(Bukhari Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794): Narrated Anas:Hello, Mohamed.
Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die.
I've had a lot of time to think over what I might have done wrong in order for you to forbid my posting at your site and to delete my comments quoting your allah and its prophet.
If what I was saying was false or in error or just plain nonsense, that should have been easy to demonstrate. You could have left up my words and your refutations of them in order to shame me publicly into perpetuity.
But you didn't. Why not?
It's a little ironic, isn't it? I disallowed Underclassed's comments for gratuitously and undeservedly insulting Reb and for his virulent use of profanity-as-argumentation, but you ban me for . . . telling the truth?
What does that say about you, Mohamed? Your arguments? Your god? Your prophet?
I have a question about Muhammad the Physician: Since he prescribed drinking camel urine for medicinal purposes, do you also drink camel urine (when the climate doesn't suit you, that is. We mustn't take anything out-of-context!)?
If not, how can you defend him as the Perfect Man, as Allah's "beautiful pattern of conduct"?
If you do, will you argue that camel urine used to provide a health benefit, but that only Muslims, and not other civilizations, noticed?
Will you argue -- as you did for Muhammad's raping little, prepubescent Aisha beginning when she was only nine-years-old -- that that camel liked it?
Or will you argue that infidel science has yet to determine the salutary effects of that magic elixir?
As far as convincing proofs go, Jesus did not turn clay into doves; that is an apocryphal story, not historical fact (as in the canonical books).
But if He had, Jesus would not have needed "the help of God," as if He were not God Incarnate Himself, which is your implication, is it not?
Finally, since Christ spoke only the truth, committed no sin, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world (including you and me) -- and Himself resurrected and appeared to hundreds of eyewitnesses on many occasions over 40 days -- why do you not believe Him?
Instead you defend as "holy" Muhammad, who blasphemed the Living God you claim to worship, lied, stole, destroyed, enslaved, raped, mutilated, and slaughtered gratuitously. You defend all of it as "divine," going so far as to assert as scientific fact incidents that no one in the world ever witnessed.
What is it about Muhammad that convinces you to believe him? Is it the deceit? The genocide? The torture, The mutilation?
Is it his having assassinated poetesses while they nursed? His beheading prisoners of war? His murdering apostates?
Is it his anti-Semitism? His hatred for Christians? Animists? Hindus?
Is it the sex slaves? The rape?
Is it the Allah-ordained pedophilia that moves you so?
Friday, October 23, 2009
Will he argue -- as he did for Muhammad's raping little, prepubescent Aisha beginning when she was only nine-years-old -- that that camel liked it?
Posted at a patriot's site: