Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Eric Allen Bell: The Cost Of Speaking Out Against Islam

Telling the truth about Islam can be discouraging. However, minds are changing slowly but surely. Even some of Islam's liberal defenders are starting to wake up.



You can read more Eric's story here.

79 comments:

kenmehms said...

I have known this for a long time. People wake up and smell the coffee!

Islam has been deceiving you for far too long. Wake up before its too late. The enemy is at the door and most people are ignorant to it.

Liberals be warned Your politically correct stance is causing more damage than good.

I go to Hyde-park corner most Sundays and the fruit of Islam is evident for all to see. They scream and shout insults and abuse and even curse.

Yet you still get the liberal types coming up and joining them and doing the same towards the Christians. All the while we (Christians) turn the other cheek, yet we are branded bigots.

It gets worse week by week, but this does not discourage us. It makes us want to go out more and spread the wonderful gospel of our dear Lord Jesus.

Answering Muslim team, keep up the good work. I will continue to pray for you and please pray for us to at Hyde park.

D335 said...

I do not know if western media has catch a glimpse of a situation in Indonesia.
But I hope david can get an AP source or better.
-----------------------------------
http://www.asia-pacific-solidarity.net/news/jp_protestersrejectseniorfpi_120212.htm
-----------------------------------
http://maritimeborneo.com/2012/02/12/dayak-protesters-reject-senior-fpi-officials-booted-out-of-central-borneo/
-----------------------------------
In 11 Feb 2012 a plane of Sriwijaya Air carried 5 high rank FPI (Indonesian official islamic defender)landed in Kalimantan Tengah or central Borneo.
The dayak tribe and others locals gathered around inside the airport runways to close down and stop members of the FPI from disembarking.

The governor of Kal-Teng Teras Narang and the local police supported the demonstration in which later confirmed by the president and the Indonesian police chief to stop any Islamic radicals from making a branch in central borneo.

FPI has been famous for violence and radical actions against all things they considered to be "un-Islamic" way.

The head of the FPI, Habieb Rizieq therefore sue the governor of Kal-Teng and also claim that the demonstration was a "failed" murder attempt.

in 14 Feb 2012 /val's day, a mass demonstration of anti-FPI followed afterwards in Jakarta Indonesia.

As an Indonesian this is really puzzling because the majority of "peaceful muslims" also gathered around to protest against FPI.
(I guess they never really read Quran)

Tho, sadly, this radical islamic organization has a big number of supporters also. I guess the weather is not gonna be good tomorrow.


At the same time, GKI Yasmin, Indonesian Christian Church which has been closed down illegally by the mayor of Bogor brought the contrast to this religious tension in which the president's awaited promise to resolve the case immediately. But it has not been solved for about 3 years now.

-----------------------------------
So here it is folks. It is not impossible to stop these radicals from taking over your nation.

D335

D335 said...

oh yeah, here's the video from the local TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9eHNUHDJ80

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15pHcOc0EJM

The Dayak stops the Front Pembela Islam - Indonesia from forming a branch in central borneo.

As you can see in the vid, see how many actual dayaks came to stop the plane from disembarking.
I remember few years earlier, the islamic FPI branch in another province next to dayak were punching non-muslims around during Ramadhan for going inside a restaurant. Now I know how much they hated Islamic Radicals.

Billy said...

Where do I stand on Islam? Let’s look at its founder – a man who raped a 9 year old girl, a slave owner, a leader who ordered people to be tortured, for adulterers to be stoned, for countless nonbelievers to be beheaded, a killer, a warmonger who spread his “religion of peace” by the sword, a man who suffered from hallucinations of voices telling him to do violent things, a tyrant, a homicidal maniac perhaps the equivalent of 100,000 Osama Bin Ladens. And this sadistic lunatic is considered to be the “ideal man” in Islam. What more needs to be said about Islam than that?
Eric Allen Bell

cornholio said...

Thanks for this article on Bell. It was an interesting read. I still get the feeling the amoral, atheist liberal worms will gladly sacrifice people of other faiths to appease their islamonazi "allies".

Baron Eddie said...

It is good that one more person realized what is going on ...

Brother David ... I have seen a video where Muslim cleric tells all Muslim to go online and mark for example "David" as offensive! etc ...

Baron Eddie said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdQo06kitN0&list=UUU1h2YkPdFB9uPPIkrBJSyg&index=1&feature=plcp

This woman not only using the system but does not appreciate the freedom that she has ...

As a woman driving at night in the Islamic countries will automatically become rape, just like the women protesters in Egypt getting raped when got caught by police ...

The officer was so polite ... she was telling him that he could not handle her Burqa!

Joe Bradley said...

This demonstrates the stupidity of the Left. Islam views them as useful idiots and they will be the first to be told to "Join us or die!" by the Muslims that they love so much now if Islam has their way in the world.

You just can't fix stupid.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Billy

So you want to play that game. Ok, sure. Let me see where I stand with the Bible (using Billy's standards). The holy spirit ipregnating Mary when she was just a young girl. The bible permitting the capturing of captives and their rape. Moses being commanded to slay hundreds of people including women, children, and animals. The punishment in the old testament for adultery, and convincing people to apostate is death. The prophet Solomon (pbuh) having 700 wives and 300 concubines for his own pleasure. The Prophet Lot (pbuh) having sex with his own daughters. The prophet David (pbuh) commiting adultery and ordered the killing of the man who was married to the women he fornicated with. And the list goes on. So if you want to play this game. Just know that you are going to lose. I reccommend you actually study Islam without the bias being showed to you. And I only brought these points up to show how ridiculous your form of argument is. Remember, inconsistency is the mark of a flawed argument.

David Wood said...

I'll never be able to figure out why Muslims use the "You said something about Muhammad, so I'll say something about Biblical prophets" response.

Christians believe that Biblical prophets are fallen sinners. Yes, David was guilty. But the Bible condemns his behavior. Very different from Muhammad, who did far worse things than any Biblical prophet, yet Muslims are forced to affirm it all as good and holy!

And I still can't understand why Muslims point to Mary. Mary was much older than Aisha, she had obviously gone through puberty, the impregnation had nothing to do with sex, and no Christian has ever applied this event to marriage laws. Very different from Muhammad climbing on top of a prepubescent girl, setting an example for all future Muslims.

Someone's getting desperate.

SGM said...

@ Samatar,
You are gasping for air. This is what moslems do. When they can't answer questions regarding Islam, they disappear for a while and then pop their head and start ranting about a totaly new topic.

How many times have we gone over the stuff you have mentioned in your comments regarding the bible? How many times we have proven to you what Billy is saying is correct regarding Mohammad with references from your own sources?

As David mentioned, God condemns the sins of any prophet in the bible. Compare that with Mohammad. Which one of his sins are condemned by God and which ones do you condemn? Instead the whole moslem world follows Mohammads example of marrying 9 year old girls, you follow his example of adultry, you follow his example of killing apostates, you follow his example of killing non moslems, you follow his example of subjugation etc etc etc.

May God have mercy on your soul.

Baron Eddie said...

@ D335

thanks for your information ...

I liked what was posted in one of the sites that you provided which said

"The Dayak Customary Council meanwhile had sent a letter to the Central Kalimantan police headquarters requesting the latter to ban the opening of an FPI branch in the province. “We are afraid an FPI presence will disturb the local community’s peace because this organization often engages in activity that creates unrest in the community whereas inter-faith relations in Central kalimantan have always been harmonious,” a Council spokesman said."

I salute Dayak tribe which it is unlike our UCLA tribe in the USA ...

Dayak tribe knows what are they getting in their home town ...

dstewart said...

