Showing posts with label False Muslim civility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label False Muslim civility. Show all posts

Thursday, February 3

Muslims beheading the Left's fantasies about Islam, one journalist at a time

What, if anything, have our "unbiased observers," our professional opinion makers, learned from their experiences up-close-and-personal with Islam? Expecting masses grateful for Obama and the Left's shared hatred of Western Civilization enlightened multiculturalism and support for implementing shari'a their "democracy," what did they find?

Anderson Cooper punched in the head ten times. Christiane Amanpour threatened repeatedly by a man clearly barely able to restrain his rage (I've seen that face of Muslim civility before; he would have snapped if not for his friend's restraining him). Katie Couric "menaced" and shoved. An ABC News team nearly beheaded. A Fox News team "beaten severely."

Will they blame Islam, which inculcates both a deep and abiding hatred for all things non-Muslim and an autonomic resorting to threats and violence?  Or will they continue repeating the Big Lie, blaming instead Mubarak, poverty, President Bush, America, or the Jews?

And do you think that Anderson Cooper's noticed yet the stark contrast between the completely peaceful, respectful, and restrained protests of American patriots and the rage of the Muslim street? Will he apologize for his ridiculous and disgusting name-calling and begin to investigate just why the "Arab" world is on fire?

Wednesday, September 29

Math even an "academic" can do

A few lines in response to Timothy Behrend, a Muslim attacking those who rape, maim, and slaughter in Allah's name.  No, scratch that. He's attacking the Biblical God.

From here:
(Notice, dear readers, that Timmy isn't dealing with you honestly. He thinks you're idiots. Rather than address forthrightly the jihad ideology and its Source and Sustenance -- the command of Allah and the example of Muhammad -- he's deflecting, making a false moral equivalence between YHWH and Muhammad, and by implication, a false moral equivalence between Jews/Christians and his coreligionists, which is itself an admission of their depravity. Thanks, for helping out, Timmy!)

Are ancient Hebrews blowing up innocent Gentiles to shouts of "YHWH is great!"? Trying to equate the God of the Bible with your fellow Muslims . . . is that supposed to elevate Muslims, denigrate YHWH, or shame us into silence? (How sad.)

The God of Abraham is the God of Moses. The difference between the Exodus/Canaan and jihad is that the Creator of the universe has a right to punish sin and to preserve His people in anticipation of the coming Savior of all. The God of Moses is not a genocidal, pedophilic warlord promising fellow degenerates a cosmic brothel with perpetual virgins and "boys like pearls" if they kill or are killed fighting to expand his empire. The God of Moses is the one Who gave humanity the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, not the one who "sacralized" their violation. He is the One Who became flesh, committed no sin, spoke only the truth, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the sins of the whole world, and resurrected, commanding His people to love even their enemies. He is not the one who made a sex slave out of a little, prepubescent nine-year-old girl and claimed, "Allah made me do it."

One God gave His life to give heaven to all; one god gives heaven to those who take others' lives. The God Who punished sin by taking the firstborn of Egypt paid for the sins of all by giving up His One and Only Son. Even an "academic" can do that math, Tim.

You hoped that we would confuse the means for the end by focusing on your coreligionists' auto-detonating, not on the reason for their slaughtering non-Muslims, whatever the tactic. Of course, when Muslim armies are stronger, they use more conventional weapons of war. Terrorism is not the issue -- jihad is.

But of course, you knew that.

Sunday, July 26

When someone's "deep belief-structure" includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of Muhammad, how can anyone tell the truth?

A few thoughts for all free men to consider:
the abrupt wording Mr "A" has chosen has apparently violated the sensitive nature and deep belief-structure of my friend Mohamed Fadly
Ironically, out of Christian concern for Mohamed, my "abrupt wording" is actually toned-down.

But this is where every honest examination of Islam's "sacred" texts -- the written records of Allah's commands and the words and deeds of Muhammad -- always lead, since Mr. Fadly's "deep belief-structure" includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of Muhammad.

When that's the case, how can anyone tell the truth?

In my last post on why a woman must cover up under Islam, the only adjectives I used about Muhammad were "paranoid" and "jealous."

Do those two words compare at all in harm to the actual rape, brutality, and degradation women and little girls suffered at Muhammad's own hands (and other body parts) and [in accord with his example] emulated by devout Muslim men for fourteen hundred years?

If anyone, including Mohamed, can demonstrate where I've written something false, I will retract it.

Mr. Fadly's reaction is nothing new personally for him (or among Muslims in general), and so adds to this discussion by providing some insight into the attitudes and thought processes Muhammad's words and example shape in his followers:
Once ascendant, when Allah's apostle heard someone say something he didn't like, he had them killed (the poetess Asma bint Marwan opposed Muhammad, so he had her murdered. At least her killer set her nursing baby aside before he ran her through).

The same sort of death-for-criticizing-Muhammad has been carried out against non-Muslims for 1400 years (see the Pact of Umar and modern blasphemy/Qur'an-desecration laws for two vivid examples . . . .).

Today, those faithful Muslims who find themselves in a position of strength in a society (lands in which some form of shari'a dominates) do the same thing: Behead someone here, burn down something there.

