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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They're trying to make it seem innocuous.

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

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

Here's the latest:

Thank you for your reply.

My original question was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Almost in an ironic way anachronistic in itself.

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

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

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

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

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

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do" (Qur'an 8:38, 39).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You continued:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Red herring.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You continued:

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

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

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

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

Another red herring. The topic was jihad in Islam.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is who represents Islam.

Mohammed does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First step?

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

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

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

Looking for God where He is not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baptism saves, even infants.

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

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

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

Does not God laugh at us?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Osama Bin Laden is no religious figure in the Muslim world

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

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

Just addressed.

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

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

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

Premarital sex is not [necessarily] rape.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're justifying child rape.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prove it. Citations.

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

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

I can’t see as something wrong

Disgusting.

it was common during those times.

Among savages, monsters, and pedophiles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

and fathers even sold their daughters into slavery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am saying what your "holy" texts say:

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

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

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

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

Continued . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's blasphemous and shamefully false.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and,

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

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

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

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

Here comes the tried and true . . .

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

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

Mohammed said:

"In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things" (Qur'an 5:17).

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them" (Qur'an 5:73).

"The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth" (Qur'an 9:30)!

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

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

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

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

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers . . . " (Qur'an 9:14).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do" (Qur'an 8:38, 39).

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

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

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd be happy to answer you.

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

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

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

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

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

So it seems.

you're in no position either.

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

No, all of that was you.

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

You have yet to answer my first one.

Daily Bulletin aids terrorist propaganda

Munira Syeda of CAIR Anaheim wrote in a letter to the Daily Bulletin:

Religious freedom key to peaceful world

I am responding to the article on "Germans protest over Cruise's Scientology," July 2.

In a world where religion so frequently makes news headlines, it is important to remember that democratic nations have an obligation to let all people practice their religions without any intimidation, harassment or discrimination. Freedom to practice one's faith and respect for religious freedom are key to ensuring a more peaceful and tolerant world.

MUNIRA SYEDA, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Southern California Anaheim

Here is what I sent to the paper:

Munira Syeda makes three serious misrepresentations in this brief note.

First, it is not "religion" frequently in the news, it is one religion in particular -- Islam -- making headlines with its "divinely"-inspired carnage around the globe.

Second, it is not the responsibility of any nation to allow itself to be overcome by any totalitarian ideology bent on its destruction.

Third, she asks for freedom to practice religion in peace, but would not show that tolerance to others, for her religion Islam requires:

"...fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"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 refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . . " (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah . . . 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 shameful enough that you do not expose the traditional, historical, and scriptural foundations of Islamic terror against non-Muslims, but to provide a propagandist for an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism case (CAIR) the legitimacy of space on your site is absolutely and suicidally irresponsible.

Hellish fashion at a family gathering

"after 9/11 . . . Arabophobia . . . ,"

from a family discussion on women in the United States covering their faces with Islamic veils even after (or especially because of) the "divinely"-mandated carnage in the fall of 2001.

Considering that 19 of them had just slaughtered several thousand innocents, is it really possible to consider any fear of Arabs irrational?

Of course, it was not the savages' Arab-ness that made them sociopathic, bloodthirsty monsters, for Arab is a race. It was their set of beliefs, their ideology -- the will of their god and the example of their prophet -- that inspired the bloodlust.

The niqab is a symbol of the tyranny of Allah. It represents nearly fourteen centuries of Islam's enslaving and degrading of females. Anyone wearing it voluntarily makes it no less so, it only calls into question their judgment.

The same devil who raped his nine-year-old "wife," the same monster who slaughtered innocent men and then enslaved their women and children (raping those he found especially attractive), the same human malignancy who advised beating and "plowing" one's wives is the same cretinous mass also requiring the mockery of one-half of humanity, for whatever the "Ideal Man" and "beautiful pattern of conduct" did, all must do:

"Aisha used to say: 'When (the Verse): "They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms," was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces'" (Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 282).

"Narrated 'Aisha: 'Allah's Apostle used to offer the Fajr prayer and some believing women covered with their veiling sheets used to attend the Fajr prayer with him and then they would return to their homes unrecognized'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 368).

[Explanatory note: Shaikh Ibn Uthaimin in tafseer of this hadith explains: "This hadith makes it clear that the Islamic dress is concealing of the entire body as explained in this hadith. Only with the complete cover including the face and hands can a woman not be recognized. This was the understanding and practice of the Sahaba and they were the best of group, the noblest in the sight of Allah . . . with the most complete Imaan and noblest of characters. so if the practice of the women of the sahaba was to wear the complete veil then how can we deviate from their path?]