LOL, Samatar

I'm not uncomfortable with any of those references because our Bible that you're pointing to also teaches us that those things are indeed wrong. Besides, it seems a little odd that you're referring to kings as prophets. E.g. Didn't you know the prophet of the time was Nathan who DID confront David about his sin with Bathsheba?

It's simple: Two CAN play that game, but you're not even playing the same game, or at least not by the same rules. Mohammed is the supreme moral example of Islam. Who's the moral example of Christianity? It's Jesus Christ! If you were really playing by the same rules, then... I think you know what I'm getting at. But instead you chose to attack "prophets" for things that the Bible SAYS are wrong... It's like you said, "inconsistency is the mark of a flawed argument."

Search 4 Truth said...

These points have been made clear to Samatar on multiple postings. But as i have always stated. he will never accept context or consistency. he has to remain willfully ignorant to stay a Muslim. Save every posting you make to him that refutes him. That way you wont have to repeat yourself. you can just copy and paste it. Same thing, different day, Willful ignorance!

Samatar Mohamed said...

Again, you have all misunderstood me. I said let me interpret the bible the way Billy interprets the Quran. I was trying to show Billy how silly his arguments are, especially when he is inconsistent. So let me go over his points now.

"a man who raped a 9 year old girl."

So when did consensual sex become rape. We have Aisha's own words saying how great of a man Muhammad (pbuh) was. Does that sound like a person who was raped to you. I could go further on this point but any fair minded would not call this rape.

" a slave owner"

Ok, so the prophet (pbuh) had slaves. But he never permitted the harming of slaves, encouraged the freeing of slaves, and he taught the muslims to treat slaves as if they are are own brother, by feeding them of what we eat, clothing them from what we where, and not to overburden them. And slavery was never condemned in the bible so he is just being inconsistent here.

" a leader who ordered people to be tortured, for adulterers to be stoned, for countless nonbelievers to be beheaded, a killer, a warmonger who spread his “religion of peace” by the sword"

Again the inconsistency. He never even mentions who was tortured and for what reason. If the man was innocent, then it is wrong, but assuming he is guilty, then I do not see the problem. After all, If I go to a muslim country and convince them to attack the united states. What in the world do you expect to happen to me when i get back. Of course, I would be shipped to Guantanamo bay to be tortured. I don't see any of you objecting to that. With regards to the stoning of adulterers, it seems Billy had absolutely no idea as to what the Old testament punishment for adultery was. It was death. So if he will condemn Islam, he must condemn the Old testament.

continued

Foolster41 said...

"The prophet Solomon (pbuh) having 700 wives and 300 concubines for his own pleasure."
Pointed out as sin in the bible
"The Prophet Lot (pbuh) having sex with his own daughters."
Actually, not to nit pick, but it was the daughters who had sex with him (they got him drunk to do it). Also, pointed as sin.

"The prophet David (pbuh) committing adultery and ordered the killing of the man who was married to the women he fornicated with"
Yeah, definitely pointed as sin. His child died, and some people died of a disease because of his SIN.

That you would use these three cases shows your SICK dishonesty, Samatar.

Since we're playing the same game, please show how the evil actions of mohammad was shown to be sins.

Samatar Mohamed said...

continued

"a leader who ordered people to be tortured, for adulterers to be stoned, for countless nonbelievers to be beheaded, a killer, a warmonger who spread his “religion of peace” by the sword."

Now to your point on non believers being beheaded. Ok, for the sake of argument lets say that this action was definitely wrong. Then will you condemn your own God for commanding the killing of about 3000 people for worshiping the Golden calf. 3000 people were beheaded that day. So why in the world do you not condemn that action of Moses. I know you will not because if it is in the bible, then it must be okay, but if something even slightly similar occurs in islam, then it is terrible. I have yet to see David Wood, Sam Shamoun, Bill Craig, James white debate Old testament ethics. Can you imagine them debating the Old testament against notable muslim apologists. But oddly enough, Wood and Shamoun have both said they would be willing to debate Old Testament violence ( if you want the evidence I will provide it if you are interested). But they have not, because there is no way they will leave the debate having convinced the audience that the Old testament is not violent. Now this is where it gets interesting. Now, Billy do you know how many people died in all of the prophet (pbuh) wars. Opposition and allies. Not more then 2000 thousand people died in all of the prophet (pbuh) battles (which were not offensive)including his allies and enemies. But Moses had 3000 people beheaded in a day (Exodus 32: 27-29). If Muhammad (pbuh) was 100,000 Osama Bin ladens, How much Bin Ladens must Moses (pbuh) have been. So Billy and all christians, I seriously wonder why you guys are not atheists sometimes.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@David Wood

You said "Yes, David was guilty. But the Bible condemns his behavior."

But David, David (pbuh) was a prophet wasn't he. Isn't a prophet supposed to be an example for mankind to follow. After all, these men were handpicked by God to show us the right path. If David (pbuh) was living in America right now, the man would probably be in the top ten in America's Most Wanted ( I used to watch that show by the way) list to get caught. I remember Joshua Evans saying. Had I seen David (pbuh) (the biblical David, not the Islamic one), coming by the street, I would go the other way and call 911. I can understand you saying a prophet (pbuh) committing small sins. But some of the sins are just horrific.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Foolster

Do you actually read my posts. Read my post again letter by letter before you misjudge what I say. Thanks.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

You never cease to amaze me how illogical and irrational you are.

No child can give consent to an adult sexual relationship. they are NEVER equipped for it. Not emotionally, physically, or psychologically. Thats why even if a child says they gave consent when having a relationship with a man they state still prosecutes.

Secondly, you have hadith that states that she was happy with Mohamed. Of course. Have you heard of Stockholm syndrome? Patty Hearst robbed banks and had relationships with her captures as well. After sympathizing with them and being indoctrinated.

Tell me Samatar, what was Kinnanahs crime? Having booty that Mohamed wanted for himself?

Tabari VIII:122
Ishaq:515 "The Prophet gave orders concerning Kinanah to Zubayr, saying, 'Torture him until you root out and extract what he has. So Zubayr kindled a fire on Kinanah's chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kinanah was near death. Then the Messenger gave him to Maslamah, who beheaded him."

You are also making presuppositions and fallacious assertions? Who are you referring to that convinced whom to attack whom? These are all straw man arguments!


Sahih Bukhari
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it."


Now what was this mans crime? He was criticizing Mohamed for being a hypocrite. And he was, just like you are.

Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?"

How was this man hurting poor Mohamed and weak Allah? Criticism?

You are willfully ignorant and you disgust me. You are a brainwashed non thinker incapable of objective reasoning, critical thinking and intellectual integrity! You are suffering from the Dunning–Kruger effect.

go look it up, and if you cant see how it fits you, thats because it does.

David Wood said...

Samatar,

Where did you get the idea that prophets are an example in everything they do? That's not a Biblical view at all. We follow Jesus' example. David certainly was an example in that he loved God and repented of his sins, but many people set such an example, not just prophets.

But how can you condemn Biblical figures when the Qur'an commands us to judge by the Qur'an and the Gospel? You insult the very books Allah tells us to judge by!

Since you accept Muhammad as an example in everything, let me ask a few questions. If you were getting married, would you consider marrying and having sex with a nine-year-old prepubescent girl? Would you have sex with your female captives? Would you kill people for criticizing Muhammad? Would you marry the wife of your own adopted son? Would you make an oath to your wives and then break it?

Since you brought up America's Most Wanted, how many thousands of life sentences do you think your prophet would get if he were alive today?

tiwas said...

@ Samatar

What Billy wrote was a quote from Eric Allen Bell's <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/07/the-high-price-of-telling-the-truth-about-islam/2/>article</a>.

And if I'm not mistaken, Bell is not a Christian. So why is it that you need to drag the Bible?

dstewart said...

