes on we make short shrift of him/her/it? We must be getting pretty powerful, and with folks like Robert and Geert leading the way, it's time to take it to the next level.
I'm heartened by the fact that these Muslim phantoms shrink whenever we stand up to them. That is the point that Geert is proving. Sure, they may be making a lot of racket right now, but if we all see and we all take the stand and we all say no, they will back down like the cowards they are. Because mindless chaos is no match for calculated fight-picking with a will to engage and destroy the enemy.
Geert reminds me of Mel in Braveheart:
"Now what do we do?"
"Just be yourselves."
"Where you goin'?"
"I'm goin' to pick a fight."
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 29, 2008 9:03 AM
It's our wits that make us men.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 29, 2008 9:04 AM
Jewdog, I would not advise any theater operator to show "Fitna" unless he wants his building "renovated." Now if it was shown on every screen in the US, that would be different. Imagine that instead of a website, Live Leak was a theater; it would now be closed because of the threats.
Posted by: Pelayo at March 29, 2008 9:08 AM
Get off my bus dhimmis, I need to pray.
http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2008/03/uk-muslim-bus-d.html#comments
at March 29, 2008 9:19 AM
There are several file types that show up when E-Mule is searched. There is a 700 mb AVI file waiting to start. I will report the results when I get it.
E-Mule indicates that there are 234 sources.
Posted by: Pelayo at March 29, 2008 9:21 AM
This issue has nothing to do with the Quran.
The ridicule and scorn exhibited towards that particular book and what it says it no different that the piss Christ, or the feces Mary. It is no different than 1.3 billion muslims shouting the Torah is a lie.
This is strictly freedom of speech.
Nothing more, and nothing less.
If Islam cannot tolerate freedom of speech, then we can all draw our own conclusions, and we can all draw our proper reactions from the OFFICIAL INTOLERANCE exhibited by those who will not be treated the same as everyone else, nor conduct themselves as one of many religions, all of which deserve equal honor and/or equal derision depending on one's viewpoint.
Nothing can more properly place Islam POLITICALLY than their OFFICIAL refusal to TOLERATE, and their frank inability to do so.
The sooner this is brought to a head, the sooner poltician, newspapers, networks and opinion makers and followers are compelled to express themselves, the better for this world.
Ironically, Fitna is VANILLA. Apparently even that is too much. Next time Robert, we just make a biopic movie out of the "Truth about Muhammad", or a documentary of "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance"
Posted by: epaminondas at March 29, 2008 9:42 AM
>>As for the 'out of context' taquiyya, try a new one on us - we aren't those mainstream morons who buy all the bs as well as trans-Bosphorus bridges you try to sell us
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 29, 2008 8:49 AM
They still think we're buying that "out of context" crap? LOL! Here's something else we don't buy - "misunderstanding" of Islam.
*
Hey People - what do you think of the "Persepolis" graphic novels? Anti-West and a load of BS? Let me know, please.
Posted by: darcy at March 29, 2008 9:44 AM
@Munawar:
Let me see,do I believe my lying ears listening to you?
-or-
Do I believe my lying eyes watching the film "Fitna"?
What a dilemma!
Posted by: billybob at March 29, 2008 9:49 AM
if we care to actually study the Quran, we will see that these verses are taken from context (like verse 9:5 and 9:13.)
Posted by: Munawar at March 29, 2008 6:54 AM
oh the "out of the context" never ending and million times refuted pathetic jingle...
I hope the time nears when the West will restore, not only the Kuran, but the entire "civilization" of islam to its proper context - the garbage dump of history.
Posted by: thomas. h at March 29, 2008 9:53 AM
Munawar, you reference to "Farhenheit 451" ruined you whole comment, although I thought it was vacuous anyway.
"Farhenheit 451" was fiction. Do you mean to imply that the Quran is also fiction?
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/fiction;_ylt=Ar0daUDe.WXCALjYjzGqCDGsgMMF
at March 29, 2008 9:58 AM
@Munawar:
A suggestion...
If you moo-slims are so unhappy w/ the Dutch,why don't you protest in the most meaningful way...
ALL MOO-slims pack up and leave Nederland & go back to the turd-world hell-holes from whence you came!!!
Posted by: billybob at March 29, 2008 10:01 AM
Hmmmmmmm...... let's see now.....Fitna is anti Islam...., therefore, the Truth is anti islam, therefore islam is anti islam....
Everybody still with me so far.......? More crystalline logic on this subject later......
Posted by: n.a. palm at March 29, 2008 10:11 AM
Munawar,
“However, if we care to actually study the Quran, we will see that these verses are taken from context”
The Qur’an is God’s perfect word, in God’s own language, which is applicable for all eternity.
Because humans do not possess the capacity to understand God’s word, the Qur’an is to be read in its most “literal” sense.
It is not to be contextualized or interpreted.
It must be memorized and obeyed without question.
at March 29, 2008 10:22 AM
Again, I say that Mr Wilders film does nothing that the thousands of jihadi videos plastered all over YouTube (aka JihadiTube) don't also do: Quotes taken directly from either the Koran or hadith superimposed along with the death porn of Muslims, that is, the thousands of violent, terorrist acts committed in the name of their political ideology that is disguised as a religion.
Now I ask, why is it perfectly acceptable when the jihadis do it, but it's not acceptable when an Infidel does it?
Mr Wilders should take a handful of the jihadi videos from JihadiTube that are most similar to his movie and present them to the OIC and straight up tell them that he isn't saying anything that their fellow Muslims are not also saying. Period, full stop.
Posted by: JenBee at March 29, 2008 10:23 AM
Pelayo,
I believe Munawar was referring to Michael Moore's film, "Fahrenheit 9/11" not the movie based on Ray Bradbury's novel.
Posted by: deer.valley.ed at March 29, 2008 10:23 AM
It still continues to amaze me as to how you condemn someone for simply showing a composite of video clips, and photos that has no narrative whatsoever with the exception of a few reflective surahs from the Quran. The Muslims in the videos are the ones expressing all the hate, the Muslims in the photos are the ones who are displaying the hateful behavior. Geert Wilders never said a word he just simply put into his film things that we see Muslims doing all the time.
Are the Dhimmis of the world asking us to ignore the obvious and play the ostrich game? That is exactly what they are asking us to do. Ignore it and it will go away.
Once again though Islam is not just a religion, it is in fact a complete political process that denies a separation of church and state in its tenants and its sharia law. We cannot afford to ignore Islam for one moment as the EU countries have and now they are paying a serious price for it.
The UN's Ban has demonstrated he is an appeaser and is not a reflector of strong leadership and does not represent what America, and the free world stand for. His words ring completely hollow to me and they should to you as well . For he represents a person who is easily manipulated by the never ending array of intimidating threats that are always issued across the Islamic landscape towards the infidels, and non believers.
We should criticize the OIC for all its violations of human rights and efforts to suppress freedom of expression at every turn.
at March 29, 2008 10:31 AM
Munawar said:
"However, if we care to actually study the Quran, we will see that these verses are taken from context (like verse 9:5 and 9:13.)"
That's what Robert's been saying all along.
