| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Expect Muslims in America to denounce and demonstrate against Ali Hamza al Bahlul's misuse of the word "jihad" forthwith. Expect MSA's on campuses all over the country to hold rallies denouncing Bahlul's linking of jihad with blood and destruction.
What's that? None of that will happen? Instead they will call me an "Islamophobe" for daring to point out what Bahlul said? Oh, of course. I forgot how things work there for a minute.
"Al Qaeda media man waged 'jihad by pen,' U.S. says," by Jane Sutton for Reuters, October 28:
GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) - An accused al Qaeda media director waged "jihad by word and pen" and made a video aimed at overcoming trainees' resistance to carrying out suicide attacks, a prosecutor in the Guantanamo war crimes tribunal said on Tuesday.The prosecutor, Army Maj. Dan Cowhig, outlined the case against Yemeni captive Ali Hamza al Bahlul at his trial at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. naval base in Cuba. His opening statement suggested the nine U.S. military officers on the jury will have to decide whether creating propaganda is a war crime.
Cowhig read from Bahlul's journal, which was seized in Afghanistan, and from letters he said Bahlul wrote from Guantanamo to al Qaeda leaders, lamenting that he could not join the September 11 hijackers he hailed as heroes.
..."Only jihad by word and pen is left," he quoted Bahlul as writing.
"I am an officer of al Qaeda," he quoted him as writing elsewhere. "Blood, blood, destruction, destruction."
Bahlul also is accused of scripting the videotaped wills of his former roommates, September 11 hijackers Mohamed Atta and Ziad al Jarrah. He set up a satellite link so bin Laden could hear news reports of those attacks on his laptop computer, but couldn't get the audio portion to work, Cowhig said....
Posted by Robert at October 28, 2008 12:55 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
After WWII, Julius Streicher, publisher of Der Sturmer, was tried and executed for the war crime of publishing propoganda before and during the war.
Posted by: charlesmartel![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 28, 2008 1:20 PM
"Blood, blood, destruction, destruction."
That about sums it all up. Will the moderates condemn and act against this type of thinking? If they don't, what are they then really? We're all waiting.
Posted by: Sounder at October 28, 2008 1:34 PM
Robert,
Malicious content filter?
What's the matter, can't handle being held up to the truth?
Freedom of Speech seems to have gained another enemy...you.
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
at October 28, 2008 1:42 PM
The word "pen" should never be placed after the word "is".
Boo!
at October 28, 2008 1:52 PM
Abdullah,
I will spell this out for you, although you are so inveterately dishonest I doubt it will pierce through your fog: I am not holding up any of your posts, and you are not banned. If you were, you wouldn't have been able to post your message above. If some of your posts don't show up, it is because of an automated feature that flags posts containing too many links, so as to stop spam.
If this automated feature stops your defamation, lies and bloviating, that is an added benefit of it, but an unforeseen and unintended one.
Robert Spencer
Posted by: jihadwatch at October 28, 2008 1:57 PM
Abdullah...
If Spencer had a rigid 'malicious filter', he would never let you post.
The fact that you are here makes you a li...er...not factual...
Posted by: duh_swami at October 28, 2008 1:58 PM
You're an idiot, AM, and the one who can't seem to handle the truth around here; and you claim to live in the US, and yet you do not support our first amendment right? Maybe you should just pack your bags and buy and one-way ticket to hell by moving to Islamoland - since you seem to enjoy defending Islam so much. Seriously, why don't you just leave, coward.
Posted by: champ at October 28, 2008 1:58 PM
Jinx...someone owes me a coke...
Posted by: duh_swami at October 28, 2008 2:01 PM
AM - how does it feel being caught in such a flagrant lie? Knowing you, it probably feels pretty good.
Loser
Abdullah Mikail
at October 28, 2008 2:09 PM
Then what's this?
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
at October 28, 2008 2:15 PM
Abdullah Mikail...every once in a while I get the same page...or something similar, I always considered it a computer glitch of some kind.
Your complaint holds no water as far as I am concerned...Much to do about nothing...
at October 28, 2008 2:25 PM
duh-swami,
Oh, well...here's what I tried to post:
Drop it in your browser and see or not.
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
at October 28, 2008 2:51 PM
When I first signed up, I got a similar message. However, mine said "malicious CONTENT" not COMMENT.
I assumed it was so my post could be scanned for viruses and other mal-ware.
It was posted to the comment thread after a few minutes.
Honestly, Mikail, you do not want to get into a battle against Robert. Your mis-statements, out of context quotes, and taqiyya will be destroyed.
at October 28, 2008 2:53 PM
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at October 28, 2008 2:15 PM
I fail to see your point here Abby. Do you doubt the Reuters article and the facts contained therein or are you here to try to refute Robert's claim about the reaction of Muslims in America, by doing exactly as he has predicted?
Methinks it is time for you to cut your losses.
Posted by: awake at October 28, 2008 2:53 PM
Robert,
Perhaps you should go visit the link I dropped in to see what I posted.
I held David Horowitz to a simple light of truth and it burned away everything he said at UT Arlington.
Perhaps some day I will enjoy hearing what you say in public and holding you up to that same light.
Usually when that light is held up things like you scuttle away and hide under something dark.
Enjoy wallowing through the refuse in the media world for the inflammatory garbage you regurgitate here in support of your mission.
By the way I keep looking for Non Partisan Politics on this Non Profit Web page and I keep coming up blank? Go figure...I guess there is more to not telling the truth than I am able to pry out of you, isn't there?
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
at October 28, 2008 2:58 PM
One translation: from here http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html
Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight wi the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "
Another: from here http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txw/hadith4.htm
Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 52: Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihad)
176: Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight wi the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "
How is this out of context? How is it not hateful?
at October 28, 2008 3:02 PM
Abby,
With each subsequent post of your's, with your empty bravado and your thinly-veiled threats you do more harm to the image of Islam than you can imagine.
You, in your collective Mohammedan efforts of the words and actions with your co-religionists that we see and hear every day, are far more revealing than anything Robert could say without you as supporting exemplary evidence.
No Da'wah from you today, no. Today it is Mohammedan rage and disgust. Your useful idiocy value here seems almost limitless.
Wasn't that your answer as to why Muslims are required to live in non-Muslim lands? Da'wah?
Shame on you, but verily, Allah is most merciful and oft-forgiving, right?
Posted by: awake at October 28, 2008 3:09 PM
"I am an officer of al Qaeda," he quoted him as writing elsewhere. "Blood, blood, destruction, destruction."
Now there's a devout Muslim for ya - a man committed to telling the Truth and following Muhammad's example and the Qur'ans directives. Finally, some real Truth.
"Blood, blood, destruction, destruction". Must be the lyrics of a worship song to allah, the evil false god of the underworld. Sing it loud, and sing it proud, you savage beast.
Posted by: champ at October 28, 2008 3:14 PM
awake,
The content from bloggers posted here is far and away worse than anythign I could ever even hint at.
I invite you to explain what was a thinly veiled threat? If any of what I wrote was considered as such by you I you need thicker skin.
And I am not here inviting anyone of you to antyhing.
I am here posting the truth, and yes, even authorities in the religion disagree on certain things, and any person in a political capacity can justify anything...does that make it right? Does that make it true? Neither. It only makes it "convenient" for those with an agenda.
Go and read what I wrote about the Horowitz visit to UTA and see if you can take issue with it...punch holes in it...prove to me I am wrong...I can agree to reason and logic, just not lies and deceipt.
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
at October 28, 2008 3:26 PM
The "Truth" about Muhammad can be found in Robert Spencer's book, but it cannot be found in anything written by Abdullah Mikail.
Liar and Conman
Abdullah Mikail
at October 28, 2008 3:35 PM
I can agree to reason and logic, just not lies and deceipt.
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at October 28, 2008 3:26 PM
Reason and logic have not proven to be your strong suit to date.
YOU used the example of Da'wah for the obligation for Muslims to live in Muslim lands, not anyone here.
Your thinly-veiled threat was previously documented by Robert's posting of your e-mail that JW would shut down suddenly and your ususal baseless rhetoric that you will prove Robert to be a fraud and a charlatan, which ironicly you also have not achieved, is all over this site.
you wrote:
"It only makes it "convenient" for those with an agenda."
The only one here with an agenda is you. Robert's mission is clearly stated at the top of the main page. I couldn't care less what you have to say about Spencer and Horowitz. All I know is your lack of criticism against your brethren who chronically misunderstand their own religion is well-documented by well, no documentation to the contrary.
Posted by: awake at October 28, 2008 3:38 PM
"I am an officer of al Qaeda," he quoted him as writing elsewhere. "Blood, blood, destruction, destruction."
Yep, sounds like "Allah," the bloodthirsty non-existent pagan moon deity.
Oh, and by the way, "Slave of Allah" Abdullah, it's:
Crap
Abdullah Mikail
As another JW'er captured your crap sooooooo perfectly!
Posted by: darcy at October 28, 2008 3:40 PM
Actually - the "Truth" about Muhammad can be found in the Hadith, in the Qur'an, and from those who follow his example.
Posted by: champ at October 28, 2008 3:42 PM
"just not lies and deceipt (sic)" --Slave of Bloodthirsty allah
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at October 28, 2008 3:26 PM
Oh, so you mean not Mohammed, as he said "War is deceit." And you mean not "Taqiyya" as sanctioned by Warlord Mohammed - the KING of Lies and Deceit!
Con Man Warlord Mo - the KING of Lies and Deceit! (NOT a compliment!)
Posted by: darcy at October 28, 2008 3:48 PM
Liar and Conman
Abdullah Mikail
Posted by: champ at October 28, 2008 3:35 PM
Hey! Just like Mo! Quelle coincidence! (not)
Posted by: darcy at October 28, 2008 3:49 PM
Shame on you, but verily, Allah is most merciful and oft-forgiving, right?
Posted by: awake at October 28, 2008 3:09 PM
I get your sarcasm, but for the "Slave of allah's" sake -
"allah" is merciless, compassionless, and unforgiving.
Yep, that's the basalt idol called "allah!" Whacked your head to your sandstone idol today, Slave? Well, Slave to an Idol? Still brainwashed, LOL?
Posted by: darcy at October 28, 2008 3:55 PM
awake,
Really? I failed to prove Robert was a liar?
To prove you and him wrong (again) I offer this:
Robert wrote "Yet in reality, Islam forbids drinking alcohol, but it doesn’t command one to shun those who do, or not to be anywhere near them. "
after a comment from an informed blogger it was changed to :
Robert edited "Yet in reality, Islam forbids drinking alcohol, but Muhammad’s curse on those who transport (or sell) it has been largely ignored in the West – until now. "
Robert knows it, I know it, and he tried to hide behind what he said was his thoughts on the subject of "darura". ( b.s. I say.)
Let us define "darura" for those who don't understand it(including Robert.)
Islamic Law: By Mu'il Yusuf Izz al-Din, Mūʼil Yūsuf ʻIzz al-Dīn Mawil Izzi Dien
Darura, necessity
“A discussion of the sources from which legal injunctions can be deduced would not be complete without the expoloration of the principle of ‘necessity’, ehich represents a further ‘key turner’ that plays a central role in Islamic law by filling I the gapss left by the legal sources and by addressing the imollications of nexessity caused by unexpected conditions. In Arabic, necessituy is termed darura. This word is derived from the lexical root darar that signifies ‘harm’ or ‘damage’. According to Ibn Manzur, darar denotes the dire state of hardship. In the loose legal context, darura designates bot the state of necessity and its cause, sabab, which justifies altering legal injunction on the ground, of avoiding imminent harm.”
END OF EXCERPT
So in truth the darura is a concept only applicable when attempting to avoid imminent physical harm.
For instance, a starving Muslim may eat pork and not be considered sin because he must do so to save his life, or a person under threat of death my verbally apostatize to avoid death both cases are documented cases in hadith literature with an approval by the Prophet.
Darura is not an applicable dispensation for Islamic law and the order which does “…command one to shun those who do (drink, hold, pour, carry, transport, buy, sell, eat its price etc – alcohol), or not to be anywhere near them.”
So Robert is indeed a liar and it was proven.
What he says about me is just an insult that he is unable to prove.
I on the other hand prove Robert is a liar above.
What are your thoughts on that?
Truth
Abdullah
at October 28, 2008 4:00 PM
>Oh, so you mean not Mohammed, as he said "War is deceit." And you mean not "Taqiyya" as sanctioned by Warlord Mohammed - the KING of Lies and Deceit!
Not only a liar, thief and murderer, but a honest to goodness child raping pedophile.
Posted by: KrazyKafir at October 28, 2008 4:00 PM
Crap
Abdullah
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at October 28, 2008 4:00 PM
at October 28, 2008 4:04 PM
Not only a liar, thief and murderer, but an honest-to-goodness child-raping pedophile.
Posted by: KrazyKafir at October 28, 2008 4:00 PM
Yep - Mo, a 54-year-old man, raped 9-year-old Aisha.
Dirty Old Man.
Posted by: darcy at October 28, 2008 4:07 PM
Actually, Darcy I was thinking more along the lines of a sack of pig feces.
Posted by: KrazyKafir at October 28, 2008 4:09 PM
Hey abdullah - How do you like using the Internet that INFIDELS created? You like??? LOL! Remember everytime you keystroke - INFIDELS invented the computer! Yeah - those "Dirty Kuffar"! Hey - don't soil yourself! Stop using your computer, Slave to allah! Mo wouldn't like it!
Mohammedans created NOTHING. OK - al-gebra. That's it! Funny, I always hated algebra.
Posted by: darcy at October 28, 2008 4:13 PM
Funny, I always hated algebra.
Posted by: darcy
LOL, me too, just like I hate Islame.
Posted by: champ at October 28, 2008 4:19 PM
Funny, I always hated algebra.
Posted by: darcy
LOL, me too, just like I hate Islame.
Posted by: champ at October 28, 2008 4:19 PM
Ditto.
You see, "Islame" says to either subjugate or kill me, because I'm an Infidel. "Islame" commands that I worship "allah," a non-existent hate-filled pagan moon deity (idol).
Yep, sure do hate "Islame," and for MANY GOOD REASONS!
Posted by: darcy at October 28, 2008 4:23 PM
I smell a stale Kebab. Really bad breath. Look who we have here "Abdulla - the pathetic copy cat of Pat Condoll".
Abdulla, you won't know the Truth if it bit your a$$ off. One major problem of becoming a MoreSlum is that you get send a long way away from the Truth with Allahs blessing.
If you want to learn about the Truth, you have to step over to the other side. You will be enlightened about the moronic effect Quaran has over a normal mind.
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at October 28, 2008 4:40 PM
Darcy,
The Mohammedans did not even invent algebra it is a Arabic word given to this mathematical system which has its origins in Persia. Remember Mohammedans emulate Mohammad the robber, thief, illiterate moron, pedophile, rapist who knew only how to do the aforementioned titles.
Posted by: savsiv at October 28, 2008 4:41 PM
Ladies and gentlemen
for maximum pedagogical value, I suggest that you bear in mind, in your exchanges with the Mohammedan, the example of such masters of the English language as Oscar Wilde (read some of his plays to get the idea) or Jane Austen. Remember those many, new to this site, who are silently looking over our shoulders, comparing the Mohammedan with the non-Mohammedan posters.