Those who are not in the dominant position in their host country (most Western nations) resort to -- besides violence -- name-calling, law suits, and playing the victim.

Sometimes they shoot nuns over cartoons.

[Or imprison teachers over teddy bears.]
If Muhammad beheaded 700-900 Jews who had surrendered to him, is it improper to call him a "butcher" (or worse)?

If Muhammad began raping little Aisha when she was nine -- at Allah's ordaining! -- is it rude to say so?

Is it moral to speak "nicely" about such depravity?

I agree that my presentation can be forceful at times, but is it ever inaccurate, disproportionate to the evil under discussion, or false?

This is another form of blaming the victim, of demonizing those who tell the truth about Muhammad.

Here's conclusive proof of that: Has Mr. Fadly denounced any of his god and prophet's commands to enslave, rape, and slaughter those who refuse the "invitation" to Islam?

If not, why not?

Is the problem, then, the style of my presentation, or its substance?

My tone, or Mr. Fadly's integrity?
Update: Two Observations from Mr. Reb:
(A) Because Mr Amillennialist's wording has given us his clear and unequivocal response to Mohamed's contentions, I feel it would be both inappropriate and unwise for this referee to say anything...

(B) Mr "A"s words literally jumped off the page (7/25/09) and presents a serious challenge for his opponent. Therefore, I choose to remain neutral...

1. "Mr. Fadly's 'deep belief structure' includes an absolute prohibition of criticism of (prophet) Muhammad...when that is the case, how can anyone tell the truth?"

2. "If anyone, including Mohamed, can demonstrate where I've written something false, I will retract it."

Wednesday, July 15

Profanity only adds to the impression of obvious Muslim tolerance and erudition

From bignasxl, also concerned about the volatile combination of my ability to read at grade-level and my possession of Islamic texts.

Once infidels start reading, they start getting ideas, they start thinking for themselves. Who knows where the madness will end?

Someone might . . . tell the truth?
i quote you mad? Well i guess you are mad and thats why you spoke about the quran which you have no knowledge of.In particular about killing non muslims as that was only done in war asshole.No real muslim can go aroung killing kafirs just because they arrenot us...Are you insane?Oh yead you did say the statement your mad
Blame Muhammad, not me. Those are his words, not mine.

You sound like a reasonable and rational Muslim, bignasxl. Not at all intolerant or prone to irrational and violent outbursts, which is itself just an ugly stereotype propagated by the Zionist-controlled media. No basis in fact at all, at all.

Profanity only adds to the impression of your obvious tolerance and erudition.

You claim again that I do not know Qur'an. As I stated in my last note to you, it should be easy to point out my error. Why don't you?

One fact you may have missed in your years of careful exploration of the Islamic texts is that even if the killing is "only done in war asshole," Islam is in a state of permanent war against against the non-Muslim world "until all religion is for Allah." You remember that verse, right?

I know that only the caliph can call for offensive jihad, but since even "unbelief" is considered a crime against Allah and an oppression of Muslims ("mischief" anyone?), guess what? You've got your justification for "war asshole"!

Surely, even you can read your own prophet's commands to slaughter those who refuse the "invitation" to Islam and to paying jizya.

The least you can do is be honest about it.

(By the way, you wrote "mad" when you meant "made." I was quoting you.)

Thursday, July 9

How does one reconcile Islam and Christianity?

A former apparently-moderate Muslim hissed once in a fit of Islamic rage that his wife was a Muslim and a Christian.

This woman sounds as though she chose the confusion directly, and not through marriage:
". . . she is a Muslim and a Christian. . . She made the comment that she didn't want to try and resolve the differences between the two theologies, then stated she wants to found an institute to study them."
Here's the resolution . . .

Muhammad said:
"In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. . ." (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 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)!
But Jesus said, "Before Abraham was born, I AM!"
So, Muhammad calls the Son of God a "blasphemer."

In other words, there is no way to make peace between the two.

I just saved her (and perhaps taxpayers) millions of dollars.

Tuesday, July 7

Shari'a in Dearborn, Michigan

Know your place, dhimmi, or else.

This is what happens once Muslims in a region reach critical mass. As bad as this is, it is nothing compared to what occurs in proto-shari'a states like the UK and France and every Muslim Hell-hole you can name.

What will the Abd-in-Chief say about this? He hasn't defended his "fellow" citizens' unalienable Rights to Freedom of Speech and Assembly in Dearborn, allowing Muslim terrorists and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis there to relegate a Christian group to an out-of-the-way corner in order to appease Islamic sensibilities -- and to soothe their fear of a free exchange of ideas.

If Islam is so great, why do Muslims fear open criticism of Muhammad? Other Muslims' hearing the Gospel?

If Obama defends the Islamic tyrants who murder their own people -- including Neda Soltani, another Christian victim of Islam -- what will he do for these Americans attacked on American soil? Sic Eric Holder on them? Order an audit?


