Who would have believed a moslem would be a speaker at any political gathering in the days following 9-11? How soon we return to sleep.
All the blood and treasure the men and women of the United States have invested, to be thrown away for the "feel good" politics of the 21st century.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at August 25, 2008 10:44 AM

BTW, terrible outfit...looks like she just came from a rummage sale.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at August 25, 2008 10:45 AM

I attended this event out of curiosity. The above report is accurate, but it should be noted that they were applauding and standing for pretty much every speaker, so a standing ovation had no real meaning.

I paid particular attention to Mattson obviously, and aside from her brief whining about Muslims being singled out, she was pretty non descript, ecumenical, kumbaya, and generic. She resisited the temptation to make any veiled references to the "plight" of the Palestinians or what not (perhaps because there were several Rabbis also speaking and did not want to start a confrontation that she might have lost). I couldn't help thinking that sucking it up and talking nice was little more that her "personal jihad" (read: taquiya) though.

It was unfortunate the the presence of 4 Muslims on the podium serves to legitimize them as a valid Abrahamic religion, as they always sell themselves to be. No one seems to question Islam's status as a valid religion, rather than what it is: a viral Mafia cult that has reached critical mass and whose false and self-asserted credentials as a valid religion are universally accepted.

Posted by: BunrattyBill at August 25, 2008 10:50 AM

Islam joins the harpies of the left
at the altar of marx and gramsci
to claim its crown of victimhood.

The ancient crocodile waits patiently
under the water of taqiyya and kitman
for its feast of the dhimmi democrat kafirs.

Posted by: the poetess at August 25, 2008 10:59 AM

Who would have believed a moslem would be a speaker at any political gathering in the days following 9-11? --interestinconundrum

Oh, it's UNBELIEVABLE. It's so rotten there's no adequate words to describe the rottenness.

That photo is puke-worthy, and revolting to behold.

Posted by: darcy at August 25, 2008 11:04 AM

Liberals are traitors to the U.S.A. Most of them are so caught up in loving the enemy of their enemies they applaud in silly hypocrisy of having a women speaking to them wearing the symbols of oppression they claim to fight against with conservatives.

Ignorant clueless dhimmis is even worse than informed ones.

Posted by: SoteriA at August 25, 2008 11:04 AM

That's it.

Posted by: Hugh at August 25, 2008 11:09 AM

what to do when your leaders, of both politically parties, are dhimmi's?

Posted by: theygottago at August 25, 2008 11:25 AM

theygottago , BOTH parties. That is the truth, the Republicans are just stealthier. It make me ill that we have very little choice in who we will vote into office.
1Obamanation
2McCain
3Sharp stick in the eye

Posted by: interestinconundrum at August 25, 2008 11:29 AM

Who will represent the ummah at the Republican Convention?

Posted by: interestinconundrum at August 25, 2008 11:31 AM

She looks like she'd be great fun at a party.

Posted by: MP at August 25, 2008 12:01 PM

I don't think she is that tall, it's the camera angle...

I knew a man, a flaming liberal if there once was one, who was also an expert on mingling and rubbing elbows. He rubbed the right elbow and got invited to a DNC national convention. There he met Hillary and other elite democrats.
He told me that the whole experience turned him 'off'. That the whole charade was about money and power and greed, not about whats best for America, but whats best for the money and power hook ups.
He dropped out...Became an Independent.
He's still a liberal, it's hard to shake liberalism once you are infected, but hates the dem party.
Or at least the greedy elitists that run it...

Posted by: duh_swami at August 25, 2008 12:02 PM

I don't think she is that tall, it's the camera angle...

I knew a man, a flaming liberal if there once was one, who was also an expert on mingling and rubbing elbows. He rubbed the right elbow and got invited to a DNC national convention. There he met Hillary and other elite democrats.
He told me that the whole experience turned him 'off'. That the whole charade was about money and power and greed, not about whats best for America, but whats best for the money and power hook ups.
He dropped out...Became an Independent.
He's still a liberal, it's hard to shake liberalism once you are infected, but hates the dem party.
Or at least the greedy elitists that run it...

Posted by: duh_swami at August 25, 2008 12:05 PM

Buck it up, people! This is only a fiducial point that gives us a valuable indication as to how effective words alone are in educating everyone about Islam. Time to consider additional measures that go beyond mere words.

Posted by: Eastview at August 25, 2008 12:07 PM

This is exactly why Obama should have remained 'not comfortable' with his inexperience:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gexyfVpFMU

147 days later he launched his presidential campaign.

He is either
1) an opportunistic, marxist, race baiting, dime-a-dozen black politician who rubbed shoulders too many times with Nation-of-Islam, and other radical mouthpieces; or
2) the first dual citizenship Islamic Manchurian candidate; or
3) a vacant storefront drafted for naked tele-prompted oratorial skills by a currupt, power-hungry, whoring convention that will do anything (or anybody) to win. Or any combination, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Some constituencies need to be shunned by ALL of the parties, even if it would mean a loss. Do the major parties court the KKK, Nazis, Skinheads, etc.? If not, why not, for what political view does Ms. Mattson hold that differentiates her from these detestable supremicist groups? Does Ms. Mattson know an Arabic word for someone of African/Negroid ethnicity that doesn't also mean slave? Does she not read with reverence where Islamic scriptures refer to blacks as "raison-heads"? Does she not revere the caliphs who said that black women made the best sex slaves? Do the 'holy' texts her fingers lovingly caress disagree materially with the KKK/Nazis/Skinheads writings on the appropriate disposition of the Jews? THEY HAVE INVITED A REPRESENTATIVE OF GENOCIDAL SUPREMICISTS TO THEIR PODIUM, AND GAVE A STANDING OVATION!!!

The DNC's invitation and fawning endurance of Ms. Mattson, this moral fraud, this obvious conscious imposter, removes all illusion that the DNC leadership have any intellectual concept of the true meaning of the word democracy, or that it even matters to them. In due time, our democratic republic will become nothing more significant than purple fingers if we continue on this path.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 25, 2008 12:18 PM

Be it further noted that the preacher Leah Daughtry, CEO of the Democrat convention, is a rabid proponent of black reparations whose church is festooned wih a banner reading, "They Owe Us."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/magazine/20minister-t.html

Keep the change, Obama.

Posted by: Papa Whiskey at August 25, 2008 12:21 PM

At this time these are the only noted and scheduled speakers at the Republican national Convention starting Sept. 2nd. in Minneapolis.--They are not in order of their appearance over the week.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty (Minn.)

Gov. Charlie Crist (Fla.)

U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.)

U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez (Fla.)

U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman (Minn.)

Meg Whitman, National Co-Chair for McCain 2008 and former President and CEO of eBay

Carly Fiorina, Victory ‘08 Chairman for the Republican National Committee and former Chairman and CEO of Hewlett-Packard Co.

Mitt Romney (Mass.) Former Gov.(Mass.)

Mrs. Cindy McCain

Bobby Jindal,Gov (La.)

Rudolph W. Giuliani, Former New York City Mayor

Mike Huckabee, Former Gov.(Ark.)

Tom Ridge, Former Gov. (Pa.)

Gov Sarah Palin (Alaska)

Gov.Jon Huntsman (Utah)

Rosario Marin, California Secretary of the State and Consumer Services Agency and former Treasurer of the United States

Fred Thompson, Former U.S. Sen (Tenn.)

Gov. Linda Lingle (Hawaii)

Michael Steele, Former Lt. Gov.(Md.)

U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Conn.)

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (Calif.)

Vice President Richard B. Cheney

First Lady Laura Bush

President George W. Bush

Posted by: Mackie at August 25, 2008 12:23 PM

Told ya so.

The Demicrats love victims and pandering to any socio-ethnic group they can find.

As a party they are rotten to the core. Its not the party of FDR that fought the Nazis and Tojo. Its the party of petty special interests, institutionalized anti-Americanism, multiculturalism, suppression of free speech(political correctness).

The party needs to be put down.

So does GOP.

Both have outlived their usefulness to the American people.

Posted by: waltc at August 25, 2008 12:48 PM

Whenever I see pictures of these Western women all dolled-up in their Moslem uniforms, I always think of the "Stepford Wives". Or that anti-drug TV ad of several years ago, showing first an egg in its shell ("this is your brain") and then an egg frying in a pan("this is your brain on drugs"). Only now the drug is Islam.
And as for "Democrats are, have been, and will continue to be people of faith"; well, the followers of Huitzlopochtli, Baal, and the cult of Thuggee were all people of faith too. But I don't want any of them running even my town, much less my country.

Posted by: ebonystone at August 25, 2008 1:01 PM

"There is a tremendous intersection of faith and politics," Ritter said. "Politics at its deepest root is moral."

I've witnessed some of the 'morals' of our politicians, it's not something to be proud of.

Keep religion out of politics.

Posted by: Abu_Lahab at August 25, 2008 1:07 PM

"...they were applauding and standing for pretty much every speaker, so a standing ovation had no real meaning".

That is just dumb.

Why don't the Dems just invite OBL and be done with it! I bet he has plenty to say worth their applauding.

We in Britain have a programme on bbc called "Question Time" where a member from the audience, typically a muslima in full islamic monty is invariably selected from a sea of raised hands whence she will proceed to spew diatribe against US and Bush to a rapturous applause from the audiance.

And not one single soul from the panel of politicians, captains of industry or well heeled hacks would utter even a murmur.

Why doesn't anyone say something?

Are we so polite that when someone calls us a racist bastard that all we can do is applaud?

Posted by: Hermit at August 25, 2008 1:11 PM

Sick!!!

Posted by: Spot on at August 25, 2008 1:14 PM

Why do female former infidels, now converts to islam, always seem to wear those snotty, supremacist smirks on their faces?

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at August 25, 2008 1:34 PM

Another was reserved for Mattson, who said she tells Islamic leaders abroad that Muslims in the United States still face discrimination constantly.

If only it were true, since discrimination is the ability to see or make distinctions. But that would be too rational, too boring and harsh an approach to life and politics for those guided by the fuzzy logic of feelings. From that left field perspective the universe seems filled with random events, disconnected concepts, and equal footed ideas that are unified only by sensitivity to each other’s feelings and concern over their common enemies; capitalism, rationalism, and Western tradition.

From the hysteria over demonstrably false claims of consensus and certainty on global warming, to the broader claims of a Religion of Peace, to this childish celebration of ignorance and acquiescence, they make quite the parade of hapless fools. It's an affliction that doesn't wholly discriminate by party, but does seem to be wiping out reason on the left.

And what will their reaction be when they finally do understand that their sensitivity and lack of discrimination are not returned, but used as lever to pry their freedom, if not their lives, from them? Using the history and demographics of war around the globe as a guide, a blood bath of first order is a possibility.

Despite the difficulties, Mattson said she remains convinced that the United States "is still the best place in the world to practice our faith."

But she'll help fix that.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at August 25, 2008 1:44 PM

Time to consider additional measures that go beyond mere words.

Eastview

I would suggest to the people that feel double crossed by our government officials, vote them out. Also, I would point out that our government should get on the ball and defend this country from all perils, both inside and outside. Islam is a serious peril that is incubating in this country and will begin to manifest itself directly in future years. Our government, at the moment, seems to be taken in by the Islamic verbage and this scares a lot of thoughtful, serious thinking, family oriented, truthful, and future generation minded people.

Posted by: Spot on at August 25, 2008 2:02 PM

Another was reserved for Mattson, who said she tells Islamic leaders abroad that Muslims in the United States still face discrimination constantly.

Robert is right about the fact that Mohammedans are a pampered lot, but that notwithstanding, I do think that he is somewhat wrong in criticizing her for the above statement. Instead, she should be encouraged to make that statement not only to Islamic leaders, but to rank and file Mohammedans around the world - be it Egypt, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh and even Mohammedans in Infidel countries. While it does involve attacking the US on foreign soil, the upside of that would be that fewer Mohammedans would want to come to the US, other than those who want to set up Jihad cells. As a result, the only Mohammedans (who believe her) wanting to come here would be jihadis, making profiling of Mohammedans easier, while reducing Mohammedan immigration drastically.

Despite the difficulties, Mattson said she remains convinced that the United States "is still the best place in the world to practice our faith."

Naah, Ingrid begum, you are almost beginning to sound like Michael Medved, and you sure want to avoid that. But that aside, this statement is patently and demonstrably false, all the pandering to Mohammedans in the US notwithstanding.

The best place in the world to practice Islam is Saudi Arabia. Just imagine - you are a Mohammedan employee in a company based in Saudi Arabia, everything Islamic you need to do is perfectly laid out for you - what time to pray, where to pray (better not miss it), the wudus and ghusls - in fact, you need not petition your employer for prayer time, if you are Mohammedan, your employer will petition you. There is no way you'll get the qibla wrong, toilets won't be facing the Ka'aba, while your beds and tombstones will. Eids are automatically holidays - you needn't even petition. And while in America you have to tolerate the insufferable fact that Christmas is a Holiday while Christians and Jews sometimes can have holidays in Easter and Passover, there would be no question of having to tolerate such infidel practices in your vicinity if you happen to be working in Dhahran or Jeddah. If you are working in supermarkets, not only will you not handle any pork products, but you won't be handling any other haram products either. If you are a taxi driver in Riyadh, forget about Infidels forcing their dogs into your taxi. No need to even practice taquiyya - just tell an Infidel in his face that he's a pig/rat (if he's a Christian), or whichever other beast your hadith tells you if he's a Mushrik. What's he going to do - complain to the Muttawa?

In short, if you are a Mohammedan, Saudi Arabia is a paradise. To a lesser extent, same can be said of Kuwait, Qatar, Emirates and Oman - just imagine - $562 billion a year pouring in to the Gulf states alone - wouldn't you want to be part of that action? To Infidels who want a life, such an existance would not only be boring (all that cash and little to spend it on) but also torturous, particularly if they happen to be practicing Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or others, who can't freely practice their rituals for fear of discovery; however, for Mohammedans, you get all that cash, you pray however much you want, maybe go on your haj every weekend, and instead of getting wierd looks for your beards and skullcaps or your jilbabs, you get positive attention. What could be more perfect?

Yeah, Begum Ingrid, don't mislead the ummah. Instead, encourage all your Mohammedan brothers and sisters to apply for work visas to KSA, and go and settle there. Being Islamic there would mean never having to say you are sorry.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 25, 2008 2:18 PM

Time to consider additional measures that go beyond mere words.

Eastview

Might I suggest you clarify that statement. There are trolls here who will use an ambiguous statement such as this to cause trouble for our hosts.

Later
Albert

Posted by: GamblersChoice at August 25, 2008 2:48 PM

GamblersChoice

Well said.

Posted by: Spot on at August 25, 2008 2:57 PM

This topic/thread has so much gold running through it that it should be retitled 'The Comstock Lode'.

Kudos to
BunrattyBill
SoteriA
ebonystone
waltc
and Infidel Pride.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at August 25, 2008 3:06 PM

I always liked Sarah Good's curse as she went to her death as a Salem witch.

"God will give you blood to drink"

That's what I say to those who have destroyed the greatest country on earth and sold it out to its enemies. Fawning on those who despise them.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at August 25, 2008 3:14 PM

Plague

Thanks. After posting, I was half wondering whether I should have posted it in the previous thread on Saudi Arabia instead.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 25, 2008 3:32 PM

Oh, and one more thing - if you happen to be a Shia, the best place to do it is Bahrein, despite its Sunni rulers. That (aside from Ahmadiya and Bahai) is the only Mohammedan that would be unwelcome in Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states mentioned.

One major perk I forgot to mention (how could I) - not only can you legally have 4 wives, but if you're so inclined, they could be as young as 9, if not 6. Just don't go beyond the limit of 4. And if you don't like the local beauties, you can always fly off to the subcontinent or the East Indies and return with a Muslimah that satisfies you - no matter what her age.

Another correction - you Mohammedan could call Christians pigs/dogs, not pigs/rats.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 25, 2008 3:44 PM

Despite the difficulties, Mattson said she remains convinced that the United States "is still the best place in the world to practice our faith."

--

And we all know what that means.. the more they "practice", the more "kuffars" die.

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at August 25, 2008 5:29 PM

We in Britain have a programme on bbc called "Question Time" where a member from the audience, typically a muslima in full islamic monty is invariably selected from a sea of raised hands whence she will proceed to spew diatribe against US and Bush to a rapturous applause from the audiance.

And not one single soul from the panel of politicians, captains of industry or well heeled hacks would utter even a murmur.

Too bloody true.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at August 25, 2008 5:40 PM

Time to consider additional measures that go beyond mere words.

Eastview

Might I suggest you clarify that statement. There are trolls here who will use an ambiguous statement such as this to cause trouble for our hosts.
Posted by: GamblersChoice

Good point. I certainly did not mean anything sinister by this. Rather, that the strong consensus that exists here at JW, achieved primarily through discussions, does not seem to extend to the power structure in this country, and the Democrats in particular. The fact that it does not tells us something about the limits of blog power.

What I was refering to was that there are other things that need to be done besides just sitting at our keyboards and issuing bon mots. Spot on has suggested a few, like VOTE, but probably even more effective would be to become active in your local political organizations, joining the Lions Club or chapter of the Masons or any of a number of social organizations that in many places include as members the local movers and shakers in a community. These are the organizations who play key roles in spotting and developing new political talent and in selecting delegates to attend political conventions.

In other words, don't just talk. Take advantage of the fact that you're a citizen of a democracy and get involved in the political process.

Posted by: Eastview at August 25, 2008 6:14 PM

Word is she got a standing ovation...

...and some here actually postulate there is no difference between Democrat and Republican on Islam.

Republicans are certainly behind the curve, but they are in no way obsequious dhimmis like the Dems. During the campaign, Republican candidates actually used phrases like "Islamofascism", "radical Islam", etc. to identify the enemy. Democrats didn't dare go there.

If the choice is indeed a lessor of two evils, it is one of a helluva lot lessor.

Posted by: Cornelius at August 25, 2008 6:36 PM

Leader of Muslim Brotherhood-linked organization gets standing ovation at Democratic Convention.

She is a disgrace, not because she is a Muslim, but because she is so dishonest to our people.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at August 25, 2008 7:21 PM

I dare say not a single one of you has ever even spoken to Ingrid Mattson. I know her personally, and she is a very well educated moderate person with the best of intentions and motives that serve all of America, not just the Muslim demographic.

Your opinions are only such because everything you know about Muslims is through the dirty filter of lenses such as JW.

The whole page, every single entry, seems to be one big projection bias...all of you with your hang ups getting upset because of your bias.

The Muslims are one of the brightest, most productive, and healthy demographics we have.

The French even sent their leading Imam of all France here to Texas to ask us how we integrated so well and so peacefully.

I told him to raise his French Children to be French and teach them to love France and that France IS Home, and to abandon the "back home" mentality.

America is Home to us and we are not going to go anywhere.

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 25, 2008 9:03 PM

Abdullah,

It is fine to defend a friend. However, with the comments you've made, you have not done so. You've have impuned this site, its owners, readers, and contributors. Please show yourself to have some integrity and interact with the problems raised about Ms. Mattson's comments (click here). This is the bare minimum you can do to defend your friend and justify your comments. We are unconcerned with how you or she portray(s) her sincerity. We are concerned with her statements, the contents and intentions of the sacred texts to which she subscribes, and her affiliations, particularly international ones.

Or if you are so inclined, you can also indulge my questions above:

Some constituencies need to be shunned by ALL of the parties, even if it would mean a loss. Do the major parties court the KKK, Nazis, Skinheads, etc.? If not, why not, for what political view does Ms. Mattson hold that differentiates her from these detestable supremicist groups? Does Ms. Mattson know an Arabic word for someone of African/Negroid ethnicity that doesn't also mean slave? Does she not read with reverence where Islamic scriptures refer to blacks as "raison-heads"? Does she not revere the caliphs who said that black women made the best sex slaves? Do the 'holy' texts her fingers lovingly caress disagree materially with the KKK/Nazis/Skinheads writings on the appropriate disposition of the Jews?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 25, 2008 9:31 PM

The Muslims are one of the brightest, most productive, and healthy demographics we have.

Well if the cesspoolstans and iranstans, ME islamic countries are so wonderful why the hell do you chose to live among the dirty kaffirs? The only way muslims can learn and become educated is through a Western univ! islam is anti democracy, anti freedom of thought, freedom of speech. your cult is death and if were not for oil found under your camels and tents you would still be living with camels. so ABDULLAH MIkail, this stupid western women who is being paid by Sowdi money is a wretched person who can gain some recognition as a western women under the cloak of islamic death, otherwise who the hell would even look at her least alone talk to such sad sorry person!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at August 25, 2008 9:34 PM

http://debate.org.uk/topics/books/poston-dawa.html
a) Islam in the U.S. must develope an indigenous leadership, or else it will retain a distinctly foreign character, which will inhibit its growth. (451)
b) New converts to Islam must stop adopting an Arabic name upon conversion.
c) Much seek to change the stereotypical image of Islam as consisting mainly of Iranian and Libyan terrorists, Black activists, and male chauvanists.
d) The anti-Christian polemic must cease, as such attacks serve to increase the interest of nominal Christians in the precepts of their faith.
e) Unity, as envisioned by Muslims, is a vain pursuit, and best abandoned. The diversity of the Muslim world will have to be accepted, much like HUP principle.
f) Khurram Murads low-church missiological approach must be expanded and continually developed. Muslim laymen must be mobilized.
Dr. Abdel-Halim Mahmoud: "We cannot deny that U.S. Muslims might one day try to replace the Constitution with Shari'a law." (Lovering,p.6)
Isma'il al-Faruqi: "The Islamic vision endows No.Am. with a new destiny worthy of it. For this renovation of itself, of its spirit, for its rediscovery of a God-given mission and self-dedication to its pursuit, the continent cannot but be grate- ful to the immigrant with Islamic vision. It cannot but interpret his advent on its shores except as a God-given gift, a timely divine favor & mercy." (Faruqi-p.270)
Musa Qutub: "The people of the West (U.S.) will assist (in spreading) the Truth when the Hour comes." (Sahih Muslim, Bab al-Imara 177). (455)

Posted by: interestinconundrum at August 25, 2008 9:42 PM

Who will represent the ummah at the Republican Convention?
Posted by: interestinconundrum

---

W

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at August 25, 2008 9:44 PM

Abdullah,

While you're at it, since you say

America is Home to us....

perhaps you could explain what that means to you, as an American.

For example, do you wish to see the American government replaced with an Islamic one, for all Americans to be required to worship Allah, and for the American legal codes to be replaced with Shari'ah? Do you say the Pledge of Allegiance, sing the Anthem, and salute the Flag and teach your children to do the same? Do you always place your citizenship and fealty to American law over your participation in the Ummah as regards your personal behavior? Do you eschew all enemies of the United States, foreign and domestic? Do you give Zakhat to entities that you know will financially support Specifically Designated Terrorist organizations (as defined by the U.S. State Department), and how are you sure? Do you contribute financially to organizations who terrorize U.S. allies such as Israel? Do you recognize the state of Israel as the U.S. Government does?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 25, 2008 9:45 PM

The Muslims are one of the brightest, most productive, and healthy demographics we have.

--

ROFLMAO!!!!!

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at August 25, 2008 9:53 PM

ebonystone,

It goes like this:

This is your brain: (O)

This is your brain on islam: (.)

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at August 25, 2008 9:57 PM

America is Home to us and we are not going to go anywhere.
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail

--

Sounds like they're digging in..

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at August 25, 2008 9:59 PM

Oh, and are you the same "Abdullah Mikail" that wrote on a Washington Post/Newsweek thread:

On the subject of Sharia law and prescribed punishments, nothing is brutal about the deterrent when compared to the ultimate punishment for committing the crime despite the deterrent with no regret or remorse - in arrogance, and what follows that is the punishment from God. The punishment in this life is easier by far.

Just curious.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 25, 2008 10:03 PM

"The Muslims are one of the brightest, most productive, and healthy demographics we have." --Abdullah

LOL!

Let me tell you what the "dirty lens" is -- Islam.

Islam is racist, bigoted, and filled with hate. Islam orders it's followers to commit Jihad against the "Infidel," i.e. anyone not Islamic. Islam's got a pagan moon deity that a 2-year-old could figure out isn't real. So, no, you people are not "bright" - you're brainwashed by a 7th century barbarian Warlord who was never a prophet. Man, you people are dumb.

Somehow, you just can't live in your own Islamic country, can you? That's too bad for us Infidels. Especially as your Demographic Jihad is rolling slowly but surely along.

