Free Republic

We had a similar case in NZ with a Malaysian Muslim diplomat who got convicted and deported- It's the woman are your field -go in and use them theme (from the Quran)- Islam objectifies women - to be dominated and particularly useful for sex.

Ask him whatis the sharia punishment for adultery or fornication- refer him to Bukhari 2/414 and 8/803-806 and Muslim 4207- ask him if he tries to evade it if what Mohammad did is part of sharia law? Muslims are told in the Quran to obey Mohammad (suras 3:32, 8:20)
Then read to the congregation from John ch 8:1-11 and ask them and the Imam if Islam honours and follows Jesus!

I submitted the verses from the Quran set out below that question Ramadan's "reasonable" words. It was deleted by the moderator and I have resubmitted it again . So much for "debate"

"Once again I submit that which was removed by the moderator. Without reason and questioning what hope does Islam have in the modern free world?

005.101 YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. But if ye ask about things when the Qur’an is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, Allah will forgive those: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.

005.102 YUSUFALI: Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith."

Allah must a weakling and an imposter if hiscreation can harm him!

This Chaplin by “joking” diverts attention from the puzzle of the primary symbol of Islam The truth may well be an embarrassment. Here are some ideas.
It is clear from archeology that the moon was a symbol of ancient pagan religions. Bad PR for Islam one would think. The symbol also confirms the view that the author of the Quran was a created being because “he” swears by bits of creation such as the moon. In surah 74:32 he calls the moon to witness.
Yahweh by way of contrast swears by Himself, because there is nothing greater than Himself.
Not a good look for a religion seeking acceptance by the thoughtful.
Don’t get me started on that chief pagan idol in the ka’ba named Hubal and its links to Allah/Mohammad....

True prophets are holy and rise ABOVE the culture not succumb to it.

a modern example of the Khybar expulsion of the Jews

A convert to Islam is an intriguing creature, not the least because of the unusual mix of both candidness and defensiveness. One such person is Abdullah who in the radio interview with National Radio New Zealand confessed that, like many Muslims, he doesn’t always pray 5 times a day, but that Allah looks at his intention (what? Allah reduced the number of daily prayers from 50 to 5 and this is the submission he gets!), said he could count the (Muslim) terrorists on one hand (a fringe group apparently, with no mention of their following the later revelations of the Quran and bringing terror just as that Allah in the Quran and Mohammad both said that they brought to non believers), mentioned David Koresh as an example of a violent “Christian” (note Koresh was one of the false messiahs that Jesus warned against and see also see below regarding a mark of a Christian), and described the Shiite /Sunni historical split as being where some “horrible things” happened, (at least a modicum of honesty there), but then attempted to convey some moral equivalence saying that there were some embarrassing things done after the death of “the prophet Jesus” (Note he didn’t deny the death of Jesus, but he no doubt would have if pressed on the point by a knowledgeable interviewer).

After Mohammad died his followers had some vicious disputes over successors, as Mohammad wouldn’t appoint one. He deliberately omitted to do so. He knew he was dying and could have done so.

What Abdullah glossed over with respect to the killing of Ali and others was that those events were entirely different from anything after the death of Jesus. He referred to the wars as “tribal” but that suggests Islam as a religion could not rise above the culture of the time.

Certainly Christians were persecuted after the death of Jesus by non Christians and the famous Saul of Tarsus was one of the worst but became a convert to Christianity and was transformed into peaceful man.

If Abdullah meant that Jesus’ followers killed one another in brutal fights over succession he is wrong (but the tame interviewer who runs the programme didn’t seek clarification.).

If what he meant was that some centuries later Christians killed fellow Christians and others then let’s look at the morality of those actions in the light of Jesus’ standards.

Any “Christian” who (outside of being a soldier in a State army acting in obedience to its sovereign to fight for the State against an opposing State), killed “enemies” who opposed their religious beliefs/claims by the “might” of the pen or verbal jousting, could not claim to be a true follower of Christ .

