Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Eteraz's new "reading" of Islamic "sacred" texts as effective in defeating jihad as his "response" to bin Laden's use of Qur'an 9:5

In response to a post (and subsequent comments) at Ali Eteraz's site trashing Fitna. The April 1, 5:29 pm comment is a highlight.

Also worth noting is Ali Eteraz's admission that the commands to enslave and slaughter non-Muslims exist. His strategy for dealing with them? Pretend they were limited to Mohammed alone.

One wonders, how will he convince Muslims that the commands to subdue and humiliate or kill non-Muslims who refuse the "invitation" to Islam were only for Mohammed and not the audience they explicitly address?

No one's done it in nearly one and one-half millennia.

Perhaps Eteraz's proposed new "reading" of Qur'an and Sunnah is intended for non-Muslims, rather than Muslims:
"I think Muslims that subsequently thought they had to engage in unlimited warfare were wrong. They were never permitted to engage in it.”

“As to the verses/hadith you cite, in my reading, they would be limited to Muhammad.”
April 1st, 2008 at 10:02 am
apg,

That’s a misrepresentation of history and an abuse of language, for how can one be said to “respect” the Gospels and at the same time blaspheme its Christ and rape, enslave, and murder His people?
“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).
April 1st, 2008 at 10:05 am
Here’s a buzz kill:

The reason apg’s problem is with Islam and not “misunderstanderers” of it is because Mohammed demanded, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

How can one separate the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed from Islam and still have Islam?
“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220)
April 1st, 2008 at 10:51 am
eteraz,

You know (or if you don’t, you ought to) that the hadith cited does not contradict the verse on compulsion.

Mohammed said that Muslims must first invite “unbelievers” to accept Islam. That is not compulsion.

If they refuse, then they are to demand the jizya (and its concomitant depredations).

If non-Muslims refuse to pay that, then it is war.

Brush up, or be honest:
“the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: ‘Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them . . .’” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).
April 1st, 2008 at 11:04 am
apg,

Does your apostasy require ad hominem attacks in defense of Islam?

As for “racist-hate speecher,” how dishonest of you! Islam is an ideology, not a race. Second, how is it hateful to quote Allah and his apostle?

What are you, some kind of Islamophobe?

To your points:

1) Christ is God Incarnate. To describe Him as anything less is blasphemy.

In addition, Allah through Mohammed says that anyone who says Allah has a son is a blasphemer. Christ says that He is the Son of God.

Notice also in the last passage, those who call Christ the Son of God are “unbelievers”:
“In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: “Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things” (Qur’an 5:17).

“They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them” (Qur’an 5:73).

“The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth” (Qur’an 9:30)!
2) As for rape, yes, all societies have men (and sometimes women) who commit the crime. Throughout history, it has been used as a weapon of war.

In Islam, it is made "divine" by Mohammed’s example and declarations:
“If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice,” (Qur’an 4:3).

“Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . . ” (Qur’an 4:24).
Do we need to mention the numerous women Mohammed personally raped after slaughtering their husbands and peoples?

And shall we bring up little Aisha?
“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

“Allah’s Apostle told Aisha [his six-year-old bride and nine-year-old sexual “partner”], ‘You were shown to me twice in my dreams. I beheld a man or angel carrying you in a silken cloth. He said to me, “She is yours, so uncover her.” And behold, it was you. I would then say to myself, “If this is from Allah, then it must happen”’” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 139-140).
Does that make me a “racist-hate speecher,” or Mohammed an enslaving, raping, pedophile?

And doesn’t your continued defense of this make you less an apostate and more an apologist for these crimes against humanity?
April 1st, 2008 at 12:37 pm
apg,

Some of us have responsibilities that call us away from the keyboard, so do not assume that a lull in posting is an indication of ignorance.

As to your “Muslim scholars” comment, the implication is that because they’ve “addressed” Mohammed’s divinely-ordained child rape, it’s nothing about which to worry?

Tell that to all the little ones destroyed by monsters following your prophet’s example:
“My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

[. . .]
April 1st, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Your lack of reading comprehension is telling, Danial.

