Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Islamic propaganda on Blu-ray and in 3D

Hello, Martin,

I am a fan of yours. I always appreciate your reviews; of all the critics here, your tastes match mine most closely.

I'm writing tonight in response to your review of Arabia 3D, specifically the characterization of Arabia and its role in the world, especially with regard to Islam.

As someone familiar with Islamic history and theology, it is clear that this BD is best described as propaganda in service to fourteen hundred years of Islamic slavery and slaughter.

Muhammad was a genocidal pedophile, a vicious warlord. When he managed to recruit enough followers to conquer his neighboring tribes, he did, until he possessed most of Arabia. At that point, the only options left to pagans was conversion or death; the "People of the Book" -- Jews and Christians, mainly -- had a third option: Slavery as dhimmis.

The much-touted "golden age" of Islam was golden only to Muslim males, as jihad and shari'a (Islamic law) require the rape, enslavement, and murder of all non-Muslims who refuse the "invitation" to convert and makes Muslim women (and little girls) nothing more than sex slaves, chattel to be used and abused at the whim of their "husbands."

As for the often-claimed-but-rarely-substantiated "scientific advancements" under Islam? Any genuine discoveries were stolen from the non-Muslims suffering under Islamic rule or from the Greeks, whose cultural legacy was stolen by Islam's armies as they raped and decapitated their civilization. (For example: our "Arabic" numerals? Stolen from Hindus, seventy to eighty million of whom were butchered by Muslim armies.)

I know that you are a fair and decent man, and my comments here must be revolting, but every one is true. Please investigate for yourself. Google "Asma bint Marwan" to see what Muhammad had done to a poetess who mocked him. Research 'Aisha, Muhammad's favorite "wife." She was only six when the monster "married" her (he was in his fifties), and a prepubescent nine when he began raping her.

And here's a little something that goes a long way toward explaining the causes of the "conflict in the Middle East":
"Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews" (Muslim Book 41, Number 6985).

Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (Qur'an 5:82).

"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).

"Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil; these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path" (Qur'an 5:60)!

"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)."


Thursday, December 01, 2011

The Church had the full benefit of its sacred texts in the first century

A complete Isaiah, c. 100 B.C. - 50 A.D.
From here:
Hello, Ard,

You claimed that Christianity lived on "oral cultures for the better part of a century without the full benefit 'of its sacred texts' and for centuries without either an Old Testament or New Testament canon."

That's simply not true.

You admit that the early Church had the Septuagint and the writings of the Apostles, the documents that form Christendom's canons (plural, which I'll discuss later). That was during the lifetime of the Apostles. Unless they lived for "centuries" and didn't compose their Gospels and Epistles until the ends of their lives, the Church had the "full benefit" of its sacred texts in the first century.

A few examples:
-Galatians was authored c. 51-53 a.D. That's less than two decades after Christ's ascension, not "the better part of a century."

-Papias referred c. 125 to the Gospel of John (c. 90). That's less than one century after Christ's earthly ministry, not "centuries."

-The last document to be received by the Church was John's Revelation, c. a.D. 95. That's less than six decades after Christ's death and resurrection. (And the reason that it came so late is because John did not receive it until then).
Since you're focusing on "canon" as in some grand poobah/council declaring something official (are you repeating the Muslim lie regarding Nicaea?), then it's clear that you misunderstand the term. "Canon" simply means "measure" or "rule." If it's something official you want, then the Church had -- and has -- no "canon." Luther struggled with James (and a few other books). In reaction to Luther's rearranging of the apocryphal books as an appendix in his translation, the Church of Rome declared certain texts "canonical" which even Jerome, the translator of its official Bible, considered less-than-inspired. And what of the rest of Christendom?

There is no one, official "Canon" (though there's a lot of overlap). Depending on whom you ask (Roman Catholics, Protestants, Greek Orthodox, Slavic Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, or Ethiopian Orthodox?), you'll get varying canons. Does that mean that the Church has gone two thousand years "without the full benefit 'of its sacred texts' and [. . .] without either an Old Testament or New Testament canon"?

One last point: Considering that the Apostles used the Septuagint and many of the "reformers" were actually "deformers" [heretics], it seems to me that Reformation-era opinion is, for the most part, irrelevant.