An Islamic "reformation"? You're soaking in it

From here.

Those who wish for a Reformation within Islam are already getting it.

With all due respect, the only substantive true statement in Mr. Rodriguez's essay is that change within Islam can occur only as Muslims themselves make it happen.

The most grievous error in this essay is assuming that a Muslim reformation would be similar to the Christian one. The Christian Reformation was a movement not toward pluralism or tolerance (or any other multiculturalist Newspeak); it was a movement away from man-made doctrines and toward the Word of Christ, the Bible.

At least in the case of Luther (others had their own agendas), God's Word was the only rule for life and doctrine.

There is a similar "reformation" occurring with Islam. After a century of ignorance, Infidel domination and occupation, and a paucity of resources, there is a return to the commands of Allah and the example of Mohammed.

Aided by Western self-loathing, historical illiteracy, political correctness, and the greatest transfer of wealth in human history (with the discovery of oil under Muslim lands), Islam is reasserting itself as the devout return to the rule of Allah as revealed in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira.

What does a return to Islam's "sacred" texts mean for non-Muslims? Only more of this:

"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 019, 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).

. . . .

Be careful of that for which you wish.

A theologian and a gnat, two more aiding jihad

This in response to Thistlethwaite, a theologian looking for common ground with Muslims (she found it right outside Mecca on her knees), and "jihadist," a person with the simple human decency and common sense to refrain from calling himself, "deranged, genocidal sociopath looking to kill Infidels."

To Thistlethwaite:

Imagination is good, but not to the point of suicide. You uncritically and enthusiastically retail the false conclusion that because "jihad" means "struggle," Muslims are not required to war offensively against non-Muslims to make the world Islam. Neither is Islamic warfare limited to defensive purposes, as you suggest.

To equate jihad with Just War demonstrates an embarrassing ignorance of nearly 1400 years of Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and history. Mohammed said:

"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).

"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 019, Number 4294).

"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).

Your mention of Islamic prohibitions against harming women, children, cultivated areas, etc., shows you've bought the propaganda fed to you by your [Muslim] "colleagues" hook, line, and sinker. You haven't done your homework:

"The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256).

"The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah: for (Allah) loveth not those who do wrong" (Qur'an 42:40).

It is permissible for Muslims to kill inviolable infidels if they are aiding the fighting in deed, word, opinion, or any other way. This is because of the Prophet's order to kill Duraid ibn Al-Simma, who was 120 years old and went with the Hawazin tribe [to fight against the Muslims] to give them counsel. Ibn Qudama notes that the Prophet ordered him killed in the Battle of Hunein because he knew military stratagems. See Al-Tamhid 16:142.

"It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that the Messenger of Allah . . . ordered the date-palms of Banu Nadir to be burnt and cut. These palms were at Buwaira. Qutaibah and Ibn Rumh in their versions of the tradition have added: So Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, revealed the verse: "Whatever trees you have cut down or left standing on their trunks, it was with the permission of Allah so that He may disgrace the evil-doers"'" (Muslim, Book 019, Number 4324).

What will you do next, deny that Mohammed was a pedophile and that Allah required it?

“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).

You are a theologian.

*******

To jihadist (probably just someone who likes to irritate):

"Americans have heard so much from Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie in books, articles and media interviews and profiles."

Yes, they're practically household names.

"let them read what Muslims from around the world says for a change"

Let's do that. Let's see . . . hmmmm. Which Muslim? Oh, I know! The only one that matters, for Allah's revelations have come to the world through him, Allah calls him a "beautiful pattern of conduct," and he is considered by the faithful the "Ideal Man" -- Mohammed!

Here's some of what he had to say. This is what "jihadist" espouses and Thistlethwaite defends:

"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 019, 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).

"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 on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do" (Qur'an 8:38, 39).

"O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him" (Qur'an 9:123).

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly" (Qur'an 8:60).

“Muhammad said, ‘A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause is better than the world and whatever is in it’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 50).

"Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home) . . . But those who strive and fight hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward . . . " (Qur'an 4:95).

“A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44).

"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).

"O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place . . . " (Qur'an 9:38, 39).

"Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'" (Qur'an 8:12).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

Tu quoques, moral equivalences, projections, and other "arguments" in defense of Islam

Whether it's YouTube, the Daily Bulletin, or WaPo, they're all the same. Can CAIR be everywhere at once?

In response to comments by "ahmed from bahrain."

"I consider myself very well balanced!!"

Considering Cartoon Rage, Pope Rage, and Rushdie Rage, is that saying much?

"the Western media . . . asked regarding women's rights, terrorism, suicide bombing, etc."

Yes, it's a complete mystery as to why systemic, institutionalized discrimination, brutality, and carnage overshadows any Infidel interest in prayer rugs.

"Terrorism for one is strictly a political issue"

Really? What did Mohammed say? “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

"which has nothing to do with Islam."

Hmmm. Mohammed said (that above, and) this: "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them'" (Qur'an 8:12). Allah will not be pleased.

"It is true Muslims use Islam for their political aims but this is common in all quarters"

A false, tu quoque argument. The topic is not Buddhism's divinely-ordained oppression of women nor Hinduism's historical slaughter of innocents, but Islam's. The essential difference between offensive warfare against non-Muslims and violence by members of any other major religious group is that jihad to make the world Islam is required by Allah and his apostle.

"What I would have liked to have seen is an admission that Western/US meddling in the Middle East and Islamic countries over the last 100 years has produced what we see today."

You'd like the victims to blame themselves? That's immoral and dishonest.

Non-Muslims (and apostates) have been raped, enslaved, and slaughtered at the command of Allah and in imitation of the false prophet Mohammed for nearly fourteen centuries everywhere Muslim numbers, knowledge, zeal, and resources have been sufficient to do so. Be honest.

When Muslims behead Christian schoolgirls for Allah, is that the West's fault? When Muslims murder elderly Buddhists, is that the West's fault? When teachers of girls are gunned down in cold blood in Pakistan because they taught girls, is that the West's fault?

Current events and very recent history are enough to refute your charge that Western policy is the cause of Muslim violence, but let's go back a bit further, shall we?

When Mohammed and his minions subjugated and slaughtered the pagan tribes of Arabia, was that the West's fault? When he had the men of Jewish tribes beheaded and took their women, was that the West's fault? When, after Mohammed died (too late), his successors exploded out of Arabia west, north, and east with Qur'an in one hand and the sword in the other, was that the West's fault?

The Holy Land, North Africa, the Iberian Peninsula, the Balkans, Byzantium, Persia, Eastern Europe, Western Asia, India, Southeast Asia -- brutal jihad was waged viciously against these peoples and their cultures until many were conquered or dead (a few having survived and/or recovered to some degree) -- was all of that the West's fault?