Let us reflect, too, on the delicious irony of the fact that right here in this comments field we are currently able to observe a Mohammedan doing exactly what Ali Hamza complained he had been reduced to - jihad by word and pen.
He cannot or dare not physically assault Mr Spencer but he appears to me to be engaging in 'spiritual violence' of a very ugly kind.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at October 28, 2008 4:43 PM
Robert,
You have some real winners here...yup, now that's a quality fan base.
: )
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
at October 28, 2008 4:45 PM
Darura, just one more manifestation of the dualism that seems to constitutes every facet of the Islamic ethos.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 28, 2008 4:46 PM
Darcy,
The Mohammedans did not even invent algebra it is a Arabic word given to this mathematical system which has its origins in Persia. --savsiv
So, the zoroastrians created algebra?
at October 28, 2008 4:47 PM
Poor "slave to allah" - a total Loser.
Brainwashed Loser. "Abdullah" whacks his head to a sandstone idol, lol. Such a Loser. Total Loser.
Crap
Abdullah
at October 28, 2008 4:50 PM
Abdullah
Re darura, if what you say were true, there would be Muslims all over the country refusing to transport and sell alcohol. Instead, it has happened only in one place. So far. Elsewhere, they follow darura. I am quite sure it will give way, under pressure from people like you, but to say that it is a lie to note that Muslims are following that principle in the U.S. today is wildly overreaching, and betrays your prejudices and agenda.
Then you, characteristically, rail about the commenters here as if they are attacking you unprovoked, when in fact they see through your dishonesty and your sly excuses for jihadist supremacism, and it sickens them.
Robert Spencer
Posted by: jihadwatch at October 28, 2008 4:57 PM
I don't know if I would call it 'spiritual violence,' Dumblesdoresarmy. It's neither spiritual nor violent, just really annoying and creepy the way he cyber-stalks Robert Spencer and David Horowitz, looking for ways to twist their words so as to contrive some falsehood from them based on a lie of his own creation.
Posted by: jdamn at October 28, 2008 5:03 PM
If there is such a total prohibition of alcohol, then how do you explain Surah 4, verse 43? or Surah 2, verse 219?
It seems Allah's instructions came down a bit lax in the beginning, and got sterner as he went along. Can't He make up His mind?
Also, you proved nothing. Since you didn't bother to cite anything relevant to your statements, all you did was post your opinion. All you cited was how a scolar defines "necessity" as related to eating pork. Where are the citations to Koranic verses and hadith ?
Where is anything showing that this prohibition hasn't been ignored by Somali cab-drivers (what Robert was talking about) until the last couple of years?
at October 28, 2008 5:08 PM
Then you, characteristically, rail about the commenters here as if they are attacking you unprovoked, when in fact they see through your dishonesty and your sly excuses for jihadist supremacism, and it sickens them.
Robert Spencer
Posted by: jihadwatch
Well said!
You are sickening, Absent Minded, revolting really; and you're the real winner here. Sort of like a One-Man-Freak-Show. Gee, where are all of your supporters?
But you're an excellent case study as to the dangerous and negative effects of Islamic mind-control, so thank you for teaching us why we're all here fighting against Islam & Sharia. We just can't learn these lessons on CSPAN/CNN/Fox, etc. Very educational.
Posted by: champ at October 28, 2008 5:18 PM
Robert,
No. What I pointed out is that you lied. Period.
You attempted to hide behind the "thoughts you had" about "darura" when in truth this was even a lie, as you well know darura does not cover this situation of convenience.
Muslims who transport alcohol are only abandoning their faith and breaking divine law...in the end they will regret it before God. That or they are, like you, simply ignorant.
Only, no, because you read Arabic, so you are not ignorant, and are therefore willfully misleading people...another thing alogether.
You lied. I proved it. That is my focus.
Admit it was a mistake I can easily forgive and apologize.
Insist, and that just makes you an insistant liar.
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
at October 28, 2008 5:42 PM
Abdullah
You can call me a liar until doomsday, when all that actually has been established is that you are a Salafist who rejects accommodations that other Muslims have made to American law. That is duly noted. Your character assassination, meanwhile, while not unexpected or surprising, does not interest me.
Robert Spencer
Posted by: jihadwatch at October 28, 2008 5:44 PM
abdullah mikhail
i went to your link lets go beyond thge zionist bs as muslims especially palistinian muslims are attacking chritians for islam al quada in its first tape did not mention the palistinians as a reason they did this a year later no my friend of propergander.
The comments started like this the west in its decandance has brought misery through there culture clothes music on muslims every where our demand is you stop your ways of evilo in clothing and music something to that effect basically saying western culture was corrupting muslim children
at October 28, 2008 5:44 PM
Though i trust spencer do not just rely on one source read the companion books do not put it all on spencer research for your self this way when they ask how do you know this spencers wrong you can say i also researched it .
at October 28, 2008 5:48 PM
Darcy,
The Mohammedans did not even invent algebra it is a Arabic word given to this mathematical system which has its origins in Persia. --savsiv
So, the zoroastrians created algebra?
Posted by: darcy
Darcy,
The Hindus gave us our numbering system and the concepts of zero and negative numbers. We refer to them as "Arabic" numbers because the Arabs passed them on to us, but they never invented it.
at October 28, 2008 5:52 PM
give me donoughts
Excellent question on the alcohol prohibition.
Yes, as you noted the prohibition came down a little soft in the beginning.
If you could understand the context of the revelation over time you would understand more about what you were actually reading in the English translation of the meaning.
Time, place, circumstance of the Muslim community, etc. all play an important part in understanding the revelation over time...it took 23 years to be completely revealed.
Alcohol was restricted in steps by Quranic legislation and then it was forbidden outright in the manner I described: do not drink, hold, pour, carry, transport, buy, sell, eat its price etc – alcohol, even to the extent of do not sit with those who drink it, do not use the implements that make it...the Quran makes the strongest prohibition of anything against alcohol, and the word "Khamr" is used which was understood to be alcohol, but it is actually "intoxicants", so this covers Opium, and Heroin.
Some will rail against the drug trade by "terrorists" in Afghanistan, and so do I...they are just like the Muslims here who drink, transport, buy, sell, etc. alcohol.
Thanks for asking.
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
at October 28, 2008 5:53 PM
Carrying alcohol = haram
Sex with little girls = halal
Got it.
Posted by: KrazyKafir at October 28, 2008 5:55 PM
Muslims who transport alcohol are only abandoning their faith and breaking divine law...in the end they will regret it before God. That or they are, like you, simply ignorant.
Abdullah, aren't you viewing Islam in a rather monolithic manner?
With 1.5 billion Muslims on earth, I'm guessing that it would be quite easy to find a substantial number that disagree with you.
But I suppose it is ok to view Islam as a monolith...if you are Muslim. When anyone else does it, it is considered Islamophobia.
at October 28, 2008 5:57 PM
"the word "Khamr" is used which was understood to be alcohol, but it is actually "intoxicants" - Abdullah"
I see MoreSlums flocking to the West for all kinds medicines and for some serious operations. What kind of stuff is given to a patient in the Theater if it is not 'intoxicant'?
Btw - intoxicant substances are used all over the World including in SandyArabia.
Don't bother to reply, I know you'll concoct some crappy story.
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at October 28, 2008 6:02 PM
Robert,
It's real simple, I mean, really. I am not a Salafist, Suffi, Shia, etc. anyone of your 51 flavors of Orientalist labelling.
The legislation is there, you read Arabic, go read it. At least make an attempt at understanding it.
Just because a Muslim abandons following Islam it does not mean that it is allowed, it means that is a disobedient Muslim.
And you do just fine assasinating your own character. God is the Ultimate judge of all this that we do in life and my concience is snow white clean.
You lied. That's it.
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
at October 28, 2008 6:03 PM
i would have to agree with mikhail on one thing leave the personal insults out the quran has enough to hit him with the truth.
Unlike islam we need to speak like robert with truthges and fact not insults and stupidity you only give them more ammunition to attack the truth tellers among us.
You will alwaqys have the mikhails subversions lies and distortions do not give his like the ammo fact is dont hate muslims understand them love your enemy for it brings you closer in how to defeat him appreciate all the work he has done in subdueing all others in asia middle east europe then find his weakness and defeat him hate loses love and understanding the enemy defeats him.
at October 28, 2008 6:08 PM
Posted by: spcbat at October 28, 2008 5:44 PM
spcbat,
Please do leave a comment on the original post. By all means tear it apart and go after any single thing I posted that was wrong, and provide your proof.
I wrote it fast and posted it fast so if there is a mistake let me know.
I appreciate you following up on my information.
Let me know in specfic on FPM what you took
exception to and I will repsond.
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
at October 28, 2008 6:09 PM
"God is the Ultimate judge of all this that we do in life and my concience is snow white clean.You lied. That's it. Turd- Abdullah Mikail"
You know what really pi$$ us off is turds like you Abdulla, calling people lie and claiming to be some authority of God.
You are worse than a what dog leaves behind.
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at October 28, 2008 6:10 PM
give me donoughts, are you understanding this yet? It was ok for Allah to change his mind and gradually de-nuance his position regarding alcohol in his 'revelations' to Muhammad. Time place, context, and being pragmatic are all important when it is convenient for the Muslim. But they are quite legalistic when it comes to demanding special treatment and measures designed to undermine infidel laws and customs. In this regard, none of the "context" or setting or pragmatism applies. However, when talking about having sex with children, suddenly they become infinitely relativistic. You see, marrying and copulating with children was quite the norm in that day and age, and Muhammad was being pragmatic by trying to strengthen tribal bonds between families.
Likewise, it is ok to view Islam as a monolith when making bravado filled statements like "Islam is the fastest growing religion, there are 2 billion Muslims on earth, etc, etc." Here it is just fine and dandy to count Shia, Allowites, Ahmadis and anyone else. However, start talking about Taqiya, and suddenly, "oh, that is a Shia practice, and Shia are not Muslims." Are you getting it yet?
at October 28, 2008 6:12 PM
abdullah already have the al quada thing you stated was a lie it was not about the palistinian people till way after 911 it was about decadence of western cultures affect on islams children yiou lied period.
Posted by: spcbat at October 28, 2008 6:14 PM
Abby,
What is the penalty for apostasy in Islam, apostasy of the non-darura variety, since we are often told that "there is no compulsion in religion" according to the Qur'an?
Posted by: awake at October 28, 2008 6:17 PM
Can anyone work out what spcbat is talking about?
Posted by: PG at October 28, 2008 6:19 PM
By the way, how did this thread once more become a tired rehashing of Islamic prohibition of alcohol. Oh that's right, a certain poster has spammed references to a thread from weeks ago on another website, which is completely off topic, as he has done on dozens of other recent threads. Last time I checked, this is considered spamming/trolling, violates basic blog etiquette, and is generally considered as grounds for banning on most boards. I suppose I contributed to that by "feeding the troll," and for that, I apologize.
Posted by: Abu Allah at October 28, 2008 6:20 PM
PG ABDULLAH SAID CATCH HIM IN A LIE I POINTED OUT AL QUADAS STATED GOAL AFTER 911 WAS NOT ABOUT PAKLISTINE BUT ABOUT THE DECADENCE OF THE WESTS I9NFLUENCE ON MUSLIM CHILDREN MENTIONED ESPECIALLY WEASCLOTHES AND MUSIC .
Posted by: spcbat at October 28, 2008 6:22 PM
>You see, marrying and copulating with children was quite the norm in that day and age, and Muhammad was being pragmatic by trying to strengthen tribal bonds between families
Yes, but muhammad was suppose to be a prophet of allah, wouldn't allah know it was not right to have sex with little children? He apparently had a direct line to the big guy, wouldn't you figure that allah would have said to his prophet - Hey! get off that little girl you filthy pig. I mean, after all, should you expect at least allah would know better, even if they didn't?
Posted by: KrazyKafir at October 28, 2008 6:24 PM
give me doughnuts ,
In respect to Posted by: give me doughnuts at October 28, 2008 5:08 PM
Good point...I didn't want to labor through the proofs again. Go here and read the original yourself:
That was what I pointed out to Robert when he published this:
"Yet in reality, Islam forbids drinking alcohol, but it doesn’t command one to shun those who do, or not to be anywhere near them. "
Immediately after I made my comment he made this edit:
"Yet in reality, Islam forbids drinking alcohol, but Muhammad’s curse on those who transport (or sell) it has been largely ignored in the West – until now. "
Lifting a line verbatum from my proof against his lie.
He tried to claim the principal of "darura" was what he was thinking of when he made the edit...I sau "Hogwash"...as I have proven that darura as clearly defined above in an excerpt from a manual on Sacred Law, Sharia.
This proves that Robert is either lying about his opinion on the concept of darura being used as his excuse for editting out the lie I pointed out, or he is ignorant of the meaning of darura...both equally damning considering he allows himself to be lauded by FPM as an "Islamic Scholar", which clearly he is not.
My proof stands, as Robert said, "until doomsday" it isn't that I have "called" him anything...I showed up with my proof and proved what he did...unlike his childish assertions that I am a liar.
No, Robert, I show up with proof or I stay quiet...and I am sure he now understands the concept and application of darura.
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
at October 28, 2008 6:27 PM
I wonder, what was muhammad's curse for have sex with children?
Posted by: KrazyKafir at October 28, 2008 6:29 PM
spcbat - what are you trying to say buddy? Spit it out with some precision. Your sentences are so fuzzy that I have to upgrade my thick glasses.
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at October 28, 2008 6:29 PM
Funny thing about abdullard - he thinks he's worshipping "God" - but the reality is his prayers go to an inanimate rock deity with a crescent carved on it's little chest.
Lies and Deceit
Abdullah
at October 28, 2008 6:30 PM
MIKHAIL WHAT WAS ALQUADAS STATED GOAL FOT 911 WANNA TELL US.
See right there proves the propergander of islam al quada never mentions palistine more then a year after attacks but now you guys staTE THAT WAS GOAL SO WHY SHOULD YOU BE BELKIEVED ON ANYTHING ELSE.
at October 28, 2008 6:30 PM
Wasn't it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity was "to do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result"?
I think we are dealing with a truly disturbed individual here. There is a real obsession evident in his relentless effort to prove someone else to be a "liar". I'm not going to feed the monster this time.
Posted by: charlie at October 28, 2008 6:30 PM
For your edification, Slave of allah:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm
Posted by: darcy at October 28, 2008 6:38 PM
spcbat,
Sorry, no door prize.
The reference is to the p 147, 9/11 Commission Report (you will find it here on page 164, the report has been shifted in posting and the page numbers don't coincide, but read it for yourself:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf)
This was given in testimony before congress.
Go here for a transcript of the testimony:
http://freethoughtmanifesto.blogspot.com/2006/09/what-motivated-911-hijackers-see.html
Now are you still doing that end zone dance?
9-11 Comission report took a long time to compile and that is the source of the proof.
Anything else form you? There was a lot of information in "What He Said"...please do pick something else to discuss.
