Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Christian killed for buying tea from an only-muslim tea stall

Believe it or not a Christian was killed in Pakistan for buying tea from a only-muslim tea stall

Talk about persecution and being a second class citizen:

http://www.theasiannews.co.uk/community/heritage/s/1120922_christian_killed_for_drinking_tea_from_muslim_stall_

http://www.worthynews.com/5886-pakistan-christian-killed-for-drinking-tea-from-muslim-cup

Lets continue praying for the Christians in muslim countries and stand up for their rights

73 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is so sad. It shows how vile and wicked Islam truly is. Some may call this folk Islam and nothing more than the extreme reaction of some ignorant peasant and not true Islam. But this is true Islam a religion that was was founded on the principles of Jihad. They are simply following their own demented prophet who at the end of his life called for the death of all non beleivers.

gsan said...

I'd be curious to know if the perpetrators will be brought to justice and convicted of their crime.

minoria said...

The West needs immigrants because of its low birth rate,not enough to replace those who die.On top of that in Europe the average age is 40.Russia is diminishing by 700,000 people a year due to low birth rate.

The West should give 100% top priority to non-Muslims from Muslim countries(atheists,agnostics,Christians,etc).In Pakistan there are 1 million Hindus and 4 million Christians,in Egypt,about 7 million,etc.

Why?First,for humanitarian reasons(if the West REALLY cares about human rights).Those people there suffer REAL discrimination.You don't believe me?

Imagine you are black or mulatto and living in the 1950's in the US south.With segregation(er,racist,discriminatory)laws.Discriminated legally because you are black or half-black,or even only 25% black.Not even being75% white was good enough.That is their situation.

Secondly,for pragmatic reasons.They assimilate or semi-assimilate easily.No fear of trouble from them.I hope immigration officials wake up.

IslamicFront said...

this story has nothing to do with islam at all. islam Condemn such actions

David Wood said...

IslamicFront,

You seem to believe that Islam is, at its heart, peaceful. What, may I ask, do you do with passages such as the following:

Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Allah’s Messenger said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”

Sahih Muslim 30—It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right, and his affairs rest with Allah.

Al-Tabari, Volume 10, p. 55—Abu Bakr to the Apostates: . . . “Verily God, may He be exalted, sent Muhammad with His truth to His creation as a bearer of good tidings and as a warner and as one calling [others] to God, with His permission, and as a light-bringing lamp, so that he might warn [all] who live, and so that the saying against the unbelievers might be fulfilled. So God guided with the truth whoever responded to Him, and the Apostle of God, with His permission, struck whoever turned his back to Him until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2785—Narrated Abu Hurairah: A man came to Allah’s Messenger and said, “Guide me to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward).” He replied, “I do not find such a deed.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2787—Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Case into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2797—Narrated Abu Hurairah: The Prophet said, . . . “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is! I would love to be martyred in Allah’s Cause and then come back to life and then get martyred, and then come back to life again and then get martyred and then come back to life again and then get martyred.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2810—Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, “A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them is in Allah’s Cause?” The Prophet said, “He who fights that Allah’s Word (i.e., Allah’s religion of Islamic Monotheism) be superior, is in Allah’s Cause.”

Sunan An-Nasa’i 3099—It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet said: “Whoever dies without having fought or having thought of fighting, he dies on one of the branches of hypocrisy.”

Sunan Ibn Majah 2763—It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever meets Allah with no mark on him (as a result of fighting) in His cause, he will meet Him with a deficiency.”

Sunan Ibn Majah 2794—It was narrated that Amr bin Abasah said: “I came to the Prophet and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, which Jihad is best?’ He said: ‘(That of a man) whose blood is shed and his horse is wounded.’”

Qur’an 9:29—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, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Qur’an 47:35—Be not weary and fainthearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost: for Allah is with you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds.

Also, if Islam promotes harmony with people of other religions, why did Muhammad say in Sahih Muslim 4366, “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims”?

minoria said...

Hello IslamicFront:

I think you are sincere.In my view,the problem with Islam is that the Koran doesn't emphasize the Golden Rule much in giving a definition of what is good.To say help the widow,orphan and stranger is not a definition of good.It's giving examples,not a theoretical definition.And if the widow,orphan and stranger speak against the Koran,what are you going to do then?Are you still going to help them?

Good is the Golden Rule,that is the definition(James 2:8/Matt 7:12/Luke 6:31/Rom 13:8-10/Galat 6:1-2/Gal 5:14).In the Koran we have like 2 passages that correspond to it.But they don't hold the centrality or importance that the Golden Rule holds in the NT.

For Muslims in general good=the doctrines of Islam,not "do to others as you would them do to you".So if the widow,orphan and stranger speak against Islam,where Islam=good then by logic they are bad.So by logic you are justified in not contuining to help them.

But if for you good=Golden Rule the even if they speak against your religion you must help them because you will like to be treated the same way.After all,it is only speech,free speech,it's not hitting or killing others.

Fernando said...

IslamicFront side: «this story has nothing to do with islam at all. islam Condemn such actions»... woulde you say the same aboute this more recent news?

http://www.persecution.org/suffering/newssummpopup.php?newscode=10386...

I knowe you saide you woulde nott post more comments, butt I woulde be berie gratefull to see otherwise...

may God, the Holy Trinity, blees you.

IslamicFront said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
IslamicFront said...

to minoria

give me a few days and i will try to answer your question

IslamicFront said...

to Fernando

yes i would...

what do you think about this

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/thirteen_years_of_killings_in_tripura.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022200876.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/09/eta.arrests/index.html

Fernando said...

IslamicFront said: «yes i would...»...

Ok. thankes for your answer...

Lets staret by your linkes, then I'll say other thinkes...

3rd link): ETA militantes are not operating due to the facte they libe in a )cultural speaking) Christian county: they are not persucuting non Christians; they are nott acting due to religious believes; they are nott acting following the message off Jesus...

so: no comparison withe whate happened in Pakistan...

2nd link): As you mighte know those violence was an unswer to the more deadly violence priviously irrupting there since muslims belieber dis nott accepted the results off a political election thate elected a Christian politician and began Killing Christians; neber the less, ounce, again, they are nott acting due to Christians believes: they are acting to defende theire lives from the violence off muslimes... I woulkde say thate they shoulkde leave thate to the police... and I regreate thate they have been doing so...;

nothing like whate is happening in Pakistan either...