You've got a little problem. Your "sacred" texts not only spew the bloodlust of Allah, they also record Mohammed's zeal in satisfying it. And nearly one and one-half millennia of Muslims doing the same (as circumstances allowed) all demonstrate your claim that "It's the US'/West's/Jews' fault!" to be utterly false.

"How do the Muslims see this? and what do they suggest to create a better understanding of East/West? and thus create a lasting peace?"

"Peace." Muslims keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. However, I know what Mohammed thinks. He said:

"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 019, Number 4294).

"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 on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do" (Qur'an 8:38, 39).

The kind of "lasting peace" Allah wants is the kind that comes when all dissent is in chains or the grave.

"This is the core issue that is being avoided by Western media and their leaders."

That the Source and Sustenance of Islam's War Against Humanity are the words of Allah and the words and deeds of Mohammed is THE core issue that apologists for jihad in the West feverishly hope ignorant and gullible non-Muslims will never face.

"They never admit to their wrongs . . . The blood of the innocent is being spelt with no remorse or apology . . . it is very watered down and diplomatically dressed as to cause no offence . . . causing mayhem and bloodshed that is ensuing."

More blame the victim and a good amount of projection going on here.

"To add insult to injury they try cover up their own barbarism yet paint any Muslim as a terrorist even when evidence proves otherwise."

If anything, Western political, media, and academic elite bend over to avoid offending the offenders.

And as to your last point: If one's god commands him to use any means necessary -- even violence -- to convert, subjugate, and kill all unbelievers, does it not behoove his targets to admit that and plan and act accordingly?

How are those against whom such violence is required to distinguish between those who want to fulfill those requirements and those who will never do anything to undermine non-Muslim health, wealth, and government?

Finally, why would any decent person of good will profess faith in a god who not only endorsed Mohammed's depravity and brutality, but requires the same of others?

"If they want to know about Islam then pick up the Quran and read with an open heart."

And then get some help understanding Qur'an's peculiar arrangement. For the fuller context of Qur'an and the life of Mohammed, you'll also want to study Hadith and Sira.

"This applies to Muslims too."

Ever notice how it is often the recent and devout convert that so terribly "misunderstands" their religion and becomes a member of that "tiny minority of fundamentalist, extremist, Islamofascist hijackers of the Religion of Peace"?

"When both parties look at their own faults then we can see some peace."

Not until the commands of Allah for offensive warfare against non-Muslims -- and Mohammed's fulfillment of them -- are rejected as evil will this particular conflict end. It's already nearly 1400 years old.

Another follow-up from an acquaintance

Here's the dialogue:

Thanks for writing. I'd like to respond to a few of your comments.

you probably know Osama is Saudi as well correct?

Yes.

Osama then took verses from the Quran saying they described the current situation, declaring war on the US, and saying things about foreigners defending the land of two holy mosques.

Something like: "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 019, Number 4363-4366)?

Then do you know what the religious figures did? They dismissed what he said and told him he had no right to declare war.

Why? Because offensive warfare against non-Muslims is forbidden by Islam's authoritative texts? Because Saud wants no rivals -- especially devout ones -- to his authority? Or is it because OBL himself did not have the authority to declare war, which right is reserved for the Caliph, the office of which was abolished by Ataturk in the early twentieth century?

I thought it's funny how you and him both quote verses from the Quran as a call to arms against the US or whoever it may be.

You are speaking falsely about me. I do not quote Qur'an and Hadith "as a call to arms against the US . . . ;" I quote Qur'an and Hadith to quote Qur'an and Hadith. Islam's texts, jurisprudence, and history speak for themselves.

Do I err in telling the truth?

And since -- as you admit -- the "extremists" can appeal effectively to Islam's "holy" texts, where does that leave decent Muslims of good will opposed to offensive warfare against non-Muslims?

And what does that say about the god and prophet commanding and practicing such barbarity?

The same way Americans have blind hate for Arabs, Arabs have blind hate for Americans.

Perhaps some Americans blindly hate Arabs. I think many of those who have a negative opinion about Muslims hold it because they recognize the death and destruction perpetrated by followers of Mohammed in the name of Allah.

And even if Americans can't cite sura and ayah, they recognize the impetus for such carnage appears inherent to the faith.

I cannot number how many Muslims (not Arabs) blindly hate the US, but I would venture that much of that hatred in not blind nor even the result of government propaganda. It certainly seems reasonable that if your god and prophet command the subjugation and humiliation and death of non-Muslims, you will probably have a less-than-positive opinion about non-Muslims.

I can't tell you how much disrespect I've received for being Muslim when the people know nothing of Islam, even my friends and family have said things to me of my conversion.

Have I treated you disrespectfully, or have I addressed Islamic texts and your arguments?

And when I first converted I believed what the terrorist did was right and became a stereotype of what many Americans think of Muslims

So, then, there's truth to the stereotype?

What moved you away from terrorism?

How can the acts of extremists speak for all Muslims when they're not true Muslims themselves? Their actions have disgraced Muslims for many years to come.

Here is a point where I differ with many people. I do not look first to the behavior of self-professed Muslims to judge the religion; I am aware that Christians often behave in a way contrary to Christ's commands.

What I do -- and this is how we know that a Christian's immoral behavior is immoral -- is judge what the texts say.

Who is the only authority on what makes a true Muslim? On what makes true Islam? Allah and his apostle.

Their commands and example are recorded for all to see. That is why the "extremists" war against innocents. That is why I expose what those texts say.

Washington Post aids jihad by legitimizing its propagandists

In response to a "Christian scholar," from here:

Martin Marty has no clue of what Islam -- as defined by its god and prophet in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira -- really is.

There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate.

Communication is important and valuable when the other party communicates in good faith. I do not doubt that Marty has met many decent people of good will who self-identify as "Muslim."

It appears from his comments that he has engaged in dialogue also with "moderate" Muslims seeking to deceive ignorant and gullible Infidels about the role in Islam of offensive warfare against them. His lack of intellectual curiosity and inability to distinguish truth from propaganda calls into question his credibility.

As for studying "religious fundamentalism," what is the only major religion on earth that -- when its adherents practice the religion as its authoritative texts say they must -- enslaves and kills those who refuse to submit to its god? Only Islam. That bit of moral equivalence calls into question Marty's credibility.

Demonstrating his suicidal ignorance of Islam, Marty repeats one of the half-truths perpetrated with a success of which Joseph Goebbels only dreamed: jihad doesn't mean what we think it means.

