Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Jihad Awareness Month (Hat Tip: Barack Obama)

73 comments:

D335 said...

so who can argue that Obam-bam is not a muslim ?

1. knowledge of Christianity - minimal to none. Leviticus indeed according to him is slavery.
2. knowledge of Islam - incredible, O bam bam can refute the islamophobe's claim that islam is not violent.
3. coming from a wave of muslim family. in fact not sure about the Christian part.

D335 said...

"and throughout history Islam has demonstrated thru words and deeds the possibility of religious tolerance and racial equality".

OMG, I thought O-bam-bam once lived in Indonesia.
Seriously? From Indonesian Independence, Sneaky entrance for Sharia Law in the national ideology (Piagam Jakarta to Pancasila), Islamic separatist movements, Islamic jihad wars in Ambon, Indonesian Islamic faith defender (FPI) actions against innocent civilians, Church - Hotel - Police Station's mosque - Embassy bombings last few years and closing down churches last week.............

How's the weather in Mars, oh mr US president? I believe the Old republic will have a star destroyer on standby just for you.

John Lollard said...

This is a fantastic rant, David!

DeanO said...

Great Video

Ufuoma said...

llllll

Samatar Mohamed said...

i would like to note that David keeps bringing up these verses in the Quran and hadith, but he never actually applies the historical context of how it was used. When you look at the history of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)'s prophetic times, he never allowed the fighting of an offensive war, but only defensive wars where treaties where broken, etc... So it seems that these hadiths contradict Muhammad (pbuh) actions. But by looking at how the prophet applied the verses, and in which scenarios, it is very clear that fighting disbelievers who are in war against you is what those hadith's entail. Now, you can always take quotes from anything and change its meaning. For example, in the bible when Jesus (pbuh) allegedly said that he came not to bring peace, but the sword. By taking that one sentence, you would think that Jesus (pbuh) was a madman who must have fought many offensive wars. But by looking at the historical context of what Jesus (pbuh) did and said, it is clear that it was not to be taken literally. This goes back to the original question, does Islam teach violence? It does teach just and defensive violence against oppressors, but not the unjust and offensive wars against humanity that david implied.

ixthus said...

Islam is un-Constitutional in the USA...that would make a good pamphlet.

David Wood said...

Samatar said: "i would like to note that David keeps bringing up these verses in the Quran and hadith, but he never actually applies the historical context of how it was used."

So you'd like to see a video titled, say, "The Qur'an in Context: Surah 9:29"?

Ask, and you shall receive!

Samatar Mohamed said...

@David

"So you'd like to see a video titled, say, "The Qur'an in Context: Surah 9:29"?"

Sorry to bother you david, but can you provide the link, as i am having a hard time finding the video. Thanks a lot.

David Wood said...

No, I was saying I'd make one.

aaron said...

politicians typical of them always worried about whats gonna happen for next election so they make promises with everyone to keep their power. Obama's new policy is rather foolish in fact on taxingin the rich. from basics of economics it won;t work but sounds good to the average person. what the rich need is something to invest in which = more jobs

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

What would you make of these?

"The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives" (Bukhari 46:717)

Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them, and if they declined he was to fight them. So Khalid set out and came to them, and sent out riders in all directions inviting the people to Islam, saying, “If you accept Islam you will be safe.” So the men accepted Islam as they were invited. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 959)

When the apostle raided a people he waited until the morning. If he heard a call to prayer he held back; if he did not hear it he attacked. We came to Khaybar by night, and the apostle passed the night there; and when morning came he did not hear the call to prayer, so he rode and we rode with him. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 757)

Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)

Now start with your lies and logical fallacies!

Samatar Mohamed said...

@David

"No, I was saying I'd make one."

Thanks. Can't wait to see it.

Jabari said...

Samatar said......
i would like to note that David keeps bringing up these verses in the Quran and hadith, but he never actually applies the historical context of how it was used. When you look at the history of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)'s prophetic times, he never allowed the fighting of an offensive war, but only defensive wars where treaties where broken, etc...

My response:
I beg to differ and so does Ibn Kathir (the greatest commentator on the Quran in the eyes of Sunni Muslims):

Ibn Kathir's Al-Bidayyah wan-Nihayyah (translated by Wa'il Abdul Mut'aal Shihab as The Battles of the Prophet).

Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says,

"O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise. 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." (Surah 9:28-29)

Therefore, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam. (Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4)

Notice that the Romans aren't the aggressors here. It was the Muslims who are attacking the Romans at this moment. I also gave the context for Sura 9:29.

Cheers Samatar and I pray that you receive Christ as your Savior.

Pierre_Picaud said...

@Samatar
It's sad and unfortunate that you don't even know the reality of your own religion. But it is not unusual.

The presumption that jihad can only be waged defensively, though a common pretension, communicates that the person utilizing this argument does not really understand what jihad means at all, and what its function is.

We need look no further than when justification for jihad was first revealed, the context of this is just after the Hijra. [Note how the moment when the "gloves come off" and waging untrammelled war becomes halal is the start-point of the Islamic calendar.]

"Fitna is more grievous than slaying," reads Q2:190-93, "...fight them until there is no more fitna."

The purpose of jihad is not to counter aggression, but to eliminate fitna: any obstacle to Islam, or any compulsion that might tempt a Muslim from the straight path. And the Quran thus ethically codifies - in god's name and command - that killing unbelievers is morally less bad than having to endure fitna.

This is why the Quran is a license to kill.

But notice also how a person waging such jihad could nevertheless say, "All I was doing was defending my Muslim brothers from fitna"?

Moreover I would argue, despite my limited knowledge on the subject, that an Islamic theological mind-set would not even permit the notion of jihad ever being "aggressive", as we would term it; though its victims most certainly do.

