Posted on 02/02/2005 7:47:16 AM PST by Lando Lincoln
Dear Sir: I read your article about Islam. It contains a lot of things that are not true? I have a question for you: is it ingorance or malice that prompted you to write these things? If ignorance, I believe you should write another article, apologizing for making these canards. If malice, I ask God Almighty to strike you with a malignant cancer within 3-6 months. If you don’t apologize within five days, I will pray daily and nightly for this punishment to befall you.--Khalid Amayreh, Jerusalem
This lovely e-mail was the response I received to an article entitled Coulter Wars, an article that points out some of the problems in Muslim theology. Now, to be fair, I have also written an article that praised aspects of Muslim theology. After all, their emphasis on prayer, fasting and almsgiving is quite laudable, and their respect for the Blessed Virgin Mary is immense. Still, Muslim theological law, called sharia, is simply an abomination, and it was both the history of Islam and the implementation of sharia that merited Khalid’s attempt at Islamic voodoo.
Now some of Khalid’s odd habits of conversation may be due to the simple fact that he claims to be a well-respected Muslim journalist. The combination of “well-respected journalist” and “Muslim” should certainly have been a warning for what was to come.
When I asked precisely what “canards” he had found, he gave the following list:
Khalid’s First Objection: “Children to be whipped to death for breaking Ramadan fast. This false, brazenly false. Children, as well as ill people, elderly people, traveling people, nursing women, and women having their menstrual periods, don’t have to fast. (surat Bakara). Also people working really difficult jobs don’t have to fast if this undermines their health. Besides, fasting is a private affair between man and God...”
My Response: Unfortunately for Khalid, some imams seem to disagree with him, as this story documented:
“A 14 year old boy died on Thursday, November 11th [2004], after having received 85 lashes; according to the ruling of the Mullah judge of the public circuit court in the town of Sanandadj he was guilty of breaking his fast during the month of Ramadan.”
Khalid’s Second Objection: Women to be beaten to death by their husband for the smallest infraction. This is brazenly false. In Islam, the death penalty is prescribed only in three cases, murder, adultery (for men or women) and apostasy.
My Response: Not according to this story.
Khalid’s Third Objection: Marriage by the age of six is alright: This is not true...No body in our part of the world is allowed to marry below the age of 17 for women and 18 for men. I challenge you to cite a single marriage of (six years or even ten) sanctioned by a Sharia court...all over the Muslim world. You wouldn’t find such a thing.
My Response: See the link above and this. In Gaza fully one-third of girls were married below the statutory “legal” minimum age of 17. Iran just recently RAISED the age of consent to 13 in 2002. It was 9 (and probably still is in outlying provinces) according to this story and this one.
Khalid’s Fourth Objection: The examples you refer to are not examples of true sharia.
My Response: Unfortunately, sharia is only loosely based on the Quran or the Hadiths (the sayings of Mohammed). It is primarily drawn from the opinions of Islamic scholars. Although Khalid knew that, he insisted that I provide Quranic verses to back up what I said. I pointed out that even his Islamic scholars couldn’t do that, since sharia is not strictly based on just the Quran. He didn’t respond. As one might imagine, what constitutes sharia varies wildly depending on exactly where you are and what court you stand in front of. The differences between imams – Shia, Sunni, Wahabbi, etc. – is essentially as different as the differences between Anglicans, Baptists, Unitarians and the like, with no one to say what is true Islam anymore than there is someone to say what is true Protestantism or evangelicalism. What you get from Islam depends on which imam you happen to stand in front of today. I asked him how he, as a journalist with no formal theological training in Islam, could prov e he had any authority to tell me what was and was not Islam. Again, he didn’t respond.
Khalid’s Fifth Objection: Sex with a child of nine is fine: Where are you reading these things? Are you alluding to the Prophet’s marriage with Aisha? There are different narratives about how old she was when she married. Some say nine, some say 10, but many say 15 years old. So, I would say she was probably 15 or sixteen when she married the Prophet, not nine. In Arabia a fifteen years old...or even 13 is quite a woman...Same thing in Africa!
My Response: Khalid, your own sources agree with me and you just said so.
