No one who is saying this today, and there are many, explains passages such as this story from Muhammad’s conquest of Khaybar: “Kinana b. al-Rabi`, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (T. was brought) to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, ‘Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?’ he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, ‘Torture him until you extract what he has,’ so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud.” (Ibn Ishaq 515).
There is also this hadith, in which Muhammad says: “Certainly I decided to order the Mu’adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses.” (Bukhari 1.11.626)
“Saudi King calls pilot’s killing ‘heinous’ violation of Islam,” Reuters, February 4, 2015:
Saudi King Salman bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud on Wednesday condemned the killing of a Jordanian pilot by Islamic State militants, calling it a “heinous crime which contradicts the tolerance of our noble religion,” the Saudi state news said.
His message offered condolences to the Jordanian people and King Abdullah of Jordan after footage on Tuesday purported to show masked gunmen putting captured Jordanian pilot Mouath al-Kasaesbeh in a cage and burning him to death.
Jordan and Saudi Arabia are part of the US-led alliance bombing the Islamic State group, which has seized swaths of Iraq and Syria.
Alicia says
Muslims have an incredible ability known as selective memory.
BC says
Although a Christian couple were also burned alive recently in Pakistan I did not see any condemnation from Islamic leaders
gravenimage says
Justin wrote:
I believe America and the West were applauding for the death of that Christian couple in Pakistan and the deaths tens of thousands of other Christians who are dying in the hands of Western-backed of islamo-fascists worldwide.
…………………………………..
I doubt many Westerners have even heard about this case. The idea that they are all *applauding it* is insane.
There is no excuse for Westerners to be so ignorant about this—but this ignorance is very different from actual, gleeful applause of such savagery are very different matters.
More:
America and the Western governments and the majority of their decadent and materialistic societies are profoundly Anti-Christ and pro-islamo-fascism.
…………………………………..
This is the only thing that Justin ever pushes here: the idea that America and the rest of the West are decadent and deserve to be destroyed by God using ravening Jihadists as his tool.
It is actually rare for Justin to criticize barbaric Jihadists themselves at all.
Sheri says
“Those who profess Islam do not understand their own religion or pervert it for their own political ends.” – Mohammad Reza Pahlav “The Shah of Iran”
KrazyKafir says
Lying about how all this horrific violent Jihad is not backed up by Muhammad’s example is working so well that it will take a lot more to wake up the catatonic mainstream west. I think only when the civil wars start in Europe will the truth be too difficult to ignore then, even for the deepest head in the sand.
TheBuffster says
I dunno about that, KrazyKafir. I’ve seen some pretty fantastic contortion by people who don’t want to admit they’ve been duped or have been fooling themselves, especially on a crucial life-or-death point. I suspect some people will find a way to blame the West no matter how blatant and deadly the jihad gets. Actions are indisputable; the causes of actions can be infinitely effed with.
Angemon says
Well, duh! What was the alternative, acknowledge that the islamic state is acting according to islamic law? Such an acknowledgment would rend him useless.
Kevin O'Neill says
Great. Now tell me how, dear King Salam? How exactly does it contradict your noble religion? And what are you going to do about it?
Jaladhi says
All these liars are crawling out of woodwork – Saudi King says “Killing of pilot a “heinous crime which contradicts the tolerance of our noble religion”- my foot. What a lie. Where is tolerance in Islam. He should read his Quran to find tolerance to anybody else besides Muslims. Yeah – that’s what he means tolerance for this Muslim pilot. If he was a non-Muslim, all these liars would not have spoken a word. Such is Islam and Muslims!!
tjhawk says
I can hear the muslim scholars arguing:
Kinana wasn’t actually killed by the fire mohammed had built on his chest. He was killed by the head chop. To be halal, somebody should have chopped off the pilots head after he had suffered from fire to the point of near death.
mariam rove says
What a duplicitous SOB. Mean while they are beheading people in the kingdom every other day. M
john spielman says
OK,
BUT killing ( BEHEADING, CRUCIFYING, HANGING someone who scoffs at, or openly mocks muhammed pbuh* or islam is NOT a crime? islam is blasphemy of everything that is good and righteous and true
pbuh* perpetual banishment unto hell!
mariam rove says
Here you are,. M
http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-beheads-two-rapists-murderer-131603911.html
Sheri says
That is just a tip off the iceberg. Go to Youtube and type in “Saudi’s torture people” and see what comes up.
Wellington says
Translation: You know, maybe fast jihad isn’t such a good idea after all. Better to go with slow jihad, for instance demographic takeovers of Western nations all the while millions are given to Western universities and think tanks to portray Islam as noble and tolerant. Yes, my money (and I got a lot of it) is on slow jihad.
sheik yer'mami says
They can’t wait. Besides, the slow jihad is unislamic. Only those who kill and die for allah have a place guaranteed in Muhammad’s bordello in the sky.
tjhawk says
These people have the ability to make such convoluted rationalizations that they actually believe their BS as they are saying. No matter how dishonest, they don’t see it as lying. It’s an incredible trick of the mind shared by a hell of a lot of muslims as well as the kings of Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
Champ says
Hear, hear! …exactly right, tjhawk.
Spot On says
“Killing of pilot a “heinous crime which contradicts the tolerance of our noble religion”
But chopping off the head of anyone that says anything bad about the Saudi king is ok.
St. Croix says
And they don’t just chop it off guillotine-style. That would be relatively painless! They hack and saw the head off with dull instruments. Sadistic and demonic, whichever method they use.
I can’t bear to think of the pain and suffering inflicted by monsters.
Walter Sieruk says
There is one thing for sure . Be the heinous and villainous action of ISIS ,be they Islamic or not, by the burning of this man to death the cruel and vicious fiends who compose this hideous jihad entity ISIS have expose,once again, that they are malice -filled and malicious too the extreme. In fact, the villains of ISIS are callous, brutal and heartless beyond human understanding. The wicked thugs of ISIS cannot be and should be reasoned with.For the evil of ISIS knows no limit. The fiends of ISIS do not understand reason and don’t care about reason. The only language that the characters of ISIS will understand is the language of them being on the receiving end of a strong power of military might. That is how to handle these heinous ISIS fiends. Moreover, Thomas Jefferson had it right when he stated “With every barbarous people…force is law.”
.
RonaldB says
The only good thing about the episode is Jordan’s response: it quickly hung the woman terrorist in question and one other al-qaeda terrorist.
I would like to see all the terrorists hung, including the ones incarcerated in the United States, in Saudi Arabia, and especially Israel, who makes a habit of keeping terrorists alive as an incentive for other terrorists to kidnap its soldiers for a one-sided trade.
Remember, these terrorists have already been convicted. What’s the reason for keeping someone alive who has been convicted of plotting to be a mass murderer? Once they’re dead, they no longer serve as incentive for stupid trades, and take off the political pressure on leaders to release terrorists in exchange for captives. If all the jailed terrorists are dead, the ISIS are welcome to them.
I actually don’t mind Saudi Arabia’s method of execution, beheading. It’s who they behead that makes a difference with me. They tend to be soft on terrorist relatives, putting them up in a recreation camp for “reeducation”. I would have no objection whatsoever to see a convicted terrorist on the head-chopping block. Perhaps the Saudis could pull some of the Mutaween off their onerous duties of harassing innocent women, and put then to use chasing and executing terrorists. More dangerous work, admittedly, but more productive.
Charli Main says
“The only good thing about the episode is Jordan’s response: it quickly hung the woman terrorist in question and one other al-qaeda terrorist. ”
Won´t be long before the ” human rights” brigade start crawling out of the woodwork to condemn Jordanian authorities for their ” barbaric” treatment of those” poor prisoners” and the violation of their rights.
Champ says
He would make a good door-2-door salesman selling MoScout cookies made out of dog poo …and some people will buy them, eat them, and convince themselves that ‘these taste yummy!’ and ignore the nasty taste ‘n smell …when the truth is, they just swallowed dog poo. And you guys get where I’m going with this silly scenario; since we know that the shepple swallow the nasty lies put forth by islam & co: that this death cult is a “religion of peace”, without bothering to examine the truth about islam for themselves.
Read the quran–the ugly truth is *all* in there in black ‘n white!
Champ says
Oh, and stop swallowing this sh*t! 😀
Ren says
“…crime which contradicts the tolerance of our noble religion.”
Does majority of muslims bury their head in the sand or what? Why are they claiming all the time their religion is one of tolerance and noble while most atrocities are perpetrated in the name of their religion and by devout muslims? How thick are their glasses or how dumb are they?
AnneM says
Oh good grief, there is NOTHING noble about Islam SAUDI KING.
Duck says
“Noble” religion my a__. Saudi King Salman bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud and his family are part and parcel of entire problem.
AnneM says
Oh good grief, Saudi King, there is NOTHING noble about Islam.
Sheri says
Weird when stories start to over lap each other: Shocking: This Al-Qaeda Terrorist Just Revealed An Assassination Plot Against President Obama
Zacarias Moussaoui disclosed names and details in plot.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/shock-testimony-al-qaeda-terrorist-just-revealed-alleged-saudi-plot-potus/#xGiRcLGMthtYQg4X.99
Jay Boo says
test
BlueRaven says
“This Al-Qaeda Terrorist Just Revealed An Assassination Plot Against President Obama
Zacarias Moussaoui disclosed names and details in plot. ”
As far as the Muslims are concerns, it is almost impossible to believe anyone of them. They are programmed to tell as much bull when it comes to their religion. Saudies are after World domination through Islam. They started that plan over 1400 years back. I am surprised that no one in the States recovered any evidence about the Saudi involvement in 9/11 till now. Apparently Moussaoi is talking like a canary. Surely there is a verification procedure to determine whether this guy is a goof ball or a champ.
Don McKellar says
“Noble” and “Islam” are two polar ends of a spectrum. Calling Islam noble, is like calling the South Pole tropical.
Champ says
Calling Islam noble, is like calling the South Pole tropical.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Good one, Don! lol! 😀
thomas pellow says
Even veteran leftist, Fisk, has this-
“‘Its misogyny and grotesque public beheadings parallel the cruelty of Isis. So if Saudi Arabia isn’t fuelling the militant inferno, who is?'”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/war-with-isis-if-the-saudis-arent-fuelling-the-militant-inferno-who-is-10024324.html
( Of course, the word ‘Islamofascist’ is more accurate than Fisk’s mere ‘militant.’)
Sheri says
John Loftus is an ex US Justice Department investigator who spent years studying all the US held Nazi files held in the Vaults beneath Maryland. He talks about Bernhart laundering Nazi Loot, some of the Vatican connections, Wall Street Bankers (Rothchild) and Prescott Bush funding Adolf Hitler
Watch all of it, but at 32:02 he talks about the Arab Nazi’s aka The Muslim Brotherhood (who became AL QAEDA) to live in Saudi Arabia and how they taught Osama Bin Laden and then hired Osama Bin Laden and the Arab Nazis.
Americas Nazi Secrets by John Loftus Published on Jul 7, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-fM7i2GW0k
David says
Ignorance still prevails here I see. Stories about Muhammad are unauthenticated and as such have no validity and are the equivalent in our society of heresay and gossip except a 1,000 years old and completely unreliable and unverifiable. No-one can produce any proof Muhammad actually said these things.
So for so called ‘intelligent’ people here to base their racist arguments upon heresay means you are a desperate mob clutching for straws to condemn the world’s peace loving 1.6 billion Muslims who are human beings. More human than the racists and bigots here I might add.
The groups conducting atrocities like this are Muslim in name only and even some captors have suggested that they’re not religious at all and couldn’t find a Quran amongst them. What they do is for show not Islam. They are a disgrace and embarrassment to Islam.
That you guys are so ignorant to rely upon Hadiths which are nothing but heresay and not legal or authenticated and verifiable documents shows up just what fraudsters you are grabbing at what would be thrown out of any court to try and prove your unwinnable case against Islam and Prophet Muhammad.
I am knowledgable about both the Quran and Muhammad and I feel sorry that you guys are trapped in such ludicrous ignorance. If you know what I know you would be ashamed of what you are saying without one iota of real knowledge.
You are riding a bandwagon of racism and bigotry and pride yourselves therein??
This site and you people know absolutely nothing, I repeat nothing about Islam or Muhammad and that you are silly enough to display your ignorance before all humanity is proof of your stupidity.
I am not a Muslim but your arguments are baseless racism and arrogant bigotry aimed at getting clicks for your site. No truly knowledgeable person believes your crazy racist views. Muslims and Muhammad and Islam and the Quran have nothing to do with the behaviour of these groups. You should know that except you choose to deliberately pervert the facts. At a future date maybe your minds will open but at the moment you pride yourselves in your ignorance and make fools of yourselves before all humanity. There is no validity in even one of your arguments against The Quran or Muhammad as you take things out of context to pervert the meaning just like these groups do.
Wellington says
The Koran alone has numerous hateful and troubling passages, for instance Sura 8:39, Sura 8:60, Sura 9:5, Sura 47:4 and Sura 98:6. Moreoever, could you name me one school of Islamic theology, Sunni or Shiite, which discounts the ahadith, or the sira for that matter?
I don’t think you know nearly as much about Islam as you claim to. BTW, as for most Muslims being peace loving, how do you explain poll after poll which shows just how “peace loving” many Muslims are? For instance, the Pew Research poll of 2010 taken in Egypt revealed that over 80% of Egyptians who were polled thought an adultress should be stoned to death and that a Muslim who converts to another religion should be killed. Meanwhile, there have been over 25,000 documented Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide just since 9/11 and this figure doesn’t take into account the tens of thousands of attempted Islamic attacks that were thwarted by security and intelligence agencies across the world.
Your turn if you care to respond but I hope you can do better than you have so far. Especially pathetic is your playing the race card. Tell me, what race is Islam?
David says
Quran 2:192
And if they attack you first (even in that sacred area), strike them (without any hesitation); this is the due punishment for such disbelievers. If, however, they desist from fighting (you should also do likewise), and know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
This clearly states what Muhammad taught that only to fight if attacked. And to cease fighting if the oppressors stop attacking. To go against this is to go against their own Quran. This is not how ISIS behave. They attack and burn innocent people in a cage even who are no threat to them. You can see clearly the Quran does not support this from the above passage.
Hadiths are not authentic. Hadiths are stories attributed to Muhammad that are used widely but their accuracy cannot be proven. Going by the above words the Quran over rules any contradictory Hadiths as the Quran is the Word of God not the Hadith. If the Quran says not to attack unless attacked and the Hadith says to kill or burn all, non Mulsims then the Quran, which is the Word of God is to be followed not the Hadith as it is the true guidance given whereas Hadiths are only heresay and do not carry the authority of the Quran and are not endorsed by it.
ecosse1314 says
Oh dear oh …you being such an islamic scholar and not having heard of abrogation or indeed the violent difference between the medina and the meccan suras.
you being an islamic scholar that you are I cannot understand you wittering on about ahadith. We know you are wrong the whole muslim world knows you are wrong and the reason for that is because you are wrong. Hope this helps.