Perhaps Munawar meant to say "these verses are taken (out of) context."
You'll want to be careful what you say around here, because we will cut you no slack. But then, you're long gone, aren't you.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 29, 2008 10:33 AM
deer.valley.ed. Yeah, he wrote 911. I read 451. Now, I'm the dumbass. Nothing unusual there.
Posted by: Pelayo at March 29, 2008 10:44 AM
Pelayo,
Don't beat yourself up. You're not a dumbass. It's simply conditioning. When I first read Munawar's post I was thinking of Ray Bradbury's story, not Michael Moore's.
It doesn't change the fact that Muslims are conditioned to commit suicide, whether it is blowing themselves up with a bomb, or repeating brainwashed phrases about Islam in a forum that will lead to their evisceration.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 29, 2008 10:58 AM
Let's see.
The OIC condemns this in the strongest terms.
Hmmm. OKay. Condemm it. (Strong terms)
Hmmm. Thank you for your condemnation. (They are full of condemnation anyway)
Posted by: credit man at March 29, 2008 11:00 AM
Nokingofmine , good synopsis.
Just one thing...I think Alan's real name is Stan.
at March 29, 2008 11:06 AM
I am constantly amazed at the hypocrisy of it all. Take liveleak for example , they don’t hesitate to put out what every pislamist propaganda video, regardless to the victims.
Yet they cower from the threats coming from members of pislam.
Myself of sick of the Dimmi behavior of both the media and the people.
I’m currently downloading the film from emule and will proudly make it available for all at our site.
at March 29, 2008 11:20 AM
Islam is a subversive, anti-Constitutional, anti-Universal Declaration of Human Rights movement aiming at a global theocratic tyranny.
Exposing this plan angers them.
Not exposing it allows it.
Posted by: profitsbeard at March 29, 2008 11:22 AM
People, people, people.
We are infidels, the OIC is an Islamic organization. Our job is to stand around and wait until Islam rules the world. If we get killed, raped or sold into slavery along the way, who cares? We're infidels. Now believers can quote the "holy" Qur'an, but when dhimmis have the nerve to cite the Qur'an and point out verses that confirm its violent nature, then we have Gone Too Far and Must Be Put in Our Place. After all, Muslims are believers and we are not.
News Flash OIC - we'll never submit.
Posted by: tanstaafl at March 29, 2008 11:26 AM
that aimed to "provoke unrest and intolerance," the organization said.
Dance clown! Dance!
at March 29, 2008 11:51 AM
“OK people...here's the deal. We see this sort of thing happening more often than not in today's world. However, if we care to actually study the Quran, we will see that these verses are taken from context,” Posted by: Munawar
Though of cite the same verses that Fitna uses, so we also look at a different verse. Let’s take one of the old time favorite verses that keeps’ being thrown in our faces to prove Mohammedanism is “A Religion of PeaceTM”.
Surah 5 Verse 32 “…that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.”
I’m SURE we have all had this one thrown in to our faces time and time again, but let’s look at the full thing shall we and not just “take it out of context”. (I’ve supplied three translators two are Arabic, so none of that mistranslated crap)
005.032
YUSUFALI: On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.
PICKTHAL: For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.
SHAKIR: For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land.
WOW!!! First line establishes that it is “Ordained” or is directed at “the Children of Israel”, or “DAS EVIL JOOOS”. And it stipulates that any killing of a person “except for murder or mischief” it would be as if he had slew the whole people. This would mean if a Jew slew a Mohammedan robber or rapists in his house (another verse gives Mohammedan the right to take as they please from all Kafur as it pleases them), well that means he slew a whole people. Hmmm… giving the eye for an eye and the tooth for a tooth biblical law that means the Mohammedan get to go on a rampage on the Jews. Nice and peaceful, eh? Oh and look they continued to commit “excesses in the land”.
Now just what could be these “excesses in the land”? Oh, the next verse tells us.
005.033
YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
PICKTHAL: The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;
SHAKIR: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
Those that wage war would include any one that refuses Dhimmitude or continues to preach their own religions. And what is the penalty for teaching your children and neighbors about your faith and viewing yourself as a full citizen and not being a Dhimmi??? That’s right folks, it’s the favorite Mohammedan past time of “execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world”.
005.034
YUSUFALI: Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: Save those who repent before ye overpower them. For know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
SHAKIR: Except those who repent before you have them in your power; so know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Unless of coarse you grovel real quick like all those political elite Dhimmis we have.
What fun we are having placing Koranic Verses in “Context”.
Oh and by the way Munawar, claiming the verse is “taken out of context or mistranslated” is Mohammedan debate tactic #4 or #5… I can’t remember of the top of my head, I just know about it and so don’t buy it.
The next debate tactic you can try is that I don’t understand it because I’m not a Maniac Mohammedan or an Idiotic Imam. And the next Mohammedan debate step is to tell me to be silent, followed by “warning” me of some unspoken result to be fall me. Can you Mohammedan try a new debate tactic, like honest rational examination of the subject at hand? These same debate tactics are getting old.
We need better Trolls.
at March 29, 2008 12:04 PM
"Pelayo,
Don't beat yourself up. You're not a dumbass. It's simply conditioning. When I first read Munawar's post I was thinking of Ray Bradbury's story, not Michael
Moore's.
It doesn't change the fact that Muslims are conditioned to commit suicide, whether it is blowing themselves up with a bomb, or repeating brainwashed phrases"
This is what I am against, using the term "muslim" to describe these people. These are a bunch of Saudies and Middle Easterners who want world dominance and are using Islam to get it--nothing more. They ignore verses like 2:062, 4:086, and 4:029. Obviously, when the producers went through Surah #4 to get the verses that seem to promote terrorism, they happily skipped over the ones I have provided.
Posted by: Munawar at March 29, 2008 12:09 PM
"YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution,
or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment
is theirs in the Hereafter"
You are forgetting one thing. This is only if they wage war. So how do we define war? well, consider surah 9 verses 5 onward where the procedure for vengance of repeated treaty break has been laid down. The verses you have mentioned were revealed in a warring time. So why do they exist in the Quran? To show us that sometimes standing down is not the answer. We do not start the fights. And since the opposition was not afraid to start the war, why should we be afraid to fight back? Surah 9 clearly states when it says are you afraid to fight them when they started the battle first?; it is not a matter of converting everyone to Islam, it is a matter of having war waged upon us, in which case Islam commands us to not act as cowards, for then the opposition will definitely win. This philosophy applies even to the US military--don't run. Stand up for what you believe in. During the time of the Quran's revelation in Arabia, the times were very savage, and if force was not met with force, well, tough luck getting by. Unfortunately what has happened today is that these Wahabi who believe that they are the only ones going to heaven have used this verse to justify their actions. Because of this, they are 100% arrogant and understand nothing whatsoever about Islam. If they did, they wouldn't kill themselves by suicide bombing, because suicide is condemned in Islam, even if you try and call it martyrdom.
at March 29, 2008 12:28 PM
Elric66-- thanks for the link. Posting it now (or very close to now).
Posted by: MarisolJW at March 29, 2008 12:32 PM
Please don't feed the trolls.
