Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Samatar Mohamed Condemns the Qur'an, Muhammad, and Allah

In response to a Muslim who threatened me, Andy Bell said:

"ahhhhh, muslims. How boring would life be without these beasts?"

When I read his comment, I assumed Andy was referring to the sort of Muslims who threaten people over making videos about Muhammad. Samatar Mohamed, however, interpreted Andy's comment as applying to all Muslims. For the sake of argument, let's assume that this was Andy's intended meaning. Always quick to take offense, Samatar replied:

"Now you resort to calling about 1.5 billion people in the world beasts because of the actions of a minute percentage, and you call yourself rational. Hey, just because one muslim said something, does not mean that we are all subject to his actions. Please have some respect for your brothers in humanity without calling all of us beasts. Thanks a lot."

Yes, Samatar is extremely offended when someone calls Muslims "beasts." Since we know that Samatar would never be inconsistent, he must now reject the Qur'an, which refers to Christians and Jews as "the worst of creatures."

Qur’an 98:6—Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

The Qur'an doesn't allow Samatar to be friends with Jews and Christians:

Qur’an 5:51—O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

The Qur'an even commands Samatar to fight and subjugate Jews and Christians:

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.

Samatar has already condemned Andy for calling Muslims "beasts." Now he must condemn the Qur'an, Muhammad, and Allah for calling Christians and Jews "the worst of creatures." Of course, Samatar might want to reinterpret these verses. But what rules of reinterpretation would apply to the Qur'an that wouldn't also apply to Andy's comment? I can't wait to read Samatar's response.


donna60 said...

No, Samatar is in compliance with the Koran. Just because Christians shouldn't call Jihadists beasts, doesn't mean that Muslims can't call Christians beasts. They are the best of people.

3:110 Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.

John 8:24 said...

Another instance of a beastly act?:


Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samater.

Since I am sure you will ignore my posting on the other topic. I will do it here as well!

Those things have already been established. Many times. But when we post them you seem to disappear and fill that hole back up with your head. How many times do we have to repeat ourselves just for you to bury your head again.

Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)

From http://islamqa.com/en/ref/10382
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan girls then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (slaves) that your right hands possess. That is nearer to prevent you from doing injustice”

[al-Nisa’ 4:3]

What is meant by “or (slaves) that your right hands possess” is slave women whom you own.
And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O Prophet (Muhammad)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal‑money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses — whom Allaah has given to you, and the daughters of your ‘Amm (paternal uncles) and the daughters of your ‘Ammaat (paternal aunts) and the daughters of your Khaal (maternal uncles) and the daughters of your Khaalaat (maternal aunts) who migrated (from Makkah) with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers. Indeed We know what We have enjoined upon them about their wives and those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, in order that there should be no difficulty on you. And Allaah is Ever Oft‑Forgiving, Most Merciful”

[al-Ahzaab 33:50]

“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).

Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.

But whosoever seeks beyond that, then it is those who are trespassers”
[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-31]

Al-Tabari said:

Allaah says, “And those who guard their chastity” i.e., protect their private parts from doing everything that Allaah has forbidden, but they are not to blame if they do not guard their chastity from their wives or from the female slaves whom their rights hands possess.

Tafseer al-Tabari, 29/84

Ibn Katheer said:

Taking a concubine as well as a wife is permissible according to the law of Ibraaheem (peace be upon him). Ibraaheem did that with Haajar, when he took her as a concubine when he was married to Saarah.

Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 1/383

And Ibn Katheer also said:

The phrase “and those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses — whom Allaah has given to you” [al-Ahzaab 33:50] means, it is permissible for you take concubines from among those whom you seized as war booty. He took possession of Safiyyah and Juwayriyah and he freed them and married them; he took possession of Rayhaanah bint Sham’oon al-Nadariyyah and Maariyah al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his son Ibraaheem (peace be upon them both), and they were among his concubines, may Allaah be pleased with them both.

Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 3/500

The scholars are unanimously agreed that it is permissible.

Search 4 Truth said...

Continued @ Samater

Ibn Qudaamah said:

There is no dispute (among the scholars) that it is permissible to take concubines and to have intercourse with one's slave woman, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).

Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.”

[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-30]

Maariyah al-Qibtiyyah was the umm walad (a slave woman who bore her master a child) of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and she was the mother of Ibraaheem, the son of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), of whom he said, “Her son set her free.” Haajar, the mother of Isma’eel (peace be upon him), was the concubine of Ibraaheem the close friend (khaleel) of the Most Merciful (peace be upon him). ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) had a number of slave women who bore him children, to each of whom he left four hundred in his will. ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) had slave women who bore him children, as did many of the Sahaabah. ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn, al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad and Saalim ibn ‘Abd-Allaah were all born from slave mothers

Al-Mughni, 10/441

Al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts).

Except from their wives or the (women slaves) whom their right hands possess for (then) they are not blameworthy.”

