The actual "siege" in Palestine

Like any good predator, Muslims justify their brutal depravity by blaming their victims.  It doesn't hurt that so many non-Muslims in the West today are not only ignorant of Islam, but easily manipulated through the use of implied charges of racism and feelings of civilizational guilt.

Offered in response to more of Mohamed Fadly's lies here (we'll see how long it takes for him to realize what I've posted.  That I've posted.):

You know that Allah forbids taking friends from among "unbelievers except as a precaution against them." You know that "submission to the state" is just your not-so-clever attempt to hide the fact that submission to the Islamic "state" is submission to Islamic law is submission to Islam is submission to the genocidal pedophile's base lusts, and IT IS NOT VOLUNTARY.

When the only choices you have are conversion, subjugation (slavery as dhimmis), or death, it's neither "religion" nor freedom of choice, it's hell-on-Earth.

And as for "Israeli Defense Ministry -which is responsible for the siege enforced against Palestinians inside Gaza," the responsibility for the "siege" (since when is self-defense a "siege"?) belongs solely to faithful Muslims obeying Allah's commands and emulating Muhammad's example in waging jihad.

Speaking of "siege's" this is the actual "siege" in "Palestine," as explained by Ibn Kathir:

[. . .]

Allah said next,

(So when the Sacred Months have passed...),

meaning, `Upon the end of the four months during which We prohibited you from fighting the idolators, and which is the grace period We gave them, then fight and kill the idolators wherever you may find them.' Allah's statement next,

(then fight the Mushrikin wherever you find them)

means, on the earth in general, except for the Sacred Area, for Allah said, (And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram, unless they fight you there. But if they attack you, then fight them. 2:191) Allah said here,

(and capture them)

executing some and keeping some as prisoners,

(and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush)

do not wait until you find them. Rather, seek and besiege them in their areas and forts, gather intelligence about them in the various roads and fairways so that what is made wide looks ever smaller to them. This way, they will have no choice, but to die or embrace Islam,

(But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give the Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.)

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.

[. . .]

In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn `Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

(I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.)

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir . . . ."

So, the Verse of the Sword "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term," leaving non-Muslims "no choice, but to die or embrace Islam."

Apes and pigs, right, Mohamed?

And to Moonlite, who's never met a "minority" who wasn't "oppressed" or a tyrant whom she didn't want to appease:

Every time there's a conflict, it's the more ignorant, more barbaric, "browner," non Judeo-Christians who must be the innocent victims, right? Right?

Wait 'til they're at your door, Ann Klein. You'll wish you had opposed the butchers instead of their [prey].

Their children were forced to watch

This is for what B. Hussein, Grover Norquist, the Left, CAIR, Hamas, Mohamed Fadly, and the rest apologize and obfuscate.  This is why the West's "leadership" betrays Israel.

Islam is pure evil. It is vile. It is hell.  Stop defending it. Stop lying for it. Stop excusing it.

If there ever were a time to use Western military might, this is it. Now.

Islam must be stopped.

Pakistani Christian burned alive, wife raped by police for refusing to convert to Islam (Jihad Watch):

RAWALPINDI, PAKISTAN (BosNewsLife)-- A Christian man was fighting for his life in Pakistan's Punjab province Saturday, March 20, after Muslim leaders backed by police burned him alive for refusing to convert to Islam, while his wife was raped by police officers, Christian and hospital sources familiar with the case told BosNewsLife.

Arshed Masih was burned Friday, March 19, in front of a police station in the city of Rawalpindi near Pakistan's capital Islamabad, following apparent death threats from his Muslim employer Sheikh Mohammad Sultan, an influential businessman, and religious leaders, said the Rawalpindi Holy Family Hospital.

His wife, Martha Arshed, was allegedly raped by police officers. Their three children -- ranging in age from 7 to 12-- were reportedly forced to witness the attacks against their parents.

Self-loathing Westerners align themselves with shameless apologists for Muhammad's "sacralized" evil

Posted at the 'Blog Which Shall Not Be Named, in response to Mohamed Fadly, that tireless (and tiresome) apologist for Muhammad's hellish depravity:

"Ask and you'll get the information at once, no research necessary . . . " (Mohamed Fadly, emphasis added).

Of course Mohamed doesn't want you to do any research, Moonlite. He wants you to swallow whole his half-truths and outright, bald-faced lies.

I can understand Rory falling for that nonsense -- he'd rather count words than pay attention to what they mean -- but you? And you're a Christian?

Do you care that Muhammad called Christ a "blasphemer"? That he "sacralized" violating all Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule?

That Muhammad practiced genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, polygamy, and religious and gender apartheid, claimed that "allah made me do it," and commanded others to do the same?

Did you even notice that Mohamed's quote commands to refrain from killing "those with whom we have a treaty"?

Of course Muhammad didn't want everyone dead; he needed non-Muslims from whom to extract tribute, slave labor, and sexual gratification.

That "my enemy's enemy is my friend," may be true in many cases, but like Mohamed's post, there's more to it when it comes to Islam.

Leftists may welcome a rival to Christianity now, but what you don't realize is that once Christianity is marginalized or dead in the West, you're next.

And Islam is no gentle master. Just ask all those around the world today and from the past 1400 years who've endured Muslim obedience to 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 19, Number 4294).

And this:

"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).

"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).

Ibn Kathir says of this verse: "'Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil." So, Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief."

"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).

"Allah’s Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

So, Mohamed,

You never answered my question (though you deleted it from your site): What is it about Muhammad that appeals to you, the genocide, the mutilation and torture, or the pedophilia?

Are you still defending mid-fifties-Muhammad's raping little, nine-year-old, prepubescent 'Aisha by claiming, "She liked it!"?

Moonlite, do you care at all that you're allying with someone who defends such vile filth? Who facilitates pedophilia, rape, (actual) torture, slavery, and genocide on religious grounds?

Do you care that Rory is unable to denounce such utter evil?

Will you?

It's only moments now until Rory Graycrow Underclass posts something vulgar and nescient.

Update 1/9: To his credit, Rory's posted only a threat to go "Incredable Hulk" [sic] on me.  (Does that mean physical violence, in which case he doesn't know where I live, or does it mean he's going to post in only short phrases and guttural noises?  "'Nuff said!  Arrrgh!")

Here's my reply:

I knew Bill Bixby. You're no Bill Bixby.

And the fact is, not only did you refuse to denounce those atrocities, but now you give Mohamed Fadly -- whose defense of Muhammad's pedophilia is, "But she liked it!" -- a platform here and whatever legitimacy that confers.

You can't justify uncritically endorsing evil by claiming that you "have little time for long winded religious debates." You have a responsibility to know the subject matter you're promoting.

Now's as good a time as any to do the right thing. Do you denounce Muhammad's "sacralizing" genocide, pedophilia, rape, mutilation, torture, slavery, theft, extortion, polygamy, religious and gender apartheid, and blasphemy, his claiming that "Allah made me do it," and his commanding others to do the same, or not?

Update 1/11: Unfortunately, Graycrow could not maintain even a modicum of dignity, creating an account for the sole purpose of agitating, complete with a vile avatar.

Here's the latest:

"Anonymous" was me, of course.

As for name-calling, I did not call you a "useless idiot" (still reading carefully, I see). I used the term "Useful Idiot Dhimmi."

A "Useful Idiot" is someone who allows himself to be used to advance his own demise by those who intend him harm.

A "dhimmi" is a Jew or Christian (and sometimes Hindu or Zoroastrian) under the "protection" of Muslims, as in: "Give us your money, your honor, and your women and little girls, and we'll protect you . . . from us."

You're committing treason against humanity by obfuscating for jihad.

I do not intend to offend you; I'm merely trying to wake you up, prick your conscience, stir your pride.

If you are a Catholic, act like one! Tell the truth. Defend what is good in this world. Stop aiding those who believe it honors God to enslave or slaughter all who refuse conversion to their religion.

As to Qur'an 8:67, Tafsir Ibn Kathir notes regarding the verse that permission to take ransom for prisoners of war (and other spoils) was granted here.

Here are four translations (Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Hilali-Khan, and Shakir) considered "orthodox" by Yet Another Qur'an Browser, none of which makes jihad a peaceful inner struggle:

008:067

"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."

"It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but God looketh to the Hereafter: And God is Exalted in might, Wise."

"It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise."

"It is not fit for a prophet that he should take captives unless he has fought and triumphed in the land; you desire the frail goods of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter; and Allah is Mighty, Wise."

Nope, no religion of peace here. Just a religion of offensive warfare, terror, slaughter, and ransom.

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:

(Bukhari Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794): Narrated Anas:

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.

Hello, Mohamed.

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?

Ali Gomaa's Common deception exploits non-Muslim ignorance and good will

Some pertinent information regarding A Common Word, another of jihad's weapons in exploiting Western ignorance and good will.

Review this.

This might also be helpful:

Certainly the "radicals" are recruiting among "traditional Muslims," and using American immorality as one among other pretexts. But while this argument looks impressive on its face, it dissolves among closer inspection -- chiefly because those "traditional Muslims" upon whom D'Souza places so much hope remain nebulous and elusive, even in his construction. Are they "moderates"? No: in his book he explains that they do not differ theologically or even politically from the jihadists. And in his book he doesn't name even one. When I asked him to name one, he named Ali Gomaa, the Mufti of Egypt. Ali Gomaa, however, has expressed support for Hizballah, whose leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has led chants of "Death to America!" This is an actual or potential ally?

Ali Gomaa has also ruled that statues are un-Islamic; when I mentioned this to D'Souza, he was contemptuously dismissive. But in fact it is an important point. Cultural conservatives are supposed to ally, in his view, with "traditional Muslims" who allegedly share the same values. But what about when they don't share the same values? What makes D'Souza think that "traditional Muslims" will ally with non-Muslims on cultural issues in opposition to the jihad being waged by their fellow Muslims -- when they have no theological differences with those fellow Muslims, and fewer cultural differences with them than they have with those non-Muslims?

This doesn't make sense. If they have no theological differences with the jihadists, then they believe in principle in the jihad, and also hold to the traditional Qur'anic prohibition against befriending non-Muslims. On what grounds will they set all this aside and join with non-Muslims against their fellow Muslims? D'Souza produces no evidence that the great majority of Muslims who are not waging jihad do not approve of that jihad, or that even if they don't approve, they will do anything to oppose it.

More on Gomaa:

He's a highly promoted champion of moderate Islam, but he supports Hizballah.

He is the kind of cleric the West longs for, because of his assurances that there is no conflict with democratic rule and no need for theocracy. Gomaa has also become an advocate for Muslim women, who he says should have equal standing with men.

He is an advocate for Muslim women who has spoken positively of wife-beating.

His forceful condemnations of extreme forms of Islam have made him an object of hatred among Islamists and an icon among progressives, whose voices have been overpowered by the thunder of the radicals.

His forceful condemnations of extreme forms of Islam have been accompanied by his denial of reports that he had rejected the traditional Islamic death sentence for apostates.

The door finally opened, and Gomaa emerged. He is fifty-five, tall and regal, with a round face and a trim beard. He wore a tan caftan and a white turban. He held a sprig of mint to his nose as an aide whispered to him my reasons for coming. On the wall behind his desk was a photograph of President Mubarak.

Gomaa was born in Beni Suef, the same town as Dr. Fadl. “I began going into the prisons in the nineteen-nineties,” he told me. “We had debates and dialogues with the prisoners, which continued for more than three years. Such debates became the nucleus for the revisionist thinking.”

Before the revisions were published, Gomaa reviewed them. “We accept the revisions conditionally, not as the true teachings of Islam but with the understanding that this process is like medicine for a particular time,” he said.

In other words, the true teachings of Islam include the mandate to wage violent jihad against unbelievers. But jihad violence can be set aside as "medicine for a particular time." That is, different times call for different tactics, but the overall objective remains the same.

If Muhammad lied in order to advance Islam, then you shouldn't be surprised when Muslims do too

On what basis can a non-Muslim trust a Muslim, exactly?

Since Allah called Muhammad a "beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please" him, the best that you can hope for from one of his devotees is apostasy, heresy, or ignorance.  What else can a reasonable person expect?

Here, once again, is our good friend Ibn Kathir exposing Muslim deceit -- both the individual's practice of it in denying taqiyya and the "divine" mandate for such deception -- in his explanation of a chunk of Sura 3:

"(unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, 'We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, 'The Tuqyah [taqiyya] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.''"

Good news, for now, for Rifqa Bary

Despite the efforts of jihad's propagandists, outright liars like Mohamed Fadly and BMZ who obfuscate and silence the truth about Muhammad, and Islam's Useful Idiot dhimmis, like Rory Graycrow Underclass, Dovod, and the entire Western Political-Media Complex, one life has been snatched from the gaping maw of hell, from her own Muslim parents, at least temporarily.

Note also the example of Wafa Sultan. Raised Muslim, she recognized the "violent, hateful Islamic doctrines embedded in the Shariah," rejected Islam, and now works for human rights in order to save Muslims and non-Muslims alike from Islam.

And I am criticized for pointing out what the texts say, what Wafa Sultan recognizes, for exposing the most hateful ideology in the history of man, one that sends Muslim souls to hell and for non-Muslims, creates hell on Earth.

Good news, for now, for Rifqa Bary:

Geller reported the girl's friends had accompanied her to the school counselor after they noticed bruises covering her arms and legs that allegedly resulted from beatings by her father and brother. "The middle school, in a serious dereliction of duty, did not report these beatings to child welfare services," Geller reported. "Beatings were random, violent, unprovoked. Take, for example, when Rifqa and her father Mohamed were driving in the car. He would force her to wear the hijab (head covering), which she hated. In her discomfort she would slouch down, embarrassed, and her father would haul off and sock her in the face so that she never forgot to sit up straight in her costume. The beatings were regular and so much a part of the landscape of Rifqa's life, she became inured to them …"

Geller said the teen's case "is a public relations nightmare for Islamist groups, as her plea validates everything that scholars such as Ibn Warraq, Robert Spencer, Dr. Andrew Bostom, Wafa Sultan, etc., have written and said."

Sultan, a Syrian-born psychiatrist, human rights activist and author, wrote on JihadWatch.org that the case "highlights the danger of creeping jihad in the Western world. "This is not only because of the imminent danger the teenage girl may face right here in the U.S., had the court decided to have her return to her parents' home, but also because of the mainstream media's weak response to the severity of this case.

"I was born and raised as a Muslim in Syria. I practiced Islam for thirty years of my life. Now I am a known human rights activist striving to save our future Muslim generations from the impact of the violent, hateful Islamic doctrines embedded in the Shariah," she continued.

"My life is also threatened, not only by my own extended family, but bycountless men who consider themselves devout Muslims. Under Shariah, if a Muslim leaves Islam or converts to another religion he/she is an 'apostate,' to be killed. Under Shariah every Muslim has the right to kill such an apostate without any questions asked," she warned.

Word frequency is the other god's best defense

But DO NOT, under ANY circumstances, pay attention to what the words actually mean.

In response to more Islamic apologia in the Comments here at ACM:

Rory,

I didn't realize it was you, Graycrow.

So, "in the interests of fairness and LOVE," you libel the Son of God, defend doctrines from hell "sacralizing" blasphemy, genocide, murder, pedophilia, rape, slavery, vandalism, extortion, theft, and deceit, and defame Reb.

You've gone from saying "Christianity is just as bad as Islam," to "Mohamed used a word twice as much, so he wins."

That is not progress.

You've got one problem:

Jesus commanded, "Love your enemies."

Muhammad commanded and practiced, "kill the idolaters wherever you find them."

Jesus poured out His blood for the sins of all.

Allah demands the blood of all who refuse to submit be poured out.

Jesus died on a cross to give Heaven to all.

Allah promises Paradise to all who kill for him.

And you count words. Why would you do that?

Such "analysis" is antithetical to truth.

Using your criterion, since Mr. Fadly and I were discussing the commands of Allah and the example of Muhammad, his double use of the word "love" means that Mohamed was only half-as-truthful as I was.

But then, this little exercise was not about me or Mohamed (it is dishonest of you to engage in ad hominem).

This debate was about what Muhammad and his allah commanded and practiced as defined by Islam's "sacred" texts.

Though how often a word is used means nothing apart from how that word is used, a search of Qur'an at The Compendium of Muslim Texts turns up 70 passages using the word "love."

A search of the ESV turns up the word 552 times.

Does that mean that YHWH is almost eight times more loving than than Allah?