Angemon says
David posted:
“Quran 2:192
And if they attack you first (even in that sacred area), strike them (without any hesitation); this is the due punishment for such disbelievers. If, however, they desist from fighting (you should also do likewise), and know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”
Two things:
1 – That’s not 192, it’s 191-192
2 – What translation are you using? I know of none who says “if they attack you first”. All translations I can check start with “Kill wherever you find them”.
“This clearly states what Muhammad taught that only to fight if attacked.”
Nope. Even if you’re actually quoting one translation that start says “if they attack you first”, there are plenty of translations that just say “kill them wherever you find them”. Why should we assume your translation is the correct one?
“And to cease fighting if the oppressors stop attacking. To go against this is to go against their own Quran.”
So how do you conciliate that with 5:33:
“Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment”
“This is not how ISIS behave. They attack and burn innocent people in a cage even who are no threat to them. You can see clearly the Quran does not support this from the above passage.”
Once again, what translation are you using, and why should anyone consider your version – the odd one out – as the correct? Also, you did read Robert’s articles, right?
“Hadiths are not authentic. Hadiths are stories attributed to Muhammad that are used widely but their accuracy cannot be proven.”
Yeah, it’s not like muslim clerics have sorted them by reliability and decided that some collections are perfectly reliable. Oh, wait…
“Going by the above words the Quran over rules any contradictory Hadiths as the Quran is the Word of God not the Hadith.”
Another slip of the tongue, David? What about the non-“contraditory” ahadith?
“If the Quran says not to attack unless attacked”
That’s a big “if” – like I pointed out, your translation seems to be the odd one out. All others I know off start with something along the lines of “Kill them wherever you find them” – only yours starts with “if they attack you first”. Also, all other versions say that fitna (disbelief [in allah], persecution) is worse than killing. The context for that verse is the following: muhammad had moved to medina and he and his gang of muslims were raiding caravans belonging to the meccans. These attacks came without any provocation from the meccan – muhammad was attacking them without being attacked first. On one of the raids they killed a meccan. Not only that, they were fighting in the holy months, when all arab tribes of the area agreed not to attack one another. When this issues were taken up to muhammad, he had a “revelation” telling him that it was OK to attack the meccans wherever they could find them because they “drove” the muslims out of mecca, and that “persecution” was a graver sin than murder.
“and the Hadith says to kill or burn all, non Mulsims then the Quran, which is the Word of God is to be followed not the Hadith as it is the true guidance given whereas Hadiths are only heresay and do not carry the authority of the Quran and are not endorsed by it.”
Tell us, David, what’s the prevalent position in the muslim world regarding the ahadith? Last time I checked, being a quran-only muslim was tantamount to heresy. Have things changed that much in the last couple of years? Do the majority of muslims worldwide agree that the ahadith are “heresay”?
Wellington says
Huh, David, ecosse1314 and Angemon have already quite well responded to your woeful reply to me, but I would additionally assert here that you did not at all address many of my points and queries to you in my 5:35 P.M. post. For instance, the poll I mentioned taken in Egypt in 2010 or the fact that no school of Islamic theology to the present day has dismissed the ahadith.
Here’s something else no school of Islamic theology has repudiated to the present day and that is that a Muslim who converts to another religion should be killed. Yes, not the Hanafi school, or Hanbali, or Shafi, et al. have repudiated this extremely liberty-crushing doctrine, which goes against any kind of true freedom of religion.
What say you about this SPECIFIC matter? Yes, address this SPECIFICALLY, David. No obfuscation here, David. No running away from this question of mine. Do you think a Muslim who converts to another religion should be killed? Every school of Islamic theology, Sunni or Shiite, has not repudiated this doctrine to this very day. What say you about this, David, since you are so enthralled, per your own words, with how the vast majority of Muslims are peace loving and we here at JW are just a bunch of ignorant bigots?
Sheri says
“Those who profess Islam do not understand their own religion or pervert it for their own political ends.” – Mohammad Reza Pahlav The Ex- Shah of Iran
Wellington says
I didn’t ask you about Sura 2:192. I asked you about a lot of other matters, including the fact that no school of Islamic theology to the present day has dismissed the ahadith, none of which matters you addressed. My God, man, don’t you even have a rudimentary capacity for arguing? Makes me think you’re a Muslim since apparently your aruging “techniques” emulate typical Muslim “arguing” in significant measure.
Green Infidel says
Funny that you reply with a verse that was NOT cited… how about any of those that were? Or how about the “context” of my personal favourite, Quran 9:29, ordering Muslims to fight non-Muslims until they surrender, with the immediate “context” being about how the non-Muslims are unclean (9:28) and how they are cursed (9:30)?
As for Muhammad advocating that Muslims only retaliate when “attacked” – guess what Stalin’s purges, Hitler’s holocaust of the Jews and many of the beheadings by Isis have in common?
Yes – they were ALL supposedly “punishments” for misbehaviour by the victims. According to Stalin, those he purged had “betrayed” him. According to Hitler, the Jews had “caused the second world war”. And according to Isis, many of those that they beheaded were “spies”.
And if those groups were victorious, and we only had to read their version of events, that’s the only thing we’d know.
As you point out – many of the Hadiths about Muhammad may not be authentic. But they ARE regarded by Muslims as being authentic, with the Hadith of Bukhari being regarded as the “most authentic”. This being the Hadith that says Aisha was 6 when she married Muhammad, when he was over fifty. And this being the Hadith that talks about what today we’d call genocide, by Muhammad’s men, on the Banu Qurayza.
So if Muslims believe such Hadiths to be authentic, and believe commands such as Quran 9:29 to be authentic, can you see why there may be a problem?
Green Infidel says
Hi David,
Glad that you see that we are “questioning everything”. Surely you see how that goes against your earlier statement calling us “racist”?
As for your motivation for defending the Q’uran – “Im defending the Quran simply because it’s the Word of God like the Bible, the Torah” – how can 2 books that are both the “word of God”, eg the Bible and the Quran, have such opposing commands? With in the Bible, Jesus advocating us to “turn the other cheek” to our enemies, while the Quran advocates punishments like those you cited, and even advocates those who follow the Bible to be fought against until they submit (9:29), and calls them “cursed” (9:30)?
Surely you agree that both of these books CANNOT be the word of the same God?
Regards.
gfmucci says
David, you are so wrong-headed on so many levels. Islam’s founder, Islam’s holy texts, Islam’s history, today’s Islamic leaders, and Islamic actions across the globe are testimony of what Islam is and what Muslims believe. You may not be a Muslim, but you sure are an ill-informed apologist for Islam. And your use of the “racist” and “bigot” card is irrelevant and boring.
David says
Some of the posts I’m trying to reply to no longer have a reply at the bottom so I’ll do my best to try and answer in this post.
Firstly, I’m a Baha’i and we are a persecuted minority in Iran but Baha’u’llah Who we believe to be the Promise One of all religions and His Word to be the Word of God stipulated what was true and what was not and we accept His interpretation of the Quran as authoritative and infallible not the interpretation of Mullas or Muslims as they are not Prophets of God but Baha’u’llah we believe carries that authority. The authority from God to annul and change laws of the previous Quranic dispensation. And He did. He abolished Holy War and priesthood and allowed the eating of pork.
Im defending the Quran simply because it’s the Word of God like the Bible, the Torah, the Buddhist Dhammapada, th Baghavad-Gita etc I’d defend the Buddhist scriptures just as passionately. Religion is only revealed for the needs of each age then another religion is revealed with new laws for a new age. The Quran is still the Word of God but has now been superseded by the Most Holy Book of Baha’u’llah for this age. It’s also known as the Kitab-i-Aqdas. It’s a blueprint for a new world civilisation with laws and a new world order and system based on spiritual & humanitarian values.
There are many translations of the Quran but one thing is that the Quran does not promote murder. 6:151 The Quran says life is sacred.
In His Book of Certitude Baha’u’llah reveals the secrets and mysteries of things like Seal of the Prophets etc which does not mean there will not be any Prophets. Muslims have misunderstood this verse.
8:61 but if the enemy incline towards peace do thou also incline towards peace..
Another verse disproving those attempting to prove Islam is provoking violence.
As to waging war on Allah. Again the key here is someone waging an offensive against people not Muhammad doing the waging. Indicating that if they are attacked they are to reply. But Muhammad is not instructing His followers to do anything but be peaceful unless attacked or war is waged on them.
The Quran tells Muslims to be peaceful unless attacked and that life is sacred.
I am only too happy to reply to everyone but some posts don’t have a reply at the bottom so please bear with me.
You are all correct in questioning everything. I did that too. Until I found some answers which explained everything clearly to me. Now I am pleased to tell you that all the Faiths are true and noble but their social laws were only meant for their time maybe 500 years to be superseded by newer laws as man evolved. It’s a great read once you look with an open mind
Angemon says
David posted:
“Firstly, I’m a Baha’i …
(…)
Im defending the Quran simply because it’s the Word of God like the Bible, the Torah, the Buddhist Dhammapada, th Baghavad-Gita etc I’d defend the Buddhist scriptures just as passionately.”
Here’s the thing: you could have said that from the beginning. You could have said “I’m a Baha’i, I believe that the quran is the word of God and it’s a specific set of instructions to a specific set of people for a specific period of time, but muslims screwed up because so and so, and I believe that the ahadith are worthless and that nowadays some passages of the quran are no longer applicable”. Had you said that, I believe that most of the replies you’d got would have been along the lines of “yeah, try explaining that to muslims”.
Instead, you chose to defend islam – not just the quran, islam – and muhammad, and accused people of ignorance and racism for including the ahadith when judging islam. You projected what your faith tells of the quran and the ahadith into islam and muslims, and you insulted people who are judging islam based on what muslims sources say.
Do you see the difference? What you believe about the quran and ahadith is very different from what muslims feel about the quran and the ahadith, much like what Christians believe about Jesus Christ is very different from what muslims believe about Isa. And it’s counterproductive to act like you did – if you’re a baha’i then it’s not your job or obligation to defend what muslims believe about the quran. It should be your obligation to defend the quran, based on what your faith teaches regarding it, when someone criticizes, or attacks, what your faith teaches regarding it.
Whether you believe, or not, that the quran only allows warfare in self-defense is irrelevant to what muslims believe – that the quran mandates warfare against non-muslims for being non-muslims.
TheBuffster says
Excellent post, Angemon.
Champ says
David is one lousy used car salesman, and now he’s suggesting that we “look with an open mind” at what islam TRULY has to offer …what, with David as our guide? LOL! …and I have to wonder how many mind-altering drugs this guy has consumed?
David says
I’m glad everyone is having such fun poking fun at me. I’m quite enjoying it boys. Bring it on!!!
Apart from mixing up racism with Islamaphobia I suppose backing the Quran and Prophet Muhammad to the hilt doesn’t go down too well with you guys.
Well, nevermind you’ll get over it one day and move on to bigger and better things. Who knows maybe one day you’ll be able to challenge me in my Baha’i knowledge, that is when you get around to reading the very first Baha’i book in your life…
But Baha’i topics explain so much about Islam and the Quran that I’m amazed that all you ‘students of Islam’ have never studied the ‘peaceful’ Baha’i religion which came from Iran.
According to you’re calculations we too should be violent nasties who go around killing because we believe in the Quran and Muhammad but I think you’ll all get a shock with what you will find if you ever have the courage to look at a ‘peaceful’ religion which fully accepts the Quran.
No mind drugs. Never used them never will. In 40 years as a Baha’i I’ve not even had a drink of beer or alcohol because no need. I have peace and contentment already without drugs.
I’m going to have some rest to give you guys a rest but I really enjoyed all your prodding and making fun of me because you’re good people just a little lacking in knowledge about the Quran and Islam but I can help you there. Lol. Lol. Just joking. You’re knowledge is great. I’ll learn a lot from you guys. Sorry about my harsh words to begin with. Im stupid sometimes just plain stupid but you are a great bunch and I like this straight talking and accept and welcome criticism. Please criticise as much as you like. I enjoy the challenge.
duh_swami says
Phhht…Bottom line…Never trust anyone who believes Allah is God…End of that story…Do you believe in Gabriel and jinn?
How about any disembodied spooks? How do you know Gabriel was telling the truth?
duh_swami says
So what is ‘noble’ about Islam…let me count the ways…There’s….and there’s….
and then there’s…There’s probably a few more but I don’t know what they are.
AJ Liberphile says
David,
I agree entirely with your original post that there is no reliable proof of the following incident in Mohammed’s life, indeed, no reliable proof that Mohammed ever existed. This is not the point:
Allah had promised the Moslems disgruntled by the Treaty of Hudaybiyya ‘many gains’ (k 48.19). In fulfilment of this, Mohammed led his warriors against the Jews of the Khaybar oasis, where they killed, plundered much booty and exiled the remaining inhabitants. To discover the location of the Banu Nadir’s treasure, Mohammed ordered the torture of Jewish leader Kinana bin al-Rabi, lighting a fire on his chest before beheading him. On discovering that the exiles were hiding some of their valuables, Mohammed had the warriors killed and enslaved their women and children.
The problem is that Mohammed’s aleged life and teachings form the basis of the modern-day mafia death cult known as Islam, and are taken seriously by upwards of 1bn people woldwide, including a significant number living in hitherto civilised (non-islamic) countries.
Sheri says
Just to let you know this has been one of the most educational blogs I have read. So far I have read each & every post each one of you as contributed. I understand when someone says “Keep an open mind” but we have to remember to also “Keep an open heart”, they dwell in the same temple and work best together. David, your a light to your Baha’i faith. I have not learned anything about your faith, I’ve been busy learning about my own chosen faith, though I have seen pictures of it’s headquarters. I’m just surprised more Muslims have not turned toward the gentle non-violent Baha’i faith, but then that is a big concern, maybe they like the violence and “abnormal has become normal”.
Sheri
gravenimage says
Yet more from David:
Apart from mixing up racism with Islamaphobia I suppose backing the Quran and Prophet Muhammad to the hilt doesn’t go down too well with you guys.
……………………………………….
The Baha’i “back” an interpretation of the Qur’an and “Prophet” Muhammed held neither by Muslims nor by any objective reading of that vicious, violent text.
I am glad that the Baha’i—and to a lesser extent the Ahmadi, although they still want to see brutal Shari’ah law imposed—are not waging violent Jihad against us, as their orthodox Muslim “brothers” are.
But both of these minorities are oppressed and murdered *because* they have a more peaceful interpretation of the Qur’an and “Prophet”. But they are too small, despised, and persecuted to make any difference in the horrific violence of the Muslim world, save to serve as more victims.
Baha’i are so persecuted by Muslims, in fact, that they have been unable to set up their headquarters anywhere in the Muslim world, though that is where most of their oppressed followers live. Instead, they set up headquarters in civilized Israel—in Haifa. So for them to try to lecture us on how tolerant Islam is is just perverse.
So they are benign but irrelevant—save for a single point, which we have seen much in evidence on this thread—they are willing to carry water for Islam, and to pretend that their whitewash is mainstream Islam. As with David here, they often don’t reveal at first—or at all—that they are actually Baha’i, and just pretend that their nonviolent interpretation of Islam is mainstream.