1st link): the NLFT is not a religious movement: it's a politicale one thate aspires to independance; are they motivated by religious believes? no: they existed before the arrival off thate pseudo-Christian churche tahte according to these reports (so bias and untruth like itt can be) are supporting them mobilizing militants. Butt the problem persists: no where in the Bible (and remebre thate to Christians the OT must be read by the perspective off the NT) the Christian message supports these acts... and this is acknoledged by the report you present: there's nott a single sentence bie militantes supporting thair actitudes by the Bible (teh 1st quote is made by the always sardonic writter)... something to be made by Chroistianity muste: be done by Christinas in accordance withe the Bible: tahtes nott the case...

on the other hand whate is happening in Pakistan is being made bie muslims according with the sources of islam: so: it's due to islam...

so: nothing aboute you presented in your links (and you habe to search with efforde to find these 3 examples: does thate is not an ebidence thate teh true message off Chriatianity is this not?... on the other hand eberyday situation like thate in Pakistan happens all ober the worlde: does thate is not an ebidence thate teh true message off islam is this?) is an image off Chriatianity; buut whate happened in pakistant is the perfect image off islam...

Fernando said...

IslamFront... P.s.: coulde you explaine, as I did aboute Christianity and youre links, whie you say these actions do nott habe nothingue to doo withe islam? Anyone can say: the sun is square, butt I woulde nott say you're one off those persons... Thankes.

IslamicFront said...

OLA said

he used to be muslim and it makes him sick how
the muslims treat people

yea like its the muslims that only do this

(lets blame everything on the muslims yah!!.)

may be you will leave christianty after seeing.
how many christians treat muslims. and hindus

look im using your logic

if people that claim to follow there religion and do bad things
that means the religion is bad lol.

many be you will apply the same logic to these news reports.


http://www.stephen-knapp.com/thirteen_years_of_killings_in_tripura.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022200876.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/09/eta.arrests/index.html

MP said...

Hey IslamFront, by the way: since we are talking about religious motivated violence committed by muslims in compliance to the true understanding off muslim sources, can you say if you believe that ants talk? (qur’an 27:18-19) and that the Pharaoh was the only god of the Egyptians? (qur’an 28:38) I asked these questions many times here, and not only here, to muslims and never got an answer.

Fernando said...

IslamicFront... why arre you repeating all, and allover again, the same olde news? hard to find any more?

can you show us where and how Christiaans treat muslims (I guess in a wronge way)? Thankes...

p.s.: still waiting to see why you say these news are nott due to islam as a believe... thankes

IslamicFront said...

to Fernando

nice try but, they are still christians doing these bad things
you can just brush it off as nothing they are christians non the less
these are the same christians who claim the holy spirit is guiding them
yes guiding them to kill muslims. shouldnt they turn the other check like the bible says?.
the fact is that christains also commit violent acts in the name of christainty.

they use these verses from the bible to justify their actions

Matthew 10:34 - "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"

we muslims say when muslims do such things they are bad muslims

islam says if you kill any innocent human being muslims or non muslim its if you have killed
the whole of mankind and if you saved a live it is if you have saved the whole of man kind..

so islam tells us not to kill innocent human being,

plus you need to watch the series of youtube videos called islam vs al qaeda
were a muslim proves the version of islam that al qaeda follow is competely false
and go's againist all the teachings of islam. and any trusted muslim scholar.

in one video bin laden qoutes a muslim scholar to justify his terror war
but the muslim who made the video qoutes the same scholar. refuting bin laden

...............................................

i believe we are geting now were here. i have said what i wont to say i got all my answers
so i will wish you a far will takecare

and goodbye

ps you can say i ran away if it makes you happy

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

When posting this particular information from Pakistan on this blog I expected muslims to explain how such a stall or such segregation can take place in such a strong muslim nation, that is of course if islam is a religion of justice, equality and peace.

But no

No muslim seems to be able to tackle this reality.

Islamic Front seems to argue that the story has nothing to do with the islam at all.

However, every Christian Pakistani I have come across to and they are many can confirm that Pakistani muslims generally consider Christians to be unclean, so unclean that they often refuse to serve them food in restaurants or allow them to buy in the shops.

This is a hidden, evil reality which most Westerners and those less aquainted with islam are completely unfamiliar with.

Whatever you may come up with this is an established doctrine in Pakistani islamic doctrine. Hence I assume it based upon islam.

IslamicFront said...

to Alforreca

responce to your taking ants question

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/talking-ants-in-the-quran/

As for qur’an qur’an 28:38
you need to read the whole sura

you cant just take it out of context read it all.

IslamicFront said...

i have written a responce to it.
some how it shows up late..

just wait

it will be my final response

IslamicFront said...

this action of this muslim has no bases in islam at all.

this is a wicked act and i condemns it and islam condemns it.

please ref to my other postings..

we are to treat chritians with respect

im seeing a lack of respect for muslims here.

its seem like i am in a lions den. srounded by hostile christians lol
but i respect you.

IslamicFront said...

if pakistani muslims say christians are unclean they are stupid and idiots and they dont know what they are talking about
i have christian friends they even come to by house for diner. ect ect. we get along fine. we even have small debates over islam and
christiany by the end of it we are still friends thats whats its all about.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Islamicfront wrote:

if pakistani muslims say christians are unclean they are stupid and idiots and they dont know what they are talking about
i have christian friends they even come to by house for diner. ect ect. we get along fine. we even have small debates over islam and
christiany by the end of it we are still friends thats whats its all about.

Elijah replies:

I am glad that you respect Christians and I am glad that you dine with them.

I cannot say much about your relationship with your Christian friends, However, when you debate islam and Christianity with your friends, imagine your friends nail you with logical questions about islam, would you still be their friend, or will you be a friend only as long as you control the conversation?

As I said, I am not an expert on your friendship. But I know all about having friendship with Muslims and it is brilliant, but I know also about meeting muslims regularly for debate, I know also that they will be great friends as long as they have the upper hand in the religious conversation (most Christians are reluctant to offend muslims or any other faith in their conversations), but I know also of Christians in my area who proved too difficult for their muslim friends to convince and who in term exposed falsehood in islam; these Christians are no longer welcome in muslim araes.

So this whole thing about befriending Christians if you are a religious and sincere muslim, I simply do not always buy that (and I emphasise 'not always'), as such friendship tends to be based upon dawah.

And having said that I am sorry to say that many Christians probably also befriend non-believers due to their mission.