One God died for the sins of all.

The other god requires that "unbelievers" die for him.

The other god commands blasphemy against the God Who is love.

The other god commands genocide, murder, pedophilia, rape, slavery, vandalism, extortion, theft, and deceit against all who refuse the "invitation" to its religion.

Is that love?

Devout Muslim terrorists say, "We love death."

According to your "analysis," they're winners.

Speaking of an "existential wasteland."

The great feminist Muhammad on women (and little girls -- literally): Rape them, beat them, stone them, cheat and mistreat them

This goes a long way toward explaining why he allegedly forbade killing female babies -- he didn't want others to have all the fun.

Muhammad must have a special place in hell.

As always when discussing Islam, I focus on how Muhammad and his allah defined the religion.

Any references to individual Muslims in Islamic history, current events, or personal experience are offered as evidence of how Muslims understand and obey those texts.

Fortunately for non-Muslims trying to understand Islam, its "sacred" texts are understood literally by well over ninety percent of the world's Muslims.

Unfortunately for non-Muslims trying to survive Islam, those texts are understood literally by well over ninety percent of the world's Muslims.

You'll notice a difference in style and substance between Mr. Fadly and me . . .

I focus on what Allah commanded and Muhammad said and did.

Mohamed focuses on everything but what Allah commanded and Muhammad said and did.

We're not concerned with Islam-as-Mohamed-Fadly-wants-us-to-think-it-is, we are concerned with Islam.

Without even reading what Mr. Fadly has written regarding women in Islam -- something like Western women are treated like whores, but Muslim women are "elevated and revered," their honor "protected and defended," right? -- let's see just exactly what Allah and his apostle think about women . . . and women-to-be, posted here:

In speaking of divorcing girls who've not yet reached puberty:

"And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months along with those who have it not. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him" (Qur'an 65:4).

On Mohammed's raping of his nine-year-old "wife;" Allah ordained 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).

“Narrated 'Aisha [Mohammed's six-year-old "bride" and nine-year-old sexual "partner"]: 'Allah's Apostle said (to me), "You were shown to me twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, 'She is your wife, 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 and 140).

On beating wives, "plowing the field," the legal value of a woman's testimony, polygamy (and raping your slaves), the penalty for "lewdness," a daughter's inheritance, and what to do with a woman caught in adultery:

“. . . good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them . . . " (Qur'an 4:34).

“Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” (Qur'an 2:223).

"Allah's Apostle said, "If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 460).

“Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (Qur'an 2:282).

“If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (Qur'an 4:3).

"If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way . . ." (Qur'an 4:15).

“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (Qur'an 4:11).

"There came to him [Muhammad] a woman from Ghamid and said: 'Allah's Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He [Muhammad] turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah's Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma'iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child).

"'When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him [Muhammad] with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah's Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He [Muhammad] entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) heard his (Khalid's) curse that he had huried upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle . . . .'" (Muslim Book 17, 4206).

And this doesn't [even] address the "divine" right to rape [married infidel women], or murdering [a poetess while she's] nursing just because she mocked the monster Muhammad.

Update: I had no idea Mohamed Fadly would defend Muhammad's abominable violations of little nine-year-old Aisha with, "She liked it," a shameful, disgusting, stomach-churning violation of even the most barbaric moral sensibilities.

But what can you expect from someone who defends Muhammad as a "prophet," as the "Ideal Man"?

And potentially, more than one billion others agree with him.

Originally posted on 7/20/09 at 12:25 AM

If quoting Muhammad and his allah is saying "filthy things," doesn't that make Islam's prophet and god both Islamophobes?

So, I say "filthy things" about Muhammad?

But I report what Islam's authoritative texts record of those words and deeds of most relevance to non-Muslims, apostates, women, and little girls.

If quoting Muhammad and his allah is saying "filthy things," doesn't that make Islam's prophet and god both Islamophobes?

Notice that when Mohamed Fadly tries to defend Muhammad, he does not deny that his prophet carried out the slavery, rape, child-rape, and slaughter that his own texts state he committed.

Instead, Mohamed:

-brings up passages that have nothing to do with the question of Muhammad's vile depravity (red herrings, non sequiturs),

-attacks the Biblical texts (false tu quoque arguments, false moral equivalences, clumsy ad hominems), and

-misrepresents what I've written (straw man "arguments").

How does the fact that Muhammad didn't kill someone in a particular instance mean that he didn't enslave, rape, and slaughter thousands and command his followers to do the same, claiming Allah made him do it?

Neither do verses and ahadith which appear to be decent and peaceful -- but the meanings of which have been either abrogated or not what they seemed to be in the first place at all -- negate Muhammad's brutality and perversion.

For example, Muslim propagandists and their Useful Idiot Dhimmis love to bring up "no compulsion in religion," but never mention, "invite . . . demand the jizya . . . fight . . . until all religion is for Allah."

They always claim Muhammad was beheading this and butchering that in "self-defense," but they never point out that even "disbelief" is considered "opposing" and "waging war against" Allah," the punishment for which is "execution, crucifixion . . . the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides."

Funny how that sort of deception and misinformation keeps happening.

Below Mohamed Fadly tries to defend Muhammad's treatment of prisoners of war by citing a verse on feeding "captives" -- slaves according to Tafsir Ibn Kathir, not prisoners of war -- and by misinterpreting Qur'an 5:33.

Here's all you need to know about Muhammad's treatment of prisoners of war: The Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe defending itself against Muhammad and his minions, eventually surrendered. All the men -- 700-900 of them, except for a few who saw the decapitation on the wall (or, more accurately, in the trench) and "converted" to Islam -- were beheaded and their women and children enslaved, with Muhammad taking an especially attractive, newly-created widow as his sex slave.