And so—intentionally or not—this just functions as more ipso facto Taqiyya—a whitewash of Islam intended to lull the credulous Kuffar into believing that Islam is a “religion of peace”.
More:
Well, nevermind you’ll get over it one day and move on to bigger and better things.
……………………………………….
We can’t “move on”, because Muslims present more and more of an existential threat with their raping, robbing, and murdering us, all with the aim of taking over and imposing savage Islamic law on us.
We might as well tell Baha’s to “move on” from the same thing—their oppression and slaughter at the hands of Muslims. Likely David now lives in the free West—but he is still urging us to surrender to the very people who have driven him out of his homeland.
More:
Who knows maybe one day you’ll be able to challenge me in my Baha’i knowledge, that is when you get around to reading the very first Baha’i book in your life…
……………………………………….
I *have* read the Kitáb-i-Aqdas and other works by Bahá’u’lláh. They are a mash-up which tries to reconcile the unreconcilable—and just ignores everything that doesn’t fit in their world-view.
I also had a boss when I was at university who was Baha’i—a lovely fellow.
More:
But Baha’i topics explain so much about Islam and the Quran that I’m amazed that all you ‘students of Islam’ have never studied the ‘peaceful’ Baha’i religion which came from Iran.
……………………………………….
The problem is that Baha’i explains *nothing* about Islam. Even if we believed that Baha’i had the correct, peaceful interpretation of Islam—and believe me, I wish it did, because then we wouldn’t face the threat we do—it would be irrelevant, because orthodox Muslims not only don’t believe in a peaceful Islam, they consider believing in a peaceful Islam to be the greatest heresy.
So none of this is going to stop Muslims from murdering us.
More:
According to you’re calculations we too should be violent nasties who go around killing because we believe in the Quran and Muhammad but I think you’ll all get a shock with what you will find if you ever have the courage to look at a ‘peaceful’ religion which fully accepts the Quran.
……………………………………….
As I noted, it’s nice that Baha’i aren’t oppressing and murdering us. But that still leaves *over a billion Muslims* who believe that this *is* the proper interpretation of their faith. And why not? That’s how Islam has been practiced for almost 1400 years now, whatever a tiny, persecuted, century-old sect may have to say about if.
More:
Please criticise as much as you like. I enjoy the challenge.
……………………………………….
Unfortunately, this is also meaningless, since David has failed to deal with a single question about the violence of Islam. But then, this should come as no surprise—so much of Baha’i is based on the same sort of willful ignoring of the intrinsic violence of Islam that we see in the West, as well.
David could have a Muslim knife at his throat—on the model of the foul “Prophet”, and he would *still* claim that Islam—the “real” Islam—is completely peaceful. In this, he has a great deal in common with the willfully clueless in the West.
TheBuffster says
Well said, Gravenimage.
gravenimage says
Thank you, Buffster. Good posts from yourself, as well.
Angemon says
David posted:
“I’m glad everyone is having such fun poking fun at me. I’m quite enjoying it boys. Bring it on!!!”
You set yourself up for that when you accused people of being racist and bigoted.
“Apart from mixing up racism with Islamaphobia I suppose backing the Quran and Prophet Muhammad to the hilt doesn’t go down too well with you guys.”
Huh, you defended islam, not just the quran and muhammad.
“Well, nevermind you’ll get over it one day and move on to bigger and better things. Who knows maybe one day you’ll be able to challenge me in my Baha’i knowledge, that is when you get around to reading the very first Baha’i book in your life…”
Like the Bible, or the quran? I believe most people here read at least one of those…
“But Baha’i topics explain so much about Islam and the Quran that I’m amazed that all you ‘students of Islam’ have never studied the ‘peaceful’ Baha’i religion which came from Iran.”
Unless muslims understand islam the same way the bahai understand islam, can it. This is JihadWatch, not Baha’i Dawah Paradise.
“According to you’re calculations we too should be violent nasties who go around killing because we believe in the Quran and Muhammad”
Nu-uh. Don’t try to pull a fast one, David. Don’t baha’i reject some verses of the quran? Don’t baha’i reject the ahadith? Don’t baha’i have a different understanding/interpretation of the quran than muslims? If so, your comparision is worthless.
“but I think you’ll all get a shock with what you will find if you ever have the courage to look at a ‘peaceful’ religion which fully accepts the Quran.”
“Fully acepts the quran”, eh? OK, David, I’m going to call you on that. Do you accept that the quran sets up divine law to last uutil the end of days? Do you accept that the quran allows wife beating and sexual slavery? Do you accept that the quran lies about what Judaism and Christianity teach? And how do you know which verses came first without resorting to the sira and ahadith? Did muhammad started by teaching that Jews and Christians are to be fought and ended up teaching “you ahve your religion and I have mine” or was it the other way around?
“I’m going to have some rest to give you guys a rest but I really enjoyed all your prodding and making fun of me because you’re good people just a little lacking in knowledge about the Quran and Islam but I can help you there. Lol. Lol. Just joking. You’re knowledge is great. I’ll learn a lot from you guys. Sorry about my harsh words to begin with. Im stupid sometimes just plain stupid but you are a great bunch and I like this straight talking and accept and welcome criticism. Please criticise as much as you like. I enjoy the challenge.”
Good riddance.
Champ says
Angemon, great response to “David” ..Bravo!
Hurricanegrade says
“Stories about Muhammad are unauthenticated and as such have no validity and are the equivalent in our society of heresay and gossip except a 1,000 years old and completely unreliable and unverifiable. ”
If you wrote that comment in a Muslim country you’d probably be executed. Fact.
David says
We are imprisoned in Iran and Baha’is are executed and our cemeteries desecrated and our shops closed and our citizenship revoked because we accept another Prophet after Muhammad who taught that Islam’s time had ended and a new era was being ushered in by God.
Baha’u’llah abolished the law of Holy War, permitted the eating of pork and abolished priesthood and said the time has come for world unity and all religions to be at peace.
He explained the laws of each religion were only meant for the age they were revealed in so the Quran’s laws are no longer valid or applicablefor this age and many people know it and are questioning but also people are questioning the relevancy of all religion if their laws no longer provide answers for our current problems. So Baha’u’llah was sent for the age of world unity.
Angemon says
David posted:
“We are imprisoned in Iran and Baha’is are executed and our cemeteries desecrated and our shops closed and our citizenship revoked because we accept another Prophet after Muhammad who taught that Islam’s time had ended and a new era was being ushered in by God.”
The quran states in 33:40 that muhammad is the last of the prophets. Aren’t you going against the quran when accepting another prophet after muhammad?
“He explained the laws of each religion were only meant for the age they were revealed in so the Quran’s laws are no longer valid or applicablefor this age and many people know it and are questioning but also people are questioning the relevancy of all religion if their laws no longer provide answers for our current problems. So Baha’u’llah was sent for the age of world unity.”
Quick question, David: why were you so adamant in defending the quran when you consider it to be no longer applicable?
TheBuffster says
David, you’re Baha’i!
Oh, for heaven’s sake.
Nobody’s afraid of the Baha’is.
Baha’is may consider that they have the truth about Mohammad and Islam, and that Baha’u’llah was sent to fix up the bad stuff that the Muslims believe in, but just as the Jews don’t buy Mohammad as a true prophet, the Muslims don’t buy Baha’u’llah as a true prophet. The Koran tells Muslims that Mohammad is the *final* prophet – there will be no more prophets after him. And in Islam the Koran is the final word, unchanging, and anyone who adds to it or subtracts from it is a bad, bad boy or girl.
That is why the Baha’is are persecuted by Islam.
As I’ve noted in other posts, I have no doubt that there are many Muslims who don’t accept the parts of the Koran that incite them to be harsh with unbelievers. Not all Muslims want to live under Shariah law. Not all Muslims believe jihad is right. But that’s *not* because commands to be harsh and to wage jihad are not in the Koran, because they are. It’s because those Muslims are putting their own personal humane and benevolent nature *above* the content of their holy book and the example of the life of Mohammad.
When you defend Islam on the basis of what the Baha’i religion believes Islam is all about, you’re not coming from the perspective of the Islamic religion as it is written and has been interpreted and practiced by the majority of Islamic scholars and leaders and the populations they’ve lead for hundreds of years.
The very people who persecute you as a Baha’i are the ones who are coming after the rest of us, now.
Aside from the truly peaceful Muslims who have moderated their beliefs to accept the freedoms we in the West hold dear, we are facing big trouble. And we can’t fight it if we pretend it’s not there, or accept the Baha’i interpretation of Islam. That would be to disarm ourselves intellectually and make ourselves helpless to fight the jihadis and their supporters on the political front, where they’re trying to fight us in our own countries. Quite aside from terrorist violence.
Nobody’s afraid of Baha’is, David. You’re safe from us. And so are whatever harmless Muslims exist.
gravenimage says
Angemon wrote:
Quick question, David: why were you so adamant in defending the quran when you consider it to be no longer applicable?
…………………………
*Very* important point, Angemon.
Much of the cognitive dissonance of Baha’i surrounds this very question: how can the Qur’an be peaceful, and all the actions of the “Prophet” be peaceful, if only one reads them “correctly”—yet at the same time the revelations of Baha’u’llah necessarily rendering the Qur’an and model of Muhammed obsolete in order to have world peace?
Now *many* ideologies have internal contradictions, and especially when it concerns ancient texts it is seldom of much concern to those who are not part of the sect.
Except for here, where Baha’i are willing to whitewash the very creed that is committing genocide against them. This is worse than dhimmitude, and less understandable—this is full-on Stockholm Syndrome. That this has the effect of lulling Islam’s victims into a false sense of security, it is hardly entirely benign.
duh_swami says
There are Quran only Mahoundians who don’t accept the hadith or sharia. One such Mahoundian told me that the Mahound of hadith was not the Mahound of Quran. For them, Mahoundian is not the right term since they don’t worship Mahound…But they do worship Allah and his book.
duh_swami says
Allah does not allow the pious to reject any of his words…if the Quran is good for all time, that is all of it, not part of it…
Something that vaguely resembles Islam is not Islam.
There are no ‘versions’ of Islam that Allah approved of.
Angemon says
Westman posted:
“Doesn’t anyone understand that David is a Baha’i ??
That is the ONLY peaceful version of Islam (a distinct minority) that is persecuted by both Sunnis and Shias.
They are persecuted because they reject the nasty Medina verses.
He may not have had any contact with Orthodox Imams.”
David mentions persecution of Baha’i in Iran, and he still defends the ideology that’s responsible for the persecution.
Angemon says
David posted:
“Ignorance still prevails here I see. Stories about Muhammad are unauthenticated and as such have no validity and are the equivalent in our society of heresay and gossip except a 1,000 years old and completely unreliable and unverifiable. No-one can produce any proof Muhammad actually said these things.”
That was a wonderful display of ignorance, David. Had you bothered to check islamic sources, you’d know that the saying have been divided in several collections, with varying degrees of accuracy. Two of them are deemed as “reliable”, Bukhari and Sahih muslim. No sunni muslim can argue with any of those two – if it’s in one of those two, then it happened, and it’s second in authority to the quran alone.
I believe you managed to offend muslims worldwide – try saying that out loud in Britain and see if you can get away from a charge of “islamophobia”.
“So for so called ‘intelligent’ people here to base their racist arguments”
What race is islam again?
“ upon heresay”
Huh, you’re the one classifying it as hearsay. And you’re wrong, as I explained above. Anything you derive from that premise is therefore wrong.
“means you are a desperate mob clutching for straws to condemn the world’s peace loving 1.6 billion Muslims who are human beings.”
Who’s doing that here?
“More human than the racists and bigots here I might add.”
Yes, I too think that people who worship a pedophile murderer are more human than the people who criticize his child-molesting, murderous ways…
“The groups conducting atrocities like this are Muslim in name only”
Tell that to the millions of muslims worldwide who support the islamic state.
“and even some captors have suggested that they’re not religious at all and couldn’t find a Quran amongst them.”
And because allegedly some are not religious, therefore you can say that none of them is, even though you’re accusing us of trying to tar all muslims with the same brush. Hypocrite.
“What they do is for show not Islam. They are a disgrace and embarrassment to Islam.”
Are you the person who officially understands the codified doctrine of Islam?
“That you guys are so ignorant to rely upon Hadiths which are nothing but heresay and not legal or authenticated and verifiable documents shows up just what fraudsters you are grabbing at what would be thrown out of any court to try and prove your unwinnable case against Islam and Prophet Muhammad.”
See above. The so-called “hearsay” (or, as David repeatedly puts it, “heresay) are second in authority to the quran alone. I can assure you that if it were necessary, muslim experts would go into a court of law and vouch for the reliability of Bukhari and Sahih muslim.
“I am knowledgable about both the Quran and Muhammad”
And yet, you try to dismiss the ahadith as “heresay”. Your knowledge of islam amounts to zero – even if you believe that the ahadith are hearsay, you’d have at least to know that most muslims think otherwise.
“and I feel sorry that you guys are trapped in such ludicrous ignorance.”
Try telling that to ALL muslims worldwide who vouch for the ahadith collections. If I’m not mistaken, that would be the overwhelming majority of them. At least 99.999%
“If you know what I know you would be ashamed of what you are saying without one iota of real knowledge.”
The problem with that is that most regular here know MORE than you know. We know you’re wrong, and we pity you for it. You may not believe that the hadith
“You are riding a bandwagon of racism and bigotry and pride yourselves therein??”
Once again: anything derived from your assertion that the ahadith are “heresay” is null and void.
“This site and you people know absolutely nothing, I repeat nothing about Islam or Muhammad and that you are silly enough to display your ignorance before all humanity is proof of your stupidity.”
I can assure you, most regulars here are thinking exactly that about you. “Heresay” my ass…
“I am not a Muslim”
You make a very good impression, though, down to the “heresay”.
“but your arguments are baseless racism and arrogant bigotry aimed at getting clicks for your site.”
More baseless accusations of racism and bigotry? Oh, that’s right, you have neither facts nor arguments on your side, so mud slinging it is.
“No truly knowledgeable person believes your crazy racist views.”
There you go with “racism” again, like a monkey with its feces. And who are you to say what a “truly knowledgeable person” believes or not on a subject you proved to know nothing about?
“Muslims and Muhammad and Islam and the Quran have nothing to do with the behaviour of these groups.”
And yet, these groups consistently draw upon islamic orthodoxy to justify their actions, and convince muslims worldwide to join then because of it…
“You should know that except you choose to deliberately pervert the facts.”
OK, pick one: either we don’t know or we choose to “deliberately pervert the facts”. You can’t have it both ways..
“At a future date maybe your minds will open but at the moment you pride yourselves in your ignorance and make fools of yourselves before all humanity.”
Says the guy who claims that the ahadith are of no value, lol!
“There is no validity in even one of your arguments against The Quran or Muhammad as you take things out of context to pervert the meaning just like these groups do.”
Took you long enough to come up with the magic word “context”.
David says
Refer to Baha’u’llah and the Book of Certitude when or if you ever get a chance. It is a completely different view of God’s Messengers than is currently held. He is the Promised One for this age and has revealed infallible arguments for all these questions.