For in Islam the entire world belongs to Allah and his prophet. Any conflict waged against infidels (no matter how gentle, unassuming, and not a threat) which has the aim of dominating their territory and acquiring their property, no matter how bloody or heinous it may be, will ultimately be, from an Islamic perspective, a "liberation" a mere returning of sovereignty to the true rightful owners.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@search4truth

Please bring them one at a time, not in bunches like that. With regards to your first one.

""The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives" (Bukhari 46:717),"

The cheif of Bani mustaliq named Al-Harith bin Dirar was allied with the quraish, and was intending a war with the muslims in medina. Muhammad (pbuh) heard word of this and planned a surprise attack against Bani Mustaliq. So it was clearly a defensive war by the prophet (pbuh) not an offensive war. See what happens when you do not inquire into the historical context.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

It says the people were heedless and they were just watering their animals and Mohamed killed the men and took the women captives. It also goes on to say that is when he got his sex slave, later his wife, Jawariya.

The point is that they were heedless and just watering their animals. There was no point in slaughtering the defenseless men. Secondly why is it impossible to contextualize a few Hadith and historical accounts? You seemed to have no problem in trying to defend this barbaric act.

Ok how about this one! You know you could have continued on to the next one without me re posting it!
See what happens when you attempt taqiyya?

Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)


Here we see that Ali had no clue as to why he was attacking. But then Mohamed replied, ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…”

Therefor it can only be concluded that Mohamed was forcing Islam on them by the sword! Here is another example.

(9:5) But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them

009.006
If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.


Now continue with your logical fallacies, lies, and deceptions.

But just try and explain Mohamed attacking a people solely to convert them. Try to stay focused!

Samatar Mohamed said...

@search4truth

"Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives".

The key word is "fighting men". Not all the men were killed, rather the men who were soldiers. Are you trying to tell me that all the men in Banu mustaliq were killed. And that still does not change the fact that it was a defensive war. Let me give you a scenario, Afghanistan is trying to attack U.S. and U.S. hears word of this planned attack. The U.S. have the right to send their soldiers to attack the Afghani Soldiers since they will be attacking the U.S. It seems you have no problem when it suits the U.S. attacking and finding Taliban soldiers for self defense. But when you hear Muhammad (pbuh), all of a sudden it is morally wrong. Explain to me how this was an offensive war of the fighting men were killed, who were planning to kill the muslims in Medina.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Search 4 Truth

I will only discuss one topic at a time. Right now we are going into detail with regard to Bani Mustaliq. When we reach the endpoint their, then we will go to the next hadith. Unless, you want to go to the next hadith right now, just let me know. And just so you know, I am not trying to be deceptive at all. All I did was go into the historical context and I am being deceptive. While you are the ones taking hadiths, without going to the historical context and you are not being deceptive.

andy bell said...

That was pretty good. David is quite the funambulist in these matters of islam.

And I, conversely, am quite the sesquipedalian. hmmmmmm.

Um, I did bring this up on other blogs. And I hesitate to bring it up because it gives the beasts another idea planted in their peanuts. But that Dearborn Mokdad conference is going to have a lot of "islamophobes" gathered in one setting. This would be a perfect opportunity for an ahmed or salim`` to do an "allahuackabarkabooooom!"

I hope the security is tight over there.

******
`` Ahmed & Salim are the newest internet cartoon sensations from Israel. Google them. (warning on language)

michaeldkater said...

@Samatar Mohamed

Is it really considered respectfull to shorten the praise of your beloved prophet to an acronym after his name?

simple_truth said...

search4truth said...

""The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives" (Bukhari 46:717),"

Samatar Mohamed said...

" The cheif of Bani mustaliq named Al-Harith bin Dirar was allied with the quraish, and was intending a war with the muslims in medina. Muhammad (pbuh) heard word of this and planned a surprise attack against Bani Mustaliq. So it was clearly a defensive war by the prophet (pbuh) not an offensive war. See what happens when you do not inquire into the historical context."

I can't believe that you are that stupid to think that a rumor or intent of war would in fact be a defensive position that gives the opponent the green light to wage war. Consider that no one had yet attacked the Muslims. Also, consider that there was no threat at the time of Mohammad's attack.

Even if they had plans, all Mohammad had to do was to prepare his men in case there was an actual attack/battle. If that is all it takes to make war with someone (a perceived intent of some kind), then Israel could justifiably attack every Islamic nation today because of threats of annihilation and conquest against them. This would especially apply to Iran whose leader has repeatedly called for the annihilation of the Jews and their total removal from Israel.

You don't seem to use sound logic many times. I attribute that to your having to defend an illogical position called Islam. You must bend every logical conclusion to exonerate your prophet and his religion. Anything that seems reasonable to the average human has to be tossed away from the mind and conscience in a cultist like manner to save the face of Islam. I also attribute your poor logic to your inability to think for yourself outside of what you are fed as truth. You are naturally going to believe whatever your Muslim superiors tell you. It is quite common for those superiors to misrepresent events and facts to cover up for Islam and Mohammad. I see it regularly. Most often, if they can't create a positive spin on something, they will start attacking non-Muslims who contest them. That is why it is imperative that you, as a Muslim, start to think outside of your dogmatic propaganda and investigate things for yourself. I investigate things outside of your religion and can, in most cases, see the flaws that you exhibit in your approach.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

LOL! You are doing it again. Ok Provide the evidence that the Bani Mustaliq were planning on attacking the Muslims prior to Mohamed attacking these people who were doing nothing but watering their animals.