[al-Ma’aarij 70:29-30]

The Book of Allaah indicates that the sexual relationships that are permitted are only of two types, either marriage or those (women slaves) whom one’s right hand possesses.

Al-Umm, 5/43.

The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them.

And Allaah knows best.

I will be awaiting your logical fallacy of how sex where one or both are married does not constitute adultery. And from the same website!

A slave woman does not have the right to refuse her master’s requests unless she has a valid excuse. If she does that she is being disobedient and he has the right to discipline her in whatever manner he thinks is appropriate and is allowed in shari’ah.

From Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 32/278. The hadeeth was narrated by Muslim, 1736.

And you keep saying that if these things were true than you wouldnt be a Muslim. But your still a Muslim. So you have a dilemma on your hands. Suspend reality, or leave Islam!

D335 said...

I know this is off topic,

but WHY in every translation of Quran, Allah refers himself as

"WE" sent down the book...
"WE" have made lawful to you...
"WE" everywhere.

wasn't Allah in Quran only one?
is Allah name "WE" like Nintendo WE or something?

"the worst of creatures"

Jeff said...

Can I make a suggestion?

I'm a Christian and I agree with a lot of the stuff said here about Islam.

But I have a challenge for the bloggers.

Humanly speaking, a lot of Muslims and people who beCOME Muslim find beauty and inspiration in their religion. They don't become or stay Muslim in order to beat their wives or collect concubines.

How about just for once, acknowledging beautiful verses in the Quran or touching ahadith?

Not to whitewash anything. But because we want Muslims to feel underSTOOD. Not caricatured.

People who are seeking goodness can and do love Islam. And many of the things they love are beautiful and inspiring.

Why not a post about what I love about Islam and Muslims? Just ONE. :)

Samatar Mohamed said...

Again David, you are limiting God by the commandments he gives to his people. We muslims believe that there are exceptions for God because he is the creator of the universe and not a human like us. Also, when a clear sign comes to you Christians and Jews, you turn away from it and committing blasphemy against God, which gives him the right to say that you are the lowest of creatures not by the physical way in which he created you, but by your ignorance against what God almighty has commanded you to do. In Andy's comment, it seemed to me that he was calling us inferior for the comments of one individual.And if you are going to insist on God being limited by the commandments he imposes on us human beings, then there are some questionable acts that jesus did according to the bible.In Mathew 12:48, Jesus said " and who is my mother." I do not think any moral person would say that about his own mother never mind Jesus (pbuh). And if you personally believe that it is wrong to say that about your mother, then you will have to take that up with the bible. Also, there is another questionable act when Jesus (pbuh) says in Mathew 15, where he calls the Canaanite women a dog. Twist and turn it what ever way you want it but he was calling her people "Dogs". Now if you say that Jesus (pbuh) can say these things because he is God, then you are proving my point. But if you say that i am taking these obvious explicit verses out of context,then you have taken debate tactic two for winning a debate lol. Like your friend James white says "inconsistency is the mark of a flawed argument".

cheryl_maree said...

There is NOT one thing I agree with, so that is not possible. How can you as saying you are a Christian embrace that? It is a false religion with a false prophet, and if you cannot believe all of it then my sense tells me you can't believ ANY!!

Rale said...

@ samara
Jesus was simply testing the Canaanite's faith. And guess what He did right afterwards? Did He kill her? Did He take her as a concubine? Did He enslave her familly?NO, when her faith was proved to be strong enough He healed her daughter! That's very questionable! He should have never done that!
And of course, that's just like Allah promising us hellfire in Surat 98! Do you catch the difference here?
At least I deeply appreciate the fact that you're trying to find something questionable in the NT. Muslims generally like to refer to verses of the OT that don't apply to us since they have a precise historical context and since we're under the new covenant anyway. It was a good try, but if it's all you have to say about the Jesus of our gospels, you're still far from saving your prophet.
Since you bring it up and you're always complaining that we misrepresent Islam, compare objectively the teachings of the NT (on war/peace, marriage, women...) to those of the Qur'an, and then compare objectively the acts of our Jesus to the acts of your prophet. If (and only if) you try to be more objective you should see a huge gap and you will maybe understand why do we criticize the teachings of Islam.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar. No you are limiting God by saying he cannot do as he chooses. You ave got a severe mental blockage. If he wants to enter his creation to lead by example he can do it. Your Allah has these types of limitations, my true God does not!

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samater

As usual you ignore anything that contradicts your position.

Also Your excuse is inaccurate! It is Allah who makes people doubt Islams Allah.

If We had so willed, We could certainly have brought every soul its true guidance (32:13)

18.057 And who doth more wrong than one who is reminded of the Signs of his Lord, but turns away from them, forgetting the (deeds) which his hands have sent forth? Verily We have set veils over their hearts lest they should understand this, and over their ears, deafness, if thou callest them to guidance, even then will they never accept guidance.