Let me also say that I have Muslim contacts who would go to great length in arguing with me without rejecting my friendship, which is why I am careful not to categorize every muslim or Christian into this box.

As I said I am not judging or condmnening you as a bad person, I am just wondering if your friendship would last if they treath your religion as you might be treating their religion. For example do you enforce upon them that Jesus is not God, or that the Bible is changed or contains errors, in that case you are offending them. Do they enforce upon you that Muhammad most have been a false prophet and that the Qur'an is a fabrication, in that case you would be offended; in that case how long would your friendship last?

You talked also in a previous post about this blog being abusive of muslims rather than friendly. I don't think the admin of this blog agrees with every phrase put forward in writing by every contributur to these blogs.
But I know that every member of the admin has great love for muslims and respect muslims, yet this does not hinder us from exposing what we deem to be a distortion of truth or dangerous for society.

Keep in mind also that this is a debate blog, not a general chat blog, we deal with complex and sensitive issues. If we are simply to respect in the manner you demand respect this would get us nowhere in our dialogue.

IslamicFront said...

as may of you may know many parts of pakistan is lawless. and the police well thats another story
may muslims have been killed there and the police dont give a dam my uncle was killed there we had
a case but the poiice said we can not do anything. so you see its not just the christians are treated bady
muslims to. pakistan is in a crisis now bombs going off ever were. if they cant stop bombs then who can they stop
a christian man from being in killed in this way. if i was a police man there i would have graped him
and taking back to the police station and closed down the tea shop. and i will make sure he gets 30 years
or death.

this thing is very very rear in pakistian. but it happens i know.

pakistian needs a good learship not the one know. pakistian needs the one that

up holds the islamic belief of justice, equality and peace.

Fernando said...

IslamicFront saide: «this is a wicked act and i condemns it and islam condemns it»...

glade to see you condemningue this actions. I'm really are...

Butt coulde you juste explaine us whie whie islam also condemns those actions? As I saide (for the Christian aspecte) you cannot finde anywhere in Christian sources (and remebre thate to Christians the OT must be read by the perspective off the NT) an appel to whate happened in the links you provided; on the other hand muslim sources are full off incitementte to hate and violence towards non-muslims...

so: to probe me wrongue:

1 guibe me material ebidences Chriastian sources call to violence;

2 guibe me ebidences thate, for example, the passages in the qur'an and in the hadiths (those thate professor Wood presented or many others) do not call into violence...

thankes...

IslamicFront said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
IslamicFront said...

the answer is yes we will still remain friends and yes the christians have said all the same arguments you said
but when i ref then to books and to take a closer look at the quran and hadith they be come convinced. 2 have even converted to islam.
they dont convert over night it thats months even years. i tell them to do a deeper research. take your time. i dont force them to convert.
they come to me any say i wanna be muslim. thats it the ones that remain christian we still meet up. for lunch and even football.
and yes they have called mohammed pbuh a pedo. one of the worse insults. but guess what we are still friends, this may sould like a lie but i even lend
one of the christiams £1000 topay for his morgege

Fernando said...

IslamicFront saide: «nice try but, they are still christians doing these bad things»… aboute the ETA agents, I doubt itt bery much: ETA is a Marxist movement; aboutte India, as I saide, thate religious movement thate calls themselves Christians are recognized as such by true Christinas? Woulde yoy say thate iff a movement thate saide Muhamamd called nott to kill anyone woulde be considered to be a muslim one only because thay saide so? (justte aplly the reverse logic and you’ll get the answer to you… in simple wordes: iff someone actes agains Jesus’ wordes Who sais to love those who consider us theirs enimys they’re nott true Christians); aboute Nigeria: woulde you defende your family iff they were being attacked? Probably yes… butt ounce again: no Christian faith supporte those actions…

Then IslamFronte, being truly offensive to Christian God saide: «these are the same christians who claim the holyspirit is guiding them. yes guiding them to kill muslims»
1) nowhere is sayde tahte they saide they felt driven by the Holy Spirit;
2) nowhere is sayde tahte they saide they felt driven by the Holy Spirit to kill muslims;
3) the Holy Spirit do not guidde ebery action off ebery Christian and He only guides people to peace, love, respect, tolerance, and so one (see Galatians 5:19-23)…

Then IslamFronte, asked: «shouldnt they turn the other check like the bible says?»… yes, iff someone gabe you a slap in the face you shoulde do so iff theirs actions woulde be limited to such a actitude, or aske them whie they were beatin you (see John 18,23) and iff they slap you again, or do nottg ansewer they woulde be behaving like cowards and inhumans… were tahte the case in Nigeria? (the other cases I habe delt before)

Then IslamFronte, being truly offensive to Christian God saide: «the fact is that christains also commit violent acts in the name of christainty»… no they do not: they may commit evil things butt since those actions are not supported by the Holy Bible they are not made in the name off Christianitie… as I saide before quite clearly…

(end off part 1)

Fernando said...

(part 2)

Then IslamFronte, saide: «they use these verses from the bible to justify their actions»… no: the notices do nott say so… itt was the writer off the 1st linke thate wrote thate and neber he attributed to christians the use off thate verse off the Bible to justify their acrions, precisely whate woulde be expected from a non-Christian who do nott know thate thate versicle means thate when has chosse between ones family or Jesus, he shoulde follow Jesus eben iff it’s family becomes hungry and wante to kill him… as you saide to brother Alforreca: read the context…

Then IslamFronte, saide: «we muslims say when muslims do such things they are bad muslims»… sytrange thate we do nott see thate, rather see the amounte off violence tahte is always made in the name off islam everyday and justified in muslim sources…

Then IslamFronte, saide: «islam says if you kill any innocent human being muslims or non muslim its if you have killed the whole of mankind and if you saved a live it is if you have saved the whole of man kind»… no it does not… and you know better thane thate because the next ayha says: «they (those who do not accept islam) must be slain in great' numbers, or crucified in great numbers, or have, in l' result of their perverseness, their hands and feet cut off in great numbers, or are being entirely banished from [the face of] the earth»

1) non muslims are neber “innocent”;
2) the life it says thate muste be saved are a muslim one, since in the next surah…

Then IslamFronte, saide: «i believe we are geting now were here. i have said what i wont to say i got all my answers»… you mean thate juste because I did nott agree with you? or juste because I answer you back while you did not provide any TRUE ebidence for the facte thate you saide thate this actions (incited in mosques after rading qur’an passages, and nott condemned by muslimes) were not islamic? We can only get somewhere iff we can echange more honeste wordes…

Then IslamFronte, saide: «ps you can say i ran away if it makes you happy»… no I woulde not say such a thingue: I do love muslims from my heart (I eben have two muslim sisters), and I’m always willing to help them to see the truth aboute theire religion… so: if you run away (strange chosse off wordes when yoy saide we were nott getting anywhere) I woulde bee bery sad…

May God, the Holy Trinity, blees you and your family.