I am not “surfing the web” when I should be working. I am exposing the command of Allah, the example of Mohammed and the perfidy of their apologists.

Perhaps you ought to be working [against jihad and sharia] instead of defending genocide, rape, and slavery in the name of Allah.

The truth will out.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
eteraz,

Who is responsible ultimately for the “disgusting conflation” of Islamic “sacred” texts and violence against non-Muslims, women, and apostates from Islam?

And who defines “criminal” and “illegitimate” in Islam so that whatever advances the cause of Allah is “legitimate” and whoever disbelieves is “criminal”?

The answer to both questions is clear: Allah and his apostle, for it is they who require the conversion, subjugation and humiliation, and murder of non-Muslims to make the world Islam:
“the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: ‘Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them . . .’” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

“fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . ” (Qur’an 9:5).

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

“Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle . . . ‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

“Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do” (Qur’an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur’an).

“Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah?” (Qur’an 9:111).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).
April 1st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
apg,

The Prophets whom I respect are of YHWH. It is unwise to reject their words just because Mohammed was a lying monster.

As to your other comments, I’ve already admitted that unspeakable crimes against women (and sometimes men) occur in all societies.

The difference which you fail to note (or hope no one else will) is that in civilized countries, such barbarities are crimes punishable under those nations’ laws; in Islam, such crimes are "divine," for what Mohammed said and did is a “beautiful pattern (of conduct)” for those who want to please Allah (Qur’an 33:21).

That’s the reason for “the focus on Islam.”

(And if they are Mohammed’s commands and actions, how is citing them, “insults”?)

Your Infidel Hall of Shame makes my point: You hold up as criminals those guilty of what your Mohammed did and taught!

My nation condemns pedophilia, rape, and polygamy, but Mohammed not only committed such crimes, he taught others to do the same!

Once Muslims make Mohammed’s many crimes against humanity crimes too under Islamic law, then we’ll have no reason to discuss them anymore, except as a vile stain on human history.

Don’t you get it?

I condemn such evil. You defend it. Who’s in denial?

Perhaps if you end the ad hominem attacks, tu quoques, and other logical fallacies against people exposing them, you’ll be able to do something about the Islamic texts requiring such evil.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:24 pm:
eteraz,

You “responded to” the Verse of the Sword. Good. Then there’s nothing to worry about.

Unless “responded to” only means “dissimulated” or “obfuscated.” Then there’s a problem.

No, I’m sure of it. There’s a problem.

Let me know when you have “responded to” the passages below and have convinced Muslims that you’ve “responded to” them effectively. Then you will have accomplished something.
“the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: ‘Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them . . .’” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

“fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . ” (Qur’an 9:5).

“Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers . . . ” (Qur’an 9:14).

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

“Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle . . . ‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).
April 1st, 2008 at 5:29 pm, to Ali Eteraz:
Mentioning your “response” to the Verse of the Sword in this context seems a bit dishonest on the face of it.

The article itself proves it. Were you hoping no one would actually read it?

In it, you do not demonstrate that Allah forbids waging offensive warfare against non-Muslims, nor do you show that Mohammed did not himself preach and practice slaughter.

In fact, you state clearly your intention (at the end!) to demonstrate only that OBL misused 9:5 in his fatwa, which is a point spurious to our discussion and misleading to ignorant Infidels.

If your obfuscating is unintentional, then you can revise your article to name and condemn publicly the numerous passages demanding mutilation and death for non-Muslims (and apostates) who refuse conversion or slavery.

(Shall we mention the pedophilia, rape, lying, and stealing?).

If you will not expose and reject publicly these passages, then you are part of the problem and can no longer pretend to be a friend to Infidels.

On a few of the points made in your article:

1) Claiming that “OBL’s reliance upon the verse is assinine at best and evil at worst” makes one wonder: If he used the verse properly, would killing Infidels because of their refusals to convert or submit and pay the jizya then be “proper and good”?