No soul can believe, except by the will of Allah, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand (10:100)

And if Allah please He would certainly make you a single nation, but He causes to err whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases; and most certainly you will be questioned as to what you did (16:93)

45.023 Then seest thou such a one as takes as his god his own vain desire? Allah has, knowing (him as such), left him astray, and sealed his hearing and his heart (and understanding), and put a cover on his sight. Who, then, will guide him after Allah (has withdrawn Guidance)? Will ye not then receive admonition?


See thou not that We have set the Evil Ones on against the unbelievers, to incite them with fury? (19:83)

And he makes those deeds seem right!

027.004 As to those who believe not in the Hereafter, We have made their deeds pleasing in their eyes; and so they wander about in distraction.

So Allah chooses and influences. i dont know where your getting your apologatics from but it isnt from the Quran, hadith, or tafsir!

Nimochka said...

@Jeff: I bet if you dig hard enough you will some find nice aspects to Nazism or the life of Hitler! But the weight of the dark side is so much heavier that practically makes the minute good stuff INSIGNIFICANT!!!

The same goes with Islam. In this blog format we have only a few paragraphs of space to write what we want about Islam. Now if we divide this precious space to also write some insignificant and minute good things there would simply be not enough space left to write the multitudes of negative stuff that are abundant in Islam. Therefor the picture that will come out will be distorted! Because it might make it look as if there are as much positive things about islam as there are negative, which of course is totally untrue! Islam is by in large very negative and dangerous!

Besides there are enough goody-two-shoes individuals out there trying to scrap a smallest positive thing out of Islam and magnify it 100 fold to pretend that they are "balanced" or "culturally sensitive" and "understanding" or "unbiased". But by definition if you are trying to give equal time to the positive aspects of an ideology which is OVERWHELMINGLY negative you are not being balanced but very very biased. That is the real caricature of Islam I believe!

The unassailable fact is that Islam is a very very negative and destructive and even dangerous ideology which even if it has any positive aspects what so ever they are really not worth it!

If anybody perceives anything positive in Islam that makes him think it is worth dealing with all the negative stuff in the baggage that person is seriously deluded and mislead and maybe just plain silly and he should be woken up with a strong and heavy dose of facts before he or she puts his or her sole and also the rest of the society in danger! And that's precisely David Wood and others are doing on this site and more power to them!!

Baron Eddie said...

I know this comment has nothing to do with this post but because I have lived with Muslims I have the right to post anything that has nothing to do with your topic ...

I don't know if you ever made a video about "Yaafoor the donkey" قصة الحمار يعفور

In this story Mohammed encountered a unique donkey ...

The donkey told Mohammed that all his family line were rode by prophets ...

Here is a life time opportunity for Mohammed to ask that donkey about what other prophets did or say ...

But Mohammed asked the donkey "If he lust for females?"

The donkey answered "No"

What a polite donkey

Cristo Te Ama said...

@Samatar Mohamed: You are comparing a clear sentence of the quran "they are the worst of creatures" with Jesus sentence about it is not their time to receive him? We don't need to twist anything lol, the verse explains by itself that he is talking about his mission toward the Jews first, but the quran "who came to be clear" says very clear that we are the worst of creatures, besides that stement is supported by the rest of the Quran, yet your stement about what Jesus meant is not supported by the rest of the Bible, so actually Samatar you just commited what i would call the 11 trick which would be "misquote or disort the bible"..

Samatar Mohamed said...


"but WHY in every translation of Quran, Allah refers himself as

"WE" sent down the book...
"WE" have made lawful to you...
"WE" everywhere.

wasn't Allah in Quran only one?
is Allah name "WE" like Nintendo WE or something?"

In Arabic, the plural is for majesty. Like a king or queen who uses we, but in reality it was only the one king or queen.

"Jesus was simply testing the Canaanite's faith."

Are you actually joking Rale. Can you imagine if i gave you that excuse for everything. Didn't Muhammad(pbuh) allow men to rape their captured women, well he was just trying to test their faith to see if they would actually do something like that. The fact remains that he called the Canaanite's "Dogs" which is disrespectfull no matter how you try to turn it.

"Muslims generally like to refer to verses of the OT that don't apply to us since they have a precise historical context and since we're under the new covenant anyway."

You just used muslim debate tactic two according to David wood. Now i am happy to see you understand how important historical context is. When we tell you people to understand that a verse must be looked at historically to see how it is applied, you laugh. But now all of a sudden historical context matters. Try to be consistent my christian friends.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@ search for truth

I already replied to your comments in another post, so i do not know why you keep bringing them up. As for adultery, God almighty defines to us what adultery is and he said that intercourse with your she slave is not adultery. And again, the hadiths do not show that the women were against having intercourse with the men. I told you, all i need from you is ONE sahih hadith showing that the prophet allowed rape explicitly. You will never find it. Do you honestly believe that a religion that allows and encourages rape would survive so long, with every one of the followers saying that rape is not permitted. that is not logical at all search for truth. And i'm not ignoring you, but incase you haven't noticed, there are many people awaiting my response.

andy bell said...

