History of Islamic Terror

Archived and locked <i>Read Only</i>
Kai Hagbard
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 10:45 am
Location: Europe-Asia

History of Islamic Terror

Postby Kai Hagbard » Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:32 am

Islam is frequently portrayed by Islam as a religion of peace. Indeed these same voices attempt to portray the history of Islam as everything but negative.

I will start of this thread by looking at the Armenian Genocide, in which the Islamic regime of Turkey 1915-1918 butchered no less than 1.5 million Christians.

These Christians were deported to concentrations camps (death camps) of which most died on the actual transport.

The victims of the genocide (Christian men, women and children), faced total devastation, starvation, torture, death by all horrible means, even crucifixion.

The Koran teaches:

9:29 Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


48:29 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe (or ruthless, vehement) against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.


9:123 O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you...


No wonders therefore that history has revealed the fruit of Islam:

Image

Christian victims of Islamic terror

Mass-genocide of Christians committed by the Islamic regime:

Image

Image

The mass-Killing of Christian women and children

Image

Image

Image

Christian children (orphans) left to starve on the street

Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4321:
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.


Image

Image

Christian martyrs beheaded:

Image


Image

Image

And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the Word of God (Revelation 20: 4)


Christian martyrs hanged:

Image

Christian martyrs (all ages) awaiting their destiny:

Image

Image

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:25 pm

How many people have been killed by Christians since Biblical times?

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5195/victims.html

VICTIMS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH



"WONDERFUL EVENTS THAT TESTIFY TO GOD'S DIVINE GLORY"

Listed are only events that solely occurred on command or participation of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity. (List incomplete)

Ancient Pagans


As soon as Christianity became legal in the Roman Empire by imperial edict (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.
Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468]
Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]
Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..."
In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.
In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]
The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.
[DO19-25]

Mission


Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]
Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]
15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Number of victims unknown. [DO30]
16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused "greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".
Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage. [SH99, 225]

Crusades (1095-1291)


First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]
Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands. [WW23]
9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then Turkish), thousands respectively. [WW25-27]
Until January 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown) [WW30]
After 6/3/98 Antiochia (then Turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women and children) killed. [WW32-35]
Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents - save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. [EC60]
Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]
Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (Jewish, Muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]
In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude."
The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished." [TG79]
Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer in all of Palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition". One million victims of the first crusade alone. [WW41]
Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ". [WW45]
Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]
Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akkon 1291 probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone). [WW224]

Note: All figures according to contemporary (Christian) chroniclers.



Heretics and Atheists


Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]
Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between 372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]
Albigensians: the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians. [DO29]
The Albigensians (Cathars) viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept Roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]
Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (the greatest single mass murderer prior to the Nazi era) in 1209. Beziérs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Number of victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbors and friends) estimated between 20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]
Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed. [WW181]
Subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half the population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were exterminated. [WW183]
After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake 1324. [WW183]
Estimated one million victims (Cathar heresy alone), [WW183]
Other heresies: Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).
Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada, a former Dominican friar, allegedly was responsible for 10,220 burnings. [DO28]
John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]
Michael Sattler, leader of a baptist community, was burned at the stake in Rottenburg, Germany, May 20, 1527. Several days later his wife and other follwers were also executed. [KM]
University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna. [DO59]
Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori (Rome) on 2/17/1600.
Thomas Aikenhead, a twenty-year-old scottish student of Edinburgh University, was hanged for atheism and blasphemy.

Witches


From the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several thousand.
In the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or hanged. [WV]
Incomplete list of documented cases:
The Burning of Witches - A Chronicle of the Burning Times

Religious Wars


15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]
1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action). [DO31]
1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. [DO31]
Between 5000 and 6000 Protestants were drowned by Spanish Catholic Troops, "a disaster the burghers of Emden first realized when several thousand broad-brimmed Dutch hats floated by." [SH216]
1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]
17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader. After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ... to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and carrion for maggots and crows'." [SH191]
17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers." [SH191]
17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]

Jews


Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Christians. Number of Jews slain unknown.
In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388. [DA450]
694 17. Council of Toledo: Jews were enslaved, their property confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]
1010 The Bishop of Limoges (France) had the cities' Jews, who would not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]
1096 First Crusade: Thousands of Jews slaughtered, maybe 12.000 total. Places: Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons), Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund, Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations Germany except Metz/France, Prag/Czech) [EJ]
1147 Second Crusade: Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully, Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). [WW57]
1189/90 Third Crusade: English Jewish communities sacked. [DO40]
1235, Fulda/Germany: 34 Jewish men and women slain. [DO41]
1257, 1267: Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]
1290 Bohemia (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed. [DO41]
1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51 towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland. [DO41]
1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two thousand) burned. [DO41]
1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]
1389 In Prag 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. [DO42]
1391 Seville's Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were slain, 25,000 sold as slaves. [DA454] Their identification was made easy by the brightly colored "badges of shame" that all Jews above the age of ten had been forced to wear.
1492 In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than 150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way: 6/30/1492. [MM470-476]
1648 Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain. [DO43]



(I feel sick ...) this goes on and on, century after century, right into the kilns of Auschwitz.

Native Peoples


Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy Crusader) the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as a means to propagate Christianity.
Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered in the Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people who, he said, "ought to be good servants ... [and] would easily be made Christians, because it seemed to me that they belonged to no religion." [SH200]
While Columbus described the Indians as "idolators" and "slaves, as many as [the Crown] shall order," his pal Michele de Cuneo, Italian nobleman, referred to the natives as "beasts" because "they eat when they are hungry," and made love "openly whenever they feel like it." [SH204-205]
On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, "making the declarations that are required" - the requerimiento - to claim the ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And "nobody objected." If the Indians refused or delayed their acceptance (or understanding), the requerimiento continued:

"I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him." [SH66]
Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony: "justifieinge the undertakeres of the intended Plantation in New England ... to carry the Gospell into those parts of the world, ... and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome of the Ante-Christ." [SH235]
In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of "the marvelous goodness and providence of God" to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as "for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess." [SH109,238]
On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [SH204]
The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and Spanish raids.
As one of the culprits wrote: "So many Indians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous." [SH69]
The Indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell." [SH70]
What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
"The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive." [SH72]
Or, on another occasion:
"The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute beasts...Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs." [SH83]
The "island's population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out." Eventually all the island's natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus "the Caribbean's millions of native people [were] thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century". [SH72-73] "In less than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been exterminated." [SH75]
"And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitlán [Mexico city] was next." [SH75]
Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other Spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).
"When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead." [SH95]

Of course no different were the founders of what today is the US of America.


Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without native help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians. Warfare among (north American) Indians was rather harmless, in comparison to European standards, and was meant to avenge insults rather than conquer land. In the words of some of the pilgrim fathers: "Their Warres are farre less bloudy...", so that there usually was "no great slawter of nether side". Indeed, "they might fight seven yeares and not kill seven men." What is more, the Indians usually spared women and children. [SH111]
In the spring of 1612 some English colonists found life among the (generally friendly and generous) natives attractive enough to leave Jamestown - "being idell ... did runne away unto the Indyans," - to live among them (that probably solved a sex problem).
"Governor Thomas Dale had them hunted down and executed: 'Some he apointed (sic) to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheles, others to be staked and some shott to deathe'." [SH105] Of course these elegant measures were restricted for fellow Englishmen: "This was the treatment for those who wished to act like Indians. For those who had no choice in the matter, because they were the native people of Virginia" methods were different: "when an Indian was accused by an Englishman of stealing a cup and failing to return it, the English response was to attack the natives in force, burning the entire community" down. [SH105]
On the territory that is now Massachusetts the founding fathers of the colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the "Peqout War." The killers were New England Puritan Christians, refugees from persecution in their own home country England.
When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite the Indian chief's pledge they attacked.
Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of what they were after, because when they were greeted by Pequot Indians (long-time foes of the Narragansetts) the troops nevertheless made war on the Pequots and burned their villages.
The puritan commander-in-charge John Mason after one massacre wrote: "And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished ... God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven ... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies": men, women, children. [SH113-114]
So "the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and to give us their land for an inheritance". [SH111].
Because of his readers' assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to quote the words that immediately follow:
"Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them..." (Deut 20)
Mason's comrade Underhill recalled how "great and doleful was the bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers" yet reassured his readers that "sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents". [SH114]
Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to devour children from their mothers breasts, in the colonists' own words: "blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them." (This was inspired by Spanish methods of the time)
In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was near. [SH107-119]
The surviving handful of Indians "were parceled out to live in servitude. John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking for 'a share' of the captives, specifically 'a young woman or girle and a boy if you thinke good'." [SH115]
Other tribes were to follow the same path.
Comment the Christian exterminators: "God's Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his Beauty!"
"Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!" [TA]
Like today, lying was morally acceptable to Christians then. "Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them: when the Indians 'grow secure uppon (sic) the treatie', advised the Council of State in Virginia, 'we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cutt downe theire Corne'." [SH106]
In 1624 sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenseless Indian men, women and children. [SH107]
In a single massacre in "King Philip's War" of 1675 and 1676 some "600 Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a 'barbeque'." [SH115]
To summarize: Before the arrival of the English, the western Abenaki people in New Hampshire and Vermont had numbered 12,000. Less than half a century later about 250 remained alive - a destruction rate of 98%. The Pocumtuck people had numbered more than 18,000, fifty years later they were down to 920 - 95% destroyed. The Quiripi-Unquachog people had numbered about 30,000, fifty years later they were down to 1500 - 95% destroyed. The Massachusetts people had numbered at least 44,000, fifty years later barely 6000 were alive - 81% destroyed. [SH118] These are only a few examples of the multitude of tribes living before Christian colonists set their foot on the New World. All this was before the smallpox epidemics of 1677 and 1678 had occurred. And the carnage was not over then.
All the above was only the beginning of the European colonization, it was before the frontier age actually had begun.
A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery.
In many countries, such as Brazil, and Guatemala, this continues even today.