Khalid’s Sixth Objection: Adoption is illegal, it is not the adoption itself that is illegal, it is naming the adopted after the adopter’s name...In other words, the adopted child ought to retain his identity, if it does, then everything is Ok.
My Response: Khalid, you are not telling the truth. Go here and here.
Khalid’s Seventh Objection: Prostitution to service soldiers is illegal. How could you say that, Islam is very very strict about prohibiting these things...unrepentant prostitutes are given the death penalty. Prostitution is strictly, absolutely and completely prohibited. It is one of the most disgraceful vice in Islam.
My Response: Not according to this woman.
When shown the links, he responded, “You are wrong about temporary marriages, this exists in Shia Islam, not in Sunni Islam. In Sunni Islam, marriage is a permanent bond between a man and a woman…” So temporary marriages – prostitution – exists and he admits it. He just doesn’t happen to be a Shiite so he doesn’t like it.
Khalid’s Eighth Objection: polygamy is allowed provided there is justice in treating the wives.
My Response: So there is no “canard” here.
Khalid’s Ninth Objection: A man can invoke divorce by simply repeating the word “divorce” three times. This is no longer valid, it has to be done before a Sharia court. Because the divorce invoked by an angry man, a drunkard, and one who is not in real control of his mental ability is invalid. Also, the divorce doesn’t occur in case of teasing, joking, jest, etc.
My Response: But a man CAN divorce his wife by simply repeating the word “divorce” three times. He does it in front of a sharia court, he’s divorced - you just agreed that what I said was correct, Khalid. And just because SOME sharia courts require the man to appear doesn’t mean ALL of them do, does it?
Khalid’s Tenth Objection: A woman’s testimony in court is not equal to a man’s ...This would depend on the nature of the case. In financial matters, yes, you are right. But in other situations, like maternal matters, sexual matters, her testimony equals that of a man...Some times, her testimony is given priority over a man’s testimony.
My Response: Her testimony is not equal to a man’s in sexual matters. To prove rape, her word is not good enough. Four Muslim men of “impeccable” character have to have witnessed the penetration (that’s what makes them impeccable – they can watch a girl get raped and do nothing). So, you aren’t telling the whole truth and what parts you do tell just show that I told the truth. Nothing to recant here - you said so yourself.
Khalid’s Eleventh Objection: She can be stoned to death for being raped? How could you say that? This is a colossal canard? the opposite is true...She should be protected and defended. She is the victim, and her rapist should be punished severely.
My Response: Sorry, but here’s the documentation and here is more.
Khalid’s Twelfth Objection: She can be raped in order to punish her relative for their infractions. Again this is another canard...How could say these things? This is nonsense.
My Response: Documentation here and here. Back in October, when this hit the front pages, it was pointed out that the only reason the men were prosecuted for rape was due to Western interference in the trial. It is, apparently, quite common for Pakistani villages to order retaliatory rapes of women whose relatives commit infractions within the village. Again, tell me that this is not permitted? How can you do this? Islam has no central authority who determines what is true Islam and what is not - just a bunch of competing imams.
Khalid’s Thirteenth Objection: Islam discourages slavery..and urges Muslims to liquidate it...It was rampant in the 6th-century Arabia...and Islam followed a step-by-step approach to eradicate it...There are no slaves today in the Muslim world as far as I know. (slavery is rife in the Bible).
My Response: Khalid, slave armies were still being used by Muslims in 1863. Check here and here.
Khalid’s Fourteenth Objection: Female circumcision is an old African custom..., it has nothing to do with Islam...
My Response: The World Health Organization estimates that 130 million women and girls, most of them in 28 African countries, have been subjected to genital mutilation. Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia and Sudan account for 75 percent of the cases. Circumcision is practiced on young girls to a lesser extent in Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and India, which have sizable Muslim populations. The practice is believed to have started 4,000 years ago before the advent of organized religion. It is performed primarily, but not solely, by Muslims because of what many say is a misconception that it is required by Islam.
It may not have anything to do with Islam, but the fact is, most of the people doing it today are Islamic and THEY think it DOES have something to do with Islam.
Khalid’s Fifteenth Objection: The first dozen caliphs were assassinated, not true.