"Narrated 'Aisha: 'The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. 'Umar used to say to the Prophet "Let your wives be veiled," but Allah's Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam'a the wife of the Prophet went out at 'Isha' time and she was a tall lady. 'Umar addressed her and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda." He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of "Al-Hijab" (A complete body cover excluding the eyes)'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148).

And no, to equate this sign of domination and subjugation with other traditions in which females cover their heads is a disgustingly false moral equivalence.

As if the mother of God would have hidden herself under a sheet for a devil!

Completely Chalcedon compliant

Here is a fun quiz I found while researching the Apollanarian heresy. Perhaps it can be used for a new Inquisition or screening political candidates.*

I wonder where people like Hugh Hewitt, Joe Carter, VD, or any of the televangelists would fall out.

Here are my results:

You scored as Chalcedon compliant, You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451. Chalcedon compliant 100% Monophysitism 33% Nestorianism 33% Apollanarian 33% Socinianism 0% Albigensianism 0% Donatism 0% Monarchianism 0% Modalism 0% Arianism 0% Adoptionist 0% Gnosticism 0% Docetism 0% Pelagianism 0% Are you a heretic? created with QuizFarm.com

*Both those comments were jokes!

A textbook defense of Islam for the ignorant and gullible

In response to a note from an acquaintance.

Thank you for writing. My responses to your comments are below.

"Still, what you quoted as 9:111 is different than what is written in the Koran. And I can only assume that by having a false passage from the Koran, you must be gathering information from anti-islamic resources."

No, I am using widely-accepted Muslim translations from Muslim sources:

009.111
YUSUFALI: 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? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.

PICKTHAL: Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

SHAKIR: Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.

This is what you sent to me for 9:111:

"Allah has purchased from the muslims their lives and their belongings against this return, that for them is Paradise, they fight in the way of Allah, then they kill and are killed; true promise on His generous responsibility in the Taurah and the Injeel and the Quran. And who is, true to his words than Allah'? Rejoice then in your trade ' which you have done with Him And it is this which is, the great triumph."

If there is any meaningful difference between your translation and the three I have, perhaps you ought to take it up with the ummah.

You continued:

"And yes they [Hadith and Sira] are important for determining the Muslim way of life, but we are discussing what is written in the [k]oran and your [B]ible."

First, the words and deeds of Mohammed are considered authoritative in Islam, so you cannot so dismiss them at all.

Second, no, I was citing Islam's authoritative texts to demonstrate that offensive warfare to make the world Islam is not a perversion of the religion by a "tiny minority of extremists," but the will of Allah as expressed in the words and deeds of Mohammed.

"you must also understand Allah doesn't condone violence against peaceful and ordinary non-muslims, only to be hostile to the violent ones . . . ."

Fight in the cause of God those who fight you . . . ."

Surely you are aware that Allah's position on warfare evolved throughout Mohammed's prophetic career, so Mohammed's revelations on warfare also changed, making Surah 9 the final word on the subject and negating earlier passages that required cooperation or peace with non-Muslims.

When Mohammed and his followers were politically, militarily, and numerically weak, his revelations spoke of cooperation. As his influence and power increased, warfare in self-defense became acceptable. Then it was required (as in the passage you cite above). The last stage in the development of Islamic warfare was that described in Surah 9 -- offensive warfare until the end of time against all non-Muslims who refuse to submit to the rule of Allah.

That is why we see passages like (isn't this first admission enough to demonstrate the utter depravity of Mohammed?):

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers . . . " (Qur'an 9:14).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do" (Qur'an 8:38, 39).

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

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

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

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

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

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah?" (Qur'an 9:111).

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

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

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

"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).

"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 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).

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

"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).

How can you justify even one of these passages? If Mohammed fabricated these revelations, is he not a monster? If Allah truly did reveal these to Mohammed, was he not deceived by a devil?

"I must also send you this from your bible: When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it . . . thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them . . . ."

You are unable to demonstrate that I misrepresented any of the passages revealing the bloodlust of Allah and his apostle, so instead you engage in a tu quoque argument. That is not intellectually honest.

But since this is an important point, I will address it.

In citing the command from Deuteronomy, you are making a false moral equivalence. Do you not see the difference between Israel's command for warfare -- at one time and in one place, and in divine judgment of the people of that land only -- and Allah's universal, unlimited commands to war against all who refuse to submit to his rule?

Superficial similarities between Israel's one-time command and Allah's repeated, universal commands for non-Muslim blood are in no way morally or substantively equal.

In fact, by arguing, "Your religion is just as bad!" are you not admitting the utterly reprehensible nature of your god and prophet's words and deeds?

"Yet my religion is a religion a terror?"

Mohammed said he was "made victorious by terror." He is considered the "Ideal Man" in Islam, and Allah calls him a "beautiful pattern of conduct." Since Islam's founding to this very moment, Muslims have raped, enslaved, and slaughtered non-Muslims in the name of Allah, at his command, and in imitation of his false prophet.