I contend that the Bani Mustaliq were not going to attack, but Mohamed was so relentless on criticizing and attacking them both physically and verbally that they had no other choice! And that Mohamed was the instigator and the fascist one who was intolerant of all others! SO please bring your timeline and substantiate your claim.

And I did respond in that they were doing nothing but watering their animals peacefully. Now prove your claims that they were planning on attacking prior to this unwarranted attack by Mohamed and his criminal cohorts.

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

" @search4truth

"Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives".

The key word is "fighting men". Not all the men were killed, rather the men who were soldiers. Are you trying to tell me that all the men in Banu mustaliq were killed. And that still does not change the fact that it was a defensive war. Let me give you a scenario, Afghanistan is trying to attack U.S. and U.S. hears word of this planned attack. The U.S. have the right to send their soldiers to attack the Afghani Soldiers since they will be attacking the U.S. It seems you have no problem when it suits the U.S. attacking and finding Taliban soldiers for self defense. But when you hear Muhammad (pbuh), all of a sudden it is morally wrong. Explain to me how this was an offensive war of the fighting men were killed, who were planning to kill the muslims in Medina."

So, am I to understand that if I hear a rumor of war against me, I can then go and fight those that I have heard through the rumor? I don't need any justification other than they are planning to attack me? I don't need to see them actually arm themselves and approach me? Intent to war is enough to retaliate? If that were true, there would be a war started ever day amongst some countries.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Michaeldaker

First of all, (pbuh) means peace be upon him, and If you have seen any of my earlier posts, you would have also seen it with the other prophets. Therefore, I am not only saying it about Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). And it is not praising him, but wishing him peace and mercy from the one true God in the afterlife. So I do not see how I am being disrespectful at all. However, feel free to explain to me how I am being disrespectful.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

And here is the very next hadith which gives them permission to rape the women that has been proven countless times!

Volume 3, Book 46, Number 718:
Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:

I saw Abu Said and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said said, "We went with Allah's Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Barli Al-Mustaliq and we captured some of the 'Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah's Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, "It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence."

Which is also adultery!

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

And why will you only talk of the bani Mastaliq?

Why are you running from the others?

Is it because you think this is the only topic you may have a chance in! Please respond to this hadith as well.

Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Search4Truth

I am willing to do any of the topics, but one at a time please. Pick whichever one, but lets discuss that one further rather then just jumping around. I mean, if they really were offensive wars, then why would I ask to inquire further into one hadith. I only picked Bani Mustaliq because it was your first one. And every discussion we have, you turn it into adultery and rape. Lets stay in topic please.

"Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)"

This does not disprove my point that Muhammad (pbuh) only allowed defensive war. Tell me the specific battle and ill show you.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Simple Truth

"So, am I to understand that if I hear a rumor of war against me, I can then go and fight those that I have heard through the rumor? I don't need any justification other than they are planning to attack me? I don't need to see them actually arm themselves and approach me? Intent to war is enough to retaliate? If that were true, there would be a war started ever day amongst some countries."

First of all, when you hear words of a group of people who have an alliance with the enemy is planning to attack you, You do not take it lightly. Secondly, the Prophet (pbuh) did not just attack from the rumours. He sent a man named Buraidah bin Al-Haseeb Al-Aslami to verify whether it was true, and when it was verified, then the prophet (pbuh) attacked. Here are the sources:

(Za'd Al-Ma'ad 2/112,113; Ibn Hisham 2/289,290,294,295). Here are the references

Neverrepayevilwithevil said...

Outstanding video once again from David. It is so obvious that the dirty truth about Islam must be prevented by any means possible even at the United Nations. Who's fooling who? These are evil days indeed! Samatar wants to defend his prophet at all cost even if this goes against his better logic and common sense. He is no different from Osama. What will it take to convince him to see that this prophet was a whore and war monger, his only mission was to do away with all godliness as espoused by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Search 4 Truth said...

So sense many Islamic nations call for the death of Israel, Israel has the right to attack say, Iran. They should just blow them into oblivion. At least according to Samatars irrational.

Also Islam proclaims that the judgement day will not come until the Jews are slaughtered!

Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Sp using Samatars, and as he perceives it, Islams, logic. We should attack all Muslims in a preemptive strike! And it will be justified!

Now everyone. Watch how inconsistent he becomes!

CL Edwards said...

" One of the sons of Abu Bakr As-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, did not become a Muslim while they were in Mecca, and as you know, the affection of a father to his son is much greater then the affection of a son to his father. In Mecca, Sayyidina Abu Bakr tried with love and gentleness to convince his son as to the veracity of Islam. He used the best and loftiest means to try to bring him over to Islam, yet Allah had not decreed for him to become a Muslim just yet. Sayyidina Abu Bakr made Hijrah and later went to fight in the battle of Badr. This son of his also went out on the day of Badr, yet he was with the kuffar. The son was trying his best to avoid his father so they would not have to fight each other. Later, when his son accepted Islam, he said to his father, �Oh my father, on the day of Badr (when I was a kafir) I was avoiding you so we wouldn�t have to fight.� Sayyidina Abu Bakr replied to him, �As for me, if I met you on that day I would have killed you.�

What is the reason behind this? This intricate point is necessary for us to understand. When the action of the son wasn�t based on servitude to Allah, but rather, was based on compassion (for his father), and his going out to battle was only for glory, honor, and nationalistic goals, this was how he acted. His actions were a slave to his emotions. On the other hand, the actions of Sayyidina Abu Bakr (in Mecca) and his love and compassion were not for himself, but for the sake of his Lord. So when the time came that he had to serve Allah by fighting against his son, he didn�t waiver, even if it meant his own son�s death. We are in need of this criterion in establishing the correct concept of jihad with the kuffar.