Posted by: darcy at August 25, 2008 10:19 PM

Interesting how your native Islamic country isn't good enough for you.

I wonder why Allah would fail you people so miserably concerning your various Crapistans.

Any ideas? Ever thought to ask the rock idol why?

Also, any ideas as to why Allah allowed the Jewish "Sons of Apes and Pigs" to win the 1967 Six-Day War? That Allah, he's such a capricious pagan deity, isn't he?!

Posted by: darcy at August 25, 2008 10:34 PM

In order for a Muslim to have their voice heard at the Democratic Convention they must first be a "married" homosexual Muslim :-) then be heard.

Posted by: ethoman at August 25, 2008 10:37 PM

America is Home to us and we are not going to go anywhere.
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail

--

Home to "us"...

As in Muslims who refuse to integrate into the "Great melting pot of the world"??

And dream of a day when this Constitutional Republic is replaced with a Sharia Capihate???

That is not immigration.

That is called occupation.

Posted by: SoteriA at August 25, 2008 10:46 PM

Another was reserved for Mattson, who said she tells Islamic leaders abroad that Muslims in the United States still face discrimination constantly.

Muslims invite discrimination, beg for it! I honestly believe they're insulted when normal people treat them like peers because they don't get the reverence and extra respect they think they deserve because they are superior muslims.

Muslims discriminate against kafirs; they want nothing to do with us beyond exploiting our generosity and kindness, neither of which they would ever reciprocate. We're not even worthy of their friendship but they aren't too proud to greedily partake of the fruits of our labor and enjoy the endless bounty produced by our superior civilization. I don't give a damn what she tells foreign islamic leaders; what are they going to do, come over here and demand more special privileges for the umma? I want to know when I can become a citizen of Saudi Arabia, dress in accordance with my culture, gain employment without discrimination, legally practice my religion, build a few churches, and pass out Bibles to interested parties.

If muslims don't want to be "discriminated" against, they should start behaving and dressing like mainstream Americans instead of medieval Arabs. The "discrimination" Ms. Mattson so vaguely mentions probably amounts to stares and finger pointing and that's not illegal. Muslims might think they're something special but to the average American, they're strange people who are hostile and arrogant, dress funny, and whose co-religionists around the globe engage in bellicose, violent, malevolent behavior and justify it as their religious duty. Since islam forbids friendships between holier-than-thou muslims and unbelievers in the heresy of islam, how will we ever get to know these wonderful folks? I think I know all I want to know about them, plus some.

Posted by: Susanp at August 25, 2008 10:59 PM

Susanp,

Great post. I would suggest we should "give a damn what she tells foreign islamic leaders", however (Obama probably would say "dang" after church").

When Mattson says what she claims to have said to those leaders, they hear

OPPRESSION

That, as you know, is the code word for attack in the "holy" Qur'an. Therefore, she is covertly inciting her coreligionists against us, and she knows it.

Care to address that, too, Abdullah?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 25, 2008 11:10 PM

Abdullah Mikail

You state you are from Texas. I wonder, could you be Abdullah Mikhail McKay of Richardson, Texas? The same Abdullah Mikhail McKay who frequently posts on Islamic themes to various websites, and who featured in the documentary American Ramadan? (you are, if I’m not mistaken, the bearded white American convert who appears with his family in this trailer for the film?)

In American Ramadan, you are portrayed as the ideal American Muslim - integrated and peaceful, and most certainly not the stereotypical ranting extremist looking to chop off hands and persecute women.

Yet, as Concerned Citizen points out above, you posted this reply to an article in the Washington Post by Eboo Patel, in which he criticised those Muslims who refused to acknowledge what he described as the religion’s “dirty laundry” - anti-Semitism, bigotry and cruelty. In particular, he highlighted Saudi Arabia’s punishment of a rape victim, which he described as “appalling and brutal”, and called on moderate Muslims to loudly condemn such outrages.

Condemn them they did in their replies. All except one poster - you, Abdullah Mikail - who took exception to the “appalling and brutal” description, stating that:

“nothing is brutal about the deterrent [ public flogging ] when compared to the ultimate punishment for committing the crime”.

You then went on explain the reality of her “crime”:

“The obfuscation of the young woman’s case is a deplorable twist of the media taking focus away from what she was guilty of and making it seem as though she were being punished for being raped… No, that is not the case. She is being punished for violating the law which came to light when her case was revealed…she was given a lighter sentence for having been within the private company of a non family member male”.

Let me emphasise that you are an American-born citizen, a self-declared “supporter of the Constitutional right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” who nevertheless agrees with the view that it is a “crime” worthy of punishment for a young woman to be in private with a man who is not her relation.

Indeed, lest any reader were in doubt about your views, you then sneer at the “moderates” (your quote marks) who “give a hue and cry” about such barbarity and therefore aid critics in their “efforts to smear Islam”. As with your above post, you declare the problem to be ignorance of Islam by non-Muslims and Muslims themselves

How interesting. Normally it is extremists such as yourself who we are led to belief are “misunderstanding their faith”. Yet here are you in that post declaring that it is “the moderates” - those who speak out against brutality and bigotry - who do not understand the true nature of their religion. It seems that you and Robert Spencer are in agreement on this matter at least.

By the way, don’t you also have links to Ghassan Elashi, former director of the Richardson, Texas-based Holy Land Foundation, who is currently serving time for helping to fund Hamas?

Matamoros (original one)

Posted by: Matamoros at August 25, 2008 11:14 PM

In light of the above, could you please clarify, Abdullah, exactly what is your relationship with Ms. Mattson?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 25, 2008 11:19 PM

Abdullah Mikail
. . . I know her personally, and she is a very well educated moderate person with the best of intentions and motives that serve all of America, not just the Muslim demographic.

Based upon the comments after this unprovable one I question the truth of it as well. I would venture to say that she is just practicing taqiyya that you are.

As my God said "For you are the children of your father the Devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning and has always hated the truth. There is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies."

يوحنا 8:44
انت لاطفال اباك الشيطان ، وتحب ان تفعل ما يفعله أمور الشر. وقال انه قاتل منذ البداية ودائما يكره الحقيقة. وليس هناك في الحقيقة له. عندما تقع ، وهو يتسق مع شخصيته ؛ لأنه هو الكذاب والأب من الاكاذي

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at August 25, 2008 11:30 PM

For a couple suggestions as to what one might "do" instead of just sitting at our keyboards.

Pass out the voter guide found at http://www.truthformuslims.com/guide/2008guide.pdf

Financially support Rep. Myrick and the other Congressional representatives on the Anti-terrorism caucus that she helped found. There are something like 67 members of the caucus though I can't seem to find a list of all the members anywhere.

See her recommended reading list at

http://www.suemyrick.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6139

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at August 25, 2008 11:41 PM

eve_anne_gelical - Thanks! The Voter Leadership Guide is exactly what needs to be distributed in communities throughout the nation for use in town hall meetings and other venues where citizens are given the opportunity to question candidates. It will help smoke out those who, by their continued willful ignorance of Islam, are not fit to serve in an office where they must swear an oath to preserve and protect our political system against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The ten questions listed in the Guide should be posed over and over and over again, to every candidate, with no allowance provided for dodging the questions, and no acceptance given to smarmy or "politically correct" answers.

Posted by: Eastview at August 26, 2008 4:30 AM

She has the same facial expression as the most sadistic female SS camp guards exhibited anno 1940.
She looks good enough to induce vomiting

Posted by: hemoglobin at August 26, 2008 5:33 AM

eve_anne_gelical,

Thanks much for that guide!

Posted by: PRCS at August 26, 2008 7:31 AM

Democrat & faith: are they oxymorons?

Speaking of oxymorons, about a year ago, there was a scandal about an Episcopal priest(ess), Ann Holmes Redding, in Washington state who decided to be a moslem on Fridays and a Christian on Sundays. I am not kidding! Is that looney or what? And the local bishop thought it was really keen--even loonier (or is it more looney). The bishop who had actual authority over her, fortunately, told her she could not perform any clerical duties for a year so she could decide which way to go. I can't help but wonder--as with Ingrid Mattson--if she lived under sharia law, in some islamic hellhole, would she be singing a different tune? Probably not "Amazing Grace" or anything close. Hmm!

Posted by: MadAggie at August 26, 2008 8:51 AM

Matamoros,

It is unfortunate that you have chosen to pull out of context my comments and present them as such here as you have.

The comment on the article you pointed out, the article in the Washington Post, I made in respect to pointing out the obvious obfuscation in the article that was written to lead the reader into assuming that the victim was being punished for being raped. You have pulled out of context my comments and made them seem to say something altogether different than their intent, and painted it to support your opinion.

The purpose of that Washington Post article was to make it seem as though the victim were being punished by the “wicked” Saudis for being a victim of rape…the article sought only to demonize them as much as possible…I pointed this out. It was a matter of two separate crimes being committed, a violation of the law of that land, and she was very unfortunate in that situation.

A secondary crime, under the law of that land, was discovered once the details of the case were brought to court. It is the law there and citizens are aware of it, much the same as people here are aware of our laws, yet on our books we note that ignorance of the law is no excuse and violation will be prosecuted regardless, and I believe it is the same for the laws of Saudi Arabia.

The laws of that land contain many deterrents, which I pointed out, and the punishments are are seldom carried out as they do in fact deter the commission of those crimes.

If I am pulled over here in America for speeding, my obvious crime is that, yet if the officer determines I am not wearing a seatbelt after pulling me over, is he remiss in writing me up for that as well? And if he further discovers that the former owner of the car I just bought happened to leave a controlled substance in the trunk, then the state prosecutes me for it, the state takes my home, the state seizes all of my assets, all based upon the premise that I gained all these assets from the sale of that controlled substance that by the way wasn’t mine, but I was pulled over in “possession” of it…is that justice? No. But that it the law of this land.

In this hypothetical situation, this being America and we having the right here to defend ourselves in court, I would most surely fight tooth and nail to see that situation corrected, and the seizure of property and assets restored and my name cleared. But it wouldn’t matter would it? The damage would already have been inflicted to me for that associated charge of “possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute”. To half the populace who would read the news article would only believe in the negative spin the article painted, and never believe I were truly innocent. But that again is the law of this land, regardless of my opinion, regardless of what anyone else thinks, the charges would be made and I would have to fight that in court which is a right I have, and that right is also afforded to the unfortunate person in the Washington Post Article.

You think I am an extremist? Whatever, it is a free country.

I abide by the law of this land, and if that makes me “Extremist” then fine, state it all you want. “Extreme” in being a good citizen, count me in. “Extreme” in insisting on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, count me in. And since I was disabled in the service of this country, I guess that also make me “Extreme” in the sacrifices I have made for this country, count me in.

Any media personality shilling to cast about labels will usually do so with sound bite logic…taking a little snippet here, a little clip there….only those pieces that can be pasted together to support their warped views and then presented to the audience, who here are only too eager to believe it. The samples and examples they take out of context are destroyed by the reality of the whole.

Life isn’t a trial where the judge is allowed to discount all evidence except that which they want the prosecutor to use in order to focus the jury’s opinion on the predetermined outcome they want…life is a much bigger venue, and there is no tampering with the evidence herein.

I am a supporter and defender of the Constitution of the United States, yes, as you have pointed out, only you seem to forget that our Constitution does not cover the entire planet in its scope. Sovereign nations have their own laws and citizens must abide by them.

And by the way, Ghasan Elashi is not serving time for “helping to fund Hamas”. You have just lied. He was convicted for customs violations in that he shipped computers to Lybia that were legal to be sold and shipped there, only he marked “printers” on the customs label, and thus forged an official document, and not “computers” as he should have. The computers he shipped were legally able to be sold to Lybia.

But then again, this is your projection bias, you steer everything you say and do to support the agenda of demonizing Muslims.

Be glad to entertain any question you have.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 26, 2008 11:04 AM

Abdullah Mikail,

You haven't addressed any of the questions posed to you by Concerned Citizen or darcy about Mattson, her comments, your relationship to her, and your feelings on America v. Sharia.

Furthermore, if you call JW a "dirty lens" simply because it quotes her, please point out some "moderate", "peaceful" and "pluralistic" quotes, or ones where she condemns the Muslim Brotherhood.

I'd be glad to hear your answers, especially after your defense of Mattson, with no evidence whatsoever.

Posted by: Mo Foe at August 26, 2008 12:29 PM

“Extreme” in insisting on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, count me in.

Abdullah complains he was quoted out of context, in "snippets". Here is his entire comment on the WashingtonPost/Newsweek article:

As salaamu alaikum wa rahmat allahu wa barakatu,

On the subject of Sharia law and prescribed punishments, nothing is brutal about the deterrent[Shari'ah] when compared to the ultimate punishment for committing the crime despite the deterrent with no regret or remorse - in arrogance, and what follows that is the punishment from God. The punishment in this life is easier by far.

The obfuscation of the young woman’s case is a deplorable twist of the media taking focus away from what she was guilty of and making it seem as though she were being punished for being raped. No, that is not the case. She is being punished for violating the law [Shari'ah] which came to light when her case was revealed. [S]he was given a lighter sentence for having been within the private company of a non family member male [Shari'ah], then despite her guilt she fought the courts judgment and lost again and was handed a more severe punishment. The other crime she is not being penalized for as it is her attackers that were tried and convicted for that.

Hirsi Ali and her ilk are only here to cause division and confusion among Muslims who are not well founded in their faith. When one understands the truth about Islam and what it dictates in the form of human behavior one realizes that despite what happened to Hirsi Ali in her youth it had no basis or foundation in Islam at all and is only a brutal tribal custom of the ignorant Africans she lived among. [Are modern Egyptians "brutal tribal Africans?] Her entire entry into the literary world is based upon the false premise that she suffered “because” of Islam…no, she didn’t…she suffered because of ignorance.

There are many among [WAKE UP, THIS IS IMPORTANT] OUR [emphasis added] Muslim populations that give lip service to their faith, “Oh, yeah, I’m a Muslim.” But then they neither obey what they are ordered by God to do nor avoid what He has ordered them to avoid. Often these who give lip service only are the useful pawns of people like Hirsi Ali and others of her ilk, pointing to things that are not from Islam and smearing and obfuscating then throwing that negative pall over all of the Muslims. Then the “moderates” rise to give a hue and cry and basically get behind them in their efforts to smear Islam, unwittingly. If they would educate themselves and enforce the Quran and Sunnah upon themselves [Shari'ah, taqlid] they would easily identify what the problem is.

The problem is Ignorance of Islam by non Muslims and Muslims themselves. [Agreed on that one!]

Surat Al Nisa 4: 136

“Oh, you who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger and the Book which He has revealed to His Messenger and the Book which He revealed before; and whoever disbelieves in Allah and His angels and His messengers and the last day, he indeed strays off into a remote error.“ [Baddala deenahu, faqtuluhu -- if anyone changes his religion, kill him (cf. Bukhari vol. 9, bk. 84, no. 57)]

Surat Al Tauba 9:119

“Oh! you who believe be careful of (your duty to) Allah and be with the true ones.”

Understand what the truth is and have proper knowledge BEFORE one speaks for or against a subject…understand the illa, the issue, that is at hand…because 99% of the time what the detractors and enemies of Islam forward as they scream injustice is not a result “of” Islam, but the negative outcome for disobeying the dictates of Islam[ed.- like not beating your wife for disobedience].

Know your enemy because he, Iblis, Saytan, the Devil, knows you, the human being. He will pick out your weakness and exploit it…so do not refer to any negative human quality as “Muslim (insert whatever)-Ism” [Remember: wartime rape and slavery are not to be called negative human qualities] this in itself has become the hue and cry of the Saytan and their helpers even among the “moderate” Muslims.

Knowledge must precede action, and not the other way around.

There is no need to “defend” our faith against false accusations by those like Hirsi Ali…we who understand and have knowledge, Insha Allah, understand that her issue is with human beings disobeying Allah Sobhannah W’TAllah. Her issue is not with the Mummin, the true believers, because we study, and we learn, and we gain knowledge, and then we act on the order of Allah Who has forbidden oppression [against Muslims, not kafir, of course] to the extent that He has even forbidden opression by Himself on any of his creation.[Bullshit alert! That ayeh must be on the al-nasikh wa al-mansukh list: Reference please.]

Peace [?]
Abdullah Mikail

All comments in brackets are editorial, and are mine alone (Concerned Citizen). Minor spelling, punctuation, and case corrections performed which do not change the content or context. All emphasis (e.g. bolding, italics, anchor font) was added.

Abdullah, it appears that you define yourself by your statements as a Shari'ah advocate. A real American sees the fight for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to be self-evident, inalienable human rights to be afforded to all of humanity, and the absence of same to be injustice. You would not appear by that definition a true American, but merely a squatter here.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 26, 2008 1:54 PM

Answering Concerned Citizen, at the request of Moe Foe

[BTW: I like that handle, first name "Bad?" :) ]

First of all, your second sentence is an obvious insult, and an equivalence statement that is both negative associative and incorrect entirely, so past that presumption you have made what makes you feel your inquiry is even worthy of a response?

An interesting negative spin you try to put on something noble. The Prophet commanded Muslims not to be discriminatory in following qualified leadership. He ordered them not to make negative distinctions and refuse to follow leadership just because of physical differences and personal prejudices one may have.

You refer to a hadith that discusses following the leadership of the Caliphate of the Islamic State “even if he is an ‘Ethiopian with a head like a raisin”. It was a physical description of Ethiopians common among Arabs perhaps communicating a common prejudice, and a caution and warning that no matter what you feel about the qualified leader you must follow him. We have a very similar common prejudice in this country today, and EOE initiatives similar to this order.

This makes me wonder what your reaction would be to a possible Obama presidency?

I am Conservative, and I will vote for McCain, yet if Obama is elected I won’t base my opinion on his race, primarily because I am not a prejudicial person, but in secondary I have reinforcement from this hadith not to base decisions on personal prejudices. My opinion will be based upon his qualifications.

I wonder what your true private thoughts are on that subject?

Do you really think you have the high moral ground in bringing slavery up?

Historical incidences are often brought up in a negative way in an attempt to frame current demographics in a negative light by that association, so I remind you, Thomas Jefferson kept slaves, and among them he had a African paramour that produced children, and George Washington held slaves as well, and the practice was frequently engaged in by people of their day and age. Do you have respect for these men and all the great things they did for America?

Thoughts and attitudes may change among peoples when they become enlightened, and yet the progression of other people towards enlightened states is affected by orders based in their faith. The Islamic orders surrounding the taking and keeping of slaves is a mechanism that, when abided by, has all but eliminated slavery. Yet in America it took a Civil war and 620,000 dead for the US to give up Industrial slavery. Remember that moral high ground you thought you were on? Not so lofty are you?

There are many verses in the Quran that speak highly of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, (among many others) as well as those that speak in derision of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, (among many others) all based upon how these people responded to their respective Prophets.

There are some people that only want to hear the good about themselves and do not like to hear the negative mentioned. Have you ever read any verses of the Quran and focuses on how many negative statements were made about Muslims? I doubt it. I read those and learn from them, I don’t get upset because the verse has pointed out a negative trait that I myself have identified in myself. I correct my faults as best I can, I don’t whine about the fact that they are pointed out…it is to my benefit that this is such.

Many people come here and point out the minutiae of the evil among the Muslims, and it pains me to hear their negative association, as if they think that the evil arose from these criminals’ adherence to Islam, when in fact it is almost always a crime that the person has committed and then tries to use the faith as an excuse. Their ignorance and the ignorance of on lookers is a sad fact. I attempt to point out the rule of Islam and the violation, only to the anger of others. Once again, it is not my problem how people receive the truth, it is only my burden to tell it.

Thanks for asking,
Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 26, 2008 2:16 PM

In other words, don't just talk. Take advantage of the fact that you're a citizen of a democracy and get involved in the political process.

Eastview

I've been out for a few days.

Here's what I plan to do. ...Today I was reading the weekly edition of the Washington Times. I couldn't have been more surprised. Get this! There were two featured articles on a "New Kind of Bomb" called the nuke EMP. The articles were written by very knowledgeable authorities. The articles explained very precisely that America WOULD be defeated by terrorists if one of these bombs were successfully detonated in our central USA atmosphere. It went on to say that only a fraction of citizens would live through this calamity. It further stated that we could not stop a cruise type missile of this type launched against us and Pakistan had such weapons. It went further to say that the federal government has done absolutely nothing to get prepared for this threat....

I am going to call on every mayor of every town in my vicinity and bring them up to date on this real threat of our continued existance. These mayors are part time and family people. I will give them copies of the articles and other information on the subject. I will offer to appear before their committee's and such. I will also have the great opportunity to explain how Islamic terrorists and Islam itself are the real threats. And that the federal government is doing nothing on this after all this time.

My reasoning is that if people really understand that their lives and the lives of their children & grandchildren are ACTUALLY being threatened by the lack of proper judgement in Washingon, that they will do at least two things. 1. Attempt to figure out what is needed for survival of this type attack. 2. Complain bloody murder to their Representatives and Senators and other well connected people.

The public is asleep about Islam. We need to wake them up on the basis of fear for their lives, which is very real. We must not be perceived as having racial hatred or anti-immigration tendencies.

Posted by: Spot on at August 26, 2008 2:17 PM

BTW: I like that handle, first name "Bad?" :)

I didn't write that, nor do I find it on this page, so your response makes no sense. Multitasking too much, perhaps?

This makes me wonder what your reaction would be to a possible Obama presidency?

I point out the inherent prejudices in Islamic "sacred" writings, and you try to paint me as the racist? How pathetic.

Do you really think you have the high moral ground in bringing slavery up?

Why, yes. My religion does not condone or command it. It taught how to suffer under it, and challenged owners to free their slaves. Your religion eternally institutionalizes and sacralizes it, including sex slaves.

Do you have respect for these men and all the great things they did for America?

Respect for the good, disdain for the bad. Crude tu quoque, Abdullah. How do you feel about Mohammad?

The Islamic orders surrounding the taking and keeping of slaves is a mechanism that, when abided by, has all but eliminated slavery.

Ironic that conversion decreased Mohammad's and the Caliphs' revenue stream. Which is why the jihad spread so far and so rapidly.

Remember that moral high ground you thought you were on?

Yes, very fond of it. Can't take the credit, though, got to give that to Jesus (not the same as Isa).

You quote history of which neither I nor my religion was party. You've deliberately avoided exploring your thoughts on the sacralized, continuing slavery in Islam, which is the topic. Islam is supposed to be the moral superior by your judgement, so stop looking to judge it by the standard of others. Quite disingenuous sophistry and circumlocution.

There are many verses in the Quran that speak highly of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, (among many others) as well as those that speak in derision of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, (among many others) all based upon how these people responded to their respective Prophets.

Nonsense, it was how they responded to your "prophet". Meccan vs. Medinan, no power vs. in power. It was all relative to Mohammad's circumstances and his reception. Do you think we are unaware of Qur'anic abrogation, al-nasikh wa mansukh? Taqiyya? Kitman?

I don’t whine about the fact that they are pointed out

I don't whine about legitimate faults being raised either. I complain about having a genocidal pogrom prescribed against me by a dead, illiterate, Bedouin false prophet for not lauding his pretensions and involutarily following his invented religion.

point out the minutiae of the evil among the Muslims

Is that how you see it? Minutia? My God!

they think that the evil arose from these criminals’ adherence to Islam, when in fact it is almost always a crime that the person has committed and then tries to use the faith as an excuse

Well, "almost always" would not be good enough to vindicate Islam, now, would it? Thanks for the admission.

So, what exactly is your relationship with Ms. Mattson?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 26, 2008 2:55 PM

Abdullah,

Your droll, patronizing soliloquy sedated me to the point I nearly forgot you skipped some questions.

You are fond of the following:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Since, as an American, you accept and agree with the above, how does the Declaration passage color your perception of a) institutionalized Shari'ah enshrined in the legal code of Islamic countries, b) the potential for and appropriateness of Shari'ah implementation in the United States, and c) dualistic ethics in Islam (treatment of Muslim vs. "People of the Book" and other kafir)?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 26, 2008 3:11 PM

Concerned Citizen,

I'll follow your style on this one:

BTW: I like that handle, first name "Bad?" :)

CC ( Concerned Citizen):I didn't write that, nor do I find it on this page, so your response makes no sense. Multitasking too much, perhaps?

AM: Sorry, I see you have trouble with abstract thought and making associations between simple concepts that are separated by more than a few words. [I am sure “Moe Foe” got it right away.]

This makes me wonder what your reaction would be to a possible Obama presidency?