No doubt, Mohamed Fadly will try to defend that by saying, "She wanted it!"

Indeed, I've found that nothing woos a woman like slaughtering all the men of her tribe and raping her as soon as practicable.

Muhammad was quite a ladies' man.

Mohamed Fadly obfuscates:

In Qur'an; "And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive,-" A verse that was revealed in Al-Madinah.

But it's fine to rape your slaves, even if they're married to another. At least they're well-fed:

"Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . . " (Qur'an 4:24).

Mohamed [continues]:

Verse 5:33 don't apply on war prisoners, but those who commit Haraba crimes like the man who raped a child then killed him and his father.

Good thing Muhammad didn't kill 'Aisha and her dad, or he'd have to have killed himself.

One out of three will get you a spot in the Big Leagues.

The verse says:

"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).

It says, "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger . . . ."

How can you crucify someone "waging war" against you unless they're captured, in which case they are, by definition, a prisoner of war? Do you hope [that] they['ll] ride their horse into your cross?

Not only is your reading of that verse questionable, so is your interpretation. Ibn Kathir says of it: `Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil."

So, in trying to show that Muhammad treated prisoners of war decently, you've highlighted instead the fact that Muhammad requires execution, crucifixion, or cutting off hands and feet from opposite sides for "disbelief."

Now for a little target practice:

The amnesty of the prophet to the people of Mecca; "Go you're free." after his conquest to Mecca in 8th year after his immigration to Al-Madinah.

He "conquered" Mecca, warring againt his own tribe.

The prophet's prayer to the other warring party; "O Allah, guide my people because they are men without knowledge.", after the defeat of Muslims in Ohod battle, the killing of many of Muslims including his uncle and his injuries.

Allah chastised the Muslims for losing the Battle of Uhud. Too many of them had chosen to go after Meccan booty (literally) rather than do their duty in battle: When Muhammad's minions “saw the women fleeing lifting up their clothes revealing their leg-bangles and their legs,” they began shouting, “The booty! O people, the booty!”

"O mankind! We created you .., that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other) .." 49 : 13(Revealed in Medina)

Plagiarizing badly the Biblical creation story does nothing to negate, "kill the pagans wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5).

"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not .. from dealing kindly and justly .." 60 : 8 (Revealed in Medina)

So, it's okay with Allah if a Muslim is kind to a dirty kafir who's not fighting with him?

It is a religion of peace!

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, .." 8 : 60 (Revealed in Medina)

That's verse 61. Here's the actual verse 60, followed by a few others from the same sura:

"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."

"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).

"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).

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

Mohamed continues:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion, .." 2:256 (Revealed in Medina)

Of course, no one can force inner belief, but words and actions? That's a different story. Perhaps someone should have told Muhammad:

"...he [Muhammad] said [to Abu Sufyan], ‘Isn’t it time that you should recognize that there is no God but Allah?’

"He answered, ‘You are dearer to me than father or mother. How great is your clemency, honour, and kindness! By God, I thought that had there been another God with God he would have continued to help me.’

"He said, ‘Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn’t it time that you should recognize that I am God’s apostle?’

"He answered, ‘As to that I still have some doubt.’

"'I said to him, "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head," so he did so'" (Ishaq, 547).

No doubt, [just] another one of those pesky "exceptional incidents."

In defending Muhammad, one must point to patches of shade to prove the sun doesn't shine

More from here:

Mohamed Fadly claims he has . . .

stated verses and Hadith refuting your misguiding lies that peace verses came only when Muslims were weak in Mecca . . . .

I did not write "only."

Is that carelessness or dishonesty?

Pointing out that Sura 9 allows "asylum" for those who ask for it is no credit to Muhammad nor his allah, since from what did they need protection?

MUHAMMAD AND HIS ALLAH.

You can't point to Muhammad granting protection from himself as proof that Muhammad was a peaceful man.

You point to the people the genocidal monster didn't kill as proof he wasn't a genocidal monster, all the while drowning in an ocean of blood.

You point to the child-rape victim's apathetic acceptance of the only life she ever knew as proof she liked being raped by the pedophile prophet.

In defending Muhammad, you're pointing to patches of shade to prove the sun doesn't shine.

The more you do it, the more people will notice the light, sooner or later.

Revenge in Islam . . . just doing what the false prophet ordered

The Bible specifically forbids believers taking revenge, it belongs to YHWH alone:

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD (Leviticus 19:18).

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord" (Romans 12:19).

More snake hunting from here:

Mohamed wrote:

You claimed that Islam supports taking revenge. That's a false claim.

But Muhammad said:

"slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out . . ." (Qur'an 2:191).

"The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree)" (Qur'an 42:40).

"A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet . . . and disparage him . . . One night she began to slander the Prophet . . . and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there.

[. . .]

Thereupon the Prophet . . . said: 'Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood'" (Dawud Book 38, Number 4348).

And regarding the poetess Asma bint Marwan: "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?"

You know how that ended.

Muhammad ended with The Verse of the Sword, Allah's last word on warfare, and is it offensive!

Mohamed Fadly claims erroneously:

about Naskh . . . I stated verses and Hadith refuting your misguiding lies that peace verses came only when Muslims were weak in Mecca, but when they became stronger, "killing" verses came!! I refuted that false claim . . . .

Later revelations abrogate earlier contradictory ones.

Muhammad ended with The Verse of the Sword, Allah's last word on [. . .] warfare (and [is it] offensive!):

"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).