My Response: This is the only point upon which you have me. The first four caliphs were assassinated. Abu Bakr died of poisoning, Umar was assassinated by a dagger-wielding assailant, Uthman was assassinated by a mob, Ali was assassinated in a mosque in Kufa. Mu’awiya died a natural death only because he barely survived a battle intended to kill him. His son, Yazid, avoided assassination primarily because he got to the knife first. He assassinated his rival, Hasain, and all his followers, including his infant son.
Khalid’s Fifteenth Objection: We Muslims are rational thinkers...we don’t follow blindly our imams..We have the Quran..the eternal word of God, the Last Testament to mankind...Read it ...maybe you will see the light..like the millions of American and European Christians who have reverted to Islam...
My Response: Khalid, you know perfectly well that there are at least a dozen different versions of Islam, all of which say they follow “the eternal word of God.. the Quran”. The fact is, none of you can agree on what it means. There is no caliph, my friend, and one interpretation is just as good as another. If Muslim theology encouraged rational thinking, Muslims would have invented science. You didn’t, even though you had at least a five hundred year head start on the West. You still can’t do science - you have to buy it from the Christians. In Christianity, science developed under the rationality of Catholic Faith. Christianity also has a supreme head: the Pope. True, not everyone listens to him, but he is there and has always been there. The office of Caliph doesn’t even exist anymore and will never be reconstituted. You don’t have a supreme voice, nor even the pretense of one.
Khalid: Does your negative attitude towards Islam mean that we have to increase the number of our nuclear weapons to defend ourselves?
My Response: Khalid, you can barely build one nuclear weapon, much less dozens. You’re Islamic, remember? You can’t do science very well. You can’t even figure out how to buy them from the former USSR on the black market. You aren’t very good at threatening people, are you?
Khalid: Is this how evanglical Christians think? war, holocaust, killing...crusades...killing people because you love them!!!
My Response: No, that’s how Islam thinks. Christians think we have to defend ourselves, i.e., keep anyone from imposing sharia on us or on anyone else. Sharia is evil, my friend, pure evil. And as for the Crusades, give it a rest. Islam conquered one-half of Christianity between 632 and 750. We didn’t call crusade. Islam cut off pilgrimage access to the Holy Lands. We started the stations of the Cross devotion in response. Only when Islam destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem was Crusade called, and that was only after 400 years of Islamic military provocation. Even then, we didn’t attempt to wipe out Mecca or Medina. We stopped when we got Jerusalem and the holy sites back.
Khalid: Muslims protected the Churches, they never destroyed any church as you claim. You are relying on questionable sources. That is why no respectable newspapepr would publish your article.
My Response: The fact that Muslims destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is common knowledge available in any encyclopedia. See this article, for instance:
In 1009, however, the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakin ordered the destruction of all churches in Jerusalem, including the Holy Sepulchre. Christians were forbidden to visit the Church’s ruins. It took almost forty years for the Byzantine Emperor to negotiate a peace treaty with al-Hakin’s successor that granted him permission to rebuild the Holy Sepulchre
Khalid: I have decided to translate your article into Arabic and will post it tomorrow in all the mosques in our area. I will also try to get it published in our Arabic language newspapers. Our peole have the right to know what Christians are plotting against them. I hope you don’t mind.
My Response: Whatever makes you happy, Khalid.
So, this how a self-described prominent Muslim journalist argues. First, he prays that you will get cancer and die. Then he brings forward objections that he knows are false. When you show him that you know he is a liar, he threatens to nuke your country and bring a fatwah, a death sentence, against you personally by posting your refutations in every mosque and newspaper he can reach.
And this is a moderate Muslim. Just think what the immoderate Muslims would do…
About the Writer: Steve Kellmeyer is a nationally recognized author and lecturer who integrates today's headlines with the Catholic Faith. His work is available through http://www.bridegroompress.com. He can be contacted at skellmeyer@bridegroompress.com.
Apologize for the slander.
With regard to that point in history where the ancient Jews were told to do this...I ask you to research the CONTEXT, and you will be surprised. It was necessary to preserve a small, fledgling people against the hostile environment in which anything--incest, infanticide, even child sacrifice--was the norm.