I think he's trying to copy David Wood's style of saying, "You condemn you're own prophet," but he lacks what makes the argument really effective. Instead it just comes out sounding like nonsense.

dstewart said...

The problem is that he has nothing to say against the example that Jesus Christ gives, so he has to go fishing elsewhere, not to mention that he can't really defend his own prophet, so he turns the conversation toward this absurd construction of Christians having "prophets" as their moral examples who sin.

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Samatar,


Did you see what that insane lady(strangled her daughter) did all because of a belief in the imaginary?

Samatar Mohamed said...

@David Wood

" would you consider marrying and having sex with a nine-year-old prepubescent girl? "

No I would not have sex with a prepubescent girl. But the prophet (pbuh) did not have sex with Aisha until she hit puberty. And what does that have to do with anything. If I heard the prophet (pbuh) loved Arab women, does that mean I have to go after Arab women like he did. Now that is just irrational. And you forget that the prophet (pbuh) married a 40 year old women when he was 25. Personally, I would not marry a 40 year old at the age of 25, but that is just my personal taste. So your question assumes Aisha did not hit puberty, when Aisha herself knew she hit puberty.

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_sam_shamoun_s_arguments_regarding_the_prophet_s_marriage_to_aisha

"Would you have sex with your female captives? "

I think you mean, is it wrong to have sex with your slave. I personally would not have sex with a female slave if I had one. But as long as the sex is consensual, I do not have a problem with anyone having sex with their slave.

"Would you kill people for criticizing Muhammad? "

No I would not kill anyone for critisizing Muhammad (pbuh). But I think you are talking about Ka'b Bin Ashraf, but you know that he did incite violence against the prophet (pbuh). It's one thing to criticize the prophet (pbuh), but its a whole other thing when you try to convince people to fight and kill him.

continued

Samatar Mohamed said...

"Would you marry the wife of your own adopted son?"

Well, if my adopted son was still married to her, then of course not. But if he divorced her, and she was a free women. I don't see what the problem of marrying her would be assuming we have feelings for one another. I never knew there was an unwritten rule where you cannot marry any of your relatives ex wives. Remember that Zaid did divorce her before she married the prophet (pbuh), therefore, there is no problem.

"Would you make an oath to your wives and then break it?"

It would depend David. If God almighty were to say something along the lines of: Surah 66 (O Prophet! why holdest thou to be forbidden that which Allah has made lawful to thee?, Thou seekest to please thy consorts? But Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (1) Allah has already ordained for you, (O men) the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases): and Allah is your Protector, and He is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom. (2)) Then I probably would break the oath. The prophet (pbuh) did not just break the oath for no reason, rather Allah (swt) told the prophet indirectly to break the oath.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Dstewart

"I'm not uncomfortable with any of those references because our Bible that you're pointing to also teaches us that those things are indeed wrong."

So then you do condemn the killing of women and children as I mentioned in my post. But the bible did not say it was wrong, rather, the God of the bible commanded that the women, children, animals, be killed. If you condemn this, then know that you have rejected the Old testament. But if you accept this, then please do not tell anyone about ethics, seeing as you accept the killing of innocent women and children. I call this the christian dilemma.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Tiwas

"And if I'm not mistaken, Bell is not a Christian. So why is it that you need to drag the Bible?"

Well, i might be wrong, but I assumed that he agreed with what the man said, or else he would not have posted that statement.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@David Wood

And David, when will you or sam shamoun or any christian apologist for that matter debate Old testament ethics/violence. Nadir will surely accept such a debate. I'll be waiting for your response.

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Samatar,

How do you know the koran is from God?

Joseph Smith claimed he got revelations from God and that he was foretold in the bible. It's interesting because Muhammad said the same thing.

So, what's the compelling evidence or proof that your guy is it?

cornholio said...

When was the last time ANYONE Christian or Jewish carried out any of the insane punishments called for in Deuteronomy? When was the last time a muslime state persecuted someone for violating any of the insane decrees of muhamMAD? Last week? Or today?

dstewart said...

I'm having a hard time being concise, but:

You know what? I do regret saying that I was not uncomfortable with that particular example. I should have been more careful with my words. However, the people were not innocent, and I believe that God also took no pleasure in punishing them. This story shows God's MERCY for wicked people as he waited HUNDREDS OF YEARS for them while they were still doing the kinds of things that already disturb you just from reading about them. How is this passage a moral instruction to me to do the same? You have yet to demonstrate how this is a moral example for me to follow before you tell me that accepting this disqualifies me from talking about ethics! On the other hand, the universal moral teachings of the Old Testament are along the lines of being kind to non-Israelites (because the Israelites knew what it was like to be slaves in Egypt), loving your neighbour (That one didn't start from Jesus' mouth), "Thou shalt not kill", among others. And when the Israelites did go to war without God's blessing, God didn't like it. In fact, there were particular people God said not to go to war with in the land. Why don't you pick those to talk about OT ethics?

It's funny how the example you give is tough only because of the apparent contradiction with the OT's more clear moral teaching...

dstewart said...

Aren't there such debates posted on this blog of all places? I haven't watched them all yet...

dstewart said...

That's like saying that the Roman Empire's expansion was purely defensive...

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

---------- quote ----------

So you want to play that game. Ok, sure. Let me see where I stand with the Bible (using Billy's standards).

---------- reply ----------

His entire post was reference to your prophet being a model for everyone to emulate. He pointed out why we should not emulate Mohammad. What is your problem with that? His conclusion is as follows: "And this sadistic lunatic is considered to be the “ideal man” in Islam. What more needs to be said about Islam than that?"

Trying to argue from the Bible about your prophet and religion only makes your argument worse. The Bible is not being discussed or used as an example for Muslims. You are better off sticking to the Qu'ran and Islamic literature. The last thing we need is another tu quoque argument, which does nothing to explain the Qu'ran.

---------- quote ----------

The holy spirit ipregnating Mary when she was just a young girl.

---------- reply ----------

At least she was quite older than 6 or 9 and wasn't considered a littel girl.
So, how did Mary get pregnant in the Qu'ran?

"66:12

Sahih International
And [the example of] Mary, the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into [her garment] through Our angel, and she believed in the words of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient."

It appears that Gabriel helped Allah impregnate Mary. So, to play your game, it is even worse for you since a created being who, by the way, is not human, helped Allah get Mary pregnant through her private parts. That means that a created being is given power to create another human being, which is against Islam since only God can create humanity.

It's amusing that the Holy Spirit, Ruach HaKodesh (Hebrew), is described as a rushing wind or power on High in the Bible. That makes me wonder if Mohammad confused that with the incorrect explanation he gave in the Qu'ran.

Ibn Kathir comments as follows:

"And We breathed into it (private part) through Our Ruh, meaning, through the angel Jibril. Allah sent the angel Jibril to Maryam, and he came to her in the shape of a man in every respect. Allah commanded him to blow into a gap of her garment and that breath went into her womb through her private part; this is how `Isa was conceived."

simple_truth said...

=================>>> continued

Samatar Mohamed said...

---------- quote ----------

The bible permitting the capturing of captives and their rape.

---------- reply ----------

I have personally answered this one to you recently in context; but, you still insist that my explanation isn't worthy of investigation or isn't creduluous. I don't recall the exact chapter, but, I can tell you that the issue wasn't rape; rather, it was seduction or some other form of trickery. I gave you the Hebrew words to point that out to you. If needed, I will find the passage and clarify the words again. I remember that verse 25 of that particular chapter addressed the case of rape by stoning the man to death since he forced himself upon her and she screamed, which meant that she was not consenting to the intercourse. The verse you are talking about was 3 or 4 verses below (29-30) that one and wasn't addressing rape since verse 25 had already covered it.

---------- quote ----------

Moses being commanded to slay hundreds of people including women, children, and animals.

---------- reply ----------

That was a command given to him because God had already warned those people for many generations and they continued to disobey Him; so, God finally placed judgment upon them by allowing Israel to invade them. God used other nations to judge the one that continually refused to reform themselves and obey God. Israel was invaded many, many times for that exact reason. Also, ther are several instances where it is documented in the OT where God prophesied what would happen to nations if they didn't repent and he showed later the reason behind his judgment. Let me see if I can find one for you to illustrate.

"Gen 15:12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.
Gen 15:13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
Gen 15:14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.
Gen 15:15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
Gen 15:16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. "

The fulfillment of the judment of the Amorites is shown later in Num 21:21-35. Read it for yourself so that you don't repeat the false information again. Now, you have no excuse.

simple_truth said...

=================>>> continued

Samatar Mohamed said...


---------- quote ----------

The punishment in the old testament for adultery, and convincing people to apostate is death.

---------- reply ----------

I went through that one too. Firstly, I did mention to you that Israel had made a covenant with God not to worship other gods and not to commit adultery; so, they were well aware of their need to keep their promises to God. Secondly, God warned them that prophets and others would come to try to get them to worship other gods; so, God was reminding them of their oath to Him; so, naturally, they would suffer some kind of punishment for breaking their oath to Him. Thirdly, I also pointed out that this is not apostasy since apostasy involves decision making to leave a religion upon examination. What happened to the Israelites was before apostasy--not after the fact. That distinction is not trivial.


---------- quote ----------

The prophet Solomon (pbuh) having 700 wives and 300 concubines for his own pleasure.

---------- reply ----------

And Solomon was a sinner. God didn't order him to marry in this manner. Every time people of God married multiple wives, they always had trouble and succumbed to sin on many, many occasions. Genesis tells us that God intended for there to be only a union of one man and one woman in a marriage. Breaking God's institution of marriage eventually destroys the soul. That can be easily seen in the various societies in the OT that caused disorder within famalies and within nations.


---------- quote ----------

The Prophet Lot (pbuh) having sex with his own daughters.

---------- reply ----------

"Gen 19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
Gen 19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
Gen 19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
Gen 19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
"

The text shows that Lot's daughters conspired to make him too drunk to defend himself against their plot. He did't do anything of his own accord to cause the situation except getting so drunk whereby he was taken advantage of. Lot , too, was as sinner. He should have know not to get drunk to begin with though.

Biblical characters are not some perfect example like Mohammad is declared in the Qu'ran; consequently, these issues that you raise don't bother a well informed Christian at all since we understand that all of us are fallen beings in need of salvation from Jesus.

simple_truth said...

=================>>> continued

Samatar Mohamed said...


---------- quote ----------

The prophet David (pbuh) commiting adultery and ordered the killing of the man who was married to the women he fornicated with.

---------- reply ----------

The passages do state that and that he murdered; so, nothing is condoned here. The text is not trying to justify his actions like what we find in the Qu'ran, hadiths, etc. Note the stark contrast to the Qu'ran where justification of evil is the norm and here in the Bible, it is not justified but called out as shown when the Prophet Nathan came to David and called him out for his sins. Do you see this kind of rebuke in the Qu'ran? No!! That helps to show the moral bankruptcy that the Qu'ran promotes on a regular basis. Notice also that David didn't get a sudden and convenient revelation allowing him to have his soldier's wives. That is very telling to me.

"2Sa 12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

2Sa 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
2Sa 12:12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.
2Sa 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.
"
Later on in the chapter, we see where God punished David by allowing the child from that relationship to die. God punishes evil, while sometimes He waits longer than other times. He eventually avenges sin. There is absolutely no parallel in the Qu'ran or hadiths where either Mohammad or Muslims are rebuked and punished for their sins against others, specifically non Muslims. That should tell you something is sinister about your religion and (im)perfect prophet.


---------- quote ----------

And the list goes on. So if you want to play this game. Just know that you are going to lose.

---------- reply ----------

I welcome you to post more of your list and I will call your bluff. I can explain the other ones as easily as I have these. The Bible, in most cases, does explain why certain people were ordered killed and what they did to deserve this judgment. When you point these things out, you are not revealing anything that God hasn't already explained or at least given us some understanding of.

simple_truth said...

=================>>> continued

Samatar Mohamed said...

---------- quote ----------

I reccommend you actually study Islam without the bias being showed to you.

---------- reply ----------

The problem is that most of us who dialogue with you have already done their homework. I don't cite anything that I haven't personally researched to see the context so that I can make an informed comment about it. Just because you don't agree with our conclusion(s) is no reason to keep spewing the idiocy of us not actually studying Islam. You look really stupid saying this to more learned people about your religion.

I read tafsirs, consult hadiths, lurk on Islamic forums before I usually speak. I am not in the dark as you would like to believe. I know that you and most other Muslims with your mentalities would like for the rest of the world to think that people that oppose Islam are not educated or are just ignorant. I say that the really ignorant one is you for not taking us seriously when we give you the actual text quoted from Islamic sources, most of which are considered authentic.

The irony is that you freely quote the Bible but don't practice what you preach. If I didn't know any better, I would think that you are the very hypocrite and bigot that Muslims robotically call us. Get wise and start studying before you speak. Speaking of biasas, you, Kangaroo, Kim, and Osama are the kings of biases. In case you don't see it, you are the real bigots. You are the ones who like to hold onto your positions even when logical, factual rebuttals are given to you along with citations from authentic Islamic literature to support our views. You continually ignore just as you did with the examples from the OT that I explained in some detail not too long ago. I don't believe that you forgot that exchange; rather, you found it convenient to look over it since it deflated your position and argument like a flat tire.


---------- quote ----------

And I only brought these points up to show how ridiculous your form of argument is.

---------- reply ----------

If that was your aim, you failed big time! It is a logical fallacy to bring up a new argument in order to combat another one unless you are trying to point out hypocrisy, perhaps. Even then, you still have to defend your position. You don't get a pass.


---------- quote ----------

Remember, inconsistency is the mark of a flawed argument.


---------- reply ----------

Remember that tu quoques and pretending to argue from ignorance are also marks of failed arguments. For the most part, the arguments presented to you are not inconsistent. Even if you find one or two here and there, you don't win the arguments on that basis.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Simple truth

Again, I will repeat that my post had been misunderstood. Those posts were just to show how ridiculous his arguments were. Which is why i explicitly said that if he wants to play that game, then sure. I responded to each of his points though, so feel free to respond to them.

SGM said...

Samatar by his own mouth admits that he has no problem with adultery. Just as I thought, he is following the example of his prophet.

Samatar states, “I think you mean, is it wrong to have sex with your slave. I personally would not have sex with a female slave if I had one. But as long as the sex is consensual, I do not have a problem with anyone having sex with their slave.”

According to the bible, sex outside of marriage is sin, period. Hebrews 13:4, “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.”

Samatar, do you realize what you are saying here. So what you are saying is, if sex is consensual it is ok. Sex with a prostitute is consensual. Sex between boy friend and girl friend is consensual which your brother Osama calls whoredom of the west. Now are you going to say that a prostitute and a girl friend are not slaves. But what does status of a person has to do anything with sin. Regardless of who commits it, whether a slave a free person, adultery is adultery. No matter what you want to call sexual immorality, whether adultery or fornication or rape, it is sin.

And yes, it is allowed in Islam. Sexual immorality does not hinder a Moslem to go into paradise. This is why a Moslem will have no shame in having sex in presence of Allah. Allah himself will provide sex slaves for Moslem men. This is just one example of how false this religion is.

However, according to the bible, no sin can enter in the presence of God since He is Holy.

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Samatar,

Quit wasting your time trying to refute something your book tells you to accept.

Let's get to the real problem:

How do you know the koran is from God?