Baha’u’llah revealed the truth about Muhammad which comes from God not mans minds. You get the true unadulterated interpretation of Muhammad from Baha’u’llah according to God Who sent Muhammad not mans version.
The Book of Certitude by Baha’u’llah is the story of Revelation written by the Pen of God Himself.
Angemon says
David posted:
“Refer to Baha’u’llah and the Book of Certitude when or if you ever get a chance. It is a completely different view of God’s Messengers than is currently held. He is the Promised One for this age and has revealed infallible arguments for all these questions.”
No, thanks, I’ll pass. I’m not really a religious person – apparently, I’m more of a “racist”, “bigot”, “hate-monger”, since I believe that the ahadith are considered relevant and authoritative by orthodox islam and most muslims worldwide (in my defense, it’s because they told me so)
“Baha’u’llah revealed the truth about Muhammad which comes from God not mans minds. You get the true unadulterated interpretation of Muhammad from Baha’u’llah according to God Who sent Muhammad not mans version.”
Ah, so you guys take muhammad and say something different than what islam says. Muslims do that with biblical figures. I guess muslims don’t like it, eh?
I feel sorry for you guys, but I don’t see how defending your tormentors and attacking those who might feel sorry for your plight helps to improve your situation.
somehistory says
“By the pen of God Himself”……
You state, David, that you are *not a muslim*….but you certainly have all the of the arguments that *that isn’t islam* and that no one who comments here knows anything about islam or its *prophet* that muslims parrot when they say they are muslim and come to comment.
About that *pen* thing:
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Firstly, God, The One True God, doesn’t use *pens.* He used His Finger to write the 10 Commandments.(Ex.31:18). That’s true power. No pen needed.
Secondly, He never had any of His servants write about islam’s *prophet*….except for what they wrote about satan and satan’s seed. (A snake and snake’s offspring)
BTW: There is written, supposedly by the islamist *prophet* himself, that islam will go back to where it began…*between the two mosques* as a *snake returning to its hole.* [Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0270.]
It’s about time for that to happen.
gravenimage says
David wrote:
We are imprisoned in Iran and Baha’is are executed and our cemeteries desecrated and our shops closed and our citizenship revoked because we accept another Prophet after Muhammad who taught that Islam’s time had ended and a new era was being ushered in by God.
………………………………….
Well, that explains it—this poster if Baha’i. Despite the fact that Baha’i are oppressed and murdered by Muslims on a regular basis, they feel compelled to proffer apologia for the foul creed of Islam. Robert Spencer has made note of this perverse phenomenon many times.
More:
Baha’u’llah abolished the law of Holy War, permitted the eating of pork and abolished priesthood and said the time has come for world unity and all religions to be at peace.
………………………………….
And Muslims consider this heresy punishable by death. No Muslim believes this.
More:
He explained the laws of each religion were only meant for the age they were revealed in so the Quran’s laws are no longer valid or applicablefor this age…
………………………………….
Orthodox Muslims believe that the Qur’an is valid for all time, and is the unchanging word of Allah. Why would they care what a small, oppressed sect of “heretics” believe?
More:
Refer to Baha’u’llah and the Book of Certitude when or if you ever get a chance. It is a completely different view of God’s Messengers than is currently held. He is the Promised One for this age and has revealed infallible arguments for all these questions.
Baha’u’llah revealed the truth about Muhammad which comes from God not mans minds. You get the true unadulterated interpretation of Muhammad from Baha’u’llah according to God Who sent Muhammad not mans version.
………………………………….
Even were we to accept this, the fact is that *Muslims do not*. Pretending that Muslims believe this will not change anything.
Despite the fact that David must realize this, he is still pretending that unless we look at Islam through the prism of Baha’i that we are “ignorant”. I wonder if he tells Muslims the same thing? I rather doubt it…
David says
I know Muslims almost 100% of them accept Hadiths even many over the Quran but the only authoritative scripture is the Quran.
Only the Quran is the Word of God not Hadiths. Where Muslims place Hadiths is not the issue here. The issue is what must a Muslim follow as his authority and only the Quran fills that spot yet they almost always equate some Hadiths to the Quran which is wrong.
Many Muslims may find Hadiths convenient to promote their ideas in beliefs and interpretations but only the Quran is authoritative and binding.
You are not racists or bigots I shouldn’t have phrased it that way so sincerest apologise to everyone. I really like you guys. What I should have said was I believe your ideas are racist and bigoted not you personally. You are right to question why on earth is all this violence and I believe with patience I can provide some answers because I found out when I asked but the answer may not be want you want to hear.
I still am absolutely convinced Islam and the Quran and Muhammad are not violent but peaceful. I accept the majority of Muslims by their actions are peaceful. You can take polls and get all sorts of answers but it’s people’s actions which says who they really are and most Muslims are just ordinary people who live like you and me. A small minority who capture world headlines tarnish the good name of Islam.
Don’t forget I’m a Bahai. If anyone has an axe to grind about being persecuted by Muslims it’s the Bahais yet we know and believe in the inherent goodness of people and that mostly corrupt leaders have misguided their people. In Iran Muslims love us but the govt is so worried that if they allowed freedom of religion their entire population would become Bahais so they demonise us. We believe more in their Quran than they do. But we reject Hadiths and Mullas which are the two main instruments used to control people so we get locked up and used as an example to others to frighten them not to become Baha’is too.
Angemon says
David posted:
“I know Muslims almost 100% of them accept Hadiths even many over the Quran”
Then what you did was dishonest, at best – you accused everyone here of “racism” for judging muslims based on their beliefs, and you insulted us for something you knew to be wrong.
“but the only authoritative scripture is the Quran.”
For you, maybe. For muslims, the ahadith are second in authority only to the quran.
“Only the Quran is the Word of God not Hadiths. Where Muslims place Hadiths is not the issue here.”
Oh, but it is.
“The issue is what must a Muslim follow as his authority and only the Quran fills that spot yet they almost always equate some Hadiths to the Quran which is wrong.”
The ahadith fill in the gaps. For example, how do you know the order of the alcohol “revelations”? Was alcohol allowed then banned or banned then allowed? Or how would muslims know how to pray from the quran alone? And aren’t the ahadith coming from the same sources that (allegedly) kept the quran?
“Many Muslims may find Hadiths convenient to promote their ideas in beliefs and interpretations but only the Quran is authoritative and binding.”
Who are these “many muslims”? And once again, muslims consider the ahadith as being second in authority to the quran alone. Try telling yourself that whenever you tell us that only the quran is authoritative – we’re discussing islam, not baha’i. There’s not much point in you telling us that the ahadith aren’t to be taken seriously – perhaps you should prach that to muslims.
“You are not racists or bigots I shouldn’t have phrased it that way so sincerest apologise to everyone. I really like you guys. What I should have said was I believe your ideas are racist and bigoted not you personally.”
A difference without a distinction – muslims take the ahadith seriously and there’s nothing “racist” or “bigoted” in judging islam according to islamic theology.
“I still am absolutely convinced Islam and the Quran and Muhammad are not violent but peaceful.”
Even without the ahadith and the sira, the quran isn’t exactly peaceful. It sanctions wife-beating, sexual slavery, fighting people because of their religion, etc.
“I accept the majority of Muslims by their actions are peaceful. You can take polls and get all sorts of answers but it’s people’s actions which says who they really are and most Muslims are just ordinary people who live like you and me. A small minority who capture world headlines tarnish the good name of Islam.”
That’s a matter fro another discussion – as it is said, opportunity makes a thief.
“Don’t forget I’m a Bahai. If anyone has an axe to grind about being persecuted by Muslims it’s the Bahais yet we know and believe in the inherent goodness of people and that mostly corrupt leaders have misguided their people. In Iran Muslims love us but the govt is so worried that if they allowed freedom of religion their entire population would become Bahais so they demonise us. We believe more in their Quran than they do. But we reject Hadiths and Mullas which are the two main instruments used to control people so we get locked up and used as an example to others to frighten them not to become Baha’is too.”
If all muslims are so peaceful, then who persecutes you?
occupant 9 says
David, if you wouldn’t mind letting everyone know what “race” Islam is, that’d be a big help. So far, our lyin’ eyes tell us that *anyone* can become a Muslim and so far, though Michael Jackson tried, one cannot convert to a different race.
Do you know what a dhimmi is? Look it up then look in the mirror to see one.
David says
If you’re referring to comments I made regarding racism I used the term losely but it’s sloppy use of the term not accurate. Sorry. I’m not sure which post you’re referring to but yes Islam is not a race.
TheBuffster says
Hi, David.
You said: “So for so called ‘intelligent’ people here to base their racist arguments upon heresay means you are a desperate mob clutching for straws to condemn the world’s peace loving 1.6 billion Muslims who are human beings. More human than the racists and bigots here I might add.”
First of all, I’ve been reading the articles and comments here on JihadWatch for a few years now, and I can attest that most people here, and most definitely Robert Spencer who is the founder of this site, do *not* condemn the whole 1.6 billion Muslims. We know they are human beings. We know that many of them don’t accept the horrible parts of the Koran and they reject the evil hadiths. Why? Precisely as you say, because we know that they are human beings. Most human beings don’t want to spend their lives fighting jihad in order to bring the world under the rule of Islam. Most human beings don’t want to kill or be killed in the cause of Allah. So they accept what the decency of their own souls can accept, and ignore or outright reject the bad stuff in the Koran, figuring that it *can’t* mean what it seems to mean, because how could any god worth worshipping demand something so cruel?
But the point is that those threatening verses and the example of Mohammad (and do all Muslim scholars and clerics reject even the Bukhari and Muslim hadiths? No. Those hadiths are widely accepted.) do exist, and while many Muslims don’t take them seriously, and do not accept the verse of abrogation, but take only what seems decent and rationally moral from the Koran, any other Muslims swallow it whole.
Those are the Muslims that this site was set up to “watch” – the jihadists who believe that they are waging war to spread Islam. And also to keep abreast of the activities of those Muslims waging a quieter jihad in Western countries, not through violence, but through incremental assaults on the freedom of speech and infiltrating mosques with radicals with a jihadist agenda.
The danger from those people is real. It’s as real for gentle Muslims as it is for the unbelievers. And most of us are convinced from our own reading of the Koran and the hadith that those Muslims who are waging jihad find plenty in the texts of Islam to back up their conviction that they are doing the will of Allah.
While there are, inevitably, a few here who aren’t as carefully nuanced in their understanding, there are plenty of us, including Robert Spencer himself, who recognize the existence of and continually remind readers of those Muslims who don’t go along with the harshness in Islam, just as the harshness of Leviticus is rejected by Jews today.
Here is a quote from Robert Spencer’s “About Robert Spencer” page:
“Q: Do you hate Muslims?
RS: “Of course not. Islam is not a monolith, and never have I said or written anything that characterizes all Muslims as terrorist or given to violence. To call attention to the roots and goals of jihad violence within Islamic texts and teachings, and to show how jihadists use those texts and teachings, says nothing at all about what any given Muslim believes or how he acts. Any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts. Any hate in my books comes from Muslim sources quoted, not from me. Cries of “hatred” and “bigotry” are effectively used by American Muslim advocacy groups to try to stifle the debate about the terrorist threat. But there is no substance to them.
“It is not an act of hatred against Muslims to point out the depredations of jihad ideology. It is a peculiar species of displacement and projection to accuse someone who exposes the hatred of one group of hatred himself: I believe in the equality of rights and dignity of all people, and that is why I oppose the global jihad. Those who make the charge use it as a tool to frighten the credulous and politically correct away from the truth.
“Some time ago here at Jihad Watch I had an exchange with an English convert to Islam. I said:’I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc.’ Is all that “anti-Muslim”? My correspondent thought so. He responded: ‘So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims.’
“In other words, he saw a call for equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies, including freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, and equal employment opportunities, as a challenge to his religion. To the extent that they are, these facts have to be confronted by both Muslims and non-Muslims. But it is not “anti-Muslim” to wish freedom of conscience and equality of rights on the Islamic world — quite the contrary.”
You can find that and more here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/about-robert
Now, as to the term “racism”, it refers to intense prejudice against a race. It is a sloppy use of the term to use it against someone who you believe is prejudiced against people of a given religion. If a person hated all Christians and Jews because of something in the Bible, or because some Christians and Jews of the past did evil things in the name of their religions, would that be “racism”? No. You could call it religious bigotry, but since religion has nothing to do with a person’s race, you cannot properly call it racism.
You can be a member of any race and be a Christian or even a Jew. And Muslims are the same. People are not opposed to the doctrine of Islam on the basis of race.
But as I have pointed out above, this website and most of the people posting on it, as my experience has convinced me, are against the aspects of the *Koran* and the Hadith which are inspiring jihad against those who do not accept the hard-line view of Islam.
It is nonsense to call people bigots who have gone to the trouble that, I think, most of us have to read the Islamic texts and listen to various Imams, and read widely on the topic. There is a lot to read, a lot of people – Muslims included – to talk to. Videos, documentaries… I know that I have been giving a lot of time to trying to get the full picture on what is going on with this religion and what kind of danger we’re in from those who believe in jihad and who believe it is their duty to bring everyone under the rule of Islam by war and by “stealth”. It takes a lot of effort and time and careful thinking to sort out what is true and what is not and what needs to be done to protect ourselves from the threat that we face.
If we’ve gotten anything wrong, it’s not for lack of trying to get it right. (I can’t vouch for *everyone* posting comments on JihadWatch, but I can speak for myself and – I believe – the majority of people here.) And it’s not out of a bigoted *desire* to find that the Islamic texts command the spread of Islam by war and justify the present day evils of Al Qaeda and Boko Haram and the Islamic State. It’s because there’s so much in those texts that can convince a person to do what those groups are doing, and to inspire other Muslims to want to colonize the West by other means, as well.
It’s natural and right for people to try to understand what is motivating those who want to destroy them, and to learn how to fight against their own destruction. That’s what we’re trying to do here. And this forum gives people a place to argue it out, sort it out. And argue with each other, we do.
David says
I loved your post. I’m also very happy that you cleared up about Muslims. Sorry about misunderstanding. Please forgive me.
I also am very strongly against Jihad. The reason I stand up for the Quran so much may have to do with the fact I accept Islam through Baha’u’llah’s Eyes, the Prophet Founder of the Baha’i Faith.
Baha’u’llah and His Forerunner the Bab were both prophesied in the Quran.
Baha’u’llah brought a New Revelation from God with Laws for this age. Both Prophets appeared in Iran. The Bab was executed for claiming to be a Messenger of God and Baha’u’llah was exiled for 40 years ending up in Palestine now Israel where the Baha’i Faith has its headquarters on the slopes of Mount Carmel.
An Iranian religion with its headquarters on an Israeli mountain speaks volumes about why Israel trusts Baha’is from Iran but not Iran itself. Our views are not extreme or in any danger of becoming so.
Baha’u’llah in His Most Holy Book (Kitab-i-Aqdas) abolished Holy War and priesthood.