Monday, March 2

More Muslim moral inversion

In response to comments here:
"you don't leave a predator with the prey surrounding it and expect that nothing would happen."
The predator is Islam, the prey Israel.
"There is no such thing as antisemitism infusing Islam. That you still insist on this baseless argument after my previous reply implies that either you didn't went through my replies or else are blind to rational thought."
Or, I can read, think for myself, and tell the truth.

What about:
"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).
That's funny. I quote Allah and Mohammed's murderous tirades against Jews (and other non-Muslims), but you say I don't read or reason.
"If you are so insistent on badmouthing Islam and Muslims"
I insist on telling the truth to save lives in this world and souls for the world to come. If telling the truth is "badmouthing Islam and Muslims," then what does that say about what you defend?
"history reveals that the Jews from the time of Prophet Muhammad lived peacefully with Muslims until the time they went back on the treaties they had with Muslims of the time."
No, turning the pages of Qur'an, ahadith, and Sira show that Mohammed coexisted with Jews until they rejected his false revelation and he had the martial force to make them pay.

Have you not read your own texts?
"It is also a fact that the Jewish scriptures don't even accept Christianity or Islam as being valid religions when both Islam and Christianity validate Moses as a Prophet. Which is the religion here which is deliberately creating differences?"
Does that line of "reasoning" actually work on anyone?

The Jewish Scriptures are the Christian Scriptures. Jesus is a Jew. The Apostles were all Jews. The first Christians were Jews. Traditional Christian worship still maintains elements of its ancient Hebrew/Jewish roots.

The religion causing problems is the one that commands its adherents to enslave or slaughter all who refuse to convert:
"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).
Please, tell the truth.
"You talk about the Turks and their predecessors. Tell me; is the land Israel occupies only significant to Jews?"
Non sequitur. The fact that the Turks possessed the area for centuries before the West crushed the caliphate was mentioned only to point out that the victor had the right to do with the land as it wished. Israel did not invade and occupy, Islam was humiliated and the land dealt with as the victors [chose].
"The sites are equivalently important to Christians and Muslims"
False. The land only became significant to Muslims after modern Israel was formed. Before that, it was a arid wasteland.

But to a Muslim, once part of Dar al-Islam, always part of Dar al-Islam, right?
"but Israel wants to systematically deny Muslims any right to the holy sites."
More falsehood. Considering there is a mosque where the Temple used to stand, who is denying whom?
"Who really is propagating the hatred here? It is pretty obvious who wants a perpetual cycle of hate here."
Yes, that would be Mohammed and his allah:
"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).

"It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 8:67).
[Asad continues:]
"My analogy is not flawed. Your arguments are based on false presumptions."
I quote Allah, Mohammed, and historical fact, all of which make Islam and Muslims look hellish, so you don't like it.

It's a whole lot easier to tell the truth. The pain is temporary, the benefits eternal.
"Who exactly is supposed to pay penance for crimes against another entity? Is it the perpetrator of the crime or some totally unrelated entity. The genocide of Jews was committed by Europe and Hitler, not Muslims or Arabs in particular."
Again with the Hitler/European Guilt. As I mentioned before, Islam has been committing genocide against Jews, Africans, Europeans, and Asians for more than a millennium.
"Is it that Israel cannot face off against Europe and wants to subjugate Muslims of Middle East in an attempt to get same misdirected sense of revenge?"
That doesn't even make sense. Considering Europe's cowardice and Muslim bloodlust, it looks like Israel will be facing off against two continents soon.

I implore you to be honest. Rather than serve a god which offers you Paradise for killing for it, turn to the Son of God Who loved you and gave His life for your sins.

What does it mean when one names himself proudly after a genocidal butcher and homosexual, pedophilic rapist?

It means you've got a Muslim, since Allah calls the monster Mohammed a "beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please" him (Qur'an 33:21).

Yes, that warning screaming in your head is telling you the truth. Listen to it. Don't suppress it. And don't blame me. Yes, a Muslim who wants to please Allah should slaughter, rape (including little girls as young as nine), enslave, lie, steal, and teach others to do the same and call it "divine."

Not too long ago I found a review of a game dealing with a conflict in the Middle East (also known as the jihad against Israel) here. I left a comment wondering if the game touches on the Source and Sustenance of Islamic bloodlust against our only ally in the region.

A comment from one calling himself Mehmed II appeared asking:
İs it here the right place to make comments about political sitıations?

or

write reviews about games, which will be played by all the people from all religions?
Here is my reply:
Mehmed,

You name yourself after the perverted butcher and boy-rapist who sacked Constantinople in 1453. That's the kind of class I expect from a Muslim.

Nice touch. You really get a kick out of insulting non-Muslims when they don't know it, don't you?

As to your question, until people of one religion stop slaughtering members of other religions at their god and prophet's command, games like this will be made.
On Mehmed II and the fall of Constantinople:
"Thousands of civilians were enslaved, soldiers fought over young boys and young women . . . the invaders broke the heads of those women who resisted on the floor of the churches and they raped them dead. The famous icon of Apostole Loukas was totally destroyed.

"The sultan asked for the young sons of Duke Loukas Notaras. Their father refused and Mehmed was ready to take their heads. Notaras asked him to kill him after his sons so that he was sure that they were dead and not disgraced from the . . . sultan.