Thank you
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
at October 28, 2008 6:42 PM
AM - you need more than dougnuts, pal, a good stiff drink might actually do you some good, LOL!
Muhammad forbids alcohol - but yet he approved of murdering, raping, steeling, lying, and raising unholy hell in the name of [god] to anyone and everyone his soulless heart desired. I bet he drank like a fish, too.
AM - you may want to look up the word: HYPOCRITE in the dictionary, because that's just what your prophet was, and I'm being kind when I say that; and look up peace and truth while you're at it.
Posted by: champ at October 28, 2008 6:43 PM
The slave to Allah sounds like a broken record...Like a little kid with his fingers in his ears yelling 'I want, I want', but in this case it's 'Robert is a liar, Robert is a liar' over and over...
A strange mantra that has no spiritual value, is more akin to an emotional crisis, and will not impress Allah any more than it has posters here.
You know Abdullah you should really go peddle that snake oil to people who don't know any better. Everyone here knows how to read, and write, and form an educated opinion about Islam...We don't need you to clarify anything...Your not going to gain any converts...That's because your subject matter has already been investigated, and found bogus...The reason you get a hard way to go here is because the other posters know you are shucking and jiving. Your not fooling anyone...
Peace, truth, and all those other great WESTERN concepts...
Posted by: duh_swami at October 28, 2008 6:44 PM
ABDULLAH SORRY BOSS THATS OPINION OF COMMISSION NOT STATED GOALS ON AL QUADAS TAPES AFTER 911 WHICH WAS DECADENCE OF WEST ON MUSLIM CHILDREN AND US TROOPS IN SAUDI ARABIA SUNSHINE TRY AGAIN .
LOOK UP ALQUADA TAPESAFTER 911 ISRAEL NEVER MENTIONED.
at October 28, 2008 6:45 PM
Abdullah quotes some Islamic cleric on "darura"--
"According to Ibn Manzur, darar denotes the dire state of hardship"
Then Abdullah leaps to saying darura must involve "physical harm".
A condition of a "dire state of hardship" is not necessarily inclusive of "physical harm".
Anyway, Muslims are nearly always in a "dire state of hardship", whether they are in Muslim lands (due to the corruption of leaders and generally poor conditions of security and poverty), or whether they are in non-Muslim lands, where they feel the "dire state of hardship" of having to live around Infidels--you can tell by how much they are nearly constantly bitching and moaning about not being "respected" or being "oppressed". In the Muslim mind, there's no state of hardship worse than having to live among people you know are inferior to you but who control society and the laws like they are superior.
at October 28, 2008 7:03 PM
"Malicious content filter?
What's the matter, can't handle being held up to the truth?
Freedom of Speech seems to have gained another enemy...you."
Abdullah M
Only a Muslim can have your kind of nerve! When Robert Spencer starts ussuing death Fatwas against anyone expressing a sincere opinion, will I agree that he's an enemy of free speech. In fact, I'd accuse him of being evil.
You'r a perfect example of how Islam can erase the differences between good and evil, truth and falsehood, in a persons mind.
Posted by: rational
at October 28, 2008 7:47 PM
Wasn't it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity was "to do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result"?
Charlie,
Great point. It begs the question: why are so many posters trying to show Abdullah where he is wrong about Islam? Why not just ignore him?
Posted by: PMK at October 28, 2008 7:59 PM
Questions to Abdullah Mikhail:
Do you believe in the killing of those who openly leave Islam?
Do you believe that lapidation is an appropriate punishment for adultery?
Do you believe in amputating the limbs of thieves?
Do you believe that slavery should be legal in Darul Islam?
Thank you.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 28, 2008 8:00 PM
>Do you believe in the killing of those who openly leave Islam?
Do you believe that lapidation is an appropriate punishment for adultery?
Do you believe in amputating the limbs of thieves?
Do you believe that slavery should be legal in Darul Islam?
Wow, and those are just some of the nicer things associated with this detestable belief system.
Posted by: KrazyKafir at October 28, 2008 8:08 PM
What I see from the changing proscriptions about "intoxicants" is that as Muhammad grew older, more intolerant, and more powerful he kept telling his duped followers what he wanted them to do, or not do, and claimed (as he had from the beginning) that God told him to make these rules.
He, like all other prophets, was either deluded or a con-man.
at October 28, 2008 8:14 PM
Spcbat
I agree that muslim children are in danger of being influenced by the west into abandoning the stated goals of islam which are " blood- blood destruction- destruction. "
Posted by: pismopal at October 28, 2008 8:30 PM
Abdullah Mikail
I went to your first link you provided. This was your response to the talk at university of Arlington , TX by David Horowitz. I looked through your “Light Shinning” and found it full of Taqqiya, that right cuck full of Taqqiya.
You point to the now infamous photo that David uses to illustrate the misogyny in Mohammedanism as not being as David says, “And this poor woman,” (Zarmeena) “who is about to have her head blown off at point blank range by an AK-47 has been accused of sexual improprieties, which violate Islamic law.…” (1)
You point out that this claim is inaccurate, that she is being executed for the crime of murder and use this link as your proof. http://www.rawa. org/murder- w.htm
I looked further and found the complete story from the organization that originally posted it and arranged for the photos called RAWA a.k.a. the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. The full story about the execution is even more damn to the misogynist tendencies of Mohammedanism. http://www.rawa.org/zarmeena2.htm Granted she’s not being executed for adultery or premarital sex like all those girls hung by cranes in Iran or lashed for being raped in Saudi Arabia. Instead she’s being executed for killing an abusive husband, perhaps this is a sexual impropriety in the twisted morals of Mohammedanism, I’d have to question David just how he categories these things. But from what I know and also my opinion of the teachings of the pedophile “prophet”, I’d have to categories any time that a woman that doesn’t submit to her husband in all things or fights back it could be accused of sexual improprieties. But hey, we’re talking about the MISOGYNY in Mohammedanism, I could just show you a picture of a burqa and I’d win the debate.
You also listed his reference to the Holy Land Foundation as a front for Hammas as being untruthful you claimed that no evidence has been given and claimed that all organizations involved have “licenses”. Well first the Holy Land Foundation trial went to a mistrial and is being brought up again by the Federal government. I doubt the Federal Judiciary would have allowed a re-trial, if there wasn’t some evidence. And as for these “licensed” organizations, just because some have “licenses” doesn’t mean that every group they worked with does (which is what some of the trial is about) and even then those with ”licenses” might not be following the law. Ask any one who has had the displeasure of dealing with a drunk drive if a “license” means the laws have been followed.
You also claimed that Front Page Magazine had lost 64% of it’s readers since the Terrorism Awareness tour began. The numbers on the very page you site don’t agree with you. They are: Repeat Visitors November 2006 – 99,562 / September 2008 - 106,867.
Most of what you site is out right fraud or misleading, or can’t be followed up even through your dead links.
Next I notice that at the very first you show an “interesting” choice in your wording when you describe David as follows:
“David had a powerful stage presence despite his short stature and long arms which made it seem his hands hung too near his knees…”
Very reminiscent of the Koran and the ahadith in calling Jews APES and PIGS.
Frankly sir, I find you nothing more then a disingenuous Taqqiya Artist and Troll.
Posted by: senor doeboy at October 28, 2008 8:42 PM
PMK - I don't think it's so much that the other posters are trying to show AM where he is wrong. I think he is providing perfect fodder for backing certain points about islam and for bringing forth other discussions among sane people.
I think AM is the one repeating futile behavior.
Posted by: charlie at October 28, 2008 8:48 PM
Abdullah Mikail,
We're all waiting for a response from you to the questions I posed, which are much more fundamental to the value and morality of Islam as a belief system than questions about the meaning of the word Darura.
I will repeat them:
Do you believe in the killing of those who openly leave Islam?
Do you believe that lapidation is an appropriate punishment for adultery?
Do you believe in amputating the limbs of thieves?
Do you believe that slavery should be legal in Darul Islam?
at October 28, 2008 8:53 PM
PS - Please don't "scuttle away and hide under something dark" like you accuse your opponents of doing.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 28, 2008 8:56 PM
Moslems should never call anyone a liar.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at October 28, 2008 8:57 PM
I think he is providing perfect fodder for backing certain points about islam and for bringing forth other discussions among sane people.
I think AM is the one repeating futile behavior.
Posted by: charlie
Exactly!
Posted by: champ at October 28, 2008 8:58 PM
Moslems should never call anyone a liar.
Posted by: interestinconundrum
Good one, ILMAO!!
Posted by: champ at October 28, 2008 8:59 PM
I think Abdullah took a powder...his last post was at 6:42.
Probably just went to pray and ask for Allah's help. Like a bad penny, he will turn up again...
Posted by: duh_swami at October 28, 2008 9:01 PM
Denver Rodeo,
In response to:
Posted by: DenverRodeo [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 28, 2008 7:03 PM
"...which justifies altering legal injunction on the ground, of avoiding imminent harm.”
The Scholar was pretty clear right there...the bottom line is the the injunction can be called upon for the dispensation of darura when "avoiding imminent harm". That means clear and present danger.
Got it now, Denver Rodeo?
Truth
Abdullah
at October 28, 2008 9:14 PM
Cornelius,
Do you believe in the killing of those who openly leave Islam? I already answered this one. No.
Do you believe that lapidation is an appropriate punishment for adultery? It is a deterrent.
Do you believe in amputating the limbs of thieves? It is a deterrent.
Do you believe that slavery should be legal in Darul Islam? There is no such thing as "Darul Islam." Properly rephrase the question.
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
at October 28, 2008 9:25 PM
"Expect MSA's on campuses
all over the country to hold rallies denouncing Bahlul's linking of jihad with blood and destruction."
I will NOT be holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
Islam reminds me of a story, this man had a dog that he would kick every day, the dog would come to him whimpering with its tail tucked between its legs, yet if someone walked down the street it would bark and snarl at the person, even if the person would pet it and give it something to eat.
Posted by: stickman at October 28, 2008 9:36 PM
Posted by: senor doeboy at October 28, 2008 8:42 PM
With a lot of smoke and mirrors you completely try to side step the issue and confuse people.
After boldly stating he would not lie to us, David Horowitz proceeded to lie three times and I proved it...the fourth being his word that he wouldn't lie to us.
I don't have to go past that.
Journalists should have integrity not to lie.
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
at October 28, 2008 9:42 PM
JW crew, PLEASE ban this ID10T!!!!
Posted by: Drewbenstein at October 28, 2008 9:43 PM
>Do you believe that lapidation is an appropriate punishment for adultery? It is a deterrent.
Do you believe in amputating the limbs of thieves? It is a deterrent
God, what human garbage.
at October 28, 2008 9:43 PM
God, what human garbage.
Posted by: KrazyKafir at October 28, 2008 9:43 PM
How about Sadist? Anyone who would even consider the above stoning and amputating is a Sadist, and has many other serious mental problems besides.
Which is Abdullah Mikail.
Sadism and Psychopathy
The Mohammedan
at October 28, 2008 10:07 PM
"Sadism and psychopathy" Darcy
My point exactly. AM embodies those qualities of Islam perfectly. He provides a perfect example of the worst who are attracted to this sick belief system, and also answers some questions as to why they are attracted to it.
Posted by: charlie at October 28, 2008 10:12 PM
Oh well, feed a troll, and the troll gets fatter, more preponderant, and predictably more pugnacious.
A thread hijacker...
This guy will not come up with a straight answer for anything...Everyone is wrong except him...throw him to the sharks...
at October 28, 2008 10:20 PM
Drewbenstein
Why, banning me would be an affront to free speech!
Shame on you for calling on censorship in a free speech zone like this...are you a communist?
Truth
AM
at October 28, 2008 10:24 PM
Abby,
Stop with the under-card bickering and answer the simple question posed to you, by me, if you will.
Posted by: awake at October 28, 2008 10:31 PM
Banning trolls is permitted.
If you do not want to be banned as a thread hijacking, bandwidth wasting troll, than don't act like one.
So far you have failed the test of civility, by insulting your host...
I suppose you can't help it being a quasi and confused apostate.
Free speech does not include confiscating a thread on another's web site.
That is nothing more than theft...
But I think you know that...don't you...
Posted by: duh_swami at October 28, 2008 10:34 PM
What would a visitor -- say, a student who had attended a talk by Spencer and now wished to learn more -- to this site think, if he had just scrolled down through the 104 postings at this thread?
It's a runaway train.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFJ3KayeUTc&feature=related
at October 28, 2008 10:34 PM
Hugh makes an excellent point. Abby is living in a failed existence.His continued refusal to answer a simple question belies much
Posted by: awake at October 28, 2008 10:59 PM
A run away train...That's what it is all right.
If this was my first visit to JW, and read this thread, it would not turn me off.
But then, I am a product of rough and tumble internet bouts, and it takes more to turn me off than most people.
I would hope if anyone comes in on a chaotic thread, they will find the chaos interesting enough to stick around...But it could just as easily go the other way.
JW/DW are academic...Ideally we come here to learn or sometimes teach...Decorum is required.
So called trolls disrupt decorum, which is why a certain individual should have been banned as soon as he called RS a liar...the first time.
This would eliminate a lot of the 'run away train' syndrome.
at October 28, 2008 11:16 PM
Stoning and amputation are deterrents? And this constitutes an argument? Any dire and barbaric threat could be described as a deterrent, but so what? It doesn't go to the fundamental issue of proper justice.
As Sir Thomas More said to Thomas Cromwell, "You threaten like a dockside bully." "And how should I," replied Cromwell. "Like a minister of state," said More-------"with justice."
Islam is the monstrous dockside bully. Western Civilization is the minister of state. Muslims and their dhimmi apologists never can tell the difference-----like the rube above, Abdullah Mikhail. Poor AM is almost certainly doomed to go to his grave never figuring out how the world should really work. What a waste of life.
Whoa! Hugh is right. This is one hell of a runaway train.
Posted by: Wellington
at October 28, 2008 11:21 PM
QUESTION: Do you believe in the killing of those who openly leave Islam?
ABDULLAH: I already answered this one. No.
RESPONSE: I see. I take it then that you reject the five Hadith from the collection of Bukari, with 5 different narrators, all quoting the Prophet Muhammad as calling for the killing of those who leave Islam?
QUESTION: Do you believe that lapidation is an appropriate punishment for adultery?
ABDULLAH: It is a deterrent.
RESPONSE: I see. So to deter adultery, you clearly support the action of burying an adulteress woman up to her armpits and pelting her with stones so that she dies an agonizing death!
QUESTION: Do you believe in amputating the limbs of thieves?
ABDULLAH: It is a deterrent.
RESPONSE: I see. So to deter theft, you clearly support amputating the limbs of thieves.
QUESTION: Do you believe that slavery should be legal in Darul Islam?
ABDULLAH: There is no such thing as "Darul Islam." Properly rephrase the question.
RESPONSE: Do you believe that slavery should be legal in an Islamic society?
Posted by: Cornelius at October 28, 2008 11:26 PM
If Abdullah Mikail wants to experience "truth" and the love of Islam, how about he flies to Gaza and attempt to start up a political group to rival Hamas? Even better, whilst he's there, get him to convert from Islam to Christianity and claim his love for all non-Muslims, especially Jews, and have him state that he believes all non-Muslims should be equal to Muslims and not subjected to the will of Allah. That all people in Gaza should have the freedom of conscience and be able to worship any god they like, or not worship any god at all.