Joseph Smith claimed he got revelations from God and that he was foretold in the bible. It's interesting because Muhammad said the same thing.


Do you believe Joseph Smith is a prophet?


What's the compelling evidence or proof that your guy is the real "prophet"?



Try not to evade for 100000000000000 time.

Search 4 Truth said...

Does everyone notice Samatar ignored my posting?

@ Samatar

Aisha was prepubescent.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old

She was 6 when they married. That means he married a prepubescent girl. Now does the Quran give an age restriction on marriage or sex, NO!

O you who believe: When you marry believing women and then divorce them before you have touched them, no period of idda (waiting) have you to count in respect of them: so give them a present and set them free in a graceful manner. S. 33:49

So if you have not touched them, there is no Iddah period.

O Prophet ! when you divorce women, divorce them for the prescribed period, and thereafter reckon the period; and fear ALLAH, your Lord. ... And if you are in doubt as to the prescribed period for such of your women as have despaired of monthly courses, then know that the prescribed period for them is three months, and also for such as do not have their monthly courses yet. And as for those who are with child, their period shall be until they are delivered of their burden. And whoso fears ALLAH, HE will provide facilities for him in his affair. S. 65:1,4


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ وَٱللاَّئِي يَئِسْنَ مِنَ ٱلْمَحِيضِ مِن نِّسَآئِكُمْ إِنِ ٱرْتَبْتُمْ فَعِدَّتُهُنَّ ثَلاَثَةُ أَشْهُرٍ وَٱللاَّئِي لَمْ يَحِضْنَ وَأُوْلاَتُ ٱلأَحْمَالِ أَجَلُهُنَّ أَن يَضَعْنَ حَمْلَهُنَّ وَمَن يَتَّقِ ٱللَّهَ يَجْعَل لَّهُ مِنْ أَمْرِهِ يُسْراً }

And [as for] those of your women who (read allā’ī or allā’i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months —


HAVE NOT YET MENSTRUATED BECAUSE OF THERE YOUNG AGE YOU MUST WAIT THREE MONTHS!

So what is the conclusion. THERE IS NO AGE RESTRICTION!


Dont run from the facts1 You still have not answered my previous posting!

Also Nadir is the worst apologist on the planet! He was recently on the Jinn and Tonic show and humiliated himself. They are making videos about him as a laughing stock. Search it on youtube! Nadir is to dumb to know how stupid he is.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar
The point is you would not do what your Allah iordains. So you are more moral than your Allah.

You say you wouldnt have sex with your captives, even if they are married for that matter. But that doesnt get your Allah off the hook. Because your Allah permits rape and adultery! And we have proved it many times over! Remember the last time you ran when you were refuted.

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)

"We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter" (Sahih Muslim 3371)


* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ وَٱلْمُحْصَنَٰتُ مِنَ ٱلنِّسَآءِ إِلاَّ مَا مَلَكْتَ أَيْمَٰنُكُمْ كِتَٰبَ ٱللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَأُحِلَّ لَكُمْ مَّا وَرَاءَ ذَٰلِكُمْ أَن تَبْتَغُواْ بِأَمْوَٰلِكُمْ مُّحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَٰفِحِينَ فَمَا ٱسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ فَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً وَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِيمَا تَرَٰضَيْتُمْ بِهِ مِن بَعْدِ ٱلْفَرِيضَةِ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيماً حَكِيماً }

And, forbidden to you are, wedded women, those with spouses, that you should marry them before they have left their spouses, be they Muslim free women or not; save what your right hands own, of captured [slave] girls, whom you may have sexual intercourse with, even if they should have spouses among the enemy camp.

So your Allah permits and ordains that you can have sex with married captives. You are more moral than your Allah and Prophet! because they would and Mohamed did.

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

Mohamed saw his daughter in law when she was undressing and lusted after her. And because of his lust he ended one of the most wonderful things you can do for an orphaned child. Adoption! Taking an orphaned child, making him or her feel like a member of your own family and giving that child your name! This is one of the most disturbing events in Mohameds sunna.

And you fail to remember that Mohamed married a 40 year old woman, a woman of great wealth and power. Why do you point to her age and forget to mention her standing in the community and her great wealth? Because you have to.

Do you think it is a wonderful virtue if you marry someone because they are wealthy? Again you are subjective.


Tabari IX:137 - "Allah granted Rayhana of the Qurayza to Muhammad as booty."

Muhammad considered the women that he captured and enslaved to be God's gift to him.

Tabari VIII:117 - "Dihyah had asked the Messenger for Safiyah when the Prophet chose her for himself... the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims."

He sometimes pulled rank to reserve the most beautiful captured women for himself.

Tabari IX:139 - "You are a self-respecting girl, but the prophet is a womanizer."

Samatar Mohamed said...

@SGM

Ever heard of the Divine command theory SGM. The quran explicitly says that muslims can only have sexual relations with their wives, and their female slaves. Anything other then that is adultery, a transgression, and is not accepted by Allah (swt). So God almighty defines to us exactly what adultery is by his standards, and having sex with a prostitute is against the command of God.

dstewart said...

Mohammed redifined adultery and lowered the standard far lower than it was before. Jesus raised the standard.

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matt 5:28

"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Luke 16:18.

By this standard, there's no question that Mohammed was an adulterer.

So it looks like Mohammed took down the standard that a previous prophet had set only when it was convenient for him to do so. Doesn't that bother you?

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

"@Simple truth

Again, I will repeat that my post had been misunderstood. Those posts were just to show how ridiculous his arguments were. Which is why i explicitly said that if he wants to play that game, then sure. I responded to each of his points though, so feel free to respond to them."

Samatar, you posted these things with the intention to refute claims made against Islam so that we would stop our criticisms. You can spin it any way you want, but I am not going to bite.

No one has misunderstood you. You have no point that refutes. I took the time purposely to show you that you didn't even understand fully the quotes you made. I wanted to make sure that you had no excuses to continue to misrepresent the Bible.

Now, go look up those passages I gave you to make sure that I am correct; otherwise, don't use them again because you would be lying since you have been given the meanings. For future discussion, don't quote from the Bible unless you are willing to take the time to make sure that the meaning that you have been taught from Islamic sources is actually what is there. In that way, we can hopefully not have to go through this to save time.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Simple truth

I have adressed Billy`s points so feel free to take a crack at them. My first point was to show Billy how two can play at his game. So if he wants to misrepresent a religion, then it can easily be done to his bible as well.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Dstewart

"Mohammed redifined adultery and lowered the standard far lower than it was before. Jesus raised the standard. "

Actually, the prophet (pbuh) also believed that a man who looked at a women with lust, has commited zina (adultery) with his eyes. Here are a couple of hadiths.

Here is the hadith where the prophet shows that zina can be committed in more than one way.

"The eyes commit Zina, the hands commit Zina and feet commit Zina and the genitals commit Zina." (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith no. 4258)"

"In a hadith, the Prophet (saww) is reported as having said: "And the eyes commit zina (adultery). Their zina is gazing."

"He (saww) commanded Ali (as) said: "Ali! Do not look once after another, for the first look is for you (since it happens accidentally) while the second is against you."

So as you can see, the concept of lowering your gaze, along with adultery also being committed with the eyes has been taught by the prophet (pbuh). So there is no disagreement in this matter between muslims and christians.

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

"Ever heard of the Divine command theory SGM. The quran explicitly says that muslims can only have sexual relations with their wives, and their female slaves. Anything other then that is adultery, a transgression, and is not accepted by Allah (swt). So God almighty defines to us exactly what adultery is by his standards, and having sex with a prostitute is against the command of God."