CC:I point out the inherent prejudices in Islamic "sacred" writings, and you try to paint me as the racist? How pathetic.

AM: No implication was made. It was a simple question, and you “outed” yourself…a child could infer that from your response.

Do you really think you have the high moral ground in bringing slavery up?

CC: Why, yes. My religion does not condone or command it. It taught how to suffer under it, and challenged owners to free their slaves. Your religion eternally institutionalizes and sacralizes it, including sex slaves.

AM: Christianity (nor Jesus himself) does not forbid slavery or order it to be ended. Prove where the Jesus said it, since he is the fountainhead of your religious doctine.

Do you have respect for these men and all the great things they did for America?

CC: Respect for the good, disdain for the bad. Crude tu quoque, [ But effective at making the point…] Abdullah. How do you feel about Mohammad?

AM: What do you think?

The Islamic orders surrounding the taking and keeping of slaves is a mechanism that, when abided by, has all but eliminated slavery.

CC: Ironic that conversion decreased Mohammad's and the Caliphs' revenue stream. Which is why the jihad spread so far and so rapidly.

AM: Odd logical connection to make in respect to the topic. Stay on topic, don’t divert.
Remember that moral high ground you thought you were on?

CC: Yes, very fond of it. Can't take the credit, though, got to give that to Jesus (not the same as Isa).

You quote history of which neither I nor my religion was party. You've deliberately avoided exploring your thoughts on the sacralized, continuing slavery in Islam, which is the topic.

Islam is supposed to be the moral superior by
your judgement, so stop looking to judge it by the standard of others. Quite disingenuous sophistry and circumlocution.

AM: Yes, you and your faith ARE beneficiary and party to industrialized slave trade in the Americas. Period.

There is no sacrilized continuing slavery in Islam, if you understand Islam.

Shafii Jurisprudence, Reliance of the Traveller, Nuah Ha Mim Keller, did not even translate the old laws legislating slavery into English as they are irrelevant now. Slavery is not allowed in Islam.

And if you note, you tried to take the high ground on the slavery issue, I merely corrected you.

I don’t make arguments for the sake of it. I speak because I know. You on the other hand, I doubt, have studied Islam enough to really know what it says about a subject. You, no doubt in my mind, only know how to take a “sound bite” from a translation of hadiths that has “shock value” and pretend it is similar to your “John 3;16” silver bullet that trumps the entire religion. Sorry, no such fortune…any subject takes a volume of research to understand. Not a sound bite.

There are many verses in the Quran that speak highly of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, (among many others) as well as those that speak in derision of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, (among many others) all based upon how these people responded to their respective Prophets.

CC: Nonsense, it was how they responded to your "prophet". Meccan vs. Medinan, no power vs. in power. It was all relative to Mohammad's circumstances and his reception. Do you think we are unaware of Qur'anic abrogation, al-nasikh wa mansukh? Taqiyya? Kitman?

AM: So you say the people of the Ad and the Thamud responded to our Prophet? So you say the Jews of Moses responded to our Prophet when they refused to follow the orders from God? So you say the people of Noah responded to our Prophet when they refused ands were destoyed for it? So you say the people of Jonah responded to out Prophet? So you say the people of Lot responded to our Prophet?

Funny, this is the same sophistry and circumlocution you whined about above.

It is clear to me that you do not know much about the Quran, but what you have learned from looking in from the outside and learning about it from those who do not understand it has clearly biased your thoughts about it.

I don’t whine about the fact that they are pointed out

CC: I don't whine about legitimate faults being raised either. I complain about having a genocidal pogrom prescribed against me by a dead, illiterate, Bedouin false prophet for not lauding his pretensions and involuntarily following his invented religion.

Am: So now the insults come? And you insult a messenger from God? We do not engage in this derision…it is a fault you will have to answer for all on your own.

point out the minutiae of the evil among the Muslims

CC: Is that how you see it? Minutia? My God!

AM: The percentage of Muslims that engage in violence and extremism has to be expressed as a scientific notation, the number is so very small. Yes, minutiae.

You are most likely towed around by the media ring securely fastened in your nose, and I doubt you deal with any number of true Muslims. You may know of or even know a few “moderate” Muslims who have totally abandoned Islam to shill for cash about how “bad” it is and sell copy. But I doubt you know a true Muslim.

they think that the evil arose from these criminals’ adherence to Islam, when in fact it is almost always a crime that the person has committed and then tries to use the faith as an excuse

CC: Well, "almost always" would not be good enough to vindicate Islam, now, would it? Thanks for the admission.

AM: A childish comment to make, but expected. Modesty in expressing opinions is prudent, because none of us can know everything. If a case is raised that I don’t know the answer to, I won’t answer, and thus, “almost always” is the disclaimer.

I am sure there are some things which are legal responses to external forces that are entirely within the rule of Islam…even if you don’t like it and think it is “criminal”.

There is no need to vindicate Islam.

I am educating the ignorant, but not much can be done about the willfully ignorant.

CC: So, what exactly is your relationship with Ms. Mattson?

AM: None of your business.

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 26, 2008 3:53 PM

I'll follow your style

You should follow my religion, as well; mine has a guarantee of expiation, yours doesn't.

Sorry, I see you have trouble with abstract thought

I was afraid to think it was a joke, since so poorly constructed. ESL? You're grammar (though not your punctuation) is relatively good?

It was a simple question, and you “outed” yourself…a child could infer that from your response.

No, I sidestepped the "trick" question. You know there is no correct answer to such. Had I said, "No, I like and have Blacks as friends and would be proud to have Alan Keyes as my President," you would have said, "So you differentiate yourself from blacks?" Fact of the matter is, you don't know if I have any African descendancy or not. On the other hand, if the question was, "Would you be proud for Obama (rather than Keyes) to be your President," the answer would be, frankly, no. Inexperience and ultimate power make strange bedfellows.

Christianity (nor Jesus himself) does not forbid slavery or order it to be ended.

Unlike Islam, Christianity does not profit from false obeisance. Read Philemon. Jesus also spoke through plenary inspiration through Paul.

CC: Abdullah. How do you feel about Mohammad?

AM: What do you think?

I think you applaud and excuse his every evil deed. You have to. You're a Muslim.

Odd logical connection to make in respect to the topic [slavery]. Stay on topic, don’t divert.

This from you? Puhleeze. The topic is Ms. Mattson, you, and your patriotism and fidelity to the foundational values of the Republic. The whole purpose of the dhimma was to generate revenue. Later caliphs forbid conversion of some groups to perpetuate it.

Yes, you and your faith ARE beneficiary and party to industrialized slave trade in the Americas. Period.

My faith? How so, do tell.

There is no sacralized continuing slavery in Islam, if you understand Islam.

Fraud alert. You missed the term "sacralized". It's in your Sunnah, don't tell me you haven't read it. I have some great sahih hadiths about coitus interruptus with female captives right in front of their husbands with Mo's approval if you want to go there.

did not even translate the old laws legislating slavery into English

Into English. That's very telling, isn't it? Is it in French? German?

as they are irrelevant now.

Kind of late in the cycle for ijtihad, isn't it? Let's be frank. These ancient tomes were edited for sensitive Western ears. Show me where the dominant Arabic versions have them removed. USC removed some foul hadiths from their website within the last week. It didn't make them go away.

you tried to take the high ground on the slavery issue

Still there, and waiting on the above.

You on the other hand, I doubt, have studied Islam enough to really know what it says about a subject.

I find fascinating the instinjaa techniques you use, but that really isn't relevant, is it? I don't have to know everything about Islam, only how it says kafir are to be treated.

“sound bite”

Fortunately, the sahih ahadith repeat the same statements over and over with variant isnads, so "sound bite" is not really an appropriate appelation for "quotation in context of the Sira".

So you say the people of the Ad and the Thamud responded to our Prophet? So you say the Jews of Moses responded to our Prophet when they refused to follow the orders from God? So you say the people of Noah responded to our Prophet when they refused ands were destoyed for it? So you say the people of Jonah responded to out Prophet? So you say the people of Lot responded to our Prophet?

They were followers (or not) of YWVH, not Allah. There is no archaeology supporting any deviance of Islamic texts from the JudaeoChristian narratives. Mohammad couldn't get his stories straight, then became murderous down when corrected. He is not a part of those traditions.

that you do not know much about the Quran

Because I won't accept your taqiyya, your pretending the hijrah never occurred, and all Medinan verses are trumped by Makkan rather than the other way around?

And you insult a messenger from God? We do not engage in this derision…

I wasn't expecting you to insult Mohammad. I will do that for you, as needed to correct your portrayal of him as something noble or benign.

The percentage of Muslims that engage in violence and extremism has to be expressed as a scientific notation, the number is so very small. Yes, minutiae.

Well, then, let's look at it the other way. What percentage of terrorist attacks are perpetrated by Muslims? 99%? Is that high enough for you? Have you read the percentages of Muslim students in UK who condone murder for the sake of religion? It's pretty high. How about the supporters of Al Qaeda in Pakistan?

You are most likely towed around by the media

What planet are you living on? They hardly report anything negative about the great "Religion of Peace".

But I doubt you know a true Muslim.

More than you would think.

CC: Well, "almost always" would not be good enough to vindicate Islam, now, would it? Thanks for the admission.

AM: A childish comment to make, but expected. Modesty in expressing opinions is prudent, because none of us can know everything. If a case is raised that I don’t know the answer to, I won’t answer, and thus, “almost always” is the disclaimer.

Hardly a "childish" observation about the immutable and infallible. There are better ways of expressing your ignorance as a disclaimer.

I am sure there are some things which are legal responses to external forces that are entirely within the rule of Islam…even if you don’t like it and think it is “criminal”.

Yes, and I don't like it. I abhore it. It confirms Islam as a false religion to me. As it should.

There is no need to vindicate Islam.

In your mind, only.

CC: So, what exactly is your relationship with Ms. Mattson?

AM: None of your business.

My, you were so proud before

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 26, 2008 4:45 PM

Abdullah Mikail:

"And by the way, Ghasan Elashi is not serving time for “helping to fund Hamas”. You have just lied. He was convicted for customs violations in that he shipped computers to Lybia that were legal to be sold and shipped there, only he marked “printers” on the customs label, and thus forged an official document… this is your projection bias, you steer everything you say and do to support the agenda of demonizing Muslims."

Err, you are the one doing the lying. You appear to have overlooked a conviction or two.

In July 2004, Ghassan Elashi [ founder board member of the Texas branch of CAIR ] along with his four brothers, was found guilty of conspiracy to falsify export documents and of exporting technology to countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism - Libya and Syria.

In a second trial, in April 2005, [which you appear to have conveniently forgotten] Ghassan and two of his brothers were also convicted of conducting business with, and laundering money for, their absent co-defendant Mousa Abu Marzook, leader of Hamas. Can you explain how investing money for Hamas’s self-admitted leader is not helping to fund Hamas?

Of course, I can understand your reluctance. Ghassan Elashi was an influential figure at the Dallas Central Mosque, where your wife Nia was formerly chairperson of the Women’s Committee. Did you, like your fellow worshippers at the DCM (aka the Islamic Association of North Texas), help to raise funds for the Elashi brothers' defence?

"The purpose of that Washington Post article was to make it seem as though the victim were being punished by the “wicked” Saudis for being a victim of rape."

Wrong. The purpose of Eboo Patel’s article was to point out that there are a good many moderate Muslims out there who are appalled by certain aspects of their religion, but feel too cowed to condemn them. His article encouraged them to speak out. Clearly, you are not one of them.

You accuse me of using “snippets” to support my “warped view”. Yet that post wasn’t the only occasion when you’ve attacked so-called “moderate” Muslims, was it? You regularly snipe at them for failing to adhere to the true nature of Islam. Indeed, you admit that you have taken issue with CAIR for promoting “moderate” Muslim groups:

“I get sideways with them quite a bit on some of the information they relay to the public.. Mostly on the subject of pointing out "Moderate Islamic" groups that get press from CAIR, when beneath the surface these groups are only parasitic termites that seek the abandonment of Islam and espouse the hedonistic life style.”

You clearly disapprove of “moderate” Muslims who do not share your enthusiasm for Shariah law and punishing innocent women. You must appreciate the rich irony of a convert telling life-long Muslims that they do not understand their religion. But then as we have seen, converts are often the most fanatical of Islamists - Richard Reid, Jermaine Lindsay, Adam Gadahn and John Walker Lindh among them.

And since I was disabled in the service of this country, I guess that also make me “Extreme” in the sacrifices I have made for this country, count me in.

US Navy, wasn’t it? Although back in those pre-Islam days you were just plain old Mike Mackay, all-American boy. I wonder what your old buddies on the Woody Woo would think about you shilling for a terrorist enabler like Ghassan Elashi?

Matamoros (original one)

Posted by: Matamoros at August 26, 2008 7:38 PM

Matamoros,

I was not aware of the second conviction, and thanks for pointing it out.

I guess one needs to be sure in doing business that someone you are associated with has not been put on a list of an organization that was named as a “specially designated terrorist” entity…wasn’t that done at the special request of Israel? This kind of “business” thing may retroactively put certain government officials in the hot seat later on for supporting organizations that are now “specially designated terrorist” organizations. Time will tell.

I support justice and the rights afforded citizens under the constitution, which seems to be disregarded and trampled more and more in the zeal of special interest groups as they pursue special agendas…I see it as New Age McCarthyism, where they are taking advantage of public fear, real or imagined, and using it to forward their special interests. In the end the truth will come out.

If a police officer wears the uniform, the badge, and the gun, yet engages in criminal activity, is he a police officer, is he a “good moderate” police officer, or is he a criminal with a badge?

If it takes A, B, and C to say one belongs to Group #1, and a person claims to belong to Group #1, yet advocates not doing and publically does not do any of A, B, and C are they a member of group #1, are they a “moderate” member of Group #1, or are they simply not a member of Group #1, yet claiming that status for ulterior motives? Abandonment is not moderation, it is extremism.

When an individual of an organization mistakenly issues a report citing a “moderate” group, and a person who knows the minimum definition to belong in that group, not just wearing their uniforms, their badges, and their guns, but their actual performance of the job, when he investigates that “moderate” group and the research determines that they are in fact a “criminals with a badges” there is nothing wrong in pointing it out and getting “sideways” with the organization who mistakenly published the error.

And the whole HLF trial, I am sure in your rabid zeal to push your agenda you think all defendants are guilty until proven innocent simply because the charges serve your special interests, but unfortunately for you there was no crime, so there can be no conviction. The evidence is in, and without further jury tampering and/or illegal/un-ethical actions on the prosecution team the results should be a just outcome, and the acquittals that were being entered into the record last time, prior to the judicial impropriety and jury tampering, will be allowed to be fully read and realized this go around. Any rational person can look at the mountain of documents and see there is no case against these men. You think so? Then why isn’t the Red Cross also charged? They were working hand in hand with the HLF under the same license granted by Israel to give aid to those only designated to receive it by Israel.

Matomoros, you wrote, “You clearly disapprove of “moderate” Muslims who do not share your enthusiasm for Shariah law and punishing innocent women. You must appreciate the rich irony of a convert telling life-long Muslims that they do not understand their religion. But then as we have seen, converts are often the most fanatical of Islamists - Richard Reid, Jermaine Lindsay, Adam Gadahn and John Walker Lindh among them. “

You "clearly make" negative comments and insulting associations that are based only upon your opinion.

I only disapprove of people who advocate abandoning simple basic elements of Islam, the prayer, the fasting, the modest dress…etc. the simple basic mundane list goes on, and yet those people want to claim the title of “moderate”.

Without abiding by these simple basic things one can not claim to be a “moderate Muslim”…one can only claim to be abandoning Islam.

They should be honest about themselves.

Irony? I appreciate the simple fact of knowing the truth, and being secure in knowledge, being able to identify the poison of culture in what people claim is their “religion”, and having the freedom to point it out.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 27, 2008 10:39 AM

I only disapprove of people who advocate abandoning simple basic elements of Islam, the prayer, the fasting, the modest dress…etc. the simple basic mundane list goes on, and yet those people want to claim the title of “moderate”.

You're clearly understating your own views, as your previous writings betrayed offense by the inapplication of the least letter of Shari'ah and comfort with its legitimacy as an institutionalized legal code, an ideological paradigm incompatible with the ideals enshrined in the founding documents of the United States and most "Western" cultures.

OR you disavow your previous views and writings, and are now only concerned about lexicographical purity and categorical 'minimum' standards of inclusivity for sake of semantics.

I will assume the latter. Welcome to the human race. Rather quick turnaround for you, too.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 27, 2008 11:58 AM

Abdullah Mikail wrote:

"Answering Concerned Citizen, at the request of Moe Foe

[BTW: I like that handle, first name "Bad?" :) ]"

I got what you meant; "Bad Mo Foe".

But I wonder if you really like my handle's meaning; I am against Muhammad-- because he was a savage homicidal warlord, who had all the men of an entire tribe beheaded.

He was a sex slave owner, had sex with a 9-year old and had critics assassinated. His "Allah" was also sure to back him up whenever he needed.

And, most relevantly, his followers today kill in his name, and want the world ruled under inhuman Islamic law.

I am forever against pretty much everything Muhammad stood and stands for.

But to bring this back on topic, way back when you wrote:

"I dare say not a single one of you has ever even spoken to Ingrid Mattson. I know her personally, and she is a very well educated moderate person with the best of intentions and motives that serve all of America, not just the Muslim demographic."

I asked you to back these up. Here at JW, there have been some pretty damning statements of hers brought up, and I wanted you to bring up some good ones. You have yet to do so, even saying your relationship is "none of [our] business."

Sorry, but you made it our business when you commented here.

Can you back up anything you've said about Mattson?

Posted by: Mo Foe at August 27, 2008 12:15 PM

Moe Foe (MF) wrote: But I wonder if you really like my handle's meaning; I am against Muhammad-- because he was a savage homicidal warlord, who had all the men of an entire tribe beheaded.

This I assume you refer to the sedition that occurred during the “Battle of the Trench”, the “entire tribe beheaded” being, I assume, the Bani Qurayza Jews. If I am not in error in assuming this is what you write of, I suggest you go and study the episode very well before bringing this up between we two so that you understand it. Then I would gladly enter a focused discussion on that issue alone between we two. Agreed?

You make blanket statements that are current political propaganda…one should not make pontifical statements…they lack validity.

I understand your opinion for what you stand for and against…there was never any illusion in me about that.

I don’t have to agree with someone to like their style… after all, there are many things to be learned by communicating, and when the communication is most terse and the subjects are volatile, it can be an thrilling experience to learn in that venue…learn about others in that medium, and even learn about myself…even the “flamers” it enspires are sometimes fun.

Being a student of truth and knowledge, it is good to be tested in a hostile environment; after all, what kind of person would one be if one lacks the courage of one’s convictions? Lacks the ability to stand for what one believes? Lacks the knowledge to prove one’s case and verify the foundation upon which one stands?

I love a challenge, and I love to tell the truth.

MF asked, “Can you back up anything you've said about Mattson?”

OT: What comments of Ms. Mattson do you take exception to?

My “backing up” of what I have said is exactly what I mentioned; I know her and understand her.

I am sure there are many comments that she made that can be taken out of context and presented in such a manner as to mean something very different than what she meant in saying them, o r to be used in selective outtakes to “imply” something different than their true context.

It happens to me all the time…take Concerned Citizen, for instance, with his op ed’s on my recent posts and those made elsewhere.

His is pretty sad example… trying to “show others” what I said, yet being unable to honestly convey it without peppering the document with his insertions, opinions, highlights, brackets, etc…. basically without infecting it with his projection bias…in light of the subject discussed, he has lost any relevance of the quote itself from its original meaning and context. Each little area he focuses on he manages to skew the meaning of it, to make it seem insidious.

Thanks for asking,

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 27, 2008 1:23 PM

Islam is so contextual. Is there another religion that portrays itself as so difficult to understand? Starting with an untranslatable language, it proceeds with a nonchronological, noncontextual narrative that must be deciphered with the "decoder ring" of the Sira and the Ahadith written over many decades after the "recitation". Then, any commentary provided by a devotee (scholar or average joe) about the same, no matter what length is quoted, is always out of context. ANY negative observation is likewise always sourcing materal out of context. It is truly amazing.

Fortunately, there is no degree in scholarship needed to understand the moral and ethical implications of an old man and his child bride enjoying a day watching 700+ men being decapitated, no matter what the "justification". It is sick. Add to it the portrayal of this being the "model of conduct" for all time and it only becomes sicker.

Please, everyone, enjoy Abdullah's uninfected Washington Post/Newsweek post below, sans commentary; draw your own conclusions:

As salaamu alaikum wa rahmat allahu wa barakatu,

On the subject of Sharia law and prescribed punishments, nothing is brutal about the deterrent when compared to the ultimate punishment for committing the crime despite the deterrent with no regret or remorse - in arrogance, and what follows that is the punishment from God. The punishment in this life is easier by far.

The obfuscation of the young woman’s case is a deplorable twist of the media taking focus away from what she was guilty of and making it seem as though she were being punished for being raped. No, that is not the case. She is being punished for violating the law which came to light when her case was revealed…she was given a lighter sentence for having been within the private company of a non family member male, then despite her guilt she fought the courts judgment and lost again and was handed a more severe punishment. The other crime she is not being penalized for as it is her attackers that were tried and convicted for that.

Hirsi Ali and her ilk are only here to cause division and confusion among Muslims who are not well founded in their faith. When one understands the truth about Islam and what it dictates in the form of human behavior one realizes that despite what happened to Hirsi Ali in her youth it had no basis or foundation in Islam at all and is only a brutal tribal custom of the ignorant Africans she lived among. Her entire entry into the literary world is based upon the false premise that she suffered “because” of Islam…no, she didn’t…she suffered because of ignorance.

There are many among our Muslim populations that give lip service to their faith, “Oh, yeah, I’m a Muslim.” But then they neither obey what they are ordered by God to do nor avoid what He has ordered them to avoid. Often these who give lip service only are the useful pawns of people like Hirsi Ali and others of her ilk, pointing to things that are not from Islam and smearing and obfuscating then throwing that negative pall over all of the Muslims. Then the “moderates” rise to give a hue and cry and basically get behind them in their efforts to smear Islam, unwittingly. If they would educate themselves and enforce the Quran and Sunnah upon themselves they would easily identify what the problem is.

The problem is Ignorance of Islam by non Muslims and Muslims themselves.

Surat Al Nisa 4: 136

“Oh, you who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger and the Book which He has revealed to His Messenger and the Book which He revealed before; and whoever disbelieves in Allah and His angels and His messengers and the last day, he indeed strays off into a remote error. “

Surat Al Tauba 9:119

“Oh! you who believe be careful of (your duty to) Allah and be with the true ones.”

Understand what the truth is and have proper knowledge BEFORE one speaks for or against a subject…understand the illa, the issue, that is at hand…because 99% of the time what the detractors and enemies of Islam forward as they scream injustice is not a result “of” Islam, but the negative outcome for disobeying the dictates of Islam.

Know your enemy because he, Iblis, Saytan, the Devil, knows you, the human being. He will pick out your weakness and exploit it…so do not refer to any negative human quality as “Muslim (insert whatever)-Ism” this in itself has become the hue and cry of the Saytan and their helpers even among the “moderate” Muslims.

Knowledge must precede action, and not the other way around.

There is no need to “defend” our faith against false accusations by those like Hirsi Ali…we who understand and have knowledge, Insha Allah, understand that her issue is with human beings disobeying Allah Sobhannah W’TAllah. Her issue is not with the Mummin, the true believers, because we study, and we learn, and we gain knowledge, and then we act on the order of Allah Who has forbidden oppression to the extent that He has even forbidden opression by Himself on any of his creation.

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

January 29, 2008 3:27 PM

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 27, 2008 2:12 PM

Concened Citizen, or should we say Putztrick Foole?

INFECTION ALERT!:

Islam is so contextual. Is there another religion that portrays itself as so difficult to understand? Starting with an untranslatable language, it proceeds with a nonchronological, noncontextual narrative that must be deciphered with the "decoder ring" of the Sira and the Ahadith written over many decades after the "recitation". Then, any commentary provided by a devotee (scholar or average joe) about the same, no matter what length is quoted, is always out of context. ANY negative observation is likewise always sourcing materal out of context. It is truly amazing.

Fortunately, there is no degree in scholarship needed to understand the moral and ethical implications of an old man and his child bride enjoying a day watching 700+ men being decapitated, no matter what the "justification". It is sick. Add to it the portrayal of this being the "model of conduct" for all time and it only becomes sicker.

