Monday, January 24, 2011

WomanForTruth101 on "Laughable Reinterpretations" of the Qur'an

Today marked the return of WomanForTruth101 to the comments section. She wasted no time in making the standard groundless complaints. Let's examine one of them.

I quoted four extremely clear, self-explanatory passages from the Qur'an, and one from Sahih Muslim. In response, WomanForTruth101 said:

"Aside from your laughable re-interpretations in which many of us have had the honor to refute, it'd be good for you to know that militants in Russia are not motivated by religion but by occupation in Chechnya. I can't find the article at the moment but I will post a link to it soon."

This would be a good place to compare my "laughable reinterpretations" with WomanForTruth101's Westernized, watered down, Walt Disney interpretations. Since I don't recall reading anything by WomanForTruth101, I'll see how accurately I can guess her interpretations.

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.

My Interpretation: When the Qur'an commands Muslims to "fight those who believe not in Allah," it means that Muslims should "fight those who believe not in Allah." Is there anything in the immediate context that suggests another interpretation? No. Anything in the historical context that suggests another interpretation? No. Hence, I take the obvious meaning to be the literal meaning of the words.

WomanForTruth101's Interpretation: When the Qur'an commands Muslims to "fight those who believe not in Allah," it means that Muslims should live in peace, harmony, and tolerance with everyone. Anything in the immediate context that suggests this interpretation? No. Anything in the historical context that suggests this interpretation? No. Hence, WomanForTruth101's interpretation is totally at odds with the clear meaning of the words. If Allah meant to say that Muslims should live in peace, harmony, and tolerance with everyone, why didn't he just say this?

Qur’an 9:111—Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain.

My Interpretation: When the Qur'an says that Muslims "fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain," it means that Muslims "fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain." Is there anything in the immediate context that suggests another interpretation? No. Anything in the historical context that suggests another interpretation? No. Hence, I take the obvious meaning to be the literal meaning of the words.

WomanForTruth101's Interpretation: When the Qur'an says that Muslims "fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain," it means that Muslims only fight in extreme cases of self defense. Anything in the immediate context that suggests this interpretation? No. Anything in the historical context that suggests this interpretation? No. Hence, WomanForTruth101's interpretation is totally at odds with the clear meaning of the words. If Allah meant to say that Muslims should only fight in self defense, why didn't he just say this?

Qur’an 9:123—O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

My Interpretation: When the Qur'an commands Muslims to "fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you," it means that Muslims should "fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you." Is there anything in the immediate context that suggests another interpretation? No. Anything in the historical context that suggests another interpretation? No. Hence, I take the obvious meaning to be the literal meaning of the words.

WomanForTruth101's Interpretation: When the Qur'an commands Muslims to "fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you," it means that Muslims should hold interfaith dialogues with unbelievers. Anything in the immediate context that suggests this interpretation? No. Anything in the historical context that suggests this interpretation? No. Hence, WomanForTruth101's interpretation is totally at odds with the clear meaning of the words. If Allah meant to say that Muslims should hold interfaith dialogues, why didn't he just say this?

Qur’an 48:29—Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.

My Interpretation: When the Qur'an says that Muslims are "severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves," it means that Muslims are supposed to be "severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves." Is there anything in the immediate context that suggests another interpretation? No. Anything in the historical context that suggests another interpretation? No. Hence, I take the obvious meaning to be the literal meaning of the words.

WomanForTruth101's Interpretation: When the Qur'an says that Muslims are "severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves," it means that Muslims are merciful towards everyone. Anything in the immediate context that suggests this interpretation? No. Anything in the historical context that suggests this interpretation? No. Hence, WomanForTruth101's interpretation is totally at odds with the clear meaning of the words. If Allah meant to say that Muslims should be merciful towards everyone, why didn't he just say this?

Sahih Muslim 33—The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.