God said clearly why the ancient Jews had to be tough: they couldn't dare associate and bring that cultural pollution into their society, they were making a holy, ethical society. They weren't even supposed to have kings, did you know that? They were supposed to be a clean nation, a nation of priests, dedicated to holiness and the worship of God.
Compare and contrast that to ANY other Earth culture: and you see clearly that Someone was influencing them for the working of great Good. The fact that it didn't quite work out, get finished, was due to the fact that the Israelites got lazy when they were almost finished, and then began intermarrying, backsliding.
If I were God, I would rise one people up to be a "model" for humanity, and I'd put them--shucks, what a coincidence!--right at the land bridge between three continents for better dissemination of my message.
No blame to you, it's a widely-circulated misconception.
Our Arabic numerals are actually Hindu. I don't have the link, but you can Google it, and prepare to be as surprised as I was! ;)
Their advances in astronomy? Hogwash. They were blessed with clear skies. They simply named the visible dots. They did NOT invent the telescope.
Medicine? They reaped the benefit of some surviving Greek manuscripts when they overran formerly Roman lands.
They deserve little credit; they merely acted as an agent of knowledge propogation, but not invention. To date, they've done very, very little.
If I were a Muslim, I'd personally be very ashamed of the lack of advancement of my people. But that's just me. ;)
These Roman lands were densly populated with highly developed culture and learning. (It was Byzantium - the remaining part of Christian Rome).
Muslims at first were the small groups of barbarians ruling over the educated people. They did not need to search for the "some surviving Greek manuscripts" - they just hired the local teachers.
So Mohamed was not so bad after all as it was his times, eh?
Mohammed was a product of his time and ethnic group. The 7th Century was fairly chaotic world-wide and if he is to be held to 7th Century standards, he was typical.
For comparison, Jesus was not typical, he preached peace and understanding, and the Christian Church at the time of Mohammed was supposed to do the same, but the times created the "warrior church" in Europe and Asia. Only the Irish Church, founded by St.Patrick was run according to the word of God: the conversion of the Irish Celts to Christianity produced no martyrs or destruction of local customs, the two belief systems sort of assimilated producing a Church that the Church of Rome didn't much care for, because it didn't need the Church of Rome, but recognized it as the One True Church anyway.
Does this make St.Patrick and the Irish saints better than Mohammed? Yes, because they taught about a loving God that was there to help mankind, not some angry, vengeful God that wanted you to kill all non-believers, as well as anyone who wished to leave the religion, as in Islam.
"No, it is not, because there is no moral equivalency between the two."
Why? Because you say so? Or your preacher says so?
Because logic says so, the two ideas are different and took place at different times
Either it is immoral to execute women and children in the name of obeying God or it is not and time doesnt change that.
It is and always has been immoral to murder women and children PERIOD. To do so "In the name of God" makes it worse, since it is a human interpretation that decides "What God Wants." Man has free choice, and a conscience, choosing to murder the innocent just uses "God" as an excuse for lack of courage to say "No, it's wrong."
If someone believes in an all-powerful God, they must also realize that the all-powerful God can destroy anything and anyone at anytime, the moral choice is not to murder innocents.
Remember, God ordered Abraham to kill his son, and then stopped him from doing so.
Time does change it since we are an ever evolving species and we learn more as a society with each passing generation.
There was a time when slavery was acceptable, it is no longer; there was a time when women were thought to be inferior, that thought is no longer acceptable. WAIT, excuse me, Slavery and the subjugation of women is still acceptable in Islamic countries ruled by Sharia law, how about THAT!
"The Biblical occurrences were thousands of years ago, and are NO more. The Islamist occurrences of punishment under Sharia law are TODAY, and that, the cruel and unusual punishments as described above, is NOT acceptable in civilized society."
Ah, so it is OK to take practices condemned by 98% of Muslims around the world as typical of them while ignoring Biblical passages from our own faith that call for the execution of entire nations?
Where do you get the 98% figure?Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia, Indonesia and Pakistan, for a start still practice Sharia Law and allow many of these practices TODAY. Afghanistan used to, until the US and Coalition stopped them.
We ignore the Biblical passages from our own faiths concerning these laws because we have EVOLVED and realize that they are wre not acceptable.