Therefore, the understanding of jihad is to establish the means for the guidance and salvation of the kuffar, not merely to just fight them. Fighting them happens in a few cases, and the goal behind it is to save others from the oppression of the ones who are preventing the guidance from spreading. We do not fight out of revenge and spite. The Muslim doesn�t fight because the kafir is my (personal) enemy, because the kafir is conspiring against me, because the kafir has killed and slaughtered other Muslims. The Muslim fights the kafir because he has prevented and has become a barrier for the guidance to reach others. Again, the Muslim doesn�t fight out of revenge and only because the enemy has killed other Muslims. Think about what is being said deeply!"

As-Sayyid Al-Habib �Ali Al-Jifry
An Address on the 20th of Ramadan 1422

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

What are you talking about? This clearly shows that Ali did not know why they were attacking the people. And then Mohamed gives the orders on why to attack them and the objective!


"Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)"


Ali asks Mohamed " on what issue should I fight with the people?”

In which Mohamed replies "Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…”


Objective of the battle was to force them into Islam, or subjugate them!

DUH! LOL! What other conclusion is there to make?

Mohameds objective was to fight them for the sole reason of conversion or subjugation. It's as clear as the nose on your face!

And it is consistent with Allahs (Satan) commands!

Quran (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, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

D335 said...

Why would muslim in the caliber of Samatar Mohammed ignores islamic commentators, islamic historians, while trying to maintain a historical context of his own?


1. If we say Muhammad and the muslims bandits love to rape, you would point breaking of treaties or that was consensual,... blah2
Are you that pathetic?

or blame the characteristic of those who brought you the material (i.e. David Wood that would waste time out of his love for God and for you.)

2. if we show you hadiths, you would force us to use even the most canonical one such as Bukhari, or look back at Quran. That's fine.
But now, when it doesn't suits you... when it is clearly said that Muhammad morality was 7th century bandit-slash-rapist, you again pointed us to different reality than what the hadith said. Let me retract my early question and put this one in: How pathetic are you?


You can check the reference, you can check everything. But why you still follow the inexcusable, indefensible, moronic and beyond, satanic and evil, belief?
Why would you claim flower and rainbows in a spirit that is clearly noted in history and scriptural of theology as the spirit of DEATH?

Have you no spirit in your flesh?

D. Collaric said...

@ in house Muslims Samatar

So how come Muslim invaded Spain if they are only supposed to fight defensively? Spain at that time was mending its OWN business. Yoo Dude this was a couple of centuries BEFORE anybody ever thought of the CRUSADES. Which were on its own a RESPONSE to islamic marauders. Actually the same with the whole of northern Africa! If Islam really adhered to this advice Islam would not even have left the Arabian heartland und would be just another localized religion bound to Medina.
I would LOVE to read ANY treaty the Meccans signed while MoHAMmel was in Medina, one they breached so that the lice-ridden profiteer could INVADE Mecca! If they had reached an agreement with him (prior to his attack) there would have been no need for him to invade the town! And how can be a fight be defensive when MoHAMMels army marched from Medina to Mecca to fight them ON THEIR OWN land!?

But if a "preemptive" strike is all fine and dandy, why does this not also apply to the Israelis when they fought their enemies in 1967? They had plenty of reason to suspect any hostilities from the Muslims neighbors and "simply defended" their country using a defensive "first strike tactic. I've heard NOT ONE Muslim defend Israel that they had ALL THE RIGHTS for this defensive act, since Islam allows it. No this "right to defend" oneself on just rumors of war is only used for Islamic goals and causes.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "Death to Israel" - YouTube

Here are the references

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo

What does 'Death to Israel' mean
www.haaretz.com/.../what-does-death-to-israel-mean-to-you-Islamic Jihad's calls of "Death to Israel"

Muslim Sesame Street I: do the "Death to America" thing - YouTube


www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw2EisVqKZ4
Aug 18, 2006



Guess what everyone. The West has the moral right to attack Islamic nations and all Muslims according to Islam. We better do it now. Muslims all around the world call for the death to America, Denmark, Europe, the West, Israel, and kuffar.

So we would be justified in attacking Muslims. At least if we followed Mohamed and Allahs perfect example! LOL!

Watch the double standard! Countdown begins now! LOL!

minoria said...

I have little respect for Obama since the evidence is he lied about his birthplace,what a scandal it will be when all the evidence appears.

In an article about MOHAMMAD in WESTERN LITERATURE it appears that PASCAL and specially VOLTAIRE,had a very NEGATIVE VIEW of him.

VOLTAIRE called him an imposter,a hypocrite,a charlatan.

The article in in French but you can COPY and PASTE and TRANSLATE it using GOOGLE TRANSLATE

http://translate.google.com/#

http://www.avraidire.com/2010/12/mahometmuhammad-dans-la-litterature-occidentale/

ANOTHER ONE

Here it is about JESUS in LITTERATURE

It is ASTONISHING how he appears in,for example:

(The Master and Margarita)by Bulgakov,the greatest Russian novel of the XXth century,better than Doctor Zhivago.

(The Last Temptation of Christ)by the author of ZORBA THE GREEK

In the BROTHERS KARAMAZOV,in the section The Grand Inquisitor,the masterpiece by DOSTOEVSKI

In SARAMAGO's masterpiece,he was the greatest Portuguese writer of the XXth century,atheist,communist,Nobel Prize winner:

(The Gospel according to Jesus),where Jesus and Mary Magdalene have a love affair.