It is true that "jihad" means "struggle." There are many kinds of struggle.

It is is curious that Marty spends many words on the use of the term as meaning "peaceful inner struggle" but addresses not at all the meaning of the word in the context most troubling to non-Muslims: offensive warfare against Infidels to make the world Islam.

Offensive jihad to establish the tyranny of Allah over all mankind is fundamental to nearly fourteen centuries of Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and history. This is so because Allah commanded it and Mohammed practiced it.

The theology of offensive jihad comes directly from Allah's commands and Muhammad's words and deeds (e.g., Qur'an 9:5, 9:29, and Muslim Book 019, Number 4294). They require the faithful to offer non-Muslims three choices: conversion to Islam, subjugation with payment of the jizya (an oppressive poll tax), or death.

Additionally, all the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach the necessity for offensive jihad in order to subjugate unbelievers to the rule of Allah.

Contrary to what Marty and his fellow apologists for jihad would have us believe, "jihad" used in this manner is consistent with Islam's "holy" texts:

"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 019, 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 on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do" (Qur'an 8:38, 39).

Was Mohammed commanding that if non-Muslims refuse to convert or submit to Islam that the faithful should seek Allah's help and "struggle inwardly" against them?

Was Allah requiring the faithful to "struggle inwardly" and slay the Pagans wherever they are found?

Was Allah urging Muslims to "struggle inwardly" against those who reject Allah until they submit and feel subdued?

Did Mohammed confess, "I have been ordered to 'struggle inwardly' against the people" until all worship only Allah?

Did Allah mandate "inward struggles" until there prevail faith in Allah altogether and everywhere"?

Jihad as "inner struggle" is found in one hadith from a collection not considered traditionally by Muslims among the most reliable, but Marty and his fellow "scholars" are unaware of these verses of blood from Qur'an and reliable ahadith?

Therefore, Marty accuses of hatred those who use the term "jihad" correctly. In making this false, ad hominem attack and in dutifully and foolishly repeating this misrepresentation of the meaning of "jihad," he calls into question his credibility.

Marty also mentions the Crusades, a favorite tu quoque argument made by jihad's apologists. The only problem is (though Crusaders did commit evil) that the first Crusade was called by Pope Urban II in defense of Christians in the East under siege for centuries by hordes of bloodthirsty Muslims "struggling inwardly" against them. In hinting uncritically at this tried and true tu quoque, Marty calls into question his credibility.

Furthermore, what exactly about Mohammed's lying, stealing, enslaving, raping (including his nine-year-old "wife" Aisha), and slaughtering of non-Muslims who refused to submit to his god should moral people tolerate? In uncritically urging tolerance of Islam's "divinely" -inspired depravity and brutality, Marty calls into question his intellectual integrity and his moral judgment.

The most outrageous claim made by Martin Marty in his essay is that somehow the Bible and Islam's texts are morally equivalent. This could not be further from the truth. He is right to urge education of others' religions; sadly, he has not taken his own advice. In trying to equate Christ's Word with Allah's revelations, Marty commits blasphemy.

He also erroneously equates the command for ancient Israel to war against the inhabitants of Canaan -- a limited, specific command for one time, place, and target -- with Allah and Mohammed's universal and timeless commands and frequent examples of warring against non-Muslims until all submit to Islam. In making such a false equivalence, Marty calls into question his intellectual integrity.

More than "creative conversation" (isn't that lying?) or "common action" (always in the direction of less honesty about Islam), telling the truth about the Religion of Peace will enable Muslims of good will to either reshape or reject their god's doctrine of blood. More importantly for non-Muslims, realizing what motivates and sustains jihad will enable us to correctly identify the threat and plan accordingly.

Alleging the existence of "inward strugglers" of the "Religion of Peace," demonizing honest, accurate criticism of Islam, equating our self-defense with Islamic terrorism, and implying that violent "extremism" is coming anywhere but from Islam only aids Allah's War Against Humanity.

Being a Christian and a scholar, Martin Marty should know better.

He's being "humble"?

Only if "humble" means "ignorant" or "disingenuous."

I wrote:

By the way, where did I mention the fall of Constantinople?

Affad replied:

You didn't. There probably is no reason to mention the fall of Constantinople, either. Except the fact that your address starts with 1453, the year Constantinople fell to Mehmet, and then it had Haga Sophia, plus I don't know, the address listed Constantinople CA, which doesn't really exist so I assumed I was dealing with someone who lives in a historical bubble, oh did I mention the fact that they use the name of a Saint who is glorified for killing Moors- North African Muslims?

I don't know much that I remember about history, but I do remember little bits here and there. Or maybe I am being humble. Don't know, I do think dealing with a fictional characters is causing me to make believe to much.

Thanks Iago, do take care. I hope you kill some Moors today.

So I wrote:

I guess the thin veneer of your false civility is beginning to wear through.

I wouldn't consider incomplete and confused historical recollections a reason to brag about "being humble." They truly are "little bits."

And considering your inability (or unwillingness) to recount accurately the history of your prophet, butchering the historical record of his victims is unsurprising:

Santiago Matamoros was the Spanish patron saint of the Reconquista, which lasted almost eight centuries. Whom did the Spanish have to fight to reclaim their own land?

Constantinople fell after centuries of periodic offensive warfare by whom?

I suppose the Mohammedan hordes that laid siege to and slaughtered and enslaved the native inhabitants of those lands were just "struggling inwardly," right?

I. Matamoros

P.S., It is curious that when I entered the information requested at your website under Hate Incidents (that's ironic!), two times (iirc) I received this error message:

"Oops! The page you are trying to access has been removed or does not exist. If you feel you have reached this page by mistake, please contact us at web@cair-california.org."

That's why I e-mailed.

Is that just your way of screening your messages?

If at first you don't succeed justifying Mohammed's pedophilia, try, try again

More from an acquaintance trying to justify the pedophile prophet's predilection for prepubescent partners. And his terrorism.

"Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 55b"

So, you can't find any Biblical justification for your pedophilia.

And that makes it okay? [According to one source, that passage is a discussion of what defines "virgin" in relation to dowries. It is not permitting pedophilia.]

"in the Bukhari Aisha herself never stated her age"

Spurious and outright false. Bukhari records several different sources, including Aisha. You've also got Muslim and Tabari:

"Narrated Aisha: The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age" (Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234).

"The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old" (Tabari 9:13).

"A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old" (Muslim Book 8, Number 3310).

"Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64).

"Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65).

"Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)" (Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88).

"Narrated Hisham's father: Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consum[mat]ed that marriage when she was nine years old" (Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236).

"Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: The Apostle of Allah . . . married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah . . . and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter" (Bukhari Book 41, Number 4915).

"Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: When we came to Medina, the women came to me when I was playing on the swing, and my hair were up to my ears. They brought me, prepared me, and decorated me. Then they brought me to the Apostle of Allah . . . and he took up cohabitation with me, when I was nine" (Bukhari Book 41, Number 4917).

"Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)" (Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151).

"'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old" (Muslim Book 8, Number 3311).

You've gone from trying to justify Mohammed's pedophilia to saying Aisha didn't say she was nine in Bukhari. You're willing to compromise your intellectual integrity to defend your prophet's barbarism. Don't you see there's a problem?

"you won't find a devout Muslim joining terrorist groups, 99% of the time when you hear of a terrorist they where 'not very religious'"

OBL is not devout? Is he an apostate? Were you able to find any mainstream Muslim groups denouncing him by name as an unbeliever?

In many of the reports I've read on terrorism, the jihadist often recently became more religious.

1) Does Qur'an and Sunnah teach that the devout Muslim must do whatever they are able to support offensive jihad against non-Muslims to establish the rule of Allah over all mankind?

2) Does Allah command violence against non-Muslims who do not convert and refuse to pay jizya?

3) Did Mohammed command and practice violence against non-Muslims who did not convert and refused to pay jizya?

4) Is the violence against non-Muslims carried out in the name of Allah consistent with Islam's "holy" texts?

The answer to all these questions is. "yes.

"The acts they commit negates their hopes of ever going to heaven."

Not according to your god and prophet: "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).

"If I'm not mistaken there are Christian extremists also?"

That appears to be a tu quoque argument -- whether or not "extremists" exist in any other tradition does nothing to address the fact that Allah and his false prophet require offensive warfare against all who do not convert and refuse to pay the jizya.

That is one of the fundamental distinctions between Chritianity and Islam: when a Christian does evil it is always in violation of Christ's commands. When a Muslim wages offensive jihad against non-Muslims, commits pedophilia with his child bride, beats a disobedient wife, or kills an apostate, it is in accord with Allah's revealed will.

"tells us it's the lords will to kill . . . we will ascend straight to heaven if we kill . . . and they continue telling you whatever it takes; then we believe them. Suddenly we feel as if we're truly doing the work of the Lord"

Such an analogy fits what occurs in Islam quite well.

For that's just what Mohammed did.

Democrats slink closer to openly expressing their desire for the annihilation of the United States of America

Apparently, it is no longer enough for the Democrats to make slaughtering the unborn a "Constitutional right." Neither does it satisfy them to make up every lie under the sun to hurt a president of the other party during a time of war.

Now, they are trying to make it costly for Americans who suspect Religionists of Peace of struggling inwardly by blocking legislation that would protect citizens from being sued by Democrats and their jihadist allies for reporting suspicious behavior.

Two notes, one for Thompson and one for King: Islam is an ideology, not a race, and "radical Islamist" is twice redundant, since it is the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed that motivates jihad. Just say, "Muslims."

From here:

Democrats are trying to pull a provision from a homeland security bill that will protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leadership aides.

The legislation, which moves to a House and Senate conference committee this afternoon, will implement final recommendations from the 911 Commission.

Rep. Pete King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, sponsored the bill after a group of Muslim imams filed a lawsuit against U.S. Airways and unknown or “John Doe” passengers after they were removed for suspicious behavior aboard Flight 300 from Minneapolis to Phoenix on Nov. 20 before their removal.

“Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police or law enforcement,” Mr. King said in an interview last night.

“This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists,” Mr. King said.

“I don't see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity,” Mr. King said.

Republicans aides say they will put up a fight with Democrats when the conference committee begins at 1 p.m., to reinsert the language, but that public pressure is also needed.

Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, initially opposed the legislation for fear it would lead to racial profiling.

Iraq a Model of how to persecute Christians in accord with Mohammed's commands

Thank you, President Bush.
This fits the expressed will of Allah and his genocidal prophet:

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter . . . " (Qur'an 5:33).

Perhaps it's not a religion of peace?
Perhaps we should reconsider spending one more drop, one more cent of American blood and treasure on people whose god and prophet command them to kill us.
From here:

Christians in Iraq, including converts from Islam and people involved in mixed-faith marriages, are being crucified by Muslim terrorists according to a Dutch member of Parliament studying the war-torn country.
Several Iraqi Christians "are nailed to a cross and their arms are tied up with ropes. The ropes are put on fire," Joel Voordewind told BosNewsLife, an online news agency focusing on Christians and Jews in difficult circumstances.
According to the site, Voordewind described how a person, who "survived" a crucifixion, "even showed holes in his hands," apparently from nails.
Voordewind said victims of the crucifixions are "in most cases Christian converts who abandoned Islam or people who, religiously speaking, are involved in mixed marriages."
He did not specify how many Christians have been crucified in recent weeks and months, as an official report is expected soon. Voordewind is slated to present his findings to Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Maxime Verhagen within the next few days.
The report comes as thousands of Christians are said to be fleeing Iraq due to ongoing threats and violence against them. Just yesterday, over 80 people were killed in bomb blasts in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk. Most of the casualties resulted from a suicide truck bomb which detonated near the offices of the Kurdish political party led by Iraq's President Jalal Talabani.
BosNewsLife says Voordewind was part of a Dutch delegation visiting several countries in the Mideast, including Syria, where several lawmakers held talks with the terrorist group Hamas.

The West talks and Islam kills. I wonder, which side will win?

Unindicted co-conspirator in terror funding case CAIR promotes misunderstanding of Islam

They're trying to make it seem innocuous.

Of course, rather than address directly the multitudinous Verses of Blood in Islam's "holy" texts, apologists for jihad resort to misdirection, red herrings, and half-truths.

Unfortunately, CAIR's Affad Shaikh, Civil Rights Coordinator, employs (I hope unintentionally) some of the same tactics.

Here's the latest:

Thank you for your reply.

My original question was:

How do you convince jihadists on theological grounds that their following Mohammed's commands to convert non-Muslims, subjugate those who do not convert, [and] kill those who do neither is wrong, immoral, and anachronistic?

It appears that your strategy is to offer an idiosyncratic interpretation of Islamic core texts that ignores the multitude of Qur'anic passages and ahadith requiring the faithful to subjugate and kill non-Muslims for Allah.

How can you convince someone it is wrong to follow Mohammed's example by ignoring Mohammed's example? Or by appealing to one fabricated by excluding whatever is inconvenient in his biography?

As you correctly note, "jihad" means "struggle."