My Interpretation: When Muhammad said that he had been commanded to "fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah," he meant that he had been commanded to "fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah." Is there anything in the immediate context that suggests another interpretation? No. Anything in the historical context that suggests another interpretation? No. Hence, I take the obvious meaning to be the literal meaning of the words.

WomanForTruth101's Interpretation: When Muhammad said that he had been commanded to "fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah," he meant that he had been commanded to peacefully complain about "Islamophobia" until people stop persecuting Muslims. Anything in the immediate context that suggests this interpretation? No. Anything in the historical context that suggests this interpretation? No. Hence, WomanForTruth101's interpretation is totally at odds with the clear meaning of the words. If Muhammad meant to say that he should peacefully complain about Islamophobia, why didn't he say this?

So here's what we have. In each of the above cases, I go with the clear meaning of the text, while WomanForTruth101 concludes that the text means, in effect, the opposite of what it actually says. Yet this gives rise to another problem. The Qur'an claims, again and again, to be "clear":

Qur'an 5:15—O followers of the Book! indeed Our Apostle has come to you making clear to you much of what you concealed of the Book and passing over much; indeed, there has come to you light and a clear Book from Allah.

Qur'an 12:1—Alif Lam Ra. These are verses of the clear Book.

Qur'an 15:1—Alif Lam Ra. These are the verses of the Book and (of) a Quran that makes (things) clear.

Qur'an 26:2—These are the verses of the Book that makes (things) clear.

Qur'an 36:69—We have not instructed the (Prophet) in Poetry, nor is it meet for him: this is no less than a Message and a Qur'an making things clear.

(See also 4:174, 10:15, 16:103, 19:73, 22:16, 22:72, 24:1, 24:34, 24:46, 26:192-195, 27:1, 28:2, 34:43, 43:2, 44:2, 46:7, 57:9, 58:5, 65:11, etc.)

So it seems that Westernized Muslims are in a bit of a pickle. If the Qur'an really is "clear" (as it claims over and over), then when it commands Muslims to fight unbelievers, to subjugate unbelievers, to be harsh towards unbelievers, it must mean what it says. Hence, the Qur'an promotes violence and oppression. If, on the other hand, the Qur'an really means the opposite of what it says (e.g. when it commands Muslims to "fight," it really means that they should "hug"), then the Qur'an is not clear, and is therefore wrong when it repeatedly claims to be clear.

On a different note, if WomenForTruth101 is correct, I don't see how she can call people to Islam. If the Qur'an frequently means the exact opposite of what it says, then perhaps when it commands people to reject the Deity of Christ, it actually means that they should accept the Deity of Christ. Maybe when the Qur'an says that Jesus didn't die, it actually means that he did die. When the Qur'an denies the Trinity, it could be affirming the Trinity. Once Muslims have destroyed the clear meaning of the Qur'an, aren't all interpretations equal?

36 comments:

ned said...

Can she please comment why other muslims are not using her interpretation of fighting and go to the extent pf killing even fellow muslims? What value does a non muslims hold?
Thats quite waste of time explanations and using such mindset one can explaing every dark act.Feel so sorry.

Gabriella Oak said...

Anyone would think you don't believe her...

Traeh said...

How does WomanForTruth101 interpret this?

On page 547 (814 in the Arabic) of the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad, Muhammad permits a threat of beheading to force a conversion to Islam:

[Muhammad] said: " Woe to you Abu Sufyan, isn't it time that you recognize that I am God's apostle?" [Sufyan] answered, " As to that I still have some doubt." [Ibn Abbas] said to [Sufyan], " Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head," so [Sufyan] did so.

Traeh said...

How does WomanForTruth101 interpret these passages?

On page 672 (992 in the Arabic) of the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad, he says

...kill those who disbelieve in God.
__________________________

On page 222 (326 in the Arabic) of the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad, he affirms that those who do not follow him will be slaughtered.

Abu jahl said to them: " Muhammad alleges that if you follow him you will be kings of the Arabs and the Persians. Then after death you will be raised to gardens like those of the Jordan. But if you do not follow him you will be slaughtered, and when you are raised from the dead you will be burned in the fire of hell."
The apostle
[Muhammad] came out to them with a handful of dust saying: " I do say that. "

Traeh said...

In core Islamic texts, Muhammad says your lives and property are not safe from him unless you become a Muslim

In Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection:

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:Allah's Apostle said: " I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah. "

David quoted a very similar hadith, but the above version is perhaps clearer than the one he quoted.

goethechosemercy said...

I've often written that the Koran has no organization, no historical narrative, and thus no context.
In order for a text to have contexgt, it must be ordered in some way.
For any passage in the Koran, the only context is the entire surah itself. And on the basis of that, this blog is far, far more correct.

Sophie said...

But Traeh, that's Ibn Ishaq! Don't you know that nothing in Ibn Ishaq is true? Unless it is flattering towards Muhammad?

Something that I think is very rarely commented upon, is the fact that Muhammad began the successful part of his prophetic career by raiding caravans. Reza Aslan brushed this aside by saying caravan raids were a 'time-honoured tradition' in that area, as if Muhammad was some kind of romantic gentleman highwayman. Personally I think that's a rather inappropriate way to describe unprovoked murder! Even if it was some kind of honourable tradition (which is doubtful), surely the best man who ever lived wouldn't indulge in murderous thievery?

I believe it was Ali Ataie who said in one of the debates on this site with David Wood, that the Muslims were just reclaiming their possessions (and things got out of hand and they killed people?). He didn't provide any references so I'd be interested to know if there is any historical evidence that this is the case. Does anybody know what his sources are for his claim that they were just reclaiming their possessions?

Zack_Tiang said...

Laughable indeed...

PYEM Ministry Inc. said...

Islam is of the Satan

WomanForTruth101 said...

Now I have to be careful what I write. David has his energy. Any post that corrects him will recieve an automatic deletion as well as being blocked (hint hint David).
For those that don't know, David blocked my partner Ali for merley exposing about honor killings. David really took this to the heart. So If I might recieve a similar fate, I'll have to write in a neutral manner.

@ Ned

Are you really going to assume the Taliban and Al Queda are true Muslims? LOL what does David feed you on here?

@ Sohpie

So why aren't you using those emotions, kind words and seduction like how you did on Yahya Snow's blog about the bible commanding women to wear hijab?

David Wood said...

WomanForTruth101 said: "Any post that corrects him will recieve an automatic deletion as well as being blocked (hint hint David)."

Well, here we go. I've never blocked anyone for correcting me. I do block people for unacceptable behavior (excessive name-calling, blaspheming God, calling for violence against Muslims, etc.). And sometimes I don't even block people for this.

WomanForTruth101 said: "For those that don't know, David blocked my partner Ali for merley exposing about honor killings."

If that's what your partner Ali says he was blocked for, then you need a partner with a bit more integrity. Ali kept accusing me of inventing a source that I happen to have on my bookshelf, simply because he couldn't find the quotation on other websites. While this was annoying, I didn't block him for it. Your partner was blocked when he started mocking the Holy Spirit. So yes, if you start mocking the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, and I happen to be in a righteous mood, I might block you. But please, if this happens, have some integrity and don't go around saying that I blocked you for responding to my claims.

goethechosemercy said...

WFT, St. John Damascene is laughing much harder than you.

Traeh said...

Percentage of honor killings done by Muslims

According to the article "Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings," published in the Middle East Forum, Muslims do 91 percent of honor killings worldwide and 96 percent of honor killings in Europe. If you click on the above link, those percentages can be found five paragraphs below the heading "Methodology."

WomanForTruth101 said...

Well I can't speak for Ali and I only skimmed through what happened. Though I'm sure he'd love to take you on again. He has over 10 posts dedicated to you (I have some too).

@ goethechoosemercy

what??

Traeh said...