"And this is what happened."

Sunday, February 15

Muslims deny the Holocaust except when they want to have another one

In the ongoing effort to deceive people of good will into remaining inert while the world burns and the New Holocaust begins, devout Muslims use a number of semantic games when discussing jihad and Jews. Though Muslims in the West seem less reticent to hide their true feelings ("Kill the Jews," calls for bigger ovens, and actual violence defile cities in the West now, even in America), many still hide their true sentiments. One of the terms I've seen used in this blood game -- one recently popular with Islam's Useful Idiots among the Radical Left -- is "anti-Zionism."

I suppose their thinking is that too many people will object to obvious calls for killing or otherwise harming Jews, but if you cloak anti-Semitic bloodlust in the language of politics, that's nothing to get upset about, right?

I discovered here Islamic anti-Semitism wrapped up in this deceptive language. Following are excerpts of the author's original post, his follow-ups, and my responses. As you read through you'll note Mr. Asif's healthy doses of logical fallacies, half-truths, outright falsehoods, and misrepresentations of Islam.

In my original comments, I gave the author the benefit of the doubt -- perhaps he was a victim of years of Islamic propaganda. Based on his further comments, it appears rather that he is a practitioner of it.

Subtle Muslim misdirection and rabid Islamic anti-Semitism cloaked in anti-Zionist's clothing, from Asad Asif, freshly dissected:
Israel has been an arrogant little child crying wolf over the last few years. There was the attack on Lebanon some time back and now there has been an attack on Palestine. Both attacks were marked by an overt and disproportionate use of force and an over the top response vis-a-vis the killing of children and women by Israel, apart from the number of deaths involved on both sides.
Who is responsible for the deaths of Muslim innocents? What the author fails to note is that in both cases, Israel was responding to months and years of terrorist attacks against its own women, children, and men, its innocent civilians suffering rocket attacks, suicide bombings, shooting sprees, and bulldozers crushing mothers in their cars with their babies in the back seat.

Neither does the author address the fact that Islam's monsters fire at Israelis from among their own women and children so that when Israelis respond, Arab women and children get hurt. As if that isn't enough, the "Palestinians" stage faux-atrocities for Western consumption, all of it cynical propaganda. (How sick are these worms that in order to kill Jews, they sacrifice their own women and children? If a Muslim wants to argue that it is not Jew-hatred, but love of Allah, that motivates them, then that only proves that their god and apostle come straight from the pit of Hell.)

As for Israel's "overt, disproportionate, and over the top" response, apparently the author would prefer that Israel launch a secret non-response. If it were Muslims who possessed the military advantage over Israel, is there any doubt about what would be Israel's fate?

To an obedient Muslim, the only thing worse than a Jew is a Jew who fights back.
I am not stating here that Israel is the only party to be blamed but the minimal response potential of both targets of Israel is not a winning argument in Israel's favor. The settlements in Palestinian lands annexed by Israel were a deliberate provocation and puts the residents of those settlements at risk. It's as if one knows that an area is prone to severe earthquakes and still makes sky scrapers on that land and then selling it off as being a safe place. This kind of provocation is designed to get a response and Israel is no stranger to crying wolf. Only a fool would be lured by this again and again.
Here is more evidence of the author's lack of both basic moral decency and historical literacy. Israel isn't to be blamed. They are not targeting innocents; their enemies are. Land that Israel has taken over the years came into their possession because their Muslim enemies waged war against them repeatedly and were humiliated each time. This land Israel has been returning to its enemies in the suicidal hope that land will buy peace.

Words like "crying wolf" and "fool" are only attempts to shame into silence those who would state basic truth.
Hamas' rockets definitely didn't kill as many Israelis compared to how many Palestinians were killed by Israel. Some would rightly call it a genocide; ironic considering that Jews themselves faced a genocide at the hands of Hitler. Is it a psychotic dysfunction that has Israel blaming the Palestinians and Arabs, by extension, for the Jewish genocide and consequently committing a counter genocide? Lest Israelis are forgetting, they were persecuted by Europeans. And Hitler certainly wasn't a Muslim!
No, but he wished he were, and all of Germany, too. (Considering impending Eurabia, perhaps his dream will be realized.)

If Israel kills more Muslims in self-defense than Muslims kill Israelis in service to Allah, then that only demonstrates the stupidity of those seeking paradise by killing or being killed for their false god.

As for "genocide," this is a typical case of Muslims attributing to their victims that of which they are guilty. Genocide is what Allah, Mohammed, and Hamas demand: All those who refuse conversion or slavery are to be slaughtered without mercy.

There's also a glaring bit of Islamic Illogic here: The Jews possess overwhelming military might so that anything they do in self-defense is "disproportionate," and they are committing genocide against the "Palestinians," but only a relatively small number of terrorists and their human-shields have died. You can't have it both ways.

With regard to Hitler, he lamented the fact that Germany had been a Christian nation. Hitler believed that under Islam, his dreams of domination would have been fulfilled. As noted by Winston Churchill, Geert Wilders, and any honest person familiar with Mein Kampf and the Islamic authoritative texts, comparisons between Hitler and Mohammed's texts and ideologies are appropriate.