It is curious that you spend many words on use of the term as meaning "inner struggle" and criticize my use of it, but when it comes to its naming offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam, you gloss over that fact with one short phrase.

Offensive warfare against unbelievers is fundamental to nearly fourteen centuries of Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and history. This is so because Mohammed demanded it.

The theology of offensive jihad comes directly from Allah's commands and Muhammad's words and deeds (e.g., Qur'an 9:5, 9:29, and Muslim Book 019, Number 4294). They require the faithful to offer non-Muslims three choices: conversion, subjugation with payment of the jizya, or death.

Additionally, all the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach the necessity for offensive jihad in order to subjugate unbelievers to the tyranny of Allah.

Your criticism of my use of the word "jihadist" is spurious. Of course the word "jihadist" is not used by Islamic scholars; it is an English neologism. But its use is appropriate as it means "a person involved in jihad," where jihad is used in its common sense of "offensive warfare against non-Muslims."

I'll address a few of your comments specifically. You wrote:

Saint Matamoros’s legend is quite a fitting name in the way of dialogue. Definitely brings a lot of cultural baggage to the table.

Almost in an ironic way anachronistic in itself.

If by "cultural baggage" you mean "historical relevance," then, yes. Just as the ancient peoples of the Iberian Peninsula needed to resist and defeat the hordes of Allah in their Reconquista, so today jihad's onslaught must be defeated.

It took Spain nearly eight hundred years to overcome Islam's "inner struggling" within its borders.

Lets look at the term Jihad. Jihad does not work in the fashion you wish to use it in.

An inaccurate assertion, as you admit below. Your definition addresses only one use of the word while ignoring another usage -- the one that has resulted in the enslavement, rape, and slaughter of billions of people.

I use the term in a manner consistent with Islam's "holy" texts:

"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 019, 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 on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do" (Qur'an 8:38, 39).

Was Mohammed commanding that if non-Muslims refuse to convert or submit to Islam that the faithful should seek Allah's help and "struggle inwardly" against them?

Was Allah requiring the faithful to "struggle inwardly" and slay the Pagans wherever they are found?

Was Allah urging Muslims to "struggle inwardly" against those who reject Allah until they submit and feel subdued?

Did Mohammed confess, "I have been ordered to 'struggle inwardly' against the people" until all worship only Allah?

Did Allah mandate "inward struggles" until there prevail faith in Allah altogether and everywhere"?

Your ignoring these texts and their common, traditional, and literal interpretation really hurts your credibility.

You can cite one hadith from a collection not considered traditionally by Muslims among the most reliable, but you are unaware of the Verse of the Sword and its application against non-Muslims until "all religion is for Allah"?

You continued:

If you are trying to engage in a theological “battle” then you should understand the basis from which the theological terms are used and understood in.

I do. You've only mentioned one use of the term jihad, as if that nullifies the "divine" commands for offensive warfare against non-Muslims cited above (and previously).

The onus is on you and other self-professed moderate Muslims to demonstrate that these Islamic texts are fabrications or to be taken figuratively only. At least demonstrate that the major Islamic schools of jurisprudence do not teach the necessity of offensive jihad to establish the rule of Allah.

Jihad means simply to struggle. If its taken with that basic Arabic definition we can place it within the Islamic theological context which is

"Some troops came back from an expedition and went to see the Messenger of Allah. He said: "You have come for the best, from the smaller jihad (al-jihad al-asghar) to the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar)." Someone said, "What is the greater jihad?" He said: "The servant's struggle against his ego (the self, desires, lust)"(mujahadat al-`abdi hawah).

As noted above, that is only one use of the word in a hadith from a collection that is not considered by Muslims to be among the most reliable. It does not establish what you wish it did, that jihad means only or predominantly "inner struggle."

Such sophistry might persuade the stubbornly ignorant and gullible, but how will it convince anyone who reads the core texts?

greater “jihad” (struggle) is against oneself. The use of . . . “jihad” as . . . “military action” is well relegated and specified in the Quran and Sunnah (teachings of the Prophet).

Which is the sense in which I used it: military action according to the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed.

Nearly all of the warfare in which he participated was offensive, not defensive, and since the life of Mohammed is "a beautiful pattern of conduct," it should come as no surprise when those seeking to please Allah imitate his bloodlust.

With that said, to understand and use Jihad the way you are using it is misleading and confusing.

It's actually clarifying and enlightening, as you admit there is a martial application of the term. And since your god and prophet make that application, how can you hope to dissuade your co-religionists from waging (or supporting) jihad against non-Muslims?

Jihadist- complicates the theological discussion in that it doesn’t fit in anywhere in Islamic scholastic dialogue

Obviously, "jihadist" refers to a Muslim involved in jihad. Would you prefer "mujahedin"? Or do they struggle only inwardly too?

it is not understood the way you are using it. If we use- militant fanatics- then yes, we can utilize that far better then jihadist to combat the “militant” ideology espoused by these individuals.

We could just use "devout Muslim obeying Allah's command and imitating Mohammed's example."

You want to use "militant fanatics" because such Newspeak leads non-Muslims and decent Muslims away from the fact that those who engage in jihad do so because Allah and Mohammed demand it. It leads away from the realization that offensive warfare to establish the tyranny of Allah over all mankind is fundamental to Islam.

It distracts reasonable people from the realization that every Muslim is commanded to wage (or support) offensive warfare against non-Muslims to subjugate or kill all who refuse to submit to Allah.

Most Western non-Muslims intuitively recognize this, and every time Muslims kill (or try to kill) in the name of Allah, every time a Muslim "civil rights" organization is named an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism funding case, the more desperately apologists for jihad seek to enforce such abuses of language.

I work to challenge this militant attitude and that is the information I am providing you.

If you will not admit and address what the Islamic texts say about offensive jihad and how they have been understood throughout Islam's history, how can you possibly hope to convince the mujahedin to struggle only inwardly and not against Infidel throats?

Well whose interpretation of commands are you referring to? Jesus says many things, but his followers interpret in all sorts of fashion.

Red herring.

What do the texts say? What from 9:5's context makes "kill the unbelievers" acceptable?

Allah's excusing Mohammed from all obligations to non-Muslims except those who kept their treaties with him (and only until the end of the terms of those agreements) does not negate the commands for Infidel blood. In fact, not slaughtering only those who faithfully submit to Islamic extortion and depredations only reinforces the point that Mohammed was a terrorist and a tyrant.

The exemption in Surah 9 proves the rule. Here is the historical context of Surah 9:

A clear declaration was made that all the treaties with the mushriks were abolished and the Muslims would be released from the treaty obligations with them after a respite of four months.(vv. 1-3). This declaration was necessary for uprooting completely the system of life based on shirk and to make Arabia exclusively the center of Islam so that it should not in any way interfere with the spirit of Islam nor become an internal danger for it.