Hi Sophie,

How Reza Aslan whitewashes Muhammad's caravan raids

First, notice how Aslan, on pages 82 and 83 of his book No god but God, makes Muhammad's caravan raids look bloodless:

By declaring Yathrib a sanctuary city, Muhammad was deliberately challenging Mecca's religious and economic hegemony over the Peninsula. And just to make sure the Quraysh got the message, he sent his followers out into the desert to take part in the time-honored Arab tradition of caravan raiding.

In pre-Islamic Arabia, caravan raiding was a legitimate means for small clans to benefit from the wealth of larger ones. It was in no way considered stealing, and as long as no violence occurred and no blood was shed, there was no need for retribution. The raiding party would quickly descend on a caravan -- usually at its rear -- and carry off whatever they could get their hands on before being discovered. These periodic raids were certainly a nuisance for the caravan leaders, but in general they were considered part of the innate hazards of transporting large amounts of goods through a vast and unprotected desert.

Though small and sporadic at first, Muhammad's raids not only provided the Ummah with desperately needed income, they also effectively disrupted the trade flowing in and out of Mecca...


Why does Reza Aslan make no mention of what core Islamic texts say about those raids, for example, what is said on page 287 (425 in the Arabic) of the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad:[The Muslim raiders] encouraged each other, and decided to kill as many as they could of them and take what they had. Waqid shot Amr bin al-Hadrami with an arrow and killed him...

Traeh said...

How Reza Aslan misleads about Muhammad's marriage to 9-year-old Aisha

Notice how Aslan, on pages 64 and 65 of his book No god but God claims that Muhammad did not consummate his marriage to Aisha when she was 9:

...Aisha...was nine years old when betrothed to the Prophet...And while Muhammad's union with a nine-year-old girl may be shocking to our modern sensibilities, his betrothal to Aisha was just that: a betrothal. Aisha did not consummate her marriage to Muhammad until after reaching puberty...

Why doesn't Aslan mention what the core Islamic texts tell us?

From Sahih al-Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection:

1. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:

Narrated 'Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).


2. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65:


Narrated 'Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)."


3. Sahih, Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88:


Narrated 'Ursa:

The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).


4. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:

Narrated Hisham's father:

Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.


-------------------------------------

Many other core Islamic texts could be quoted in a similar vein.

It should be noted that Aisha was nine lunar years old. Since a lunar year is about 355 days, Aisha may actually have been eight.

Reza Aslan is untrustworthy, at best.

Zack_Tiang said...

Notice, Ms WomanForTruth101..

When accusing Mr David of malice and dishonesty, you gladly spoke for your partner Ali... and rather boldly too.

When confronted with the actual story behind Ali's blocked comments, you happily brush it aside and say "I can't speak for Ali and only skimmed through what happened".

How about an apology to Mr David for your prejudice and unfair accusations against him, huh?
Or is this in fact what the Quran teaches you on how to interact with non-believers?

Hazakim1 said...

Brother David....


First I want to say thanks again for the love you gave us on your blog some months back. We were honored to be mentioned on your blog.

Lastly, I can't wait to hear your debate next month (Lord willing) with Anjem Choudry. May Messiah be exalted & the lies of Islam be exposed.

WomanForTruth101....please do more than make claims. Back them up with facts and verfied data. If David misquoted or misinterpreted the Qur'an, please provide the correct interpretations and quotations. I see this sort of tactic being employed by Muslims all the time; making affirmative claims and/or rebutting objections - relying on their claim alone as the proof for their claim. GIVE US MORE!

Tony of Hazakim

David Wood said...

Hazakim said: "First I want to say thanks again for the love you gave us on your blog some months back. We were honored to be mentioned on your blog."

Keep up the good work, Brother.

Let me know when you guys make a song out of Paul's sermon in Acts 17!

Sophie said...