Munawar-- please get on topic, or don't expect to stay for very long.
Posted by: MarisolJW at March 29, 2008 12:41 PM
"OIC condemns "in the strongest terms" release of anti-Islam film"
LOL Maybe. But, what do Ebert and Roeper think?
Posted by: Abscedere at March 29, 2008 12:44 PM
OIC: “This film defames and denigrates the Qur'an. It’s a deliberate act of discrimination against Muslims.”
who cares the OIC has taken over the human rights council and will some of the worst human rights offenders are members of the OIC the only nation that is condemned all the time is Israel I watched the film and I did not see anything but the truth about what mainstream Muslims a.k.a. the so-called radical Muslims are doing in the Middle East when Mr. Pearl was beheaded by Muslims in the Middle East not one Muslim from that part of the world said anything condemning their brother Muslims who beheaded Mr. Pearl when the twin Towers were hit in New York there are Muslims dancing in the streets throughout the world in joy over the death of the infidels in the land of the great Satan will personally I think the land of the great Satan is in fact the Middle East the entire area except for the state of Israel the fact is criminals cannot stand to have the light of day on their activities with funny thing about all this is it seemed like Muslims cannot stand infidels looking at what they really are about . If it was not for the oil in the Middle East no one in the West would really care about what the seventh century barbarians from that part of the world wanted
at March 29, 2008 1:09 PM
Munawar, did you ever hear of abrogation.
BTW, I got two versions of "Fitna" through E-Mule,
an WMV and an AVI, both with the Live Leak logo. This thing is everywhere, it cannot be suppressed now.
at March 29, 2008 1:11 PM
Munawar
I now get that you were being sarcastic. My apologies
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 29, 2008 1:17 PM
The reaction from Mohammedans is predictable; however, I am surprised at the absence of rowdy demonstrations, ala the Motoon riots. I would have expected fires and rampage in Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, and other Eurabian cities.
Is this the calm before the storm?
Posted by: Pelayo at March 29, 2008 1:30 PM
We do not start the fights. And since the opposition was not afraid to start the war, why should we be afraid to fight back?
I'm going to try to write this simply so the ossified Islamic brain can understand.
The following are NOT defensive actions
a) Rape
b) Slavery
c) Wife stealing
d) Making someone watch you rape their wife
e) Ejaculating on someone
f) Looting
g) Dismembering a captive
h) Murdering old people
i) Murdering disabled people
j) Killing people because they said something
k) Killing people because they held a belief
l) Killing someone because they didn't actively help you subjugate them
m) Killing someone because they didn't want to accept your religion (as their own)
n) Killing someone because they disagreed with you
o) Killing someone because they made fun of you or your religion
p) Expanding your territory
There are more, but hopefully you get the idea by now.
at March 29, 2008 1:34 PM
Very well Marisol, I shall endeavor not to “feed the Trolls”.
On Topic,
Just who does the OIC think it is fooling, we can read the Koran and the Hadith and we are VERY aware of the concept of Abrogation. They keep claiming we are too ignorant to understand (Wafa Sultan’s debate comes to mind) and will just take their word for it. Take for example some Mohammedan might site oh I don't know…
002.062
YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
PICKTHAL: Lo! Those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
SHAKIR: Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the f Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
Hoping we don’t know about ABROGATION and the following verse
098.006
YUSUFALI: Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.
PICKTHAL: Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.
SHAKIR: Surely those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists shall be in the fire of hell, abiding therein; they are the worst of men.
Kind of kills the earlier verse, but the Mohammedan like the OIC keep claiming we don’t get it, that using their own verses is “Un-islamic”, even when we take into account ABROGATION.
There is also the concept of TAQQIYA or deceiving the NAJIS KAFUR about the true intentions of the Mohammedan Ummah (Which the OIC seems to think they are). For example…
004.086
YUSUFALI: When a (courteous) greeting is offered you, meet it with a greeting still more courteous, or (at least) of equal courtesy. Allah takes careful account of all things.
PICKTHAL: When ye are greeted with a greeting, greet ye with a better than it or return it. Lo! Allah taketh count of all things.
SHAKIR: And when you are greeted with a greeting, greet with a better (greeting) than it or return it; surely Allah takes account of all things.
Nice, they can act civil under Mohammedanism and return a greeting. (Makes one wonder how they were acting at that time, if they had to be reminded to be civil in public by the ".kheir ol makarein”Allah. I bet it was bad PR for new converts back then as it is today). But before we get all friendly and think the OIC is appealing to our friendship and brotherhood we must remember the ABROGATING verse…
05.51
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
Kind of put a serious dim on the supposed light of “friendship” and understanding proposed in the OIC’s request (demeaning Mafioso demand) that we should all consider each others “feelings”. (I’ll feel so much better when the Mohammedan tear such verses from their Koran. In the mean time just like them, I’ll say what I believe. (Just wish they’d use a little less Taqqiya).
And some of the Eurodhimmis might take the idea of mutual cooperation and trade to come from say verse…
004.029
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Eat not up your property among yourselves in vanities: But let there be amongst you Traffic and trade by mutual good-will: Nor kill (or destroy) yourselves: for verily Allah hath been to you Most Merciful!
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Squander not your wealth among yourselves in vanity, except it be a trade by mutual consent, and kill not one another. Lo! Allah is ever Merciful unto you.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not devour your property among yourselves falsely, except that it be trading by your mutual consent; and do not kill your people; surely Allah is Merciful to you.
But if they read it carefully the Eurodhimmis would understand, that though the OIC would endorse this verse as totally “Islamic”. But it is in fact extremely “Un-Islamic” to apply this same mutual trade and respect to the NAJIS KAFUR. But then it is TOTALLY “Un-Islamic” for a NAJIS KAFUR like me to point this out too.
Isn’t this great, the OIC gets to frame the terms and manner of dialogue (monologue) this way. (Shut up you NAJIS KAFUR, we’ll tell you dhimmis what to think, and we have so many Elitist Dhimmi Politicians straining themselves to comply and submit.)
When you do corner the OIC or any other Mohammedan with a verse they will also try TAQQIYA slight of hand of claiming you didn’t read the verse right say for example…
005.033
"YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution,
or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment
is theirs in the Hereafter"
Then claim, “You are forgetting one thing. This is only if they wage war…” And not want you to point out that it also says “strive with might and main for mischief through the lands…” which would be anything that opposes Sharia Laws like repairing churches or equal rights for the NAJIS KAFUR. The OIC would claim we were taking verse 005.033 out of context when we point out that it was written with the local rival tribes in mind during a period of peace or a Hudna. They might try to point to the verses in Sura 9 and say see it’s about warfare.
009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
Of course they might not realize pointing to these kind of verses, would mean NAJIS KAFUR would read them and realize what the long term “Strategies” are and what the Dutch Mohammedan Organization means when it says violence isn’t in out “Strategies” right now.
This is nice eternal warfare against the NAJIS KAFUR for the effrontery of breathing.
Oh I love how Mohammedan and their organizations think they can tell us they get to declare what is “Un-Islamic” or “Islamic” when the verses are looked at. It’s like they think we’re illiterate serfs waiting for new lords to grovel before. Perhaps it’s the actions of the Dhimmi Politicians that have them so confused.