Let's see how much fun and "truth" he experiences after that.
Posted by: S Perry at October 28, 2008 11:28 PM
I agree that AM should have been banned the first time. There is no decorum in name-calling. He delights in insulting other posters. No decorum in that either - or in plain old insanity.
Posted by: charlie at October 28, 2008 11:29 PM
Like I said, a simple question posed with no response.
Expected.
Posted by: awake at October 28, 2008 11:32 PM
Most of you have noticed how much Abdullah Mikail's statements contradict many other voices within Islam today. No wonder why there is so much Muslim on Muslim violence, because within Jihad there is internal feuds to be top hog...all vying to be Allah's greatest deceiver. Al-Qeada hates the house of Saud & wants to see them take a nose dive into a oil pit, while the Shia would rather send the Iraqi Sunni to Allah in a hand basket, Hamas wants to play with Fatah swinging from a tree [by their necks].
One thing that sure cannot be said about Islam, is love. Kinda makes Christian sectarian bickering look like a hippy lovefest.
Posted by: revparadigm at October 28, 2008 11:58 PM
e allows himself to be lauded by FPM as an "Islamic Scholar", which clearly he is not. Posted by the troll
Are you an islamic scholar? The banal, protracted complexities of islam are farcical. However, Mr. Spencer is quite knowledgeable about the tedious trivia of islam and islamic law and if you disagree with him about one of islam's finer defects, why not just politely say so instead of calling him a liar? He is not a liar and you damn well know it but since you cannot refute him, you resort to ad hominem attacks. You lose.
Hate to tell you but you're doing a terrible job of defending the indefensible. Islam is sufficiently disgusting without any help from you but you do showcase that fact so well.
Posted by: Susanp at October 29, 2008 12:03 AM
Abdullah Mikail
You claim I use smoke and mirror to side step the issue and confuse people.
The issue you have proposed is that David Horowitz and Robert Spencer are liars.
You placed your spoofed evidence of David Horowitz’s lies in you link.
I examined each or your claims and found that in fact it is you who are presenting partial and distorted information or just plain falsehoods. You also use the classic straw man technique to side step the issue.
You did not prove anything against my valid points showing your disingenuous libel against David Horowitz. I have found your “proofs” false.
And since you open your comments on this thread with claims of “proof” against David Horowitz, and that has proven false. I won’t even look at your claims against Robert Spencer. Because with him, I’ve been able to verify the veracity of what he has said in the past. Your statements, I have found only distortion, misinformation, or just plain falsehoods or as they say LIBEL.
You like most Mohammedan attempting Dawa, You have to lace it with heavy Taqqiya and hope the sheeple with buy it.
at October 29, 2008 12:06 AM
I can never believe a religion is true that dangles as rewards in the afterlife those things it condemns as immoral and Satanic in the here and now. Islam promises wine, women and song, or pretty little boys in the hereafter, while stoning you or beheading you for indulging in them in the present. Allah is neither merciful, and oft forgiving, but capricious and a hypocrite. I choose not to respect your prophet or your religion, Abdallah. Islam is the most vile hoax ever perpetrated upon a gullible and foolish people.
Posted by: Jewel Atkins at October 29, 2008 12:07 AM
Back to alcohol just briefly. In Sudan a Moslem man was telling me alcohol is so wrong, and that the south Sudanese DRINK and then they get guns and kill people. I wanted to say, "Golly, what's the Moslems' excuse then?" Just as well the Janjawid, for instance, don't drink...they might get violent! But of course I held my tongue; they are polite people over there, and when in Rome...(our rule, not so much theirs though, when they drift our way.)
Posted by: PG at October 29, 2008 12:24 AM
Darura explained:
http://jihadwatch.org/archives/016820.php
As for the Muhammedan troll who derailed this thread: get a life, loser!
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 29, 2008 12:27 AM
Jewel Atkins: I would like to second everything you said in your 12:07 A.M. post. It was well stated and rang true throughout. My compliments. The only wonder of it all for me is why anyone would (or could) believe the nonsense which is Islam.
Posted by: Wellington at October 29, 2008 12:34 AM
If Abdullah Mikail wants to experience "truth" and the love of Islam, how about he flies to Gaza and attempt to start up a political group to rival Hamas? Even better, whilst he's there, get him to convert from Islam to Christianity and claim his love for all non-Muslims, especially Jews, and have him state that he believes all non-Muslims should be equal to Muslims and not subjected to the will of Allah. That all people in Gaza should have the freedom of conscience and be able to worship any god they like, or not worship any god at all.
Let's see how much fun and "truth" he experiences after that.
Posted by: S Perry
LOL, that's a GREAT idea!!
AM obviously lives a very sheltered life, protected from Islamic hardliners here in America, so it would be good for him to sink his teeth into living with those who follow a religion he claims to love so dearly by experiencing the Real-World with "devout" Muslims for a change - in fact - it sounds as if AM has developed his own brand of Islam that he should share with those from the mothership, and see if they agree with his Softer-Side of Islam crap.
Posted by: champ at October 29, 2008 12:49 AM
Abdullah answered my objection by saying that "imminent harm" was in the scholarly text he was showing us which was supposed to prove that this is the official understanding of darura for Islam.
One problem with this--the "imminent harm" part is the conclusion of that one scholar, it's his interpretation he's putting on the subject, darura, but he doesn't provide any evidence or any kind of argument (that would need evidence too) to back up his interpretation.
But I guess for Muslims, if the guy is a "scholar" and he has a long name like "Mu'il Yusuf Izz al-Din, Mūʼil Yūsuf ʻIzz al-Dīn Mawil Izzi Dien" then the Muslim has no choice but to submit his brain and believe it.
Bottom line, Abdullah's excerpt doesn't prove that in Islam darura requires "imminent harm" -- all he did was show that one guy, "Mu'il Yusuf Izz al-Din, Mūʼil Yūsuf ʻIzz al-Dīn Mawil Izzi Dien", thinks so (but that one guy didn't give any evidence to back it up).
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023269.php#c591370
Posted by: DenverRodeo at October 29, 2008 2:38 AM
AM obviously lives a very sheltered life, protected from Islamic hardliners here in America, so it would be good for him to sink his teeth into living with those who follow a religion he claims to love so dearly by experiencing the Real-World with "devout" Muslims for a change - in fact - it sounds as if AM has developed his own brand of Islam that he should share with those from the mothership, and see if they agree with his Softer-Side of Islam crap.
Posted by: champ
Champ, you're absolutely right and thanks for your comments. AM has garbage views. Furthermore, as per your comments, AM thinks he has some kind of following with his softer side of Islam crap yet he's so far removed from the mainstream of Islam that he's kidding himself. And then he's on these blogs trying to convince Robert Spencer and us that somehow we're wrong even though we're referring to Islamic teachings, Islamic texts and all things Islamic to prove our points on Islam.
AM, you're a loser.
Champ, you're a champ. If you ever come down to Australia, or if you happen to live in Australia, just drop a line anytime mate (I don't mind if Robert gives you my email). Greetings to all.
Posted by: S Perry at October 29, 2008 4:06 AM
You see, marrying and copulating with children was quite the norm in that day and age, and Muhammad was being pragmatic by trying to strengthen tribal bonds between families
-Abu Allah
Yeah, but for one thing, if the Koran is the immutable word of Allah for all people for all time then context is irrelevant. If Bedouin barbarians did it then it's what everyone is to do forever. That also means that at no point can the Koran contradict itself without being total crap. Even if one takes the hopelessly logically-flawed view that the Koran can contradict itself, it never does wrt pedophilia like it does with alchohol. There is never a single prohibition against raping little girls. Furthermore, since Perv Mo actively advocated raping one's retarded toddler-aged family members and lusted openly after a baby, not only can no Muslim ever take issue with pedophilia, but to fail to actively advocate it at every opportunity is to be patently un-Sunna.
Also, Perv Mo was Aisha's uncle, so it wasn't for the purpose of strengthening tribal bonds between families. He had to concoct a special dispensation from 'Allah' rendering Abu Bakr not his brother because he was adopted. If anything they were too closely related for it to have been acceptable, just like with Zaynab. He just wanted to rape his retarded 6-year-old niece. There's no dancing around that one. All Muslims, by definition, are pedophiles, whether or not they actually rape children. They all condone, idealize, and advocate it, or they cease to be Muslims.
Posted by: jdamn at October 29, 2008 5:46 AM
More coal for that train: Here's a touching story that should warm the cockles of any islamist's heart. What a beautiful belief system.
Posted by: KrazyKafir at October 29, 2008 7:26 AM
I think AM is the one repeating futile behavior.
charlie,
If you say so.
I see people talking past one another. I saw no reason to respond to anything AM said. He is seeking attention and posters are playing into his hands.
Everyone here keeps responding to his stupidity so how is what AM is doing futile? You are giving him what he wants.
at October 29, 2008 8:02 AM
Folks,
I think we've been a bit unfair to Abdullah Mikail. He has come here into the belly of the beast in order to convey his own viewpoint, and we owe him a debt of gratitude for doing so.
What he has revealed is absolutely instructional: Abdullah is an obviously educated, acculturated Muslim who can easily and comfortably exist and interact with non-Muslims, but whose beliefs are - in their essence - no different at all than those of the bearded fanatics of the Taliban.
He advocates the grotesquely inhumane punishment of stoning for those women who have had the gall to sleep with the man of their choice.
He advocates amputating the limbs of thieves, again a grotesquely inhumane, medieval punishment, but one that is mandated in a 7th century holy book and therefore, to him, is moral and applicable for all time.
Finally, Abdullah has chosen to reveal that he rejects the Islamic mandate for killing apostates, even though it is clearly stipulated in 5 different Hadith with 5 different narrators, and is considered law by all 4 schools of Sunni jurisprudence. A word to the wise Abdullah, don't announce your opposition to the murder of apostates to your co-religionists at your local mosque; the "tolerance" of your religion might suddenly become apparent to you and your personal safety might be jeopardized.
Abdullah came here to highlight an innacuracy in Robert Spencer's understanding of the Arab word Darura and its applicability to those Muslims who transport alcohol. Whether he has done so is a matter of opinion. Such let's be honest, such a minor detail is hardly relevant in determining Robert Spencer's credibility as an Islamic scholar.
But regardless of what he came here to do, Abdullah has inadvertently alerted us anew to a reality that Robert Spencer has emphasized over and over...that poverty and lack of education have nothing to do with the fanaticism of Muslims...that many of the most educated, Westernized Muslims are as outspokenly supportive of stonings and amputations as their uneducated co-religionists in the Arab/Muslim world.
The mere existence of Abdullah Mikail and people like him is proof of the dire necessity of an institution like Jihad Watch.
For that, we thank you Abdullah.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 29, 2008 8:31 AM
Posted by: Cornelius at October 29, 2008 8:31 AM
Well said.
I am stil waiting for Abby's specific answer to the Islamic penalty for apostasy, but I do see that he does not condone the killing of apostates, contrary to normative, mainstream Islamic jurisprudence.
Posted by: awake
at October 29, 2008 8:41 AM
Cornelius,
Point taken.
But at some point, don't you say enough is enough?
at October 29, 2008 9:11 AM
An odd sort come here.
They think it “inhuman” to hold a deterrent in law that prevents the destruction of families and society, the severe punishments, the deterrents to a crime, in Sharia for adultery, and yet I have read them in other bloggs of similar forte actually cheering for and supporting the incineration of innocent civilians with nuclear weapons.
So for them, a nuclear arsenal and the threat of it being used as a deterrent is “civilized” and “okay” and they accept and approve of its use in murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, yet they get all upset because I point out the deterrent in the Islamic Law that currently still protects majority Muslim nations from the modern plagues of AIDS and STD’s that run rampant in societies that have no deterrent whatsoever to adultery, and, on the other hand, actually even celebrate it in the media and society.
On a certain level people who are fans here are already insane.
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
at October 29, 2008 9:25 AM
Back again? Don't you get the message? Is your answering machine broken? Are you a glutton for punishment?
The posters here no longer care what you think...You wore out your welcome days ago.
Bye-bye Abudllah...
Posted by: duh_swami at October 29, 2008 9:36 AM
..."and yet I have read them in other bloggs of similar forte actually cheering for and supporting the incineration of innocent civilians with nuclear weapons."
When you have lost an argument, bring in the baseless claim of nuclear obliteration and the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, found on "other bloggs".
You are a sore loser Abby and your atempted "Dawa" has failed miserably here.
at October 29, 2008 9:37 AM
Islam is not a religion. It is a brutal form of social control that destroys human life.
Posted by: mike trivisonno at October 29, 2008 10:06 AM
So for them, a nuclear arsenal and the threat of it being used as a deterrent is “civilized” and “okay” and they accept and approve of its use in murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, yet they get all upset because I point out the deterrent in the Islamic Law that currently still protects majority Muslim nations from the modern plagues of AIDS and STD’s that run rampant in societies that have no deterrent whatsoever to adultery, and, on the other hand, actually even celebrate it in the media and society.
On a certain level people who are fans here are already insane.
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 29, 2008 9:25 AM
I know I should just let this go but I cannot! This logic is so flawed that it makes me cringe. Islamic law protects muslims from becoming civilized citizens of the 21st century and from joining the modern world. It deprives them of prosperity, literacy, productivity, freedom, and most of all, justice.
Self-defense, self-preservation are not uncivilized and if takes the threat of nuclear annihilation to deter islamic fanatics, so be it. Islamic nations suffer the modern plagues of STD's and AIDS just like Western nations, they simply keep their statistics under wraps to try to fool the world into believing that their draconian "moral" standards prevent such scourges. Crime, drug addiction, alcoholism, prostitution, and every other social blight known to man are rampant in islamic nations and we all know it.The deranged president of Iran recently said that his country had no homosexuals and lo and behold, a few days later, two evil homosexuals were hung. Lying is an inherent trait in muslims and it's amazing how they do it so earnestly and with straight faces.
If islamic hellholes other than Pakistan had nukes, they would not only use them as deterrents, they would give them to terrorists to use at their discretion. The islamic "family" is a farce. Polygamy is not conducive to family values and the offspring of these depraved unions are virtually deprived of a father who is busy running back and forth between wives to satisfy his sexual appetite. He isn't interested in raising well-adjusted children in a normal family atmosphere, he wants personal gratification and variety. I would call that selfish and cruel. Don't praise the virtues of the islamic family because there are none. Adultery is hardly the ultimate sin; rape, murder, and slavery are far worse but are sanctioned by islam. There is nothing moral or decent about islam, including its so-called "deterrents" to sin and crime. We're not insane, just informed. The truth about islam is readily available to anyone who wishes to know it. Believe that!
Posted by: Susanp at October 29, 2008 10:43 AM
Thanks, S Perry! I've never been to Australia, but it sounds like an awesome place to live. My sister-in-law lives in Perth, and even though we've never seen her place, she and her family just love it there (she was born in Michigan, so she flies to the US for visits). And I love making new friends on JW, so thank you for the invitation to write! :-)
Yeah, AM calls the majority of us "an odd sort" and "already insane", which only describes who he is, so the poor man is only projecting his own character onto us. Although it must be hard when you're outnumbered like he is, but then that's his own durn-fault for allowing himself to get caught up in the Islamic cauldron of lies.