To be fair, Hitler never claimed "the devil made me do it," as did Mohammed. Neither was he as "successful" as the prophet from Hell.
It's no wonder that Israel is hated so much by the Muslim world. Take note of the use of the word "Israel" and not "Jews". Muslims don't really have that much of a beef with Jews. After all, according to Islamic scriptures, Jews, Christians and Muslims are folloowers of the the three religions of the Books. There are Jews in Iran; plenty of them but they aren't hated, unlike the Jews in Israel. The same is true for the most part, for Jewish communities in America and elsewhere. The oppression created by Israel is a major cause for the hate against it.
Again, Muslims hate Israel because -- according to Mohammed -- Allah commands them to do so. Additionally, since Mohammed is the "ideal man," a "beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please" their god -- and he butchered Jews with glee, slaughtering hundreds of prisoners of war in a day, then raping those whose husbands, fathers, and brothers he'd just beheaded -- Muslims also must hate Jews. Also an offense to Islam is the fact that since Israel is a non-Muslim state on land that had been conquered by Allah's minions, its very existence is an insult. Finally, as noted above, Muslims hate those who defend themselves against Allah's tyranny.
Unfortunately, America's unending support for Israeli oppression results in America being tarred with the same brush as Israelis.
So, Muslims hate America because of Israel?

This is a common Muslim (and now, Leftist) deceit. When American ships and sailors were attacked, captured, enslaved, and slaughtered by the Barbary Pirates, was that because of our support for an Israel which would not exist for another 150 years?
That is unfortunate and unfair but the reasoning for it is understandable. Supporting a wrong incriminates you with being a a part of the wrong itself.
So, Israel's existence is a wrong? Sounds just like Hamas.
the "Change" Obama promised will certainly not be applicable in this instance unless the American public opts for looking after their own interests rather than those of Israel's which is earning them global dislike. That's a thing that has been long overdue.
"unless the American public opts for looking after their own interests"? And that sounds like a threat.
On a positive note, changes and realizations seem to be coming forth from within the Jewish communities themselves about Israel. This is very encouraging.
During the recent protests over Israeli self-defense, some Jews were siding publicly with those slaughtering Israelis, so perhaps this is a reference to liberal Jews' tendency to self-loathe (as Leftists tend to do). I wonder what the author thinks of the recent electoral success of Israel's more sensible elements.

Here is the reply I posted originally at the author's site:
How familiar are you with the history of modern Israel?

In the decades since it was formed after World War II, Israel has endured attacks by its Muslim neighbors. The "Palestinians" are Arab Muslims who were told that as soon as Israel was wiped out, they would take over. The only problem was, Israel defeated its enemies repeatedly.

Why haven't the Muslim nations surrounding Israel taken in their co-religionists?

The truth is that Islamic anti-Semitism is as old as Islam, since Allah and his apostle command it:
"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).

"And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected" (Qur'an 2:65).

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

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

[. . .]

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

[. . .]

"It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah . . . say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4363-4366)."
Here are excerpts of the author's three-part reply with my commentary:
How familiar are you with the history of Israel? The very creation of Israel in the Middle East was a fool's errand. I find it astounding that the Allied forces of WWII thought that giving the Jews of that time, a wedge of land smack dab in the middle of Middle East was wise. One is led to wonder why they didn't place Israel somewhere in Europe. The most obvious answer seems to be Europe's guilt over the holocaust which is evidenced even today in numerous laws against any discussion on the academic debate regarding the holocaust. As the situation existed post-WWII, the Palestinian Arabs were the native residents of that area but were displaced by the influx of Jews worldwide heading to their illegally created "homeland".
If the creation of modern Israel in its ancient location was a "fool's errand" or "unwise," why is that? It is because of the hatred of its Muslim neighbors. More than the natural resentment that any people would have at a new nation moving in, what is the reason for that hatred? It is due to the anti-Semitism that infuses Islam (an attitude so pervasive that even Arab Christians living among Muslims often adopt it).

Are the repeated mentions of the Holocaust an attempt at exploit European (or Western, or White) guilt? Or is the author just dying to deny that it ever occurred?

That's one of the aspects of Islamic anti-Semitism that would be funny if it weren't so sick: Muslims deny the Holocaust except when they want to have another one.
As to your contention that Israel has faced attacks, I would contend that the very residents whose homes were stolen from them [through the creation of Israel] have faced a far higher number of attacks and casualties at the hands of Israeli forces. A thing perceived as a threat by Israeli minds might be just that; a perception with no grounds in reality.
"might be"? Liar or coward.

Innocent Jewish men, women, and children as victims of Muslim bloodlust are the results of Muslim imagination, not figments of anyone's. The only reason there is any violence between Israel and its Muslim neighbors is because one side seeks to obey Allah and imitate Mohammed, the genocidal anti-Semite.

Again, Israel stole no one's land -- Muslim Turks lost it to the West, which then gave (less than they had promised) to Israel.