Was that “On Topic” enough Marisol? :D
Good Grief I hate Taqqiya.
at March 29, 2008 1:52 PM
"the Holy Quran, causing insult to the sentiments of more than 1.3 billion Muslims in the world"
If the Quran represents the "sentiments" of 1.3 billion Muslims, the world is in peril.
Posted by: Sounder at March 29, 2008 2:10 PM
This is what happens when the rest of us lie.
http://disneyspace.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/pinocchio11.jpg
This is what happens when Muslims practice taqiyah here.
http://eatourbrains.com/EoB/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/troll.jpg
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 29, 2008 2:32 PM
"002.062
SHAKIR: Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good,
they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
Hoping we don’t know about ABROGATION and the following verse
098.006
SHAKIR: Surely those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists shall be in the fire of hell, abiding therein; they are the
worst of men.
Kind of kills the earlier verse, but the Mohammedan like the OIC keep claiming we don’t get it, that using their own verses is “Un-islamic”, even when we
take into account ABROGATION."
[]Really? That's ironic, seeing that Allah mentions "the people of the book." So what does this verse actually mean? When you read it to understand, you will see that this verse actually tells us to not be heedless of our worship. Why? Because Islam considers Jews, Christians, and Muslims as "the people of the book." Consider verse 2:136:
"PICKTHAL: Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and
Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any
of them, and unto Him we have surrendered."
So, actually, the verse that has been named to contradict 2:62 does not contradict it in any way.
"SHAKIR: And when you are greeted with a greeting, greet with a better (greeting) than it or return it; surely Allah takes account of all things.
Nice, they can act civil under Mohammedanism and return a greeting. (Makes one wonder how they were acting at that time, if they had to be reminded to be
civil in public by the ".kheir ol makarein”Allah. I bet it was bad PR for new converts back then as it is today)."
[]This verse shows us that Islam is a way of life for its people. Since Islam commands us to return greetings, we cannot, under Islamic law, just stare at the person. For instance, I take the bus to school and back. Many times, when a driver greets someone, they don't even respond. According to Islam, this is forbidden, and once someone greets us, we are under an obligation to respond with at least a gesture in return. This verse was revealed to stop the staring with no response behavior.
"But before we get all friendly and think
the OIC is appealing to our friendship and brotherhood we must remember the ABROGATING verse…
05.51
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And
he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends
is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for
a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
Kind of put a serious dim on the supposed light of “friendship” and understanding proposed in the OIC’s request (demeaning Mafioso demand) that we should
all consider each others “feelings”. (I’ll feel so much better when the Mohammedan tear such verses from their Koran. In the mean time just like them,
I’ll say what I believe. (Just wish they’d use a little less Taqqiya).
[]Here, the word wallee is used to describe friend. This verse is a mistranslation, since wallee in Arabic means several things. It can mean guardian; successor; partner, etc. Several books of tafsir (commentary on the Quran) note the word wallee here as meaning guardian. Guardian how? Guardian in terms of someone in whom one places his absolute trust. Why can we not take Christians and Jews and wallee then? Because Allah wishes to protect both of us from the difficulties that may arise due to religious differences. We see families break all the time because of faith differences; children get confused because parents are different religions, etc. Islam, by laying down this verse, warns us of this. Note that this is talked about more extensively on p-ifacts.com. I believe the article is titled "Misconceptions About Islam." Also please keep in mind that friend and guardian mean two different things, so here, friend is allowed, but the one single person you trust is not.
"SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not devour your property among yourselves falsely, except that it be trading by your mutual consent; and do not kill your
people; surely Allah is Merciful to you.
But if they read it carefully the Eurodhimmis would understand, that though the OIC would endorse this verse as totally “Islamic”. But it is in fact extremely
“Un-Islamic” to apply this same mutual trade and respect to the NAJIS KAFUR. But then it is TOTALLY “Un-Islamic” for a NAJIS KAFUR like me to point this
out too. "
[]So Muslims can only do business with Muslims? Hmm...I wonder where you get that? The prophet actually warded off an opposing government once who was trying to harm some Christians under his rule. And also, there were several peace treaties signed with kaffirs at the time. If the prophet dealt with them justly, why should we not? This verse says nothing at all about kaffirs. In fact, it generalizes it in to "among yourselves," not "among you Muslims." One may point to the "Oh you who believe" part of the verse. Notice that later on, the verse says "your people." The christians were the Prophet's people because they were under his government. Why didn't he just kill them then? Because they did no harm to him. Anyone who deals justly should be dealt with justly and kindly (as will be shown further down). There is a narration by the Prophet (SAWH) in which he asks his sun in law, Ali, the following question: If someone abused you and slandered you, would you be kind to him?
Ali: Of course.
Prophet: What if they continued to slander you and abuse you?
Ali: I would still be kind to them.
Prophet: what if they persisted?
Ali: If they persisted in being evil, why should I not persist in being kind?
"Isn’t this great, the OIC gets to frame the terms and manner of dialogue (monologue) this way. (Shut up you NAJIS KAFUR, we’ll tell you dhimmis what to
think, and we have so many Elitist Dhimmi Politicians straining themselves to comply and submit.)"
[]This statement sounds like it is fueled by your own hatred toward Islam, and I dismiss it as an overflow of emotion.
"When you do corner the OIC or any other Mohammedan with a verse they will also try TAQQIYA slight of hand of claiming you didn’t read the verse right say
for example…
005.033
"YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution,
or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment
is theirs in the Hereafter"
Then claim, “You are forgetting one thing. This is only if they wage war…” And not want you to point out that it also says “strive with might and main for
mischief through the lands…” which would be anything that opposes Sharia Laws like repairing churches or equal rights for the NAJIS KAFUR.
[]Churches symbolize might? That's a new one. In this regard, the Quran states:
"Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And had there not been Allah's repelling
some people by others, certainly there would have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah's name is much remembered;
and surely Allah will help him who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty."
Several things are established here.
1. Notice that we see Allah's mercy and tolerance--the same Allah another poster said is dead, is the same Allah that claims that had he not stopped it, all places of worship would have been destroyed.
2. Notice that Allah makes no distinction between churches, sinagogues, and mosques. In fact, he says that even mosques would have been destroyed had he not prevented it.
3. We see that Allah helps whoever fights for his Cause. Of course, this Cause should be to establish justice and peace, and as far as I am concerned, the Wahabi Muslims, nor this video, are not establishing peace among religions. Please read the posts in response to my posts above, and you will see that I am not the agressive one, the other posters are the ones naming me such words as "dumb ass" and "idiot."
"OIC would
claim we were taking verse 005.033 out of context when we point out that it was written with the local rival tribes in mind during a period of peace or
a Hudna. They might try to point to the verses in Sura 9 and say see it’s about warfare.
009.029
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the
religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
[]This verse, actually, no matter what you believe, was revealed at a time of war. p-ifacts.com describes it as the following:
"Verse 9:29 reads as follows:
[SHAKIR]: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow
the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
This verse is part of a larger command from God. Remember that the Quran was a solution to the people of its time. Recall, above, we spoke of the polytheists
who broke their treaty with the prophet. Consider the following verses, 9:7-9:29: [SHAKIR]
How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Messenger; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque?