The Church as an institution needs to repent for what was done by many in the name of Christ. The Church today condemns these actions as unChrist like. They were ALWAYS unChristlike! Jesus was radical in telling his followers to pray for those who persecute you, not to murder them. This is one of the marks of a Christian.

The difference is that any Muslim killing a non Muslim who in their view has insulted Allah or the prophet or is a “threat” to Islam can simply point to Mohammad for justification. Mohammad arranged the assassination of numerous opponents (including poets, singers and women).

Now the consequence is that given Muhammad himself arranged assassinations of his opponents then the Islamic violence after his death was consistent with the modus operandi of Allah and his prophet.

Jesus would have rebuked/condemned Mohammad for his violence, cruelty and lack of mercy. Islam ironically claims him as a Muslim prophet. The prophecy of Jesus that people will think they are killing as a “service to God.” directly applies to Mohammad and many of his followers, both ancient and modern.

After Jesus’ death did his followers murder one another to gain power? No, because that conduct directly contradicted the teachings and conduct of Jesus. Peter had already been rebuked for using violence. Mohammad used his right hand thug Khalid as a means to terrorise non believers and force conversions particularly after the conquest of Mecca.

The contrast is so obvious that Muslims like Abdullah (note the Arab name – the same name as Mohammad’s father meaning “slave of allah” this convert to Islam has taken) use spin to create what they think is “good PR” for their religion.

Muslim apologists will argue it’s an extreme interpretation (of the Quran) that some Muslims today use as a justification to kill their enemies, but the problem with that argument is that Mohammad is the role model of Islam.

What is the appropriate interpretation of the Quran given there is no context in the Quran? It is that which is consistent with the behaviour of Mohammad.

Thus it is through the life of Mohammad seen as the final prophet of Allah, as recorded by Islam’s own (early) historians and scholars, that a proper interpretation of the Quran can be understood.

That is the story Islam doesn’t want to get out in the open in an expansive way, and why the move to prohibit criticism of Mohammad is one of the objectives, along with welcoming revisionist rewriting of history by the likes of Armstrong and Ramadan. It otherwise leads to an undermining of the credibility of Islam in the “post Jesus exemplar epoch”.

Jesus in contrast gave no authority or encouragement whatsoever to the Koreshs of this world. In fact Jesus warned his followers to be aware of them and not to follow them. Some aspects of the haj experienced by Abdullah also caught my attention. One was the general crushing of believers in Mecca during some of the haj rituals. He describes the haj process as “daunting”.

What came to mind was the crushing of Mohammad’s chest by the being that accosted him in the cave (he believed it to be the angel Gabriel). The modern day collective crushing that occurs at the haj has some disturbing historical parallel with Mohammad’s “individual” encounter with that particular spiritual being (just as the Shiite version of Islam has a self mutilation ritual that has a historical parallel with the behaviour of the prophets of Baal: see 1Kings 18:28-29).

Another point was Abdullah’s reference to “third world’ attendees being impoverished by travelling to the haj. Why does Allah condone the impoverishment of his followers for a ritual? Abdullah as a convert to Islam conveniently had his haj costs paid by the Saudis!

Jesus told the woman at Jacob’s well that God is spirit and a time is coming when God will be worshipped in spirit and in truth (not in or facing any city or site on earth). This is directly contradicted by the haj.

Abdullah contrasted his “speaking up” as a Kiwi convert to Islam with that of Muslims who immigrate to New Zealand who he says practise modesty and don’t like to speak out. Maybe.

They will however presumably have learned that what they have been taught from birth in their original country, about other religions and the privileged status of Islam and Muslims over others, isn’t accepted in democratic non Muslim countries that uphold freedom of religion and the right to change one’s religion and so on (the rule of law).

I also suspect that they have yet to develop the spin doctoring skills needed to foster the “right” image.