WOW! I had no idea that I caused such a stir with a comment that I really don't even remember making. All this attention....for ME? Now I know how Kim feels.

So I went back to find out what exactly I was commenting on when I made the comment......."ahhhhh, muslims. How boring would life be without these beasts?" It was on the thread where a MUSLIM threatened to kill David.

Let me preface by stating that when I comment on an internet forum, I try to be as succinct and funny as possible. I love comments that are pithy and make me laugh. I'd like to think of myself as a funny guy, so I try and return the favor. With that being said, if you read my entire post--I was making a sarcastic point.

Here's my entire post:

I disagree with you David. Instead of creating a substantive rebuttal based on knowledge and facts and have a civilized dialogue,

....I'm going to kill you.

yeah, it's just easier that way.


ahhhhh, muslims. How boring would life be without these beasts?

Notice how I also stated that I was going to "kill" David? Now, am I really going to kill David? No. I also linked to a Monty Python skit on arguing. Notice the pattern that I'm developing here? All roads leading to...hahahaaahah funny drole facetious...all trying to make a point.

And what point was I making? Well, that muslims don't like to have axiomatic debate because they can't win. And it's unnecessary when you can just kill someone who disagrees with you. Isn't that what the Mad Arab (PBUH) did? I thought ijtihad was over.

Of course, I can't expect a muslim to understand anything I've written so far since muslims are dense. There is no humor in islam, and there is no fun in islam--thank you ayatoolah.

Ahhhh, just today. Look at what happened in France. A magazine satirizes the mad Arab (pbuh), and KA-Boom! We kell you infidool!

And if I recall correctly, I can't find it right now, I made a facetious comment on a post a few days ago. Muslims did something violent, and I commented that "this was the work of the mossad, not muslims--check your facts people." And lo and behold, this same moron Scimitar Mohammad commented, "Thanks for keeping an open mind Andy Bell." Completely missing the facetious point I was making.

Another thing I must inform everyone of, is that I am not a christian. My god is neither jewish nor arab. Therefore, please don't consider me a pious individual that is expected to maintain any christian standards--like others on this blog.

Now, in conclusion. Muslims are beasts, including the ones who threatened to kill people with whom they disagree. I could have used the words: cretins, morons, pussbuckets, creatures...but beasts was the first word that came to mind. Little did I know, that it would make me the star of Answering muslims (for a day).

I have a negative opinion of islam and muslims. Certainly not all muslims. But that is because the religion inspires people to live like brainless 7th century bedouins who give no regard for common sense. Now, in order for my opinion to change--I believe it is incumbent on muslims to prove to me that their culture is civilized and tolerant.

And yeah, the entire religion of islam calls me the worst of creatures, says that I will burn in hellfire, expects me to convert and put my gf/wife and daughters in a garbage bag, hate jews, give up delicious brats, kraut and beer, marry my cousin...etc...........And the word "beast" is unacceptable?

As we say in da hood....Puh-leeze.

Zack_Tiang said...


Beauty of Islam?
There is no beauty in adulterous and sinful things.
God taught that very forcefully throughout the Old Testament.

It's like trying to find the beauty in committing idolatry or rape.

Just keeping it real, yo.


And I've been wondering...
Was associating someone as a 'dog' considered insulting back in Jesus' time?


And if we are going to be consistent, Samatar, Jesus also called the Jews 'children' (a.k.a. 'kids')... Wouldn't that be considered an insult too (calling adults 'kids'/'children' in comparison to calling adults 'dogs')?

Let's not forget that in other parts of the gospel, Jesus calls His followers 'sheep' or 'lambs'... weak, frail and dumb creatures. Wouldn't that by the same standard be called an insult?
How about parts of the bible that associate Israel as a fig tree?
How does that help?

Obviously, there's more to the statement by Jesus than being some form of insult to all Gentiles.
(Even the Canaanite woman went along with Jesus' analogy)

Unlike Islam and the Quran...
I don't see such implication in the Quran when it calls Christians and Jews as the worst of creatures. Was it an analogy, or just a plain statement of truth, according to Allah and the Quran?
If it is not an analogy, but a statement of truth (as-a-matter-of-factly speaking), then how is it not an insult?
What makes it worse is that there is another verse or two in the Quran where it plainly states 'Muslims are the best of creatures'...