IslamicFront said...

thanks everyone for allowing me to to comment goodbye and takecare

IslamicFront said...

to minoria

if you wont answers to all the questions you sent me plesse pm them all to my friends youtube address he will answer them for you.

http://www.youtube.com/user/muhaddithORG

thanks

Sepher Shalom said...

IslamicFront, You can post links all day long if you like, but your comments are absolutely pointless unless you can show that people are acting in accordance with the teachings of their religion.

You see, the behavior of people is only relevant if it can be demonstrated to accurately represent the religion.

Your Quran, Ahadith, and Sira is loaded full of calls to violence against non-Muslims. Your "prophet's" final orders to his followers was to drive all the non-Muslims out of the Arabian peninsula [which they did]. Surah 9:29 is the foundational basis for the Pact of Umar, which brutally subjugated Christians as second class citizens and assured their continued humiliation.

When the Muslims become uppermost in any country they punish the non-Muslims punitively based solely on their beliefs.

Now, when your Quran, your prophet, one of the rightly guided Caliphs, and all of Islamic history testifies to the fact that Muslims oppress and brutalize non-Muslims, it is pretty hard for any informed person to take what you are saying seriously. On top of that, you have not yet been able to demonstrate in any way [from the Quran, Ahadith, or Sira], that this behavior is un-Islamic. The best you have managed is to try feebly to demonstrate that Christians are just as bad [in what is clearly a tu quoque logical fallacy].

Please demonstrate your original claim with evidence from your scriptures. I will now quote it for your convenience:

"this story has nothing to do with islam at all. islam Condemn such actions"

Now please show us where in the Quran, Ahadith, and Sira literature these actions are condemned. I eagerly await your response.

Fernando said...

Sepher Shalom saide to IslamFront «Now please show us where in the Quran, Ahadith, and Sira literature these actions are condemned. I eagerly await your response»...

I'm sure he'll redirect us all to some youtube bideo which, as we all know, is a TOP scholarly atitude; more: youtube is where everyone speakes the truthe and gibe solide evidences...

butt I habe to say I'm really sad he did not wantt to provide us more informations aboute his religion, rather justte tryied to redirect us to some dawa specialiste around there more capablle off rethorical demagogie... remenber the triple promise he gabe usa all (butt thate he erased latter):

I'LL UNSER YOU LATTER...
I'LL UNSER YOU LATTER...
I'LL UNSER YOU LATTER...

perhaps he does nott know better... butt I'm sure he'll say goodbye more 3 or 4 times...

nma said...

IslamicFront wrote:
i have christian friends they even come to by house for diner. ect ect. we get along fine. we even have small debates over islam and
christiany by the end of it we are still friends thats whats its all about.


In Pakistan, most probably you talk about Jesus and Christianity in your debates, not about Mohammed and Islam. In Muslim countries, if someone say something against Mohammed, most probably he or she will be harassed or even beheaded. Also, Muslims love to debate Jesus and Christianity and don't like to debate Mohammed and Islam.

VJ said...

here is some news i want to share ..its sent to me from my friend from Pakistan

http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/headlinenewsd.php?hnewsid=1231

Paijo Budi said...

In Pakistan, most probably you talk about Jesus and Christianity in your debates, not about Mohammed and Islam. In Muslim countries, if someone say something against Mohammed, most probably he or she will be harassed or even beheaded. Also, Muslims love to debate Jesus and Christianity and don't like to debate Mohammed and Islam.

That is really true. I am from Indonesia and occasionally I would debate Muslims on internet forums (In Bahasa Indonesia) and post the debates on my multiply blog. There are already some who try to threaten me of reporting my blog to authorities for insulting Islam. On the other hand, sites that mocks Christians and Christianity are free to operate. Very interesting indeed.

Unknown said...

Wood:You seem to believe that Islam is, at its heart, peaceful. What, may I ask, do you do with passages such as the following: Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Allah’s Messenger said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”

Since I also believe Islam is essentially peaceful, this question applies to me as much as Islamic Front. Here's what I have to say about the hadith. I must warn you though that my response is not going to sit well with your bigoted sensibilities.

According to 6:111 and other verses, there are disbelievers who will never believe even if the greatest of signs are shown to them. Thus, it is highly unlikely that Muhammad(saw) would want to fight people till they embraced Islam. If disbelievers won't budge seeing God's signs, they certainly won't convert at the point of the sword. Hence, this hadith is erroneous for it contradicts the Quran.

minoria said...

Papa Budi,I hope nothing happens to you from those haters.I know the situation in the Muslim countries is worse.Here the press,magazines and tv channels are afraid also.

They tell of the terrorist groups but refuse to give negative information about Mohammed or what is in the Koran.Beause they have received many death threats.Not one will talk about the Aysha-Mohammed controversy(is it true?what's the evidence for and against?).

If Jesus or Buddha was involved in something similar they would be spreading it.How many are willing to tell tens of millions of viewers about the Safiyah story?None,because of fear.Here I am talking about the big,famous ones like Newsweek,Time magazine,ABC,NBC,BBC,CNN,etc.

Dhimmitude(which is a part of Islamic-Sharia law)has been imposed in that sense in the West.For those who don't know the Safiya story it's that Mohammed ordered the death of 700 Jewish men after a battle.The women and children were made slaves.One was a very beautiful girl whose husband,brothers,father and cousins had been killed by Mohammed.She decided to become Mohammed's wife but one can see she was forced,for her fate would have been worse had she refused.It seems little likely such a story would be invented.It is recounted by pious Muslim writers.It doesn't put him in a good light,not like the miracles stories attributed to him.Spencer,Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq tell the public,but they use false names and have secret addresses.

nma said...

Papa Budi said...

There are already some who try to threaten me of reporting my blog to authorities for insulting Islam.

Be careful, brother.

They don't realize how insulting they are when they speak negatively Christianity. The Quran itself is an insult to Judaism and Christianity.