So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).
How (can it be)! while if they prevail against you, they would not pay regard in your case to ties of relationship, nor those of covenant; they please
you with their mouths while their hearts do not consent; and most of them are transgressors.
They have taken a small price for the communications of Allah, so they turn away from His way; surely evil is it that they do.
They do not pay regard to ties of relationship nor those of covenant in the case of a believer; and these are they who go beyond the limits.
But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know.
And if they break their oaths after their agreement and (openly) revile your religion, then fight the leaders of unbelief-- surely their oaths are nothing--
so that they may desist.
What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them?
But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers.
Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people.
...
O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah
will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion
of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
First, we would like to explain the situation which is taking place at this point. As with verse 9:5, verse 9:29 also speaks of the treaty and its
breaking. Notice that God asks the people for a reason why they hesitated to fight back the polytheists, who were the first to start the battle. The entirety
of chapter 9 seems to be talking about what happened after the agreement was broken. When verse 5 was first revealed to the people, they were still doubtful
as to what they should do. Considering that such a sacred agreement was broken (the peace of two religions,) and the prophet's tendency to trust people
was taken advantage of, naturally the prophet's lord was devastated. This is where verse 9:29 comes in.
After the breaking of the oath, Muslims once again cowered. Because the oath was already broken by the polytheists, however, God simply drove the point
home that the polytheists could not be trusted; this verse demands self-defense. Note that in a verse earlier on in the chapter, God clearly points out
that these aggressive measures are being taken because the polytheists were the first ones to start the fight; this again enforces the policy of not attacking
unless fired upon. Since the only ones who were fighting against the prophet and who were involved in the breaking of the oath were the polytheists,
God spells out their attributes in 9:29 clearly: "Fight those who do not ... prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited..." [From article "Contradictions", http://www.p-ifacts.com/islam/]
"Of course they might not realize pointing to these kind of verses, would mean NAJIS KAFUR would read them and realize what the long term “Strategies” are
and what the Dutch Mohammedan Organization means when it says violence isn’t in out “Strategies” right now.
This is nice eternal warfare against the NAJIS KAFUR for the effrontery of breathing.
Oh I love how Mohammedan and their organizations think they can tell us they get to declare what is “Un-Islamic” or “Islamic” when the verses are looked
at. It’s like they think we’re illiterate serfs waiting for new lords to grovel before. Perhaps it’s the actions of the Dhimmi Politicians that have them
so confused.
[]Nothing in the Quran is "un-islamic." Everything has its time and its place, but one needs to know when to use certain verses. Carelessness is frowned upon, and since Islam is a humane religion and will continue to be a humane religion, any violence is condemned, as we saw above: "Be true to them while they are true to you." As for war, I am permitted to defend myself if I am attacked. Again, what the Wahabi and Suni are doing in the Middle East is "un-islamic," and videos like these do not do justice to Islam at all. I remember when Timathy Mc'vay was executed here in the US for blowing up a government building about five years ago. During the press conference, his last statement dictated that God had told him to do it. It would be wrong of me to think of this as preached by Christianity, because I know better. And now it is my turn to show you that what is going on is wrong, and that your post is "off the dot" as they say here in the West. Remember that the Suni sect of Islam was started to corrupt Islam in the first place. Remember that Saudi Arabia has been a savage nation from the day it was born--this is why Islam came to it, to reform it. Unfortunately, it is going back to its savegry. This is only their nature, and they will use whatever means they can to cause violence.
Posted by: Munawar at March 29, 2008 5:02 PM
"Munawar-- please get on topic, or don't expect to stay for very long."
You mean agree with everyone else and criticize Islam and the video. Sorry, I will not stand for it. Kick me off, and I will make sure other websites know that you shut me up by force.
Posted by: Munawar at March 29, 2008 5:05 PM
Kick me off, and I will make sure other websites know that you shut me up by force. Posted by: Munawar
Oh, cry me a river.
Build me a little white church on a hill with bells and a steeple in Saudi Arabia where I can have a nice picnic ham and bury my Grandpa on the same grounds, and then, maybe, after they've cut you up and burnt you for it, maybe I'll feel sorry for you. Maybe.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at March 29, 2008 6:37 PM
since Islam is a humane religion and will continue to be a humane religion, any violence is condemned,
My, my. Why is it so many believer's misunderstand their faith? Is it that obtuse? Who then may be saved by the might hand of Allah?
Munawar,
Khokar failed, could you explain the following ahadith to me? Thanks.
Sunaan Abu Dawud: Book 11, number 2150
Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto your save those (captives) whom your right hand possesses". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period."" [The Qur’an verse is 4:24].
Sahih Muslim 8.3432
One can have sexual intercourse with a captive woman after she is clear of her period and/or delivery. If she has a husband then her marriage is abrogated after she becomes a captive (Quran 4:24)…
Sahih Muslim 8.3432
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)
Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459:
Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:
I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."
at March 29, 2008 6:50 PM
Munawar states: "OK people...here's the deal. We see this sort of thing happening more often than not in today's world. However, if we care to actually study the Quran, we will see that these verses are taken from context (like verse 9:5 and 9:13.) When this is done, the verses seem to be telling us to cause violence. This is an example of arrogance on the part of both antimuslims, and the movie producers. I urge you to visit www.p-ifacts.com and take a look around. They also have a forum there where you can post your thoughts, and I encourage you to do so. Remember the movie Fahrenheit 911 was also full of lies even though it seemed authentic.-Please be aware of what you see, especially from this website, notwithstanding the title."
Munawar, who is the one taking these verses out of context? Us - or your very own? Why are coming on Jihad Watch in an effort to reeducate us, when it's your fellow Muslims who have "apparently" taken these verses out of context - not us.
You are barking up the wrong tree - bark up the tree that is growing in your own backyard.
Posted by: champ at March 29, 2008 8:13 PM
"You mean agree with everyone else and criticize Islam and the video. Sorry, I will not stand for it. Kick me off, and I will make sure other websites know that you shut me up by force."
Posted by: Munawar
Don't let the door hit you on the backside on your way out.
Posted by: Eastview at March 29, 2008 9:26 PM
Munawar partially quotes me here,
"002.062
SHAKIR: Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good,
they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
Hoping we don’t know about ABROGATION and the following verse
098.006
SHAKIR: Surely those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists shall be in the fire of hell, abiding therein; they are the
worst of men.
Kind of kills the earlier verse, but the Mohammedan like the OIC keep claiming we don’t get it, that using their own verses is “Un-islamic”, even when we take into account ABROGATION."
posted by Munawar ,
“[]Really? That's ironic, seeing that Allah mentions "the people of the book." So what does this verse actually mean? When you read it to understand, you will see that this verse actually tells us to not be heedless of our worship. Why? Because Islam considers Jews, Christians, and Muslims as "the people of the book." Consider verse 2:136:
"PICKTHAL: Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered."