If Muslims stop committing terrorism against Israel, there would be peace.
You ask why haven't Muslim states around Israel taken in their "co-religionists". I ask you; why haven't the Christians and Jews of Europe taken in the Jews from Israel? In fact, there are plenty of successful followers of Judaism in America. Why haven't they taken in Israeli Jews?
Bald dishonesty here in several respects. First, a false tu quoque: Alleging that Europeans are guilty of excluding Jews does nothing to address the fact that the Arab/Muslim nations surrounding Israel have not only excluded their co-religionists, they've done little more than use the "Palestinians" as tools to incite other Muslims against Israel (and to extort jizya from Western nations). Second, a false analogy: Europeans have not excluded Jews -- who in general contribute greatly to the well-being of any nation of which they are a part -- they don't even exclude Muslims. Finally, why take in Jews in Israel when they are . . . in Israel?

Israel without Jews? More Muslim wishful thinking, it appears.
And there you go with the word 'anti-semitism'. Cry me a river, why don't you? I do not consider questioning or criticizing anything Jewish as being anti-semitism. Crying out 'anti-semitism' on every issue is just begging for pity but I haven't got any to spare this time around, particularly after the recent attack on Palestinians.
Now misrepresenting my comments. Perhaps this works with the ignorant, gullible, and intellectually-lazy. It will not work with those who are paying attention.

Pointing out that Muslims slaughter Jews for Allah is not "crying anti-semitism over questioning or criticizing anything Jewish and on every issue." Shameful.

Hating Jews because they are Jews is anti-Semitism. Commanding the enslavement or slaughter of Jews because they are Jews is anti-Semitism. Firing rockets into homes and schools and blowing up innocent civilians shopping, dining, and worshiping is anti-Semtism. Calling for "bigger ovens" in a second Holocaust is anti-Semitism. Slaughtering 700 Jewish men who had surrendered and then raping their women is anti-Semitism. Exhorting Nazi soldiers manning concentration camps to kill Jews with diligence is anti-Semitism. Stoking Muslim zeal for Jewish blood by declaring that a tree will shout, "O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, so kill him!" is anti-Semitism.

Of all these things Muslims, their false prophet, and their allah from hell are guilty.

So, the mask of false Muslim civility begins to slip.
This "Islamic anti-semitism" is a myth you propagate to justify inhumane actions by the state of Israel.
So, I am responsible for the contents of Qur'an, ahadith, and Sira. I made Mohammed do it.

Allah will not be pleased.
Unless there is a perpetual cycle of hate mongering, Israel won't get the dole-out from the US and the undeserved pity from the rest of the world.
"Palestinians" receive billions for supporting terrorism and getting their hats handed to them over and over again. Speaking of "undeserved pity."

Here comes some deception regarding Islam's core texts:
You quote:

"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).

You didn't include the context of this verse of the Quran derived from the previous verses. It's like you say a single sentence out of an entire story and that becomes the basis of any claim you make. This is deliberately twisting the meaning.Here is the common Muslim canard "Out of context! Out of context!" which should be easy to demonstrate. Strangely, the author offers not one word of context, just lies.
The truth is, the context of this verse is that (according to Mohammed, and he wouldn't lie, right?) Allah was granting immunity from slaughter to only those tribes under contract to Mohammed who had not violated the terms of their extortion.

Of course, the intent is not to go out and decapitate imprudently; Mohammed had rules about under what circumstances to butcher non-Muslims. "Unbelievers" had to be offered first conversion to Islam. Those who refused were then offered slavery (jizya, slavery as dhimmis), since you can't extort money from nor rape the dead (though I did read that Mohammed used to "lie" on a corpse). Those who refused humiliating slavery were offered death.

That's the context Muslims don't want you to know.

More falsehood from Mr. Asif:
This verse says that if the People of the Book (Christians & Jews) deny God, the Day of Judgment and the injunctions of the Divine, and reject belief in the truth (literally, "the Religion of the Truth" -- the Truth being another name for God in Arabic) they must pay a tax; fight them until they pay it freely.
If you have to fight someone so that they'll pay, then they are not paying it "freely."

By definition, Christians do not reject God, they believe in YHWH and His Messiah.

Christians do reject Mohammed's allah. And no, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same deity, for if they did, Muslims would worship Christ and condemn Mohammed and his allah for their blasphemies against Him.

(At this point comes another common Muslim "argument" -- No, using the same common noun "god" for more than one deity does not mean they are the same deity. Besides that, Allah says that it has no son; YHWH calls Christ His One and Only Son, and Christ confirms that, taking the Divine name "I AM" for Himself.)
When you consider the verse itself, it mentions belief in God and the Day of Judgment. These two beliefs are found in both Christian and Jewish scriptures [particularly the older, less corrupted versions].
What are those "older, less corrupted versions"? Nothing but another Islamic lie, for the Biblical texts we possess today are reliable copies of the original documents. Manuscript copies of Isaiah dating to before the time of Christ demonstrate that the manuscripts used for centuries by translators are reliable copies.
About Jizya; it is a tax. Can you tell me why you think non-Muslims in an Islamic shouldn't pay taxes when the Muslims themselves are paying Zakat (enforced by the state) as one tax amongst other taxes?
Zakat is charity. Since when is charity "enforced by the state"? Shouldn't that set off warning bells in one's mind that perhaps Allah is a tyrant?