In MARY by JEWISH writer MAREK HALTER,where MARY is the FRIEND of BARABBAS,etc

http://www.avraidire.com/2010/10/jesus-dans-la-litterature-du-xxeme-et-du-xxieme-siecle/

AND ALSO

Another article on the theme:with Jesus in OSCAR WILDE,C.S.LEWIS

http://www.avraidire.com/2010/11/de-nouveau-avec-jesus-dans-la-litterature-du-xixeme-et-du-xxeme-siecle/

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Search4Truth, Simple Truth, and others

Lets go over things shall we. You all claim that Muhammad (pbuh) was a violent man who did go into offensive wars, not only defensive wars. I asked you to bring me one case in the history of Muhammad (pbuh) prophetic career, when he allowed an offensive war. Just one. Search 4 truth provided me with Bani Mustaliq, yet i showed him without a shadow of a doubt that it was a defensive war (Read my earlier posts), and he bring me an authentic hadith without indicating to me the battle that was taking place, so I could inquire into it and see if it was an offensive or defensive war. Yet, I am being deceptive, tricky, and engaging in logical fallacies, etc... The challenge still stands, bring me one authentic hadith where the prophet (pbuh) engaged and allowed an offensive war against disbelievers.

@D.Collaric

My challenge was clear. I did not say bring me one scenario where muslims in the history of time engaged in offensive wars. Rather, when the Prophet (pbuh) engaged and allowed offensive wars through authentic hadith. And I recommend you study the history of why the Prophet (pbuh) conquered Mecca. The meccans did break a treaty by slaughtering muslim men in Meddina. And lastly, when the prophet conquered Mecca, he did not fight a war with the people their, instead he let them free to follow their own religion. Just look at the history please. Try picking up a book or seerah about the life of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh), or check on the internet.

Kim said...

Yes keep ranting the hatred, you Christian loving person. Follow your man lord that has been sliced into 3 personalities. Could explain why the OT and NT are so different.

simple_truth said...

Simple Truth said...

"So, am I to understand that if I hear a rumor of war against me, I can then go and fight those that I have heard through the rumor? I don't need any justification other than they are planning to attack me? I don't need to see them actually arm themselves and approach me? Intent to war is enough to retaliate? If that were true, there would be a war started ever day amongst some countries."

Samatar Mohamed said...

" First of all, when you hear words of a group of people who have an alliance with the enemy is planning to attack you, You do not take it lightly. Secondly, the Prophet (pbuh) did not just attack from the rumours. He sent a man named Buraidah bin Al-Haseeb Al-Aslami to verify whether it was true, and when it was verified, then the prophet (pbuh) attacked. Here are the sources:

(Za'd Al-Ma'ad 2/112,113; Ibn Hisham 2/289,290,294,295). Here are the references"

I already understand about what Mohammad thought about what the tribe was going to do; but the fact still remains that they had not done anything yet to warrant his attack on them. You failed to answer my questions. What you are describing is akin to a rumor. It is a rumor since it had not come to fruition. It could have been planned by them, but they showed no direct evidence to Mohammad that they were doing it. That is why I said that Mohammad should have made plans but not attacked until he saw them actually attacking him. I bring these things up because I know that if the roles were reversed, you wouldn't be taking the same rationale in defense of the perceived enemy. You would make all kinds of excuses for what Mohammad did. You would even go as far as claim persecution, intolerance, injustice, oppression by the enemy. I am trying to get you to try to use some consistency when you argue.

If your logic is sound, then you have no justification for any non-Islamic group to attack an Islamic group since most Islamic groups advocate the destruction of Israel. Israel has the same rationale to wipe out those gropus and the nations they live in. Would you agree with my reasoning? If you do, then Mohammad's actions were wrong and should be condemned. Wouldn't you agree?

Chessie L said...

Kim said...

Yes keep ranting the hatred, you Christian loving person. Follow your man lord that has been sliced into 3 personalities. Could explain why the OT and NT are so different.


1. Quoting the Quran and Sunnah for Muslims is worship for Christians its "hate"

2. The Trinity is a "man lord" who have been sliced into 3 personalities

3. Muslims are perplex by why two different Covenants are.....different

aaron said...

@kim
I find that your last remark rather hypocritcal. So based on your logic muslims are allowed to critisize others religions and not be classified as hate. while when others critisize islam, you consider it as hate? your logic is rather twisted if you think like that

D. Collaric said...

@ Samatar

You wrote in response to David:
[quote]
It does teach just and defensive violence against oppressors, but not the unjust and offensive wars against humanity that david implied.
[quote end]

Well this was kept rather in general way, and generally speaking Muslims invaded Spain because they know the order came from their demented deity and his sole spokes-person.

Now forgive me if I misunderstood and you implied something completely differnt:
[quote]
Rather, when the Prophet (pbuh) engaged and allowed offensive wars through authentic hadith.
[quote end]

As seen above others here have given plenty of authentic hadiths you seem to ignore..

Again from Samatar:

And lastly, when the prophet conquered Mecca, he did not fight a war with the people their, instead he let them free to follow their own religion.
[quote end]

You say the meccans were free to practice their religion? So why were their idols destroyed? Were these not necessary for them to "practice" their religion? Will you deny that your profiteer ORDERD them to be destroyed? "The truth came today and falsehood will be destroyed" did he not pronounce these words (or similar) at that occasion?
Will you tell me now that your profeet allowed falsehood to continue, and other gods besides allah to be whoreshiped there?

We do not find pagan now in mecca, how come? But if he allowed others to practice their religion in Mecca why are today Jews in Medina, Kaybar and other locations. After all you say that he was tolerating these religions?

Once your lice-ridden prophet uttered the words: "I'll bring you slaughter" to the meccans.
And yes I've read lots of accounts on how Mecca was conquered, most of these in my own language...

BTW when do you allah ask for "peace be upon him" are you not acting as a intercessor in front of your stoned-gawd? I do not assume that you ask Shaitan for peace to be upon MoHAMmel now do you?