Are you saying that through DCT, your prophet was allowed to do those things and his followers too? If so, it is still a step backwards from what prophet Jesus taught. Wouldn't you expect that revelation improves societies and spirituality--not destroy it or degrade it? I know that you are going to say that the Arab societies were improved by Mohammad. Well, that is subjective but true to some extent; but, even so, how do you justify it when other societies were much more healthy both socially and spiritually? I ask this because the orders in the Qu'ran are supposed to be for all of humanity. But, it can easily be demonstrated that following the Qu'ran would cause most other societies of those times as well as today to deteriorate severly. Hardly any reliigon besides Islam threatens to kill apostatates as a eternal directive. Hardly any other religion sanctions slavery and sexual slavery specifically as an eternal edict. Jesus' teachings condemn this kind of behavior; therefore, Mohammad would be condemned by Him. Doesn't this bother you? Or, are you going to continue to not question your prophet and religion as it pertains to previous revelations? Don't say that the Bible is corrupt since Surah 5:42-48 directly refute this notion.

How do you justify Mohammad's teachings when they are inferior to Jesus'? I would also expect that DRT would not allow such controversial practices, to become normative for generations to follow. Shouldn't DCT, by your own usage, be isolated to a specific time and place? Compare that to Moses who was ordered to kill the various tribes in Canaan. I mentioned that yesterday in one of my replies to you. That command to kill the Amorites, for, example, was only for a specific time and place and was based upon prophecy of 4 generations (roughly 400 years earlier). It was conditioned upon a judgment of God for the Amorites not complying to God's warnings to them to repent. It wasn't meant to be executed again. That is exactly why modern Jews would not be compelled to take OT commands of war and utilize them today.

Don't you find it unacceptable and confusing when the prophet Jesus forbade the sexual immorality that Mohammad and Allah allowed over five hundred years later, but Mohammad is allowed to practice them? Aren't revelations suppose to improve things instead of making them go backwards? I am asking you this to hopefully force you to think deeper on what your prophet brought. For me, the logical thing would be for God to continue to improve life and the quality thereof, by improvements in both social and spiritual matters. I don't see any spiritual gains by capturing women and having sex with them. Why? Because some of them are already married, which would violate their marriage covenant with their husbands. Even if some of them were not married, the would still be defiled under fornication.

Billy said...

Samatar said: “My first point was to show Billy how two can play at his game. So if he wants to misrepresent a religion, then it can easily be done to his bible as well.”

Everyone please note that Samatar has admitted that he is playing a game of deliberately misrepresenting the bible, while the quotation of Erick Allen Bell is not a misrepresentation. Therein lies the difference between a Muslim and a non-muslim. Samatar follows the example of Mo/allah, the greatest deceiver, “misrepresenting”, lying, and deceiving to advance his false religion and his false god.

The question was asked by a few people as to why Samatar runs away when he is thoroughly refuted and then reappears repeating the same debunked arguments. There you have it. He has earlier admitted that this is his Jihad, and now he has admitted that he is playing a game of misrepresenting the bible. So keep in mind, he does not intend to arrive at the truth, he is here to do his Jihad and taquiya.

TPaul said...

Samatar Mohammed is a typical Muslim in a dilemma to justifying his prophet's henious acts to make them not only acceptable, but to elevate them to an examplery status for all mankind....

Although deep down he knows that these acts are sinful and wrong, yet If he accepts them as such, he condemns his prophet, He is compelled to say there is nothing wrong with the evil deeds of his so called prophet. so what does he do? To justify these acts he brings examples of evil acts of prophets in the old testament.

Samatar, what you don't understand, and like most Christians here are trying to tell you, all of the prophets you named were mere sinful men, who's example we are not to follow, Enter Jesus Christ, the sinless son, who neither you nor any one in the world can point a finger at, He is the example we are to follow, not the sinful prophets of old.

You, me, all the prophets of the OT and even your prophet Mohammed are in need of redemption, that only the sinless son of God can offer, yet ironically you choose to follow this evil, corrupted, blemished human, just because he made a false claim of being a prophet, and you try to raise his corrupted lifestyle as an example to all mankind.

Look at the effect of following his example has done in the Islamic world. It is the same hell-hole that Mohammed created during his life time.

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

"@Simple truth

I have adressed Billy`s points so feel free to take a crack at them. My first point was to show Billy how two can play at his game. So if he wants to misrepresent a religion, then it can easily be done to his bible as well."

Samatar, I will repost Billy's first comment. I think that is your objection. If not, then post the objection you are saying is unrepresentative.

"Billy said...

Where do I stand on Islam? Let’s look at its founder – a man who raped a 9 year old girl, a slave owner, a leader who ordered people to be tortured, for adulterers to be stoned, for countless nonbelievers to be beheaded, a killer, a warmonger who spread his “religion of peace” by the sword, a man who suffered from hallucinations of voices telling him to do violent things, a tyrant, a homicidal maniac perhaps the equivalent of 100,000 Osama Bin Ladens. And this sadistic lunatic is considered to be the “ideal man” in Islam. What more needs to be said about Islam than that?
Eric Allen Bell"

Most of what he says is directly supported in Islamic literature that is considered authentic. You may not agree with the description of lunatic and warmonger, but most is factual.

I honestly, don't think that you can make a claim of misrepresentation of Islam. The Islamic sources speak for themselves and within historical context according to your major historical commentators and scholars such as ibn Kathir, ibn Abbas, and Jalalayan. Like it or not, you are at a disadvantage in disputing those early scholars of Islam since they lived closer to the beginning of Islam and didn't have to worry about political correctness in retrofitting Islam to make it palatable to non-Muslims.

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

"@Dstewart

"Mohammed redifined adultery and lowered the standard far lower than it was before. Jesus raised the standard. "

Actually, the prophet (pbuh) also believed that a man who looked at a women with lust, has commited zina (adultery) with his eyes. Here are a couple of hadiths.

Here is the hadith where the prophet shows that zina can be committed in more than one way.

"The eyes commit Zina, the hands commit Zina and feet commit Zina and the genitals commit Zina." (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith no. 4258)"

"In a hadith, the Prophet (saww) is reported as having said: "And the eyes commit zina (adultery). Their zina is gazing."

"He (saww) commanded Ali (as) said: "Ali! Do not look once after another, for the first look is for you (since it happens accidentally) while the second is against you."

So as you can see, the concept of lowering your gaze, along with adultery also being committed with the eyes has been taught by the prophet (pbuh). So there is no disagreement in this matter between muslims and christians.""

========== reply ===============

I am not going to argue over your interpretations of Jesus' teachings in the Qu'ran; however, I will point out that even if you believe that the Qu'ran has equivalent teachings, they were not codified; therefore, he still falls short of Jesus' standards. I really don't believe that Mohammad actually realized Jesus' teachings. Muslims just find things that look similar and then create an impression that Mohammad agreed with Jesus. If Mohammad really did understand that looking at a woman with lust is adultery, he didn't practice it; so, any attempt to harmonize Mohammad's teachings with Jesus' is very superficial.

The question for you, Samatar, is why didn't Mohammad teach that the thoughts in the mind are also sinful and not just the actions? Why should he be exempted from carrying out the message of earlier prophets?

Search 4 Truth said...

Samatar again ignores my postings and uses logical fallacies.

He says Mohamed said it was wrong to lust after women, but it is ok to have sex with your captives!

Ding Dong!

How in the world is this consistent?


Dont lust after women but it's ok if you have sex with your female captives EVEN IF THEY ARE MARRIED!

Can you believe this nonsense?

How does a Muslim do it? How can they rationalize these clear contradictions? Its called delusion!

David Wood said...

Here's a hadith about Muhammad lusting after a woman:

Sahih Muslim 3240: Jabir reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) saw a woman, and so he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning a leather and had sexual intercourse with her. He then went to his Companions and told them: The woman advances and returns in the shape of a devil, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart.