So, actually, the verse that has been named to contradict 2:62 does not contradict it in any way.”
Munawar, verse 2:136 does not abrogate verse 98:6 if anything it just merely lays claim to believing in the same group of prophets are Christians and Jews (note: Jesus is not a Jewish prophet, and I’m aware of that.) It does nothing to change the fact that verse 98:6 abrogates verse 2:62. Nice Taqqiya form there guy, try some more. The fact it only is claiming the same line of religious figures doesn’t change that NAJIS KAFUR are “the worst of creatures” and condemned to hellfire for rejecting the “Truth” which it claims is Mohammedanism. Take a look again.
098.006
YUSUFALI: Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.
PICKTHAL: Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.
SHAKIR: Surely those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists shall be in the fire of hell, abiding therein; they are the worst of men.
Munawar partially quotes me here,
"SHAKIR: And when you are greeted with a greeting, greet with a better (greeting) than it or return it; surely Allah takes account of all things.
Nice, they can act civil under Mohammedanism and return a greeting. (Makes one wonder how they were acting at that time, if they had to be reminded to be civil in public by the ".kheir ol makarein”Allah. I bet it was bad PR for new converts back then as it is today)."
posted by Munawar ,
“[]This verse shows us that Islam is a way of life for its people. Since Islam commands us to return greetings, we cannot, under Islamic law, just stare at the person. For instance, I take the bus to school and back. Many times, when a driver greets someone, they don't even respond. According to Islam, this is forbidden, and once someone greets us, we are under an obligation to respond with at least a gesture in return. This verse was revealed to stop the staring with no response behavior.”
Again nice, the alleged prophet had to remind you to be civil in public, not a bad thing for anyone to do either. No disagreement between us on that subject, though I view beheading of NAJIS KAFUR rather… un-polite.
008.012
YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
PICKTHAL: When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.
SHAKIR: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
Munawar partially quotes me here,
"But before we get all friendly and think the OIC is appealing to our friendship and brotherhood we must remember the ABROGATING verse…
05.51
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And
he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friendsis (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
Kind of put a serious dim on the supposed light of “friendship” and understanding proposed in the OIC’s request (demeaning Mafioso demand) that we should all consider each others “feelings”. (I’ll feel so much better when the Mohammedan tare such verses from their Koran. In the mean time just like them, I’ll say what I believe. (Just wish they’d use a little less Taqqiya).”
posted by Munawar ,
“[]Here, the word wallee is used to describe friend. This verse is a mistranslation, since wallee in Arabic means several things. It can mean guardian; successor; partner, etc. Several books of tafsir (commentary on the Quran) note the word wallee here as meaning guardian. Guardian how? Guardian in terms of someone in whom one places his absolute trust. Why can we not take Christians and Jews and wallee then? Because Allah wishes to protect both of us from the difficulties that may arise due to religious differences.”
First note Yusufali does add protectors to his translation.
Second this is a load of Taqqiya. This verse was “revealed” after the defeat of the Qaynuqa tribe. Lets see I just quote my source for you.
“Muhammad’s forces laid siege to the Qaynuqa until they offered him unconditional surrender. But the Qaynuqa had made alliances amomg the Muslims, and now some of them came forward to plead their case before the Prophet of Islam. Muhammad wanted to have all the men of the tribe put to death. However, a Muslim- one of the Hypocrites- named Abdullah bin Ubayy told Muhammad: "“ Muhammed, deal kindly with my clients."”Muhammad ignored him, so Abdullah repeated the request, whereupon the Prophet of Islam turned his face away from Abdullah. Abdullah bin Ubayy then impetuously caught Muhammad by the collar of his robe, whereupon, according to Ibn Ishaq, “the apostle was so angry that his face became almost black.” Muhammed said to Abdullah, “Confound you, let me go.”
But Abdullah replied, “No, by God, I will not let you go until you deal kindly with my clients. Four hundred men without mail and three hundred mailed protect me from all mine enemies; would you cut them down in one morning? By God, I am a man that fears that circumstances may change.” Muhammad then granted him his request, agreeing to spare the Qaynuqa as long as they turned over their property as booty to the Muslims and left Medina, which they did forthwith.
Still, Muhammad was unhappy with the alliance Abdullah had made with the Jewish tribe. It was at this point that he received a key revelation about relationships that would prevail between Muslims and non-Muslims: “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust” (Qur’an 5:51). And Allah scolded in harsh terms those who, like Abdullah bin Ubayy, feared a loss of business prospects because of the misfortune of the Qaynuqa.” (The Truth about Muhammad pages 112-113)
Third, if your statement is correct, “Because Allah wishes to protect both of us from the difficulties that may arise due to religious differences.” Then I’d have to be completely insane to accept any form of Sharia Law in my country. Perhaps insanity will be the plea that our Elitist Dhimmi Politicians will use for their defense in their treason trails.
posted by Munawar ,
“[]We see families break all the time because of faith differences; children get confused because parents are different religions, etc. Islam, by laying down this verse, warns us of this. Note that this is talked about more extensively on p-ifacts.com. I believe the article is titled "Misconceptions About Islam." Also please keep in mind that friend and guardian mean two different things, so here, friend is allowed, but the one single person you trust is not.”
What a load of Taqqiya, Mohammedan men are most definitely allowed to seduce western women, it is Mohammedan women that are prevented from intermarrying. And why if Mohammedan and Kafur are not to trust, do you insist we place our heads in the noose of Dhimmitude to make you feel like warm and fuzzy meglomaniacs?
Munawar partially quotes me here,
"SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not devour your property among yourselves falsely, except that it be trading by your mutual consent; and do not kill your people; surely Allah is Merciful to you.
But if they read it carefully the Eurodhimmis would understand, that though the OIC would endorse this verse as totally “Islamic”. But it is in fact extremely
“Un-Islamic” to apply this same mutual trade and respect to the NAJIS KAFUR. But then it is TOTALLY “Un-Islamic” for a NAJIS KAFUR like me to point this
out too. "
posted by Munawar ,
“[]So Muslims can only do business with Muslims? Hmm...I wonder where you get that?”
That would be mutual trade and respect. That means no conning or fleecing, in other words what is considered ethical business by the west. Though the west requires this to be done with ALL trading partners, Mohammedanism only requires it between co-religionist. Nice Taqqiya slight of hand there.
posted by Munawar ,
“The prophet actually warded off an opposing government once who was trying to harm some Christians under his rule.”
A shepherd defends his flock from bandits, but he still fleeces them.
posted by Munawar ,
“And also, there were several peace treaties signed with kaffirs at the time. If the prophet dealt with them justly, why should we not?”
Three words “Treaty of Hudaybiyya”, oh wait one more word, TAQQIYA.
posted by Munawar ,
“This verse says nothing at all about kaffirs. In fact, it generalizes it in to "among yourselves," not "among you Muslims." One may point to the "Oh you who believe" part of the verse. Notice that later on, the verse says "your people."
“Your people” is the Mohammedan, as the verse 5:51 points out so eloquently, the NAJIS KAFUR are not considered part of the people “And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust”. So it largely goes with out need to say it since the separation had already been made explicit by “revelations”.
posted by Munawar ,
“The christians were the Prophet's people because they were under his government.”