Hmm... I don't think I used use "seduction", woman for truth! Usually I try to be kind and polite when I comment on the blogs of people I disagree with, and I meant everything I said. I don't think that there's much difference between the tone I used here and the tone I used on Yahya's blog, though. I have Muslim family members and I absolutely wish the best for them. I was giving my personal perspective on why I think that headcovering isn't an issue for Christian women, but here I'm asking a question regarding a difficult aspect of Islam that I find very objectionable and that I have never found a satisfactory answer to. There's no contradiction between being nice and gracious, and being critical. I don't think I've said anything rude or offensive here. I try not to be, usually! Anyway, ad hominem (or whatever your comment may be, I'm not great with terminology)doesn't answer the questions raised here. If you have anything to say about Muhammad being a caravan raider I'd genuinely like to hear it, becaused I find it difficult to understand the Muslim perspective on this part of his life.

Persons9999 said...

David- please consider doing a debate on this topic: "Is Islam the solution to Western secularization?" Many Muslims (especially blacks who say that Christianity has not benefited their people) claim that Islam is the solution to some of the problems that exist in certain so-called Christian countries (ie: pre-marital sex, STDS, teen pregnancy, abortion, immodest attire, high divorce rate, break down of the family unit/absentee fathers or mothers, alcohol abuse,materialism, me-first mentality etc.)and I'd like to hear a solid biblical response to these allegations.I really cannot find a good answer to why the AIDS rate is way higher in "Christian" African countries but almost non-existent in Muslim countries.

I know that Shadid and Nabeel briefly touched on these issues in their debate, but Nabeel didn't really give a satisfactory explanation. I would agree with those who say that ultimately the true test of a religion is not theological points but the fruit that it bears in peoples' lives.

WomanForTruth101 said...

@Traeh

And of course those "Crimes of Passion" don't count at all.

The Haiti Penal code (Article 269) allows MEN to kill WOMEN. And stats show 96% of the population is Christian.
Brazil is another country that has something similar. I think they took it out recently though. And yet again we see another large Christian population.

A list of Christian honor killings:

http://answeringchristians.blogspot.com/search/label/Honor%20Killing

As well, I'm a frequent visitor to Stop Honor Killings. Actually, from my own persepective, there's more Hindu honor killers than Muslim ones. You seem to be another one of those fanatics blaming Islam for everything. LOL

I still can't find one Christian who explains to me those 6 honor killing verses in the Bible (Including in Mathew 15:4 and Mark 7:10).

WomanForTruth101 said...

@Hazakim1

I, and numerous other Muslims have tried our best to correct David but to no avail. I see a pattern in these Christians, do you?
I hope we see another Christian Reform, featuring a major section on accurate interpretions of Islam.

BTW, has anyone ever noted Christians on this blog never post a comment on Muslim ones? It's because when a group of people with the same ideology are together, they feel much stronger. With that momentum they gang up and outflood Muslim comments.

I challenge any Christian to visit another Muslim's blog. Do I have any takers? David perhaps?

Traeh said...

IN CORE ISLAMIC TEXTS, MUHAMMAD SAYS THE BELL IS SATANIC

From Sahih Muslim, a canonical hadith collection
Book 024, Number 5279:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The bell is the musical instrument of the Satan.

----------------------------------------------------

MUHAMMAD COMPARES HIS KORANIC INSPIRATIONS TO THE RINGING OF A...BELL

In Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection:
Volume 1, Book 1, Number 2:
Narrated 'Aisha: (the mother of the faithful believers) Al-Harith bin Hisham asked Allah's Apostle "O Allah's Apostle! How is the Divine Inspiration revealed to you?" Allah's Apostle replied, "Sometimes it is (revealed) like the ringing of a bell, this form of Inspiration is the hardest of all and then this state passes ' off after I have grasped what is inspired. Sometimes the Angel comes in the form of a man and talks to me and I grasp whatever he says." 'Aisha added: Verily I saw the Prophet being inspired Divinely on a very cold day and noticed the Sweat dropping from his forehead (as the Inspiration was over).

Traeh said...

In core Islamic texts, Muhammad allows his soldiers to rape their captive women:

From Sahih Muslim, a canonical hadith collection:

Book 008, Number 3371:

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger [Muhammad] (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Notice that Muhammad did not say, "do not rape your captive women." He merely says it does not matter if his soldiers withdraw before ejaculation, because souls destined by Allah to be born will be born regardless.

From Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection:

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459:

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:

I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa [battle at which Muhammad was present] of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle [Muhammad] who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."


Again notice that, in answer to his soldiers' queries Muhammad doesn't say "You must not force your captives to have intercourse with you." He says only that coitus interruptus, withdrawing prior to ejaculation, is pointless, because souls predestined to exist will exist regardless.

Again in Sahih Bukhari:

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle [Muhammad] about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."


Thus Muhammad does not forbid his men to rape their captives, but merely says that it's better not to do coitus interruptus. His men were to keep going till coitus was complete.

Mr McStizzle said...

The Haiti Penal code (Article 269) allows MEN to kill WOMEN. And stats show 96% of the population is Christian.
Brazil is another country that has something similar. I think they took it out recently though. And yet again we see another large Christian population.


The difference here is that this kind of behaviour isn't mandated in our scriptures or given as an example of how to live by Jesus, whom we are aspiring to be like.

Contrast this with Islam where such things are mandated in the Quran and given as the example of how to live by your prophet.

At the root of all of this, however, is sin. Sin is the true origin of all this iniquity yet Islam provides neither the answer to the origin of sin or the solution for it.

BTW, has anyone ever noted Christians on this blog never post a comment on Muslim ones? It's because when a group of people with the same ideology are together, they feel much stronger. With that momentum they gang up and outflood Muslim comments.

I challenge any Christian to visit another Muslim's blog. Do I have any takers? David perhaps?


Sure, give us some links :)

Fernando said...

WomanForTruth101 (or ALi since in the paste he used your account to place comments arounde here)... your lack of honesty and integrety is no surprise: typicall muslim actitude... so: do continue to place your comments here: they are a light too all off those who want to know how deceptive and lyiers muslims are...

I'm praying to the Holy Trinity to your soule...

hugh watt said...

WFT:

"BTW, has anyone ever noted Christians on this blog never post a comment on Muslim ones? It's because when a group of people with the same ideology are together, they feel much stronger. With that momentum they gang up and outflood Muslim comments.

I challenge any Christian to visit another Muslim's blog. Do I have any takers? David perhaps?"


Actually, I and at least one other +ian I know of have tried posting on Muslim sites. Thing is, when they can't refute your argument they block you. I/we've been blocked by people who claim not to be Muslim, but talk as if they are. Then we have the liberals; oh the liberals. You can't say a disagreeable word about Islam without them blocking you. What I'd like to know is, how'd you know where and when +ians are trying or not trying to post on those sites!!!?

goethechosemercy said...

Quote:
I still can't find one Christian who explains to me those 6 honor killing verses in the Bible (Including in Mathew 15:4 and Mark 7:10).
end quote.

And the majority being carried out by Muslims worldwide to the tune of 90+ percent?
Wow.

Matt. 15:4
for God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

This is no imperative for honor killing, and particularly the HONOR KILLING OF WOMEN.

Mark 7:10
10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[a] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b]

No imperative for the HONOR KILLING OF WOMEN!


Honor killing?
Where? Again?

Zack_Tiang said...

I concur... Yes, indeed, how would WomanForTruth101 know or even come close to noticing that "Christians on this blog never post a comment on Muslim ones"?

Has she visited every Muslim blog available out there?
Does she keep track of every of our blog visiting and blog commenting?
Does she keep in close contact with every single Muslim on the face of this earth who owns a blog?

Wow... it almost sounds like she has made herself to be like God...
I'll give you a benefit of a doubt, though, WomanForTruth101...

But on a serious note, I have yet to notice any sign of repentance in your manners/comments after, what we have all witnessed, your false accusations and poor judgment against David regarding your partner, Ali's comments being blocked; which turned out to be for reasons other than what you accused David of.

Even without the Quran, I think it's basic good manners that you apologize to David for your 'misunderstanding' and lack of 'fairness'.

Fernando said...