MuslimPhantom said...

Why do you allow so many comments full of hate against Islam and Muslims in general appear in this blog?

MuslimPhantom said...

It looks like no one is willing to give me an answer. I'll try latter.

minoria said...

Hello Phantom,
It seems by hate you mean to criticize Mohammed and the Koran plus anti-human rights actions by Muslims.You can criticize the Bible and Christian history all you like.It's your right.Talk about the Inquisition and witch trials,etc.Or if I were a Hindu you can criticize the caste system,the institution of the untouchables,sati,the 330 million Hindu gods,etc.

What I am against is you getting hit or jailed for saying what you think is negative about Christianity or Hinduism.I am against muslimophobia,but not against Islamophobia.Islam is not a person(a Muslim) nor a race,it's ideas.

Fernando said...

Ibn daide: «Here's what I have to say about the hadith: according to 6:111 and other verses, there are disbelievers who will never believe even if the greatest of signs are shown to them».... loool, loool, loool, loool, loool, loool, loool, loool, loool, loool... man, I almoste chooked withe this alwaies foonie Ibn... perhaps thats was is gaol: killing us all by laughing... I guess Ibn consideres himselff one off those signs... on the other hand one can beliebe thate surah 6:111 is, precisely, whate a mentecapt woulde sy to those who were telling thate we was a lunatic: "hey, you all can't understand in me because I'm the only sane person arounde here", or somethingue like thate... painfull to watche butt true: when can't deal with the truth justt attack the others and sy thay are blind... yep; since thate worked with Muhammad, why shoulde muslims not beliebe it will worke withe them?

nma said...

Ibn said...

If disbelievers won't budge seeing God's signs, they certainly won't convert at the point of the sword.

Do you really believe that Islam never converted anyone by sword?

Also, Islam has never shown believers or disbelievers any sign from God. Even if it has, it does not mean nobody converted to Islam because of fear.

nma said...

ThePhantom said...
Why do you allow so many comments full of hate against Islam and Muslims in general appear in this blog?

You should study the meaning of the words before you use them. Criticism is not exactly hate.

Sepher Shalom said...

Phantom said: "Why do you allow so many comments full of hate against Islam and Muslims in general appear in this blog?"

You are going to have to be more specific. I don't see any of what you are talking about.

It would seem maybe you are confusing disagreeing with the belief system of Islam, with hating Muslims.

Also, are you aware of complete irony of you attacking the operators of this blog for "hating" in a thread that is about a documented incident where Muslims hated a Christian so much they killed him??

Seriously! The hubris of some people is mind boggling. The illogical and irrational response is beyond words. Muslims persecute Christians all over the world, and as soon as someone points it out, it is some kind of "hate speech"? You don't expect us to believe that do you?

Paijo Budi said...

Be careful, brother.

They don't realize how insulting they are when they speak negatively Christianity. The Quran itself is an insult to Judaism and Christianity.


Papa Budi,I hope nothing happens to you from those haters.I know the situation in the Muslim countries is worse.Here the press,magazines and tv channels are afraid also.

Thank you brothers. Indeed, I need to be more careful now. Several days ago, there were two persons with profile picture of someone in military uniform trying to be my friend on Opera Blog where I also post my debates and articles. Please pray for me!

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Shalom wrote:

Also, are you aware of complete irony of you attacking the operators of this blog for "hating" in a thread that is about a documented incident where Muslims hated a Christian so much they killed him??

Elijah writes:

True Shalom, this is exactly what gets to me as well. We inform the world of the situation of Christians in Muslim countries who are killed openly for buying a cup of tea, and when we do convey this information we are categorized as the haters; something is seriously wrong with this reasoning of some muslims, such as phantom.

Unknown said...

It seems that some of the bigots here are getting dumber, especially Fernando.

nma:Do you really believe that Islam never converted anyone by sword?

People cannot be converted by the sword.

nma:Also, Islam has never shown believers or disbelievers any sign from God. Even if it has, it does not mean nobody converted to Islam because of fear.

Right, if someone converted to Islam, it can never be because he found it to be true. Why? Because nma said so. Why does he think like this? Because if Islam is not false, then Christianity cannot be true. Oh now I get it! People like nma are so insecure, they believe the only way their religion can be true is if all other religions are false. No wonder he spends so much time attacking Islam and so little propounding the truths of Christianity!

Idiots.

Fernando said...

Ibn, afetr insultting some peole arounde here ounce again sayde: «People cannot be converted by the sword»...

either:

1) Ibn is saiying thate islam forbides forcing others to become muslims;

2) Ibn is saiying thate persons who wee forced to become muslms did not trulie became muslims...

3) Ibn is saiying tahte never islam foced anyone to become muslims;

about 2): then so many first generations off muslimes were only meat for the connon, some sorte off desposable breading machines of future true muslims...

about 1) and 3): loool, loool, loool, loool, loool, loool, loool, loool, loool, loool...

Please: Inm: dont go in vavations in orther to arrange a false marriege to bring child women to non-muslim countries: we all woulde miss your foonie comments...

God bless you and youre familie...

minoria said...

Ibn,you shouldn't call others idiots,like nma and Fernando.It's unseemly.You call them bigots but the real bigots are the religious leaders in the Muslim world who all the time say hate speeches against the Jews.Then there's Ahmadinejad who even questions if the Holocaust took place.

If I were a Muslim participating here I would have from the start said:"I disagree with the idea that Islamophobia is wrong.Islam is just ideas.All can criticize ideas without retaliation.It's freedom of speech.

Muslimophobia or hate actions-discrimination against Muslims is what I condemn.Also Islam is not a race.Islamophobia is not racism.

I'm also for the 150% granting of human rights to all non-Muslims in the Muslim world.Those who want to leave Islam can do so because "quality is better than quantity".

Because Islam is compatible with human rights,because in the Koran it says "To me my religion and to you your religion" and "there is no compulsion in religion".I also condemn the 1990 Cairo Declaration as fomenting violation of human rights."

If I were a Muslim that's what I would say from the beginning.

Fernando said...

Brother minoria... thankes for youre kinde wordes... neber minde Ibn's offensive wordes... we're all almoste inmune to them so offten he uses that kind of rethoric...

you saide thete the qur'an says "To me my religion and to you your religion" and "there is no compulsion in religion", butt hebe you read those statements in theirre broather context? they do are nott whate they seem... when I can get arounde with the problem I'm habing in my personal gmail accounte I'll give you some material on thate; butt you're righte on one thingue: is islam woulde be structured in those lessons and not in others thate abrogate and nulifye them yhis site, for instance, woulde habe no reason to existe...