Tafsir Ibn Kathir states of The Verse of the Sword:

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations.

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir."

Here are a few more Verses of Blood, Allah's War Against Humanity:

"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).

"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).

"Allah’s Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror'" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

"Allah's Apostle was asked, 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).' The questioner then asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause.' The questioner again asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To perform Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca). . .'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25).

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

Jews beheading Gentile schoolgirls to shouts of "YHWH is great!" and 13,694 other acts of Judaic terrorism

Vapor. Fiction. Islamic fantasy.

The post title puts the lie to Muslim claims of moral equivalence.

Mohamed complains:

you claimed that it's false that Islam prohibited killing women and children . . . exceptional incidents in exceptional conditions

No, I pointed out that Muhammad changed [or ignored] the rules whenever it was to his advantage:

"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)." (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256).

Funny how many "exceptional conditions" Muhammad faced!

That poetess Asma bint Marwan with her nuclear-tipped verse would have oppressed and slaughtered thousands of Muslims with just one line!

Thank Allah for Umayr!

Mohamed continued:

About these texts in the Bible, Old Testament; We Muslims believe . . . The same messages of peace, love and forgiveness . . . we believe that such texts are made by Jewish rabbis who distorted and corrupted the Bible . . . So, these brutal commands in the Bible didn't came from God. Allah, Our Creator, The Most Merciful wouldn't order to kill infants and sucklings!

This is self-contradictory: You don't believe that YHWH gave Israel the command to complete the dispossession of Canaan (killing all who remained in the cities they approached), but you do believe that Allah commands, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" and "Fight against the People of the Book until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya" (Sura 9).

That's odd: You reject a one-time, one-place, one-target Divine judgment for great evil (including child sacrifice), but swallow whole open-ended, universal commands to enslave and slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam -- including women, children, old men, and trees, when necessary.

(A side note: We have the Bible Jesus used, and He said the Law and the Prophets "cannot be broken," so no, your scholars are wrong about the Bible being "corrupted."

That puts your prophet in a bad spot, doesn't it?)

As for your shaded attempt at tu quoque and false moral equivalence: Point out from the Biblical texts even one command for offensive warfare against all non-Hebrews to make the world Israel.

Find a report of Jews beheading Gentile schoolgirls to shouts of "YHWH is great!" then find another 13,694 acts of Judaic terrorism.

Then we'll have something to talk about.

If you don't agree with "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, theft, deceit, and blasphemy, don't defend Muhammad's words and deeds

Mohamed Fadly worships a god which mandates or endorses genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, theft, deceit, and blasphemy, and he's worried about my words?

A brief reply to some comments here:

If a donkey says he's a donkey, looks like a donkey, sounds like a donkey, and acts like a donkey, he's probably a donkey.

All of which is irrelevant to my comments, since I am not making things up, I am not mischaracterizing, labeling falsely, stereotyping, or demonizing others, I am reporting what the donkey of Allah said and did.

If Mohamed doesn't agree with "sacralized" genocide, pedophilia, rape, slavery, theft, deceit, and blasphemy, he should stop defending Muhammad's words and deeds.

Actually, he's not defended them, he's only tried to explain why Islamic bloodlust, barbarity, and discrimination is good for us.

Mohamed protested against:

Since Muhammad used his "faith" as a tool to satiate his lusts

But Muhammad said Allah told him to rape Aisha:

“Narrated 'Aisha [Mohammed's six-year-old "bride" and nine-year-old sexual "partner"]: 'Allah's Apostle said (to me), "You were shown to me twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, 'She is your wife, 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 and 140).

Mohamed took offense at:

you are those who "kill children and attack innocents."

In obedience to Allah's command and Muhammad's example, every day around the world, Muslims rape, enslave, and butcher non-Muslims, including children and other innocents:

"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)." (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256).

If Mohamed does not like being a part of "you" (jihadists warring against non-Muslims), he should stop being a part of "you." Stop defending them.

Mr. Fadly didn't like this, either:

You don't understand love because your god is the inverse of it.

The Son of God died for the sins of all people (including you, Mohamed), so that all -- including Muslims -- might go to heaven.

On the other hand, Muhammad said that killing (or being killed trying to kill) non-Muslims gets you "paradise," with your perpetual virgins and boys "like pearls":

"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).

Mohamed balked at this:

You defend revenge and retaliation because that is what Muhammad commanded and practiced.

Muhammad did command and practice retaliation, including death for poetry:

"When the apostle heard what she had said he said, 'Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?' Umayr bin Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, "You have helped Allah and His apostle, O Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, 'Two goats won't butt their heads about her,' so Umayr went back to his people.

Now there was a great commotion among Banu Khatma that day about the affair of bint [daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, 'I have killed bint Marwan, o sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting.' That was the first day Islam became powerful among Banu Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact . . .The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of Banu Khatma became Muslims because they feared for their lives" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah).

And here's another clause that offended Mr. Fadly:

Here's what your false prophet Muhammad

Muhammad claimed to be a prophet of the God of the Bible, yet he calls the Son of God, YHWH in the Flesh, "unbeliever," "cursed by Allah," and "deluded," for Christians are stating only what Christ Himself, His Father, and the Holy Spirit testify:

"[. . .] 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)!

Either Allah is not YHWH-- contrary to Muhammad and Muslim's claims -- or Muhammad was a false prophet.

Perhaps instead of objecting to accurate, factual descriptions of Muhammad, Mohamed Fadly should be objecting to what Muhammad said and did.