Compare this with Christians&Jews being called 'worst of creatures', how is it a fair contrasting with Jesus metaphorically ascribing children to Jews and dogs to Gentiles when speaking about who is to be fed FIRST with bread?
(Not forgetting, Jesus said, "the children's bread")

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Christo Teama

Let me get this straight for the record please. You are telling me that you do not find anything disturbing about Jesus (pbuh) disrespecting his mother by saying " and who is my mother", and calling the Canaanites "Dogs". If suppose you were to call a particular group of people "Dogs", do you not think you would be offending them in anyway. The verses are clear in the Bible.
Doesn't your own Bible say that God is not the author of confusion. If the verse means anything else, then it is quite confusing. Any non biased person would tell you that what Jesus (pbuh) did was borderline racism to the Canaanite women. And I know he helped her out in the end, but it still does not excuse what he said to her. If i see a black man on the floor bleeding and asking for help, And i call him the "n" word, but then help him afterwards. That would still not excuse what I would have said to him. Now are you christians willing to be consistent. Only time will tell.

andy bell said...

Ya know. I was thinking.......... On second thought..........

Muslims are cursed. They are apes and pigs.

We should fight muslims until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for muslims must suffer disgrace.

When we clash with the muslims in battle, we should smite their necks until we overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when we have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) our captives.

We should crush the heads of the muslims and split their skulls with sharp swords, while we continually thrust and cut at the muslims. Blood should gush from their deep wounds as the battle wears them down.

Killing muslims is a small matter to us.

The Hour will not be established until we fight with the Muslims, and the stone behind which a Muslim will be hiding will say. "O Andy! There is a Muslim hiding behind me, so kill him."

.....yeah. Beasts!

minoria said...

Hello Samatar:

Jesus in MATT did not say DOG.The Greek means "little dog/puppies"n the original GREEK it is in the DIMINUTIVE.It was obvious the woman saw it as a METAPHOR,since puppies are still esteemed.I wrote an article in French on the subject:


You can translate with Google Translate:


PETE said...

Samatar Mohamed too deseprate to defence his false prophet.. Ha..ha.
Keep going preach your false taugh.

Billy said...

Samatar said: “Let me get this straight for the record please. You are telling me that you do not find anything disturbing about Jesus (pbuh) disrespecting his mother by saying " and who is my mother", and calling the Canaanites "Dogs". If suppose you were to call a particular group of people "Dogs", do you not think you would be offending them in anyway.”

Volume 1, Book 9, Number 490:Narrated 'Aisha: The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, "Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people)." I said, "You have made us (i.e. women) dogs.

If suppose you were to call a particular group of people "Dogs", do you not think you would be offending them in anyway.

Mohammad said: I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you [women].

If suppose you were to call a particular group of people dumb, do you not think you would be offending them in anyway.

D335 said...


JEFF- But I have a challenge for the bloggers.
Humanly speaking, a lot of Muslims and people who beCOME Muslim find beauty and inspiration in their religion. They don't become or stay Muslim in order to beat their wives or collect concubines.

How about just for once, acknowledging beautiful verses in the Quran or touching ahadith?


Sure Jeff.

Howbout this, Surat 109:1-6:

Say, "O disbelievers, I do not worship what you worship.
Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.
Nor will you be worshippers of what I worship.
For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."

beautiful ending isn't it?
But no more when followed by:

Quran 9:29
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

or howbout the monkey and swine verse? Mukhsin Khan Q 5:60
Say (O Muhammad SAW to the people of the Scripture): "Shall I inform you of something worse than that, regarding the recompense from Allah: those (Jews) who incurred the Curse of Allah and His Wrath, those of whom (some) He transformed into monkeys and swines, those who worshipped Taghut (false deities); such are worse in rank (on the Day of Resurrection in the Hell-fire), and far more astray from the Right Path (in the life of this world)."

I am however curious Jeff, what do you know about Islam?

Rale said...

@ Samatar

1. Let's try to be consistent too my friend!
If you are shocked by Jesus saying "dog", why are you not shocked by Muhammad's acts that are incomparably worse than that? How many pagan and Jews did Jesus kill? How many women did He take captive? How many towns did He attack and plunder? Open your eyes! I already told you to apply the same criteria of judgement to both our Jesus and Muhammad. I know that you are reluctant to do that, coz you can only lose.

2. "Didn't Muhammad(pbuh) allow men to rape their captured women..."
Here for instance are the kind of actions we are comparing: saying to someone "dog" metaphorically vs. raping captured women. (Maybe they were raped metaphorically too!)

3. Doesn't the rape of captured women shock you as well (it should be more actually)? If not, then there is a problem that I cannot solve.
BTW, we've heard to many times that the text doesn't mention whether the women did agree with having sex with their captors or not. We've already replied to that. If you still don't agree, just ask any any non-muslim (and even muslim) woman if she would like to have sex with her captor. And, since they were married, that was adultery anyway.

I pray that you will open your eyes and see the truth! Just try to be objective bud!

D335 said...

@Samatar Mohammed.