So we Baha’is accept the Quran fully as the Word of God and Prophet Muhammad but through Baha’u’llah’s Eyes not Mullas or Muslims or Hadiths so there are no Bahai wars or Bahai jihadists or bahai extremist groups. Yet we believe in the same Quran ISIS believe in. So we feel it’s not the Quran but who Muslims are turning to for guidance that is the problem.
If Muslims accepted both the Bab and Baha’u’llah as prophesied in their Quran we wouldn’t have this mess. They are stuck on ‘Seal of the Prophets’ so can’t accept new Prophets so can’t accept a new way forward. They need to reexamine their interpretation if this verse and stop listening to ignorant Mullas.
Muhammad was the last Prophet correct and true. He was the last Prophet of the ‘Prophetic’ cycle which began with Adam and ended with Muhammad. Those were years of prophecies and promises. After Muhammad came the ‘Age of Fulfillment’ with the appearance of Baha’u’llah and when all the promises such as world peace and world unity are to be fulfilled.
Muslims have a different understanding of Muhammad being the Seal of the Prophets. An interpretation of exclusiveness and superiority which they no doubt got from their leaders. ‘There is only one name under heaven by which men shall be saved’ (Bible) see the pattern? Verses like these used to keep their followers but clergy fail to also state that in the ‘last days’ He shall be known by a new name.
So Baha’is still believe in each and every verse of the Quran except we take the interpretations of Baha’u’llah as truth. And His interpretations leads not to extremism but to peace and harmony.
TheBuffster says
Thank you, David. I appreciate your telling us about your religion.
You said: “I also am very strongly against Jihad. The reason I stand up for the Quran so much may have to do with the fact I accept Islam through Baha’u’llah’s Eyes, the Prophet Founder of the Baha’i Faith.”
I’ve been reading your other posts as well as this one, and I see that you are not defending Islam as it has been interpreted by Muslim leaders throughout Islam’s history. You are defending the Baha’i religion, which is a very different belief system from the one orthodox Muslims have.
But the Koran I’ve read – well, I can’t see how the badness can be interpreted out of it. I suppose I’d have to read Baha’u’llah’s book to understand how he managed that. I’m not saying I don’t believe the Baha’i religion is truly peaceful. I know a bit about Baha’i – enough to believe what you are saying about it. But the Koran I’ve read is quite hateful towards the unbelievers, and threatening to their lives and freedom.
No matter how much better Baha’i is than orthodox Islam, I don’t expect many Muslims to be converting to your religion anytime soon. Although monstrosities like the Islamic State might shoo a few disgusted Muslims away from the Mullahs and into Baha’u’llah’s arms.
Here at JihadWatch our concern has to be not what Baha’u’llah said about the Koran and Hadith, but what Muslims have believed and done through centuries, the violent pattern they established, and what many of them still believe and what they’re doing about it today. If they weren’t on the move against us, what they believe and why they believe it wouldn’t concern us.
gravenimage says
David wrote:
Ignorance still prevails here I see. Stories about Muhammad are unauthenticated and as such have no validity and are the equivalent in our society of heresay and gossip except a 1,000 years old and completely unreliable and unverifiable. No-one can produce any proof Muhammad actually said these things.
……………………………….
What rot. It doesn’t matter whether the Hadith can be authenticated by Western standards of scholarship or not—or even whether the “Prophet” Muhammed himself existed. What matters is that *Muslims* believe them.
And they do—whether Infidels are terribly impressed with Isnad Chains or not, pious Muslims certainly are, The Hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim are both deemed “Sahih”—reliable.
Muslims regularly cite the Hadith as a basis for the model of the Muhammed for themselves to follow.
Al-Azhar—the main fount of Sunni orthodoxy—actually has a department of Hadith studies. To imply that the Hadith represent some sort of fringe material is utterly false.
More:
So for so called ‘intelligent’ people here to base their racist arguments upon heresay means you are a desperate mob clutching for straws to condemn the world’s peace loving 1.6 billion Muslims who are human beings. More human than the racists and bigots here I might add.
……………………………….
Several posters have asked David what race Islam is—and he has chosen not to answer. This is not uncommon—Muslims apologists routinely attempt to falsely characterize any criticism of the savagery of Islam as “racism”.
The truth is that Islam is *an ideology*, not a race. There are Middle Eastern, Persian, African, Indian sub-continent, south-east Asian, white, and African American Muslims—race has absolutely nothing to do with Islam.
And it is not the Infidels at Jihad Watch who use such “hearsay” as orthodox text, but pious Muslims themselves.
More:
The groups conducting atrocities like this are Muslim in name only and even some captors have suggested that they’re not religious at all and couldn’t find a Quran amongst them. What they do is for show not Islam. They are a disgrace and embarrassment to Islam.
……………………………….
What absolute crap. It is only an “embarrassment” to Taqiyya artists who are trying to whitewash Islam to lull the “filthy Kuffar” into a false sense of security.
And the idea that one “couldn’t find a Quran amongst them” is particularly ludicrous, since ISIS captioned this horrifying video *with a Qur’anic quotation*. Specifically, Qur’an 9:14:
“Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of the believers”.
More:
That you guys are so ignorant to rely upon Hadiths which are nothing but heresay and not legal or authenticated and verifiable documents shows up just what fraudsters you are grabbing at what would be thrown out of any court to try and prove your unwinnable case against Islam and Prophet Muhammad.
……………………………….
It does not, of course, matter what Infidels believe—but what *Muslims* believe. And this “Qur’an only” crap is absurd in any case—the Qur’an *itself* is incredibly vicious, as is the Sira. If the Hadith were suddenly held to be invalidated—which will not happen, since pious Muslims have followed them *for centuries*—Islam would scarcely be any less savage.
More:
I am knowledgable about both the Quran and Muhammad and I feel sorry that you guys are trapped in such ludicrous ignorance. If you know what I know you would be ashamed of what you are saying without one iota of real knowledge.
……………………………….
I doubt it. Muhammed as depicted in the Qur’an and Sira is still a vicious warlord, pedophile, rapist, slaver, caravan raider, and mass killer. Notice that David doesn’t cite anything specific here at all.
More:
You are riding a bandwagon of racism and bigotry and pride yourselves therein??
……………………………….
More of the same—there is nothing “racist” or “bigoted” in recognizing the violence of pious Muslims acting on Islamic grounds.
More:
This site and you people know absolutely nothing, I repeat nothing about Islam or Muhammad and that you are silly enough to display your ignorance before all humanity is proof of your stupidity.
I am not a Muslim but your arguments are baseless racism and arrogant bigotry aimed at getting clicks for your site. No truly knowledgeable person believes your crazy racist views. Muslims and Muhammad and Islam and the Quran have nothing to do with the behaviour of these groups. You should know that except you choose to deliberately pervert the facts. At a future date maybe your minds will open but at the moment you pride yourselves in your ignorance and make fools of yourselves before all humanity. There is no validity in even one of your arguments against The Quran or Muhammad as you take things out of context to pervert the meaning just like these groups do.
……………………………….
Very common—specifically, common to Muslim apologists, despite David’s denial. The reference to “all of humanity”—which generally means “Muslims”, as the Kuffar are not considered fully human; The idea that we are not merely mistaken, but have chosen to “deliberately pervert the facts” is the same accusation Muslims level at Jews and Christians, who have supposedly “perverted” the Torah and Bible, which were held to originally support the vicious Qur’an; the lie that Jihadists’ behavior has nothing to do with Islam, when it is exactly on the model of the “Prophet” (this being the case whether one includes the examples of the Hadith or not); and the ludicrous false moral equivalence that noticing savagery and daring to point it out is the same as perpetrating such savagery oneself.
All in all, very standard Taqiyya.
More, in reply to Wellington:
Quran 2:192
And if they attack you first (even in that sacred area), strike them (without any hesitation); this is the due punishment for such disbelievers. If, however, they desist from fighting (you should also do likewise), and know that Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
……………………………….
Does David believe that none of us own Qur’ans? It would appear so.
Qur’an 2:191:
And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
2:192:
And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
2:193:
Fight them until there is no more fitnah and until all worship is for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.
2:194:
Fighting in the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.
Clearly, this is not a blanket prohibition against Muslims attacking unbelievers, but refers solely to a single place and time regarded as sacred during the dark ages.
“Fight them until there is no more fitnah and until all worship is for Allah” means for Infidels to accept supremacist Muslim rule and either convert or accept oppressed dhimmi status.
More:
This clearly states what Muhammad taught that only to fight if attacked. And to cease fighting if the oppressors stop attacking. To go against this is to go against their own Quran. This is not how ISIS behave. They attack and burn innocent people in a cage even who are no threat to them. You can see clearly the Quran does not support this from the above passage.
……………………………….
This is, of course, not what the Sura means at all.
And how could it? Muslims have attacked and conquered Infidels over and over again over the past 1300+ years. Would David have us believe that the conquest of Spain, and Persia, and Anatolia, and large swaths of India were all ‘defensive’? Ridiculous.
Islam is, in fact, an ideology of conquest.
More:
Hadiths are not authentic. Hadiths are stories attributed to Muhammad that are used widely but their accuracy cannot be proven. Going by the above words the Quran over rules any contradictory Hadiths as the Quran is the Word of God not the Hadith. If the Quran says not to attack unless attacked and the Hadith says to kill or burn all, non Mulsims then the Quran, which is the Word of God is to be followed not the Hadith as it is the true guidance given whereas Hadiths are only heresay and do not carry the authority of the Quran and are not endorsed by it.
……………………………….
The fact is that the Qur’an and Hadith have few contradictions. As shown, the meretricious David is mischaracterizing the Qur’anic passage he cites, as well as the character of the vicious Qur’an in general.
He also refuses to answer Wellington’s question about race—but this should not surprise, since has proven that he is not an honest actor here.
gravenimage says
*Many* excellent replies to the meretricious David by Jihad Watch posters.
Wellington says
On a very specific technical matter, gravenimage, have you had any trouble posting recently at JW? I certainly have. I had to sign in many times yesterday and today because after several times doing so, well, I found out, I wasn’t signed in though it seemed at first I was.
Then a comment of mine would appear. Then it would disappear. Then it would appear again (a comment of mine last night disappeared for good). I’ve also noticed a delay in some of my comments appearing and that’s why I made an additonal comment at 8:32 P.M. tonight on this thread because initially my 8:23 P.M. comment did not show up—-but then it did along with my 8:32 P.M. post. I remember duh_swami the other day saying he was also having trouble getting through to JW for one reason or another. How about you?
TheBuffster says
Wellington, I’ve had some of my posts delayed by several minutes to considerably longer. These have been my long posts. I was beginning to wonder if the posts are now being moderated, since it seems the longer they are, the longer they take to appear – you know, as if somebody has to read them before they’re made public.
But so far none of my posts have disappeared after they’ve appeared. At least I haven’t noticed it if they have.
This has been for the last couple of days or so.
gravenimage says
Wellington and Buffster, I contacted Jihad Watch yesterday on a separate matter, and heard that JIhad Watch had indeed been having problems. Among them was that no recent stories posted after those from the early morning had appeared even late in the day.
Marc has been on it, and the problem now seems to be cleared up.
He does an amazing amount of work to keep JW up and running—not just dealing with the technical glitches common to every site, but with the constant attacks from Jihadists and their allies.
Green Infidel says
Hi there,
As you seem to be familiar with this website, I understand that you know that, with almost every atrocity by a terror group that has “nothing to do with Islam”, Robert Spencer posts verses from the Quran advocating strangely similar actions? And that this website, as well as many readers, are also familiar with the “historical context” of the current round of Jihad terror? Ie the way Islam was spread from the 7th century, using very similar methods to those used by groups such as Isis and Boko Haram today? And, by sheer coincidence I presume, stopping only when the Western imperial powers gained the upper hand over the Islamic Caliphate? As someone who knows so much about Islam, I presume you’re aware of the battles of Tours and Vienna, of how significant they were for the freedom that we take for granted today, and of how even events such as the discovery of America by Columbus and formation of the US Navy were linked to Islamic extortion and piracy – ancient versions of the OPEC cartel and terror groups holding us to ransom today?
But you write that you know so much David… so please would you enlighten us with your knowledge, so that we don’t waste more time and nerves trapped in our “racist” ignorance?
Thanks.
M S case says
Rqacist, DavidIf???? If, and I say if ,all these muslims are peace loving then they have to prove it. Either they let isis and all the other radical groups put them to the sword or the so-called peace loving muslims stand up and wipe out the terrorist, and until that happens then all islamist are murdering radical islamist. That is a simple fact. I don’t see the so called peace loving islamist in the west hammering groups like isis and boko bunch, or any other group for that matter. WHY??? because they can’t talk against what their book of hate spouts. It makes no difference at all if the Koran, haddith’s suras or mohammed himself were real muslims still believe it and therein lies the problem….My book and I follow the teachings of Jesus, does not tell me anywhere to kill anyone. so which is the peaceful religion. PROVE ME WRONG ISLAM wipe out those who supposedly have hijacked your so called religion
Richie says
sorry, but you can’t polish a turd
Islam is a death cult that promotes murder, rape and slavery
David says
There you go again!! We Baha’is believe in Islam so how do you explain that worldwide there are no Bahai extremists groups or Bahai jihadists or Bahai wars?? Surely by now there would be some if what you’re saying about the Quran is true??
There are millions of us, enough to start a war or extremist group but there are none why? We don’t take our instructions from Mullas that’s why.
If it was all that simple as you say then why have we been persecuted in Iran for over 160 years and never taken up arms?? And we believe in the Quran too but are not violent but highly respected all over the world.
Tim Ireland says
Article in the German newspaper “Die Welt”, published 5 February 2015
(Translated by A. Ireland)
Islamic world is outraged by “diabolical deed”
The incineration of a Muslim alive rocked the Islamic world. The majority agreed that the video of the atrocity is a new threshold of violence.
The video of the incineration of the Jordanian pilot Maas al-Kasasba by Islamic State has triggered outrage across the Muslim world. Political and religious leaders condemned in the strongest terms and demanded retribution. Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman praised the King of Jordan Abdullah II’s decision to execute two Iraqi extremists in response.
The Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Abdullah bin al- Sayed Nahjan, said that his country was now even more determined to take action against terrorism and extremism. “This vile and obscene act constitutes a brutal escalation by the terrorist group whose malicious objectives are realized,” he said.
In other Arab countries, the fact was castigated as “barbarism”, which has to be revenged with blood, the “Times of Israel” newspaper reported. Bahrain called the murder of the pilot “despicable”, the Emir of Kuwait, Sheikh Sabah, spoke of a “criminal and malicious act”.
“Islam prohibits the killing of innocent”
Grand Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb of Cairo’s Al-Azhar Mosque described the extremists as enemies of Allah and the Prophet Mohammed. He described IS as a “diabolical” organization which maintains a war against God. “We need to punish the terrorists in the same way including crucifixions and mutilations as Islam forbids the killing of innocent people,” he explained. With the incineration of the 26 year-old Jordanian, the IS-fighters had clearly violated the prohibition of mutilation of corpses, which also applies in times of war.