As for jizya, it is "protection money" (as in extortion) imposed (along with many other unjust restrictions and degradations) on non-Muslims enslaved under Islam.
Why should non-Muslims be exempted from a tax when the very Muslims living in an Islamic state are paying taxes? Don't you think it as being discriminatory?
Mr. Asif ought to be embarrassed by his slight-of-keyboard here. Jizya is imposed on conquered non-Muslims. That is discriminatory.

Perhaps now would be a good time for Mr. Asif to stop lying.
Do you protest in the same manner when Muslims have to pay taxes in non-Islamic states just like the other citizens? There is a lot of hue and cry over assimilating in the host country these days. Why isn't it applicable to non-Muslims in an Islamic state?
And yet Muslims won't assimilate. Why is that?

The apparent eagerness with which this author twists facts is astounding. And evil.

If unlike non-Muslims in a non-Muslim state, Muslims had to pay extortion money to prevent their being slaughtered, I am sure this author would complain. If Muslims were subjected to the same disgraceful barbarism which non-Muslims have been forced to endure under the dhimma for millennia, I'm sure Mr. Asif would say something.
Nevertheless, this tax doesn't exist these days in most Islamic countries so it is a moot point.
It is only moot in "most" countries because the Caliphate was destroyed and faithful Muslims are not yet powerful enough to enforce sharia.

Isn't it interesting that this Muslim knows just enough about Islam to tell only the half of the truth that, if believed by non-Muslims, would make them vulnerable to jihad?
Don't base your thinking on reading something for 10 minutes after searching for it on the internet and then twisting it out of context.
A false ad hominem attack, and another statement which, if it were true, should be easy to demonstrate, yet the author makes no attempt to do so. Why is that?
Those who believe, those who are Jews, Christians, and Sabaeans, all who believe in God and the Last Day and act rightly will have their reward with their Lord. They will feel no fear and will know no sorrow. (Qur'an, 2:62)
And who are "those who believe"? Those who convert to Islam, for here is some of what this propagandist is not quoting:
"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)."

"Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Apostle . . . said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. 'Umar b. Abd al-'Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah's Messenger . . ." (Muslim Book 37, Number 6666).

"Those who disbelieve, neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against Allah: They are themselves but fuel for the Fire" (Qur'an 3:10).

"Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a decision that when a Jew or Christian was killed, his blood-money was half the blood-money of a free muslim.

"Malik said, 'What is done in our community, is that a muslim is not killed for a kafir unless the muslim kills him by deceit. Then he is killed for it.'

[. . .]

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

"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust" (Qur'an 5:51).

"Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Shaitan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Shaitan; surely the strategy of the Shaitan is weak" (Qur'an 4:76).

"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).
The lies continue:
How do you justify your hatred in light of this verse?
"Hatred"?

I hate genocide. Slavery. Rape. Pedophilia. Lies. Religious (and secular) tyranny.

The question should be, why don't Muslims? Because Mohammed and his allah will it so.
Following on, you quote Sahih Bukhari:

"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).

You are again taking things out of context. This is directed at the idol worshipers of Makkah; the Quraish tribe amongst others, a tribe to which Prophet Muhammad . . . himself belonged before he was given the task to spread Islam.
So, Mohammed was ordered to slaughter his own people until they submitted to Allah?

Perhaps it is unwise for Muslims to try to argue for Mohammed and his god from their own texts. Stick to the logical fallacies, outright fabrications, and violent intimidation. They're more effective.
In fact, at the conquest of Makkah, no one who stayed at home was killed and the idols inside the Kaaba were smashed. Nothing more needs to be said in light of this, about Islam as a religion of peace... A conquest with no bloodshed and pardon to all who had tortured the early followers of Islam.
The kind of peace Islam desires is the kind that occurs when all the competition is dead or in chains.

Don't imply that just because Mohammed may not have butchered those who "stayed at home" this time meant that he did not slaughter enthusiastically and often any and all who refused to submit to his plans.

Just ask Asma bint Marwan.
"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).

It should be borne in mind that the expression “like an ape” is often used in classical Arabic to describe a person who is unable to restrain his gross appetites or passions. The verse is directed at Sabbath-breakers, not Jews in general so I don't know where you are coming from on this one trying to portray it as being something against all Jews.
It is strange that this author doesn't know "where [I'm] coming from," since I state explicitly that Islamic anti-Semitism comes directly from the command of Allah and the example of Mohammed:
"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).
Feigned Muslim ignorance in service to Islamic barbarity in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .
The sign of the Day of Judgment you mention in your next quote is not now so I don't see any reason for all this hatred.
If only he had had a heart-to-heart with Mohammed before things got out-of-hand.
The remaining quotes are not complete. Chosen phrases whose incomplete meaning satisfies your lame argument do not constitute as being a valid argument.
Again, it ought to be easy to demonstrate my error. I'll be waiting.
I fail to see the reasoning behind the hatred Israel has for Muslims. History should speak for itself regarding the uneven hand dealt to the Palestinians by Israel.
Only if history is a liar like Mr. Asif.