Take care!
Posted by: champ at October 29, 2008 12:01 PM
Cornelius really hit the nail on the head: "The mere existence of Abdullah Mikail and people like him is proof of the dire necessity of an institution like Jihad Watch."
"For that, we thank you Abdullah."
I agree, because we don't often get a look inside the mind of a Muslim, like we have with AM, and we sure don't get these insights from a news headline or the media!
Besides, the decision as to when enough is enough ultimately lies with Robert, as he has the ability to either ban this clown, or ask him to leave.
Having said that, I do NOT think that AM should be allowed to come on here and accuse Robert of lying, when clearly Robert IS NOT lying; but then that's what makes Robert so amazing, because I think that he is always putting the Truth above his own ego and self interests. I mean, look at what he's chosen to do with his own life? How many of us are willing to put our life on the line, like Robert has, just to get the Truth about Muhammad/Islam out there?
I cannot read Robert's mind, but I imagine he sees AM's comments as instructional, as well as annoying and pathetic, yes, but overall they are instructional. Robert's patience with this guy is beyond anything I could ever exercise with a Total-Loser like AM - but my guess is that the only reason AM is even allowed to remain on board is because he offers the reader a look inside the mind of an Islamist.
AM may get banned tomorrow, and rightfully so -- but for today -- he has shown us things we NEED to know about our enemy, and the only way to uncover these things is to get the man to show us what he's made of. Nuff said.....
Posted by: champ at October 29, 2008 12:24 PM
Cornelius,
My question wasn't in relation to your excellent summation, but to the number and duration of the exchanges. Challenging AM's arguments is valid but should it have gone on as long as it did?
at October 29, 2008 1:50 PM
Susan's last paragraph was fantastic.
She is so right, the Islamic family is truly characteristically dysfunctional...the wife lives in a state of perpetual insecurity, for if her husband divorces her, she can only retain custody of her children if she remains unmarried, and even then according to some, only until the children are seven.
Therefore, she bends to the will of her husband at every turn, submerging her identity and her aspirations. The resulting frustrations are taken out on her daughters, who at an early age learn that they too are second class citizens, beasts of burden who are expected to wait on their father and brothers hand and foot.
In contrast, the Muslim wife excessively indulges her sons, for they are the only possible protection from her husband and her only means of entry and acceptance into the larger society. These boys grow up into demanding, spoiled brats, so used to getting their way that when they come of age and realize the extent of their powerlessness in the real world....well, this is much of the actual source of the oft-mentioned rage seen on the Muslim "street."
Posted by: Cornelius at October 29, 2008 1:56 PM
Abdullah,
Your analogy is spurious.
Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to war. No one here that I can remember has advocated their use.
Lapidation is a deterrent not to war or violence, but to a woman's right to love the man of her choice. Adultery is indeed a violation of the marital vow, and deserves some sanction, such as in the West, where it is considered grounds for divorce, but as Susan eloquently pointed out, there are much greater crimes such as rape, murder, slavery and pedophilia, none of which are prohibited in Islamic law.
But I understand your confusion; for all your education and erudition, you're still a believing Muslim...and it is impossible for you to empathetically comprehend an alternative world-view.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 29, 2008 3:05 PM
Cornelious,
FPM is the parent organization of sorts for JW...that is where the "cheering" was done for the use of nuclear weapons on Japanese civilians (just to point up awake for his little tear).
"Lapidation is a deterrent not to war or violence, but to a woman's right to love the man of her choice."
I am sorry, but you are wrong. The law deals with both male and female and has only been applied five times in 1,400 years...possibly a sixth with this report from Somalia if we are to believe it.
"rape, murder, slavery and pedophilia, none of which are prohibited in Islamic law."
All of these are prohibitted. It is your misunderstanding of Sharia that prevents you from knowing this. Rape is assault and adultry, Sharia law managing slavery is no longer even translated as the practice is obsolete - slavery has been abolished by design, and as far as the "pedophilia" (ad nasuem) smears, see what happens to you if you molest a child...trust me it will be brutal what happens to you. Ignorance is the problem you have, and it is willful...you choose what you find inflammatory and go no further in your research in an attempt to understand. That's it.
"But I understand your confusion; for all your education and erudition, you're still a believing Muslim...and it is impossible for you to empathetically comprehend an alternative world-view."
Sorry you feel that way. In this sound bite medium things are truncated even further than the "sound bite"...you'd have to meet me and know me and see the work that I do for humanity to understand anything about me. Since that will most likely not happen, it's all the same to me, I hope you have a great day.
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
P.S. awake, I am not inviting you to anything. If you understood the Quran and what it advises you'd realise that. I am just telling the truth and backing it up. You don't like it, that's fine, I did my job all the same...i am not responsible for how you feel and don't really care.
Peace all the same.
at October 29, 2008 3:33 PM
I don't see Cornelius' point about AM's presence being something we should all be aware of. It's like Hugh says, there are the oddball losers who join the Islamic party because they are easily duped, empty and dead inside, and need something to make them feel superior. They aren't the type who can simply work hard, be successful, and be happy with that. If that were the case they would be atheists or choose a belief system in which EVERYONE is a human being and nobody is superior to anyone else. If people like us want something to make us feel better about our lives we work hard and earn that.
Of course people like him can spring up in any society. Malignant narcissism is everywhere. It's the rule, not the exception, in Islamic societies, but it's not as if everyone in the Free World grows up being loved unconditionally and in a moral, ethical atmosphere. That's how people like him arise. That's why there are so many folks who become Muslim in prison. All Muslims are necessarily malignant narcissists, and any malignant narcissist who isn't a Muslim is far more likely to fall into some sort of supremacist cult at some point than the rest of us who are able to sort our right from wrong and be objectivist. Even those who are good people who are unfortunate enough to have been raised in Islamic societies are able to sort out right from wrong. They have an inner moral compass. They abide by the Golden Rule. Those are the Ali Sinas and Wafa Sultans of this world. They leave Islam because they are too good for it, and many of them devote their lives to the betterment of the world rather than, like Muslims, the subjugation of all the decent, hard-working folks.
Posted by: jdamn at October 29, 2008 3:55 PM
Abdullah,
To give you a taste of your own medicine, YOU LIE!!!!....MULTIPLE TIMES!!!!
LIE #1) The Quran explicitly states that female captives in war are the property of the Muslim male captor that and he may do whatever he pleases with what his "right hand possesses"...and that means sexual intercourse, whether it is mutually desired or not.
LIE #2) No where in the Quran is slavery proscribed; in fact, it is mentioned repeatedly as normative.
LIE #3) Muhammad consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was 9 according to 6 different Hadith in Bukari's collection. As the examplar for all mankind, pedophilia is forever enshrined as legal in appropriately-run Sharia societies.
LIE #5) There is NO WAY you can possibly document that Lapidation has only occured 5 times in the 1400 year history of Islam. Furthermore, the infrequency of formal lapidation is merely a testament to the frequency of honor killing in the Muslim world, where the family does the dirty work of society and thus preserves the family honor.
I don't know you, and I don't ever hope to know you. Anyway who supports Lapidation and amputation is a barbarian in my eyes.
Have a nice day.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 29, 2008 4:04 PM
You're wrong Jdamn.
Adversarial discourse with Muslims is valuable on multiple levels.
1) It gives you insight into their thinking (know thy enemy)
2) It sharpens your debating skills
3) It's gratifying to expose the lies of Muslim interlocutors, as I have just done to Abdullah.
He may pretend otherwise, but he is reeling. He assumes infidels are ignorant about his creed...an assumption that comes back to haunt him big time.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 29, 2008 4:08 PM
"3) It's gratifying to expose the lies of Muslim interlocutors, as I have just done to Abdullah."
Yes but, how many times can you have a shower in one day?
Posted by: KrazyKafir at October 29, 2008 4:15 PM
On a certain level people who are fans here are already insane.
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at October 29, 2008 9:25 AM
LOL! Poor Nutcase Mohammedan-convert Abdullard!
Total lunatic. Somebody - check him into an asylum - FOREVER!
Crap, Lies, and Deceit, abdullah the Slave
Posted by: darcy at October 29, 2008 4:18 PM
"It's like Hugh says, there are the oddball losers who join the Islamic party because they are easily duped, empty and dead inside, and need something to make them feel superior." -jdamn
That's Abdullah Mikail in a nutshell.
And I do mean "nut." Poor Loser! Worships a sandstone pagan idol! What a "Slave."
Posted by: darcy at October 29, 2008 4:26 PM
1) It gives you insight into their thinking (know thy enemy)
2) It sharpens your debating skills
3) It's gratifying to expose the lies of Muslim interlocutors, as I have just done to Abdullah.
I agree with all 3 points, because I for one have learned things pertaining to my enemy that I wouldn't otherwise get from any other source concerning Islam, and that's the evil mindset behind Islam; and when I grow tired of #3, then I simply visit another thread.
I can always leave this thread if I've decided I have had enough of his BS and of those who choose to stay and engage him in a diaglog. I mean, there is THAT option.
Posted by: champ at October 29, 2008 4:29 PM
Hey, darcy, you crack me up! LOL!
Posted by: champ at October 29, 2008 4:30 PM
Cornelius,
LIE #1) Really? Wow, imagine that. It was a standard practice in every single culture on the planet...The Quran legislated it, regulated it, and eliminated it. But as I noted you seek the inflammatory and that's all you people want to know. If you knew it all, you'd understand how stupid this comment made you look.
LIE #2) You don't have to boast of your ignorance, it makes you look stupid:
Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #177
An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #92
Al-Maeda, Chapter #5, Verse #89
An-Noor, Chapter #24, Verse #33
Al-Mujadila, Chapter #58, Verse #3
Al-Balad, Chapter #90, Verse #13
LIE #3) They were married for the rest of his life, and an arranged marriage of such was normal in tribal societies of that day and probably still, and consumation occurred when they entered puberty. In America early the last century marriages as young as eleven still took place.
LIE #5) Documented case studies in Islamic law note that it occurred five times...this is five times I can prove.
So in the end what have you proven?
That you are ignorant of the subject under discussion.
"Have a nice day."
Every day is nice for me.
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
at October 29, 2008 4:37 PM
Hey, darcy, you crack me up! LOL!
Posted by: champ at October 29, 2008 4:30 PM
And vice-versa! However, in a whole 'nother sense (not laughing), it's the convert-Mohammedan who is "cracked up."
Insane lunatic, abdullard. I guess he felt so inferior that he had to join the Religion of Pieces, in which murder and mass-murder is not only OK'd, but also commanded, by their pagan god, "allah." Really gives your inferiority complex a boost, eh, abdullard? What a Loser.
Posted by: darcy at October 29, 2008 4:42 PM
"Have a nice day."
Every day is nice for me.
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at October 29, 2008 4:37 PM
Spoken by a Barbarian whose "religion" approves of mass-murder. Mo's "nicest days" were the beheading ones. Barbarian, savage, primitive, Barbarian. Mo LOVED the mass-beheading days! Made him feel so good inside, the psychopath.
Crap, Lies, and Deceit (just like Mo)
The Slave to allah, that doesn't exist.
at October 29, 2008 4:48 PM
"In America early the last century marriages as young as eleven still took place." --The Islamic Barbarian
Oh, really? Prove it.
at October 29, 2008 4:51 PM
Abdullah,
Cornelius said "No where in the Quran is slavery proscribed; in fact, it is mentioned repeatedly as normative."
None of your references refuting him were from the Qu'ran. So you didn't prove a thing.
Posted by: Mo Foe at October 29, 2008 4:52 PM
Also, where in the Qu'ran did it eliminate the practice of raping your female slaves?
Honest question--I wanna know!
Posted by: Mo Foe at October 29, 2008 4:53 PM
Adbullah,
The lies compound
#1) Please cite the appropriate verse in the Quran where rape is "eliminated"
You can't because it doesn't exist
But Verse 23.1 specifically tells believers they need not "restrain their carnal desires except with their wives and SLAVEGIRLS, for these are lawful to them"
Now, where is it written in the Quran that a slavegirl (or even the wife for that matter) can refuse the carnal desires of the master (or husband)?
#2) None of the verses you cited PROSCRIBES slavery (perhaps I've given you too much credit for your mastery of English). Otherwise, 23.1 would make no reference at all to "slavegirls".
Another example: You cite 2.177 encouraging "redemption of captives"...but the following verse calls for 'retaliation decreed in bloodshed: "a free man for a free man, a slave for a slave, a female for a female"
If slavery is proscribed, how can one compensate a "slave for a slave"
Either you don't know your own creed or you don't know the meaning of the word proscribe.
#3) It is hardly likely that Aisha had "reached puberty" when she was 9, as the Hadith stipulates. As for custom, then or later, who cares? The behavior of the prophet is the model of all humanity for all time, and according to the Hadith, he "consummated the marriage when she was nine" (Bukari).
We infidels, still in our pre-Islamic period of ignorance, have made sex with children a crime. Which society is more enlightened?
#5) Well, you can't prove a negative can you. My guess is that hundreds if not thousands of Muslim women have been stoned to death through the 1400 years of Islam on earth.
But once again, the honor killing absolves the state of the necessity for carrying out lapidation, and we have a pretty good idea of the frequency of honor killings in the Muslim world.
There you go buddy...it's all yours.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 29, 2008 5:13 PM
Mo Fo
Quid pro quo:
"Also, where in the Qu'ran did it eliminate the practice of raping your female slaves?"
"Honest question--I wanna know"
Can you pPoint out where it says raping is allowed?
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
at October 29, 2008 5:18 PM
CORRECTION: "But Verse 23.1 specifically tells believers they MUST "restrain their carnal desires EXCEPT with their wives and SLAVEGIRLS, for these are lawful to them"
Mo Foe, Abdullah's slavery references are all from the Quran (he cited the names of the surahs in his response). But none of them specifically prohibit slavery...(he's getting desperate).
Posted by: Cornelius at October 29, 2008 5:20 PM
What have we determined today folks?
That Abdullah LIED brazenly and repeatedly when he claimed that Islam prohibits rape, slavery and pedophilia.
And he had the gall to come here and call Robert a liar.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 29, 2008 5:36 PM
"Can you pPoint out where it says raping is allowed?" --The Mohammedan
Oh, good grief!
Females in ALL countries in ALL continents get raped. Since the dawn of time. Mohammedans rape females too - I don't give a sh** whether it's "allowed" or not. Give us a break!
And Mo raped a 9-year-old girl, and probably many more. Such as his many slaves and concubines. Mo the Rapist - without a doubt.
Posted by: darcy at October 29, 2008 5:40 PM
Cornelius,
People like you think you can take any snippet out of context and make a judgment based on it.
This should be a source of embarrassment, but you are too ignorant to understand you should be embarrassed. Ignorance is nothing to boast about.