2) Surely you know that some Islamic commentators say that the reason the ninth sura omits the nonsense about “grace and mercy” is because there was to be no more grace or mercy for non-Muslims (except of course, to those who convert).

3) Another point you fail to make is that “helping others against the Muslims” or “having difficulty with certain treaties” are, for Mohammed, justifications for wanton slaughter in Allah’s name!

Apparently, that doesn’t bother you.

4) You also fail to connect this part of the sura to the larger context of Mohammed’s intentions for the non-Muslim world. This was – as many of your coreligionists argue – the end of Mohammed’s cooperation with non-Muslims and the beginnings of his expansion into non-Muslim lands outside Arabia:
"Narrated Jubair bin Haiya: ''Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans . . . 'Umar said to him [Al-Hurmuzan] "I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade."

'Al-Hurmuzan said, "Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs . . . if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless.

'The head stands for Khosrau [Persia], and one wing stands for Caesar [Byzantium] and the other wing stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau."

[. . .]

'Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says: "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master)" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386).
5) Your assertion that, “looking at the circumstances and context of verse 9:5 it becomes very difficult to reach the conclusion that the verse is a timeless directive to all Muslims for all times to kill all polytheists in all places,” demonstrates your perfidy, since no one I know claims that.

That fact that the expression of Muslim bloodlust is limited to those who refuse to convert or submit and pay the jizya doesn’t negate nor extenuate the malevolence of so much of Qur’an and Sunnah.

6) As for “polytheists,” your comments here too seem designed to mislead. For though Jews and Christians (and others) came to be called “People of the Book,” Christians especially are charged with being “unbelievers” and therefore targets of many of the Verses of Blood, confessing Christ to be God Incarnate is an expression of polytheism, and both “People of the Book” and “polytheists” are doomed to hell.

7) As for why Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims cannot set foot in Arabia, that is because Mohammed willed it so: "It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366).

8) Claiming that OBL has to prove Americans are all polytheists in order for Muslims to fly planes into buildings or behead schoolgirls -- or teasing about a jihadist’s shocking conclusions about Americans -- are silly red herrings intending to distract and deceive the careless and gullible [reader].

Finally, you admit that if there were an official Islamic state, then it would be alright to kill for Allah.

So, when that Islamic state is finally realized again, on whose side will you be?
April 1st, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Nattuk,

I commend your invective-light reply.

Again though, you reduce yourself to false ad hominem attacks.

I have gathered the commands of Allah and the example of Mohammed from Islamic sources. I’ve got a copy of Sirat Rasul Allah next to my keyboard.

The only thing I’ve asked of anyone here is to tell the truth and stop trying to defend (dishonorably) the indefensible.

I have accused eteraz of dishonesty because he offers his “response” to Qur’an 9:5 as if it meant Islam is a religion of peace. All he did was set up straw men, knock them down, and then ask for applause from the ignorant and gullible.

Did you even read his article? My reply?

I’ve also pointed out the lack of intellectual integrity of several posters here, since rather than point out my error, they’ve engaged in all sorts of (often unintelligible) personal attacks, tu quoque arguments, and other logical fallacies.

Even with your last statement, that is not an accurate representation of my writings.

Will you not be honest?

It would be my pleasure to discuss these matters with you.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:54 am
eteraz,

Is that an intentional misrepresentation of what I wrote, or are you unable to help yourself?

Saying that the issue with 9:5 is that ALL Muslims for ALL time are required to kill ALL non-Muslims is setting up a straw man, for the passage does not say that, and I don’t know anyone who claims that it does.

Criticizing OBL’s application of 9:5 does nothing to nullify Allah and Mohammed’s commands to subdue and humiliate or kill those who refuse conversion.

Presenting your “response” in the context of this discussion as if to imply that Muslims are not required to wage offensive warfare in Allah’s cause is intellectually dishonest, since:
“Allah’s Apostle said: ‘I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle . . . ‘” (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

“Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah?” (Qur’an 9:111).

“Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone (in the whole of the world). But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do” (Qur’an 8:38; ayah 39 from Noble Qur’an).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:05 am
Yes, thabet, 70 to 80 million Hindus alone slaughtered for Allah? A mere pittance.

If you count recent conflicts, yes, “Western” nations have killed many millions. However, your numbers game is really only a red herring.

The issue is, what does Allah command? What did Mohammed command and practice?

If you must play with the numbers, answer these two questions: Over the last 1350 years, how many non-Muslims have been slaughtered in obedience to Allah’s command and Mohammed’s example? Over the last two thousand years, how many people have been slaughtered in obedience to Christ’s commands?

What’s the total? A billion to [n]one?
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:15 am
Nattuk,

For the historically-illiterate and the immoral, the fall of Constantinople is something at which to laugh.

To the decent and the honest, it’s one of many concrete illustrations of your god and prophet’s commands.

And, no, it is not like the two losses you mention.

The end of the caliphate and the Reconquista were blessings to humanity since they ended (for the most part) centuries of Allah-ordained rape, oppression, and murder.

But when it’s non-Muslims suffering at the hands of Islam, it’s all fun and games, right?

So much for the veneer of civility. You honor Allah, truly.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:32 am
Well, Buzz Kill,

Let’s do a little analysis, shall we? You seem to like that.
“Of course Eteraz is featured.”
A bit vicariously self-important, are we? If you read accurately, you’ll see that my work — and your inability to respond truthfully to any of the points I raise — are featured.
“He has no one commenting on the site. Knucklehead blog.”
I see your refutation of Allah’s commands to kill are coming along nicely.

Ad hominem attacks and name-calling, neither of which demonstrate that I’ve misrepresented anything. Eteraz has quite a few comments here, and that says nothing about his accuracy or truthfulness on this topic.

So, how does it feel, Buzz Kill, to be rendered impotent by the author of a “Knucklehead blog”?
“I think you can measure the crazy by the foot long screeds.”
Some men are longer than others.

If you reduce the nonsense, my comments pointing it out will be shorter.
“If you have multiple foot long . . . the Amillinealist ward of Severe Psychiatric Problems Center.”
More ad hominem, more name-calling. This is the Internet equivalent of a five-year-old administering a raspberry.

Nice work. You must be proud.
“The “I know more about Evil Islam than anyone on the planet” ward.”
I quote accurately Qur’an and ahadith, but you mock.

Allah will not be pleased.
“The “I am an expert on Islam cuz I read Jihad watch” wing of the Elders of Zion hospital.”
Several ad hominems in one sentence. Impressive.

So, let me know when you can show that Allah and Mohammed don’t require what they actually say they do.

You know where to find me.

I’ll be waiting.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 am
Nattuk,

How is quoting Allah and his apostle “propaganda”? And since no one (including you) has demonstrated that I’ve misrepresented any of those passages, repetition of them is not unwarranted.
“It was with a view to preserving these periods of truce and thus to promoting peace among the frequently warring tribes that the Qur’an did not revoke, but rather confirmed, this ancient custom. See also 2:194 and 217.”
How nice. What about the slavery and genocide? [Those don't matter because] It’s only non-Muslims, I guess.
“[7] Read in conjunction with the two preceding verses, as well as with 2:190-194, the above verse relates to warfare already in progress with people who have become guilty of a breach of treaty obligations and of aggression.”
Sura 2 speaks of war in retaliation for being “turned out.” This speaks of war against non-Muslims, excluding those keeping their treaties, and even that is for a time only.
“One of them, “There shall be no coercion in matters of faith” (2:256), lays down categorically that any attempt at a forcible conversion of unbelievers is prohibited - which precludes the possibility of the Muslims’ demanding or expecting that a defeated enemy should embrace Islam as the price of immunity.”
I’ve already addressed that. The options for those who disbelieve in Allah are conversion, submission with humiliation and jizya, or war. The invitation to Islam is to come first, so technically, there is no compulsion to convert.

The other two options, however, don’t leave much of a choice, do they?.
“Thus, war is permissible only in self-defence (see surah 2, notes 167 and 168)”
Clearly false. The error here is adding the word “only.”