Abdullah in the radio interview with National Radio New Zealand confessed that, like many Muslims, he doesn’t always pray 5 times a day, but that Allah looks at his intention (what? Allah reduced the number of daily prayers from 50 to 5 and this is the submission he gets!), said he could count the (Muslim) terrorists on one hand (a fringe group apparently, with no mention of their following the later revelations of the Quran and bringing terror just as that Allah in the Quran and Mohammad both said that they brought to non believers), mentioned David Koresh as an example of a violent “Christian” (note Koresh was one of the false messiahs that Jesus warned against and see also see below regarding a mark of a Christian), and described the Shiite /Sunni historical split as being where some “horrible things” happened, (at least a modicum of honesty there), but then attempted to convey some moral equivalence saying that there were some embarrassing things done after the death of “the prophet Jesus” (Note he didn’t deny the death of Jesus, but he no doubt would have if pressed on the point by a knowledgeable interviewer). After Mohammad died his followers had some vicious disputes over successors, as Mohammad wouldn’t appoint one. He deliberately omitted to do so. He knew he was dying and could have done so.

What Abdullah glossed over with respect to the killing of Ali and others was that those events were entirely different from anything after the death of Jesus. He referred to the as “tribal” but that suggest Islam as a religion could not rise above the culture of the time. Certainly Christians were persecuted after the death of Jesus by non Christians and the famous Saul of Tarsus was one of the worst but became a convert to Christianity and was transformed into peaceful man. If Abdullah meant that Jesus’ followers killed one another in brutal fights over succession he is wrong (but the tame interviewer who runs the programme didn’t seek clarification.). If what he meant was that some centuries later Christians killed fellow Christians and others then let’s look at the morality of those actions in the light of Jesus’ standards. Any “Christian” who (outside of being a soldier in a State army acting in obedience to its sovereign to fight for the State against an opposing State), killed “enemies” who opposed their religious beliefs/claims by the “might” of the pen or verbal jousting, could not claim to be a true follower of Christ .The Church as an institution needs to repent for what was done by many in the name of Christ. The Church today condemns these actions as unChrist like. They were ALWAYS unChristlike! Jesus was radical in telling his followers to pray for those who persecute you, not to murder them. This is one of the marks of a Christian, The difference is that any Muslim killing a non Muslim who in their view has insulted Allah or the prophet or is a “threat” to Islam can simply point to Mohammad for justification. Mohammad arranged the assassination of numerous opponents (including poets, singers and women). Now the consequence is that given Muhammad himself arranged assassinations of his opponents then the Islamic violence after his death was consistent with the modus operandi of Allah and his prophet, Jesus would have rebuked/condemned Mohammad for his violence, cruelty and lack of mercy. Islam ironically claims him as a Muslim prophet. The prophecy of Jesus that people will think they are killing as a “service to God.” directly applies to Mohammad and many of his followers, both ancient and modern. After Jesus’ death did his followers murder one another to gain power? No, because that conduct directly contradicted the teachings and conduct of Jesus. Peter had already been rebuked for using violence. Mohammad used his right hand thug Khalid as a means to terrorise non believers and force conversions particularly after the conquest of Mecca. The contrast is so obvious that Muslims like Abdullah (note the Arab name – the same name as Mohammad’s father meaning “slave of allah” this convert to Islam has taken) use spin to create what they think is “good PR” for their religion. Muslim apologists will argue it’s an extreme interpretation (of the Quran) that some Muslims today use as a justification to kill their enemies, but the problem with that argument is that Mohammad is the role model of Islam. What is the appropriate interpretation of the Quran given there is no context in the Quran? It is that which is consistent with the behaviour of Mohammad. Thus it is through the life of Mohammad. Seem as the final prophet of Allah, as recorded by Islam’s own (early) historians and scholars, that a proper interpretation of the Quran can be understood. That is the story Islam doesn’t want to get out in the open in an expansive way, and why the move to prohibit criticism of Mohammad is one of the objectives, along with welcoming revisionist rewriting of history by the likes of Armstrong and Ramadan. It otherwise leads to an undermining of the credibility of Islam in the “post Jesus exemplar epoch”. Jesus in contrast gave no authority or encouragement whatsoever to the Koreshs of this world. In fact Jesus warned his followers to be aware of them and not to follow them. Some aspects of the haj experienced by Abdullah also caught my attention. One was the general crushing of believers in Mecca during some of the haj rituals. He describes the haj process as “daunting”. What came to mind was the crushing of Mohammad’s chest by the being that accosted him in the cave (he believed it to be the angel Gabriel). The modern day collective crushing that occurs at the haj has some disturbing historical parallel with Mohammad’s “individual” encounter with that particular spiritual being (just as the Shiite version of Islam has a self mutilation ritual that has a historical parallel with the behaviour of the prophets of Baal: see 1Kings 18:28-29). Another point was Abdullah’s reference to “third world’ attendees being impoverished by travelling to the haj. Why does Allah condone the impoverishment of his followers for a ritual? Abdullah as a convert to Islam conveniently had his haj costs paid by the Saudis! Jesus told the woman at Jacob’s well that God is spirit and a time is coming when God will be worshipped in spirit and in truth (not in or facing any city or site on earth). This is directly contradicted by the haj. Abdullah contrasted his “speaking up” as a Kiwi convert to Islam with that of Muslims who immigrate to New Zealand who he says practise modesty and don’t like to speak out. Maybe. They will however presumably have learned that what they have been taught from birth in their original country, about other religions and the privileged status of Islam and Muslims over others, isn’t accepted in democratic non Muslim countries that uphold freedom of religion and the right to change one’s religion and so on (the rule of law). I also suspect that they have yet to develop the spin doctoring skills needed to foster the “right” image.