#10 What in the world are you spouting off about? Verse 23.1 is “The believers must (eventually) win through,-“ which I of course agree with. Be more specific
#2) Ending slavery is the freeing of a slave, and for people whose desire is only heaven the order is simple to understand. It is a system you are ignorant of because you don’t understand the Islamic law in any real context…you are like one of the three blind mice describing an elephant. You only grasp what your tiny hands can hold and yet you think it the world, “It’s a tree!” , and your cohort shouts at you, “No, it’s a rope!”, and yet the third cries out, “No! It’s a wall!” and in truth all three blind mice are ignorant and incorrect as they fumble about in their darkness trying to describe something they can not comprehend because they can not see it at all.
To see the organized system of legislation that ended slavery you would have to be able to read and remember more than one sentence at a time, which I begin to doubt you are capable of, so I concede you won’t be able to understand it.
#5) This is your arrogance and male chauvinism showing through, that or a projection bias. You equate the legislation to be only for women…this further proves your ignorance. You are probably ignorant of the dispensation allowed for the swearing of lian? Am I wrong? I can prove what I say and defend what I believe with proof…you on the other hand throw out glittering generalities and you want someone else to prove your case for you.
And it comes out again, ad naseum, the “honor killing” comment. There is no such thing…it is banned in the Quran the bedrock of Islamic Law that the killing of females to preserve honor is forbidden and a gross sin. Wallow in ignorance if you like, cultural sins do not belong to Islam, they are from the period of ignorance that many people have slid back in to in these later days.
And I am not your buddy.
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
at October 29, 2008 5:48 PM
#1) Verse 23.1 to 23.5: "Blessed are the believers who are humble in their prayers; who avoid profane talk; and give alms to the destitute; WHO RESTRAIN THEIR CARNAL DESIRES EXCEPT WITH THEIR WIVES AND SLAVE GIRLS WHO ARE LAWFUL TO THEM"
The intent is explicit; slave girls are at the disposal of their masters, regardless of their own predilection. In our culture, this is rape. I don't expect you to understand.
#2) Ah yes, a typical method of Muslim dissimulation; 'Islam is much too esoteric for you pedestrian infidels to grasp'
Indeed? You can't document a Quranic verse that outlaws slavery, so you go into a spiel about "blind mice". You are laughable.
The Quran is replete with verses on the appropriate treatment of slaves, ergo Sherlock, slavery is NOT prohibited.
Case closed. You lied. You lose.
#3) I see you've conceded this point.
#5) I never claimed Lapidation didn't apply to males; the Hadith clearly documents such a case.
I do claim that Lapidation is a barbaric and inhumane punishment, that it is part of Islamic law (which you have conceded), and that its lack of frequency in the modern age is simply because the family normally takes matters into their own hands via honor murder...
...and as matter of fact, there is a ruling in Islamic jurisprudence quoted often by Robert on these pages that gives legal sanction to parents and grand-parents to murder their children...thus providing at least one scholarly ruling allowing for honor killings, which is why the phenomenon is so prevalent in the Islamic world and why the perpetrators are rarely, if ever, punished.
Cheers.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 29, 2008 6:18 PM
Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2
Al Azhar - Parents are exempt from punishment after killing their children.
I don't know how much legal weight this carries in the Sunni Muslim world, but it appears to be considerable, given the prevalence of honor killings and the absence of punishment.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 29, 2008 6:25 PM
Cornelius, here is the Islamic law you made reference to: (2nd paragraph)
A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right."
However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).
In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law. Why does this stipulation appear in a manual of Islamic law if this has nothing to do with Islam?
Posted by: darcy at October 29, 2008 6:28 PM
Yeah, read it and weep, Liar abdullard.
Posted by: darcy at October 29, 2008 6:31 PM
Thanks Darcy.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 29, 2008 6:37 PM
Cornelius,
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize that Abdullah used the titles of the suras. My bad.
Oh, and yes, Abdullah, it looks like Cornelius answered your question for me. 23:1 sounds like its saying one can have one's way sexually with slavegirls.
That is allowing rape! I think it's you who have to try harder.
Mohammad owned and raped slaves. And this is a good example for all mankind to follow?
And if slavery was eliminated in the Qu'ran, how come Saudi Arabia only officially abolished it in 1960? That's right; some 1300 years after the Qu'ran was compiled.
And Niger officially abolished it only 5 YEARS AGO! It was officially allowed (and still unofficially practiced) into the 21st Century!
If the Qu'ran abolished it, it really did a piss-poor job.
Posted by: Mo Foe at October 29, 2008 7:11 PM
Cornelius - you've succeeded in proving that AM is a liar, so now he needs to pony up and make good on the apology he "promised" if proven wrong. How much you want to bet he WON'T keep his promise?
Your turn, AM, time to make good on that promise.
Posted by: champ at October 29, 2008 7:36 PM
Abdullah,
Your question to me, "Can you pPoint out where it says raping is allowed?" is unwarranted.
See, you made a claim - "The Qu'ran eliminated raping of slaves."
I asked where it did so.
I'm NOT REQUIRED to prove that, as I'm not the one who made the assertion; you did.
So, I ask again, since you claimed it, show me; where in the Qu'ran did it eliminate slavery? You haven't answered yet.
After you do that; maybe you can explain how Saudi Arabia missed it for so, very, very, very long.
Posted by: Mo Foe at October 29, 2008 7:55 PM
Mo Foe, Champ, Darcy,
I ran rings around Abdullah Mikail, and I'm an amateur. Robert Spencer would have chewed him up and spit him out.
It's almost a given, when a Muslim becomes trapped by the specificity of his own scripture, he inevitably resorts to the time-tested excuses of
1) problems with translation....or
2) esoterica beyond the understanding of mere infidels
The most potent weapons we have are the Quran, the Hadith and the Sira.
Time for the World Series...later friends.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 29, 2008 8:03 PM
PMK - I don't see posters who are "playing into his hands." I think they're smarter than that. I see posters who are proving that he is a twisted liar time and time again. What AM is doing is futile because he keeps trying the same tactics over and over, and his tactics don't work for him here. If he wants attention - he's getting it, but he's also providing a very good example of twisted Islamic philosophy.
I hope he is banned soon - because he is insulting, and I won't respond to him personally for that reason, but in the mean time, why not let others make use of him?
Posted by: charlie at October 29, 2008 8:26 PM
BTW - any new visitors or anyone learning about Islam can read Abdullah's posts and see that the same moron who says that stoning and amputation are plausible deterrents to sin or crime, and who also has been caught in many lies and deceit, also signs off "peace" or "truth."
Learn anything new?
Posted by: charlie at October 29, 2008 8:42 PM
Cornelius, to some extent I agree with you, but just listening to ANY Islamic rant or engaging in any sort of discourse with Muslims or even Muslim apologists will yield the same results as your 3 points:
1) It gives you insight into their thinking (know thy enemy)
All Muslims think the same. Every debate, every interaction, every Muslim. First they operate on the assumption that you're an idiot. Then they lie about Islam. Then when their lie is exposed they plead ignorance. Then they say you're taking it out of context.
2) It sharpens your debating skills
OK, that's true, but arguing with somebody whose next response can't be predicted 100% of the time is more useful in that regard, as is arguing with someone whose logical faculties aren't inferior to those of a brain-damaged five-year-old, as is necessarily the case with all Muslims, since everything in Islam is based on a logical fallacy or a ridiculous lie. My parents are lawyers and one of them is Italian so I find arguing with Muslims boring. I could have argue him under the table when I was 6.
3) It's gratifying to expose the lies of Muslim interlocutors, as I have just done to Abdullah.
Yeah, it is somewhat satisfying to hand them their asses and to see them get their asses handed to them, but you know that they're going to lie, you know how they're going to lie, and you can see their next lie coming a mile away. See (1)
He may pretend otherwise, but he is reeling. He assumes infidels are ignorant about his creed...an assumption that comes back to haunt him big time.
All Muslims assume that. Even when they know better, like when they're dealing with JihadWatchers and even Robert Spencer himself, and yet they still operate on that assumption. The fact that that is so insulting is the only reason why arguing with them is satisfying, but they don't learn. Remember, you're dealing with people who live in an alternate reality and have an unparalleled capacity for self-delusion. They think they Earth is flat and women produce sperm! I mean, do you think you're going to instill some decency or some understanding of basic unitary logic in someone like that? American converts are usually incredibly sick people who convert/revert in order to either have something to make them feel superior or in order to justify some intolerably sick behavior. For all we know he's a Muslim because Islam sanctions raping his little daughter. He's evil. That's why he's Muslim. In cases of people born into Islam, or in cases of new, non-convicted-criminal reverts the distinct possibility that they are good people certainly exists, but not so the Abdullah Mikhails of the world.
Posted by: jdamn at October 29, 2008 9:27 PM
Abdullah continuously exposes himself.
What I object to is how he is allowed to hijack a JW thread and turn it into his own forum.
He does not need his own web site, he can just use this one...
Toss the bandwidth thief overboard...
His welcome and usefulness are worn out...
Posted by: duh_swami at October 29, 2008 9:57 PM
"All Muslims think the same. Every debate, every interaction, every Muslim. "
Yep. Enough alfuckingready.
at October 29, 2008 10:21 PM
Interesting comments Jdamn.
I agree with most. Believe it or not though, I had a Muslim interlocutor on a European blog who was absolutely brilliant and entirely unorthodox in his approach. Instead of quoting from the Quran, he would quote from Locke, Rousseau, and others in the Western philosophical traditions. He was much more familiar with Western culture than I.
After awhile, his sophisticated veneer began to fade and he exhibited some (though not all) of the characteristic Muslim dissimulation. Still, I must say the experience was worth it.
I'll never forget one thing he said: when referencing the decline of modern European culture and fertility, he phrased it this way:
"Europe is tired. It needs a rest. Muslims are in a unique position to re-invigorate it."
The words were meant to sound genteel and compassionate. They masked an utterly sinister agenda that I saw through immediately.
I swear this guy and I could have become friends on some level. He was very cool, he never resorted to the apologia we've come to know so well...he acknowledged many of the short-comings within the Islamic experience.
But all that aside, he was the enemy, and I knew it down to my marrow...not because he was a Muslim per se, but because he was an educated Muslim who knew Islam, who truly knew the West, and who revealed - very subtly - where his primary loyalty resided.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 29, 2008 10:23 PM
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail
at October 29, 2008 5:48 PM
Btw what kind of peace is Abdullah referring to here? Peace with Islamic justice attached, meaning a non violent subterfuge [deception by artifice or stratagem in order to conceal, escape, or evade].
Islamic subterfuge. Sounds about right.
Posted by: revparadigm at October 29, 2008 10:55 PM
Hi Cornelius,
That's actually pretty interesting. Back when I was a useful idiot I knew a Muslim guy who came across as very kind and genteel. Not incredibly charming, actually pretty socially retarded, but kind and intelligent. Then when I learned about Islam I started thinking back on everything he said and I realized what it meant and how brilliant he actually was in that he could make the sickest, even genocidal, statements sound like honey and flowers. It was then that I realized how narcissistic Muslims are. They do this so that they can feel like they're having one over on you in order to con themselves into thinking that they're more intelligent than others, particularly when dealing with infidels, who invariably make them aware of their lack of a soul by contrast. Then Ali Sina articulated it perfectly using the work of Sam Vatkin and Scott Peck, and Wafa Sultan, a psychiatrist, further verified my belief that Muslims are necessarily narcissistic by stating that it's simply impossible to believe the Koran and maintain any semblance of mental health whatsoever.
And because Muslims ae narcissists, and because they always project all their own fears and inadequacies onto others, when they step up the brilliance factor, rest assured that they feel intellectually inferior. If they felt like they were on the same level as you they would run with that in order to be liked and approved of, which is what they live for at the end of the day. From their perspective there is no 'them.' There is just how others see them. And there is no you. You are just a mirror for them to reflect themselves off of.
There are some very smart Muslims out there. In kafirstan they almost have to be because they're con artists. I'm willing to bet your friend from the European blog, despite all his brilliance, still, in typical Islamic fashion, operated on the assumption that you were completely ignorant and still based his arguments on logical fallacies, which one can easily do while simultaneously sounding intelligent, cf. Bill Clinton, Hitler, even Steven Wright and Larry Miller in their own ways.
Posted by: jdamn at October 29, 2008 11:18 PM
Posted by: Cornelius at October 29, 2008 10:23 PM
Nice work, again, Cornelius, thank you.
Regards,
awake
Posted by: awake at October 30, 2008 12:19 AM
From above: Nice work, again, Cornelius, thank you.
I agree, but the work is not yet complete...The quasi apostate AM, gets high off of such encounters and will return for another 'fix'.
at October 30, 2008 1:11 AM
AM is obsessed with trying to pin something on Robert, but he can't; only to have his foolish smear campaign backfire, leaving him with egg on his face.
Posted by: champ at October 30, 2008 1:57 AM
Cornelius,
Thanks for calling AM's bluff.
These are worthwhile exercises, particularly in that new readers will see that this is not merely a back-and-forth argument with valid points on both sides. Rather, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of Islam critics. Islamic apologists are left scrambling, resorting to insults, weak arguments, and other distractions and diversions.
Non-Muslims who are not regular readers of JW need to develop a sense of confidence in being skeptical of Muslims claims and challenging them openly. Exercises such as the above demonstrate that behind all the puffing and posturing, Islamic apologists, when pressed with solid evidence, don't have a solid case in their presentations of Islam to western audiences.
P.S. I would regard with some skepticism AM's claims about rejecting the apostasy penalty. We would have to pin him down on what exactly he means by apostasy, what punishments he thinks are applicable, and so on.
Posted by: Kinana of Khaybar at October 30, 2008 7:47 AM
It looks like this thread will follow the many others in which Abdullah has "participated"; that is, he will retreat, not answering hardly any of the questions posed to him, only to return later, as though none of this happened.
But, in case you are still reading, Abdullah, here are some of the questions you left unanswered:
-Where in the Qu'ran does slavery get eliminated?
-Where in the Qu'ran does raping of one's slaves get eliminated?
-Why did Saudi Arabia and Niger not get the Qu'ranic prohibition on slavery until 1960, and 2005, respectively?
-If you can't produce the Qu'ranic evidence asked for above, will you apologize for lying?
-How can you be against the punishment of death for apostasy when it's in 5 different Hadith with 5 different narrators? (That seems to make it more rock-solid than many other beliefs Muslims hold). How do you justify ignoring such overwhelming corroboration?
I'm sure we'll be seeing you on another thread, when your RESET button has been pushed, and you won't be answering the same questions again and again.
See you then!
Posted by: Mo Foe at October 30, 2008 10:20 AM
From above: How can you be against the punishment of death for apostasy when it's in 5 different Hadith with 5 different narrators?
He would be against the death penalty for apostasy, because he is an apostate.
He varies far and wide from the official line, which is how he apostates himself. He has just not
yet taken the next step of 'self apostalic
illumination'. Which is why I refer to AM as a quasi apostate.
I just made up that term, but all apostates go through it when they become 'enlightened' about Islam.
Posted by: duh_swami at October 30, 2008 11:15 AM
Apostasy from Islam is a good thing - something that the One True God would be in favor of, because it means the individual is turning from the evil clutches of a false god & false doctrine, to the Cross of Jesus Christ, where true peace and truth can be found.