Brother, have you ever questioned yourself, if religion is so great, Muhammad did something 1400 years ago and now here I am to answer ALL that.

I know you have been trying to defend the faith until the last possible method.
Every fallacy, even when pointed hadiths about rape, you would turn to a possibility that those women who actually watched their family been put to the sword, have mutual consent to have sex with the conquerors.

I know you've been shooting point-blank in every direction to hold high the prophet that needs to be spanked rather than to be honored.

I know you are trapped with the Quran and hadith suffocate you even more. And Allah the verily verily high always conveniently appears on Muhammad's word all while he made troubles.

I know your IQ is significantly high to know what was happening in those times as the evidence pours in.

Why not cross to the other side? see first if you might like it. JOIN THE DARK SIDE (heavy breathing) .... the force be with you ^^

You don't need to tell us.
You could could always go back, if you want to.
Just go to the other side and see for yourself.


Rale said...

@ Samatar

For information, here is what st John Chrysostom, a famous commentator from the 4th century, says on that phrase:

3. What then says Christ? Not even with all this was He satisfied, but He makes her perplexity yet more intense again, saying,

"It is not meet to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs." Matthew 15:26

And when He vouchsafed her a word, then He smote her more sharply than by His silence. And no longer does He refer the cause to another, nor say, "I am not sent," but the more urgent she makes her entreaty, so much the more does He also urge His denial. And He calls them no longer "sheep," but "children," and her "a dog."

What then says the woman? Out of His own very words she frames her plea. "Why, though I be a dog," said she, "I am not an alien."

Justly did Christ say, "For judgment am I come." John 9:32 The woman practises high self-command, and shows forth all endurance and faith, and this, receiving insult; but they, courted and honored, requite it with the contrary.

For, "that food is necessary for the children," says she, "I also know; yet neither am I forbidden, being a dog. For were it unlawful to receive, neither would it be lawful to partake of the crumbs; but if, though in scanty measure, they ought to be partakers, neither am I forbidden, though I be a dog; nay, rather on this ground am I most surely a partaker, if I am a dog."

With this intent did Christ put her off, for He knew she would say this; for this did He deny the grant, that He might exhibit her high self-command.

For if He had not meant to give, neither would He have given afterwards, nor would He have stopped her mouth again. But as He does in the case of the centurion, saying, "I will come and heal him," Matthew 8:7 that we might learn the godly fear of that man, and might hear him say, "I am not worthy that You should come under my roof;" Matthew 8:8 and as He does in the case of her that had the issue of blood, saying, "I perceive that virtue has gone out of me," Luke 8:46 that He might make her faith manifest; and as in the case of the Samaritan woman, that He might show how not even upon reproof she desists: John 4:18 so also here, He would not that so great virtue in the woman should be hid. NOT IN INSULT THEN WERE HIS WORD SPOKEN, but calling her forth, and revealing the treasure laid up in her.

Rale said...


But do thou, I pray you, together with her faith see also her humility. For He had called the Jews "children," but she was not satisfied with this, but even called them "masters;" so far was she from grieving at the praises of others.

"Why, the dogs also," says she, "eat of the crumbs that fall from their master's table." Matthew 15:27

Do you see the woman's wisdom, how she did not venture so much as to say a word against it, nor was stung by other men's praises, nor was indignant at the reproach? Do you see her constancy? He said, "It is not meet," and she said, "Truth, Lord;" He called them "children," but she "masters;" He used the name of a dog, but she added also the dog's act. Do you see this woman's humility?

Hear the proud language of the Jews. "We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man;" John 8:33 and, "We be born of God." John 8:41 But not so this woman, rather she calls herself a dog, and them masters; so for this she became a child. What then says Christ? "O woman, great is your faith." Matthew 15:28

Yea, therefore did He put her off, that He might proclaim aloud this saying, that He might crown the woman.

"Be it unto you even as you will." Now what He says is like this: "Your faith indeed is able to effect even greater things than these; nevertheless, Be it unto you even as you will."

This was akin to that voice that said, "Let the Heaven be, and it was." Genesis 1:3

"And her daughter was made whole from that very hour."

Do you see how this woman too contributed not a little to the healing of her daughter? For to this purpose neither did Christ say, "Let your little daughter be made whole," but, "Great is your faith, be it unto you even as you will;" to teach you that the words were not used at random, nor were they flattering words, but great was the power of her faith.

The certain test, however, and demonstration thereof, He left to the issue of events. Her daughter accordingly was straightway healed.

But mark thou, I pray you, how when the apostles had failed, and had not succeeded, this woman had success. So great a thing is assiduity in prayer. Yea, He had even rather be solicited by us, guilty as we are, for those who belong to us, than by others in our behalf. And yet they had more liberty to speak; but she exhibited much endurance.

source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200152.htm

You guys should look at some ancient christian commentaries before taking verses from Bible. Just to see how Christian understand those verses.