END OF ALERT

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 27, 2008 3:07 PM

Abdullah,

Please keep your day job, humor is not your strong suit (nor "truth" or consistency, for that matter). Resorting to name calling are we? I thought you took issue with that. I'm sure you are aware of the abode of those calling another that name in the Gospels.

Since you obviously don't intend to address the remaining topics (e.g. refuting observations regarding Ms. Mattson based on her "in context" writings, the legitimacy of Shari'ah as civil legal code, your lack of consonance with the ideals of our Democratic Republic, etc.), perhaps you'd just like to post some additional writings yourself for us to assess without initial "infected" editorialization. Personally, I would like to see as topics:

1) Ms. Mattson's writings and international associations. Be bold and choose a controversial topic. Defend and promote Islam.
2) Shari'ah, in general and in specific real life application
3) Your analysis of the Declaration of Indepenence with specific reference to the inclusive "we" statements, and whether or not you find yourself in that group, as defined by the statements made within the text.

Or if you would like to continue to falsely strut as though you've scored points, you could just leave like a coward.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 27, 2008 4:34 PM

Concerned Citizen,

When you post dire insults, what do you expect in return? Roses thrown at your feet?

You have a mental block somewhere in your frontal lobe...you make dire insults and then you become offended when a mild one is returned?

Man, get some thicker skin, stop insulting, or stop being a hypocrite, any one of these three would raise the bar of your communication and we might both learn something other than how little we like the communication.

Capiche, Paisan?

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 27, 2008 5:25 PM

Am: We do not engage in this derision…it is a fault you will have to answer for all on your own.

Amazing projection, Abdullah. I have thin skin, and you don't? You can't accept any criticism of your faith at all, without sending the vultures of hell on me, and you fixate on one sentence.

Which "dire insult" did I render that wasn't true? "[D}ead, illiterate, Bedouin false prophet". Let's see, he's dead, he self confessed to being illiterate, Bedouin, check...oh, false prophet. What do you expect me to call him on this site? That is not an insult. You've got the thin skin, my bearded, epilated armpit friend. (If these things are true, and due to your proud fidelity to your code, they are not insults, are they?)

Since you are fond of brain anatomy, tell us what about your amygdala keeps you from reacting negatively to the draconian hadd punishments and dismemberments in the Shari'ah. Which cognitive associative center causes you to equate valid negative criticism of Islam with contextual error?

I asked you for your scholarly thematic defense on three relatively nonconstricting topics, of which you surely have some prewritten material. You dodged (I could have easily retrieved some from the Internet, but have refrained so that it wouldn't be "infected" by proximity to anything I've written). Let's raise that bar. Teach away.

Ms. Mattson is the topic of the thread, but personally, if you would like to combine topics 2 and 3 above (e.g. how your enthusiam for civil Shari'ah at home and abroad is compatible with fealty to the idealism of the Declaration and the integrity of the existing legal codices of the Union), I would be thrilled and enthralled.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 27, 2008 6:00 PM

Abdullah Mikail:

"I support justice and the rights afforded citizens under the constitution, which seems to be disregarded and trampled more and more in the zeal of special interest groups as they pursue special agendas"

Care to elaborate on who you believe these special interest groups to be, and what agenda you believe them to be pursuing?

Posted by: Matamoros at August 27, 2008 7:37 PM

Matamoros,

Patriot Act I, do you believe this seven hundred plus page legal document was "whooped up" over night in response to a single terrorist act?

Our legislators can't decide even a single issue that fast on anything. This was an attack on the constitution by a special interest group.

If we are to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies both foreign and domestic, what do we do when the greatest enemy to the constitution are those who call themselves "Patriots"?

There are other special interest groups, many, but they don't need to be named...pointing them out just gets the messenger attacked and people don't focus on the message.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 27, 2008 9:11 PM

Fellow JihadWatchers,

The following is intended to provoke a response to the above post from A.M. You may find it shocking, disturbing, haunting. I have been snubbed, and I don't take it lightly. Since he did not respond, here is Abdullah Mikhail in his own words, except where occasionally edited ("infected") and without reference to context:

Date: 5/25/2007 8:19 AM

Name: Abdullah Mikail MacKay
Subject: I apologize for anything offensive I posted to you

Comment: Dear Steve,
I have my brother SAM to thank for reminding me whom it is that I am. I should not have reacted in anger to anything you posted intending to insult you thereby, and I am truly sorry for it.
You have the right to your own opinion whether I agree with it or not and I should not have taken offense to what you post. I apologize for it. Don't misunderstand me because I am whom I am, and I only joined this blog a month ago. I can't apologize for what other people do that is akin to the social problems they have...they are not obeying Islam, they are following their own desires. Sorry for not having been a better person and for having intended to insult you.

Date: 5/24/2007 4:46 PM
Name: Abdullah Mikail MacKay
...Freedom is what I support, I supported it in the silent service, and I still do...so your Freedom is just as important to me as my Freedom, whether you believe it or not...because when you lose your Freedom that is when we both take up arms to go fight whomever it is that is trying to destroy our way of life.

Date: 5/24/2007 5:30 PM
Name: Abdullah Mikail MacKay
Subject: My mistake, and genuine apology is offered...
Comment: The "smear" comment was not intended to be an action that you were labeled in...just the activity that others are engaging in around you, and I posted in haste. I apologize to you sincerely.

Date: 5/24/2007 5:00 PM
Name: Abdullah Mikail MacKay
I don't think so...I love Semitic Jews ... and Semitic Arabs, both sons of Abraham, may God be pleased with them all.

Date: 5/24/2007 4:20 PM
Name: Abdullah Mikail MacKay
Subject: RE: RE: RE: Abdullah Mikail = Abdullah Mikail MacKay
Comment: Sayid Qutb never married, and the Prophet said that if a muslim did not marry then he was not of this Ummah. I have nothing to do with Sayid Qutb.

Date: 5/24/2007 9:49 PM
Name: Abdullah Mikail MacKay
"the cartoonist(DANISH), who explains his opinion by the picture,"
The reaction that people had to this was barbaric and not condoned in Islam...this was outrageous sinful behaviour. How could you even bring this up? If you are any kind of educated Muslim you should know this.

You are describing terrorism and this is not Islam...you of all people on this blog should know that...

Abdullah, if you do not respond to my post, I will post ALL of your self-deprecating apologetic, Jew-loving, Western freedom supporting, Wahhabi-denying, jihad-bashing comments.

For the last time, defend your views of Shari'ah here and abroad in light of the ideals of Western democracy, or else. This will get ugly. Your time is running out.

P.S. I am not the "Patrick Poole" (if that was your reference) of FrontPage comments. I have never posted there.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 27, 2008 10:11 PM

Re: Ingrid Mattson:

I realized after I wrote my post that Mattson's statements would only seem "damning" to someone who loves freedom, pluralism and democracy, which would probably leave out most Muslims.

But, for the record, I take issue with:

-Her being linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, and their goal of "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

And every statement they quoted of her at

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022342.php

Does that help?

Posted by: Mo Foe at August 27, 2008 10:24 PM

Re: Muhammad

None of what I said is simply "political propoganda", everything I said I can back up, either by the Qu'ran itself or by loyal Muslims of Muhammad's day. So, I'm talking fact.

Yes, I referred to the Bani Qurayza tribe when I said Muhammad had all the adult males beheaded. I'm not a scholar of the incident, but, I would like to know:

-Do you deny it happened? Or do you think that there is a valid justification for it?

I referred to his being a "savage homicidal warlord". That is what I call someone who ambushed caravans, killed in cold blood, and consolidated power by the sword.

-Do you deny all these things? Or are they just peachy as far as you're concerned?

I said he was a "sex slave owner". He took many women after killing their husbands (see "warlord", above) and had Allah justify his having sex with them. I can refer to your beloved holy book for proof.

Do you think this is good behavior?

I said he "had sex with a 9-year old" Aisha. You know her right?

Again, is this a man to model yourself after?

I said he "had his critics assassinated." You know about the poet whose throat was slit on his orders, right?

Again, is this cool with you?

I also said "His 'Allah' was also sure to back him up whenever he needed." Even Aisha found this curious. I would love to see a verse where Allah said "Slow down there Muhammad, you can't have/do/kill that!" Can you show me one?

And, finally, and most relevantly, i said "his followers today kill in his name, and want the world ruled under inhuman Islamic law"

Can you deny most terrorists are Muslims, that they justify acts of murder thru Islam?

Posted by: Mo Foe at August 27, 2008 10:39 PM

Abdulah Mikail:

"There are other special interest groups, many, but they don't need to be named...pointing them out just gets the messenger attacked and people don't focus on the message."

C'mon, Abdullah, we're all adults here. We won't be shocked by anything you say. And you've proved quite capable of defending yourself against rhetorical attacks. So please share with us the identity of these groups. Who knows, some people here may even be in agreement with you?

Posted by: Matamoros at August 28, 2008 8:53 AM

Concerned Citizen,

By all means post each and every comment of mine you like...they are all true, heartfelt, and still supported by me. Any of them that JW readers don't understand, they can go to FPM and read the entire exchange so they know just what was said.

Your denial is noted. You however have been on the FPM blogg...that's where my comments came from.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 28, 2008 8:57 AM

Moe Foe,

Are you one who has the courage of your convictions?

Much like in days of old, since you have "thrown down the gauntlet" then you must give me the right to "choice of arms"...so I will choose the point of arguement and you will agree to discuss that to the conclusion without deflection or mixing issues.

I would like to focus on these one at a time, to keep you on point and coveri the issue until it's resolution.

I take you up on your challenge.

Let's discuss Bani Qurayza, tell me what you know, I will respond with what I know.

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 28, 2008 9:04 AM

Abdullah M 7/24/2008 6:24 PM
The Sharia is not seperable from the Muslim and vice versa. Sharia is a huge subject that goes way beyond penalties for crime, which everyone gets hung up on ad nauseum. (I mean a little more than a hundred years ago they used to hang children for stealing bread in London, oh, wonderful progressive London...."but wait, we grew up!" Yeah, whatever...that's the usual copout...)

Truth

Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 9:51 AM

Date: 4/18/2007 5:10 PM
Name: Abdullah Mikail
Subject: RE: RE: which part of the koran legitimizes deception?

Narrated Jabir:
The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew)." Muhammad bin Maslama replied, "Do you like me to kill him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like." The Prophet replied, "I do (i.e. allow you)." [ed. Bukhari vol.4:271 p.168]

I do not know the validity of either of these posted hadiths....
Deception in time of war is a strategy of war and it is allowed, this is a simple fact.
However, in the second hadith [ed. quoted above, with reference added] we do not know what the circumstance is? I would assume time of war if Mohammad Bin Salaam were asking for permission to fight someone...I don't know...I am sure that the intended would not simply let himself be killed. ( I sure wouldn't!)
Furthermore, the translator has ( thrown in ) comments about ( i.e. a Jew ) and (i.e. allow you)." What is that? An antisemetic remark at best, it matters not who an enemy soldier is in time of war. I dislike that translators pepper documents with their ( opinion ) instead of sticking with just the facts. The key is to have the Arabic script for the hadith and a competent non biased translator.

[ed. "Between the battles of Badr and Uhud, the Messenger of God sent Muhammad b. Maslamah with his companions to Ka’b b. al-Ashraf, and they killed him. al-Tabari vol.9 p.121. Ka'b, born of a Jewish mother, was a poet who spoke verse against Mohammad.]

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 10:00 AM

Date: 4/18/2007 1:47 PM
Name: Abdullah Mikail
Subject: RE: Allah's Up The Alley With the Rest of the Hoods
Comment: Dr. Osher,
I question your scholarship. Do you know what you are saying...do you understand the subject of your lecture? Would you advise doing your research before defending your thesis, or would you adivse one to fly by the seat of their pants on heresay and fake it depending upon the words and opinions of the sincere enemies of what ever it is you presume to propose? You make sweeping comments about that which I haven't even glimpsed. There are Quranic laws and prohibitions that mirror ten commandments and then some. And Mohammad, may God be pleased with him, had nine wives and never physically touched any other woman than his wives...and need I remind you both Solomon and David had 99 wives...so I guess that makes our prophet 1/10th the womanizer of those other two prophets? No. They are all honorable and obeyed God and what they were allowed was from God...so you and I can not question their behaviour...they were Prophets...we should rather question our own behaviour, and correct it. Study before you lecture that you may be less likely to seem foolish when you speak to someone who knows more about what you are saying than you do. And how did the walls of Jericho fall? Right, a prophet was ordered to attack the city and they marched around it seven times blowing their trumpets and by the will of God the walls came down....the treasures were taken and piled up, then a prayer was made and the treasures were consumed by fire from the sky....that was the way of all prophets until the last, Mohammad, whom did nothing different than those prophets who came before, but that God allowed that he distribute the spoils of war rather than sacrifice them. I advise you to study the Quran and come back and tell us what you read, rather than what you refused to read, and let people judge from the truth of what is written.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 10:38 AM

Date: 10/7/2007 1:50 PM
Name: Abdullah M
Subject: RE: SAM111 to be clear about SHARIA and STONING
Comment:
"Should we stone the victim according to the Sharia law or not? "

This is a clear error in your thinking.

The perpetrator in the case of adultry is not a "victim", the "victim" is the spouse, male or female, that fell prey to an adulterer(ess) - in other words, the poor wife or husband who trusted their spouse who then went out in front of four witnesses and committed adultry.

Let us get very clear on whom the "victim" is in this situation.

First of all is the Muslim a married or unmarried adulterer(ess)?

And were they a convert to Islam or were they born into Islam?

First of all we must premise that this case occurs in an area under the jurisdiction of Sharia and that the people involved are Muslims of sound mind enough to understand the Sharia penalty for what they are accused of.

The part of the Sharia on this subject that I have studied dictates:

1) If the person is a married adulterer(ess) and, they were not converts, and they did the act in full public view of four witnesses who will testify, that person should be stoned to death.

2) If the person is a married adulterer(ess) and they were a convert, and they did the act in full public view of four witnesses who will testify, they should be publically flogged.

3) If the person is an unmarried adulterer(ess) and they did the act in full public view of four witnesses who will testify, they should be publically flogged and banished from that society for one year.

4) If the person is a married adulterer(ess) and there were no witneses other than the word of the other spouse then they may both be called upon to swear the Lian in front of witneses that each will go on record condemning themselves if they are lying about their testimony that the other is lying (about the charge of adultery), and swearing to accept the curse of God and His punishment on the day of judgement if they are lying. In this case the marriage is over immediately and no one gets punished here in life by anyone about that issue. God is the one Who punishes in that case.

5) If the person confesses themselves to the authority of the Sharia in that area and admits in open court to the full completion of the act of adultry ( hadith literature states a case such as this ) and this person is of sound mind, and they are given multiple chances to confirm this charge upon themselves by stating the confession three times, then they are to be taken out and stoned to death.

5A) BUT, if the person in 5) recants his or her own testimony at any time during the trial or punishment phase then the penalty cannot be carried out as the only witness in the case is the perpetrator against himself or herself, and thus they can not be punished.

These are the only cases that I have studied.

I can not put it any clearer than that.

The resdultant of this penalty being carried out in life is that God forgives the act entirely and their record is clean of it on the Day of Judgment. A past legislation in this case where a person bore witness against himself was stoned and later it was revealed in Hadith Qudsi by the Prophet that that person was in heaven for having confessed on himself and accepting the punishment.

These penalties are not brutality or incivility, they are a deterrent, and only apply to people who understand them, accept them, and agree to live under the authority of the governance in a land where Sharia law is the Law of the Land.

Let us see what your opinion is on the Fiqh rulings I have relayed above...to the best of my knowledge they are correct.

I am, however, verifying this with my local scholars to be sure I have not stated an error...if such is discovered I will post a retraction to that part.

SAM111, you more than anyone else here are aware that whole civilizations of people in the past were utterly destroyed for following the thought processes that they were better at legislating than God. You know this.

Now what is your opinion on the Sharia rulings above?

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 10:46 AM

Abdullah M 7/24/2008 5:40 PM

"Abdullah, do you believe the US should be under Sharia Law??"

We already do....what's the big deal? : )

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 10:56 AM

Abdullah M 7/25/2008 8:39 AM

"Time and again muslims have stated their goals of domination and it is about time we started listening to the freaks. "

You could always move to Romonia? : )

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 10:58 AM

Abdullah M 11/27/2007 2:28 PM

Lets try again...shall we?

1) “Responding to the question, Dr. Jamal Badawi, Member of the European Council for Fatwa and Research and the Fiqh Council of North America, states the following:

There are scholars who distinguish between apostasy on a personal level, which is not punishable by death, and apostasy that is accompanied by what we call today high treason, in which case the punishment is for high treason, not for apostasy. “

Abdullah States: I agree. Death to a person who commits treason is a just penalty. I do not accept that we put spies in prison in the US…they deserve death.

It is pretty clear. And in a state ruled by Sharia there are more than likely quite a few laws on the books against doing what you describe that do not include execution. A shameful public flogging, maybe, I don't know...I haven't researched it as it does not interest me.

If someone wants to leave Islam, fine, go...more room for the fifty other people joining Islam in their wake...at least that's the way it is happening where I live.

Peace ( that means don't hurt anyone )

Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 11:06 AM

Abdullah Mikail,

OK, this is way OT, but here's a rough sketch of what I know about the Banu Qurayza:

After "The Battle of the Trench" in which a Meccan army was unable to defeat Muhammad, he attacked the Banu Qurayza, for 25 days, after which they surrendered. Then, he had all the adult males beheaded and the children and women sold into slavery.

From the text of Sirat:

"Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them." [Sirat, page 464]

Posted by: Mo Foe at August 28, 2008 11:27 AM

Concerned Citizen,

Buck up little camper! You're hard at work pulling quotes out of context...oooohhh! There's that word again...if you could, please include a link so JW readers can go read the entire conversation chains...it's good reading...especially some of the "flaming" sessions.

And what do you think you have proved by re-posting these quotes (out of context I must add)?

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 28, 2008 11:50 AM

Well, so far, I've painted you as an uncompromising Shari'ah advocate, apologist, personal adherant and promotional enthusiast; a bait-and-switch tu quoque practitioner; academically slovenly (or a taqiyya artist); an opponent of at least one of the planks of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and someone who thinks the threat of Islamic supremacism is somehow amusing.

Prove me wrong. Answer the freaking question. Let us have a peek into that dichotomous, unconflicted mind, and I'll let you have the last word. BTW, this thread is only good for about 7 days (start date 8/25).

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 12:07 PM

Abdullah M 10/27/2007 12:45 AM

Islamists? No such thing...that is war propaganda

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 12:27 PM

Abdullah M 10/26/2007 12:41 PM

Until people stop trying to forward the association of Muslims with terrorism I think that they had better be prepared to explain themselves in front of a judge.

Sometimes when people are prone to criminal behviour the only solution is the intervention of the law.

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 12:31 PM

Abdullah M 10/27/2007 12:15 AM

...a little ashamed of being Irish...

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 12:34 PM

Abdullah M 10/27/2007 12:51 AM

Jesus said, "Turn the other cheek."

Mohammad said, "It is okay to slap them back...

Peace,

Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 12:35 PM

Abdullah M 10/26/2007 9:11 PM

My little girl could read and write when she was three, and now that she is five and a half she has memorized 27 of the 114 chapters in the Quran. That is why we sent her to private school...she's very intelligent and we want to take advantage of it..

Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 12:37 PM

Abdullah M 7/24/2008 5:27 PM

And his three kids will have six or eight each of their own...

and his 24 grandkids will outvote the snivelling French....

...and soon, the French will have the right to live freely with honor, dignity, and faith as Muslims.

Peace

Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 12:40 PM

Abdullah M 5/13/2008 2:14 PM

Like I said dumb, ABA or full contact rules, doesn't matter... prove you are insured, sign a release, and back up that big mouth of yours.

You cheeky little panzy.

: )

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 12:41 PM

Abdullah Mikail

As you are clearly still following this thread, will you please answer my request to name the "special interest groups" that you referred to in your post dated Aug 27, 9.11pm. It's a simple ask, and only requires a little honesty on your behalf.

Posted by: Matamoros at August 28, 2008 12:57 PM

Concerned Citizen,

"Well, so far, I've painted "

At least you are being responsible in some minute way.

How about posting the links to the threads so your fans can read the whole exchanges?

And I do find a lot of the shilling about grand world take over schemes amusing.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 28, 2008 1:48 PM

Moe Foe,

Thanks for commenting on the Bani Qurayza situation, as it is one that is misunderstood.

At the end of the battle the Bani Qurayza asked for and were allowed to have appointed over their judgement a respected member of the Bani Aws Jewish tribe..(in the past I commented in error that it was a bani Qurayza Jew, no, but it was a Jew, a Bani Aws Jewish tribal member.)

That Bani Aws Jewish judge sentenced that the bani Qurayza be executed for treason and the Prophet ordered that the judgement be carried out.

Mohammad did not pass judgement as the Quran had not yet been completely revealed.

It was the bani Aws Jewish judge who sentenced the Bani Qurayza to death for Treason under Jewish Law.

What does the UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice, state about sedition?

BEGIN EXCERPT:

904. ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY

Any person who--

(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or [protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;

shall suffer death

END OF EXCERPT

The Bani Qurayza committed sedition, high treason, during the Battle of the Trench.

In time of war it has always been, and appears that it will always be, Death for a traitor.

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 28, 2008 1:57 PM

Why don't you just answer the question, it would save us both a lot of time.

Mattson at the DNC could easily be another MB associate at the RNC, or the Pentagon, or DHS, etc. The issue of appropriateness boils down to the basic tension of compatibility of East vs. West, "Us" vs. "The Other".

Please. Assuage us. Make us understand that you hold the same values, the same "truths to be self-evident", that we do.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 2:00 PM

Matamoros,

Defining "Special interest groups" is a vast subject, so I'll name just three:

1) Military Industrial Complex

2) Oil Corporations, Multinational Corporations

3) Foreign Aid

Into #3 can be inserted a plethora of problematic relationships that are based on our foreign policy which also is shaped by the special interst groups named above #3.

Why do you think the US Gov doesn't bat an eye at Saudi Arabia or China for any reason? #2 is the answer.

See how this simplified concept works?

Fair enough?

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 28, 2008 2:03 PM

Concerned Citizen,

I answered the question like ten minutes ago...Robert's people are "holding on to it" for some reason?

Maybe it has something to do with the links you posted in your question...any way, I have been more civil and accommodating to you and I am satisfied in that.

Have a great day. : )

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 28, 2008 2:06 PM

You could have just assumed it didn't go through for the usual technical reasons and reposted.

"Robert's people" is a TypeKey software subroutine and doesn't filter anything except blocked posters to my knowledge. It takes a live human reading a post to request a deletion, unless you changed handles and it was a "first post". "[L]inks you posted in your question"??? You certainly post often enough that you should no how the system works.

It did not appear, it was not removed. I suspect you did not send it. I think you are afraid to attempt to lucidly spell out your positions and to be held responsible for them. That is hardly accomodating; the word cowardly comes to mind.

On the other topic,

From Wikipedia,

The Aws, who wanted to honor their old alliance with the Qurayza, asked Muhammad to treat the Qurayza leniently as he had previously treated the Qaynuqa for the sake of Ibn Ubayy. (Arab custom required support of an ally, independent of the ally's conduct to a third party.) Muhammad then suggested to bring the case before an arbitrator chosen from the Aws, to which both the Aws and the Qurayza agreed to. Muhammad then appointed Sa'd ibn Mua'dh.

Technically, Sa'd ibn Mua'dh was of the Aws, but had become a Muslim, and bore grudge of his soon to be mortal infection from injury in the Battle of the Trench. By any definition of Judaism, he was no longer a Jewish member of the Aws, and was certainly not the arbitrator agreed to. Mohammad, the appointer of Sa'd, knew that his "verdict" would be a foregone conclusion, so the ultimate blame of the outcome rests on Mohammad. Further, as this became the subsequent modus operandi of the "prophet", the divestment of responsibility loses all credibility.

BTW, it is usually just the leaders that are tried for sedition.

Mohammad not only "vicariously" had them murdered, he enjoyed the whole spectacle with his tiny child bride whose young mind surely was warped beyond repair by the experience.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 2:38 PM

Reiterating, it is usually just the leaders that are tried for sedition.