If Israel were hateful, the "Palestinians" would have been relocated about six feet underground.

If anything, Israel has been too accommodating to its enemies.

Mr. Asif's assaults on God and Man end with this:
In fact, at the time of the Prophet Muhammad [. . .] Jews were included as part of the Muslim community...they were part of the "ummah," so to speak . . . They were equal members of the city, one "community with the believers," with the freedom to practice their religion. At one time in history, Muslims and Jews were one nation under God.
This must explain:
". . . 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)."

Saturday, June 28

Mohammed is 1.2 billion Muslims, or Establishing Shari'a, one family at a time

She says they "misinterpret their texts," but he says they're "fanatical." Which is it?

He defends Mohammed, right or wrong.

Quoting Mohammed's own words is insulting 1.2 billion Muslims
. I thought all Muslims were not the same.

Which is it? Or does it depend on whether or not Mohammed's words and deeds are being examined? What does that say about Mohammed? What does that say about those making such an "argument"?

A Christian family cannot discuss openly religious topics. A free man in a free society (and his wife!) must face character assassination, verbal abuse, and threats of violence over a factual statement (which is, coincidentally, no different than an American during World War II lamenting, "It's too bad Hitler made our boys' sacrifices necessary").

So this is the lay of the land: A non-Muslim is forbidden from quoting Mohammed.

If I can't quote Mohammed, and I can't quote the Bible, what can I quote? A cookbook?! [Hat tip to Zell Miller.]

One of the sad ironies here is that this is exactly one of the restrictions placed historically upon dhimmis, the Jews and Christians subjugated, humiliated, and oppressed under Islamic law, just as Mohammed commanded.

-Mention Mohammed and be bullied into silence.

-Everyone falls in line because the two tyrants throw a fit.

-Essentially, it's, "Shut up dhimmi. Don't talk about Mohammed, or else!"

It's insane.

Why are only the Muslim and his spouse apoplectic over quoting Mohammed? Why are not they being pressured into tolerance of others' freedoms of speech? Why must everyone submit to the bullies' sensibilities?

If the prophet from hell was such an "ideal man," what is wrong with looking at what he said and did? Of what are they afraid? Is not such rage at a non-Muslim looking at those texts an admission of shame over his words and deeds?

Why attack me for quoting what Mohammed said and did? Why not attack Mohammed for what he said and did?

How can a decent person defend universal, open-ended commands to slaughter, rape, and enslave?

So much for the thin veneer of false Muslim civility. I've seen it vaporize in online discussions over the word of Allah and the example of Mohammed, but I've not seen it in person and not from someone who previously had seemed decent.

Insane anger. Irrationality. And this, an observation intended to make the observer look good, or a threat? "If someone was fanatical about their religion, they'd kill you."

I will not be silent. I will not submit, for this is what they defend:
"Each of us was raped by between three and six men. One woman refused to have sex with them, so they split her head into pieces with an axe in front of us." This happened in Darfur, from which Sudanese military personnel actually airlifted women to Khartoum to serve as sex slaves. Meanwhile, Indira Dzetskelova, the mother of one of the child hostages in Beslan, Russia, reports that "several 15-year-old girls were raped by terrorists." Her daughter "heard their terrible cries and screams when those monsters took them away."

This indicates that there are two things the massacre in Beslan has in common with the ongoing massacres in Darfur: both, no less than the 9/11 attacks, are examples of Islamic jihad terrorism, and both are characterized by rape. The jihadist element has been made clear by the ringleaders of both atrocities. Sudanese General Mohamed Beshir Suleiman recently declared: "The door of the jihad is still open and if it has been closed in the south it will be opened in Darfur."

[. . .]

As for Beslan, the Chechen jihadist leader Shamil Besayev warned the Russian government last winter: "Praise Allah, we are dreaming of dying in jihad, we are dreaming of dying on the way of Allah, so that we could earn paradise and mercy of Allah."

What does rape, then, have to do with these religious conflicts? Unfortunately, everything. The Islamic legal manual 'Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates: "When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled."

Why? So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors. The Qur'an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls: "Forbidden to you are ... married women, except those whom you own as slaves" (Sura 4:23-24). After one successful battle, Muhammad tells his men, "Go and take any slave girl." He took one for himself also. After the notorious massacre of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, he did it again. According to his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad "went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches." After killing "600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900," the Prophet [sic] of Islam took one of the widows he had just made, Rayhana bint Amr, as another concubine. Emerging victorious in another battle, according to a generally accepted Islamic tradition, Muhammad's men present him with an ethical question: "We took women captives, and we wanted to do 'azl [coitus interruptus] with them." Muhammad told them: "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.'" When Muhammad says "it is better that you should not do it," he's referring to coitus interruptus, not to raping their captives. He takes that for granted.

With Muhammad revered throughout the Islamic world as al-insan al-kamil, the perfect man, the rapes of Darfur and Beslan are nothing surprising. What is surprising, or ought to be, is the silence from the Islamic world about the rapes in both cases.

Where are the reformers who will dare to say that Muhammad's example must not be followed in this case?
Certainly not where I was last night.

Friday, July 20

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?