David and Sam do as well with your commentators (Ibn Kathir...), and when they agree with them, the muslim opponents are left with no option but to reject their own most prominent scholars! (see for instance Omar Bakri & Shah Jalal Hussain vs. Sam Shamoun & David Wood)

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samater i never saw your reply to the posts that say Allah causes people to err and puts veils over them and sends demons on people. In fact you never responded. You ignored them and moved onto another deflection!

Search 4 Truth said...


Adultery is and has been defined for hundreds and even thousands of years prior TO Islam and your Satanic deity whom you call Allah tried to redefine it. i challenge you to show me anywhere that adultery is defined any way other than this! What you and Islam do is redefine words to suit your perversion. And I also showed you where a slave or captive cannot deny sex with their captor or owner! And yes people are ignorant such as yourself. You suspend reality to justify your position. It happens all the time every day! You are evidence of that!

The definition of adultery had been established long before Islam tried to redefine the words and terms. Exactly what Satan would do to cause you to sin so he can have your soul! You think you are doing what God permits, but it is all a deception and revisionism!


adul·tery noun \ə-ˈdəl-t(ə-)rē\

: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband; also : an act of adultery

Adultery Defined.

The basic definition of adultery is from Deuteronomy 22:22. Adultery is “…lying with a woman married to an husband…” Adultery is defined as a married person has sex with someone outside the marriage. God considers adultery a sin and it is one of the ten commandments.



SGM said...

I am not sure if I responded to 1MM or Samatar, but I did post earlier that sex out side of marriage is adultery in Christianity. As brother Search 4 Truth mentioned Deut 22:22, we also find references to adultery in Gen 20:3, 2 Sam 12:14, Job 24:15-18, 31:1 and 31:9-12. Job in 31:11 says, “11For this is an heinous crime; yea, it is an iniquity to be punished by the judges.”
We see in Genesis how Satan beguiled Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit which God forbade them to eat. He put doubt in their minds and painted a rosey picture that by eating the fruit they will not die. Satan has been at work ever since. Speaking of adultery, he once again used Mohammad and sugar coated what is adultery. Ever since, all Moslems are diluted and have changed the meaning of what God has commanded us not to do, specifically the 7th commandment Exo 20:14, “Thou shat not commit adultery”.
As we have seen on many previous posts, according to Moslems, Mohammad, and the quran, a moslem man can have as much sex with as many women (what your right hand posses) out side of marriage. Clear violation of the 7th commandment.
Since According to Samatar, sex with what your right hand posses is not adultery, I would like to ask Samatar or any moslim a question. IF YOUR RIGHT HAND POSSES A MALE SERVANT, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE WIFE OF THE MOSLEM OWNER THEN CAN HAVE AS MUCH SEX WITH THE MALE SLAVES AS SHE WANTS (SINCE IT IS NOT ADULTERY)? OR, if a moslem women does not have a husband and does own male slaves, does that mean that she can have sex with these slaves since according to Samatar, sex with slaves is not adultery.
Breaking the 7th commandment, Satan thru Mohammad not only makes Moslems to commit adultery, it also makes them to break the 10th commandments. If sex out side of marriage is not adultery, then Moslem men/women are going to lust/covet after maidservants of others. “17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.” What is to stop Moslem men/women to exchange slaves for their sexual pleasures if it is not adultery.
Satan also thru Mohammad makes Moslems to commit adultery by allowing them to have four fives. Bible is very clear about one man and one wife.
I hope that God would take away the veil of darkness from Moslems eyes who are seriously searching for truth. All honor and glory and praise be to our Lord, Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ.

donna60 said...

Jeff, I realize that any one who wants to can call themselves Christians. I even had a Muslim who I was debating with, call himself an Aryan Christian.

But you should at least know that the bible states that no one can be saved outside of Jesus. That in itself should make you dispise Islam, because everyone who follows that faith is doomed to Hell, according the book, that you claim to follow as a Christian.

Acts 4:11-13
11 For Jesus is the one referred to in the Scriptures, where it says,
‘The stone that you builders rejected
has now become the cornerstone.’[a]

12 There is salvation in no one else! God has given no other name under heaven by which we must be saved.”

For you to claim that it doesn't matter whether people are eternally lost, Islam is a "beautiful religion" demonstates an appalling lack of love for your fellow man.

What beautiful verse in the Koran would you have us love? Which one? Can you post it? I find that the Koran is a twisted, savagly difficult book to read, much like the BOM. I wouldn't pay one cent for either one, or both of them put together.

I pride myself on being a diverse reader, and I have been a devoted reader since I was in second grade. But calling the Koran "beautiful verses" is beyond my limit. I mean have you read it? Honestly?

Sam said...

Rale, there is a very simple explanation to Jesus' comments to the syrophoenician woman. There are two words used in the NT for dogs, namely kyon (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2965&t=KJV), and kynarion (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2952&t=KJV).