Ibn Ishaq says:

A number of Jews who had formed a party against the apostle, among whom were Sallam b. Abu'l—Huqayq al—Nadir [he had been assassinated so the chronology or his placement here is off], and Huyayy b. Aktab al—Nadri, and Kinana b. Abu'l—Huaqayq al—Nadri, and Hauda b. Qays al—Wa'ili, and Abu Ammar al—Wa'ili with a number of B. [Bani or tribe or clan] Nadir and B. Wa'il, went to the Quraysh at Mecca and invited them to join them in an attack on the apostle so that they might get rid of him altogether. (p. 450).

If in fact there were bonafide treaties and alliances that had been broken, the "culprits" were known to Mohammad. Why then a genocidal pogrom against ALL of the mature males of the tribe? Spoils, women and workers (slaves) meant more to Mohammad than mercy.

A brief summary of the episode from American Thinker (2006)

1. After the Meccans and their allies depart, the Jews are left powerless and outnumbered, facing 3,000 Muslim jihadists.

2. While the Jews were negotiating the terms of surrender with Abu Lubaba, he gestures to his throat, which indicates slaughter. This means that the flow of the events headed in one direction.

3. Sad bin Muadh is the leader of the Aws tribe.

4. This tribe had old alliances, whatever they were, with the Qurayzah tribe of Jews.

5. However, the Aws fought alongside Muhammad.

6. The Jews sided with the coalition (though the Jews did not actually fight).
7. Thus, the old alliances between the Aws and Jews are weakening.

8. After Muhammad's attack on the Jews, some of the Aws plead with Muhammad to be lenient, such as expulsion.

9. Muhammad turns down this request for mercy—a key point, which supports no. 2. The outcome is never in doubt.

10. Instead, Muhammad appoints Sad bin Muadh to decide, and everyone agrees to abide by his decision.

11. Sad decrees slaughter and enslavement, wanting to firm up his allegiance to Islam before he dies. He dies shortly thereafter from his wound.

12. Muhammad says that Sad's verdict is the judgment of 'King Allah.' It is right and just. Sad makes him glad.

13. Even though everyone agrees to abide by the verdict, Muhammad still does not show mercy, as the men and boys are handcuffed behind their backs and beheaded, and the women and children are enslaved. Instead, he takes one of the beautiful, recently 'widowed' Jewish women for himself.

14. Muhammad gets twenty percent of the Jewish property (movable, immovable and human), and the jihadists get eighty percent, to be distributed as he sees fit.

From:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/02/muhammad_and_massacre_of_the_q.html

Please read it all.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 3:41 PM

Tabari VIII:39 "After the affair of the Qurayza ended, the wound of Sa'd broke open. Aisha reports: He passed judgment on the Jews and prayed saying, 'O Allah, You know that there are no men whom I would rather fight and strive to kill than men who called Your Messenger a liar.'"

Bukhari:V5B59N459 "I entered the Mosque, saw Abu, sat beside him and asked about sex. Abu Said said, 'We went out with Allah's Apostle and we received female slaves from among the captives. We desired women and we loved to do coitus interruptus.'"

Tabari VIII:40 "Aisha, the Mother of the Faithful, was asked, 'How did the Messenger of God behave.' She replied, 'His eye did not weep for anyone.'"

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 4:00 PM

BTW, Abdullah,

I have written Robert to see if we can resolve the issue of your post being "held on to". I look forward to reading your exposition.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 4:05 PM

Patriot Act I, do you believe this seven hundred plus page legal document was "whooped up" over night in response to a single terrorist act?

Our legislators can't decide even a single issue that fast on anything. This was an attack on the constitution by a special interest group.

Posted by: Abdullah Mikhail

Defining "Special interest groups" is a vast subject, so I'll name just three: 1) Military Industrial Complex 2) Oil Corporations, Multinational Corporations 3) Foreign Aid

Posted by: Abdullah Mikhail

The act expands the authority of U.S. law enforcement agencies for the stated purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and abroad. Among its provisions, the Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA Patriot Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.

Wikipedia

The Military Industrial Complex, Oil/Multinational Corporations, and Foreign Aid organizations wanted to eavesdrop, snoop, regulate financial transactions and deport immigrants for purposes other than protecting the country? Aren't there more efficient ways of "whooping up" wars, making profits, and ... and...giving out aid? Are you out of your mind?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 4:41 PM

Abdullah Mikail,

You have provided not shred of evidence that the Banu Qurayza committed sedition; your cutting and pasting of the definition of sedition proves nothing.

Whereas, Concerned Citizen and I have backed up our claims with the accounts of pious Muslim sources.

You seem to have lost this one, in terms of a preponderance of evidence on our side (not just propaganda), whereas you apparently expect us to just take your word for it, with no support whatsoever. Talk about propaganda!

Here's more, and while I admit the editorializing is not from original sources, the quotes themselves would be sufficient by themselves.

From http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Jews/BQurayza/banu3.html

[ In the last part we have investigated the personality of Sa`d bin Mu`adh is, his character, his hatred for the Jews, and in particular his last wish of finishing off the Banu Qurayza. That was a long chapter. For reminder and summary, let us requote a few pertinent statements:

"Yes, by God," he replied, "it is the first defeat that God has brought on the infidel and I would rather see them slaughtered than left alive." [Sirat, p. 301]
'O you Muslims! Who will relieve me from that man who has hurt me with his evil statement about my family? By Allah, I know nothing except good about my family and they have blamed a man about whom I know nothing except good and he used never to enter my home except with me.' Sad bin Mu'adh the brother of Banu 'Abd Al-Ashhal got up and said, 'O Allah's Apostle! I will relieve you from him; if he is from the tribe of Al-Aus, then I will chop his head off, and if he is from our brothers, i.e. Al-Khazraj, then order us, and we will fulfill your order.' [Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 462]

The last direct encounter of Sa`d with the Banu Qurayza ended in insult:

[T]hey spoke disparagingly of the apostle, saying, `Who is the apostle of God? We have no agreement or undertaking with Muhammad.' Sa'd b. Mu'adh reviled them and they reviled him. He (Sa`d) was a man of hasty temper and Sa`d b. `Ubada said to him, 'Stop insulting them, for the dispute between us is too serious for recrimination.' Then the two Sa`ds returned to the apostle ... [page 453]
His last will:

"O God, seeing that you have appointed war between us and them grant me martyrdom and do not let me die until I have seen my desire upon B. Qurayza." [page 459]
Is there any room for ambiguity in these statements? Muhammad knew all this. Muhammad was a great leader. He knew his men and he in particularly knew Sa`d. Could it be that this information is the reason why he gave the judgement of the Qurayza to Sa`d? ]

Shall we move on to the sex-slave ownership aspect of your "holy" man? Hmmm?

Posted by: Mo Foe at August 28, 2008 6:09 PM

Concerned Citizen,

I made no inference that the "special intersts" behind the Partriot Act I and II had anything to do with the three "special interests" I mentioned.

However, true to form, you picked your arms up just enough so the knuckles wouldn't drag, reached for the keyboard, and did just what I told Moe Foe a person like you would do if I mentioned any special interest group...remember "a vast subject"?

Out of the vast number, the three mentioned have nothing to do with the Patriot Act or the reason it was put into law.

Care to rephrase your weak attack in light of reality?

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 28, 2008 6:16 PM

Abdullah Mikail:

Matamoros, defining "Special interest groups" is a vast subject, so I'll name just three:

Thank you, Abdullah. Now we're getting somewhere. The first two I can comprehend - they are, after all, the standard bogeymen for a million conspiracy theories. But I was puzzled by your third example.

How does the donation of foreign aid constitute a threat? You give a brief explanation - "a plethora of problematic relationships that are based on our foreign policy". But then you claim that US foreign policy is also being "shaped by the special interest groups named above #3".

Was that a mistake? Or were you suggesting that countries in receipt of US foreign aid are in turn shaping US foreign policy? Care to clarify?

Posted by: Matamoros at August 28, 2008 6:17 PM

Moe Foe,

There are questions about the authenticity of the numbers and the incident itself, see here:

http://www.haqq.com.au/~salam/misc/qurayza.html

also

Hajj Gibril, Sunnipath

The Banu Qurayza committed high treason by breaking their oath of alliance with the Muslims and turning against them in time of war. When the battle against them was over, the Prophet, upon him peace, searched for an arbiter known and accepted to both sides who would rule concerning their penalty. The arbiter chosen was Sa`d ibn Mu`adh, who had been mortally wounded and died shortly afterwards. Sa`d said: "I will judge them according to the Law of Musa." He was of the tribe of Aws, who were the allies of the Jewish Banu Qurayza, the men who were executed. They assented to whatever verdict he would give as a leader from Aws.

Ibn Kathir in al-Bidaya mentions that the number of the men executed after the 25-day siege were 400, and that another version says 700. Someone said that the decision was probably taken by Sa`d ibn Mu`adh in light of Deuteronomy 20:12-14.

END OF EXCERPT

We can go round and round poking holes in each others references.

The fact remains, the Banu Qurayza chose to surrender and chose their mutual arbiter who was Jewish and judged them under Mosaic law.

The traitors, total number that were executed is under question, were then executed.

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 28, 2008 6:40 PM

Abdullah,

I know you are new around here, so you should know I am not Jewish, so you can drop the "ape" analogies. I'm a Christian, so from your perspective, "pig" analogies would be a propos.

Abdullah Mikail:

"I support justice and the rights afforded citizens under the constitution, which seems to be disregarded and trampled more and more in the zeal of special interest groups as they pursue special agendas"

Care to elaborate on who you believe these special interest groups to be, and what agenda you believe them to be pursuing?

Posted by: Matamoros at August 27, 2008 7:37 PM

Matamoros,

Patriot Act I, do you believe this seven hundred plus page legal document was "whooped up" over night in response to a single terrorist act?

Our legislators can't decide even a single issue that fast on anything. This was an attack on the constitution by a special interest group.

If we are to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies both foreign and domestic, what do we do when the greatest enemy to the constitution are those who call themselves "Patriots"?

There are other special interest groups, many, but they don't need to be named...pointing them out just gets the messenger attacked and people don't focus on the message.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 27, 2008 9:11 PM

Abdulah Mikail:

"There are other special interest groups, many, but they don't need to be named...pointing them out just gets the messenger attacked and people don't focus on the message."
C'mon, Abdullah, we're all adults here. We won't be shocked by anything you say. And you've proved quite capable of defending yourself against rhetorical attacks. So please share with us the identity of these groups. Who knows, some people here may even be in agreement with you?

Posted by: Matamoros at August 28, 2008 8:53 AM

Abdullah Mikail

As you are clearly still following this thread, will you please answer my request to name the "special interest groups" that you referred to in your post dated Aug 27, 9.11pm. It's a simple ask, and only requires a little honesty on your behalf.

Posted by: Matamoros at August 28, 2008 12:57 PM

Care to rephrase your weak response in light of the way YOU associated the request for definition of "special interest groups" with the Patriot Act ("what agenda") and "other" special interest groups?

Have you tried to "repost" your response to my question yet? Cat ate your harddrive?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 6:50 PM

Matamoros,

Without dragging this out or making it too specific, consider "foreign aid".

Military hardware, cash, trade incentives...etc.

The "recipients" of these gain clout verses their neighbors...this causes issues. Then the aid to the "neighbors" causes concerns in the "recipients"...and the dominoes fall.

This is what I mean.

These recipients of aid affect the governance here, the decision making process, etc.

Special interests that shape policy. #3.

Not a mistake, a generalized indication of where a problem exists that is a traditional "devil circle".

Try, either you or I, to stop this foreign aid to any entitiy...after all, it is mine and your taxes...and see what happens.

We don't need to become an Island, but we need to stop being the world's blank check...

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 28, 2008 6:52 PM

The Banu Qurayza committed high treason by breaking their oath of alliance with the Muslims and turning against them in time of war.

No, they stayed neutral. That is not "high treason". It's a conscientious objection exclusion. What evidence do you have they fought?

Muhammad's army consisted of

'practically all the inhabitants of Medina with the exception of the Jewish tribe of Qurayzah, who seem to have tried to remain neutral. There were some Medinans in league with the Meccans, but they were presumably . . . exiled from Medina for the time being' (Muhammad at Medina, p. 36).

...searched for an arbiter known and accepted to both sides who would rule concerning their penalty.

Appointed, not searched. They agreed to an mutually agreeable arbiter from the Aws, instead they got ex-Aws, hell-bent on retribution, Sa'd.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 6:58 PM

Jihad Watch
Thank You for Commenting
Your comment has been received. To protect against malicious comments, I have enabled a feature that allows your comments to be held for approval the first time you post a comment. I'll approve your comment when convenient; there is no need to re-post your comment. Return to the comment page

Sorry Concerned Citizen I keep getting this note.

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 28, 2008 6:58 PM

Uh huh. And the reason you didn't get it on the note you just posted was....?

"...the first time you post..."

Sly, subtle handle change for plausible deniability, perhaps? I count 20 posts from you this thread. I think you've got it figured out.

And I thought you were going to establish to the whole world exactly how fundamentalist Islamic ideology was compatible and consonant with the ideals of Western democracy, finally and firmly removing the sneer quotes from its nom de plume, "Religion of Peace", hastening a new era of interfaith dialogue, group hugs, and kumbaya choruses.

Sad.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 28, 2008 10:34 PM

Concerned Citizen

I just posted what the blog issued to me when it denied me the right to post it. Send me an e-mail and tomorrow I'll post the comments to you personally and you can try to post them here.

challengingreddyneck@yahoo.com

At an SMU interfaith symposium I am guest speaking, and the people are warm and friendly and appreciate my straight forwardness, I have a few more weeks of meetings to go to with them and I hope I make a few friends there outside of the smposium...so, I guess I am way ahead of you there on the interfaith dialogue thing?

Go figure...imagine if you weren't so off into gadfly commments? We might both learn from one another more than how to riposte a smart comment.

Well, if you really wanna hug and sing kumbaya, hey, I'll accommodate you. (hug)

Truth, with just a touch of humor. : )

P.S. I'm still keeping my day job.

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 28, 2008 10:52 PM

Moe Foe,

You did demand "proof" of the treachery, so here it is...very long and boring read, but proof of the treachery from witnesses. Sorry I don't have the Polaroids and the video from the event, it was a rather long time ago, and this took me a few hours to compile, so please read at least some of it before scoffing : )

From the Biography of Khalifaa Abu Bakr:

Treachery of Banu Quraiza.

After the expulsion of the Jews of the Banu Bainuqa' and Bani Nadeer, the Jews of Banu Quraiza alone remained in Madina. They assured the Holy Prophet of their loyalty. In the battle of the Ditch, the Banu Nadeer Jews who had been expelled by the Muslims to Khyber were in the forefront in the matter of hostility to the Muslims. Huyayy b Akhtab the leader of the Banu Nadeer opened negotiations with Banu Quraiza to attack the Muslims from behind. Ka'ab b Asad the leader of the Banu Quraiza at first hesitated, but when it was brought to him that in view of the overwhelming strength of the coalition against the Muslims, the Muslims were apt to be destroyed, the Banu Quraiza agreed to throw in their lot with the coalition against the Muslims.

Holy Prophet's emissary to Bana Quraiza.

Banu Quraiza were an ally of the Aus. When the Holy Prophet came to know of the intended treachery of Banu Quraiza, he sent Sa'ad b Ma'aadh, the leader of the Aus, as an emissary to Banu Quraiza. He tried to prevail upon Banu Quraiza the desirability of remaining faithful to their pact with the Holy Prophet. In a fit of arrogance Ka'ab b Asad said, "Who is the Prophet of God ? There is no agreement between us and Muhammad." The mission of Sa'ad b Ma'aadh failed, and the position of the Muslims exposed to attack from within as well as without seemed to be
precarious. The Holy Prophet, however, did not lose heart He felt confident that God would help the Muslims. And God did help the Muslims. Before Quraiza would attack the Muslims, the coalition against the Muslims withdrew and the siege was lifted.

Action against Banu Quraiza.

With the disintegration of the forged united front against the Muslim, the initiative once again came to rest with the Muslims. Immediately the battle of the ditch was over, the Holy Prophet moved with his force against Banu Quraiza to chastise them for their treachery. Huyayy b Akhtab the leader of Banu Nadeer promised the Banu Quraiza every possible help, and to assure them of Banu Nadeer help he came to reside with Banu Quraiza. When the Muslims marched against Banu Quraiza, the latter shut themselves in their forts. Ka'ab b Asad the leader of Banu Quraiza advised his tribe to be converted to Islam or acknowledge the suzerainty of the Muslims. Under the influence of Huyayy b Akhtab, the Banu Quraiza did not accept the advice of their leader, and said that they would fight to the bitter end.

Fate of Banu Quraiza.

The Muslim tightened the siege, and took steps to ensure that no outside help could reach Banu Quraiza. The siege lasted for a fortnight, and ultimately brought to bay, Banu Quraiza surrendered, and pleaded that the same terms should be allowed to them as had been offered to Banu Qainuqa' and Banu Nadeer before them. This was not agreed to by the Holy Prophet as he had enough of the treachery of Banu Nadeer. After further negotiations it was decided that an arbitrator should be appointed who should decide the fate of Banu Quraiza. As Ranu Quraiza were allied with the Aus, they named Sa'ad b Ma'aadh, the leader of the Aus, as the arbitrator. The Holy Prophet accordingly appointed Sa'ad b Ma'aadh as the arbitrator. On his appointment as arbitrator, Sa'ad b Ma'aadh took a pledge from both the parties that whatever decision was given by him would be binding on both the parties. After the pledge had been given, Sa'ad asked the Jews as to what was the penalty of traitors under Jewish law. It was discovered that the penalty in such cases was death. Sa'ad next posed the question whether the Jews had any pact with the Muslims. It was brought to light that there was originally such an agreement. Sa'ad then asked whether ii was a fact that they had repudiated that agreement on the occasion of the battle of the Ditch. This could not be denied by the Jews as Sa'ad had come to them as an emissary and they had told him at that time that they had no agreement with the Muslims. Sa'ad accordingly gave the award that as the Jews had acted as traitors, all the adult male Jews deserved to be killed under the Jewish law. The sentence was duly executed and that was the end of Banu Quraiza.

From the Biography of Khalifa Ali Bin Talib:

The forces of the Quraish and the Arab tribes arrived beating drums, and raising shouts boasting, of their strength and invincibility. When they reached Madina, and found that a ditch intervened between them and Madina. They were confused as the Arabs were not used to ditch warfare. They set up their camps at some distance from the Ditch. Thus began the siege of Madina. The enemy made several attempts to cross the ditch, but the Muslim archers kept them at bay. The enemy approached the Jews of Banu Quraiza in Madina to help them in crossing the ditch. The Banu Quraiza were heavily bribed. They threw some dead animals in that part of the ditch where the Muslim defense was not very strong. Due to the treachery of the Banu Quraiza, some warriors of the Quraish led by Amr b Abdwoud managed to cross the ditch. Brandishing his sword, Amr challenged the Muslims to a duel in single combat; Amr was a formidable man who enjoyed the reputation of being equal to a thousand men in physical strength. Ali rose to accept the challenge. The Holy Prophet bade him sit down. Amr repeated his challenge for the second time, and Ali rose up once again to accept the challenge. The Holy Prophet once
again asked Ali to sit down. Amr gave the challenge for the third time and Ali stood up again to accept the challenge. This time the Holy Prophet let Ali accept the challenge. When the duel began Ali appeared to be no match for Amr. Amr confident of his physical strength said to Ali that he did not want to kill him. Ali retorted that he intended to kill him. Amr succeeded in inflicting some wounds on Ali, but each time Ali aimed a blow, Amr successfully avoided the blows of Ali. When it appeared that the end of Ali was imminent, something miraculous happened. Amr imagined that some one was going to stab him in the rear. He turned his head. It was for a moment, but Ali took full advantage of the opportunity, and with a blow of his sword cut off the feet of Amr. Amr fell down, and Ali stabbed him to death. Thereupon Usl the son of Amr fell upon Ali. Ali was now as ferocious as a lion. He killed Usl with one stroke of his sword. Thereafter Naufal attacked Ali. Ali charged with full force, and while retreating Naufal fell in to the ditch, Ali jumped after him in the ditch and killed him there. Ikrama b Abu Jahl who had crossed the ditch along with Amr did not dare face Ali. He along with all other men who had crossed the ditch withdrew, and after again crossing the ditch found refuge in their camp. Ali was the hero of the day. It came to be felt that if Ali could overthrow Amr who was believed to be equivalent to a thousand men, Ali would be a man equivalent to ten thousand men. When the sister of Amr came to know that her brother had been killed she inquired from the people as to who had killed him, and when she came to know that Ali had killed him, she said that verily Ali was the bravest man among the Quraish.

From the Biography of Khalifa Uthman bin Ghani:

In the battle of the Trench, the Jews of Banu Quraiza acted treacherously. Their treachery was established, and they were given the ultimatum. Instead of appeasing the Muslims they chose to adopt an attitude of defiance. They were besieged, and they ultimately surrendered. An arbitrator was appointed to determine their fate. The arbitrator gave the award that in accordance with the Jewish law all male Jews should be killed, and all children and women should be taken captive as slaves. This award was duly executed. All Jewish slaves were purchased by Uthman. Most of these slaves accepted Islam and Uthman liberated them. It is reported that Uthman used to liberate a slave every Friday.

Yusuf Ali – Note 3703 ( Sura 33 Ayah 26)

Sad applied to them the Jewish Law of the Old Testament, not as strictly as the case warranted. In Deut. Xx. `0-18, the treatment of a city “which is very far off from thee” is prescribed to be comparatively more lenient than the treatment of a city “of those people, which the Lord thy God does give thee for an inheritance,” i.e., which is near enough to corrupt the religion of the Jewish people. The punishment for these is total annihilation: “thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth” (Deut. XX> 16). The more lenient treatment for far-off cities is described in the next note. According to the Jewish standard, then, the Banu Quraiza deserved total extermination-of men, women, and children. They were in the territory of Madinah itself, and further they had broken their engagements and helped the enemy.

Yusuf Ali – Note 3704 (Sura 33 Ayah 26)

Sad adjudged them the milder treatment of the “far-off” cities which is thus described in the Jewish law: “Thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: but the women and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself, and though shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord God hath given thee” (Deut. XX. 13-14) Then men of the Quraiza were slain: the women were sold as captives of war, and their lands and properties were divided among the Muhijirs.

All Below from Al Bukhari Hadiths:

Narrated Abu Said Al Khudri

When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah."

Narrated Aisha

When Allah's Apostle returned on the day (of the battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench), he put down his arms and took a bath. Then Gabriel whose head was covered with dust, came to him saying, "You have put down your arms! By Allah, I have not put down my arms yet. "Allah's Apostle said, "Where (to go now)?" Gabriel said, "This way," pointing towards the tribe of Bani Quraiza. So Allah's Apostle went out towards them .

Narrated Abu Said Al Khudri

Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the mosque, the Prophet said, "Get up for the best amongst you." or said, "Get up for your chief." Then the Prophet said, "O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "I judge that their warriors should be killed and their
children and women should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment (or the King's judgment)."

Narrated Abu Said Al Khudri

The people of (Banu) Quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Mu'adh. So the Prophet sent for Sad, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, "Get up for your chief or for the best among you." Then the Prophet said (to Sad), "These (i.e. Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your
verdict." Sad said, "Kill their (men) warriors and take their offspring as captives, "On that the Prophet said, "You have judged according to Allah's Judgment," or said, "according to the King's judgment."

Narrated Aisha

Sad was wounded on the day of Khandaq (i.e. Trench) when a man from Quraish, called Hibban bin Al-'Araqa hit him (with an arrow). The man was Hibban bin Qais from (the tribe of) Bani Mais bin 'Amir bin Lu'ai who shot an arrow at Sad's medial arm vein (or main artery of the arm). The Prophet pitched a tent (for Sad) in the mosque so that he might be near to the Prophet to visit. When the Prophet returned from the (battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench) and laid down his arms and took a bath Gabriel came to him while he (i.e. Gabriel) was shaking the dust off his head, and said, "You have laid down the arms?" By Allah, I have not laid them down. Go out to them (to attack them)." The Prophet said, "Where?" Gabriel pointed towards Bani Quraiza. So Allah's Apostle went to them (i.e. Banu Quraiza) (i.e. besieged them). They then surrendered to the Prophet's judgment but he directed them to Sad to give his verdict concerning them. Sad said, "I give my judgment that their warriors should be killed, their women and children should be taken as captives, and their properties distributed."

Narrated Abu Said

The people of (the tribe of) Quraiza agreed upon to accept the verdict of Sa'd. The Prophet sent for him (Sa'd) and he came. The Prophet said (to those people), "Get up for your chief or the best among you!" Sa'd sat beside the Prophet and the Prophet said (to him), "These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sa'd said, "So I give my judgment that their warriors should be killed and their women and children should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have judged according to the King's (Allah's) judgment."