The Chairman of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation condemned the murder of the IS- hostage. “They completely disregarded the rights of prisoners prescribed by Islam and the human moral guidelines for the war and the treatment of prisoners” said Iyad Madani. He was saddened by the “intellectual decay, political fragmentation and the abuse of Islam, the major religion of mercy” in the Middle East. The Gulf States condemned the killing of the hostage sharply.
Video of “Hero’s incineration” broadcasted to the public
Even Jordan’s King Abdullah II reacted with sadness and anger at the death of the pilot. The monarch broke off a visit to the US and returned to Amman. At the airport he was greeted by thousands of people with Jordanian flags and portraits of the murdered pilot. He called on all Jordanians on television to unity. “It is the duty of all of us to stand together and the true values of Jordan to show no mercy.”
The father of the pilot, Yousef al- Safi Kassasbeh, urged the government to take revenge for his son and revenge for the entire country. Even before his call Sajida al-Rischawi and Siad al-Karbuli were executed.
In Rakka, Syria – the de facto capital of Islamic State – the incineration was publicly broadcasted on large screens as activists reported.
In most Muslim countries of the Middle East, the death penalty is recognized by law. In many countries execution is done by hanging, in Saudi Arabia often by beheading. In Iran and Pakistan adultery is punishable by stoning, but the law is rarely used.
Nowhere in the Islamic world incineration exists as a legal punishment. The influential Saudi cleric Sheikh Salman al- Udah said on Wednesday that they were forbidden in Islam. The Prophet Muhammad had said that only Allah has the right to punish sinners in the afterlife with fire
Sheri says
These are some headlines for just the past six months. Many bodies have been burned alive, but I guess if your a Christian then no one gives a damn.
3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT – WORLD EVENTS JANUARY 2015
TheBuffster says
I find this to be an odd combination of statements:
“We need to punish the terrorists in the same way including crucifixions and mutilations as Islam forbids the killing of innocent people,” he explained. With the incineration of the 26 year-old Jordanian, the IS-fighters had clearly violated the prohibition of mutilation of corpses, which also applies in times of war.”
“In most Muslim countries of the Middle East, the death penalty is recognized by law. In many countries execution is done by hanging, in Saudi Arabia often by beheading. In Iran and Pakistan adultery is punishable by stoning, but the law is rarely used.”
First we are told that Islam forbids the mutilation of corpses, even in times of war, and the speaker considers that burning someone alive counts as the mutilation of a corpse.
And yet in Saudi Arabia execution is often done by beheading, and in Iran and Pakistan adultery is punishable by stoning. Have you ever seen what a corpse looks life after the person it used to be has been stoned to death? And mutilating a human being by cutting off his or her head, thus killing that human being, isn’t the mutilation of a corpse, even though burning a person alive *is* considered mutilation of a corpse? My mind cannot integrate this diverse compilation.
Now, I know that Muhammad said that punishment by burning by fire was Allah’s method alone. If we chuck out the hadith as false where Mohammad had a man almost killed by setting a fire on his chest before having his head cut off, then, okay, the Islamic State had made a big boo-boo on this one. But are Saudi Arabia and Iran and Pakistan making big boo-boos when they behead or stone people to death? For mutilation of a corpse?
Mohammad did these things.
David says
The most mass killing and worst human atrocities ever committed in mankind’s history were not by Muslims but by modern man. What do you think ww1 & ww2 were that killed Millions upon millions?? Hiroshima? The Killing fields? the Holocaust?
The thing that this proves is that regardless of religion man has a violent streak in him and if not contained goes wild like an animal and needs no help from religion to commit these atrocities.
Religion. By it’s nature is against war and murder but that didn’t stop the west from dropping the atomic bomb did it. So is Christianity and the Bible and Christ to blame for that? All this killing whether done in the name of religion or not comes from the lower animalistic side of man and has nothing to do with religion. The world wars prove that argument beyond doubt.
Man will kill for wealth and power without religion and the most amount of damage and killing has been done by non religious wars. So non religion is far far worse.
Angemon says
David posted:
“The most mass killing and worst human atrocities ever committed in mankind’s history were not by Muslims but by modern man. What do you think ww1 & ww2 were that killed Millions upon millions?? Hiroshima? The Killing fields? the Holocaust?”
Add all those up and you still have less dead than those killed by muslims since the invention of islam…
“The thing that this proves is that regardless of religion man has a violent streak in him and if not contained goes wild like an animal and needs no help from religion to commit these atrocities.”
Hence why islam is the big turd of the religious world – there’s no other religion in existence that orders its followers to wage warfare against other people simply because they’re non-believers.
“Religion. By it’s nature is against war and murder”
Then, by your definition, islam is not a religion, since it promotes war against others based solely on their religion.
“but that didn’t stop the west from dropping the atomic bomb did it.”
Huh, religion played no part in the atomic bombings.
“So is Christianity and the Bible and Christ to blame for that?”
Don’t muslims claim that Christ is a muslim prophet?
“All this killing whether done in the name of religion or not comes from the lower animalistic side of man and has nothing to do with religion.”
Except when a religion commands its followers to wage war against others simply because of their religion.
“The world wars prove that argument beyond doubt.”
Once again: the world wars were not about religion.
“Man will kill for wealth and power without religion and the most amount of damage and killing has been done by non religious wars.”
Nope. Try adding up the numbers of all those killed by jihad and see how it stacks against non-religious wars.
“So non religion is far far worse.”
Oh, I’d say that a religion that mandates its followers to wage warfare against others because of their religion is far, far, worse than one who doesn’t…
CGW says
Ange, I fear that “David” has inadvertently jumped into the deep end of the pool by posting his drivel at JW. He so obviously doesn’t know what this site and its posters represent in terms of the greater counter-jihad. I do appreciate your patient line-by-line takedown of his inanity; you’re relatively gentle admonitions speak well of you. Kudos.
CogitoErgoSum says
Religion by its nature is against war and murder? I don’t think you know what religion is. Did the Aztecs have a religion? Didn’t the religion of the ancient Aztecs have their priests cutting the hearts out of their war prisoners in a ceremony held at the top of a pyramid? Do you think the Aztec religion was one of “mercy and peace?” You are confused, David. Christianity by its nature is against war and murder but not all religions are. Islam, along with the religion of the Aztecs, is not like Christianity. Think again.
Wellington says
My God, David, quit embarrassing yourself. As for your religion v. non-religion argument, it is of no account. What matters is freedom because truly free nations don’t make war upon one another. In every war over the past century, without exception, at least one of the two sides was not fully and completely free and democratic. But fully and completely free polities, as Winston Churchill understood so well, must sometimes stoop almost as low as the barbarian in order to save civilization. But the fault for this lies with the barbarians and not with free peoples.
And so is it the case with Islam, the only major faith which is a mortal enemy of freedom. You see, David, it matters not that the freedom-depriving ideology is secular, as with Nazism, or spiritual, as with Islam. What matters is “the freedom thing.”
Wake up, David. Frankly, I think you’re just another confused Muslim trying to exculpate a religion that deserves zero exculpation. But you could be a clueless dhimmi. Not sure. For all intents and purposes, though, the difference is irrelevant because either way, David, you are a sad case of a human being making excuses for the worst religion ever developed by man.
David says
Once again everyone. I’m not a Muslim. I’m a Baha’i. Our World Centre is in Haifa Israel. Our Prophets are buried in Israel. Our administration and guidance comes from Israel.
If we were Muslims do you honestly think the Israeli government would allow an Iranian religion to own prize real estate on Mount Carmel in Haifa??
They trust Baha’is specifically because we have a ‘peaceful’ understanding of the Quran which you say doesn’t exist. Baha’is consider the Quran as sacred even more than Muslims so why is a mountain entrusted to us in Israel??
How can Baha’is be so peaceful and still believe in the Quran, uphold and defend it?? Because Baha’is understand it through Baha’u’llah and others turn to corrupt Mullas that’s the only difference.
We believe in the same Quran as Al Queda and Boko Haram and ISIS yet why aren’t we like them? And there are millions of us scattered all around the world in every country in earth.
As I said, it’s not the Quran but who they get the interpretations from.
Sheri says
To a violent person, any religion can be a tool of violence, to a peaceful person a tool for peace.
gravenimage says
More rot from David:
Religion. By it’s nature is against war and murder…
………………………..
Actually, this is not true—it depends on the religion in question. War and murder are, indeed, an intrinsic aspect of Islam.
And we see more of the knee-jerk propensity of Baha’i to defend Islam, even when—as he himself notes on this very thread—Muslims are oppressing and murdering his own coreligionists, and doing so because they contradict the claims of Islam: in other words, they are oppressing and murdering Baha’i on *religious* grounds.
But David cannot bring himself to criticize this barbarism, instead turning on the West.
The off thing, of course, is that it is likely that David himself has been given sanctuary in the free West—but that changes nothing for him.
TheBuffster says
Gravenimage said: “And we see more of the knee-jerk propensity of Baha’i to defend Islam, even when—as he himself notes on this very thread—Muslims are oppressing and murdering his own coreligionists, and doing so because they contradict the claims of Islam: in other words, they are oppressing and murdering Baha’i on *religious* grounds.
“But David cannot bring himself to criticize this barbarism, instead turning on the West.”
Gravenimage, I don’t understand David’s argument this way. He’s not defending the Muslims who are oppressing and murdering Baha’is. He’s saying that the Muslims who do this are interpreting the Koran wrong and that the prophet of the Baha’is came along to usher in a new and gentler interpretation of the Koran. He’s defending the Koran from the Baha’i perspective on it, not the Muslim perspective on it.
But however the Baha’is interpret the Koran, what we’re concerned with here is how *Muslims*, specifically the hard-core, jihadi, orthodox Muslims, interpret the Koran, and what they’re doing about it in the world – including in our own countries, today. I see David as defending his own Baha’i religion and the Baha’i innovations and interpretations to Islam that would be condemned by Muslim Mullahs. His concern is to spread the word that Islam is not what Muslims have taken it to be.
I wonder if the Baha’i use the same exact Koran as the Muslims use? Or are there a few changes of wording here and there that takes the sting out of the bee? That makes it seem like only defensive war against actual aggression is acceptable to Allah? Plus Baha’i reject the hadith as hearsay, as unreliable (as does Zuhdi Jasser, the Muslim reformer, who calls the hadiths “garbage”).
I think David is saying that peaceful Baha’i is the true and rightful Islam, and it’s Baha’i that he’s defending.
But no orthodox Muslim would accept this. He knows that. He considers them wrong and corrupt.
But – I’m speaking to David now – a large portion of Muslims, and probably an even larger portion of their leaders, think your peaceful religion is a crock. And *they* think that they’re supposed to bring the world under Islamic rule by force, deception, and if possible by political means.
Even just a tiny fraction of 1.6 billion people is a LOT of people. But if a tiny fraction of that 1.6 billion are fanatically dedicated to doing what they think they’re supposed to do, they can create a nightmare in the West, as they are creating one in Africa and the Middle East, if we aren’t savvy to their beliefs and strategies and keep them from getting their way.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Buffster—but notice that David was *not* upfront about presenting a peaceful interpretation of Islam from another tradition—instead, he pretended that we were all “racists” and “bigots” for daring to consider Islam violent—even thought that is how it is considered by every orthodox Muslim.
I’ve enjoyed reading your comments here.
TheBuffster says
Gravenimage said: “Agreed, Buffster—but notice that David was *not* upfront about presenting a peaceful interpretation of Islam from another tradition—instead, he pretended that we were all “racists” and “bigots” for daring to consider Islam violent—even thought that is how it is considered by every orthodox Muslim.
“I’ve enjoyed reading your comments here.”
Yes, you’re right. I’ve been wondering why he started off that way. He did apologise for it and humbled himself over it later. But I still hold a bit of a question mark over it.
TheBuffster says
Oh, and thanks, Gravenimage, for the compliment. I’ve been enjoying your comments as well.
gravenimage says
TheBuffster wrote:
Yes, you’re right. I’ve been wondering why he started off that way. He did apologise for it and humbled himself over it later. But I still hold a bit of a question mark over it.
……………………………
This is, alas, the norm for Baha’i, Buffster. The are essentially decent people with a peaceful faith, but they are driven to defend Islam—it probably has to do with the faith’s development right in the belly of the Muslim world.
In this way they have a great deal in common with well-meaning but dangerous Western leftists, who will insist that Islam is a “religion of peace” no matter what evidence to the contrary—because it threatens their world view if this trope is challenged.
Robert Spencer has pointed out this phenomenon—it is just the same with persecuted Ahmadi, as well.
It is, really, a shame—Baha’i are generally quite decent people, and no more threat to a society than Buddhists or Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Amish or Seventh Day Adventists—in other words, really not at all. That they feel compelled to whitewash the most vicious creed of our age—or most other ages—is deeply unfortunate.
TheBuffster says
Thanks for that, Gravenimage. Makes sense.
David says
All this site proves is that there is a violent streak in man but it fails dismally to even attempt to confine that to Islam & Muslims because the worst human atrocities have been committed by wars with nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
This site, in its attempt to fool the gullible and promote racism & bigotry deliberately leaves out WW1& WW2 and the killing fields and the Holocause and the Vietnam war and the Korean War and Hiroshima & Nagasaki and the Tutsi one million killed. None of these, I repeat none of these had their roots or were instigated by Muhammad or Islam. Yet the devastation is far worse than humanity has so far witnessed.
This site’s failed attempt to gloss over the reality that western and Asian man is just as violent as Middle East man exposes it’s attempt at promoting racism when history itself provides the proof that any segment of society can be evil regardless or despite its religious background. We don’t blame the Bible and its violent episodes of destruction of cities by God’s wrath on Hiroshima do we? Perhaps this site should to at least show that Islam is not the only religion to record acts of violence. But the target of this site is not truth or reality but to promote hatred of 1.6 billion people a moral depravity I hope I will never ever sink to. Muslims, 1.6 billion of them are very good and peaceful people but they have their conflicts and wars just like we had ours and they’ll come out if it just like we did after millions and millions were killed.
The truth is that man has an evil streak in him regardless of religious belief or not. Your site should be condemning that evil streak and offer ways to overcome it so we can live in peace. That evil streak history has shown has been far worse outside Islam if we be fair & reasonable here.
Sheri says
You might find the information in this enlightening.
Muslim Opinion Polls
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm
Angemon says
David posted:
“All this site proves is that there is a violent streak in man but it fails dismally to even attempt to confine that to Islam & Muslims”
Probably because that’s not the goal of this site.
“because the worst human atrocities have been committed by wars with nothing whatsoever to do with religion.”
Now wait a minute. On a previous post you tried to link WWI, WWII and the Holocaust with religion. Why are you backpedaling now?
“This site, in its attempt to fool the gullible and promote racism & bigotry”
We already established why you’re wrong in your first post.
“deliberately leaves out WW1& WW2 and the killing fields and the Holocause and the Vietnam war and the Korean War and Hiroshima & Nagasaki and the Tutsi one million killed.”
This is JIhadWatch, not WorldWarWatch
“None of these, I repeat none of these had their roots or were instigated by Muhammad or Islam. Yet the devastation is far worse than humanity has so far witnessed.”