Over the course of Mohammed’s career, the revelations regarding war progressed from cooperation to allowing self-defense to requiring self-defense/retaliation, to requiring offensive warfare to make the world Islam.

I’ve provided several passages demonstrating this. Here’s one:
“the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: ‘Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them . . .’” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).
[More from Nattuk's reference:]
“does not imply an alternative of “conversion or death”, as some unfriendly critics of Islam choose to assume.”
That’s right, submission and humiliation along with paying the jizya is the third option I just noted.
“Does this answer your questions more thoroughly?”
It serves to point out the solidity of my position.

So, will you condemn these passages publicly?

At least reject them privately, for now.
“Oh, and nice going by the way, only posting your responses to our comments on your blog. Pro veritas, I see.”
There’s no deception, as you ungraciously imply. I provided the link to this page.

Additionally, it’s my site. If I were to include all your comments, it’d be your site, or eteraz’s, and Buzz Kill would be gloating even more enthusiastically about “dementia” (which is really just a manifestation of his deep-seated post envy).

Did I misrepresent what you wrote?
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:17 am
Nattuk,

Regarding the Ten Commandments, it is impossible for a Muslim to observe the first, since it requires worship only of YHWH and His Christ. This is the first Mohammed violates.

You must know that Muslims cannot observe the other commandments either since Mohammed broke them with respect to non-Muslims, women, and apostates, and he required others to do the same:

Misuse YHWH's name? Making the Son of God a "blasphemer" for claiming to be Who He is, and claiming that Allah is the God of the Bible both break this commandment.

Remember the Sabbath? Broken also.

Honor your father and mother? Father, yes, but Mohammed's misogyny hits Mom too.

Murder? Rape/Polygamy/Pedophilia? Lie? Steal? Covet? All broken for non-Muslims and nine-year-old girls.

Here are a few examples:
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

"Malik said, 'The blood-monies of the Jew, Christian, and Magian in their injuries, is according to the injury of the muslims in their blood-moneys. The head wound is a twentieth of his full blood-money. The wound that opens the head is a third of his blood-money. The belly-wound is a third of his blood-money. All their injuries are according to this calculation'" (Muwatta Book 43, Number 43.15.8b).
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:22 am
Well, Danial,

Let’s take Jason’s advice:

Jesus said, “Love your enemies,” and, “Do good to those who persecute you.”

Mohammed said, “kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5).

Jesus said that if someone causes a little child to sin, it would be better for them if they had a large stone tied around their neck and were thrown into the depths of the sea.

Mohammed married little Aisha when she was six and began raping her when she was nine, and he claimed that Allah ordained it.

By all means, let’s look at their lives.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:42 am
eteraz,

I like your position on limiting the commands to enslave and kill those who refuse the invitation to Islam to Mohammed’s lifetime.

I do see some problems with it, however.

First, where do you find the textual justification for it?

Second, Mohammed’s successors didn’t limit those commands. They went to war against the non-Muslim world outside Arabia in Allah’s name and in accord with Mohammed’s expressed will and example.

Third, how will you get Islam — of which no major school rejects offensive warfare against non-Muslims — to adopt your new interpretation?

Fourth, if the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed really require peace, tolerance, and goodness toward non-Muslims — which I’ve not seen you claim, but certainly, you’ve implied it — then why must you limit them to the seventh century?

Fifth, what would OBL say of your exegesis? Has there ever been any significant movement along these lines in Islamic history?

Finally, why the need for innovation if it is obvious that the commands for rape, slavery, and murder in Allah’s name should be limited to the seventh century?
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:53 am
eteraz,
“I have already stated that my personal view is that Muhammad did engage in fighting and subduing his enemies. I have often stated on this blog that Muhammad wasn’t non-violent. He did engage in warfare.”
I am not a regular reader, so I was unaware of that. Thank you for clarifying.
“My difference with others is that they take his warfare as a permission that they too can engage in unlimited warfare as he did
I wish all Muslims agreed with you.