Posted by: champ at October 30, 2008 1:18 PM
Posted by: Mo Foe at October 29, 2008 7:11 PM
Mo Foe
Sorry for having to leave last night, had a meeting with the Dallas City Council and then a project to work on from 8 PM to 2:32 AM...seems like I missed some good jabs? Let's return two of them:
Chapter 23 verse 1:
Al-Mumenoon, 23.1: "The believers must (eventually) win through,-" a Makiah surrah.
On the subject of the wives and slaves the association in the verse is beyond Cornelius to understand because he cannot see the big picture.
try to describe a bicycle to a child, "yes, this is the hub of the wheel, but it is associated with the pedal...see the connections?"
And Cornelius, the child, is braying like an ass because he cannot see the connections and doesn't believe they are there.
The association is one that elevated the PRE-EXISTING status of a female slave to that of near to being a wife, and if she became pregnant she was free and the child was born free and this required the "owner" to give her freedom and she became a wife with full marital rights, inheritence, etc. everything.
You fail to grasp the nuances of how the Quran and Islam dealt with the plague of slavery because you are ignorant.
Furthermore,the prohibitions to alcohol can down gradually, so too did the elimination of slavery.
Alcohol prohibition at a certain point was spelled out with finality at a certain juncture, but the elimination of slavery,is arrived at by the mechanisms in the law ( Cornelius, this is the hub of the wheel it is interconnected with the pedals and this is also the part you miss.)
Alcohol and slavery were two social ills running rampant in all cultures at the time.
The Quranic legislation came down to control and eventually eliminated them both.
Cornelius, take the book on Islamic law you quoted, The Reliance of the Traveller, turn to the section K32.0
"This section, which begins, "To free a slave is an act of worship," deals with a system of ownership that Islam did not invent but found fully established and not possible to instantly abolish, so it rather encouraged its elimination in steps, with incentives. It closed all avenues for obtaining new slaves except the capture of war prisoners,….;it encouraged the freeing of slaves by the tremendous reward from Allah Most High; and it materially helped slaves to purchase their freedom by providing them the money to do so from zakat funds (dis: h8.15) Like previous references to slave, the following four sections have been left un-translated because the issue is no longer current, unlike the timed of our author Ibn Naqib, whose rulers , the Mamelukes of Egypt, were themselves slaves who legally belonged to the Islamic state, a fact sufficient to shoe the fallacy of the understanding slavery in the Islamic milieu in terms of the institution that existed in the nineteenth-century America and elsewhere in the West.”
END OF EXCRPT
Note the key words in the English, Cornelius, and Mo...this is just one small slice of the pie: if a slave asked to buy his freedom a Muslim had to give it to him and allow him to pay it, and he could ask for communal funds to free himself...so on and so forth.
And Mo, "the piss poor job" is not a reflection on the law, only on those who do not follow it.
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
at October 30, 2008 1:42 PM
Abdullah,
There is no question that there is a prevailing ethic in the Quran encouraging manumission of slaves and their otherwise fair treatment.
But NOWHERE is slavery prohibited, there or anywhere else. Even the passage from 'Reliance of a Traveler' you cited gives explicit permission to make new slaves out of war prisoners.
Ergo, you have refuted your own argument. But you are too stubborn or blind to see as much.
Isn't it fascinating how slavery survived as an institution down through the centuries in spite of your entreaties? Isn't it further remarkable that it was the bad old British imperialists who forcibly terminated slavery in Sudan?...(where it has re-appeared today).
And your desperate attempts to refute the reality of Quranic verse 23.5 are to no avail. The verse doesn't equate slavegirl with wife, it equates wife with slavegirl...both are at the disposal of their male master, and there is no expectation of sexual restraint of any kind in his relationship with either.
Sorry buddy. We deal with facts here....the written word...and the Quran is on my side.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 30, 2008 1:56 PM
Bottom Line - Muhammad's Life.
How on earth can anyone defend Muhammad and the horrible crimes he has committed, and then on top of it, accept him as a "prophet from God"? How duped does someone have to be to buy into that nonsense?
Haggle over these doctrines all you want, but to accept Muhammad as a prophet from God, after the heinous crimes he has committed, that person would have to be out of their mind.
Common sense needs to make a come back, because like a said, the bottom line, is Muhammad himself, and the evil things he has done. There is no defense for this man, because there is no defense for being a cold blooded murderer - etc.
How anyone could accept Muhammad as anything but a serial killer and bandit is beyond me. When someone converts to Islam, or for someone to remain in Islam, that person is condoning the evil actions committed by this criminal: Muhammad.
at October 30, 2008 2:01 PM
Mo,
Sorry you feel left “unanswered”.
It is just that you don’t have the requisite knowledge to understand the answers and my posting everything that it would take to lead you to them would not do any more good than the first few proofs…it is in the fact that you do not want to understand or believe them which is the crux of your failing…you desire not to learn the truth and remain with your preconceived notions.
Case in point, you and I are putting together a puzzle with seven thousand pieces to see the picture.
You put four together and shout, “Aha! It’s a picture of (whatever).” I try to explain there are 6,996 pieces of the puzzle yet to be put in place, but no, you don’t want to listen.
You will base your whole picture on those four puzzle pieces…and Cornelius is beside you with only his two pieces in place agreeing with you as you and he cheer each other on.
Don’t short yourself, see the whole puzzle in place to see what the picture is.
“-Where in the Qu'ran does slavery get eliminated?”
It is in the entire system of the Sharia based upon the Quran. Think of DOS or Windows…what does it start with? Kernel. A very basic program that is further developed by code yet it is the frame work which all programs run on.
Here is a part of the Quranic “Kernel” if you may:
Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #177
An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #92
Al-Maeda, Chapter #5, Verse #89
An-Noor, Chapter #24, Verse #33
Al-Mujadila, Chapter #58, Verse #3
Al-Balad, Chapter #90, Verse #13
The other "6,996 pieces" are all over the place, one being posted above from Nuh Hah Mim Keller, Translation of the Reliance of the Traveller.
“-Where in the Qu'ran does raping of one's slaves get eliminated?”
It doesn’t say raping is allowed, does it? In a nut shell it says “there is no sin on you if you treat a captive woman the same as you do a wife.”
The association is there for those with understanding…no, ( for you darcy, champ, and other fems) it has nothing to do with equating a wife with a slave, it has everything to do with elevating the PRE-EXISTING status of female slaves to that of a higher more respectable status on the way to being freed.
“-Why did Saudi Arabia and Niger not get the Qu'ranic prohibition on slavery until 1960, and 2005, respectively?”
I will gladly answer it…it occurs in the same thought process that lead them to say “Kings are allowed!” Because they are not allowed in Islam…remember, don’t blame the law for those who act lawlessly…blame the criminal.
“-If you can't produce the Qu'ranic evidence asked for above, will you apologize for lying?”
No, I told the truth. The Quran and Hadiths then subsequently the Sharia laid out legal systems for eliminating slavery and among those who followed those it was. (Remember immediately after the Banu Qurayza incident? Every slave was freed by Uthman.)
“-How can you be against the punishment of death for apostasy”
I am not ignorant, that's how. The Prophet commented as well a number of times against the practice as well asking “Did you know his heart?” when someone reported they killed a person for kufr, or disbelief.
“and you won't be answering the same questions again and again.”
Seems the problem is the same people keep asking the same questions again, and again, and again…and when it isn’t them it’s some other new person with the same ignorance and the same hang ups asking again the same questions…again, and again, and again, and yet like a broken record.
If you or they had the capacity to learn and do your own research and confirm and understand the references then you’d stop asking and move on…you haven’t moved on yet, have you?
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
at October 30, 2008 2:07 PM
ABDULLAH MIKAIL (Paraphrasing): "No, I cannot produce an explicit injunction against slavery in any Islamic scripture, and yes, slavery has existed for almost the entirety of the 1400 years of Islam (save for prohibitions originally imposed or coerced by infidels), but I'm still right, Islam prohibits slavery, it's just gradual, almost imperceptible, except for the discerning eye of a Muslim."
"Oh...and 'Reliance of a Traveler' banns the acquisition of new slaves, EXCEPT THOSE CAPTURED IN WAR"....see how clear it all is?"
Posted by: Cornelius at October 30, 2008 2:20 PM
"Bottom Line - Muhammad's Life.
How on earth can anyone defend Muhammad and the horrible crimes he has committed, and then on top of it, accept him as a "prophet from God"? How duped does someone have to be to buy into that nonsense?"
Maybe like the esteemed grand ayatollah khomeini who is emulating the perfect man, they like sleeping with children, or maybe even.....animals.
Posted by: KrazyKafir at October 30, 2008 2:44 PM
another link.
http://www.homa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=104&Itemid=58
Posted by: KrazyKafir at October 30, 2008 2:46 PM
"I would regard with some skepticism AM's claims about rejecting the apostasy penalty. We would have to pin him down on what exactly he means by apostasy"
Yep, I bet that if we pinned Abdullah down and made more clear what apostasy means in actual terms -- for example, would he as a Muslim support an Islamic state claimed to be run by Islamic law that allowed anybody to leave Islam and to continue to talk about it in public, including any one of the following or combination--talking about it to their friends and neighbors, in public debates and speeches, in writings, in the newspapers, in blogs, on TV, on the radio? Not only individual apostates publicizing their apostasy in public, but also the prospect of any number of Muslims choosing to leave Islam with no penalties at all--they can keep their jobs, their money, their children, wives, and any Muslims who try to harm them will be put in prison as the apostate will be protected by the police in this theoretical Islamic state. Would Abdullah support this kind of social/political arrangement? Would he think this arrangement is true to Islam? If yes, on what grounds? If no, why would he support it?
at October 30, 2008 2:53 PM
"'Reliance of a Traveler' banns the acquisition of new slaves, EXCEPT THOSE CAPTURED IN WAR"....see how clear it all is?""
Islam seems to be based on this kind of "large print forbiddeth, small print giveth" message. The more I read Islamic texts, the more I see this same formula:
"It is forbidden for you to do X -- except in the following circumstance".
Abdullah is pointing out the large print "it is forbidden" and hoping we don't see the small print loopholes. He must think we're idiots, and the sad fact is that many of us (not here but "out there") are.
Posted by: DenverRodeo at October 30, 2008 2:57 PM
In case you missed this post up the thread, I've added a comment or two...
Abdullah,
There is no question that there is a prevailing ethic in the Quran encouraging manumission of slaves and their otherwise fair treatment.
But NOWHERE is slavery prohibited, there or anywhere else. Even the passage from 'Reliance of a Traveler' you cited gives explicit permission to make new slaves out of war prisoners...(it just so happens that this one caveat is THEE principle method of acquiring slaves).
Ergo, you have refuted your own argument. But you are too stubborn or blind to see as much.
Isn't it fascinating how slavery survived as an institution as an institution down through the centuries in spite of your entreaties? Isn't it further remarkable that it was the bad old British imperialists who forcibly terminated slavery in Sudan?...(where it has re-appeared today).
And your desperate attempts to refute the reality of Quranic verse 23.5 are to no avail. The verse doesn't equate slavegirl with wife, it equates wife with slavegirl...both are at the disposal of their male master, and there is no expectation of sexual restraint of any kind in his relationship with either. For example, has a Muslim male ever, at any time, in any circumstance, been prosecuted for spousal rape?
Of course not, because the Quran specifies that the wife is "tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will" (2.223) i.e., she is his property, his "field", to be plowed at his pleasure.
In America, we've actually had cases of spousal rape being prosecuted. You see, the wife is not treated like the slave-girl in our culture; she is an equal, who has the right to refuse sex any time she wants.
So you see buddy, your arguments crumble once again under the weight of reality. We deal with facts here....the written word...and the Quran happens to be on my side.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 30, 2008 3:06 PM
KrazyKafir - thanks for those links. I made the mistake of reading them over lunch, so now I've got a little indigestion, LOL!
Sex with babies, children and animals is just gross! Filthy animals, all of them, including false prophet Muhammad.
Posted by: champ at October 30, 2008 3:15 PM
Abdullah,
Your grand manner, that of a learned and wise scholar talking down to ignorant novices, may be a potent tool in Dawa, but when it's all you've got, and you can't back it up with facts, then don't expect us at Jihad watch to be impressed.
The truth about Islam is now apparent to all who care to look for it, as we have at this site. The long history of militant conquest, the sordid details of Mohammed's life, the callous murders he committed and the 'convenient' revelations sanctioning these things, are just a few more 'pieces of the jigsaw puzzle' which we see clearly, as well as the unrepealed licence for slavery and rape.
We can see right through you.
at October 30, 2008 3:30 PM
You're welcome, champ.
"Sex with babies, children and animals is just gross! Filthy animals, all of them, including false prophet Muhammad"
Depravedness starts at the top.
Posted by: KrazyKafir at October 30, 2008 3:40 PM
Posted by: Cornelius at October 30, 2008 2:20 PM
Cornelius (Paraphrased): “I am only able to think in serial manner one simple sentence at a time….complex logic escapes me…let’ see 1 + 1 = what was I trying to solve? Oh, well, three is close enough….”
You are holding only one piece of the puzzle, remember? Oh, I forgot, it was more than five minutes ago and you’ve lost all short term memory…shall we use flash cards and smaller words with you from here on out?
Truth (It escapes you Cornelius)
Abdullah Mikail
at October 30, 2008 3:44 PM
I have to give the quasi apostate AM credit for tenacity, and an apparent attraction to mental pummeling. He has been intellectually pummeled for several days, and he keeps coming back for more.
I don't think Allah is too happy about his performance...
Posted by: duh_swami at October 30, 2008 3:54 PM
Posted by: Cornelius at October 30, 2008 3:06 PM
You are not able to understand one simple paragraph…you miss the entire planet for the dirt in your eyes…the Reliance of the Traveler is a manual of scared law and in it a modern Shafii Scholar, Nuh Ha Mim Keller points out:
“Like previous references to slave, the following four sections have been left un-translated because the issue is no longer current,”
and
“, whose rulers, the Mamelukes of Egypt, were themselves slaves who legally belonged to the Islamic state, a fact sufficient to show the fallacy of the understanding slavery in the Islamic milieu in terms of the institution that existed in the nineteenth-century America and elsewhere in the West.”
This scholar just pointed out, the concept of Islamic Slavery it is no longer valid,
and furthermore,
the West fails to understand that what is defined as “slavery” is not Islamic Slavery by pointing out that even the Mamelukes, the rulers over Ibn Naqib ( the original author ) were slaves of the Islamic State.
Wait a minute? You mean the very rulers that lorded it over the scholar who wrote “Reliance of the Traveler” were slaves?
Yes, that is what he said…your Western concept of slave and the Islamic concept of slave are not equivalent.
__________________________________________________
“Ergo, you have refuted your own argument.”
Cornelius you couldn’t even follow my argument, misunderstood it, and pulled out of context what you thought supported your case.
Sorry, but you still don’t see the picture, just the two little puzzle pieces in your hand.
“And your desperate attempts…” This is funny.
Those are not my original thoughts…it is a scholarin a lecture who was discussing the association and its true context in elevating captive females.