@ KIM

You do know that your demented stoned-gawd allah claimed to have revealed both the OT and the NT? Now if you find something in it you dislike take it up with your allah.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

Where is this evidence that proves without a shadow of a doubt?

I asked you to present the evidence that the Bani Mastaliq were on the offensive towards Mohamed. Yet you did not show me the timeline!

And then I provided the hadith in which Ali did not know why he was attacking a tribe of people. And Mohameds response was to fight them in order to force them into Islam!

You have not proven anything! Read the Hadith again!

"Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)" Mohamed command Ali and gave him his objective! And it was to force peiopl;e to acept Islam or be subjugated! And then I presented the ayats that support it!

You have not provewna anything you have said!

Show me the time line when Mohamed attacked the Bani Mustaliq in which they had attacked the Muslims first! You havent done it yet!


And then I showed you that many Islamic countriesd are threatening Israel and the West!

So according to your standards we should be able to attack Muslims and Islamic countries!

And you have a double standard!

Samatar. You are at a loss again and again! Your delusion never ceases to amaze me!

Search 4 Truth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Search 4 Truth said...

@ Kim

Where is the ranting of hatred? We hate evil ideologies, we dont hate Muslims! We feel pity for them. We are allowed to hate evil. So we hate Islam!

Now here is what hate of people looks like!

Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. (98:6)

Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe. (8:55)

And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers (3:85)

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."

Qur'an (5:80) - "You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide."

Qur'an (3:28) - "Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them..."

Qur'an (9:23) - "O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers"

Bukhari (59:572) - "O you who believe! Take not my enemies And your enemies as friends offering them (Your) love even though they have disbelieved in that Truth (i.e. Allah, Prophet Muhammad and this Quran) which has come to you."

Ishaq 262 - "Some Muslims remained friends with the Jews, so Allah sent down a Qur'an forbidding them to take Jews as friends. From their mouths hatred has already shown itself and what they conceal is worse"

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Simple Truth

First of all, you seem to agree with me then that it was a defensive war, and the purpose of Muhammad (pbuh) attacking Bani Mustaliq was to ensure that they were not harmed. Now you seem to suggest that Muhammad (pbuh) should have waited until the attack actually took place before they attacked back. No offense, but I would not have you as my general in an army in any case. You are forgetting that the prophet (pbuh) actually verified whether the attack was being planned against them. Lets assume that it has been verified that Iran was making nuclear weapons to attack the United States (assuming you live in the U.S.). I am sure that you would want the U.S. Army immediately deployed to Iran, to destroy the weapons and attack the Iranian soldiers who were planning a total annihilation of the U.S. Or would you rather them wait for Iran to actually start using the weapons, then retaliate against Iran. And if I give you the benefit of the doubt that Muhammad (pbuh) should have waited for the attack, it still does not make it an offensive war, which is my initial challenge.

Deleting said...

Kim said, "Yes keep ranting the hatred, you Christian loving person. Follow your man lord that has been sliced into 3 personalities. Could explain why the OT and NT are so different."
I'd rather follow my 'man lord' that you so uneducatedly decide to say 'has been sliced into 3 personalities.' than follow your schitsophrenic god and his pedophile prophet.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

Quote " And lastly, when the prophet conquered Mecca, he did not fight a war with the people their, instead he let them free to follow their own religion."

Mohamed kicked everyone out of Mecca! What are you talking about?

009.028 O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

Kim said...

Search For Truth

So being friends and allies with enemies of Christianity is how you get closer to God. If you love your enemies thrn you are a hypocrite to God because they disbelieve in his miracles and Prophets. Those same enemies that wouldnt have a problem slaughtering a Prophet or in your case the "Son of God" or God himself, not even sure what the heck the trinity is as usual. I could quote similar verses from your Buble....

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Search for truth

I am beginning to feel somewhat sorry for you. I already showed my sources to you, and evidence that it was a defensive war, yet you still don't believe it. The challenge stands, and you have yet to bring a battle that the prophet (pbuh) allowed which was an offensive war.

@Kim
"So being friends and allies with enemies of Christianity is how you get closer to God."

Funny, I was thinking the same thing too. They constantly take a hadith out of context and displaying it as pertaining to every case. The bible tells christians to turn the other cheek against enemies, but would that apply to a scenario where their people are being attacked violently. Would a christian honestly watch a murderer come into his house and kill his family members one by one, while turning the other cheek. Of course not. Sami Zaatari just made a video yesterday, pointing out the inconsistencies of christian missionaries with regards to violence in the Old Testament. Here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyb53NfsFgY&feature=channel_video_title

Tabris said...

@ Kim
"So being friends and allies with enemies of Christianity is how you get closer to God."

The above statement is the truth. God created all beings on this planet and therefore loves them all equally. This is why Jesus said "love your enemy" Because if God loves your enemy, what then gives you the right not to love them?

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

" @Simple Truth

First of all, you seem to agree with me then that it was a defensive war, and the purpose of Muhammad (pbuh) attacking Bani Mustaliq was to ensure that they were not harmed."

No, Samatar Mohamed, I am saying the opposite.

"Now you seem to suggest that Muhammad (pbuh) should have waited until the attack actually took place before they attacked back."

Better yet, he should have tried to make peace with them first. He acted prematurely, IMO. He attacked them, remember? The Islamic sources stated that it was as surprise attack on Mohammad's part. These people were watering and/or grazing their cattle. That is not being in a position to attack. If he is allowed to strike under those conditions, then any tribe could do the same to him if they felt threatened by him and Mohammad wouldn't be able to object.

"No offense, but I would not have you as my general in an army in any case. You are forgetting that the prophet (pbuh) actually verified whether the attack was being planned against them."