Ah, and here is the slip of the (metaphorical) tongue. All David is concerned about is whitewashing islam and muhammad (and notice that non-muslims simply talk about islam, theyusually don’t go out of their way to defend muhammad specifically) through tu quoques.
“This site’s failed attempt to gloss over the reality that western and Asian man is just as violent as Middle East man”
Calm down, David. Not only are you grossly and purposely misrepresenting this site, you’re also slipping into racist territory.
“exposes it’s attempt at promoting racism when history itself provides the proof that any segment of society can be evil regardless or despite its religious background.”
Yes, evil is everywhere. Does that mean we should give a source of evil a free-pass?
“We don’t blame the Bible and its violent episodes of destruction of cities by God’s wrath on Hiroshima do we?”
Actually, if my experience with muslims is of any reference, muslims do just that. They take any and all wars fought by Western nations and claim “that’s the work of Christianity”.
“Perhaps this site should to at least show that Islam is not the only religion to record acts of violence.”
Once again, WWI and WWII were not religious wars. And no, you don’t get to re-write history to make muslims look good in comparison, which is what you’re suggesting.
“But the target of this site is not truth or reality but to promote hatred of 1.6 billion people a moral depravity I hope I will never ever sink to.”
Funny you should say that right after you suggested that we should say that the bombing of HIroshima was to blame on the Bible.
“Muslims, 1.6 billion of them are very good and peaceful people”
I guess you personally know them?
“but they have their conflicts and wars just like we had ours”
Except that most of their conflicts and wars were against non-muslims for the reason that non-muslims were non-muslims. As a non-muslim, I find that disturbing and worrisome, especially when all muslims I met take pride in saying that islam remains unchanged for 1400 years.
“and they’ll come out if it just like we did after millions and millions were killed.”
Once again: muslims are fighting non-muslims because non-muslims are non-muslims, like they’ve been doing for 1400 years. They’ve had enough time to “come out if it”.
“The truth is that man has an evil streak in him regardless of religious belief or not.”
Huh, how do you know that? Are you a psychic psychologist?
“Your site should be condemning that evil streak and offer ways to overcome it so we can live in peace.”
It’s a resounding “It’s doing that, you moron”, on both accounts.
“That evil streak history has shown has been far worse outside Islam if we be fair & reasonable here.”
By “fair & reasonable” you mean “biased and adamant”. You’re biased against anything non-islamic and adamant in trying to get us to buy the whole “islam is a religion of peace, christianity did many nasty things” mantra.
OK David, you had your little tantrum, now go back to loonwatch and cash your check.
Champ says
OK David, you had your little tantrum, now go back to loonwatch and cash your check.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exactly, Angemon. This is what I surmise, as well.
gravenimage says
Excellent post, Angemon.
Demsci says
“//But the target of this site is not truth or reality but to promote hatred of 1.6 billion people”//
This site never ever will incite to violence, but confine itself to criticize only verbally. A religious doctrine that is there for all to study. and how it is used, 1400 years and still today, by it’s followers, or parts of them. It should also be noted that among Westerners this is offset by plenty of support and sympathy for Muslims, plenty of Westerners sow LOVE too. But oh, will Muslims not tolerate ANY criticism, by instantly wanting to censor it, on grounds of sowing Hate? Why don’t you respond to “bad speech” with “good speech”???
– Does ISIS or does it not abundantly use texts from the Quran? And the Hadiths-Sira? Don’t they have this black flag with Arabic text on it? What does it say? The SHAHADA? ISIS’s head, Abubakr Al-Baghdadi has studied Islam for years and he graduated. There is not a single ISIS-fighter that is not Islamic and Muslims flocked to ISIS from all over the world. Ironically THEY and WE (mis)understand Islam in much the same way, do you deny that? How can that be?
– This Jihadist group clearly is anti-democratic and attacking non-Muslims, in word and deed. As Iran is doing also. So there IS agressive intent and danger for democratic countries, human rights. We have very legitimate concern and we very legitimately report the link to Islam, a link ISIS and Iranians and many more Muslims themselves continually shout from the rooftops.
– To me, at the very least there are multiple interpretations of the Quran-Hadiths-Sira. And millions interpret them in a detrimental way for non-Muslims, democratic nations, human rights., women’s rights.
So to me a very important questions are; – is it not in the nature of Quran-Hadiths-Sira themselves that so many understand them so differently??? Are these texts not themselves much too vague-ambiguous-incomplete-and obsolete (more so after 1400 years after the LAST PROPHET!)???
– As Wellington pointed out, there is deathpenalty for apostasy in Islam. And many, many Muslims refuse to give this up. But that means that ALL Muslims must remain INSIDE the same religious group with the violent, dangerous, so-called misunderstanders of Islam. Not distinguishable from them by outsiders. Which to those outsiders makes all, most or many Muslims untrustworthy, and showing very low credibility.
– And to me religion is to be considered a choice, and Muslims, or their leaders, are to be held accountable for this choice.
– If the fault is with the texts then, and multiple interpretations are possible, including very violent and dangerous ones, to US, that means that Muslims or their leaders should be held accountable for following such texts combined with their refusal to either throw out the “misunderstanders” or move on to some kind of separate organisation of Muslims,
That is still willing to obey Allah, but also at peace with democratic constitutions, human rights, women’s rights. An organisation that has membership conditions and a leadership that can throw out violent misunderstanders and misrepresenters (as all these Muslims claim they are). Thereby this leadership could then begin to restore trustworthyness of Muslims in this organisation.
I know it sounds farfetched and I daresay Muslims will en masse reject it, although this IS the position of a few. But I do think that more and more westerners should hold Muslims, or their leaders, accountable for their holy texts which are “criminally” vague, ambiguous, incomplete and obsolete, and for belonging to an “Ummah” which does not throw out very obvious agressive, dangerous members.
Demsci says
I do believe that Christian Churches can throw out members. And political parties can throw out members. and that democratic states can demand from all it’s citizens an oath of loyalty to their constitutions. I like us to hold Muslims, Mosques etc. accountable for not doing likewise.
Alicia says
If you are going to use the false logic that 1.6B Muslims are mostly peaceful then you might as well discount carcinogens, safe deriving, binge drinking and all other harmful acts since not everyone that commits these acts dies from it or hurts someone else.
No army goes to war with all of its citizens carrying weapons. The citizenry are divided into their various tasks. We do not expect ALL Muslims to bear arms for them to declare war. The Quran has already done that for them.
That Islam does command murder, rape, enslavement, torture, beheading, terrorism, subjugation, and genocide is sufficient notice of its incompatibility with peace for mankind. Then we have religious and political figures from Islam who brazenly and loudly promote these heinous acts makes the Islamic message of conquests and misery that more compelling.
We have an uphill task to enlighten the masses on the truth that Islam is an ideology of conquests via wars and subjugation of the conquered. Islam is incompatible with peace for mankind.
thomas pellow says
“Saudi royals backed al-Qa’ida, says 9/11 plotter.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/saudi-royals-backed-al-qaida-says-911-plotter/story-e6frg6so-1227208601653
ecosse1314 says
David WW1 or2 were not fought on the basis of religion nor were Christian texts used for justifying Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Whereas islamic texts are used daily to justify the barbaric actions of muslims.
I notice you have left unanswered the many points brought up by Wellington. You just rant away. You know nothing about Islam and even lessv about constructing a cogent argument.
David says
I’m trying to point out that there’s a violent streak in man that can be manipulated by non religionists as well as by religion to brainwash people. Hitler brainwashed the German people because they didn’t question.
It’s not unique to islam that people are manipulated to commit atrocities. History proves that point. You don’t need a Quran to kill 6 million Jews people have a built in device called ‘ a closed mind’ that is used by religionists to manipulate. The Quran itself does not advocate violence against innocent people.
Muslims get brainwashed because they don’t question.
The Quran forbids killing and murder as does the Bible but both Christians and Muslims have been brainwashed into murdering and killing ‘in the name of God’
There are no verses in the Quran advocating murdering innocent people. Serial killers, rapists and child molesters were dealt with according to different laws but the Quran does not permit going around killing for the sake of it.
Muhammad fled to Medina because He didn’t want conflict. Eventually when they came after Him and attacked His followers He gave them the right of self defense.
Christianity and religion was used by the popes to manipulate followers to fight wars even though the Bible forbids killing. They just cited verses of God’s wrath where immoral cities were destroyed and got Christians on board. The thing is any religion or philosophy or idea can be used to manipulate IF people don’t question.
The Quran does not advocate the murder of innocent people. I stress innocent because serial murderers and rapists were treated differently. There were no courts or jails so you’ve got to stop serial killers some way not by freeing them to murder again.
Myxlplik says
“Hitler brainwashed the German people because they didn’t question.”
Muslims still revere Mohammed, because if they question openly they die.
Champ says
David wrote:
“The Quran does not advocate the murder of innocent people.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
True, the quran makes no mention of murdering “innocent” people; but the quran does advocate the murder of infidels who are considered guilty before allah (satan).
David is playing word games, but no one is going to play along with this lousy wordsmith.
BlueRaven says
‘innocent’ by Sharia is very different to what most people call innocent. Another point, if there are 1.2 billion Muslims, then there are still 5.8 Billion non-Muslims. Thank God for that.
BlueRaven says
David: If you believe a pedo, misogynist, rapists, war monger, torturer, assassin, terrorist, kniving illetrate thief is your holy prophet, you aint gone get many takers of your selling point. The problem for you is that I can prove all what I have written about Mo, but you are not able to prove any of your counter arguments. Do you want to bet?
Just for the record, can you name two things, which were not already known to the Mankind, that Mo or Koran has correctyl prophecied?
If Mo was such a God’s fav prophet, why did he has torture people to get information about their hidden treasures, and how come he died of eating poisened food, which as you may have noticed, contradicetd his own statement, which was he will know if his food was poisened? Why would a God’s man be lusting after women (he didn’t respect any of his wives, he was an abuser – don’t you get that) – that is the weakest signal of a man?
If Koran is such a God’s script, why do you need 100s of volumes of Hadiths which explain and re-explain and abbrogate this and that written in the Kuran?
Can you not determine that Islam is a BS religion?
Angemon says
David posted:
“I’m trying to point out that there’s a violent streak in man that can be manipulated by non religionists as well as by religion to brainwash people. Hitler brainwashed the German people because they didn’t question.”
That may very well be the case, but islam has open-ended commandments mandating warfare against non-muslims until the end of times. Trying to argue that some non-religious ideologies also had some sort of martial component is a tu quoque, and it does nothing to combat the islamic doctrine of warfare against non-muslims.
And if you’re going to keep comparinf islam to nazism, keep in mind that islam predates nazism more than 1000 years. The ideology if the likes of Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda or the islamic state is the same ideology that wrecked most of the Christian world in the 7th and 8th century – nowadays we call that “the islamic world”.
“It’s not unique to islam that people are manipulated to commit atrocities. History proves that point. You don’t need a Quran to kill 6 million Jews people have a built in device called ‘ a closed mind’ that is used by religionists to manipulate. The Quran itself does not advocate violence against innocent people.”
Islam has a very specific notion of “innocent”. The worst of muslims is better than the best of non-muslims.
“Muslims get brainwashed because they don’t question.”
As I noted in a reply to a previous post of yours, the quran advocates against questioning – you can’t be a muslim until you accept muhammad’s decisions without reservations or questioning them, even if you disagree with them.
“The Quran forbids killing and murder as does the Bible but both Christians and Muslims have been brainwashed into murdering and killing ‘in the name of God’”
quran 5:33
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land.
“There are no verses in the Quran advocating murdering innocent people.”
Once again, what’s the definition of “innocent” in islam?
“Serial killers, rapists and child molesters were dealt with according to different laws but the Quran does not permit going around killing for the sake of it.”
Which is not the same as saying, for example, “The Quran forbids killing and murder”.
“Muhammad fled to Medina because He didn’t want conflict. Eventually when they came after Him and attacked His followers He gave them the right of self defense.”
Actually, as I pointed above, that’s not true. The meccans were attacked by muhammad. If anyone was fighting in self-defense, it were the meccans. Muhammad was driven out of mecca precisely for starting conflicts with the meccans – he insulted their gods and their ancestors. Muhammad’s uncle (who was not a muslim) was respected in his tribe and protected muhammad. Compare the actions of the meccans with those of muslims, who attacked meccans during the holy months and murdered poets for making poems criticizing muhammad.
“Christianity and religion was used by the popes to manipulate followers to fight wars even though the Bible forbids killing.”
What wars are you talking about?
“They just cited verses of God’s wrath where immoral cities were destroyed and got Christians on board. The thing is any religion or philosophy or idea can be used to manipulate IF people don’t question.”
The thing is, Christians did question. And Christians know to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s”.
“The Quran does not advocate the murder of innocent people. I stress innocent
What’s the islamic definition of “innocent”? Islam theology states that everyone is born a muslim and that everyone knows the truth of islam but they prefer not to convert because of self-interest.
“because serial murderers and rapists were treated differently. There were no courts or jails so you’ve got to stop serial killers some way not by freeing them to murder again.”
Huh, I’m quite sure that courts and prisons (not to say a complete system of laws) can be traced back to long before the advent of islam.
David says
If we look at all these conflicts and violence what was involved? Masses of people killing and destroying masses of people at the instigation of Hitlers, dictators, popes, Mullas and presidents.
What was the common denominator here? It was not religion. What prompted people to blindly follow their leader to kill other fellow human beings? Where was the questioning mind? If Germans questioned Hitler’s motives and philosophy would they have gone to war killing millions? If Christians had questioned the popes would they have accepted to go out and kill against their beliefs?
The same with Mullas. Why do people blindly follow and accept everything they say and commit atrocities against the explicit law if the Quran that killing is forbidden?
Man needs to be taught to question everything and not accept that which his reason tells him is not true. All these conflicts are started by one or two people, the rest are just blind sheep following orders without questioning. Most conflicts cannot even begin without brainwashing so as to get the masses on board.
This site does one thing really well -it questions. And asks questions again and again. That is more healthy than accepting blindly which is dangerous. We must always question. There are passages in the Quran which strongly oppose murder. Muslims have to read those and question their actions not take orders from a Mulla which is what they do now. That is really the bottom line here Muslims are not questioning the lectures and speeches by their leaders and believe everything they are told wrong or right. But Germans were the same weren’t they just a different name with a different banner but all brainwashed sheep.
And it had nothing to do with religion but the lack of a questioning mind which would tell most Muslims that killing is forbidden in the Quran as it is in the Bible. But you can brainwash people to kill and hate and fight wars if people don’t question. Then they are easily manipulated. And it can be done using or not using religion to manipulate. Hitler didn’t have to use religion to kill millions. All he needed was blind sheep.
CogitoErgoSum says
All the Muslims need is the Quran.
Jay Boo says
If Muslims would just burn their Qur’ans,
they would not feel such a need to burn other Muslims.
Angemon says
David posted:
“If we look at all these conflicts and violence what was involved? Masses of people killing and destroying masses of people at the instigation of Hitlers, dictators, popes, Mullas and presidents.
What was the common denominator here? It was not religion. What prompted people to blindly follow their leader to kill other fellow human beings? Where was the questioning mind? If Germans questioned Hitler’s motives and philosophy would they have gone to war killing millions? If Christians had questioned the popes would they have accepted to go out and kill against their beliefs?