The New Testament does not indicate punishments allowed by a higher authority (above man, below God)because society at that time, several centuries after the Old Teastament "ended", and thousands of years after the "rules/laws" were written, had evolved BEYOND the need for such Draconian measures handed down from God, and society was run by a secular government, not a religious one.
Why dont you jsut admit that you want to hate Muslims and feel good about it?
Why do you want to put words in my mouth? why do you want me to say something that I had not even inferred in my previous post?
Are you trying to get me to say something so thst I might get in trouble?
Your logic is faulty and your argument sounds like a retread from several other troll-like posters I've encountered.
I've stated my position and defended it.
Their "classical period" coincides with their period of expansion, particularly when they took India ("Arabic numbers" and algebra come from India, not Islam).
Islam was a workable system only as long as there was a steady inflow of slaves and loot from civilized regions like Mesopotamia, Persia, and India. As soon as the net inflow of loot and slaves stopped, and the Muslims had to actually WORK and CREATE their OWN stuff, their civilization went into decay
Nicely put. Straight forward, historically accurate. And then they came into possession of OIL!
Poor thing - he's terrified that everything he read on Prophet Of Doom might be true.
I encourage everyone to read the Sunnah as well (the collection of what Mohammod said), as it occupies a central part of Islamic theology. The link I supplied ( http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html) goes directly to the part covering Jihaad
A Muslim MAY NOT take the side of an infidel against a fellow Muslim, and remain a Muslim in good standing. A Muslim MAY complain to other Muslims about a fellow Muslim who harmed a MUSLIM.
From my copy of the Koran:
Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day ... until they pay the tribute readily, being brought lowSunnah Volume 4, Book 52, Number 53:
Surah IX:29O ye who believe! Choose not for friends such of those who received the Scriptures before you
Surah V:57Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush...
Surah IX:5And slay them wherever ye find them ... Such is the reward of disbelievers.
Surah II:191
Narrated Anas bin Malik:Sunnah Volume 4, Book 52, Number 63:
The Prophet said, "Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah's Cause)."
Narrated Al-Bara:The Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:A man whose face was covered with an iron mask (i.e. clad in armor) came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall I fight or embrace Islam first? "The Prophet said, "Embrace Islam first and then fight." So he embraced Islam, and was martyred. Allah's Apostle said, A Little work, but a great reward. "(He did very little (after embracing Islam), but he will be rewarded in abundance)."
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:The Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "
Narrated Abu Huraira:Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196:Allah's Apostle said, "The (Final) 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."
Narrated Abu Huraira:Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256:Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"
Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama:Volume 4, Book 52, Number 265:The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima [sanctuary; inviolate zone] is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle."
[ translation: the women and children of infidels are acceptable "collateral damage". A Muslim has no need to avoid killing them while attacking infidels (as the Palestinian suicide bombers demonstrate repeatedly) ]
Narrated Al-Bara bin Azib:Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268:Allah's Apostle sent a group of the Ansar to Abu Rafi. Abdullah bin Atik entered his house at night and killed him while he was sleeping.
Narrated Abu Huraira:Volume 4, Book 52, Number 271:Allah's Apostle called,: "War is deceit".
Narrated Jabir:Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280:The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew)." Muhammad bin Maslama replied, "Do you like me to kill him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like." The Prophet replied, "I do (i.e. allow you)." [ie, it’s OK to use lies and deception to get close to an enemy you want to kill]
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:Volume 4, Book 52, Number 283:When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah."
Narrated Abu Juhaifa:Volume 8, Book 82, Number 829:I asked Ali, "Do you have the knowledge of any Divine Inspiration besides what is in Allah's Book?" 'Ali replied, "No, by Him Who splits the grain of corn and creates the soul. I don't think we have such knowledge, but we have the ability of understanding which Allah may endow a person with, so that he may understand the Qur'an, and we have what is written in this paper as well." I asked, "What is written in this paper?" He replied, "(The regulations of) blood-money, the freeing of captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed for killing an infidel."
Narrated Al-Mughira:Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:Sa'd bin Ubada said, "If I found a man with my wife, I would kill him with the sharp side of my sword." When the Prophet heard that he said, "Do you wonder at Sa'd's sense of ghira (self-respect)? Verily, I have more sense of ghira than Sa'd, and Allah has more sense of ghira than I."