“I have not altered the Quran itself. My system is simply one of inline commentary, in which dangerous passages are flagged and reinterpreted to be non-violent. I have added these inline interpretations to key Quranic passages and examples of the commentary are freely and easily available.7 For over fifteen years I have tried to preach my views in mosques in the Middle East, as well as to my local community in the West, but have faced the unwavering hostility of most Salafi Muslims in both regions. Muslims who live in the West—who insist to outsiders that Islam is a “religion of peace” and who enjoy freedom of expression, which they demand from their Western hosts—have threatened me with murder and arson. I have had to choose between accepting violent Salafi views and being rejected by the overwhelming majority of my fellow Muslims. I have chosen the latter.”

How can he alter the Quran- Allahs final word? He is an apostate and I suppose he knows it.To reinterpet them as non violent is as deceitful and dishonest as those Islamists who seek to slyly introduce sharia law into the West,

Some non sanitised original Islamic history on Mohammad’ form of cancer:
Mohammad said to kill any Jew who falls within your power. Muhayyisa kills Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant. Muhayyisa said if Mohammad had told him to kill his elder brother (Hurayyisa) he would have done so. The elder brother converted to Islam as he thought that a religion that can bring you to do that is marvellous.

How chilling that the Quran is quoted in this advert. On my calculation Islam must have killed trillions of people. Of course it exposes the human source of the Quran.
Sura 5:35 say that if anyone of the children of Israel slew another it would be as if he slew the whole people.
Mishnah Sanhedrin 4.5 records that Gen 4:10 says the voice of thy brother’s bloods creith (plural not the singular). The blood of Abel and of his seed is what “bloods” means so man was created single and so if he kills one person it is if he kills the whole race and vice versa if he saves a person.
The mistake in the midrash, is it uses the plural “bloods”, inventing a universal application of Gen 4:10. This non-scripture finds its way into the Quran, but not the midrash“reason” for the interpretation. (That man was created single so the death of one equates to the death of all