F. Malik Sura Introduction, Sura 59 Al Hashr:

In order to understand the subject matter of this Surah, it is necessary to know the history of the Jews residing in Madinah and Hijaz, for without it, one cannot understand the real causes behind the way the Prophet's dealt with their different tribes.

Historical Background of the Jews in Madina:

According to Abul A'la Maududi, no authentic history of the Arabian Jews exists in the world. They have not left any writings of their own in the form of a book or a tablet which might shed light on their past, nor have the Jewish historians and writers of the non-Arab world made any mention of them. The reason being that after their settlement in the Arabian peninsula, they had detached themselves from the main body of the Jewish nation, and the Jews of the world did not count them among themselves. They had given up the Hebrew culture and language, even the names, and adopted Arabism instead. In tablets that have been
unearthed in archaeological research in the Hijaz, no trace of the Jews is found before the first century of the Christian era, except for a few Jewish names. Therefore, the history of the Arabian Jews is based mostly on the verbal traditions prevalent among the Arabs most of which bad been spread by the Jews themselves.

The Jews of the Hijaz claimed that they had come to settle in Arabia during the last stage of the life of the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him). They said that the Prophet Moses had despatched an army to expel the Amalekites from the land of Yathrib and had commanded it not to spare even a single soul of that tribe. The Israelite army carried out the Prophet's command, but spared the life of a handsome prince of the Amalekite king and returned with him to Palestine. By that time the Prophet Moses had passed away. His successors took great exception to what the army had done, for by sparing the life of an Amalekite, it had clearly disobeyed the Prophet and violated the Mosaic law. Consequently, they excluded the army from their community, and it had to return to Yathrib and settle there forever. (Kitab al-Aghani, vol. xix, p. 94). Thus the Jews claimed that they had been living in Yathrib since about 1200 B.C. But, this had in fact no historical basis. The Jews probably had invented this story in order to overawe the Arabs into believing that they were of noble lineage and the original inhabitants of the land.

The second Jewish immigration, according to the Jews, took, place in 587 BC. when Nebuchadnezzer, the King of Babylon, destroyed Jerusalem and dispersed the Jews throughout the world. The Arab Jews said that several of their tribes at that time had come to settle in Wadi al-Qura, Taima, and Yathrib. (Al-Baladhuri, Futuh al-Buldan). But this too has no historical basis. By this they also might have wanted to prove that they were the original settlers of the area.

As a matter of fact, in A. D. 70 the Romans massacred the Jews in Palestine, and then in A. D. 132 expelled them from that land, many of the Jewish tribes fled to find an asylum in the Hijaz, a territory that was contiguous to Palestine in the south. There they settled wherever they found water springs and greenery, and then by intrigue and through money lending business gradually occupied the fertile lands. Ailah, Maqna, Tabuk, Taima, Wadi al Qura, Fadak and Khayber came under their control in that very period, and Bani Quraizah, Bani al-Nadhir, Bani Bahdal and Bani Qainuqa also came in the same period and occupied Yathrib.

Among the tribes that settled in Yathrib the Bani An-Nadhir and the Bani Quraizah were more prominent for they belonged to the Cohen or priest class. They were looked upon as of noble descent and enjoyed religious leadership among their co-religionists. When they came to settle in Madinah there were some other tribes already living there. They subdued them and became the
owners of this green and fertile land. About three centuries later, in A. D. 450 or 451, the great flood of Yaman occurred which has been mentioned in vv. 16-17 of Surah Saba. As a result of this, different tribes of the people of Saba were compelled to leave Yaman and disperse to different parts of Arabia. Thus, the Bani Ghassan went to settle in Syria, Bani Lakhm in Hirah (Iraq), Bani Khuza'ah between Jeddah and Makkah and the Aus and the Khazraj went to settle in Yathrib. As Yathrib was under Jewish domination, they at first did not allow the Aus and the Khazraj to gain a footing and the two Arab tribes had to settle on lands that had not yet been brought under cultivation. There they could hardly produce enough to enable them to survive. At last, one of their chiefs went to Syria to ask for the assistance of their Ghassanide brothers; he brought an army from there and broke the power of the Jews. Thus, the Aus and the Khazraj were able to gain complete dominance over Yathrib, with the result that two of the
major Jewish tribes, Bani an-Nadhir and Bani Quraiza were forced to take quarters outside the city. Since the third tribe, Bani Qainuqa, was not on friendly terms with the other two tribes, it stayed inside the city as usual, but had to seek
protection of the Khazraj tribe. As a counter measure to this, Bani an-Nadhir and Bani Quraizah took protection of the Aus tribe so that they could live in peace in the suburbs of Yathrib.

Before the Prophet's arrival at Madinah and until his emigration, the following were the main features of the Jews position in Hijaz in general and in Yathrib in particular

In the matter of language, dress, civilization and way of life they had completely adopted Arabism, even their names had become Arabian. Of the 12 Jewish tribes that had settled in Hijaz, none except the Bani Zaura retained its Hebrew name. Because of this Arabism, the western orientalists have been misled into thinking that perhaps they were not really Israelites but Arabs who had embraced Judaism, or that at least a majority of them were Arab Jews. But there is no historical proof to show that the Jews ever engaged in the propagation of Judaism in Hijaz, or that their rabbis invited the Arabs to embrace Judaism like the Christian priests and missionaries. On the contrary, they prided themselves upon their Israelite descent and racial prejudices. They called the Arabs Gentiles, which did not mean illiterate or uneducated, but savage and uncivilized people. They believed that the Gentiles were not entitled to any human rights, these were reserved only for the Israelites, and therefore, it was lawful and right for the Israelites to defraud them of their properties by every means. Economically they were much stronger than the Arabs. Since they had emigrated from the more civilized and culturally advanced countries of Palestine and Syria, they knew many such arts that were unknown to the Arabs; they also enjoyed trade relations with the outside world. Hence, they had captured the business of importing grain in Yathrib and the upper Hijaz and exporting dried dates to other countries. Poultry farming and fishing also were mostly under their controls. They excelled at cloth weaving as well. The Jews had also set up wine shops in different areas, where they sold wine which was imported from Syria. They would not allow the Arabs to be united and, therefore, kept them fighting and entrenched against each other. They knew that whenever the Arab tribes united, they would not allow the Jews to remain in possession of their large properties, gardens and fertile lands, which they had come to own through their profiteering and money lending businesses.

Such were the conditions when Islam came to Madinah, and ultimately an Islamic State came into existence after the Prophet's (upon whom be Allah's peace)arrival there. One of the first things that he accomplished was unification of the
Aus, the Khazraj and the Emigrants into a brotherhood. The second was that he concluded a treaty between the Muslims and the Jews on definite conditions, in which it was pledged that neither party would encroach on the rights of the other, and both would unite in a joint defence against the external enemies. Some important clauses of this treaty are as follows. They clearly show what the Jews and the Muslims had pledged to adhere to in their mutual relationship:

"The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. They shall sincerely wish one another well. Their relations will be governed by piety and recognition of the rights of others, and not by sin and wrongdoing. The wronged must be helped. The Jews must pay with the believers so long as the war lasts. Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document. If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise, it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the Apostle of God; the Qureysh and their helpers shall not be given protection. The contracting parties are bound to help one another against any attack on Yathrib. Every one shall be responsible for the defense of the portion to which he belongs." (Ibn Hisham, vol. ii, pp. 147 to
150)

This was on absolute and definitive covenant to the conditions of which the Jews themselves had agreed. But not very long after this they began to show hostility towards the Prophet of Allah (upon whom be Allah's peace). Islam and the Muslims, and their hostility and perverseness continued increasing day by day. Its main causes were the following three:

First, they envisaged the Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) merely as a chief of his people, who should be content to have concluded a political agreement with them and should only concern himself with the worldly interests of his group. But they found that he was extending an invitation to believe in Allah, His Rasool and
the Book (which also included belief in their own Prophets and scriptures).

He was urging the people to give up disobedience of Allah and adopt obedience
to the Divine Commands and abide by the moral laws of their own prophets. This
they could not agree with. They feared that if this universal ideological movement gained momentum, it would destroy their rigid religiosity and wipe out their racial nationhood.

Second, when they saw that the Aus, the Khazraj and the Emigrants were uniting into a brotherhood and the people from the Arab tribes of the surrounding areas, who entered Islam, were also joining this Islamic Brotherhood of Madinah and
forming a religious community. They feared that the selfish policy that they had been following of sowing discord between the Arab tribes for the promotion of their own well being and interests for centuries, would not work in the new system. They knew that they would inevitably face a united front of the Arabs against which their intrigues would not succeed.

Third, the work that the Messenger of Allah (upon whom be Allah's peace) was carrying out of reforming the society and civilization included putting an end to all unlawful methods in business and mutual dealings. Moreover, he had declared
the taking and giving of usury as impure and unlawful earning. This caused them the fear that, if his rule became established in Arabia, he would declare interest legally forbidden. In this they saw their own economic disaster and death.

For these reasons they made resistance and opposition to the Prophet their national ideal. They would not hesitate to employ any trick, any device and cunning, to harm him. They spread every kind of falsehood so as to cause distrust against him in the people's minds. They created every kind of doubt, suspicion and misgiving in the hearts of the new converts so as to turn them back from
Islam. They would resort to every kind of deceit and fraud in order to harm the Muslims economically. Whenever one with whom they had business dealings with would accept Islam, they would do whatever they could to cause him financial loss. If he owed them something, they would fret and harass him by making repeated demands, and if they owed him something, they would withhold the payment and would publicly say that, at the time the bargain was made, he
professed a different religion, and since he had changed his religion, they were no longer under any obligation to repay him. Several instances of this nature are cited in the commentaries by Tabari, Nisaburi, Tabrizi and in Ruh al Ma'ani relating to verse 75 of Surah Al-Imran.

They had adopted this hostile attitude against the covenant even before the Battle of Badr. But when the Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) and the
Muslims won a decisive victory over the Qureysh at Badr, they were filled with grief, anguish, malice and anger. Ka'b bin Ashraf, the chief of the Bani an-Nadhir, cried out: "By God, if Muhammad has actually killed these nobles of Arabia, the
earth's belly would be better for us than its back." Then he went to Makkah and incited the people to vengeance by writing and reciting provocative elegies for the Qureysh chiefs killed at Badr. Then he returned to Madinah and composed lyrical verses of an insulting nature about Muslim women. At last, enraged with Ka'b Bin Ashraf's mischief, the Prophet (pbuh) sentenced him to death. (Ibn Sad, Ibn Hisham, Tabari).

The first Jewish tribe which, after the Battle of Badr, openly and collectively broke their covenant were the Bani Qainuqa. They lived in a locality inside the city of Madinah. As they practised the crafts of the goldsmith, blacksmith and vessel
maker, the people of Madinah visited their shops fairly frequently. They were proud of their bravery and velour. Being blacksmiths by profession, even their children were well armed. They could instantly muster 700 fighting men from
among themselves. They were also arrogantly aware that they enjoyed relations of confederacy with the Khazraj and Abdullah bin Ubayy, the chief of the, Khazraj, was their chief supporter. At the victory at Badr, they became so provoked that
they began to trouble and harass the Muslims; Muslim women in particular, who visited their shops. By and by things came to such a pass that one day a Muslim woman was stripped naked publicly in their bazaar. This led to a brawl in which a
Muslim and a Jew were killed. The Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) himself visited the local Jewish tribe, got them together and counselled them on decent conduct. But the reply that they gave was; "O Muhammad, you perhaps think we are like the Qureysh; they did not know fighting; therefore, you overpowered them. But, when you come in contact with us, you will see how men fight." This was in clear words a declaration of war. Consequently, the Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) laid siege to their quarters in A. H. 2. The siege had hardly lasted for a fortnight when they surrendered and all their fighting men were bound and taken prisoners. Abdullah bin Ubayy came up in support of them and requested that they should be pardoned. The Holy Prophet conceded his request and decided that the Bani Qainuqa would be exiled from Madinah leaving their properties, armor and tools of trade behind. (Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Hisham, Tarikh Tabari).Hisham, Tabari).

For some time after these punitive measures (i. e. the banishment of the Qainuqa and killing of Ka'b bin Ashraf ) the Jews remained so terror stricken that they did not dare commit any further mischief. But later in Shawwal, A. H. 3 the Qureysh, in order to avenge themselves for the defeat at Badr, marched against Madinah with
great preparations. The Jews saw that only one thousand men had marched out with the Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) in comparison to three thousand men of the Qureysh. To make matter worse 300 hypocrites initially joined the Prophet, deserted and returned to Madinah. At this point, they committed the first and open breach of the treaty by refusing to join the Prophet in the defense of the city even though they were bound to it by the agreement. Then, when in the Battle of Uhud the Muslims suffered a set back, they were further emboldened. So much so that the Bani an-Nadhir made a secret plan to kill the Prophet (pbuh). The plan, however, failed before it could be executed.

As a result, there was no question of showing them any further concession. The Holy Prophet at once sent to them the ultimatum that the treachery they had meditated against him had come to his knowledge. Therefore, they were to leave
Madinah within ten days. If anyone of them was found staying behind in their quarters, he would be put to the sword. Meanwhile, Abdullah bin Ubayy sent them the message that he would help them with two thousand men and that the Bani Quraizah and Bani Ghatfan would also come to their aid. Therefore, they were to stand firm and not go. On this false assurance, they responded to the
Prophet's ultimatum saying that they would not leave Madinah and that he could do whatever was in his power. Consequently, in Rabi-al-Awwal, A. H. 4, the Prophet (pbuh) laid siege to them, and after a few days of the siege they surrendered on the condition that they could take their personal property, except the armor, which could be carried on three camels. Thus, Madinah was rid of this
second mischievous tribe of Jews. Only two of the Bani an-Nadhir embraced Islam and stayed behind. All of the others went to Syria and Khayber.

END OF LONG WINDED PROOF

There you have it, Moe Foe, after you respond to this I move we drop this issue and let me have a turn challenging you.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 28, 2008 11:10 PM

Abdullah Mikail:

Matamoros, without dragging this out or making it too specific, consider "foreign aid". The "recipients" of these gain clout verses their neighbors...this causes issues.

Thanks for your answer, and your patience. What you're referring to, in a deliberately circumspect way, is Israel, isn't it? Your reference to "aid" could fit any number of overseas countries which receive civilian or military aid, among them Egypt and Jordan.

But your reference to "special interest groups" shaping foreign policy to suit their "special agendas" rather gave the game away. Not even the nuttiest of conspiracy theorists believes that Egypt or Jordan is secretly controlling the State Dept. But Israel, on the other hand...

(Your claim that mentioning certain special interest groups "just gets the messenger attacked" was another giveaway. As I said, we're all adults here: feel free to say what you mean. It's not as if we here will be shocked by it - we've heard it all many times before.)

What genuinely interests me is how these beliefs in shadowy groups and secret agendas developed. Did you hold them when you were Mike Mackay, proud U.S Navy bubblehead?

Or did they evolve after you became Abdullah Mikail Mackay?

Posted by: Matamoros at August 29, 2008 9:17 AM

END OF LONG WINDED PROOF

Unless I locate all or most of these sources in a single web page elsewhere, I will remain appreciative of your uncommon industry and contribution to this site.

I take issue with the word "proof", however, doubting that you would consider unilateral sources of information definitive if the situation were reversed, i.e. an admitted genocidal pogrom against Muslims by Christians using only Christian sources (some obscure at that) as justification. The American Thinker article I linked above attempted to analyze details and resolve minor discrepancies in the accounts, and came to a significantly different, though arguably predetermined, conclusion. I would like to see YOU comment about what YOU observe about the these sources, what you find so corroborating, compelling and convincing that we cloven-hoofed, knuckle-draggers should jump ship and embrace it, and what you find so easily dismissive about contrary analyses (but, by all means wait on Moe Foes' riposte).

Assuming your post on our other topic doesn't appear from the dark ethereal miasma, I will send an untraceable, secure undisclosed locationville email address later today (with your assurances you won't share it with any of your bloodthirsty coreligionists). I would, of course, prefer you just reconfigure and post it yourself.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 29, 2008 10:15 AM

[Is this thread still active? Wow.]

Abdullah Mikail,

Now for a pithy riposte! :-)

First of all, I echo Concerned Citizen in thanking you for posting way more than a shred of evidence for your position. I read it all actually, and found much of it of interest.

It may very well be that the Banu Banu Quraiza broke a treaty with Muhammad, but I still can feel that beheading all the adult males of the tribe was excessive, especially in the light of the Qu'ranic principles outlined in the article you linked to (here are just a couple):

[ (ii) The rule in Islam is to punish only those who were responsible for the sedition.

(iii) To kill such a large number is diametrically opposed to the Islamic sense of justice and to the basic principles laid down in the Qur'an - particularly the verse. "No soul shall bear another's burden."22 It is obvious in the story that the leaders were numbered and were well known. They were named.

(iv) It it also against the Qur'anic rule regarding prisoners of war, which is: either they are to be granted their freedom or else they are to be allowed to be ransomed.23 ]

But, let me sort of back up here for a second. Why were the Muslims and the Jews at odds to begin with? Is it because the peace-loving Muslims were just minding their own business and the war-like Jews attacked them without provocation?

Like I said way back when, Muhammad was, unlike Jesus, a warlord and personally led raids on caravans and consolidated his power with the sword. If my new neighbor was such a person, I might also feel nervous about them, and try to protect my interests.

Muhammad may not have broken the treaty, but he didn't seem to be minding his own business. In your "long-winded proof" you show that Muhammad was definitely interfering in local culture and really trying to make everyone be a Muslim, or at least follow Islamic norms. Their anxiety and resistance to Muhammad was based on the following:

[ First, they envisaged the Prophet (upon whom be Allah's peace) merely as a chief of his people, who should be content to have concluded a political agreement with them and should only concern himself with the worldly interests of his group. But they found that he was extending an invitation to believe in Allah, His Rasool and the Book (which also included belief in their own Prophets and scriptures).

Second, when they saw that the Aus, the Khazraj and the Emigrants were uniting into a brotherhood and the people from the Arab tribes of the surrounding areas, who entered Islam, were also joining this Islamic Brotherhood of Madinah and
forming a religious community. They feared that the selfish policy that they had been following of sowing discord between the Arab tribes for the promotion of their own well being and interests for centuries, would not work in the new system. They knew that they would inevitably face a united front of the Arabs against which their intrigues would not succeed.

Third, the work that the Messenger of Allah (upon whom be Allah's peace) was carrying out of reforming the society and civilization included putting an end to all unlawful methods in business and mutual dealings. Moreover, he had declared
the taking and giving of usury as impure and unlawful earning. This caused them the fear that, if his rule became established in Arabia, he would declare interest legally forbidden. In this they saw their own economic disaster and death. ]

Now, aside from the insults to the Jews in the above paragraphs (They didn't follow their own prophets' moral were "selfish", "sowed discord", had "intrigues", used "unlawful methods" and loved "usury"), it was clear that Muhammad wasn't content to simply call everyone to Allah, but was messing with the very society they lived in and gathering threatening alliances.

Now, finally, even if the Banu Qurayash were dealt with justly, that is a tiny drop in the ocean of other events that still make me think that Muhammad was homicidal, power-mad, and a terrible example to follow. Your long-winded proof doesn't absolve him of sex-slave ownership, or of ambushing caravans, or of having sex with a 9-year old, and having his Allah justify anything he wants by having very convenient revelations.

Posted by: Mo Foe at August 29, 2008 1:00 PM

Matamoros,

You have gone overboard and projected your bias on to me. Foreign aid is a lot bigger subject than you give it credit.

Ever look at the building of US Embassies over seas? A relative of mine has top secret clearance and works in that program in a certain capacity. He doesn't tell me much of anything, and I don't ask, but I do learn some interesting things.

It is this kind of thing, not just weapons and cash, that cause imbalance, and the recipients court them, their neighbors are negatively affected by them.

Do you think it was just a coincidence that US Embassies were attacked by forces in the regions they were built in? Neighbors got upset.

Influence as well, shoring up despotic leadership through foreign aid...this only helps maintain opressive regimes, and it alienates their populace...do you think it is coincidence that many of their populations hold a grudge against you and I in the US?

Don't oversimplify everything when you communicate to a Muslim. Many of us don't even think about Israel until some one shilling for their cause brings it up as if we even cared.

To me they are just another country with their own problems, and just like the Palestinians, many of their own problems they cause themselves.

Put the Israel / Palestine thing out of your mind while we are blogging...I really don't care about that situation...I care more about my country, I love more my country...I didn't sacrifice for the sake of Palestine or Israel...I sacrificed for the sake of you and I, Americans...and when foreign aid takes as heavy a toll on our taxes and causes us as much mysery as the giving of it has, it's time to rethink this "we are the world's rich uncle sam" crap.

Or do you like pissing away billions to people who don't care and who don't show it in action even when they "say they care?"

Truth

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 29, 2008 1:01 PM

Matamoros,

Now to comment on some of your well made points.

(ii) – Talmudic injunction was invoked and punishment of lesser degree even chosen.

(iii) – The numbers actually executed are contested. The reference to the “no soul shall be burdened” is in respect to the bearing of another’s sin on the day of resurrection, as in, paraphrased, “you are all accountable for your own selves no one is paying your bill for you” kind of thing.

(iv) – Very true, yet I remind you Talmudic law was enforced upon them, But, the honor of early Muslims to Islam was great, and this (iv) was done by Uthman, who bought almost all of the prisoners and then later manumitted them as Uthman was very wont to do. They were “ransomed” and freed by Uthman.

In respect to “backing up”:

“Like I said way back when, Muhammad was, unlike Jesus, a warlord and personally”

I understand your position, and I offer this;

Matthew 10:34 (King James Version)

“Think not that I [ Jesus ] am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”

Jesus said that.

In our faith we understand that Jesus will be a leader of men and arms, and when he returns he will rid the world of the Anti Christ. Jesus will kill the Anti Christ with his spear. This is in the hadiths and tafseer.

So Jesus will be a military commander, and said as much even in his ministry to the Jews and gentiles of old.

You “Second” point, yes this is speculative thinking about motivations of people in antiquity and are valid opinions to hold. I hold different opinions. Fair enough.

Now on to the next topic, which will it be?

1) sex-slave ownership,
2) or of ambushing caravans,
3) or of having sex with a 9-year old,
4) and having his Allah justify anything he wants by having very convenient revelations.

I will allow you to choose one, if you desire, and then offer your opinion and proofs on that, then I will return comment, after which you may comment based on my post, and then I may close by commenting on yours.

Fair?

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 29, 2008 1:33 PM

Concerned Citizen,

"Assuming your post on our other topic doesn't appear from the dark ethereal miasma, I will send an untraceable, secure undisclosed locationville email address later today (with your assurances you won't share it with any of your bloodthirsty coreligionists). I would, of course, prefer you just reconfigure and post it yourself."

Well, there are no "coreligionists" of mine who fall into that category, so don't worry, send away.

And I reposted thrice...not doing it again.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 29, 2008 1:49 PM

Abdullah Mikail,

This post is about to expirel; that is, no longer accept comments, so I'm afraid we'll have to have this debate elsewhere.

But, I would go with the sex-slave owner bit. Why don't you start and tell me how a) this never happened or b) sex-slave ownership is just peachy.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, and desire for dialogue, but I work a full-time job and have read enough material to decide that Muhammad is not someone I would want to follow.

I am not a Christian, and Jesus may have said he was going to bring a sword, but the most violent he got in the Bible was throwing out the money-changers from the temple.

He didn't have an army, ambush innocents, kill anyone or have anyone killed, neither did he own slaves (let alone sex slaves-especially a woman whose husband was just killed by his army), have sex with a 9-year old, nor did he preach enmity to non-believers.

In exact opposition to such positions of slaughter and destruction, Jesus said "turn the other cheek" and "do unto others what you have done to you"

Where is the Golden Rule in Islam?

It seems to me that someone following Muhammad's example would kill me if I didn't convert, and someone following Jesus' example would love me. Christianity may preach that I'm going to hell, but Islam will send me there directly, by murder.

I see an incredible difference. Don't you?

Posted by: Mo Foe at August 29, 2008 6:44 PM

Thanks for the dialogue.