Narrated 'Ikrima:Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58:Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
Narrated Abu Burda:Abu Musa said, "I came to the Prophet along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash'ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah's Apostle was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet said, 'O Abu Musa (O 'Abdullah bin Qais!).' I said, 'By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.' As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, 'We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or 'Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'" The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'"
Islam is to be imposed by force.
* Mohammed said, "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and whoever says, " None has the right to be worshipped but Allah , his life and property will be saved by me." (otherwise it will not). Vol. 4:196
Apostasy is punishable by death.
* Mohammed said, "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." Vol. 9:57
Ethnic cleansing is practiced.
* Mohammed said to the Jews, "You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle (Mohammed) and I want to expel you from this land (The Arabian Peninsula), so, if anyone owns property, he is permitted to sell it." Vol. 4:392* Mohammed's last words at his deathbed were: "Turn the pagans (non-Muslims) out of the Arabian Peninsula." Vol. 5:716
Islamic lying:
He who disbelieves in Allah after his belief in Him, (is the liar) except he who is compelled while his heart remains steadfast with the faith (has nothing worry). But who opens his breast for infidelity; on these is wrath of Allah, and for them is a great torment.
--Qur’an, Surah 16 (an‑Nahl), verse 100This verse of the Qur’an refers to the incident when 'Ammar bin Yasir (May Allah be pleased with both) had to utter some words against Islam to save himself from the Quraishite infidels.
The Qur'an clearly allows hiding one 's true faith when one is in danger of one's life. This rule is called taqiyah.
Question 1: What is the meaning of "Taqiyah"?
Answer: Its literal meaning is to safeguard; to defend; to fear; piety (because it saves one from the displeasure of Allah).Question 2: What is its significance in Islamic terminology?
Answer: In Islamic terminology it means "to save life, honour. or property (either one's own or of other believers) by hiding one's belief or religion".I imagine the rule would apply in a lesser way to a Muslim who hides his jihad sympathies.
http://www.maaref-foundation.com/english/shia_education/shia/12.htm
APPENDIX I TAQIYAH Or DISSIMULATION
`Allamah Tabataba'iOne of the most misunderstood aspects of Shi'ism is the practice of dissimulation or taqiyah. With the. wider meaning of taqiyah. "to avoid or shun any kind of danger," we are not concerned here. Rather, our aim is to discuss that kind of taqiyah in which a man hides his religion or certain of his religious practices in situations that would cause definite or probable danger as a result of the actions of those who are opposed to his religion or particular religious practices.Among followers of the different schools of Islam, Shi'ites are well known for their practice of taqiyah. In case of danger they dissimulate their religion and hide their particular religious and ritual practices from their opponents.
The sources upon which the Shi'ites base themselves in this question include the following verse of the Holy Quran: "Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them [tattaqu minhum. from the same root as taqiyah], taking (as it were) security [tuqatan. again from the same root as taqiyah]. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying" (III, 28). As is clear from this sacred verse, God, the,Most Exalted, forbids with the utmost emphasis wilayah (meaning in this case friend- ship and amity to the extent that it affects one's life) with un- believers and orders man to be wary and have fear in such a situation.
In another place He says, "Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief-save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with Faith-but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom" (Quran, XVI, 106). As mentioned in both Sunni and Shi'ite sources this verse was revealed concerning `Ammar ibn Yasir. After the migration (hijrah) of the Prophet the infidels of Mecca imprisoned some of the Muslims of that city and tortured them, forcing them to leave Islam and to return to their former religion of idolatry. Included in this group who were tortured were Ammar and his father and mother. Ammar's parents refused to turn away from Islam and died under torture. But Ammar. in order to escape torture and death, outwardly left Islam and accepted idol worship, thereby escaping from danger. Having become free, he left Mecca secretly for Medina. In Medina he went before the Holy Prophet-upon whom be blessings and peace--and in a state of penitence and distress concerning what he had done asked the Prophet if by acting as he did he had fallen outside the sacred precinct of religion. The Prophet said that his duty was what he had accomplished. The above verse was then revealed.