The fatal wound for Islam is that “satanic” verses are of course underpinned by actual historical events that compromised Mohammed’s claim to be a prophet like the prophets of the Bible. Put simply, it is an embarrassment to (and the enemy within for) Islam. If Mohammad was influenced by “Satan” in certain revelations, as devout Islamic scholars of the 8th/9th century like Ishaq faithfully record Mohammad as actually admitting, then it undermines Mohammad’s claim to have received any genuine revelations at all. It could indeed be called one of the litmus tests of Islam.
Of course blind belief will cut it anyway, but reason places an uncomfortable microscope on Mohammad’s claim to genuine revelations and therefore on the credibility of the Quran as the claimed “final word of God”.
Incidentally after Mohammad had his first encounter with the spirit who is claimed to have recited verses to him that were after his death complied as the Quran (he said the spirit was the angel Gabriel) Mohammad thought he was possessed.
No wonder the hatred for Salman. He opened a can of worms (at least in the free thinking West). It can’t be resealed unless a law were to be passed preventing any “criticism” (code for rational discourse) of Mohammad. This is already implied by the UN. In my view it is an intended code for preventing open inquiry into the credibility of Mohammad and therefore of the Quran and Islam itself. I can see why some Islamic groups are pushing for a blasphemy type law in the West. They could then enforce a prohibition on public discourse about sensitive issues such as the “satanic” verses.
Even Islam’s god Allah doesn’t escape attention in the actual “satanic” verses episode. Allah reveals in Mohammad’s “defence” that other prophets (Allah assumes Mohammad was a prophet like the Biblical prophets) were influenced by “Satan.” This sounds like an all too typical human excuse (i.e. when caught out the “others did it too” response), but unless there is evidence to back up Allah’s claim it’s a lame duck. The problem here for Allah is that there is no record of alleged influences involving the prophets in the Bible.
Thu`s when you follow the trail back it is uncomfortable. It goes from Mohammad to “Gabriel” to Allah. Who/what is Allah if his chief “angel” can be influenced by Satan…. Mohammad initially claimed it was a revelation from Allah (via Gabriel) so that would make Mohammad out to be a liar at worst or simply lacking spiritual discernment at best. Fatwa anyone? An unenviable conundrum for Islam.
It doesn’t help to say it wasn’t “Gabriel” who fed Mohammad the “satanic’ verses because that implies Mohammad didn’t know who was feeding him revelations. The implication here is horrendous for the Quran and thus Islam.

This is what the Baal worshippers that Elijah encountered did. Extraordinary coincidence or not?