The first thing one needs is an understanding of the message and the time it was revealed in.
Ask yourself what was the common practice of the day? In a nut shell it comes down to the universal treatment of women as property, worldwide this was a fact. The practice of taking women after battle was not new, and it was not innovated in Islam, it was a fact of the age, seventh century Arabia, and even the world at large. Women were considered part of the spoils. Think about how the Vikings treated English women in the 8th century whenever they sacked a town…this same brutal mentality was the scourge of the ages.

The Quran did not suddenly reveal, “Oh, by the way guys, take women as slaves! It’s okay now, whereas before it wasn’t!” The Quran, and Islam, did not suddenly say something was “now allowed” that was before “disallowed”…it addressed existing social ills and instilled a legal mechanism for eliminating them.
No, in Islam, legislation came down limiting the means for acquiring new slaves, and legislated the treatment of existing as well as new slaves, and set up a social mechanism that encouraged the release of slaves as a means to be forgiven by God…and, ultimately, when followed, the legislation in the Sharia on slavery eliminated slavery among the believers. Think of Uthman and the purchase of nearly all the Bani Qurayza slaves…he released them all later…this is an ideal example of caring for those who are at the mercy of the victors…Islam dictated that.
So, to take issue with the fact that Islam legislated an end to slavery by establishing laws surrounding it doesn’t make sense…it is as if a person thinks that Islam “created” slavery…no, it set up a means to an end of slavery.
Remember, Islam is the religion that elevated the status of women…Muslim women had the right to vote well over a THOUSAND years before western women, they had the right to own their own property, run their own businesses, keep their own money, speak out in public, sue for divorce…many things that western women could not do prior to a hundred or so years ago, and some still can’t …Catholics for instance don’t accept divorce even today.
And as far as juxtaposing Jesus and Mohammad, you would do better in understanding a Prophet by juxtaposition of a similar Prophet…Joshua, and David…they were all both Warriors that fought, killed, took prisoners. David had had many many wives as did his son Solomon after him. Solomon was a king and a leader of a very powerful state with an army that didn’t just sit around. Yes, lots of fighting, lots of killing, lots of taking of “booty”. Read the old testament, if you have time.
So, setting up a Prophet who was not like Mohammad just to say, “There’s a difference, so I don’t accept the one that is not like Jesus!” Well, as Muslims we make no distinction among any of the Prophets…they were all men, there were differences and similarities among them.
“Where is the Golden Rule in Islam?”
HERE: No muslim is a true believer if his neighbor ( it didn’t say MUSLIM neighbor) goes to sleep hungry and he sleeps with a full stomache”
“No Muslim is a true believer until he wants for his brother what he wants for himself”
“A Muslim is responsible for the safety of his neighbors ( it didn’t say MUSLIM neighbor) forty doors” Basically his whole neighborhood.
“If a Muslim causes fear (because of his intention) in his neighbors he will never enter Heaven.”
The above are summary comments from books of tafseer. Yes, you can single out instances where it says, “Strike at their necks….” Which has been brought up ad naseum…this verse was one teaching traders and business men, and farmers how to fight and defend themselves when the Meccans violated all social laws and stole their property and their wealth.
AND LAST:
Jesus said, “Turn the other cheek.” [What happens when that one gets slapped?]
Mohammad said, “You can slap them back, but you are better if you turn the other cheek.”
Jesus and Mohammad said the same thing, but in Islam it was clarified that we have the right to human dignity and don’t have to denigrate ourselves.
There is the right of maintaining dignity in a believer, so the right of justice is granted, the returning of the slap is allowed and no sin is incurred, but the comment is made, that it is better in faith and piety to turn the other cheek…understand?
NOW THE CHILD BRIDE

Yes, Aisha was betrothed by her father, arranged marriage, at a very young age to Mohammad. This was not unusual in the Arabs or Jews or Christians at the time…in tribal society this was a norm…otherwise you would have found voluminous oral traditions condemning this at the time, as poetry was a form of CNN news in those days…but what do we find in the historical record? Nothing. It was not unusal at all…a betrothal at this age, an arranged marriage between prominent families was absolutely normal. Period.

Now then comes the argument of enemies at what age was she when they consummated?

It doesn’t matter, as when she entered maturity, menses, the marriage was consummated. Some say nine, and most of those are in the “attack Islam” camp, and they pick the sources they want to refer to…and some say eleven, if they chose to refer to Shafii Jurisprudence and that source.

Me? What is my opinion? Those are just some things people say in attacking minutae, and it is not important to me. Some people get caught up arguing details and miss the entire picture…”Moses, what color is the cow?” Have you ever studied that case?

Aisha was Mohammad’s wife for the rest of his life. He died on her lap. He had eight other living wives, one that had passed away, Khadija, and one he had divorced prior to consummation… totaling eleven wives over the course of his later life. They were from very young and very old, and when asked who among them was the best, Mohammad always praise Khadija.

Now for this comment on Jesus “nor did he preach enmity to non-believers.” Usury was disallowed in every single message from God, so, Jesus did exercise extreme action in “preaching enmity to non believers” when he drove the money lenders (Usurers) from the temple with a whip…action speaks louder than words.

And as far as your last comment? Propoganda intoxication I would say. Over and over the Quran and the Hadiths reinforce the fact “it is not up to you how they receive the message” over and over Muslims are taught that it isn’t our responsibility if a person doesn’t want to believe. God said, paraphrased, “Leave them to Me, it is not up to you to make them believe.”

There is no compulsion in matters of religion. But do we see Muslims abiding by that? I don’t…so I understand your misperception of what Islam teaches versus what you are seeing frequently. Unfortunately they don’t show the news clips of we 1.799 billion other Muslims doing the right thing…we only ever get to see blasted across the screens the , scientific notation required to express, portion that engage in evil.

Hope to continue with you on some other thread some other day.

I don't see any difference in the message.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 29, 2008 7:58 PM

Abdullah,

I am certainly glad to see that there are indeed peaceful Muslims like yourself that preach peace and getting along, and I would hope that there are many, many more like you out there.

However, it seems that you very well might come to your conclusions *despite* Islam, and not because of it.

-You admit Muhammad took slaves, but then say it was the norm of the time. The problem is that Muhammad's example is supposed to transcend time, and still be valid today.

-Joshua and David aren't held up as perfect men that modern people should emulate.

-Those peaceful quotes about one's neighbors aren't from the Qu'ran or hadith, so they aren't "gospel".

-The violent, hateful verses of the Qu'ran are usually the Medinan ones, and therefore abrogate the more peaceful ones. So the ones still "in effect" are the ones that say to not take Christians and Jews as friends, and to slay the infidel, etc, etc.

That makes me see a different message.

But, that said, I also hope to continue with you on another thread one day.

Posted by: Mo Foe at August 29, 2008 10:34 PM

Abdullah,

I forgot to add this:

You also don't see the millions of peaceful Christians and Jews on the daily news, but guess what--

You don't see the terrorist Christians and Jews, either.

You know why?

They don't exist!

Makes one wonder what the difference in message there could be in Islam that would inspire such acts of murder and mayhem?

P.S. I've already written a bunch about slavery and Muhammad here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020252.php

Posted by: Mo Foe at August 30, 2008 2:50 AM

Abdullah,

Sorry about being the "gadfly", but just couldn't help commenting.

Moe Foe addressed the issue of trancendency of time versus being judged within time and "context". This is a huge issue and you cannot so easily dismiss it. It is beneath deity to introduce slow motion reforms, a reason many Christians reject macroevolution. Islam was established as a political system and could have provided immediate corrections. It did not take a thousand years to establish the veil, prayers, and halal cuisine. Do you have a referenced theological sketch of how Islam "set up a social mechanism that encouraged the release of slaves as a means to be forgiven by God"? Where did Islam "dictate" what Uthman did? On taking sex slaves and Aisha: "This was not unusual in the Arabs or Jews or Christians at the time...was absolutely normal....attacking minutae". Tell me you don't believe that the Perfect Model of Conduct can only be judged by his temporal circumstances. If you believe that, you join "1.799 billion" in cultural stagnation. Dar-al-Islam will always revert back to what the Prophet did in his time. You live an enlightened existance because you practice your faith in dar-al-harb. "Remember, Islam is the religion that elevated the status of women." In actual practice Islam froze the status of women in time. Veils, travel restrictions, polygamy, inheritance, "tilth", court testimony, etc. It hasn't changed (bidah) and it won't. Fundamentalism always brings retrograde "correction".

This is where you say "read the old testament". Show where the Jews have every gone conquering outsite "The Land", outside of some Zionist conspiracy theories. The commands to "take the land" relate to that time period and place, and are not extrapolated to conquer the earth beyond the prescribed borders.

As Moe Foe pointed out, please comment on why the kafir should recognize the validity of the use of tafseer in establishing an Islamic "Golden Rule". Other fundamentalists (if you object to this label, please tell me why), including Shia Iran and Sunni Sauds come to a different conclusion (I am aware from your posts you don't care for these distinctions, either).

"Jesus and Mohammad said the same thing...". No. Jesus' issue was with "believers" acting badly (cf. 1 Corinthians 5). The "money changers" were in the Temple (thought you didn't believe it existed) courts, and were Jews selling items for the Temple service. Tables were turned, whips were cracked, and zeal was expressed. Name me a person physically attacked by Jesus or his apostles where injury was reported that he didn't heal. Jesus constantly stated "My kingdom is not of this world". Battle and armory terms were frequently used, but later explained as spiritual metaphors in the struggle against spiritual "principalities and powers". In a peculiar passage he tells the apostles to obtains swords, the twelve say they have two, and Jesus says "that is enough". When it comes down to actually using, Jesus rebuffs saying "those who live by the sword will die by it", and miraculously heals the severed ear, asking, "Am I leading a rebellion that you come against me with swords and clubs"? The clear answer to the rhetorical question is, "no". I feel you come to the conclusion that "Mohammad and Jesus preach the same message" because Islam tells you they do. You say you still have the gifted NIV bible with your name embossed. Reread the gospels and the epistles. Decide if it is consonant with the Qur'an and Sunnah. If you concur with me, you will have to make a decision; it is either true or tahrif.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 30, 2008 6:20 AM

Moe Foe,

Moe Foe (MF), “However, it seems that you very well might come to your conclusions *despite* Islam, and not because of it.”

Not really. I always believed in God before I read the Quran, yet in the time before I read it I was a very forceful person without restraint and without regret. Now I have both restraint and I understand the way I lived was wrong, yet don’t regret it…I am who I am today because of it…bare knuckles brawling and all…that’s just life on the edge. I don’t live anywhere near the edge now.

MF “-You admit Muhammad took slaves, but then say it was the norm of the time. The problem is that Muhammad's example is supposed to transcend time, and still be valid today.”

You would have to be able to see the message as a whole and understand all the legislation in place about the subject to see the ultimate end of the social ill.

Think of the verses that limited and then eliminated alcohol. God understands the human being more than you and I, and even you and I know that if you force a person addicted to something to drop it, it will most likely not cure the problem, yet bring about other problems, and then the addiction comes crashing back. First it was “don’t come to prayer drunk”, and then it progressed to “don’t drink at all.”, then it progressed to “don’t drink, don’t sit with drunks, don’t sell alcohol, don’t transport alcohol, don’t profit from it’s sale.”

In the system that existed the legislation about alcohol “weaned” a society that was addicted to it away from it, and not just those who drank it but those “addicted” to profiting from its sale.

Slavery existed, and the legislation against it had a practical purpose that was accomplished.

Don’t fall into the same trap that many Muslims, and others, do in thinking that the message is “frozen in time”. No. Many verses are very explicit to time and place and no longer have a practical “apply this right now” kind of meaning. Surat al Tauba for instance, “kill them where you find them”, it only applied to the time at the end of the four months of grace period in which rebellious traitorous Pagan Idolaters engaged in open war with Muslims were given that time to evacuate and end hostilities or “be killed wherever they were found”. It was a sweep and clear order and the grace was given to the enemy ahead of time to “clear out or be cleared out”. It does not apply today.

Surat al Tauba

1 “Establishment of treaty rights”

2 “Four month reprieve and warning to the Pagans who broke the treaty”

3 “Dissolution of treaty with Pagans who had broken it”

4 “Second opening venue for those Pagans who would make peace”

5 “Consequences for those who refused to make peace, and / or evacuate, and still an opening for the Pagans to repent and choose peace (or evacuate)”

Re-read the English translation against the above oversimplification.

But on Joshua and David you are wrong, as their stories were transmitted to the latter days as an example to follow. The Torah and the Bible are translated into a plethora of languages, and simple social programming alone supports that these men are set up as examples to follow by believers. Currently the Israelis emulate both of these people as well as many others in their tradition. That is an undeniable fact.

MF “-Those peaceful quotes about one's neighbors aren't from the Qu'ran or hadith, so they aren't "gospel".”

Yes, they are from the Quran and the Hadiths. I wouldn’t quote them otherwise. There is even more, paraphrased from hadith, Mohammad said ,“If you eat fruit don’t throw the peels in the trash (openly) because the neighbor’s children may be poor, and they may not have fruit, and upon seeing the peels they will feel loss.” There are many more like this…trouble is most people focus on the hadiths that say, “Fight if you have to”.

MF “-The violent, hateful verses of the Qu'ran are usually the Medinan ones, and therefore abrogate the more peaceful ones. So the ones still "in effect" are the ones that say to not take Christians and Jews as friends, and to slay the infidel, etc, etc.That makes me see a different message.”

That is a fair opinion for you to have in that I feel you have not read the context or understood the verses that call for this kind of action in response to situations that arose in that period of time.

You would have to know the order in which the verses were revealed and the subsequent time frame of their revelation, the facts on the ground, and then see the verse in that light before you truly understood it.

Yeah, it might seem “violent” to read, “Strike at their fingers, strike at their necks” if you don’t understand the context. Think of it like this, will I tell Joe Bloe Marine, “Just smile, and be nice, when they rush at you. They’ll surrender!” See what I mean.

No, I tell Joe Bloe Marine, “full trigger until they drop or stop.”

MF But, that said, I also hope to continue with you on another thread one day.

Posted by: Mo Foe at August 29, 2008 10:34 PM

MF “Abdullah, I forgot to add this: You also don't see the millions of peaceful Christians and Jews on the daily news, but guess what--You don't see the terrorist Christians and Jews, either. “

But they do exist: Jewish Terrorist=Goldstein & Christian Terrorists=Timothy McVey, Eric Rudolph.

They all responded to stimulus based on a religious sense of duty based upon a perceived “wrong” that had been committed to their religious order.

Goldstein machine gunned 49 (?) Muslims from behind as they were praying in a mosque.

Timothy McVey, based upon what happened at the Waco Branch Davidian Complex, blew up a Federal building.

Eric Rudolph murdered based upon his religious “duty” to fight abortion, he also attacked innocent people unrelated to that issue.

Magnify the incidences that Goldstein and McVey and Rudolph responded to a thousand times and you will see that these are the issues that are happening in the regions where you have radicals responding to stimulus just the same as the Christian Terrorists Timothy McVey and Eric Rudolph, and the Jewish Terrorist Goldstein…once again, not a justification, but a simple observation.

In the environments these three existed in there is far less occurring in the way of that which “terrorists” are responding to. I am making a simple observation, not a justification, but think of the regions you hear about “terrorism” occurring in.

MF “You know why? They don't exist!”
More aptly, you should say, “They don’t exist in the same numbers, but they do exist.” Currently the “Christian World” is not under occupation, yet one could say that the Israelis are under a form of “occupation” or “siege” and learn a pretty clear lesson about their own extreme action against civilian targets knowingly…some of their actions equate to “terrorism”, the purposeful targeting of civilians to force political change.

MF “Makes one wonder what the difference in message there could be in Islam that would inspire such acts of murder and mayhem?
P.S. I've already written a bunch about slavery and Muhammad here:”

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020252.php

I’ll get to that some day. If this thread should be “killed”, I’ll repost this some other time. Until then, it has been a real pleasure blogging with you.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 30, 2008 9:29 AM

Concerned Citizen,

CC “Sorry about being the "gadfly", but just couldn't help commenting. “

Don’t sweat it, if you search FPM you’ll see I often do it myself with zeal...zingers are fun some times.

CC “Moe Foe addressed the issue of trancendency of time versus being judged within time and "context". This is a huge issue and you cannot so easily dismiss it. It is beneath deity to introduce slow motion reforms, a reason many Christians reject macroevolution. Islam was established as a political system and could have provided immediate corrections. It did not take a thousand years to establish the veil, prayers, and halal cuisine. Do you have a referenced theological sketch of how Islam "set up a social mechanism that encouraged the release of slaves as a means to be forgiven by God"? Where did Islam "dictate" what Uthman did?”

On the subject you mentioned, the Quran mentions many things, the nuances of them are explained in Hadiths. If you know the Sharia, and I don’t know a lot, but you will see certain patterns such as,

“If you break your fast you can make it up by freeing a slave.”
“If you commit a sin you can make it up a number of ways…freeing a slave being one.”

There are many like this. Such as in order to make up for a sin rather than fast two consecutive months ( very hard!) you may free a slave (very easy!). Incentive was given like this many times, even to the point where God said, paraphrased,

“Free a neck (free a slave, remove a trouble) and I will free yours (from Hell)”

CC “On taking sex slaves and Aisha: "This was not unusual in the Arabs or Jews or Christians at the time...was absolutely normal....attacking minutae". Tell me you don't believe that the Perfect Model of Conduct can only be judged by his temporal circumstances.”

The message is not frozen in time. Even in America in the early days women were married off young enough that today, by our new standard, the husbands would be prosecuted. Women just entering puberty, menses, were married here in America a little more than a hundred years ago without the batting of an eye.

It is a complex issue that takes a lot of research and a desire to learn the truth rather than take issue with the truth. If you look at the whole and understand the message you see that it is clearly in the hadiths that Mohammad informed the believers, paraphrased, “there would be those coming after you who will be rewarded more than you because they will believe without seeing me, and I hope they will understand the message better than you.” Key in this is that the message, the Quran, is timeless and for all time, and each age learns something new and amazing about it. The miracles surrounding the Quran are vast. We can get into those observations some time…I can ask the favor of leading that discussion and presenting evidence and then you can (gadfly tactic or not) try to punch holes in the observations. I appreciate that kind of exchange because I always learn from it.

CC “If you believe that, you join "1.799 billion" in cultural stagnation. Dar-al-Islam will always revert back to what the Prophet did in his time. You live an enlightened existance because you practice your faith in dar-al-harb. “

If you read and understand the Quran you can see that it does not support the ‘Dar Al Islam vs Dar Al Harb” ideology. Borders are discussed, different peoples are discussed, a need for separate states is discussed as a means to maintain peace, and the Quran even warns if there were ever a “one world government” only chaos would rule. We can single this one out some time and, if you will be so kind, let me lead that discussion as noted above. You would be amazed at what you might learn that will change the way you view the “Islam must take over the world” theme.

AM "Remember, Islam is the religion that elevated the status of women."

CC “In actual practice Islam froze the status of women in time. Veils, travel restrictions, polygamy, inheritance, "tilth", court testimony, etc. It hasn't changed (bidah) and it won't. Fundamentalism always brings retrograde "correction".

You would have to have a greater understanding of the nuances of the rules pertaining to all that you just mentioned. It would be a small book. : )

It may seem as thus from outside, but not from the inside in the home of a Muslim seeking to be a Believer.

CC “This is where you say "read the old testament". Show where the Jews have every gone conquering outsite "The Land", outside of some Zionist conspiracy theories. The commands to "take the land" relate to that time period and place, and are not extrapolated to conquer the earth beyond the prescribed borders.”

Different social structure then…less than city states, each city was a “state”, so any attack outside of the walls of your own city is equivalent to the invasion beyond borders.

Read about the issue in the Bible where a neighboring tribesman to the Israelis forced, or raped, an Israeli woman. The perpetrator and his tribe wanted to make amends and offered to have her become the wife of the one who forced her.

The Israelites offered to accept if only all the men of the tribe accepted Judaism and were circumcised. Only after they agreed and had done it, circumcised all their own men, and disabled all the men thereby, did the Israelis then attack and overrun them…deception and treachery in attacking and invading “beyond the borders”…but they had the “Helen of Troy excuse” to back them up.

CC “As Moe Foe pointed out, please comment on why the kafir should recognize the validity of the use of tafseer in establishing an Islamic "Golden Rule".

This is the way we Muslims are able to understand. The Quran says, paraphrased, “Obey God, follow the messenger.”

In the Quran it says “Pray”, make “Wudu” wash for prayer, but no where does it tell exactly how to do this…one must “follow the example” = Mohammad, to learn the proper way of doing it.

Quran, Hadiths, and the tafseer, or the explanation of these, from the earliest scholars on issues of that day, and from the latter scholars on issues of today ( Is an eye transplant okay by the religion to do? – A question never asked in the early days, never even considered.”

AM "Jesus and Mohammad said the same thing...".

CC "No. Jesus' issue was with "believers" acting badly (cf. 1 Corinthians 5). The "money changers" were in the Temple (thought you didn't believe it existed) courts, and were Jews selling items for the Temple service. Tables were turned, whips were cracked, and zeal was expressed. Name me a person physically attacked by Jesus or his apostles where injury was reported that he didn't heal.”

The money lenders? : )

CC “Jesus constantly stated "My kingdom is not of this world". Battle and armory terms were frequently used, but later explained [BY WHOM?] as spiritual metaphors in the struggle against spiritual "principalities and powers". In a peculiar passage he tells the apostles to obtains swords, the twelve say they have two, and Jesus says "that is enough". When it comes down to actually using, Jesus rebuffs saying "those who live by the sword will die by it", and miraculously heals the severed ear, asking, "Am I leading a rebellion that you come against me with swords and clubs"? The clear answer to the rhetorical question is, "no". I feel you come to the conclusion that "Mohammad and Jesus preach the same message" because Islam tells you they do. You say you still have the gifted NIV bible with your name embossed. Reread the gospels and the epistles. Decide if it is consonant with the Qur'an and Sunnah. If you concur with me, you will have to make a decision; it is either true or tahrif.”

The differences are in the faith. Read the ten commandments, I will disagree wit none of them. When asked about how to get to heaven, what did Jesus say?

He said, “Cling to the commandments.”

When I read differences among the Bible translations with what I read in the Quran I neither accept nor reject them, they are merely “narrations from the people of the book” to put it in a nauseating kind of repetitious theme…really, the differences are where the faith is.

I say Jesus is a Prophets one drawn close to God in Heaven, I think he even said he would sit at the right hand of God (?) you can verify that for me I don’t recall place in the text, Bible, or the annotation of it where I read that?

But you say Jesus IS God.

The differences between us on that issue purely and alone are based on faith.

I will say some things, if you disagree say so:
Don’t Steal, Don’t Covet, Don’t Envy, Don’t Commit Murder…the list goes on. Same basic message.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 30, 2008 10:05 AM

Abdullah,

Regarding transcendency and being "frozen in time", I feel you have minimized the practical significance of the use of the terms uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil in the Qur'an. I hope, however, that you are sucessful at convincing the "1.799B" since I like your interpretations better. Have you discussed any of your distinctive beliefs while on hajj? Are you honing your arguments on "Islamophobes" for purposes of renewal of "true" Islam? Or are you simply encouraging us to pity the "misunderstanders" and embrace them as we would you?

On comparing the Old Testament with the Qur'an, you state:

Currently the Israelis emulate both of these people as well as many others in their tradition. That is an undeniable fact.

However, I do emphatically deny they use David and Solomon to justify polygamy, adultery, murder and worship of false gods. Do they excuse adultery as with Bathsheeba or murder as with Uriah the Hittite or polytheism as with the sacrifice in the high places by Solomon? No. They do not justify and emulate everything the Tanakh merely historically reports. That is a major difference with the common utilization of the Qur'an. In the Tanakh, the figures are presented warts and all, warts as warts. It shows their weaknesses before a Holy God. You can pick practically any major figure from the Tanakh (including Prophets), and a fault NOT to be emulated can be demonstrated. Can you say the same about Mohammad? (If you pick one sentence out of this paragraph to fixate on, I would prefer it be this one.) Jesus is presented in the New Testament as both human and divine. There are theological reasons for this (purity for and sufficiency for vicarious atonement). Saying Mohammad is the Perfect Man and the Model of Conduct has the same effect, however. The differences are vast, however. Mohammad had slaves, sex slaves, multiple wives, a child wife, robbed caravans, ordered assassinations, led raids and battles, killed a lot of people, and personally initiated a legacy of temporal empire building. Jesus is not recorded to have done any of those things*. The consequences of emulating the actual behavior of Jesus versus Mohammad are vastly different. It would appear to me that your ideal of conduct in daily life mirrors Jesus much more than the historical Mohammad. Likewise, your dilution of the impact of the liberties in the Qur'an by claiming it also shows a "better way" is more akin to the usual reading of the New Testament ("let him who is without sin cast the first stone" "abrogating" stoning) than the "usual" reading of the Qur'an by Muslims. Do you admit that Mohammad committed sins (40:44, 47:19, 48:2)? How do you translate the phrase uswa hasana, al-Insān al-Kāmil? You've seen it rendered Perfect Man, Perfect or Excellent Model of Conduct? How do you characterize the rendering "Perfect" here? Did Mohammad have faults, and if so, do they include some of the items listed above? Which parts of his conduct is to be "modeled" or emulated, and which not? Is it always "contextual"?