God blees you!!!

nma said...

Ibn,

You said:People cannot be converted by the sword.

Muslim (19:4294) "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"

So how many poor people can afford to pay Jizya?

Also, as Fernando said, it is only the first generations that were forcibly converted did not become true Muslims.

You said:People like nma are so insecure, they believe the only way their religion can be true is if all other religions are false.

The really insecure people are those who get angry and upset whenever someone criticizes their prophet or their religion.

You said:Idiots

How insecure!

minoria said...

Hello Fernando:

Yes,I know it's more complicated that just giving 2 verses.One has to analyze the context,also consider abrogation.It was just an imaginary example.

Knowing the true meaning of words like Islamophobia,muslimophobia,moderate,the concept of good,etc makes one identify who agrees with modern,humanistic values of human rights.And who doesn't.

The only Muslim or "Muslim"(since she isn't considered one by the Muslims)intellectual who,as far as I know,is capable of agreeing with the speech I invented,100% with no "ifs,buts,or maybes" would be Irshad Manji,of Canada.She wrote "The Trouble with Islam."

nma said...

Minoria wrote:Because Islam is compatible with human rights,because in the Koran it says "To me my religion and to you your religion" and "there is no compulsion in religion".

What is jizya, then? Also, how is Islam compatible with human rights?

minoria said...

Hello nma:

You're right,jizya,or taxes for non-Muslims,but not for Muslims is discrimination.Personally,I don't think,especially regarding the sex-slave part of the Koran,that Islam is compatible with human rights.

I just made a speech of what the West wants the Muslim to be like.The moderate Muslim,authentic one.Not that his pro-human rights speech be "dissimulation",takiya in Arabic.Irshad Manji,a woman who is a lesbian,fits into the category.

It's very hard to find a 100% adherent of human rights with no "ifs,buts or maybes" among Muslims.At least in my experience.Something that for us non-Muslims comes as "natural as breathing air."

So much so that faithfreedom.org of Ali Sina once had a funny article.It had about "the search for that most elusive thing","the moderate Muslim". It said "it was like the belief in unicorns."Something beautiful but unreal.Thereare some truly religious Muslims who are real moderates 100%,no "ifs,buts or maybes".But they are very few.

nma said...

Hello minoria:

You said:You're right,jizya,or taxes for non-Muslims,but not for Muslims is discrimination.

Not only it's discrimination, but non-Muslims are compelled to pay Jizya. And the Quran says, "There is no compulsion in religion"!

Unknown said...

nma:So how many poor people can afford to pay Jizya? Also, as Fernando said, it is only the first generations that were forcibly converted did not become true Muslims.

I'll just quote Bernard Lewis on this. Mind you, Lewis is considered to be the one of the greatest, if not the greatest, middle east historian of our time. Moreover, he is no friend of Islam so you cannot accuse me of quoting a biased source. This is what he writes in his book, "The Middle East: 2000 Years of History From the Rise of Christianity to the Present Day", "It is sometimes said the Islamic religion was spread by conquest...the statement is misleading...The primary war aim of the conquerors was not to impose the Islamic faith by force...The conquered people were given various inducements, such as lower rates of taxation, to adopt Islam, BUT THEY WERE NOT COMPELLED TO DO SO. STILL LESS DID THE ARAB STATE TRY TO ASSIMILATE THE SUBJECT PEOPLES AND TURN THEM INTO ARABS. ON THE CONTRARY, THE EARLY GENERATIONS OF CONQUERORS MAINTAINED STRICT SOCIAL BARRIERS BETWEEN ARAB AND NON-ARABS, EVEN WHEN THE LATTER EMBRACED ISLAM AND ADOPTED THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. (P.57)

Likewise, Daniel Brown writes in his book, "A New Introduction to Islam", "No systematic sacking of cities took place, and no destruction of agricultural land occurred. The conquests brought little immediate change to the patterns of religious or communal life. There were no mass or forced conversions. Christian, Jewish, or Zoroastrian communities in Syria and Iraq may have felt threatened, but they continued to thrive. New synagogues, churches, and monasteries were still being built into the eighth century, and churches or synagogues were not converted to mosques on any noticeable scale. The first urban mosques were not built until after 690... [According to tradition, Muhammad died in 632. -B.C.]"

nma:The really insecure people are those who get angry and upset whenever someone criticizes their prophet or their religion.

No, I get upset when people make vacuous remarks. You have been making stupid statements ever since joining this blog.

Fernando said...

Brothher minorie... thankes for youre explanation: now I understand the brother contextte off your hipothesis thete was in the backgrounde off youre statements...

God bless and plesase: do beliebe thate this blogg, as ounce I saide, bacame, as all arounde woulde certainlie agrre withe mee, much richer withe youre comments.

Fernando said...

Hei Ibn, tahte author tahte you ALWAYS use to prove your false acceptions was tottaly discredited by George F. Nafziger and Mark W. Walton's "Islam at war" and Ted Byfield and Paul Stanway's "The Sword of Islam: A.D. 565 to 740: the Muslim Onslaught All But Destroys Christendom" rectified the assertions thate Daniel W. Brown made in his book...

MORE: those oute off context quotes do not makke justice to wahte they say: bothe books I presented are FULL off quotes from the bookes you presented thate deny whate those small sentences you placed here imply..

Ibn: do youre homeworke and do not quotte from any internet bases dawa sites before keep coming arounde here withe dubious assertions...

Unknown said...

Fernando:Ibn: do youre homeworke and do not quotte from any internet bases dawa sites before keep coming arounde here withe dubious assertions...

I didn't quote from any Islamic websites, you nincompoop. Bernard Lewis' book is among my personal collections, and I accessed Daniel Brown's work via google books. Since you are so confident that I have misquoted the aforementioned authors, why don't YOU provide the correct context? I am utterly convinced that you haven't read my sources yourself, but I still demand that you show me how I have misquoted Lewis and Brown. Ah, this will be an enjoyable experience!

Fernando said...

Ibn saide: «I didn't quote from any Islamic websites, you nincompoop. Bernard Lewis' book is among my personal collections, and I accessed Daniel Brown's work via google books»

well... thate's youre worde againstte mine... I was justte making the same pointte you used againstte me wheen you saide I was copping from Christian missionarie books... so: pointe made...

then Ibn saide: «Since you are so confident that I have misquoted the aforementioned authors, why don't YOU provide the correct context?»...