Muhammad went to fight a Byzantine army that wasn't there; They weren't terrified, just absent

Mohamed, there are a few things wrong with your analysis:

Only those who misunderstand the Islamic mandate to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to Islam -- and those hoping to deceive non-Muslims into complacency -- discuss Muslims "make massacres and kill everyone on their way, or that Muslims are vampires who spill the blood of the enemy everywhere."

The key words are "everyone" and "everywhere."

The texts state clearly -- as do I, because I report what those documents say -- that if someone converts to Islam, leave them alone. If a "Person of the Book" -- Jew or Christian (or some other lucky souls depending on whom you ask) -- is willing to live as a slave and submit himself to vile degradation and humiliation in the name of Allah, then Muslims are not to kill him.

Brutalizing, disgracing, raping, extorting, and bullying him and his is "beautiful" though, since such behavior is consonant with Muhammad's Allah-pleasing example.

I told you an example for that "Terror". You see the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Can you realize the obvious power hole between both sides?
*F22 vs ..(Palestinians don't have any air-fighters),
*Mirkava Tanks vs ..(Neither Palestinians have any tanks),
*Smart Rocks vs Local-Made Rocks,
*Most Recent Radars vs nothing equivalent.
Israelis can see every spot in Palestine, when Palestinians don't own any radars or small plans with cameras. But on the other side, can you see the excessive power that is always used by Israel? Thousands of tons of explosives, thousands of the most advanced technological F16, F22, tanks. Thousands of well-trained soldiers.

And yet they don't obliterate the "Palestinians," despite constant terrorism against their innocents.

They achieved nothing, they ran away in front of Palestinian resistance.
Why? That's because Muslims don't make victory in their battles against their enemies by the power or the weapons they own. Instead they make victory by the support of God even if they're weaker in physical power. It’s not about the tanks or air-fighters, but God’s support.

No, it's about human decency, something which, if the military advantage were reversed, you would not find among Muslims.

If during a time of impotence, Muslims maim and slaughter as much as they do (14,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone, even using civilian planes as bombs), imagine what they'd do with actual military capability.

Another example from the prophet's life is; in a battle that was very hard to Muslims to enter, they had very few logistic support, it was very hot in the desert, but they had to face the enemy because of the preparing of the Byzants to attack Muslims. After thousands of miles towards the battle ground, Allah threw terror in the hearts of enemy leaders and soldiers that they left the battle ground even without facing Muslims.

When the Muslim army arrived there [. . . .]

. . . they found no one.

You're talking about the "Battle" of Tabuk, the time Muhammad went to fight a Byzantine army that wasn't there.

They weren't terrified, just absent.

Muhammad spun that one well, apparently.

If you don't like the "filthy language," don't blame me, blame Muhammad

So, quoting Muhammad and his allah is "poisoning the atmosphere of the discussion"?

If you don't like the "filthy language," don't blame me, blame Muhammad.

The last time we discussed [this topic], you tried to justify Muhammad's raping little nine-year-old Aisha.

She lamented, "The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old” (Tabari 9:131).

You can't divorce what you haven't married [and this includes prepubescent girls]:

"And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months along with those who have it not . . . whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him" (Qur'an 65:4).

[This is because] Aisha had not yet reached puberty (as if that would make raping a nine-year-old acceptable):

"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 . . . reported that Allah's Apostle . . . 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 [Mohammed] died she was eighteen years old" (Muslim Book 8, Number 3311).

Neither am I the one "accusing him of that filthy and dirty accusations," he's the one admitting it:

Allah's Apostle said (to me [Aisha]), "You were shown to me twice in (my) dream [before I married you]. Behold, a man was carrying you in a silken piece of cloth and said to me, 'She is your wife, 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 and 140).

Will you now denounce that behavior as evil, Mohamed?

Will you now condemn Islam's "sacralizing" of pedophilia in imitation of Muhammad's example?

Or do you agree with Allah that such behavior is a "beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please" him?

***************************

Jesus Christ died for Muhammad's sins, too. By all accounts, he rejected that, to his doom.

"Love" does not mean lying for nor dismissing evil; rather, if you love someone, you'll warn them to avoid their own destruction in this world and condemnation in the world to come.

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."

Just like Muhammad: Harass and attack a target, and when they finally defend themselves against you, call it "aggression."

Which puts the lie to a lot of those claims by jihad's apologists that Muhammad butchered [insert non-Muslim farmers caught working their crops, 120-year-old man, or poetess nursing her baby here] in "self-defense."

How much of a threat are bound prisoners of war who've surrendered, again?

In response to a list of incidents offered as evidence that Israel's getting what it deserves, events in which it appears that Israel was either fighting for its independence from the British or defending itself against Islamic jihad, posted here:

If Muslims want Israelis to stop killing them, they should stop committing terrorist acts against them.

And if they want their civilians unharmed, stop firing at the Israelis from among them.

It's just like Muhammad: Harass and attack a target, and when they [finally] defend themselves against you, call it "aggression."

Briefly with regard to your list, you do realize that some Israelis carried out bombings against the British, pre-independence, right?

Unlike your coreligionists, they were not following a "divine" mandate to enslave or slaughter all who refuse the "invitation" to Judaism, they gave prior warning to avoid innocents dying in at least one bombing (the King David Hotel), they were not targeting civilians, and your Sharon-led mission was condemned by Israel.

(No, not the fingers-crossed-behind-the-back, double-speaking, "We-denounce-terrorism-in-all-its-forms[-but-killing-Jews?-That's-not-terrorism!"] kinds of "condemnations" in which Islamic spokesmen engage.

Since you do not provide any background regarding the "attacks" you list, nor did I see any links, I looked up one of your events that occurred some time after statehood.

It doesn't look good for you.