Some ignorante person daide: «I still can't find one Christian who explains to me those 6 honor killing verses in the Bible (Including in Mathew 15:4 and Mark 7:10)»... well... maybe because thay are not honour killings... Jesus is nott saying thate one shoulde kill anyone, rather than the farisees, thate were so eagger to critizide Him for not following the oral tradition, were not following the written one... grow up ignorante person... grow up and start to bee more truthfull...

Jabari said...

Persons9999 says.....
David- please consider doing a debate on this topic: "Is Islam the solution to Western secularization?" Many Muslims (especially blacks who say that Christianity has not benefited their people) claim that Islam is the solution to some of the problems that exist in certain so-called Christian countries (ie: pre-marital sex, STDS, teen pregnancy, abortion, immodest attire, high divorce rate, break down of the family unit/absentee fathers or mothers, alcohol abuse,materialism, me-first mentality etc.)and I'd like to hear a solid biblical response to these allegations.I really cannot find a good answer to why the AIDS rate is way higher in "Christian" African countries but almost non-existent in Muslim countries.

I know that Shadid and Nabeel briefly touched on these issues in their debate, but Nabeel didn't really give a satisfactory explanation. I would agree with those who say that ultimately the true test of a religion is not theological points but the fruit that it bears in peoples' lives.


I say..
I really beg to differ on that last sentence. Many of the problems caused in so-called Christian countries comes from the fact that not all of them represent true Christianity.

Also I think it should be helpful to know that many of our sisters in Christ are being raped in muslim lands and that the Quran prescribes such activity. What do you think would happen if Sharia was enforced here in the West?

TPaul said...

WFT101 says "I hope we see another Christian Reform, featuring a major section on accurate interpretions of Islam."

So in reality you are hoping for a reformation of Christianity, that would patronize Islam...Really? Ironically, you will not call for a reformation of Islam and it's hate manual, with it's derogatory texts against women, anti-Semitic anti-everyone-who-is-not-Muslim nature?
Just because you'd like to white-wash some really bad stuff in the Koran by a convenient little method the likes of you have invented, called 'accurate interpretation', you expect everyone else who does not agree with Islam and the Koran to also apply this method of fallacy to make Islam acceptable.

Games up!!! Please read "The Emperor's new clothes"

Charis kai Eirene said...

WFT101 wrote to Sophie:

"So why aren't you using those emotions, kind words and seduction like how you did on Yahya Snow's blog about the bible commanding women to wear hijab?"

Well Sophie, now aren't you ashamed of your "brazen" civility and kindness on Yahya Snow's blog? Put on your proverbial "veil!" Don't you see that the only true modesty in comment sections is for women to be strident, abrasive, and to constantly make false accusations and personal attacks? A beautiful personality and mind are women's wiles, Sophie! By being unpleasant and deceitful, you can protect other men from being "seduced" by kind words and rationality, which just goes to show what a modest woman WFT is! LOL!

donna60 said...

Person9999, the answer to upright behavior of God's people, is for churches to obey the biblical doctrine of withdrawing from the disorderly.

Every church that I have belonged to that followed the verses about withdrawing from members who flagrantly rebel against God's laws, enjoyed good behavior from its members, and the reputations in their communities were impeccable.

donna60 said...

Mr. McStizzle, I have posted on two Muslims web-sites, but I don't think they were put up.

And even on Huffington post, there isn't a whole lot of dialogue, and you get deleted as abusive if you write anything at all. Even quoting from the Quran, surah and verse can get you deleted from Huff post as abusive. What the heck? That is their own material. It doesn't bother me if someone posts a bible verse.

And I started a nice little debate on soda head, that lasted one day, and then he blocked me.

I had one debate on youtube and one on anywho answers. It wasn't on line, it was via google, but one of them, and American male, young--and I went back and forth for several months. That was probably the best exchange. An Imam from Egypt refused to talk to me anymore because I refused to say pbuh about Mohammad.

I should go back to answering Christianity and see if Mr Abdullah put my response to him up on his web-site.