Justte fine: I habe bothe books here in fountte off me (can you tell the same aboutte the two books I mentioned who destroie the credebility of "your" books?): aboutte Daniel Brown: he is nott speaking off imposing islam, rather he is sayien thate whate abishop off Jerusalén, Syphronius, had accerted was nott true... he is nott saying: "islam was imposed bie the sworde" (as youre small quote implied), rather, likke he syis in page 110, tahte "the imposition off islam took time and happened nott onlie by a violent action, butt also a slow change in active rulling tahte discriminated non-muslims who did nott want to convert"...

more: he is nott speaking for ALL the muslim imposed converting action, rather to a limited geografical area where islam was nott strongue enough to actt onlie bie the swaord likke in the table off conquestes in page 107...

more: in page 106 we read: «there is no doubt that the Arab military strength was a determinant factor in the grown of Islam as an ideology»...

Now, aboutte Bernard Lewis: he is nott saying tahte islma was nott imposed bie the sworde, rather thate the primarie aime off the militarie actions was to have more territory and wealth (as we all know from, for example, professor Wood explainnened in http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/06/shadid-lewis-ibn-kathir-and-battle-of.html).

more: he is nott saying thate people was nott forced to become muslim, rather he is implyingue thate eben to those who accepted to become muslimes they were neber considerer as an Arab (this is: a first class citizen... let's juste imagine whate was aboutte those who did nott concvert... 4th or 5th class citizen...)

lets juste finishe by this coote from pages 233-4.:

«Even the Christian crusade, often compared with the Muslim jihad, was itself a delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also an imitation. But unlike the jihad, it was concerned primarily with the defense or reconquest of threatened or lost Christian territory. It was, with few exceptions, limited to the successful wars for the recovery of southwest Europe, and the unsuccessful wars to recover the Holy Land and to halt the Ottoman advance in the Balkans. The Muslim jihad, in contrast, was perceived as unlimited, as a religious obligation that would continue until all the world had either adopted the Muslim faith or submitted to Muslim rule. (...) The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law»

so: Ibn... do youre homeworke...

Fernando said...

Ibn.. wahte I wrote about page 110 is a poaraphrais off mine (as you can see bie mie porr english), butt it's the message as you can se... thankes...

Unknown said...

I asked Fernando to provide the context of my quotes. I quoted Bernard Lewis from pg.57 of his book. The Chapter was "The Dawn and noon of Islam". What does Fernando do? He quotes a passage from p.233-4. According to Fernando, the context of the passage I quoted from p.57 is found in p.233-4. Is this guy for real or what? How can the context of something which is in p.57 be found in p.233-4 of a different chapter? Moreover, he himself misquotes Bernard Lewis by leaving out the part after, "The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law" which says, "IT IS NOT TO CONVERT BY FORCE,but to remove obstacles to conversion. St.Thomas and St.Bernard expressed similar views in relation to the Christian crusade." (p.234)

As for Brown, Fernando attempts to "paraphrase" what the author says in p.110. Readers, if you look at what the author actually says and what Fernando "paraphrases", you will see that the latter is simply a distortion. Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself here

http://books.google.com/books?
id=ViTmBB8DQNcC&printsec=
frontcover&dq=Daniel+Brown

As you can see, Daniel Brown still doesn't say anything about the early Muslim rulers making people convert at the point of the sword. In fact, he writes in p.111, "the conquests were A WELCOME CHANGE". Lol!

All things considered, Fernando has once again proven himself to be a complete fool. And this guy is supposed to be a university teacher? Given his intellect, he is better off as a janitor.

Fernando said...

Ibn..you're makking yourself fool...

1) I did nott sayd thate the quote from passage 233-4 was the context of youre page 57... thate's whie I placed att the end after presenting before mie point aboutte the context off page 57: «he is nott saying tahte islma was nott imposed bie the sworde, rather thate the primarie aime off the militarie actions was to have more territory and wealth (...) more: he is nott saying thate people was nott forced to become muslim, rather he is implyingue thate eben to those who accepted to become muslimes they were neber considerer as an Arab (this is: a first class citizen... let's juste imagine whate was aboutte those who did nott concvert... 4th or 5th class citizen...)»...

I'm sorrie iff I was nott clear to your intelligence...

2) aboute whate I left in white (...)... do you wantte me to place it here: here we habe itt: «it is not to covert by force, but to remove obstacles to conversion»...

Ibn: removing "obstacles" to convertion and forcing convertion is, in my opinion the same... thates whie I did nott felt important to quote thate passage... killing to convert, or killing to take obstacles to the conbertion is the same Ibn... more: the quotation of saitnt Thomas and others is irrelevant to this pointe here: they're nott the Bible...

more eben iff they experssed wahte B. L. saide, since the aimme of the Crusades was nott to do an Holy War (sometyhingue thate the NT do not recognize as valid), they woulde onlie be analogous realities, not equal ones...

3) Then about Daniel Brown, ounce againne: «he is nott speaking off imposing islam, rather he is sayien thate whate abishop off Jerusalén, Syphronius, had accerted was nott true... he is nott saying: "islam was imposed bie the sworde" (as youre small quote implied), rather, likke he syis in page 110, tahte (PARHAPHARIS) "the imposition off islam took time and happened nott onlie by a violent action, butt also a slow change in active rulling tahte discriminated non-muslims who did nott want to convert"...

more: he is nott speaking for ALL the muslim imposed converting action, rather to a limited geografical area where islam was nott strongue enough to actt onlie bie the swaord likke in the table off conquestes in page 107...

more: in page 106 we read: «there is no doubt that the Arab military strength was a determinant factor in the grown of Islam as an ideology»...
...

Ibn: teh parapharsis is OK, as all can see to sad you did not presentte the ebidences I presented about page 106 and 108 thate are the KEY PERESPECTIVE IN WITCH ALL THIS CHAPTER MUSTE BE READ... to sad Ibn

Fernando said...

Ibn... another thingue tahte eben your cootes say: islam as an ideology expanded by the sword and religous aspectt off that ideologie was, slowlie butt surellie (after the military conquestes) imposed by the force... period...

Ibn: now is my gautlet: tell us all whie the books I presented to you descrediting "your" books are wrongue...

Unknown said...

Why do I always have to deal with the idiots?