Ending all treaties so that one might erase the other party's culture is hardly tolerant. And how were they going to do this, by "struggling inwardly" against the unbelievers?

In order to enable the Muslims to extend the influence of Islam outside Arabia, they were enjoined to crush with sword the non- Muslim powers and to force them to accept the sovereignty of the Islamic State. As the great Roman and Iranian Empires were the biggest hindrances in the way, a conflict with them was inevitable. The object of Jihad was not to coerce them to accept Islam they were free to accept or not to accept it-but to prevent them from thrusting forcibly their deviations upon others and the coming generations. The Muslims were enjoined to tolerate their misguidance only to the extent that they might have the freedom to remain misguided, if they chose to be so, provided that they paid Jizyah (v. 29) as a sign of their subjugation to the Islamic State.

Which is in accord with the commands to convert, subjugate and humiliate, or kill non-Muslims.

In order to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the whole non-Muslim world, it was necessary to cure them even of that slight weakness of faith from which they were still suffering. For there could be no greater internal danger to the Islamic Community than the weakness of faith, especially where it was going to engage itself single-handed in a conflict with the whole non-Muslim world. That is why those people who had lagged behind in the Campaign to Tabuk or had shown the least negligence were severely taken to task, and were considered as hypocrites if they had no plausible excuse for not fulfilling that obligation. Moreover, a clear declaration was made that in future the sole criterion of a Muslim's faith shall be the exertions he makes for the uplift of the Word of Allah and the role he plays in the conflict between Islam and kufr. Therefore, if anyone will show any hesitation in sacrificing his life, money, time and energies, his faith shall not be regarded as genuine. (vv. 81-96).

So those who claim the Verse of the Sword was about only one battle are not telling the truth.

You continued:

In the same way Mohammed . . . never taught Muslims to slaughter one another, let alone march millions of Armaniens through the desert displacing them from their homes, treating the children and women and elderly in the most horrendous in human fashion.

Of course Mohammed forbade murdering other Muslims. If only he'd extended the same courtesy toward free non-Muslims!

By the way, I've never seen a Muslim that close to admitting the Armenian genocide.

Whose interpretations do we discuss? Or is there a double standard here? Or is one religion held accountable and another not?

Another red herring. The topic was jihad in Islam.

“convert non-Muslims….”- Basic understanding of the Quran would lead a Muslim to say that there is no compulsion in religion.

2:256 There is no compulsion in religion . . . .

Contrary to that which many non-Muslims hope (and too many Muslims hope they'll believe), none of the verses requiring offensive warfare against non-Muslims contradict 2:256. Mohammed does not say "force them to convert." He says to "invite" non-Muslims to Islam. Sounds great!

But here is where the coercion comes into play: from those who will not convert freely, payment of the jizya is demanded, along with acceptance of submission and humiliation as dhimmis. If that is rejected, then war is the only option left.

In Islam, the community is no different. Unfortunately there are those who are literalist and fundamentalist . . . often times ill educated and simple minded . . . We see that in the Taliban, in al-Qaeda.

Many of the jihadists who make Western headlines are neither poor, ignorant, nor oppressed. They're often well-educated and financially secure (UK doctor jihad, anyone?).

Despite some differences in doctrine and practice, all of the major branches of Islam, all of the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, understand the passages requiring offensive warfare to expand the rule of Allah to be passages requiring offensive warfare to expand the rule of Allah.

They force their brand- or interpretation of Islam on other Muslims.

Numerous passages questioning the sincerity of faith of those who do not aid jihad though they are able give jihadists theological ammunition for their positions.

The question is who represents Islam.

Mohammed does.

He lied, stole, enslaved, raped (including his nine-year-old "wife" Aisha), slaughtered, and taught others to do the same.

And Allah calls him "a beautiful pattern of conduct." That is perverse.

As a Muslim that is not my understanding of Islam nor is it the way I practice.

Then you are out of the mainstream of nearly one and one-half millennia of Islam.

I guess you as an activist are left to figure out who is winning this “battle for Muslim hearts and minds” and the best way to do that is to get to know more Muslims.

That is not my job. Self-identified Muslims may or may not accurately represent the teachings of their prophet.

My task is to tell the truth about nearly fourteen centuries of the most vile atrocities carried out in fulfillment of Allah's commands and in imitation of Mohammed.

I applaud you taking the first step and contacting a Muslim. Do try to find more Muslims who are like minded and willing to step up to the plate, God only knows we have to bring that part of the Muslim community out of hiding and fear.

First step?

How has your argument against the traditional, historical, obvious understanding of offensive jihad worked in convincing mujahedin to lay down their guns, suicide belts, car keys, and box cutters?

Since you oppose offensive jihad against non-Muslims (and those they deem apostates, right?), why do you work for an organization that is an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism funding case, some of whose members have documented ties to terrorists?

How will you modify the (traditional and historical) literal understandings of those verses requiring the faithful to convert, subdue and humiliate, and butcher non-Muslims to make the world Islam, especially since that is what Mohammed taught and practiced?

Looking for God where He is not

"Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1).

Those words were written nearly two thousand years ago, and though most Christians in America will tell you they are "Bible-believing," how many wish for (or manufacture their own) "signs" and "wisdom"?

It is human nature to want something spectacular, dramatic, or unique as evidence of God's reality.

In doing that, we look for God where He is not.

Jesus spoke of a man who found too late that hell is real. That man begged for a warning to be sent to his brothers so that they would avoid the same torment. What was the answer he received? "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if [S]omeone rises from the dead" (Luke 16).

God has chosen to work through (apparently) simple, common means to reveal Himself to us.

One very real but unremarkable flesh-and-bone Man spoke the words of YHWH. He performed the miraculous and committed no sin. He suffered humiliation and death at the hands of evil men. Then He rose from the dead.

God still performs miracles. The only problem for us is, we don't see it.

The Word spoken and read. The Word with the water. The Word in, with, and under the bread and wine, His body and blood.

In Baptism -- the work of God, not of men -- He washes away our sins, gives us faith and the Holy Spirit, makes us His children, and unites us with Christ into His death and resurrection.

Baptism saves, even infants.

And God provides us analogies of His grace in this world He created.

A little, chubby six-month-old wakes up in the middle of the night, eyes shut hard, mouth wide open, arm outstretched, letting out a desperate little wail.

All the time, her papa tenderly carries her to her mother who waits patiently to give her all the nourishment her little tummy one can hold.

Does not God laugh at us?