The two verses cited above were revealed concerning particular cases but their meaning is such that they embrace all situations in which the outward expression of doctrinal belief and religious practice might bring about a dangerous situation. Besides these verses, there exist many traditions from the members of the Household of the Prophet ordering taqiyah when there is fear of danger.
Some have criticized Shi'ism by saying that to employ the practice of taqiyah in religion is opposed to the virtues of courage and bravery. The least amount of thought about this accusation will bring to light its invalidity, for taqiyah must be practiced in a situation where man faces a danger which he cannot resist and against which he cannot fight. Resistance to such a danger and failure to practice taqiyah in such circumstances shows rashness and foolhardiness. not courage and bravery. The qualities of courage and bravery can be applied only when there is at least the possibility of success in man's efforts. But before a definite or probable danger against which there is no possibility of victory throwing oneself before a cannon that is being fired or lying down on the tracks before an onrushing train-any action of this kind is nothing but a form of madness contrary to logic and common sense. Therefore, we can summarize by saying that taqiyah must be practiced only when there is a definite danger which cannot be avoided and against which there is no hope of a successful strug gle and victory.
The exact extent of danger which would make permissible the practice of taqiyah has been debated among different mujtahids of Shi'ism. In our view, the practice of taqiyah is permitted if there is definite danger facing one's own life or the life of one's family, or the possibility of the loss of the honor and virtue of one's wife or of other female members of the family,or the danger of the loss of one's material belongings to such an extent as to cause complete destitution and prevent a man from being able to continue to support himself and his family. In any case, prudence and the avoidance of definite or probable danger which cannot be averted is a general law of logic accepted by all people and applied by men in all the different phases of their lives.
"Their silence is deafening and further confirms my views are correct"
_____________________________________________________
The silence from the islamic world speaks volumes, doesn't it? Whether the silence stems from complicity, acceptance, or fear does not change its implication.
When children are taken hostage by islamic terrorists, bayonetted for the crime of being thirsty, then callously shot in the back, it is incumbent upon the world community of all religions to denounce this horror in one voice, with no qualifications. Yet even when islamic leaders did denounce this horror (and there were too few who did so openly), many felt it necessary to add that some of the blame should be laid at the door of the Russians for their treatment of the Chechnyan people.
This was the wrong forum to address that grievance. And this is but one, and probably the most heinous, example of islamic resistance to any kind of criticism of its excesses.
We must pray that reasonable people of the muslim faith renounce the archaic punishments and precepts of islam and join the civilized world, and follow the example of other religions who have abandoned ancient violent practices. I believe that if islamic countries move into democratic forms of government, and away from theocratic caliphates, as witnessed by Sunday's elections in Iraq, this will be the natural evolution of a people freed from the tyranny of repressive religious laws that have no place in today's world.
"Why dont you jsut admit that you want to hate Muslims and feel good about it?"
_________________________________________
Your forebearance is admirable FD. You were obviously being baited by that emotionally charged statement. None of us enjoy being wary of our fellow American and world citizens. And no civilized person feels good about hate; it is a base, soul destroying emotion. We are not driven by hate, but by love for our way of life and our determination not to give it up.
The Catholic Church arguably founded science. Roger Bacon was a monk and Copernicus was a cleric. Descartes and Galileo were very devout believers.
"The only reason mrssmith and Chemist_Geek come on these threads is to get a hostile reaction which will get you banned."
Damned right!
The both of them are frauds----pay them no attention.
Not to this Protestant Christian, although your comment sounds a lot like a cheap shot from someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. (Did I get through the flame-proof suit yet? :-)
"What's the matter, can't handle the truth? Although, I admit, it's Deuteronomy 13:6-10, not Leviticus.
"If thy brother the son of thy mother, or thy son, or daughter, or thy wife that is in thy bosom, or thy friend, whom thou lovest as thy own soul, would persuade thee secretly, saying: Let us go, and serve strange gods, which thou knowest not, nor thy fathers,
"Of all the nations round about, that are near or afar off, from one end of the earth to the other,
"Consent not to him, hear him not, neither let thy eye spare him to pity and conceal him,
"But thou shalt presently put him to death. Let thy hand be first upon him, and afterwards the hands of all the people.