Fernando:he is nott saying tahte islma was nott imposed bie the sworde, rather thate the primarie aime off the militarie actions was to have more territory and wealth (...) more

You idiot! If the aim of the conquests were not to convert people but to accumulate wealth, then how can you equate the conquests with the violent imposition of Islam?


You should emulate nma and quietly leave this discussion as your integrity is at stake.

Fernando:Ibn: removing "obstacles" to convertion and forcing convertion is, in my opinion the same... thates whie I did nott felt important to quote thate passage... killing to convert, or killing to take obstacles to the conbertion is the same Ibn.

How is removing obstacles to conversion the same as forcing conversion? Fernando, I beg you to make sense. Please!

Even Lewis doesn't say removing obstacles is tantamount to forcing conversion. This should be clear from the admission, "IT IS NOT TO CONVERT BY FORCE". By attributing to Lewis what he didn't actually say, Fernando is guilty of misquoting and deception.

As for Brown, readers, please notice that Fernando repeats the same "paraphrases" as before. If Brown really said Islam was violently imposed, then what is stopping Fernando from providing the quote? As it turns out, Brown said no such thing.

It takes a whole less time to train a dog than it does for Fernando to make sense.

Fernando said...

Ibn... thankes againd for insultting me... It's allways so good to see whate islam is in the wordes off it's followers...

a) Ibn: islam is not onlie a religion: it's an ideologie witch has a religious dimention... Muhammad was neber a prophet, so his originary goall was to expande, bie the sworde (conquests =violent imposition of islam as an military reality), islam (his authority) to increase wealth by conquering territories... after doingue so the religious aspectt was progresebily imposed by a complex machinery off discrimination, treats, economical and social aparthaide and so one...

b) iff someone makes a military action to remobe the obstacles to implementte a democratic sistem in a dictotorial state, the military actionn has, as a final and decesibe goal, the imposition off thate democratic sistem...

c) the problem Ibn, it lookes like too mie, is thate you onlie equates islam=religion, and thates not the case... islam as the ideology thate is expanded bie the SWORD. Period. The impostion off islam as a religion was imposed by those previous mechanismes I described thate were supported by the military sthreaght off the muslim rullers thate prevented, by imposing the dhimmie status, any possibility to revertt thate reality

c) finaly: whate do you think off this statement from one hadith recollected bie al-Nasa'i? Coulde you, please, translate it to us all? thankes...


الإيمان في الإسلام ، من السير على الحافة السيف

Fernando said...

Finaly Ibn: I gabe you a quote from Brown: here it is again: «there is no doubt that the Arab military strength was a determinant factor in the grown of Islam as an ideology» thate can be founde inn pagge 106...

sorry iff I did nott gabe this answer in the previous postte, butt is so incredible thatte you saide I did nott gabe a quotte thate I did not eben remebered to presentt itt...

nma said...

Ibn,

You said:You should emulate nma and quietly leave this discussion as your integrity is at stake.

LOL. You are a master of jumping to conclusions. I haven't left the discussion at all. I had some other things to do besides responding to your arrogant,silly, abusrd and baseless statements, as absurd and silly as the Quranic challenge. Anyway I am off Saturday.

nma said...

Ibn,
My original question was: Do you really believe that Islam never converted anyone by sword?
And you answered: People cannot be converted by the sword.
Your answer indirectly says that no one can be converted by the sword. Here is a recent example of href=” http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/aug/28/middleeastthemedia.tvnews”>forced conversion . It proves forced conversions are happening these days as well. So your answer is not correct.
Here is an article on forced conversion from Wikipedia, in which there is a reference to your Daniel Brown.
You said: No, I get upset when people make vacuous remarks. You have been making stupid statements ever since joining this blog.

Of course sometimes I make vacuous statements similar to “the Quran is from Allah”, “Mohammed was a prophet” etc. So what? But you make stupid vacuous statements such as (though not in so many words): All slave girls were too willing to please their Islamic captors so the Quran does not condone rape.

Again, the really insecure people are those who get angry and upset whenever someone criticizes their prophet or their religion.

Unknown said...

Well, Fernando has clearly moved away from engaging my sources to presenting reasons as to why HE BELIEVES Islam HAD TO BE spread by the sword (even if it wasn't actually spread in that manner as testified to by Lewis and Brown). And as usual, his reasons are BS.

As for nma, he too completely ignored my source. What's wrong with you idiots?

nma said...

Ibn,

You said:As for nma, he too completely ignored my source.

You completely ignored my response and pointing to your source. Your sources maybe popular but that does not necessarily mean they are right. Like, the Quran is popular (among muslims) but a lot of things in it are not correct (for example, the verse about the death of Jesus).

You claimed indirectly that no forced conversions were done in the name of Islam. You tried to support that claim quoting two historians. But there are other historians who disagree. The wikipedia article I mentioned earlier has references to other historians. Here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion

The other link about the recent forced conversion is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/aug/28/middleeastthemedia.tvnews

minoria said...

One thing one notices in the Muslim literature is selectivity."The Jews were well-treated by the Muslims".But they have to be like us,say both things,the good and bad.

In 1066 almost all the Jews of Granada,Spain were killed by the Muslims(like 5,000).Granada never had Jews after that.They don't mention it in their literature.Why?It wouldn't look good.

"The Muslims respected the Christians,the Crusaders did otherwise."No mention that in 1009 caliph Hakim completely destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem(where Jesus had his tomb).It was later rebuilt by another caliph,but should never have been destroyed.Why?It wouldn't look good.

We say in honesty that in 1502 the Muslims of Spain were given 2 choices:convert or leave.Half left and half stayed(150,000 stayed,later called Moriscos).The same for the 300,000 Jews of Spain in 1492.

For some 300 years the Muslim Turks robbed some 500,000 Christian children from their parents in Europe to force them to become Muslim and soldiers (the Janissaries).It was the devshirme system.No mention of that.

If Hindus or Christians had done that it would be publicized 24/7.Have you heard of SINAN(1489-1588),live to be 99.He was the greatest architect of the Ottoman era(built the Selim Mosque and Suleiman(Solomon)Mosque).He was taken by force at age 21 to become a Muslim and Janissary ,late in life.

There is debate if he was Greek or Armenian.I doubt he ever really believed in Islam.We'll never know,but that he was forced to convert is true.The ordinary Muslim is not told the complete truth by his own intellectuals,if you can call them that.