I suppose the key point is do they actually KNOW much about true Islam? This requires reading the early Muslim authors and historians rather then the relatively recent sanitised versions written as Islam’s religious and State leaders realised the true Islam practised by Mohammad was unpalatable to decent human beings in the West! I suggest a religious dictatorship is no better than an atheistic dictatorship. The problem is both rule by force, not by the rule of law. Iran is a modern example. Looking at the violence of Mohammad (as recorded by early Muslim scholars and historians) doesn’t give me any confidence in an Islamic dictatorship as a role model for “peace and happiness” despite all the spin in the world. Here are some examples of the prophet in action: Ibn Ishaq makes it clear that as the Prophet of Allah grew in power no opposition was allowed. For example one woman by the name of Asma bint Marwan, who was a suckling mother, criticized Muhammad’s killing of people. This criticism angered the Prophet of Allah so he asked, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” Umayr went to her house that night and killed her. [675-676]1. People such as Abu Afak [Ishaq 675 and Kitab al- Tabqat vol 2 Ibn Sa’d (2) page 32) ] and Al-Harith bin [son of] Suwayd bin Samit,(Ishaq 135-6,162-3, 308-312, 675) who wrote some poetry which Muhammad disliked were killed. Other cases include the killing of § Uqba bin Abu Mu’ayt [Ishaq 164, 308]; § Ka’b bin al-Ashraf [Ishaq 366-368, Also Bukhari 5/369 and Ibn Sa’d vol 1, p37) § Mirba bin Qayzi [Ishaq 372-373]; § Sallam Ibn Abu’l-Huqayq [Ishaq 369, 482-483]; § Kinana bin al-Rabi-tortured then murdered [Ishaq 510-517]; § One-Eyed Shepherd [Ishaq 674-675]; § Abdullah bin Khatal and one of his Two Singing Girls [Ishaq 551]; § al-Huwayrith [Ishaq 551]; § Sara, a Freed Slave [Ishaq 551]. § Umaiya bin Khalaf Abi Safwan (Bukhari 4/826) § Amr B. Jihash (Ishaq 438) (a convert to Islam killed on the suspicion he might harm Mohammad) § Ibn Sunayna (Ishaq 369 and Abu Dawud 19/2996) § Abullah b Sa’d (one of the scribes) ordered to be killed, but protected by Uthman (Ishaq 550) The key points to grasp are that (i) these people did not physically threaten Mohammad or Islam. They verbally challenged his authority as a religious prophet or mocked him (like the Satanic Verses in modern parlance). Nothing has changed, and (ii) Mohammad the prophet of Allah approved of these killings and (iii) Allah approves the killing of non believers in the Quran. Such killing was thus carried on according to the revelations from Allah: When your Lord inspired the angels, (say-ing): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoever opposes Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment. (Sura 8:12-13).See also sura 9:5-6) In even the relatively enlightened state of Malaysia where Islam is the State religion a convert to Christianity can’t change her religion on her ID card (why have your religion on an ID card in the first place?) without getting the permission of a sharia court, which won’t give it. Malaysian states can ( and most have) pass laws preventing the conversion of Muslims to other faiths (but not the other way round!) In “secular” Turkey, as the Pope prays in the Blue Mosque Hakan Tastan and Turan Topal, two converts to Christianity; continue to languish in jail charged with insulting “Turkishness” and trying to convert other Turks to Christianity. Some naively think a religious dictatorship would be an “improvement” on that!

hat part you put in parenthesis "screening themselves completely except for one or two eyes to see the way" is not in the Koran.

The text, as found in the Abdulla Yusef Ali New Revised Translation says, "O Prophet! Tell They wives and daughters and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad); that is most convenient. That they should be known as such and not be molested. And Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful."

Making up Koran quotes will not win you Brownie points w/ this crowd.

The outer garment spoken of here is called a jilbab, which is basically an ankle length overcoat. It doesn't even cover the head.
OK Tamar :see sura 24:31- The veil could be said to be based on modesty. But for Muslims to argue the veil is optional is wishful thinking . It represents a clash between 7th century culture and modernity. Religiously though t he Quran requires the veil to be worn by Muslism women: 24:31 is clear as a bell. See also 33:59 I also think Aisha knew best when is recorded in the seminal Muslim written biography of Mohammad (hands up which bloggers have read this work?) that certain events occurred before the veil (note here the word veil- linked to sura 24;31) was IMPOSED (no choice here) on Muslim woman. Go to the earliest Islamic sources and get the truth. Now was it for modesty? In part possibly , but Mohammad imposed it because of simple jealously- the problem with polygamy and keeping other (Muslim) men at bay, a rather unvirtuous start to a so-called pious act. He was upset when one Muslim man saw one of his wives in her house alone. Yet true piety is internal. Externals do not fool the true God. The true God makes people pure from the inside out, not from the outside in.

Bashair has obviously forgotten that his role model said allah would only take into paradise 1 out of every 1000 people. The odds of going to paradise are therefore lousy for Muslims. Why convert indeed! Oh yes, and the majority of people in hell are women according to the role model.

Bashair has obviously forgotten that his role model said allah would only take into paradise 1 out of every 1000 people. The odds of going to paradise are therefore lousy for Muslims. Why convert indeed! Oh yes, and the majority of people in hell are women according to the role model.