*In the narrative of Matthew 21 and Mark 11, there is no mention of bodily harm by Jesus. The most vivid description is in John 2:14-16 (NIV):

In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

There is no evidence that he actually injured (as opposed to intimidated) anybody. His kingdom, as he stated, was "not of this world". What others may have done in his name since, has at times been, frankly, blasphemous. Yet, they cannot attribute their actions to direct emulation.

[BY WHOM?] (Battle armory metaphors)

Paul, Ephesians 6, 1 Thessalonians 5

Granted, dar al-Islam and dar al-harb are not in the Qur'an, though the terms dar al-salam and dar al-kufr (used by Mohammad) are, and are conceptually similar.

In a program on Al-Jazeera Channel, Al-Shari’ah Wal-Hayah (Islamic Law and Life), dated Sunday May 9th 1999, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi noted that the concept of Dar Al-Harb (Abode of War) was introduced in the Fiqh Hanafi. Al-Imam (the legislator and scholar) Abu Hanifa divided the Muslim role into two categories:

Dar Al-Islam (Abode of Islam) and Dar Al-Harb (Abode of War). He would refer to any non-Muslim domain as Dar Al-Kufr (Abode of Unbelief) or Dar Al-Harb even if there is no current war between them and the Muslims.[5] According to him a country or a territory becomes a Dar Al-Islam if:
(a) The Muslims must be able to enjoy peace and security; and
(b) It has common frontiers with some Muslim countries (other Dar Al-Islam)[6]

Later on the Hanifa madhhab became even more liberal. It accepted the idea that there might be pockets of dar al-Islam inside non-Muslim territories; in addition, they were ready to exempt emigrant Muslims from observing certain parts of the shari'ah if this seemed necessary because of ikrah (compulsion), durura (hardship), or maslaha (benefit).

[6] Murad Wilfried Hofmann, "Muslims As Co-Citizens of the West...Rights, Duties, & Prospects" [Online Document], [cited 2002, Apr 27]
http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2008/01/dar-al-islam-dar-al-harb.html

If we are to accept the tafseer, by your explanation, as authoritative for the Islamic "Golden Rule", then surely centuries of use by ulema, reaching far beyond the parent madhhab, must count for something. Again, in real life practical application, though you are not alone in "reform" efforts here (I recognize that you would see it more as a Renaissance), this is a distinction held by many, if not most, of the "1.799B".

"narrations from the people of the book"

Despite your frequent use of New Testament quotations and paraphrases as authoritative in argumentation, I assume by this statement that you believe the "Injeel" as currently held in the hand is tahrif, or corrupted (following Ibn Hazm), and not the "book" brought by "Isa". Have any of your arguments using the New Testament (here or elsewhere) been mere tu quoque, or do you only use quotations that you feel are valid (answer carefully, i.e. can you be later held to those used as true and authoritative)?

Again, thoroughly enjoying the exchange, and wishing you the best in your endeavors.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 30, 2008 12:48 PM

[Wow this thread keeps on going and going...]

Abdullah, you wrote:

MF “-Those peaceful quotes about one's neighbors aren't from the Qu'ran or hadith, so they aren't "gospel".”

Yes, they are from the Quran and the Hadiths. I wouldn’t quote them otherwise."

I'm sorry, I thought from when you said: "The above are summary comments from books of tafseer", that meant they were by people commenting on the Qu'ran, not from the Qu'ran itself.

Finally, you don't see an organized global terror network, that justifies it's actions on the scriptures of the Christians or the Jews...because they don't exist!

But, Al Queda does. And you should read the "Al Queda Reader" for a dose of their religious justifications. They sound like televangelists, and I would love to see you debate those guys!

Posted by: Mo Foe at August 30, 2008 1:04 PM

Concerened Citizen

CC :Regarding transcendency and being "frozen in time", I feel you have minimized the practical significance of the use of the terms uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil in the Qur'an. I hope, however, that you are sucessful at convincing the "1.799B" since I like your interpretations better. Have you discussed any of your distinctive beliefs while on hajj? Are you honing your arguments on "Islamophobes" for purposes of renewal of "true" Islam? Or are you simply encouraging us to pity the "misunderstanders" and embrace them as we would you?"

I have not yet gone on Hajj, yet I discuss my beliefs and often contact three local scholars in my area in order to understand the issue prior to issuing comment… I have been corrected only twice in my opinions by the three of them, and I “harass” them regularly….and often times that bloggers on FPM don’t see me comment on a heated issue when debating, they think I “dodge” certain subject…no, that is not the case…if I don’t know for sure I will most often not comment until I research my opinion and if I have to contact the local scholars to discuss it.

I am teaching what I know of the truth to every person I come in to contact with, Muslims or Non-Muslims whoever will listen. Argument from others only motivates in depth research on my part to ensure I have not misinterpreted something, and yes, it is an attempt to tear away the cultures that have infected Islam, so that people may see the religion for what it is, not what is left after being filtered trough another person’s culture.

Pity misunderstanders? No, not seeking that at all…these people piss me off a lot, as do many who are called “Islamophobes”…they both are kind of Yin-Yang, if you know what I mean. One cannot “teach” either group with a hammer.

One must teach the children, because those set in their ways will not change them voluntarily, and thus I am seeking to educate the next generation of American Muslims children and scholars to practice Islam purely free from the negative cultural influences. In fifty years I hope we see the positive results.

CC “Can you say the same about Mohammad?”

If you study the entire issue and not just the negative spin and focus detractors put on him, as I assume you have been educated to this point by, you will see him in an entirely different light.

The hammer didn’t fall until injustice was identified, then, yes, heads got cracked, wars were fought, people defeated, spoils of victory taken and distributed. Prophets of old did the same thing against their “Pagan Idoloaters”, only all of them were told to pile it up as an offering to God and the fire consumed it. I assure you, women were taken as captives then as well. We have mutually exclusive educations on this person, Mohammad, and probably always will.

Mohammad was a human being and did have his faults, and these were forgiven. We learn about these through intuition while studying his intimate life, one of them was during the time the rumors started about his wife Aisha. Study the tafseer on this closely and you will see. If he were “perfect” in the means that you express he would have intuitively gathered Aisha was innocent and the rumors false…but it took a verse being revealed by God to state this.

On the subject of “dilution of impact”, you must remember that the Quran is a whole and you can not cut out any portion of it and arrive at the correct opinion in fiqh.

There is no, look here, after this, before that, yes, aha! Here…this sentence tells you how to do (insert issue). It isn’t like that at all, yet the short coming of our culture is that we as Americans want to “read it like that”.

Many faults occur in the interpretation of the translators in which word they choose to translate when there are some words with six meanings all supporting the verse. These must be understood in the primary meaning by referring to other verses on the same subject where a word with only one meaning was chosen and one meaning only on the same subject…that becomes definition #1, then, one moves through the other secondary and tertiary meanings of that multiple meaning word in Arabic to arrive at the correct interpretation. People will get lost reading only the English version on its own.

CC: “It would appear to me that your ideal of conduct in daily life mirrors Jesus much more than the historical Mohammad.”

I suggest you study more. Jesus was not called upon in his first ministry to take up arms, yet, we Muslims believe, upon the second coming he will. If you study the entire body of the hadiths and exclude those where the Muslims were called upon by need to battle, you will see there is very little difference in what Mohammad commanded and did as compared to what Jesus commanded and did when it comes to social interaction in normal times.

CC “Despite your frequent use of New Testament quotations and paraphrases as authoritative in argumentation, I assume by this statement that you believe the "Injeel" as currently held in the hand is tahrif, or corrupted (following Ibn Hazm), and not the "book" brought by "Isa". Have any of your arguments using the New Testament (here or elsewhere) been mere tu quoque, or do you only use quotations that you feel are valid (answer carefully, i.e. can you be later held to those used as true and authoritative)?”

An excellent comment. Yes, the Injeel does not exist today, and the New Testament is what I would personally say, and forgive me if it sounds rude, a pale reflection. There are no doubt parts of the New Testament I believe are valid “Hadith” of Jesus ( speeches, oral legal rulings) as reported by others, and I believe it is an historical record of some detail and accuracy, yet at the council of Nicea 325 AD I assume it was politically rearranged. I am assuming you know that issue well.

My arguments using the New Testament are such because that is the book you follow, and that is what you base your religious guidance on as a Christian. If you were a Hindu or a Buddhist this discussion would be entirely different, and I would be at a great disadvantage having not studied the Upshanids or the Veda of the Hindus, and neither have I studied the Tipitaka of the Buddhists...my arguments would thus be based only in Islam, and that would not be a fair and open exchange now would it?

And here is my “fixate on one sentence request”

I find this item of keen interest:

CC: ("let him who is without sin cast the first stone" "abrogating" stoning)

Do you find this verse in the earliest Greek translations of the original Aramaic oral tradition? I suggest you research very wisely before commenting.

This has been a fruitful exchange, thank you.

Enjoy the long weekend.
Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 30, 2008 1:45 PM

Moe Foe,

MF "Finally, you don't see an organized global terror network, that justifies it's actions on the scriptures of the Christians or the Jews...because they don't exist!"

(Now for my Gad Fly comment...)

It would seem that we Patriots on this side of the fence are screaming "Terrorist!" as we point at the person on the other side of the fence who is pointing and screaming back "Terrorist!" Who is occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and organizing a global sanction against Iran? Different levels of the same game...it's politics and power at the bottom line.

About the "tafseer" comment, yeah that was mis-stated by me...the Hadiths are there...I'd pull a few out and quote them for you, but I am remote and not in my library at home.

Yeah, this thread is like the "Energizer Bunny".

I gotta run to a lunch date.

challengingreddyneck@yahoo.com

If you lose touch with me send an email.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 30, 2008 1:55 PM

[...it keeps going, and going and going...]

I'll try one more comment, before wishing you well and that you also enjoy the long weekend.

-About Al Qaeda (finally spelled right): most people in the West have an image of these guys, crazily plotting schemes in their caves, and they really have nothing to do with "Islam-Religion of Peace".

Most of us really have no idea how their entire philosophy and guiding principles come directly from the Qu'ran and Hadith.

The first essay in the Al Qaeda Reader is by OBL and is called "Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West" and in it, he argues that democracy, pluralism, and the idea of interfaith dialogue are all constructs of the West and anti-Islam.

The 2nd essay is by Ayman al-Zarqawi, and is called "Loyalty & Enmity", and as you might suspect, it details the Qu'ranic idea that Muslims should only be loyal to Muslims and only have enmity to non-believers.

Now, all of these ideas are firmly (and repetetively) backed up by copious quotations of the Qu'ran, the Hadith, and other interpreters, and these guys firmly believe in the idea of abrogation, that the "no compulsion" verse is pulled out of context by Islamic apologists, and Muhammad made it clear that the entire world was either to be converted, subdued or killed.

Like I said before, I would love to see you debate these guys. And, it also seems to me that it is more critical that you convince them of the peaceful, neighborly nature of the Islam you preach than it is to convince me.

Posted by: Mo Foe at August 30, 2008 7:38 PM

Abdullah,

Echoing Mo Foe, personally I would like to see you write a rebuttal of The Al Qaeda Reader directed not at Raymond Ibrahim, but at rebuking the original authors (e.g. OBL, Zarqawi, etc.) in their appeals to and interpretations of the Qur'an and Sunnah. I'd buy it (BONUS: since you don't like Hirsi Ali, Shoebat, et al, profiting opportunistically from "anti-jihadism", this would be towards stopping the commerce at the source).

Do you find this verse in the earliest Greek translations of the original Aramaic oral tradition? I suggest you research very wisely before commenting.

Not at present, but still waiting. History is like that sometimes. It's clearly evident why some might have wished to exclude it (potential for misinterpretation). I doubt either of us have the resources, time or critical skills to assess the internal and external supports for the text. I can tell you I find my Shepard's voice in it (mock if you so care), and find it consistent with many other passages (Matthew 7:1-5; Romans 2:1-3; James 3:1; Matthew 5:27-28).

More interesting, since we don't have the manuscripts between the purported time of composition and the first extant manuscript, is the behavior of the Church recorded during that time. Reportedly, Clement of Alexandria (150-211AD) was "the first Christian writer to provide theoretical grounds for the justification of capital punishment."
James Megivern, The Death Penalty: An Historical and Theological Survey. If this is true, we have no reason to believe that the first four generations of Christians would have found the prohibition (against stoning her) in the Pericope Adultrae disconsonant with their beliefs, vis-a-vis capital punishment. Also interesting is the explosive growth of reasons for capital punishment after attempt was made to integrate Christianity into a governmental system (even Calvin's Geneva). Thank God for the Establishment Clause (btw, I am not, however, an opponent of capital punishment by a secular state).

Rather than spend our time way off topic, in your leisure please enjoy some temporally unconstrained Christian theology students trying to hammer this one out:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-25572.html

Of course, on this site, I would rather we retire to discuss the authenticity of the "Satanic Verses", or perhaps the pre-622AD manuscripts and archaeology supporting the versions of Biblical stories in the Qur'an
and claims of Islam's ontological descent from the faith of Abraham.

I hope you continue to post at JihadWatch. I, for one, will see you as an asset.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 30, 2008 8:17 PM

Moe Foe and Concerned Citizen,

Excellent discussions.

Moe, I remind you there are 1.8 Billion Muslims on Earth and the core group of Al Qaeda is 300 people, give or take a few...this is part of that statistical sample that has to be expressed in Scientific Notation it is so small.

I am sure any debate we would have, between myself and any Al Qaeda member, albeit Muslim to Muslim , would have to be at the mutual point of a gun just to be sure we understood each other from the start.

I have not read any information from them, but I am very busy working on other fronts in this opposition to radicalization...some don't see it as I do, but there are many ways to cross a river. I plan to get around to it, and may even take the time some day to publish something once I have something worth saying.

Until then, I'll stick around JW, I find forums like this educational to say the least.

Peace

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at August 31, 2008 1:29 AM

I would remind any new readers who have just ploughed through the exchange between 'Abdullah Mikhail' the Muslim apologist, and 'concerned citizen'...feeling bewildered?

Take note: ALL the cleverer Muslim apologists and spin-doctors who visit this site sound much like Abdullah Mikail, and argue like him, too.

One little point, though: it is most likely that there are NOT '1.8 billion' Muslims. That is a figure pulled out of the air to intimidate you.

To clear the heads of any kafir who may read this, now or in future while exploring the archives, I will quote the considered judgement of two intelligent Western thinkers.

First, 18th-century Scottish philosopher, David Hume:

"But would we know, whether the pretended prophet [Mohammed] had really attained a just sentiment of morals?

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

" No steady rule of right seems there to be attended to; and every action is blamed or praised, so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers."


David Hume (1711-1776) "Of the Standard of Taste: Paragraph 4" (1757) http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20of%20art/hume%20on%20taste.htm#p4

And from John Quincy Adams, 1829, this splendid paragraph, which deserves to be translated into any number of languages and learned off by heart by every high school child in the entire free non-Muslim world, as well as by every kafir politician, general, diplomat and businessman who may have the displeasure of having to deal with the rulers and representatives of Muslim polities:


"The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.

"The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute;

"the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace;

"and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat:

"but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective.

"The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force".

Every statement made by Hume and by Adams, about Islam, what it says and what it does, can be supported by multiple passages from the Muslim canonical texts and from their authoritative interpreters in every century from the founding of Islam in the 7th/ 8th century, up to the present day.

But back to Muslim Spin-Doctoring 101:

Here is a no-holds-barred description of some characteristic Muslim methods of obfuscation, distraction, and diversion, that is, their various ways of 'running interference', as summed up by an apostate from Islam:

"Whenever you criticize anything related to Islam, Allah, Muhammad, Sharia laws or muslim community, you will find a refutation immediately.

"To refute something is OK but the way muslims refute is funny.

'Here are some most common ways of a muslim-refute, the order may change depending upon your and muslim’s caliber:

'
1. First of all, muslims will say, “This is false information”, “This is a lie”.
Whatever you say is wrong and whatever they say is only right.

'2. Next step is Taqqiya. i.e. “Islam means peace”, “Islam was not spread by sword but love”, “No compulsion in religion”.

'3. If you quote from Koran or hadith, you will be accused of quoting verses in bits and pieces.

'4. And be prepared for accusation that the verses you quoted are twisted and out of context.

'5. If you provide reference to your quote, then muslims will say “All your references are false and lies”, which implies only their references are true and correct.

'6. You will be advised to “Read the koran first and you will see the light”.

'7. If you say you have already read it then they will doubt you as if you are a liar.

'8. If you quote full verses (not bits & pieces) from koran and hadith, your translation is incorrect / misleading. Then you will be advised to learn Arabic and read original version.

'9. If you say, I read the same Koran with most authentic translations, which muslims are referring to, then you will be asked “Did you read only the cover?”, “Read it with open mind” (Read with closed mind, like a muslim reads by keeping thier brains aside).

'10. Besides your reading of translated Koran or even though you know arabic, if you quote Koran, they quote hadith, tafseer etc, if you quote hadith, then they will say "Only Koran is authentic".

'11. After all this, you are still willing to continue, they will distract you and other readers from original issue/topic and feed plenty of irrelevant issues.

'12. You are still sticking to the original issue, Muslims will refer your / other religions’ scriptures like Bible, Torah, Vedas, Geeta etc and other events and personnels like Bush, Blair, Indira Gandhi, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine etc.

'13. Be prepared for one or more muslims to showing their way of convincing, such as Copy & paste stuff or reference from crap Islamic sites.

'This includes verses from Koran & hadith, twisted facts from non islamic holy scriptures like mohammad is prophesized in all of them.

'14. In this connection, one or more muslims will write about Miracles in the Koran. Remember that whatever is discovered in recent time, Muslims will attribute it to Koran, but they will keep quiet till it is discovered. They will never say about the fallacies in Koran like “Sky is a dome on imaginary pillars”, “Sun sets in mud”, “sun revolving around the earth” etc. If you draw their attention to these fallacies, they will copy and paste crap again which is totally illogical and irrational. You will be again advised to read Koran.

'15. You are about to lose your patience but still continuing, then comes personal attack. You will be abused as fool, stupid, idiot, pig, dog etc.

16. If that does not work, then there will be accusation of taking money for your criticism of islam. You may get this also “Western media is biased, its propaganda to defame islam, Islam is wronged by all non muslims” etc.

17. Even then if you are not stopping, then muslims will run for your mother and sister.

18. You are stubborn and still want to continue, you will be cursed like “Burn in hell, you will repent on last day, still time to seek the truth” etc.

19. Towards the end, when all above ways are failed, you will be threatened directly like, “beware, watch it, keep cool, my sincere advice” or indirectly like “Give me your email id, don’t hide behind false name, you are a coward (since you have false id on net), and lastly invitation to go to debate one to one or visit mosques or Islamic centers like Islamic Research Foundation in person” etc.

20. And finally- it’s drum beating, for all Muslims, as if they won a debate, even when they lose miserably, because Koran is the word of allah.

http://www.islam-watch.org/Others/Infidel.htm

- Posted by: Arnie at December 8, 2006 6:47 AM

Full credit to 'arnie' for finding that gem and sharing it with the rest of us at jihadwatch.

On this scale, let us be thankful that our visitor, A. M., appears not to have moved beyond selecting from tactics 1-12.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at August 31, 2008 11:20 PM

And for further information, first of all some wise words from Ibn Warraq.

Here is 'How to Debate a Muslim', Part One.

http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004222.php

Here is 'How to Debate a Muslim', Part Two:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004246.php

Here is 'How to Debate a Muslim', Part Three

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004255.php

And now for something rather more colloquial, from a down-to-earth and funny apostate from Islam; be sure to turn on the /sarc/ button on 'high':

HOW TO DEBATE AND FRUSTRATE INFIDELS
- Author : Ayesha Ahmed on Mar 10, 2007 - 01:50 AM
"Dear brothers and sisters in islam:

"We live in kuffar country and daily we have to face the infidels who criticize islam and our prophet, and who want to debate us.
In an Islamic country if some one did that all we have to do is to announce loudly what he said and the rest is taken care of by an angry mob. The critic is lynched in no time. End of the story.

"However here we don't have that luxury as yet. Inshallah in forseeble future after we grow by conversions of morons and criminals in prisons, legal and illegal immigration and procreation we will, inshallah, become a majority and will not have to face this problem on daily basis.

"However, for the time being following is an approach all muslim brothers and sisters can use when faced with such a pest.

"Jazakallah Khair. Inshallah the vermin will steer clear of you in future.

'1. A popular question is - "why islam calls for death of Islamic critics and apostates". Insist that their info is false. Quote aya "to you your religion and to me my religion".

'2. To answer "Islam spread with sword", say that it is a big lie spread by the jews and hindus and that quran clearly says " there is no compulsion in religion".

'3. If some one quotes violent ayas from Koran, accuse him of quoting ayas in bits and pieces and cherry picking .

'4. If he then quotes full ayas and ayas before and after, then insist that the translation is wrong.

'5. If he brings ten different translations than say correct meanings can be understood only by reading Quran in Arabic.

'6. If he happens to be well versed in Arabic language than insist that those ayas don't mean what they appear to mean as they have allegorical meanings.

'7. If he is adamant, than say you cannot understand those ayas and it's out of context without reading hadith and sira.

'8. If he shows up with the hadiths and siras in hand and quotes the context of the violent ayas by referring to hadiths of prophet's rapes, robberies , assassinations and genocides then insist that "all hadiths and siras are heresay and are false, and only truth is in quran".

'9. If he says Quran is a man-made document and wants proof of its divinity then refer to the sciences in Quran and the book written by Dr. Bucaile confirming the sciences in our holy book. You can also quote that Mahatama Gandhi read Quran daily and also spoke highly of it.

'10. If he says that Bucaile was on Saudi payroll and that nor he nor Gandhi ever changed their religions and that Bucaile was challenged and proven wrong by many experts then challenge him to ask his experts to debate islamists like Zakir Naik.

'11. If the pest still hangs around then change the topic and find faults in other religions and their books.

'12. If he continues on then use personal attacks and insult him by calling him a jewish a- hole , a Chinese pig or a hindu dog .

'13. If that does not frustrate him, then ask him how much he is being paid by jews to throw dirt on Al Islam."
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1146&theme=Printer

- Posted by: DP111 at March 24, 2007 7:53 PM

Many thanks to DP111 for finding this useful and entertaining 'anatomy of an argument' and sharing it with everyone.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at August 31, 2008 11:33 PM

And just to finish off with, the twelve most frequently-used accusations against Mr Spencer and other warners and whistleblowers like him, as handily summed up in an article entitled 'Refutin' on a Friday Afternoon', posted here last year on May 18 2007.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016511.php#comments

Here's the list. A jihadwatcher observed:
"If you go to Amazon.com and read the reviews for Robert Spencer's books, or watch any interview with a Muslim “moderate,” you'll see and hear the following arguments from the Muslim side repeated over and over again:
1. He's taking verses out of context

2. He's an Islamophobe/racist/bigot

3. He doesn't know Arabic, and you can't understand the Qur'an unless it's in Arabic

4. He's not an expert on Islam /he has no credentials

5. The Qur'an, the mind of Muhammad, and Islam in general are too complex and mysterious for infidels to understand

6. What about the Crusades (and other violent Christian actions of the past)?

7. What about the violent verses in the Bible?

8. Those Muslims are not “real” Muslims

9. Only Muslims can address the tough topics".

Good summation. I can add from the Young Muslims site:
10. He's lying [and other forms of name-calling]
11. If you prove him wrong from Qur'an and Hadith, you just get ridiculed
And another I've seen now and again:
12. He has been refuted hundreds of times, and thoroughly discredited."

I invite any kafir reader who may have waded through the to-and-fro between 'concerned citizen' and the extremely verbose 'Abdullah M.', to explore some of the resources I have just provided, and then sharpen their wits on Mr A. M's postings.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at August 31, 2008 11:43 PM