Here* is what I found about your "Qibya massacre" and why it happened: It was in response to more Islamic barbarism:

"The attack took place in the context of border clashes between Israel and neighbouring states, which had begun almost immediately after the signing of the 1949 Armistice Agreements

[. . .]

"between June 1949 and the end of 1952, a total of 57 Israelis, mostly civilians, were killed by infiltrators from Jordan. The Israeli death toll for the first 9 months of 1953 was 32

[. . .]

"The specific incident which the Israeli government used to justify the assault on Qibya occurred on October 12, 1953, when a Jewish mother, Suzanne Kinyas, and her two children were killed by a grenade thrown into their house in the Israeli town of Yehud, some 10 kilometers (6 mi) inside Israel's border.

[. . .]

"Force had to be used to demonstrate to the Arabs that Israel was in the Middle East to stay, Ben Gurion believed, and to that end he felt strongly that his retaliatory policy had to be continued."

So, yes, it was self-defense [against Muhammad's anti-Semitism].

You can't wage offensive warfare against non-Muslims and then cry "Foul!" when they defend themselves.

At least, not honestly.

*A note: I don't like to use Wikipedia as a source, but considering that it is often used by apologists for jihad (so there's [usually] a pro-Islam slant), and I don't have a desire to chase Mohamed down every rabbit hole, there you go.

More non sequiturs, ad hominem attacks, false moral equivalences, half-truths, and outright lies offered in defense of Islam -- and against Israel

In other words, we have here more of the typical Muslim blame game: "This conflict is your fault for defending yourselves!"

I realize that to know and believe in Islam as it is defined by the words of Allah and the example of Muhammad requires the dulling or disuse of one's reason (and conscience), but it is difficult to believe some people's persistence in malicious falsehood, even after having those lies exposed and refuted repeatedly.

Yet, here we go again. Mohamed writes:

But ... did "Islam" committed the Babylonian captivity in 586 BCE.?

What about Qana massacre in 1996 and 2006 [. . .] Bahr el-Baqar massacre in 1970 [. . .] Kafr Qassim massacre in 1956 [. . .] King David Hotel bombing in 1946 [. . .] Deir Yassin massacre in 1946 [. . .] bombing crowded Arab markets since 1938?

Were these really about Islam?

If those events are "not really about Islam" as you imply, that makes them non sequiturs and irrelevant to the question of whether or not Islam is the root cause of the conflict between Israel and its neighbors.

The Religion of Slaughter requires the slavery or death of all who refuse its "invitation" to convert; though you still will not admit this fact outright, you concede it by explaining how we "infidels" should appreciate Islam's rules for when and how to butcher us.

In the incidents you mention in which Israel was at fault, they apologized and punished their own people. This is diametric to Islam; when a Muslim murderer butchers innocent Jews, they're celebrated as heroes, especially if they die doing so.

I have news for you: Your suhada aren't enjoying their perpetual virgins and boys "like pearls;" they're burning in Hell.

The one report of Israelis claiming they were told to ignore the risk to civilians doesn't help you either, since not only do your alleged "Zionist pigs" state that they were going after terrorists, but those sources were also anonymous.

Experience has shown that Muslims not only attack Israelis from among their own (usually non-Muslim) civilians or mosques, but that they also fabricate Israeli "atrocities" to try to influence world opinion.

Be honest.

When there have been more than 1300 victims in the last Israeli (Jewish for now) war against Palestinians in Gaza strip, HALF OF THEM ARE CHILDREN, and the other half are mainly civilians.

Please convince us that Israelis were just defending themselves [. . .] Palestinians were using THEIR CHILDREN as human shields [. . .] When Israeli soldiers testified that they had clear order to SHOOT WITHOUT ANY DISCRIMINATION [. . .] Can you please convince us how Israelis are kind-hearted, peaceful guys who want to express their love to Palestinians [. . .] When Israeli government is changing the Arabic names of streets. Can you convince us how Israelis are welcoming Arabs as citizens among them [. . . .]

You can't have it both ways. You want Israel to be a massive, overpowering, ruthless, military juggernaut that delights in innocent Muslim blood yet -- according to your own words -- they've killed barely more than a thousand "civilians."

Your coreligionists more than doubled that output in only one sunny morning here a few years ago.

You've got a few more logical fallacies here; whether or not Israelis are "nice" has nothing to do with the Islamic mandate to convert, enslave, or kill Jews and other non-Muslims.

Neither does the way in which Israel treats its Muslim citizens have anything to do with Muhammad's utterly depraved lust for Jewish blood, so that is also a red herring.

You've also got a false moral equivalence here since while Israel might -- change a street name, seriously? -- Muslims change the placement of Jewish body parts.

Most importantly, any Israeli "crimes" (real or imagined; mostly imagined, but when real, admitted and atoned for) do nothing to negate the fact that Muhammad was a raving, foaming-at-the-mouth, lunatic anti-Semite, as I've pointed out to you before from your own "sacred" texts:

". . . 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)."

The real problem is -- as even Hamas states in their charter -- that Israel exists. You and your fellow Muslims will not be satisfied until the Jews are no more.

You want to blame the conflict in Israel on Israel, but when Muhammad was beheading hundreds of Jews who had surrendered, raping their wives, and leaving "none but Muslim," how many "indiscriminate acts" had the Israelis committed?

Since Ancient Israel (Judea) had been destroyed five hundred years before Muhammad was born, and modern Israel wouldn't be formed for another 1300 years after he died, the answer is . . .

None at all.

Stop blaming the victim.

Have the decency to tell the truth about what your god and prophet require.

Then have the courage to denounce their pure hate.