The same with Mullas. Why do people blindly follow and accept everything they say and commit atrocities against the explicit law if the Quran that killing is forbidden?”
Nice trick, David, but no one is falling for your sleight-of-hand. And the quran doesn’t say that killing is forbidden – you’re just lying and hoping your audience is ignorant. Good luck with that.
“Man needs to be taught to question everything and not accept that which his reason tells him is not true.”
quran 4:65
But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission.
“All these conflicts are started by one or two people, the rest are just blind sheep following orders without questioning. Most conflicts cannot even begin without brainwashing so as to get the masses on board.”
See above. Islam teaches that questioning is bad and blind obedience is good.
“This site does one thing really well -it questions. And asks questions again and again. That is more healthy than accepting blindly which is dangerous. We must always question. There are passages in the Quran which strongly oppose murder.”
quran 5:33
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement
“Muslims have to read those and question their actions not take orders from a Mulla which is what they do now. That is really the bottom line here Muslims are not questioning the lectures and speeches by their leaders and believe everything they are told wrong or right.”
Huh, mullahs are islamic clerics – it’s their job to know the quran and ahadith.
“But Germans were the same weren’t they just a different name with a different banner but all brainwashed sheep.”
Last time I checked, the nazi party didn’t promise entrance in paradise for the nazis killed while fighting against non-nazis…
“And it had nothing to do with religion but the lack of a questioning mind which would tell most Muslims that killing is forbidden in the Quran as it is in the Bible.”
See above
“But you can brainwash people to kill and hate and fight wars if people don’t question. Then they are easily manipulated. And it can be done using or not using religion to manipulate.”
Once again, see above. Islm teaches that muslims are the best of people and non-muslims are the worst of people.
“Hitler didn’t have to use religion to kill millions. All he needed was blind sheep.”
And what does that tell us about islam? Nothing. It’s funny how someone claiming to be knowledgeable of islam tries to defend islam not by quoting from islamic sources but by resorting to tu quoque and Hitler.
PGuud says
Bravo, Angemon! That’s the way to tear him apart. The POS came here to muddle the truth in a fog of disinformation, and he failed miserably.
Islam: where freedom ends and slavery begins.
Champ says
David, pack it in pal …no one here is buying your obfuscation, bold-faced lies, and ridiculous nonsense. Here we are only interested in the Truth about islam. And the ugly Truth about islam may hurt, you …nevertheless, the unvarnished Truth needs to be told even if it hurts. Grow a pair or get lost. The Truth is not for sissies or whiners.
PGuud says
Brava, Champ! It’s clear that obfuscation is his method of operating.
🙂
Islam: where freedom ends and slavery begins.
Champ says
Thanks, PGuud!! 🙂
“Islam: where freedom ends and slavery begins.”
Hear, hear!!
occupant 9 says
David, you might want to take a minute to understand your comments make clear to all that you haven’t read the Koran etc and know, as Reagan said, “A lot about what isn’t so.” You have no idea how much you have no idea.
If it seems a daunting (or “bigoted”) task to inform yourself, and it is, Robert Spencer has written many easily understood books on the subject of Islam and its founder.
At present, you’re sufferingly wrong-headed, but the good news is you’ve come to the right place to get sorted out.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/books
gravenimage says
David wrote:
I’m trying to point out that there’s a violent streak in man that can be manipulated by non religionists as well as by religion to brainwash people…
It’s not unique to islam that people are manipulated to commit atrocities. History proves that point…
…………………………………..
No one here has claimed that all violence throughout history has been committed by Muslims, and your implication that this is the case is utterly false.
But Islam is the biggest threat to life and freedom that we face today. The fact that the Baha’i are threatened with genocide from pious Muslims makes David’s stance here especially perverse.
David’s argument would be like chiding anyone concerned over the Fascist threat in 1940, and telling those concerned that after all, not all violence was being committed by Nazis—after all, what about Aztec human sacrifice?
More:
You don’t need a Quran to kill 6 million Jews people have a built in device called ‘ a closed mind’ that is used by religionists to manipulate. The Quran itself does not advocate violence against innocent people.
…………………………………..
Actually, it depends on what you mean by “innocent”. For Muslims, the only innocent person is a devout Muslim. Infidels, apostates, “heretics”, and the “insufficiently Islamic” are all fair game—including, of course, the Baha’i.
More:
Muslims get brainwashed because they don’t question.
…………………………………..
This is not accidental. Pious Muslims are not *supposed* to question their vicious faith. Those who question too much are considered apostates—and Islam demands that apostates be killed.
More:
The Quran forbids killing and murder as does the Bible but both Christians and Muslims have been brainwashed into murdering and killing ‘in the name of God’
…………………………………..
Actually, the Qur’an *enjoins* murder—but Baha’i like David do not dare admit this to themselves.
More:
There are no verses in the Quran advocating murdering innocent people. Serial killers, rapists and child molesters were dealt with according to different laws but the Quran does not permit going around killing for the sake of it.
…………………………………..
Well, this is true as far as it goes. Sadly, it does not go very far. Raping captives and sex slaves is perfectly Halal, as is pedophilia as long as it is in the context of forced child marriage. And while the Qur’an does not condone killing “for the sake of it”, it *does* condone Muslims butchering any Infidels who resist the rule of supremacist Islam, and do not accept Muslim rule and either convert or submit to paying the crushing Jizya and being treated as humiliated dhimmis. It also allows the murder of those guilty of “Zina”, including rape victims, as well as the killing of disobedient wives and children.
More:
Muhammad fled to Medina because He didn’t want conflict. Eventually when they came after Him and attacked His followers He gave them the right of self defense…
…………………………………..
“Self defense”—this is how David chooses to characterize the savage conquest of the Arabian peninsula, the Mahgreb, the Middle East, the Iberian peninsula, Persia, and large swaths of the Indian subcontinent—all perpetrated by Muslims in the century following the Hijira.
More:
The Quran does not advocate the murder of innocent people. I stress innocent because serial murderers and rapists were treated differently. There were no courts or jails so you’ve got to stop serial killers some way not by freeing them to murder again.
…………………………………..
Grimly laughable. The loathsome “Prophet” *himself* was a serial and mass murderer, who once had up to 900 unarmed Jewish men and boys—the entire population of the Banu Quraza tribe—beheaded. He then enslaved the women and children.
And he was a serial rapist, as well—he raped poor little 9-year-old Aisha; raped Safiyya after slaughtering her husband, father, and other male relatives; and chided his thuggish followers for practicing Al Azdl—withdrawal—when raping their hostages.
More:
If we look at all these conflicts and violence what was involved? Masses of people killing and destroying masses of people at the instigation of Hitlers, dictators, popes, Mullas and presidents.
…………………………………..
David’s implication that violence throughout history has only been due to bad leaders is incorrect. It often has to do with people following a violent creed, and that is *certainly* the case with Islam.
There are, in fact, many “lone wolf” Jihadists who are not following any particular Imam or Mullah, but just the tenets and texts of Islam itself.
Note, also, that David does not explain why virtually all Muslim clerics seem to misunderstand their “peaceful” religion so very, very profoundly.
More:
The same with Mullas. Why do people blindly follow and accept everything they say and commit atrocities against the explicit law if the Quran that killing is forbidden?
…………………………………..
More falsehood—the Qur’an only forbids the killing of devout Muslims.
More:
Man needs to be taught to question everything and not accept that which his reason tells him is not true.
…………………………………..
Another problem with Islam—it despises reason, and tells its followers *not* to question the texts and tenets of Islam. One finds this all though the Qur’an, Hadiths, and Sira.
More:
All these conflicts are started by one or two people, the rest are just blind sheep following orders without questioning. Most conflicts cannot even begin without brainwashing so as to get the masses on board.
…………………………………..
Well, this is true—but in the case of Islam, that individual would be the foul “Prophet” himself.
More:
And it had nothing to do with religion but the lack of a questioning mind which would tell most Muslims that killing is forbidden in the Quran as it is in the Bible.
…………………………………..
In other words, if all Muslims simply became Baha’i, who tout this false interpretation of the Qur’an, then everything would be OK. Good luck with that…
ecosse1314 says
“All Hitler needed was blind sheep”. Well he would have found a perfect candidate in you David. I notice in your slaverings you fail to answer again the relevent points raised by Wellington and Angemon. You being such a scholar of islam instead you go into a hissy fit.
David says
I tried to answer but there was no ‘reply at the bottom’. Maybe I have to reload the page. I’m terribly sorry about that but I’ll do my best to answer
gravenimage says
Saudi King: Killing of pilot a “heinous crime which contradicts the tolerance of our noble religion”
…………………………………….
As Stephanie notes, the only possible objections to this pilot’s horrifying murder was whether it is permissible for Muslims to murder their victims using fire, and whether this pilot should have been considered “un-Islamic”.
For the first, there is the Hadith:
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
Narrated ‘Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'”
……….
Note that the *only* problem this pious Muslim has is with the method of slaughter—and not because it is too vicious, but because it is so “special” it is reserved for Allah. Butchering apostates if perfectly Islamic, though.
And there seems to be an exception—that this is acceptable if it is considered part of “an eye for an eye”—that the pilot in his bombing raids might have been considered to have used fire.
But there is no need for even this—after all, Muslims regularly burn down homes, businesses, and churches, often burning any victims alive.
As for the latter, Muslims are *always* declaring each other “apostate” and “un-Islamic”—the mere fact that this Jordanian pilot was opposing the Caliphate made him an apostate. As they saw it, he was doing the bidding of America, of the West, and of Israel.
And that the *Saudi king* is talking about how “tolerant” and “noble” Islam is is especially grotesque—Saudi Arabia regularly beheads “witches”, executes rape victims, tortures prisoners, and has no penalty for Muslims murdering their own children.
Islam is a vicious creed—and ISIS are just pious Muslims.
Jay Boo says
Obama’s fault
After he made a media pandering spectacle with deserter Bergdahl when he released five (Orange Shirted Terrorists) from Guantanamo and announced his firm desire to close it down it ISIS was emboldened to start posing hostages in orange for the media and escalate their barbarity.
abad says
“Saudi King Salman bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud on Wednesday condemned the killing of a Jordanian pilot by Islamic State militants, calling it a “heinous crime which contradicts the tolerance of our noble religion,” the Saudi state news said.”
Come on King Salmon you know as well as I do that Islam has its origins in the spilling of human blood in the name of Allah. You cannot fool this westerner…..
jewdog says
Tolerance is a relative term, in this case referring to the Saudis humane punishments of beheading and whipping.
More Ham Ed says
The statement or claim made by the Saudi “king” was quote “noble religion”.
Even the Islam-is-good Pew Research Center stated the following: “Penalty for Converting to Another Faith” “Death Penalty for Leaving Islam” “Percent who favor the death penalty for converts” – Jordan 82%.
Gee, how “noble”.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
duh_swami says
The Quran is a dark and evil fairy tale whispered in the ear of a psychotic Arab by an incoherent angel named Gabriel…It all went downhill from there.
sly311 says
A very coherent angel who said “I would rather reign in hell than to serve in Heaven”. Need we say more? Islam is the religion of hell. It’s so simple.
duh_swami says
No one knows for sure if the Quran is the Book of Allah, the Book of Gabriel, the Book of Mahound, the Book of Uthman. or the book of several writers known and unknown…I rule out Allah and Gabriel…Mercury, a god, is the messenger of the gods, not Gabby a mere angel. Why Allah would trust an incoherent angel with plans for mankind, and not the god Mercury, is a mystery…probably Mahound didn’t know about Mercury or Mercury would have been Allah’s representative..
sly311 says
The Saudis are beheading every day along with lots of other ‘diverse’ forms of brutality. So, stop the bulls**t.
george whyte says
“Torture him until you extract what he has.” So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud. Tabari vol 8 p122, 123
Champ says
LOL! 😀
jayell says
David…”There are no verses in the Quran advocating murdering innocent people”….Do I possibly recall a verse from your famous Qu’ran that goes something like…”Kill the Unbeliever wherever you see him”…The answer actually ‘Yes’, I DO recall that verse. Because it’s in the Qu’ran, most of which I read in a copy I bought on Amazon. Have YOU read your Qu’ran recently, David? Or did you somehow mss that bit, or the page was missing? But it IS there. Now, is or is not saying something like ‘kill the Unbeliever’ advocating murder, David? Did you realise that ‘murder’ actually involves killing people? Look it up in the dictionary, David, or ask your friendly local policeman. Or is the clue perhaps in another part of the Qu’ran which states the ‘Unbelievers’ are ipso facto not ‘innocent’ because they have rejected the message of your damned ‘Prophet’ (who never actually prophesied a single in the whole of his sordid career). That would be just typical of the sort of second-rate, cheap, mealy-mouthed playing with semantics that muslims indulge in to try and pull the wool over people’s eyes and con them into believing that Islam actually has some kind of value in a civilised world. Meanwhile, David, kindly STOP insulting our intelligence.
David says
Did you read the verse BEFORE 2:191, Sura 2:190 where the Quran says not to attack first? It’s clear that the Quran is talking about self defense hear not aggression.
There are numerous translations of this verse by credible translators which clearly show the Quran States that Muslims are not to attack first.
Quran Sura 2:190
George Sale
“And fight for the religion of GOD against those who fight against you; but transgress not by attacking them first, for GOD loveth not the transgressors.”
Excerpt From: “The Koran (Al-Qur’an).”
“And fight for the cause of God against those who fight against you: but commit not the injustice of attacking them first: God loveth not such injustice”
Excerpt From: Muhammad. “The Koran translated by Rodwell.”
“[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.”
Excerpt From: Dr. Rashad Khalifa Ph.D. “Quran: The Final Testament – Authorised English Version.” Dr. Rashad Khalifa Ph.D.
2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.”
Excerpt From: Pickthall, Marmaduke. “The Meaning Of The Glorious Quran.”
Alicia says
The quran is Satanic! Muhammed died before the quran was compiled! If he was a prophet then he failed in his task and God does not fail. From Muhammed’ss first prophessed first revelation till his last, it was 21 years. It is obvious that this sexual pervert Muhammed was making things up as he went along murdering and raping in his demonic ways.
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/islam-the-lust-of-the-prophet/https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/islam-the-lust-of-the-prophet/
jayell says
Sorry, this is what I meant to post about. “Saudi King: Killing of pilot a “heinous crime which contradicts the tolerance of our noble religion”. I don’t believe I read that!!! Since when does a ‘religion’ (sic) concocted by an illiterate, amoral, dictatorial, cynically-manipulative psychopath who spent a lot of his time abusing, torturing and murdering those who didn’t see things HIS way come to enshrine ‘tolerance’, especially when the well-documented intolerance of its founder is written into its very ‘scared’ texts? And just how can such a hideous ideology spawned by such an arrant criminal be deemed ‘noble’?
David says
Sincerest apologies. I’ve been a Baha’i 40 years this year and I never hide it. I must have just gotten immersed in the topic at hand but I always mention that I’m a Baha’i to people.