If you're looking for the miraculous,
If you're looking for the grace of God,
If you want to know that God really is here and that He loves you very much,

You'll find Him in Christ.
You'll find Him in His Word.
You'll find Him in the waters of Baptism and in His Body and Blood.

You'll find Him in your little one crying for a midnight snack.

Justifying Mohammed's raping a nine-year-old child and other atrocities

Here is a rebuttal to an earlier post with my comments.

Note that the author never demonstrates I've misrepresented Allah's commands or Mohammed's words and deeds.

He never approaches my citations of the Islamic scriptures at all except to defend raping a nine-year-old child.

I will respond to your closing . . . “...the one who commanded terror, enslavement, and genocide...the one who lied, stole, enslaved, raped (including a nine-year-old child), and butchered -- and commanded his followers to do the same...”

Were you able to demonstrate that I misrepresented any of the passages I cited?

But first I’d like to say that the “Muslims” who commit those acts, and I quote Muslim because they’re truly just using the faith as a vessel of hate; those people are dictators and tribal regimes, saying they speak for all Muslims is like saying that the KKK speaks for all Christians.

Where have I said that anyone "speaks for all Muslims"?

That statement is a barrel of red herrings because it asserts a moral equivalence between two relationships that do not exist. One must be ignorant of Biblical teachings to believe the latter part of your argument; one must be ignorant of Islam's scriptures (or hope others are!) to assert the former.

As is clear from Islam's core texts, the commands and justifications for genocide, assassination, murder, rape, pedophilia, slavery, stealing, lying, etc., all come from the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed.

The racial hatred and violence espoused by the KKK is diametrical to the words and deeds of Christ.

Neither does one find nominal Christians around the world becoming devout, joining the KKK and killing non-Christians in the name of Christ.

(By the way, dictatorships and tribal regimes do not necessarily preclude the faithful carrying out Jihad. They are not mutually-exclusive.)

clearly against Islam, as are the things you claim Muslims commit.

I claim? That's false. Those exhortations to -- and records of -- evil are straight from Islam's "holy" texts. You cannot dismiss them, and you cannot demonstrate I've misrepresented them.

"There are people in your faith as in mine who claim to be Muslim or a person of the book . . ."

How do you know they are not? Do you have some special integrity detector? Can you see into their hearts? Is it only your personal opinion on which you rely?

You know whether or not a person's life and doctrine are consistent with their god's revealed will by comparing their life and doctrine to . . . their god's revealed will.

For the Christian, that means the Bible. For the Muslim, that means Qur''an, Hadith, and Sira.

Osama Bin Laden is no religious figure in the Muslim world

He is a hero in much of the Muslim world. What major traditional Muslim organization has denounced him by name? Generic renunciations of "all terrorism" (meaning Israel) do not qualify.

the Imams and leaders of the sane Muslim nations denounce terrorism and send their sympathy to whom terrorists have slain.

Just addressed.

I’d also like to send you this passage from the Koran . . . .

Another red herring. It in no way negates the commands for offensive warfare to submit the world to the rule of Allah.

Rape: Premarital sex is prohibited in the Koran . . .

Premarital sex is not [necessarily] rape.

And as you must know, the example of Mohammed is determinative in Islam to the point that even what Mohammed saw and allowed is a foundation of religious doctrine and practice.

Besides that, what did Mohammed do and say? It was his law that spoils of (almost always offensive) war included women. Raping "(a captive) that your right hands possess . . ." (Qur'an 4:3 and 24) was not only acceptable, Mohammed's doing it made it "beautiful."

After slaughtering the men of one tribe, the false prophet took a woman he especially desired for himself:

"...we reached Khaibar; and when Allah enabled him to conquer the Fort (of Khaibar), the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab was described to him. Her husband had been killed while she was a bride. So Allah's Apostle selected her for himself and took her along with him till we reached a place called Sad-AsSahba,' where her menses were over and he took her for his wife..." (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 143).

Do you honestly think she found his butchering of her husband and people attractive?

I’ve lost count of the amount of times people have brought up the prophet Muhammad . . . and his wife Aisha, but I will gladly clear this up for you. . . . people of all color, region, and religion married young wives . . .

You're justifying child rape.

Just to clear this up for you: you're justifying child rape.

Mohammed was in his fifties. According to most ahadith, Aisha was six when they "married." He began raping her when she was nine. (Where's Oprah?)

Who -- other than Muslims -- are allowed (even encouraged, since Allah says Mohammed was a "beautiful pattern of conduct") to rape children? Present one Biblical text allowing sex with nine-year-olds.

This is one more example of the danger to the human mind and soul posed by believing Mohammed was some sort of prophet.

His life and doctrines were perverse, but you defend something much worse than just perversion. Can't you see that? Have you no conscience at all?

. . . and to this day older men marry young wives where the age of consent is low.

Where is the age of consent low? And even if it is, how does that make it right?

People of your book and the jews also married young wives and I believe some were younger than Aisha

Prove it. Citations.

What kind of monster would even consider sex with a nine-year-old? And you want to justify it by saying others go for younger children? How much younger? Pre-natal?

Do you realize what you're doing? You're justifying child rape. You're sick.

I can’t see as something wrong

Disgusting.

it was common during those times.

Among savages, monsters, and pedophiles.

And how do you justify Allah's "ordaining" it?

When Muhammad . . . married Aisha, what would stop him from having intercourse with her?

There is one fact you seem to have neglected: SHE WAS A CHILD.

During the Mosaic Law girls younger than Aisha were being forced into marriage

Citations, please. Demonstrate from the Biblical texts that it was commanded or allowed.

Just because an act is recorded to have happened doesn't mean that it is good or permissible except in Islam, since whatever the pedophile prophet did is a "beautiful pattern of conduct" for the faithful.

and fathers even sold their daughters into slavery.

Again, demonstrate from the Biblical texts that selling one's daughter into sexual slavery was commanded or allowed.

This is another tu quoque and red herring, since the topic was what your god and prophet require. So far you've only confirmed Mohammed was a sexual predator, murderer, and pedophile.

Don’t point fingers unless your hands are clean, because you’re bringing up something which was accepted during those times and is still practiced in some areas. Not to mention it was also done by people of your faith.

Because the scum of the earth like Mohammed raped children, my hands are dirty? That is nonsense and false. You need to apologize.

What bearing does my faith have on what your god and pedophile demand, which was the topic of my comments? Even if someone who self-identifies as "Christian" commits such a crime, that doesn't make his wickedness and depravity acceptable or good.

Demonstrate from the Bible where YHWH ordained child rape as Allah did for Mohammed.