Derek Adams said...

Brief look at Samatars fallacies.

The first fallacy tuqoque. Oh you too! Your prophet(s) was a maniac too! However, even if the Christian was being inconsistent, it would still be irrelevant since the person still mentioned a repugnant behavior, that still needs to be explained why a religion from God would endorse a behavior(s) such as this.

Now if a person wishes to redefine good and evil, and say well my lord Allah gets to decide what is good and evil and say according to lord Allah marrying 9 year old children is good, then the person has just used semantics and made an appeal to authority. Simply saying Allah is God, and God decides the rules, of course does not prove that those rules themselves are moral, although I understand Theists like to think this, you need to actually argue he is moral to begin with.

Next fallacy the DCT card. God makes up and define the rules. The best representative of this theory (WLC), was obviously not handed to by Sam Harris, but was crushed by Louise Antony. DCT is refuted here:

http://www.answeringabraham.com/2012/02/divine-command-theorydct-finally.html

Perhaps Samatar thinks if there was no DCT then there would be no binding objective morality, in which case he would be wrong as demonstrated here:

http://www.answeringabraham.com/2012/02/last-straw-of-objective-morality.html

All in all Samatar still has no good reason to be a Muslim and if he ever wants to debate that very proposition with me (via audio or written) I will firmly argue the affirmative. Samatar as one of the only Muslims able to reason and act polite in front of a reasonably anti-Islam audience, I predict you will leave Islam very soon. Not only is it a binding moral imperative, but an unavoidable reason based deduction. I mean even if you go over all of the threads you've posted on you still haven't come back to about 70% of them because your answers simply don't cut it.

Derek Adams
www.AnsweringAbraham.com

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Derek showed up. Hi Derek.

What's up?

Samatar Mohamed said...

@David Wood

"Sahih Muslim 3240: Jabir reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) saw a woman, and so he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning a leather and had sexual intercourse with her. He then went to his Companions and told them: The woman advances and returns in the shape of a devil, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart."

So lets go over the hadith in conjunction with the other hadiths I have put forth. The prophet (pbuh) sees a good looking women. What does he do, he immediately leaves and goes to his wife Zainab. This is a good example of what a person should do, if he sees a good looking women, he should lower his gaze, then leave the area and approach his wife. Here is the hadith that is important in this matter though.

"He (saww) commanded Ali (as) said: "Ali! Do not look once after another, for the first look is for you (since it happens accidentally) while the second is against you."

This is very important why, because the first look is not intended, however, when someone looks again, then clearly the look is with lust and a form of zina. And it is unreasonable to say that if you happen to unintentionally see a good looking women, turn away, then leave, that you have committed zina with the eyes. In fact, it is quite the contrary.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Simple truth

Here were my rebuttals to Billy:

"Again, you have all misunderstood me. I said let me interpret the bible the way Billy interprets the Quran. I was trying to show Billy how silly his arguments are, especially when he is inconsistent. So let me go over his points now.

"a man who raped a 9 year old girl."

So when did consensual sex become rape. We have Aisha's own words saying how great of a man Muhammad (pbuh) was. Does that sound like a person who was raped to you. I could go further on this point but any fair minded would not call this rape.

" a slave owner"

Ok, so the prophet (pbuh) had slaves. But he never permitted the harming of slaves, encouraged the freeing of slaves, and he taught the muslims to treat slaves as if they are are own brother, by feeding them of what we eat, clothing them from what we where, and not to overburden them. And slavery was never condemned in the bible so he is just being inconsistent here.

" a leader who ordered people to be tortured, for adulterers to be stoned, for countless nonbelievers to be beheaded, a killer, a warmonger who spread his “religion of peace” by the sword"

Again the inconsistency. He never even mentions who was tortured and for what reason. If the man was innocent, then it is wrong, but assuming he is guilty, then I do not see the problem. After all, If I go to a muslim country and convince them to attack the united states. What in the world do you expect to happen to me when i get back. Of course, I would be shipped to Guantanamo bay to be tortured. I don't see any of you objecting to that. With regards to the stoning of adulterers, it seems Billy had absolutely no idea as to what the Old testament punishment for adultery was. It was death. So if he will condemn Islam, he must condemn the Old testament."

continued

Samatar Mohamed said...

continued

"continued

"a leader who ordered people to be tortured, for adulterers to be stoned, for countless nonbelievers to be beheaded, a killer, a warmonger who spread his “religion of peace” by the sword."

Now to your point on non believers being beheaded. Ok, for the sake of argument lets say that this action was definitely wrong. Then will you condemn your own God for commanding the killing of about 3000 people for worshiping the Golden calf. 3000 people were beheaded that day. So why in the world do you not condemn that action of Moses. I know you will not because if it is in the bible, then it must be okay, but if something even slightly similar occurs in islam, then it is terrible. I have yet to see David Wood, Sam Shamoun, Bill Craig, James white debate Old testament ethics. Can you imagine them debating the Old testament against notable muslim apologists. But oddly enough, Wood and Shamoun have both said they would be willing to debate Old Testament violence ( if you want the evidence I will provide it if you are interested). But they have not, because there is no way they will leave the debate having convinced the audience that the Old testament is not violent. Now this is where it gets interesting. Now, Billy do you know how many people died in all of the prophet (pbuh) wars. Opposition and allies. Not more then 2000 thousand people died in all of the prophet (pbuh) battles (which were not offensive)including his allies and enemies. But Moses had 3000 people beheaded in a day (Exodus 32: 27-29). If Muhammad (pbuh) was 100,000 Osama Bin ladens, How much Bin Ladens must Moses (pbuh) have been. So Billy and all christians, I seriously wonder why you guys are not atheists sometimes."

dstewart said...

"So as you can see, the concept of lowering your gaze, along with adultery also being committed with the eyes has been taught by the prophet (pbuh). So there is no disagreement in this matter between muslims and christians."

Actually, there is. I was quite aware of this. Notice that Mohammed's command is about the eyes whereas Jesus' command was about the heart. Mohammed dwelled on thoughts of another man's wife. He committed adultery in his HEART before she was even divorced. Secondly, you completely avoided the other quote which clearly shows that Mohammed was an adulterer by Jesus' standard.

What I see from this is a devaluing of marriage in Islam. Whereas Jesus said about marriage, "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." (Matt 19:6), I see the effect of the prophet's example on Muslims such as yourself who then go on the say things like, "Remember that Zaid did divorce her before she married the prophet (pbuh), therefore, there is no problem."

However, I will freely admit that Christians today do not seem to value marriage as much as they have in the past or nearly as much as they should, and the Muslims I know generally have a higher view of it. However, my point is not that Christians DO it better (which is false and irrelevant to my point anyway), but that Mohammed clearly didn't do it as well as he should have to be a moral example for Muslims to follow.

dstewart said...

Question: If God allows the men to have sex with their married female captives, then does that automatically make it OK for the girl to commit adultery? Is God saying it's OK to cause the girl to sin?

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Derek Adams

"All in all Samatar still has no good reason to be a Muslim and if he ever wants to debate that very proposition with me (via audio or written) I will firmly argue the affirmative. Samatar as one of the only Muslims able to reason and act polite in front of a reasonably anti-Islam audience, I predict you will leave Islam very soon. Not only is it a binding moral imperative, but an unavoidable reason based deduction. I mean even if you go over all of the threads you've posted on you still haven't come back to about 70% of them because your answers simply don't cut it."