"With stones shall he be stoned to death: because he would have withdrawn thee from the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage:"
Once again you bring out the Ancient Texts with rules and laws that no Christian or Jew has adhered to in thousands of years.
And you do it strictly to give credence and moral equivalency to the Islamic laws that are still being enforced TODAY, right HERE in the good old 21st Century!
IT DOES NOT WORK.
Yes, it's in the Bible, YES it was once done, BUT NO, it is NOT DONE TODAY, except in Islamist nations governed by Sharia Law.
Why do you insist on making these ridiculous comparisons? You have been taken to task for it MANY time before, and yet you continue, all it does is enrage because of its disingenuous nature.
Extremely troll-like behavior.
I have one point to add. The laws of Deuteronomy (and Leviticus) were written as the laws of ancient Israel. Israel at the time was a Theocracy; ruled by God and God's law. The passage quoted refers to serving strange gods; gods of other nations. This would have been the equivalent of treason at the time, since it meant serving another nation as well. Note that we still have the death penalty for treason.
Ah, yes, I agree.
It would be a wonderful thing if muslims all over the world rejected the blood and slaughter they have been taught.
But here we have a conundrum:
Is a bird which rejects it's wings still a bird?
Is a muslim who rejects the teaching of the Quran as a modern guide to living still a muslim?
Quran:033.061
YUSUFALI: "They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy)."
PICKTHAL: "Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.
SHAKIR: "Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering."
Must Christians reject the slaughter in the Old Testament to be different than the muslims?
Can the Jewish people believe in the laws of Deuteronomy and Leviticus and consider themselves above the atrocities of the muslims?
I can't speak for all Christians, only myself.
My Holy Bible is one book, and the teachings in that Book recognize the beginnings of mankind with all it's frailties and faults. The punishments of God were directed toward correcting those faults, and those punishments were severe.
Even through all of this, mankind had a choice, to sin or not to sin, but the penalty for sin was death.
The most important aspect of my Bible, however, is not the punishments of God, but the Promise of a Redeemer because of which sin could be forgiven. The threads of that Promise are the foundation of the Old Testament, not the punishments.
The Son of God said that the ancient law of Moses would not be changed, and in His Father's eyes it wasn't.
God does not see our sin under our Redeemer's umbrella. Jesus accepted the burden for our sin on the cross forevermore, and we can live without having to resort to stoning, slaughter and death as punishment for sin.
The sacrifice of blood and death is not necessary to live in accordance with my Bible.
The Jewish people believe in the same punishment phase of mankind, but they recognize that this phase of mankind's development is past. They feel that, although the thread of the Promise is there, the Redeemer has not come yet, and that is the biggest difference between the Christian and Jewish philosophy.
Both belief systems live without the need to slaughter those who do not believe as they believe.
In all the world's belief systems, only Islam needs the sacrifice of human lives to give it's adherents the assurance of fidelty to their faith.
No, they aren't. The reason why they aren't is a lesson in Christian theology not appropriate to a short-form message forum. Suffice to say, if you had the background to appreciate the answer, you wouldn't have made the assertion in the first place.
Now what would be a good term to describe one who presumes to make a critical analysis without even a functioning familiarity? Come on, I'm sure you've got one handy.
haaaahaaaa, Sudan? Northern Nigeria? Russia (Chechnya)? The Turks used the Jesuits until the end of the 19th centuary when they were butchered and the Sultan with them by the Young Turks.
In Christianity, science developed under the rationality of Catholic Faith. Christianity also has a supreme head: the Pope. True, not everyone listens to him, but he is there and has always been there.
Sorry but this is pure BS. The Renasiance started after the Turks took Bzyntine and the scientists of Constantinople fled westward, bringing with them their knowledge. Further, science progressed quite nicely in Orthodox and Protestant lands, especially after half of the Orthodox lands were freed from Islamics.
As for the Pope, 1 billion various protestants and 300 million Orthodox don't follow his words and that's half of Christianity. Furthermore, most of east Africa is/has converted to Orthodoxy, now that colonialism has ended.
The Pope is not the head of the Church and because of that claim, we've had a split between the Orthodox and Catholics for 961 years.
It just means they like goats and little boys, instead of girls.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.