But what are you saying Muhammad . . . lied about or stole?

I am saying what your "holy" texts say:

"War is deceit" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).

"Allah's Apostle said, 'Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?' Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, 'O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?' The Prophet said, 'Yes,' Muhammad bin Maslama said, 'Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).' The Prophet said, 'You may say it' (Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369).

"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah" (Qur'an 3:28).

"he killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims . . . " (Muslim Book 019, Number 4363-4366).

Continued . . .

your Bible doesn’t say [Jesus] was perfect either I believe.

If you have no idea what the Bible teaches, why would you offer any opinion at all?

Here is one of many verses describing Christ as without sin: "God had Christ, who was sinless, take our sin so that we might receive God's approval through him" (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Come to think of it, in your bible the only person mentioned as being free of sin was [Abraham]?

No, Abraham sinned also. You've not read the Bible at all, have you?

Find out for yourself what the texts say, as I have. Every quotation of Islamic "sacred" texts I've given demonstrating the hellishness of Allah and his apostle has been from . . . Islamic "sacred" texts.

The prophets Muhammad and Isa however were great individuals and their lives could be a model for anyone to live their lives by.

That's blasphemous and shamefully false.

Jesus committed no sin, healed the sick, raised the dead, spoke the words of YHWH, died for the sins of the whole world, and rose from the dead Himself.

Mohammed lied, stole, enslaved, raped, slaughtered, and taught others to do the same.

That you would claim any sort of moral equivalence between them is inexplicable apart from complete ignorance of both religions' scriptures [or the deadening of tour.

And also, how could one worship Isa when he himself doesn’t claim to be Allah[God]?

First, Jesus never claimed to be Allah, the deity of Islam.

Second, the name with which YHWH revealed Himself to Moses -- "I AM!" -- Jesus claimed as His own: "Jesus told them, "I can guarantee this truth: Before Abraham was ever born, I AM" (John 8:58).

""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone." (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)

It was a rhetorical question to make a point to someone who had yet to realize that he was addressing God Incarnate.

That you so carelessly mishandle Biblical texts demonstrates you've done none of your own study.

From where did you get that non-answer, a site for convincing Muslims ignorant of the Bible, or a site for convincing Western non-Muslims ignorant of it?

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. (From the NIV Bible, Mark 12:29)

"One God" has been Christian doctrine since Christ. That this God is revealed in three persons -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- is also Biblical.

Here are some passages your resource probably didn't share with you:

In the beginning the Word [Logos, Christ] already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was already with God in the beginning.

Everything came into existence through him. Not one thing that exists was made without him.

He was the source of life, and that life was the light for humanity.

. . . He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him. Yet, the world didn't recognize him.

. . . The Word became human and lived among us. We saw his glory. It was the glory that the Father shares with his only Son, a glory full of kindness and truth" (John 1).

and,

They asked him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly."

Jesus answered them, "I've told you, but you don't believe me. The things that I do in my Father's name testify on my behalf.

However, you don't believe because you're not my sheep. My sheep respond to my voice, and I know who they are. They follow me, and I give them eternal life. They will never be lost, and no one will tear them away from me. My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than everyone else, and no one can tear them away from my Father.

The Father and I are one" (John 10).

Here comes the tried and true . . .

Both your Bible and my noble Koran claim God is one and one alone.

Jesus said He is the Son of God: "Then all of them said, "So you're the Son of God?" Jesus answered them, "You're right to say that I AM" (Luke 22).

Mohammed said:

"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)!

So, your Mohammed calls Christ a "blasphemer," "cursed," and "deluded." Mohammed is the enemy of Christ.

Professor Shahul Hameed said it better than I will ever be able to concerning this situation:

“As is borne out by this command of God in the Qur’an, Muslims must believe in all the prophets of God previously sent to humanity. This means that they are not permitted to show any disrespect to any prophet or to the religion he taught to his followers. To a Muslim, religious belief must come out of a person’s free choice, as God has also commanded not to use any kind of coercion in the matter of religion”

You can quote your professor. But your god and prophet say:

"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 019, 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).

"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 on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do" (Qur'an 8:38, 39).

"O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him" (Qur'an 9:123).

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not" (Qur'an 2:216).

"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).

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly" (Qur'an 8:60).

And as for respecting other religions, what part of "fight . . . until all religion is for Allah . . . ," is respectful? Does "Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures" (Qur'an 98:6) sound like tolerance?

Whom will you believe, your professor or Allah's apostle?

And I’m asking you to read this article: http://www.islamonline.net/english/introducingislam/tolerance/article04.shtml

Does it negate Mohammed's confessions to slaughter, rape, and terror? Any pretense of Islamic tolerance is shattered by your prophet's own words.

Until you deal with that, you endanger your own soul and the souls of all with whom you have influence. You are part of the problem.

As you said the passage I sent you was meant for a specific people and them alone, the passages you’re quoting are also for specific times. The word “Jihad” is also too often misused, Allah almighty doesn’t command Muslims to kill non-Muslims for no reason . . . .

That is patently false, as the numerous Islamic texts cited (again) above demonstrate conclusively.

I've presented "divine" commands regarding a number of topics repugnant to decent people, including those for offensive warfare to make the world Islam. You've done nothing to demonstrate that I've erred with even one passage. The passages you've provided do not address that topic at all. You would have done as well to quote an automotive repair manual.

If you want to claim something like, "Well, there's contradictions here just like in your Bible," I would say two things: First, there are not contradictions in the Bible (if you say there are, prove it); Second, the contradictions in Qur'an are resolved by the Doctrine of Abrogation (naskh), which is why earlier passages requiring or allowing cooperation with non-Muslims were abrogated in favor of the many Passages of Blood.

I've been talking to a scholar recently and he made me realize my time would be better spent studying the Koran, Muslim history, and other Muslim literature.

He's trying to recruit you to jihad. Beware.

You ought to spend your time reading the Gospels. There you will learn of the God you seek. He's seeking you.

I'd be happy to answer you.

That is generous of you, but you've not yet answered one of my points regarding jihad.

debating this with you I walk a thin line with sin.

You defend child rape and genocide, and talking to me flirts with sin?

Perhaps he's afraid you'll realize what a corrupt ideology you've adopted.

I am in no position, as I am no scholar, to debate this with you

So it seems.

you're in no position either.

Was it my taking Biblical verses out-of-context to justify a doctrine that no Christian has ever held? Was it avoiding-at-all-costs addressing numerous verses of blood and brutality? Was it my use of false tu quoque arguments and moral equivalences?

No, all of that was you.

send me your rebuttal, I will read it but will not be able to answer.

You have yet to answer my first one.