What would you call a religion whose god and founder require such evil?

". . . Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. . . ."

Another verse that is supposed to make Islam the Religion of Peace, but it does nothing to nullify the passages cited above.

And I wish that were all Allah says on the subject. Did you forget:

"The Prophet . . . 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)?

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

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

Another of your peaceful verses negated by revelation or prophetic practice.

What can we conclude? You falsely charged I misrepresented Qur'an; you engaged in an ad hominem attack; you cited a verse on self-defense that does nothing to negate Allah's numerous, final commands to engage in offensive warfare against those who will not submit to his rule; and you made a false moral equivalence in resorting to a tu quoque argument.

Every one of your errors leans in favor of Jihad by misrepresenting your god and prophet to non-Muslims. That does not speak well of you.

If you seek to know the true God, to whom should you go, the one who commanded terror, enslavement, and genocide, or the One Who committed no sin, performed only good deeds, spoke the very words of YHWH, and rose from the dead?

In whom should your trust be, the one who lied, stole, enslaved, raped (including a nine-year-old child), and butchered -- and commanded his followers to do the same -- or the One Who reconciled you to the true God by paying for all your sins with His own blood?

Regards,

Amillennialist

Slaughtering non-Muslims out-of-context

Some claim the command to "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them . . ." (Qur'an 9:5) was applicable to only a specific tribe that broke a treaty or "irritated" the false prophet of Islam -- and as Cartoon Rage and Mohammed's assassinations of those who mocked him (including female poets) you don't want to do that or the Religion of Tolerance might become Intolerant!

Others claim that the mandate was given in the same context as the very similar wording of Surah 2, self-defense.

But how has Islam traditionally understood it? How did Mohammed's companions understand it? Most importantly, how have non-Muslims for the generations since its utterance been forced to understand it?

From a Wikipedia entry (allegedly) citing Spencer:

. . . Sura 9:5, called “the Verse of the Sword,” is a cornerstone of the Qur’an’s teaching about jihad:

"So when the Sacred Months have passed, then fight the Mushrikun [unbelievers] wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform the Salah [Islamic prayers five times daily], and give the Zakah [alms as required by Islamic law], then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (9:5)

. . . Ibn Kathir, a prominent commentator of the Qur’an, with a tafsir (exegesis) of this verse.[104] According to Ibn Kathir, "the first part of this honorable Surah was revealed to the Messenger of Allah when he returned from the battle of Tabuk".[105] This military expedition took place within a year prior to Muhammad’s death, and was the last of his life. Ibn Kathir gives an explanation of Sura 9:5 as follows: "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."[106]

. . . Hazrat Moulana Sayyed Abul Hassan Ali Nadwi, a Muslim scholar and biographer of Muhammad, [writes] . . . that the Prophet was attempting a pre-emptive strike: “The Messenger of Allah decided to lead a Muslim army into Roman territory before Roman armies crossed the Arab borders and threatened the heart of Islam.” . . . in Sura 9:81, Allah scolds those who did not cross the desert with the Prophet to fight:

"Those who were left behind (in the Tabuk expedition) rejoiced in their inaction behind the back of the Messenger of Allah: they hated to strive and fight, with their goods and their persons, in the cause of Allah: they said, ‘Go not forth in the heat.’ Say, ‘The fire of Hell is fiercer in heat.’ If only they could understand!" (9:81)

. . . .

. . . Sura 9 is, according to the Sahih Bukhari, “the last Sura revealed in full.”

. . . to the distress of those who claim that while Muhammad may have fought these particular infidels, he didn't actually mean to leave his followers a universal command to fight all infidels, Ibn Kathir quotes an earlier authority, Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, to establish that the Verse of the Sword 'abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term.'"[114] Ibn Kathir quotes another authority: "No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah (Surah 9) was revealed."

. . . another early commentator, Ibn Juzayy, agrees that one of this verse’s functions is "abrogating every peace treaty in the Quran." . . . In other words, the Muslim community is indeed commanded to fight against any and all unbelievers, not just against those Muhammad was facing when the Verse of the Sword was revealed."[115] He writes that Ibn Juzayy was referring to the Islamic doctrine of naskh, under which later Quranic revelations may modify and cancel certain directives, replacing them with others.