So, you admit that Mohammed waged “unlimited” warfare. Thank you.
“Muhammad’s warfare was an exception, not the rule. Like I said in my Guardian piece, there are a number of instances in Islam where Muhammad had certain permissions and responsibilities that other Muslims didn’t. I think Muslims that subsequently thought they had to engage in unlimited warfare were wrong. They were never permitted to engage in it.”
Are not those exceptions stated explicitly? Do not passages where Mohammed commands the faithful to fight — for example, “until all religion is for Allah” — suggest that the faithful are to fight until Allah’s rule over mankind is total?
“As to the verses/hadith you cite, in my reading, they would be limited to Muhammad.”
Thank you for not denying them. Perhaps your less gracious [and honest] readers here will take note.

I commend you for your decency in your recent replies, for allowing contrary views to be posted here, and for admitting about Mohammed what many of his coreligionists will not.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:09 am
thabet,
“Perhaps Amillennialist is also a fan of limpieza de sangre?”
Another ad hominem?

Is there anything else in your quiver, or is that it?

How about renouncing Mohammed’s evil against non-Muslims, women, apostates, and nine-year-old Aisha?
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:12 am
apg,
“ANSWER NOW TO ALL ME EXAMPLES OF CHRISTIAN VIOLENCE, ANSWER.”
Yelling a false tu quoque doesn’t make it any less false.

Christians committing evil against others is a violation of Christ’s commands and should be condemned.

Will you condemn Mohammed’s depravity and the evil committed in accord with his commands and example?
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:16 am
eteraz,
“You know how you were talking about straw-men? This is the best example of one. There’s not a single Muslim out of the thousands on this blog who take delight in people’s pain.”
No straw man; Nattuk was laughing about Constantinople.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:22 am
eteraz,
“the Reconquista began by committing a pogrom upon the Jews. You should look up the history of the Sephardigm. They had to flee to the Muslim Ottoman Empire to save their skin. Jesus, I didn’t realize I was talking to a Christian supremacist, thought the handle was just a creative word. I wouldn’t have wasted my time.”
Did I give you too much credit too quickly?

The Reconquista was made necessary by Islamic supremacism, just as Allah and his apostle require.

The implication that I support any sort of injustice against others (regardless of religion) is shameful.

Speaking of Judeophiles, Mohammed and his allah are, aren’t they?
“And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: “Be ye apes, despised and rejected” (Qur’an 2:65).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him”‘” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177).

“. . . We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah . . . came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah . . . stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe.

. . . .

“he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah . . . who granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah . . . turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa’ (the tribe of ‘Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in Medina.

. . . .

“It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim” (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366).
That Jews sought protection from Christians among Muslims shows just how disobedient to their gods both the Christians and Muslims were at the time.

[And no, the Reconquista was against Islam. It lasted 750 years.]
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:30 am
apg,

Your list includes at least one example of self-defense (the Reconquista).

Otherwise (without reading every item — forgive me if I don’t enjoy being insulted and yelled at — I’m funny that way), the other events appear to be clear examples of Christians (or Christians-In-Name-Only) violating Christ’s commands.

I denounce them.

Will you now make a list of Muslim crimes against non-Muslims carried out in accord with Allah’s commands and Mohammed’s example?

The count will be still a billion to none (which is what I intended to type in my earlier comment).
The thread is now closed; this is a fitting end from dina, April 2nd, 2008 at 12:03 pm:
Amillennialist, you did a superb job with the 10 Commandments. Much better than I could have done. I won’t even mention the Quran verses approving of lying, raping those who your right hand possesseth, beating your wives, etc. etc. It would seem superfluous after your dissertation. Thank you. I didn’t know you had a website until Nattuk…or was it Apg?…mentioned it. I am going to go look for it right after this.

I still wish Eterez would answer where and in what capacity Muslims “accept” the 10 C’s. Not all Muslims have access to Wikopedia and, without the Bible, they wouldn’t know to look it up there, either. They are all-encompassing for the moral life.
Thank you, dina.