As Dhimmis, which means not his people but second or third class citizens that any Mohammedan could take and sell into slavery at there pleasure. Let’s just as some modern day x-Dhimmis how grand it is.
http://www.sonsofapesandpigs.org/
posted by Munawar ,
“Why didn't he just kill them then? Because they did no harm to him.”
Because the herdsman doesn’t begin the slaughter until there is a greater profit in it then keeping the herd of Dhimmis.
posted by Munawar ,
“Anyone who deals justly should be dealt with justly and kindly (as will be shown further down).”
Are you suggesting we treat the Mohammedan the way they behave? What a interesting idea, last I saw it was well over 10,000 terrorist acts.
posted by Munawar ,
“There is a narration by the Prophet (SAWH) in which he asks his sun in law, Ali, the following question: If someone abused you and slandered you, would you be kind to him?
Ali: Of course.
Prophet: What if they continued to slander you and abuse you?
Ali: I would still be kind to them.
Prophet: what if they persisted?
Ali: If they persisted in being evil, why should I not persist in being kind?”
Now which Hadith was this in… Burkuri.. one of the inauthentic ones? Wait.. We’ll just us the example of Ali.. Now how did his fellow Mohammedan treat him… oh yeah I think this it has something to do with the Sunni/Shia schism.
Munawar partially quotes me here,
"Isn’t this great, the OIC gets to frame the terms and manner of dialogue (monologue) this way. (Shut up you NAJIS KAFUR, we’ll tell you dhimmis what to think, and we have so many Elitist Dhimmi Politicians straining themselves to comply and submit.)"
posted by Munawar ,
“[]This statement sounds like it is fueled by your own hatred toward Islam, and I dismiss it as an overflow of emotion.”
Well dang that’s what this whole thread is about now isn’t it. The fact the Mohammedan tell us not to believe our lying eyes and ears. Not to pay attention to the Homicidal Maniacal Hatred, we see seeping across the vile pages of the Koran. We’re not to believe the sound of bombs or the mob of Mohammedan in our streets demanding Sharia Law and that we must be their Dhimmi Slaves. You’re right, I shouldn’t show any emotion over this insulting behavior. I should just accept I’m a stupid Dhimmi Cow to be milked for Jizya. What a load of Taqqiya you’ve spewed to avoid the whole point of the thread. In fact you’ve done a grand job of set up for us a fine example of Taqqiya labeled “You’re too ignorant to understand.” I believe this is Mohammedan debate tactic #6.
Munawar partially quotes me here,
"When you do corner the OIC or any other Mohammedan with a verse they will also try TAQQIYA slight of hand of claiming you didn’t read the verse right say
for example…
005.033
"YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution,
or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment
is theirs in the Hereafter"
Then claim, “You are forgetting one thing. This is only if they wage war…” And not want you to point out that it also says “strive with might and main for mischief through the lands…” which would be anything that opposes Sharia Laws like repairing churches or equal rights for the NAJIS KAFUR.
Oh wow, I had already predicted your tactic before you tried it.
posted by Munawar ,
“[]Churches symbolize might? That's a new one.”
Though it is an interesting Freudian slip you make by associating a place of worship with might. (Perhaps the bans on Minarets isn’t such a bad idea.) I never symbolized the “Repair of Churches” with it, but I did associate that action as striving against Sharia Law.
posted by Munawar ,
“[]In this regard, the Quran states:
"Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And had there not been Allah's repelling some people by others, certainly there would have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah's name is much remembered; and surely Allah will help him who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty."
Several things are established here.
1. Notice that we see Allah's mercy and tolerance--the same Allah another poster said is dead, is the same Allah that claims that had he not stopped it, all places of worship would have been destroyed.”
And just who’s hands did he spare them from? It couldn’t possibly be the Mohammedan Marauders now could it? This is entirely to vague to use as an example of anything.
posted by Munawar ,
“[]2. Notice that Allah makes no distinction between churches, sinagogues, and mosques. In fact, he says that even mosques would have been destroyed had he not prevented it.”
Aye so generous to convert the places of worship of other faiths into Mosques, kind of hard to do if their were torn down.
posted by Munawar ,
“[]3. We see that Allah helps whoever fights for his Cause. Of course, this Cause should be to establish justice and peace, and as far as I am concerned, the Wahabi Muslims, nor this video, are not establishing peace among religions.”
Nice the old “If God be for us, would be against us”, clause. As for your “establish justice and peace” that is code for Sharia Law, and as I’ve said before to other Mohammedan Trolls here, “I’d rather see the earth turned into a Radioactive Cider Ball floating in space, before I let my children live as your Dhimmi Slaves.” And as for “peace among religions” that just you saying “Islam to Dominate” or “Islam to the World” or “Pay the Jizya Kafur” again I say “Radioactive Cinder Ball”
posted by Munawar ,
“[]Please read the posts in response to my posts above, and you will see that I am not the agressive one, the other posters are the ones naming me such words as "dumb ass" and "idiot."
And your point is? Perhaps after dealing with so many Mohammedan Trolls, they no long feel inclined to waste their time giving each one a rebuttal to their statements.
Munawar partially quotes me here,
"OIC would claim we were taking verse 005.033 out of context when we point out that it was written with the local rival tribes in mind during a period of peace or a Hudna. They might try to point to the verses in Sura 9 and say see it’s about warfare.
009.029
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the
religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
posted by Munawar ,
[]This verse, actually, no matter what you believe, was revealed at a time of war. p-ifacts.com describes it as the following:
"Verse 9:29 reads as follows:
[SHAKIR]: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
This verse is part of a larger command from God. Remember that the Quran was a solution to the people of its time. Recall, above, we spoke of the polytheists…”
Again Taqqiya, the verse speaks of “PEOPLE OF THE BOOK” not polytheists. Second rather interesting you now claim that the Koran is adjustable to the time? And here I thought it was the immutable word of Allah, a direct fax from the seven heavens.
posted by Munawar ,
[] “…who broke their treaty with the prophet. Consider the following verses, 9:7-9:29: [SHAKIR]”
Interesting, again the verse is about “People of the Book” and the time frame for it was when the Mohammedan armies began marching for Tubak, a City of the Byzantine Empire.
posted by Munawar ,
[] “How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Messenger; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque?”
Ah, now that explains all those… “Hudnas” and why they are meaningless, except of coarse when the Mohammedan expect the Kafur to abide by them.
Sorry for the need of brevity but it appears most of the rest of your post is giving “reasons” for attacking their neighbors. (Seems to suck to be in that neighborhood at that time or in the neighborhoods of Europe and America in the future.) I shall leave us with your last paragraph and mine from my last post.
Munawar partially quotes me here,
"Of course they might not realize pointing to these kind of verses, would mean NAJIS KAFUR would read them and realize what the long term “Strategies” are and what the Dutch Mohammedan Organization means when it says violence isn’t in our “Strategies” right now.”