The former word is used in reference to those who refuse to believe in the word of God and trample on it. It pretty much refers to persistent, unregenerate sinners who end up in hell. See, for instance, Matthew 7:6; Philippians 3:2; 2 Peter 2:22; Revelation 22:15.

The latter word actually refers to a puppy, or a house pet. This is the word which Jesus used to describe the woman, e.g. that she is actually a pet who belongs in the house of the master. This is why she could say that even the dogs eat the crumbs which fall from the table, since these dogs live in the house with the children. In other words, they are right there alongside the children in the very same house.

Thus, Jesus wasn't insulting her, but actually reassuring her that she has a place in the house of the master and is dear to him, just like any house pet or sheep is dear to its owner. He was also informing her that she too will be fed, but not until the children haven eaten first.

The point of Jesus is that the message of the kingdom must go out to the Jews first, then to the Gentiles, since the Jews were the covenant people to whom the promises of God were given. The message would eventually be given to the Gentiles after it was first proclaimed to the Jews.

See the following verses for substantiation: Acts 3:26; 13:46-48; Romans 1:16; 2:9-10; 3:1-2; 9:1-5.

I hope this helps.

D335 said...

Come on guys, give samatar a breathing room. Quit using Samatar's own medicine to treat him :P

stay on the scriptures, stay on bible, stay on quran, stay on hadiths.

show him that Christian culture is better.


SGM said...

@ Jeff,
Brother Jeff, I as a Christian would agree that there are probably some things that Mohammad did or said that can be considered humane. However, I would not point to these things and state that I love Islam. Why, because out side of Christ, our best things or works are like filthy rags before God. To point to any good thing out side of Christ would do great injustice to Moslems. Because then it would suggest that they can remain Moslems because it teaches such beautiful things. Even if quran had 100% good verses, out side of Christ it still would mean nothing. However, after studying the quran I don’t know how one can point to the beautiful verses of quran.
As to your statement, “Humanly speaking, a lot of Muslims and people who beCOME Muslim find beauty and inspiration in their religion.” Any one who becomes Moslem, do not study all of Islam, I guarantee you. They are completely misguided about the true teachings of Islam.
And to “acknowledge beautiful verses in the Quran or touching hadith”, what would that accomplish. Is that going to help them gain salvation? As matter of fact, no one would deny that there are some good things in Islam, but to state that I love Islam because of that, would be doing the same thing what Satan did with Adam and Eve. He misguided them.
If you look around the world and see all Moslem countries, I do not find any beauty and inspiration within Islam. I am telling you this because I come from a Moslem country myself. I have not yet met one Moslem (the one who follows completely the teachings of Mohammad) who loves Christians. The ones who say they love Christians and Jews either don’t know what their religion teaches or are oblivious of Mohammad’s teachings. However, I would say that I love Moslems and would love to see them come to Christ. I myself am no better than any Moslem, and am a wretched sinner. But I thank my Lord and Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ who saved me and gave me eternal life.

Radical Moderate said...


You wrote 126 words using 704 characters including spaces, imploring us to "How about just for once, acknowledging beautiful verses in the Quran or touching ahadith? "

Yet in those 126 word and 704 characters you FAILED to do what you want us to do?

I can find somethig good in Adulf Hitler he was good with children and a animal lover, does that mean that Nazi's are good?

John Wayne Gassey won a presidential award for his charatable work with Children. Should I highlight that?

So tell you what instead of asking me to show you something beutiful and touching in something that I find just as respulsive as Adulf Hitler and John Wayne Gassey. Why don't you tell us what you find beutiful and touching?

Radical Moderate said...

@Samatar Mohamed

You wrote...

"Let me get this straight for the record please. You are telling me that you do not find anything disturbing about Jesus (pbuh) disrespecting his mother by saying " and who is my mother", and calling the Canaanites "Dogs"."

I will coment on calling the cananite woman a dog.

I am curious what you would of done had you been this woman, who's daugheter had been suffering for years?

What would be your response if instead of Jesus turning around and healing your daughter had said... "I am only hear for the Lost Sheep of Israel, and you are a dog?"

What would you say to him?
Would you walk away?

Could you please answer?

Sam said...

Rad, I already addressed the comment on Jesus calling the woman a dog. Do make sure to read it.

Radical Moderate said...


I read your comment and I have heard you lecuture on it.

I just like to ask muslims what their response would be if they where in the womans shoes.

I find their responses bring this passage to life.

donna60 said...

Samatar, no I find nothing disrespectful of Jesus asking "Who is my mother." Why should I? Jesus and Mary both knew that she wasn't His mother, in that He was God, and did not have parents.

As to the Caananite woman that Jesus compared to a dog--She could have gotten offended and walked away. But then her daughter would have never been saved.

She had the faith to continue to beg for mercy even withstanding the insults, and her faith saved her daughter.