He only verified that there was a chance that they would attack; but, he had nothing else to go on. The way these situations are normally treated is for the other side to prepare themselves in case something does escalate. They prepare just in case. They set up plans to combat them in case they do attack. They also try to make peace with the other side first so that things don't escalate. That is part of what is called diplomacy. If such steps aren't taken, then Muslims shouldn't complain if other nations or groups use the same rationale against them and attack on the belief that a presumed enemy (Muslims) is going to attack. Israel could wipe out many Muslims right now with that presumption and get away with it.

"Lets assume that it has been verified that Iran was making nuclear weapons to attack the United States (assuming you live in the U.S.). I am sure that you would want the U.S. Army immediately deployed to Iran, to destroy the weapons and attack the Iranian soldiers who were planning a total annihilation of the U.S. Or would you rather them wait for Iran to actually start using the weapons, then retaliate against Iran."

Instead of introducing another question, answer the ones I asked of you. You are leading me to believe that you have no honest intention of dealing fairly with this issue. Can you at least agree that if people are allowed to attack others on the basis that they would attack first and kill/harm you first, then there is easy justification for Muslims to receive the same treatment since Muslims also threaten others by their aggression and threats, especially toward Jews?

The example you gave is much more complex and is not the same. If necessary, I can explain why?

"And if I give you the benefit of the doubt that Muhammad (pbuh) should have waited for the attack, it still does not make it an offensive war, which is my initial challenge."

It is offensive since Mohammad is the one who attacked first. The perceived enemy had not officially carried out any plans to attack him. Don't you understand that?

aaron said...

@samatar mohummed
regardless taking children and wives of those fighting men as captives is still wrong in my opinion

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

" @Search for truth

I am beginning to feel somewhat sorry for you. I already showed my sources to you, and evidence that it was a defensive war, yet you still don't believe it."

If it was as defensive war, then why was the tribe of Bani Mustaliq watering their cattle? Why was Mohammad's attack on them a surprise? What threat had the tribe made to Mohammad?

"The challenge stands, and you have yet to bring a battle that the prophet (pbuh) allowed which was an offensive war."

You should know from Islamic sources that there were offensive battles. Please don't act so naive or stupid. Most of Surah 9 teaches offensive war (Jihad).

Deleting said...

kim said, " I could quote similar verses from your Buble...."

That would require you to open and read the bible.
There also wouldn't be a weblink involved.
But you know it's interesting kim makes this point: If you love your enemies thrn you are a hypocrite to God because they disbelieve in his miracles and Prophets."

But that's what Jesus said to do, bless those that hate you and spitefully use you.
Murders, rapistm, child molesters can love other murders, rapists and child molesters. Muslims can love muslims, but you get something out of it, ie love, community, friendship.
But to be good to those that would hate you and use you, you get no visible reward.
But God the father sees that and when it comes time, will reward it.
The church is God's representatives on earth to show the fruits of the spirit manifesting in our lives: love, kindness, peace, patience, charity and self control as well as bear witness of the gospel.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Aaron
"regardless taking children and wives of those fighting men as captives is still wrong in my opinion."

Then you must admit that the Old Testament seems wrong also. As this is allowed in the Old Testament. Also allowed is slavery to the point that you can beat your slaves (as long as they do not die from the beating). The old testament allows slavery, and goes further to say that they are the property of the masters.

CL Edwards said...

@Kim and any other Muslim

Kim said: "So being friends and allies with enemies of Christianity is how you get closer to God."

In Islam "God" is Freudian King who demands humans being..his surfs offer him absolute obedience and allegiance or he will inflicted severe punishment on them. To show any grace to his enemies would be treason and a violation of al wala wa baraa;allegiance to the believers and enmity to the kuffar.

In the Holy Bible God has revealed Himself as Lord and King who rightly deserves perfect sinless absolute obedience and allegiance. Knowing the sinful condition of Human beings and even after they have rebelled and opposed God's will, God has chosen to Love them and show them unearned Grace, and this Love and Grace is open to all until the time day of Judgment. A true devotee of God should want to emulate God's qualities..i.e be God like.

Now I ask you did Yusef draw closer to Allah when he forgave His brothers and did not take revenge on them when he had the upper hand? Did Habil error when he refused to fight Qabil, why would Allah put these stories into the Quran if he expects you to be soft with the believers and harsh with the kuffar? These tales do not seem to fit the over all spirit of the Quran have you ever even thought of any of this?

CL Edwards said...

@ Samatar Mohamed Kim and any other Muslim

Kim if you would have just read the passage the quote comes from instead of speculating and guessing you would have read
" Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. "

The text tells you why you should give grace to your enemies. So is God a "hypocrite for vegging his enemies food, life, the sunshine etc..don't be lazy if you are going to talk about the Bible ..actually take the time to read the text first.

@Samatar
you said to Kim: " The bible tells christians to turn the other cheek against enemies, but would that apply to a scenario where their people are being attacked violently."

Instead of quoting sound bites from the Bible and telling us what you feel it means, why don't you seat down and do a expository reading of the passage, thinking over all the words, the context, what the author is trying to communicate. For example if you would have opened the Gospel of Matthew up and read all of chapter Five you would have never wasted your time writing what you wrote, what you said has nothing to do with the Text at all.

here is a link to the Text

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205&version=NIV

CL Edwards said...

@ Samatar or any other Muslim

these are the following questions I sent to Sami Z, I would be curious to get you answers to them

" @ Sami Z As Salamu alaykum I am a Christian who had some questions related to your newest video

1. When God destroyed civilizations with natural disasters do you consider that to be genocide?

2. Are you against capital punishment?

3. If a state issues capital punishments on criminals and has killed a large number of its criminals has it committed genocide?

barakallahu feekum "

drfreebird said...