I always tell christians, hindus, etc... that I am willing to leave Islam, given they show me actual evidence that Islam is not the true religion of God. And I have yet to come across convincing evidence that Islam is not true. Hence, I will come to this blog, and have dialogues with people of different beliefs providing them the opportunity to show me that I am wrong. Because, if I am wrong, I would want to know it. But as I continue to study Islam, I find that Islam really is the true religion of God. Now, does that mean I have answers to every questions posed by non muslims. A simple answer would be no. And because I do not want to misrepresent my religion, I choose not to discuss the issues I have not fully studied. With regards to a debate, I would definitely be willing to discuss why I am a muslim sometime in May as I am held up until then. Thanks.

Search 4 Truth said...

Samatar condemns Mohamed and his companions!

LUST - Mohamed says that she has fascinated him!

This girl was noticed for her beauty and chosen. And then Mohamed took her for himself.


Sahih Mohamed
Book 019, Number 4345:
It has been narrated on the authority of Salama (b. al-Akwa') who said: We fought against the Fazara and Abu Bakr was the commander over us. He had been appointed by the Messenger oi Allah (may peace be upon him). When we were onlv at an hour's distance from the water of the enemy, Abu Bakr ordered us to attack. We made a halt during the last part of the night tor rest and then we attacked from all sides and reached their watering-place where a battle was fought. Some of the enemies were killed and some were taken prisoners. I saw a group of persons that consisted of women and children. I was afraid lest they should reach the mountain before me, so I shot an arrow between them and the mountain. When they saw the arrow, they stopped. So I brought them, driving them along. Among them was a woman from Banu Fazara. She was wearing a leather coat. With her was her daughter who was one of the prettiest girls in Arabia. I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr who bestowed that girl upon me as a prize. So we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: Give me that girl, O Salama. I said: Messenger of Allah, she has fascinated me. I had not yet disrobed her. When on the next day. the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) ag;tin met me in the street, he said: O Salama, give me that girl, may God bless your father. I said: She is for you. Messenger of Allah! By Allah. I have not yet disrobed her. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent her to the people of Mecca, and surrendered her as ransom for a number of Muslims who had been kept as prisoners at Mecca.

Search 4 Truth said...

More lust- Excellent Arab women. Were they excellent for their intellect?

"We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter" (Sahih Muslim 3371)

Search 4 Truth said...

More lust!

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."
Sahih Bukhari 5:59:459


"we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus."

They were horny and celibacy was difficult and loved to do coitus interuptus!



Mohamed laughs and gets joy out of commanding a man to suckle a grown woman!

Sahih Muslim

Book 008, Number 3424:
' A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be eupon him) and said: Messengerof Allah, I see on the face of Abu Hudhaifa (signs of disgust) on entering of Salim (who is an ally) into (our house), whereupon Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Suckle him. She said: How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man? Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) smiled and said: I already know that he is a young man 'Amr has made this addition in his narration that he participated in the Battle of Badr and in the narration of Ibn 'Umar (the words are): Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) laughed.

SGM said...

@ Samatar,

I commend you for admitting which most Moslems don’t, that Allah allows adultery, even if it is with female slaves only.

So here is where we run into a problem. According to bible, there are no exceptions to any sin. On the other hand Allah provides all sorts of exceptions to sin in Islam proving that he can not be the true and living God. Lying is a sin, no exceptions. Adultery is a sin and there are no exceptions. Murder is a sin with no exceptions, and don’t mix murder with capital punishment or war or self defense. Stealing is a sin and there are no exceptions. If you allow exceptions, then you can exploit every single sin.

Lets take a look at some examples how not only adultery but other sins are allowed by Allah in Islam. Again, this makes Allah not a true God.
1. As you have admitted, adultery in Islam is allowed with slaves. Adultery is a sin and it is allowed by Allah. As I mentioned earlier, exception is a loophole. Now for argument sake, what is to stop a man and a woman to agree for a period of time to be a master and slave. A woman can agree to be man’s slave to have sex. Since sex with slaves is allowed, every single moslem man can now get away with it.
2. Lying is a sin allowed in Islam. When Moslems are in minority, they can lie about being friends with non Moslems, however, in their hearts they are to curse.
3. Murder is a sin but in Islam you are justified to murder the apostates and non Moslems.
4. Lust is a sin but Mohammad lusted after Zayneb so much that his adopted son had to divorce his wife so that Mohammad could have what he lusted for.
5. Stealing is a sin. How many caravans did Mohammad looted.
So on and so forth.

Some food for thought for you. If you are really seeking after the true and living God, then pray to God to open your eyes and give you wisdom to discern between right and wrong. Only if God opens your eyes then you can see how Islam has blinded your eyes.

Search 4 Truth said...

SAMATAR HAS IGNORED EVERY ONE OF MY POSTINGS THAT REFUTE HIM.

Tell us Samatar why do you ignore all of the evidence I have produced? You have not responded one single time. Go all the way back to my first posting. And you will see Mohamed torturing people for no other reason then for his greed. And taking captives for no other reason then his lust. the way he lusted after his daughter in law.

no matter what evidence anyone provides for Samater he will never accept it. He cherry picks what he wants to accept or respond to.

Search 4 Truth said...

Narrated Aisha: I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).' (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."
Sahih Bukhari 6:60:311


Tabari IX:139 - "You are a self-respecting girl, but the prophet is a womanizer."

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Samatar,

You don't have to wait till May you can tell us now.


How do you know Islam is the "true" religion?

cornholio said...

Muslo-nazis aren't used to defending their religion -- because in ALL their islamofascist hellholes there is NO DEBATE whatsoever, because anyone criticising Islam would end up dead or in jail. Raja Petra, a muslim related to the royal family of Malaysia was thrown in jail for challenging the islamic beliefs about Jews and Judaism. He has been the subject of endless persecution in Malaysia, sometimes being held without charge or bail.

Derek Adams said...

Samatar make sure to email me and set up the debate/discussion before MAY

dk@answeringabraham.com

Now in this thread here, remember also DON'T FORGET to address the fact Islamic DCT doesn't actually resolve anything, it has all the same problems as Christian DCT.

Don't forget to address the fact that 'objectively speaking' marrying a 9 year of child is wrong.

cornholio said...

Bias and bigotry against islam and muslo-nazis is fully justified. Justified by the ideology that muhammad preached and practiced. Justified on practically a daily basis by the actions of muslimes in carrying out their ideology of hatred, xenophobia and antisemitism all over the world in the here and now.

Foolster41 said...

Samatar: What about the "Abrahamic fulfillment" paradox? (my name for it)

1.Islam claims to be a fulfillment of Christianity and Judaism.

2.Islam contradicts the tenets of Christianity and even misrepresents Christianity and Judism (Christ is not God, Mary is part of the trinity, Jews worshiped Ezra)


2b.Islam incorporates pagan elements of arabia at the time that have nothing to do with Jewish or Chrisitan teaching

3.To explain this, muslims claim that Christianity/Judeism was corrupted.

4.However, we have documents of the old and new testament from BEFORE Mohammad was even born (NT starting at around the 2nd century) that match with the bibles of today.

5.Thus Islam has to be false.

How do you reconcile this paradox? Unless Mohammad believes that Christians traveled back in time to before he was born, I don't see how Islam can be true.
(Now watch as Samatar ignores this!)

tiwas said...

@ Samatar

You said:
"I always tell christians, hindus, etc... that I am willing to leave Islam, given they show me actual evidence that Islam is not the true religion of God. And I have yet to come across convincing evidence that Islam is not true."

But, there already plenty of evidence given in this blog. So, just what kind of 'actual evidence' that you're asking for?

For example, the biggest blunder in the Quran would be about the crucifixion of Jesus. An event that is so well attested in history, yet denied in the Quran?

Can't you see the consequences of this blunder on Islam, which claimed that the Quran as the exact word given by God?

I'm sure you know that. Just that you don't want to accept them. It's very sad.

dstewart said...

"I have yet to come across convincing evidence that Islam is not true."

Apparently, you have yet to come across convincing evidence that Islam IS true.