This is nice eternal warfare against the NAJIS KAFUR for the effrontery of breathing. (Verse 9:29)
Oh I love how Mohammedan and their organizations think they can tell us they get to declare what is “Un-Islamic” or “Islamic” when the verses are looked at. It’s like they think we’re illiterate serfs waiting for new lords to grovel before. Perhaps it’s the actions of the Dhimmi Politicians that have them so confused.”
posted by Munawar ,
“[]Nothing in the Quran is "un-islamic." Everything has its time and its place, but one needs to know when to use certain verses. Carelessness is frowned upon, and since Islam is a humane religion and will continue to be a humane religion, any violence is condemned, as we saw above: "Be true to them while they are true to you." As for war, I am permitted to defend myself if I am attacked. Again, what the Wahabi and Suni are doing in the Middle East is "un-islamic," and videos like these do not do justice to Islam at all. I remember when Timathy Mc'vay was executed here in the US for blowing up a government building about five years ago. During the press conference, his last statement dictated that God had told him to do it. It would be wrong of me to think of this as preached by Christianity, because I know better. And now it is my turn to show you that what is going on is wrong, and that your post is "off the dot" as they say here in the West. Remember that the Suni sect of Islam was started to corrupt Islam in the first place. Remember that Saudi Arabia has been a savage nation from the day it was born--this is why Islam came to it, to reform it. Unfortunately, it is going back to its savegry. This is only their nature, and they will use whatever means they can to cause violence.”
And how many pastors or priests issued the equivalent of an endorsement of Tiny Tim? And how many Monstrous Mufti or Idiotic Imams heralded the “magnificent 19”? Here’s one simple question for you it’s a yes or no question, no quibbling, no stammering, no rationing you’re a Mohammedan so it doesn’t apply to you. Simple question, Are you willing to live as a Dhimmi? YES OR NO. any other answer will be considered an automatic no.
Sorry I won’t be able to debate you further this week, but work calls, I hope to see you around some more. Good Luck.
Sorry Marisol, I shall try better next time.
Posted by: senor doeboy at March 30, 2008 12:50 AM
"Munawar,
Khokar failed, could you explain the following ahadith to me? Thanks."
[] Sure.
Sunaan Abu Dawud: Book 11, number 2150
Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought
with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female
captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden)
unto your save those (captives) whom your right hand possesses". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period."" [The
Qur’an verse is 4:24].
Sahih Muslim 8.3432
One can have sexual intercourse with a captive woman after she is clear of her period and/or delivery. If she has a husband then her marriage is abrogated
after she becomes a captive (Quran 4:24)… "
[]This is not true, and this commentator (Sahih Muslim ) has been criticized before by several scholars. The word captive does not exist here, and we can see that by the word being in parentheses; the translator is assuming it only. Consider Shakir's translation:
And all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah's ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides
those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit by, give
them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.
Muhammad Yusufali translates it as follows:
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you:
Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye
derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no
blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
We can see here that the only women with whom sexual intercourse is lawful are those who are your mahram by marriage only. Sex without marriage is forbidden.
The translations of Pikthal are not always accurate since he likes to stick so-called implications in the translations, and this is an example of one of them--a common error with English translations.
"Sahih Muslim 8.3432
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas
and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)
seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:"
And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24) "
[] "seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists".
"seemed" leaves room for error. This person obviously observed, thought, did not confirm, was probably a disloyal companion, and recorded the hadith. This is not a confident statement and can be dismissed as mere conjecture. Besides, the verse revealed does not allow anyone to rape the women.
"Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459:
Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:
I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with
Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard
on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's
Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection)
is predestined to exist, it will exist."
[] "It is better for you not to do so." It is not being encouraged at all, and verse 4:24 backs it up above. Also bare in mind that these men enjoyed engaging in rape. Abu Bakr enjoyed power even though he was the closest companion of the Prophet Muhammad (SAWH) and so betrayed him when he died to form the Suni sect of Islam, so these men also saw a chance to swing the Islam philosophy to their satisfaction.
Posted by: Munawar at March 30, 2008 12:57 AM
"The organization added that the film defamed and denigrated "the Holy Quran..."
The Un-Holy Koran defames the Un-Holy Koran!
Posted by: alexon at March 30, 2008 3:27 AM
of course Fitna is anti-Islamic. The truth is anti-Islamic, because the truth shows us Islam for what it is.
Psychopaths hate to be exposed.
Posted by: carpediadem at March 30, 2008 5:19 AM
We need better Trolls.
posted by senor doeboy at March 29, 2008 12:04 PM
Absolutely! Marisol, is it possible for the JW to advertise for a troll with an IQ higher than the room temperature?
Kick me off, and I will make sure other websites know that you shut me up by force.
Munawar, could you please list these websites in advance so we don't miss the fun of reading the international outpour of condemnation.
Posted by: thomas. h at March 30, 2008 9:11 AM
Munawar,
Sahih Muslim 8.3432
One can have sexual intercourse with a captive woman after she is clear of her period and/or delivery. If she has a husband then her marriage is abrogated after she becomes a captive (Quran 4:24)
This is not true, and this commentator (Sahih Muslim ) has been criticized before by several scholars.
Forgive me, but Sahih Muslim is considered #2 in the hadith. I will need something stronger than your assurance. Also, your negation of the word "captive" does nothing to the context of the discussion ("if she has a husband...).
We can see here that the only women with whom sexual intercourse is lawful are those who are your mahram by marriage only. Sex without marriage is forbidden.
I agree sex without marriage should be forbidden (call me old fashioned, too), but you wisked away the annulment of infidel marriages, and merely attempted to obfuscate the sexual usage of captives. Please give reference links to fiqh for your conjectures.
Sunaan Abu Dawud 11.2150
Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur'anic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto your save those (captives) whom your right hand possesses". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period."" [The Qur'an verse is 4:24].
Sorry about the wrong citation. But, look, here we find yet another translation of the same hadith, strangely, coincidentally, and identically run amok. Also, the "forbidden...except..." construction does not resolve to just "forbidden". It is quite clear the it means captive married women carry the exemption and may be raped. You can superimpose a sham annulment and sham marriage if it makes you feel better, it is still rape.
Also, why would they even consider coitus interruptus if they were their legitimate wives? Why were they having sex with the women "in the presence of" their husbands? Is this something you think is normal?
It is not being encouraged at all
Nice sophistry, Munawar. But thanks for selling out Abu Bakr.
By the way, please list at least 5 Muslim websites where you have posted these same objections to these most common renderings of these texts. We're not likely to take anyone captive and rape their wives over here at JW, so you're needed elsewhere, lest some jihadi whom celibacy is "hard on" gets confused.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at March 30, 2008 2:18 PM
Marisol, Please spare us from Munawar's long drawn out polemics!
JW/DW might wish to check out software that has the capability to expand/contract comments. At the top level all that is shown is the poster's name and a short precis of the comment. If the reader wishes to read the full post they can expand it into its entirety. If not they can scroll to the next post.
JW/DW might also wish to give readers the capability to rank the quality of the various posts/comments made on the site, both positive and negative. It would be good for posters to be able to see what the effects of their posts have on the reader community. The software that does this must have the capability to enforce voting only once.
Posted by: Eastview at March 31, 2008 2:59 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)