Whether Muhammud waged defensive or offensive wars matters little to me and still offers a stark contrast to Jesus Christ:

Muhammud fought to establish an earthly kingdom.

Jesus Christ said his kingdom was not of this world.

Muhammud spilled others' blood to protect his own.

Jesus Christ gave himself up willingly, shedding His blood for others.

concernedforusa said...

America has Muslim Obama as a president during the War on Terron. Can you imagine what would happen if we elected SS Nazi officer to be our president during the World War II?

Are you surprised that he paved the road for Muslim Brotherhood to take over the Middle East? He actually paves the road for Islamic Caliphate.

narevalo said...

What about this thought? Hearing such messages, from leaders, deceives everyone. How many people know the Bible and/or the Qur'an and Hadith the way debaters do? Are not Muslims also being deceived? What I mean is, when we try to cover up or bring out those points that are most important to our argument, we breed ignorance that affects everyone. No one will be prepared for the "Fort Hoods" of the future; Muslims or Christians.

search 4 truth said...

@ Samatar

I feel sorry for you.

I am going to say this as simply as possible!

Show me the timeline in which the Bani Mustaliq attacked the Muslims first! I presented a hadith that states Mohamed attacked them when they were just watering their animals and not fighting anyone!

Show me that the Bani Mustaliq attacked the Muslims prior to the hadith in which Mohamed attacked them!

If you cannot comprehend this then there is no hope for you!

search 4 truth said...

@ Kim

Your posting is so convoluted and unintelligible I dont know how to respond. But I will give it a shot!

By Making friends with enemies and praying for them we are doing Gods work. For he loves all of us. To show love and compassion to all people regardless of their beliefs is unconditional love. You are providing the spirit of God because God is love.

Mark 12:28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[f] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[g] There is no commandment greater than these.”

To love someone just because he thinks or believes the same as yourself is conditional love, and it is empty! Anyone can do that. The challenge is to love all people regardless of what they believe!

And nobody is commanded to kill prophets! Are you lumping all people together for the actions of a few? That is ignorant, bigoted, and quite frankly stupid. So your going to hate all Jews because of something a Jewish person did hundreds and even thousands of years ago? I cant think of anything more dumb.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

Ok let's skip the Bani Mustaliq

Let's go to this hadith! And tell me what was the justification for attacking these people.

Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)


And do not run from this question.

Would it be justified for the West and Israel to attack Iran because they are calling for the death of the West and Israel. And dont say they arent. You can watch videos!

Do not run from these two simple questions! to attack

John 8:24 said...

Repost from 'Islamic Secret Santa' Post:

It is now about a week and a half and I don't see any valid response from the Muslim side (Kim, Samatar, Osama etc). They seem to be happy to move on to the next topic. Therefore I conclude that Muslims accept defeat here and acknowledge that Islamic Secret Santa and Savior is Satan himself!!

answeringmuslims.com/2011/11/islams-secret-santa.html

Tabris said...

@ Kim
"So being friends and allies with enemies of Christianity is how you get closer to God."

The above statement is the truth. God created all beings on this planet and therefore loves them all equally. This is why Jesus said "love your enemy" Because if God loves your enemy, what then gives you the right not to love them?

Traeh said...

Samatar Mohamad says Muhammad fought only defensive wars. So why did the four "rightly guided" successors deviate from Muhammad's example so completely? The four knew Muhammad personally. I'm sure Samatar is not going to try to argue that the first caliphs fought "defensively" all the way across North Africa into Spain, and all the way across the Middle East into India, within a century of Muhammad's death. And why does the vast majority of the Muslim world refer to the four offensive caliphs as "rightly guided"? Has the Muslim world also completely misunderstood Muhammad's purely defensive intentions? How curious! Apparently it is only Samatar who understands Muhammad.

Traeh said...

As for PBUH, do you all know what that really is?

Do you know how in dictatorships, there are those huge billboards everywhere so you can't escape them, showing the dictator in a phony heroic pose? Well, PBUH (peace be upon him) said or written after every mention of Muhammad, is similar to those billboards of dictators, except that Islam has bolted the idealizing billboard of Muhammad so to speak onto Muslims' tongues, so that every time they mention him, they feel a need to mechanically idealize him by saying PBUH. But it goes deeper than their tongues, into their souls. Consequently they have great difficulty seeing that every time they say PBUH it reveals a hostile force outside them has breached the boundaries of their very souls, and begun to paralyze and feed off of their most individual being.

Chessie L said...

@ Traeh great point these laymen may be confused on the ruling of Jihad but their scholars are not

Dr. Imad Mustafa, of al-Azhar University
"Two schools [of Islamic jurisprudence] have
ruled that offensive jihad is permissible in
order to secure Islam’s border, to extend
God’s religion to people in cases where the
governments do not allow it, such as the
Pharaoh did with the children of Israel, and
to remove every religion but Islam from the
Arabian peninsula."

D. Collaric said...

@ Kim & Samatar

I see you attacking the Old Testament, yet it is your allah who told MoHAMmel that HE gave these words. Muslims on other occasions never tire to point out that Abraham Moses Jesus and all other Old Testament prophets were in fact Muslims and they practiced the "true Islam". And the books given for this cause was the Old Testament. So if you criticize the OLD TESTAMENT and in some instance the NEW, are you not in fact criticizing your own gawd allah?

Turnkeys said...

David,

Thank you again for all your efforts! Among the people I'll be sharing this with are my parents, who are still drinking the Obama's kool-aid after all his many blunders.

Hoping to finally open their eyes.
Thanks!