Let’s test it, okay?
When did Western women have anything akin to the rights afforded Muslim women in the Quran in 623?
Answer: Just after the turn of the 20th century, that’s when.
So the association of one oppressed women and her equivalency to that of a liberated woman with full rights is as that scholar said, and not as you have said in error.
“Isn't it fascinating how slavery survived as an institution as an institution down through the centuries in spite of your entreaties?” Isn’t it though?
Amazing how ignorance like yours is a constant among humans?
Why not ask the 620,000 dead Americans who died over that very issue, industrial slave trade, as well as others in 1860’s era…oh, I forgot, they died fighting to preserve industrial scale slavery.
“Of course not, because the Quran specifies that the wife is "tilth..” Man what an ignorant person you are.
The Quran further states that he and she have rights one on another and yet him a grade higher (burden of responsibility), and that he and she are “garments” one for the other as in to protect each other…you really have so much more to learn buku more about the defenition and roles and responsibilities of a Muslim man and woman…I would be embarrassed if I were you as you do your little “end zone dance” just because you don’t now better.
“We deal with facts here....the written word...and the Quran happens to be on my side.”
This is the funniest thing I have ever read a person like you say…yeah, I agree with you…”…the written word…” yup, spoken slowly…very slowly…one syllable at a time using short sentences interspersed with lots of “are you with me stills”
: )
Thanks for the laugh.
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
at October 30, 2008 4:17 PM
Posted by: duh_swami at October 30, 2008 3:54 PM
"I have to give the quasi apostate AM credit for tenacity,"
Why, gee, duh, you're a swell guy to notice.
I do try to please.
: )
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
P.S. It doesn't matter the outcome is, that is up to God, it is the intention and the deed that counts, so tell the truth and God will always be pleased with you.
Truth
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at October 30, 2008 4:28 PM
Abdullah,
Look at your time-tested tactics of dissimulation:
I point out that in spite of your entreaties, slavery has survived in the Muslim world for almost the entirety of its 1400 years....
Your response? "[Look at your Civil War; Christians had slaves too]".
Well, that clears up in its entirety why the Muslim slave-trade never disappeared in spite of your insistence that it is prohibited in Islamic law...because infidels had slaves too.
Your logic is flawless!...or to put it without sarcasm, your arguments make a mockery of the art of disputation.
ABDULLAH: "your Western concept of slave and the Islamic concept of slave are not equivalent."
RESPONSE: That is true; in our culture, slavery is an abject form of oppression that has been thoroughly repudiated in our laws and our ethics. In your culture, slavery still exists in Sudan, Mauritania and elsewhere...and is seen in a much more acceptable light.
Furthermore, I understand the basic concept of "submission"....that you are all slaves to Allah, which in my mind, diminishes you as a thinking being and consigns you to the existence of an automaton, blindly following the musings of a 7th century Bedouin.
ABDULLAH: From 'Reliance'..."Like previous references to slave, the following four sections have been left un-translated because the issue is no longer current,"
RESPONSE: And why is that so? Not because the Quran or the Hadith ever prohibited slavery. It is because Islam's colonial masters in the late 19th century prohibited slavery and the Muslims continued this tradition in the post-colonial age.
As for the Marmelukes, Islamic history is replete with former slaves rising to positions of power. So what! This in no way proves that slavery was ever prohibited in Islamic law.
See buddy, I win every time.
ABDULLAH: "When did Western women have anything akin to the rights afforded Muslim women in the Quran in 623?"
RESPONSE: And 1400 years later, Saudi women can't drive or vote...many women in the Islamic world cannot travel without the accompaniment of a male relative...a Muslim woman cannot marry as non-Muslim man (though a Muslim man is free to marry a non-Muslim woman)...divorce & child-custody laws unfairly support the male...that Muslim man has permission to beat his wife (Quran 4.34) (we have laws prohibiting such behavior in the infidel world); a Muslim woman's testimony is only half that of a Muslim man in an Islamic court of law (Quran 2.228); a Muslim woman only inherits half of her male siblings (Quran 4.11).
None of these strictures against women exist in the infidel world, still mired in our "pre-Islamic period of ignorance."
I've heard many-a-Muslim cite the supposedly liberated status of Muslim women in the 7th century vis-a-vis their infidel counterparts. Problem is, since the Quran is the "immutable word of God", the status of Muslim women is forever fixed in time in the Islamic realm; any progress made is at the expense of religion, not because of it.
There.
All your arguments shot to hell. You see old buddy, you can't deceive us here, we're not the gullible infidels you're used to dealing with.
Don't take it so bad, Abdullah. I suggest you go back to the drawing board and do some more study...or maybe consider converting out of the faith.
truth,
Cornelius
Posted by: Cornelius at October 30, 2008 4:59 PM
Cornelius,
You are ignorant of Islamic law, that’s evident for anyone who knows anything, and I don’t know that much, but it’s evident.
“(we have laws prohibiting such behavior in the infidel world);”
FBI crime statistics approx 440,440 Christian women are violently attacked by their Christian Spouse or boyfriend every year in America.
Gee, I guess that means it’s the fault of the law, we should throw it out, right?
“Saudi women can’t drive or vote”
Didn’t I point out that it is the Saudi’s that insist on Kingship when it isn’t allowed…you arent’ very good at following facts, are you. Because someone in Saudi get’s it horribly wrong, suddenly the religion is to blame? Well, you got me there…I can’t argue with your “John 3:16” silver bullet religious knowledge where one verse and one small man’s opinion wipes out all the scholars…boy, you are thick headed.
This kind of relates to your stunning epiphany about ““(we have laws prohibiting such behavior in the infidel world);” big deal, did your people pay any better attention to the prohibition for beating women than mine did?
“Do not strike the handmaidens of Allah” said Mohammad, also further stated in defining the “tap” when signifying imminent divorce: it should be done with something like this, he held up a toothstick, and he said not so much as to even leave a red mark, and elsewhere ordered Muslims to never strike a human being in the face as it was the crown of a human being.
So boy, don’t you and the other rednecks that think it says “beat” look stupid now.
Let’s see you “beat” someone with a toothbrush not so that it even leaves a red mark and never strike the person in the face.
Ignorance, that’s what you boast of…embarrassing to say the least.
Further more context is everything.
You could not even begin to describe what is meant by the verses discussing the process of divorce which you pointed out. Yeah, “beat”, it doesn’t mean what you and every other dumb redneck think it means…but hey, they all get it so horribly wrong how could the scholars understand it differently, right? The ignorant masses must be right, correct?
“None of these strictures against women exist in the infidel world, still mired in our "pre-Islamic period of ignorance."”
Let’s try again to teach you something, anything about the reality of the Quran and women’s rights:
You have no idea the burden on the male member of the Muslim family, thus the redistribution of wealth defined over 1,400 years ago innovated that the woman actually had a right to inheritance, less because she can spend it on whatever she wants, he gets more because it isn’t his money and he has to spend it caring for the family, extended family, relatives, the society…what was it like before the legislation?
Oh, the Muslims women ( and most women of the world then) got nothing in inheritence before the Quran legislated they should….gee, that was ahead of its time.
What did American women get here at the turn of the century if they were caught out alone eating dinner and paying with their own money? Arrested for prostitution, it’s a fact.
So the women in Islam were given rights far in advance of anything in the west until the last hundred or so years, which now seems to have finally caught up...some things you call "rights" are nothing more than rope which people hang themselves with before God.
But you are too ignorant to see this right?
You keep referring back to things and think you make stunning points but you only show how little you know.
“All your arguments shot to hell.” Again, thanks for the big laugh…I mean it was a belly roller.
The small boy stands up defiantly and shouts, “You are wrong, the world is flat because I said it was!”
: )
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
at October 30, 2008 5:28 PM
I don't know about anyone else but I have had enough of this jerk, Abdullah.
Not only is he unable to properly support his ridiculous statements, he continues to insult other posters.
Why is he still here? Why hasn't he been banned? This has gone beyond a "free speech," issue if it ever was one. It seems to me he is free to use this as a forum for his bull and to repeatedly insult whoever his is addressing at the moment, if not all other posters.
Please get rid of him.
Posted by: charlie at October 30, 2008 5:36 PM
Cornelius,
Let's try a lesson in context using multiple choice?
One question:
Is it legal to shoot and kill someone in America?
1) Yes
2) No
or
3) OMG! I learned something about context!
See what I mean, context is everything.
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
at October 30, 2008 5:38 PM
Abby,
Cornelius has obliterated you. I can't bear to watch this slaughter any more. For your own good, please cease and desist.
Posted by: awake at October 30, 2008 5:40 PM
Charlie,
Ostracising free speech is not something we support here at JW. Furthermore, I am only responding to his questions and his erroneous opinions and his tone.
For your sake I'll not post further ont this thread, sorry you had to suffer it.
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
at October 30, 2008 5:45 PM
ABDULLAH: "FBI crime statistics approx 440,440 Christian women are violently attacked by their Christian Spouse or boyfriend every year in America."
RESPONSE: That's right. And the perpetrators are punished according to the law.
But there are no statistics from the Islamic world documenting spousal violence because SPOUSAL VIOLENCE IS LEGAL IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD (Quran 4.34)
ABDULLAH "(we have laws prohibiting such behavior in the infidel world);” big deal, did your people pay any better attention to the prohibition for beating women than mine did?"
RESPONSE: Yes, because our people go to jail when they beat their women, your people don't.
ABDULLAH: "Because someone in Saudi get’s it horribly wrong, suddenly the religion is to blame?"
RESPONSE: Problem is, EVERYBODY seems to get it "horribly wrong" in the Islamic world. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it ain't just the Saudis.
ABDULLAH: "So boy, don’t you and the other rednecks that think it says “beat” look stupid now."
RESPONSE: Ah yes, the infamous 17th century Hadith qualifying the word "beat"...to say that this Hadith is "weak" is an understatement. It was born of Muslim shame as their doctrine came under increasing scrutiny in the advancing Western world.
ABDULLAH: "Yeah, “beat”, it doesn’t mean what you and every other dumb redneck think it means..."
RESPONSE: Folks, this is the all-too-common- 'the Quran doesn't really mean what it says' argument.
ABDULLAH: "So the women in Islam were given rights far in advance of anything in the west until the last hundred or so years, which now seems to have finally caught up..."
RESPONSE: So we have an admission here that the Muslim world has fallen behind the infidel world in terms of the relative rights for women. But if Islam is the superior system, how is that possible Abdullah? Could Islam have been misunderstood for the entirety of its 1400 years? Or could it be that by our modern standards, Muhammad and Allah got it "horribly wrong" (as you put it).
ABDULLAH: "The small boy stands up defiantly and shouts, “You are wrong, the world is flat because I said it was!” "
RESPONSE: Anybody with any objectivity following these exchanges would cast you as the one protesting against the imposition of facts. When you get in trouble, you resort to pathetic references to theoretical "puzzles"...because such abstractions are your substitute for factual responses.
By the way, here is further confirmation that your Prophet had no problem with the raping of slaves; his concern is solely with the appropriateness of coitus interruptus.
There are 4 other Hadith like it in Bukari's collection.
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."
Read it and weep Abdullah.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 30, 2008 5:58 PM
PS - Abdullah, polygamy, child marriage, spousal abuse....all legal in Islam; all illegal in the West.
Spare us the "Islam is enlightened in its treatment of women"
Posted by: Cornelius at October 30, 2008 6:01 PM
Big f-in deal - Muhammad didn't approve of hitting a woman in the face, so what; but he didn't mind having intercourse with 9 year olds and slitting the throats of hundreds upon hundreds of peoples, oh, and plundering the goods of those he murdered - and that's just the short list of crimes.
You are disgusting, AM, just like the dead prophet you prop-up and defend.
at October 30, 2008 6:39 PM
"....and I don’t know that much...."
The first "Truthful" thing AM has written.
Posted by: champ at October 30, 2008 6:41 PM
Posted by: duh_swami at October 30, 2008 3:54 PM
"I have to give the quasi apostate AM credit for tenacity,"
Why, gee, duh, you're a swell guy to notice.
I do try to please.
AM:Don't mistake that for a compliment, it was NOT.
Tenacious also means holding on to fixed delusions, of which you seem to have many, all Mohammadans do...
In my view you are a talkative, argumentative mental case, and a behavior problem. You should have been given the bums rush long ago.
The only good thing about your loooong run here is that it shoots full of holes your claim, that Robert deprives you of free speech...you can now eat that one...
I guess Allah 'is' pleased with you, he seems to like self abusers...
at October 30, 2008 7:34 PM
"I guess Allah 'is' pleased with you, he seems to like self abusers..."
...and murderers and thieves and liars and pedophiles.
Posted by: KrazyKafir at October 30, 2008 10:07 PM
Abdullah,
I'm just going to focus on slavery, and sex slaves here, in an attempt to keep it brief
I guess the true meaning of 23:6 beyond my understanding as well, because all it contains is who you are allowed to have sex with: your wives and your slavesgirls. It says nothing about status whatsoever, so yes, my understanding and most readers (except you) would take it to mean allowing sex with slavegirls.
In other words, The Qu'ran ALLOWS YOU TO RAPE YOUR SLAVEGIRLS! (A slave cannot say no, therefore sex with them IS rape!)
Then you claimed that the Qu'ran "eliminated" slavery, and you gave me the following quotes-material in parentheses is mine:
Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #177 (ransom of slaves)
An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #92 (Free a believing slave as penance for killing a believer)
Al-Maeda, Chapter #5, Verse #89 (for expiation, free a slave)
An-Noor, Chapter #24, Verse #33 (If slaves ask for a deed, and you see good in them, give them one-to enable them to buy their freedom)
Al-Mujadila, Chapter #58, Verse #3 (if you divorce and change your mind, free a slave before hooking up again)
Al-Balad, Chapter #90, Verse #13 (freeing a slave will explain the path that is steep)
OK, so I will admit that there is a lot of talk about freeing slaves, and that is all to be commended and applauded, but you said the Qu'ran "eliminated" slavery.
But you were unable to produce a verse that said, "Lo, it is forbidden for the believers to take slaves." And Muhammad, that excellent example of conduct for all time, never said, "I shall free my slaves as an example for the believers."
So, suddenly, you have to "clarify" your position and say that it's the whole of sharia law that eliminated slavery, and that we are just too darn stupid to understand.
Well, if Robert is a liar because he "clarified" a statement about alcohol, then you, sir, are a liar as well.
Call me simple, but if you say that Qu'ran "eliminated" slavery, and then cannot produce any evidence, that is a LIE.
Posted by: Mo Foe at October 31, 2008 10:25 AM
Mo Foe, you are not getting it, you're doomed to wander forever in a thick fog of puzzlement until you acquire your magical islamic decoder ring. For that, you will have to give up your free will, and prostrate yourself before despicable evil.
at October 31, 2008 12:33 PM
"magical islamic decoder ring"
LOL! That's a good one!
Posted by: champ at October 31, 2008 12:52 PM
"For that, you will have to give up your free will, and prostrate yourself before despicable evil."
Seems like a good trade!
Posted by: Mo Foe at October 31, 2008 1:03 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)