. . . “this idea is crucial as a guide to the relationship of the Qur’an’s peaceful passages to its violent ones. Suras 16, 29, 52, 73, and 109-the sources of most of the verses of peace and tolerance above-are all Meccan. That means that anything they teach must be considered in light of what was revealed later in Medina. (The sole exception to this is the “no compulsion in religion” verse from the Medinan Sura 2, discussed below.) On the other hand, the last sura revealed, Sura 9, is Medinan. Thus it is in effect the Qur’an’s last word on jihad, and all the rest of the book-including the “tolerance verses”-must be read in its light.”[116]

. . . “In other words, Muhammad gave peace a chance with the Pacific suras, and then understood that jihad was the more expedient course.”[117]

From a FrontPage symposium:

. . . The traditional Muslim view articulated by . . . all four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, as well as Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, Sunan Abu Dawud, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Khaldun, Muhammad Muhsin Khan, S. K. Malik, and the others I have quoted. All say that fighting against unbelievers is the Qur'an's final word on this matter. You must know enough of Islamic history and theology to know that I could quote many others saying the same thing, including Averroes, al-Ghazzali, numerous Shi'ites, etc.

You blithely ignored all these citations and then accuse me of trafficking in generalizations. Why don't you stop blustering and posturing and engage in honest discourse?

. . . .

. . . I've quoted Muslim scholars repeatedly to show that I’m not advancing any personal interpretation of the Qur’an, but merely reporting on a common (but not the only) Muslim understanding.

Ibn Kathir says that the verse I quoted above, Sura 9:5, "abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater." Ibn Juzayy agrees that one of the functions of Sura 9:5 is "abrogating every peace treaty in the Qur’an." That means war is the Qur’an’s last word.

Ahmad Von Denffer calls Ibn Kathir’s commentary of the "better-known" and "more valuable books of tafsir . . . of greatest importance to Muslims." Other Muslim scholars add that "the majority of the Muslim Ummah in the world today consider it to be the best available source of understanding of the Qur’anic text."

Yusuf Patel says that "some claimed [this verse] referred to the Banu Khuza’a who were the allies of the Prophet slain by the Banu Bakr" -- in other words, that only that group of unbelievers should be fought, not all. But Patel adds: "Ibn Juzayy adds to it a general meaning and Ibn Kathir also held this view. Therefore this is a promise of victory for the Muslims over the Kuffar [unbelievers]."

Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, Von Denffer, and Patel are Muslim scholars: two medieval, two modern. Yet when I quote them I am Islamophobic? A "phobia" is not a hatred but a fear, and I am not afraid of you and your campaign of smears and intimidation. By smearing people who raise honest questions about Islam instead of facing the roots of terrorism and working to eradicate them, you are paving the way for the ultimate triumph of the terrorist version of Islam.

And of course, there is ample evidence from the rest of the "perfect" word of Allah and the example of his false prophet (as recorded in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira) to demonstrate that the commands for offensive warfare to establish the tyranny of Allah over all mankind were to be applied at all times and and in all places.

Consider:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294).

and

"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

"Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers . . . " (Qur'an 9:14).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

Every Muslim is an actual or potential supporter of the use of any means necessary -- including offensive warfare -- to establish the tyranny of Allah

A note to Larry Elder after his program today. He is one of the very few media personalities with the intellectual integrity and moral courage to tell the truth about Islam.

If your god commands it, won't you be inclined to support it?

If you reject the clear word of your god, are you not an apostate?

Hi, Mr. Elder,

At the end of the first hour of your program today, a caller identified as "Dan" mis-characterized as "foaming at the mouth" your explication of what actually motivates Jihad.

Do not allow yourself to be intimidated into self-doubt or silence by others' cowardly, misguided, politically-correct, civilizational self-loathing.

Dan and many others like him are afraid to admit what they intuitively conclude from both current events and the facts you presented today: Since Allah and his apostle require the converting, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims to make the world Islam, every Muslim is an actual or potential supporter of the use of any means necessary -- including offensive warfare -- to establish the tyranny of Allah over all mankind.

This truth is too unpleasant to admit for the weak, witless, etiolated Western Infidel, so rather than direct his venom where it belongs -- against those who would rape and enslave his women and children and slaughter him like an animal -- he attacks the messenger.

The Source and Sustenance of Jihad are the words of Allah and the example of his prophet Mohammed. These are recorded in Islam's "sacred" texts. In light of this fact, it should be no surprise when Muslims actually try to fulfill them.

By the way, the implication of the term "Islamofascism" is a false one, and the term itself is redundant. There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. It is the jihadist and those who support him -- not the moderate -- who obey Allah and imitate his apostle.

Islamofascism is Islam.

Those who truly reject the "divine" mandate to engage in or support Jihad against Infidels ought to be termed, perhaps, "Islamomoderates."

Regards,

Amillennialist

~~~~~~~

Here is a link to a page containing verses from Qur'an and Hadith requiring the satiation of the bloodlust of Allah.

Here is link to some thoughts on our leadership's aiding Jihadist propaganda (you're right to criticize the Left, and at least President Bush has our best and bravest slaughtering the enemies of Humanity, but he too defends the indefensible).

Here are some other posts related to what motivates our enemy.