More Glorious Events in U.S. History


Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England's most esteemed religious leaders, in "1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs 'to hunt Indians as they do bears'." [SH241]


Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church ("I long to be wading in gore") had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving with a white flag: 400-500 killed.
From an eye-witness account: "There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were afterwards killed ..." [SH131]
More gory details.


By the 1860s, "in Hawai'i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the carnage that by then had reduced those islands' native population by 90 percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected total die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this missionary said, somewhat equivalent to 'the amputation of diseased members of the body'." [SH244]

20th Century Church Atrocities


Catholic extermination camps
Surprisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveliç, a practicing Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!
In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar - orthodox-Christian Serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdienst der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did nothing to prevent them. [MV]


Catholic terror in Vietnam
In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters - the Viet Minh - had finally defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2 billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all (most non-Buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South. With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman, the Vatican's spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the U.S. forces in Vietnam "Soldiers of Christ", a scheme was concocted to prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]
Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman Catholicism.
The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read:

"Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp."

Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of Buddhist protesters and monks were imprisoned in "detention camps." Out of protest dozens of Buddhist teachers - male and female - and monks poured gasoline over themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned themselves: in comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile some of the prison camps, which in the meantime were filled with Protestant and even Catholic protesters as well, had turned into no-nonsense death camps. It is estimated that during this period of terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded - mostly in street riots - 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention camps. [MW76-89].
To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of American GI's lost their life.


Christianity kills the cat
On July 1, 1976, Anneliese Michel, a 23-year-old student of a teachers college in Germany, died: she starved herself to death. For months she had been haunted by demonic visions and apparitions, and for months two Catholic priests - with explicit approval of the Catholic bishop of Würzburg - additionally pestered and tormented the wretched girl with their exorcist rituals. After her death in Klingenberg hospital - her body was littered with wounds - her parents, both of them fanatical Catholics, were sentenced to six months for not having called for medical help. None of the priests was punished: on the contrary, Miss Michel's grave today is a place of pilgrimage and worship for a number of similarly faithful Catholics (in the seventeenth century Würzburg was notorious for it's extensive witch burnings).
This case is only the tip of an iceberg of such evil superstition and has become known only because of its lethal outcome. [SP80]


Rwanda Massacres
In 1994 in the small African country of Rwanda in just a few months several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a conflict of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.
For quite some time I heard only rumors about Catholic clergy actively involved in the 1994 Rwanda massacres. Odd denials of involvement were printed in Catholic church journals, before even anybody had openly accused members of the church.
Then, 10/10/96, in the newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany - a station not at all critical to Christianity - the following was stated:

"Anglican as well as Catholic priests and nuns are suspect of having actively participated in murders. Especially the conduct of a certain Catholic priest has been occupying the public mind in Rwanda's capital Kigali for months. He was minister of the church of the Holy Family and allegedly murdered Tutsis in the most brutal manner. He is reported to have accompanied marauding Hutu militia with a gun in his cowl. In fact there has been a bloody slaughter of Tutsis seeking shelter in his parish. Even two years after the massacres many Catholics refuse to set foot on the threshold of their church, because to them the participation of a certain part of the clergy in the slaughter is well established. There is almost no church in Rwanda that has not seen refugees - women, children, old - being brutally butchered facing the crucifix.
According to eyewitnesses clergymen gave away hiding Tutsis and turned them over to the machetes of the Hutu militia.
In connection with these events again and again two Benedictine nuns are mentioned, both of whom have fled into a Belgian monastery in the meantime to avoid prosecution. According to survivors one of them called the Hutu killers and led them to several thousand people who had sought shelter in her monastery. By force the doomed were driven out of the churchyard and were murdered in the presence of the nun right in front of the gate. The other one is also reported to have directly cooperated with the murderers of the Hutu militia. In her case again witnesses report that she watched the slaughtering of people in cold blood and without showing response. She is even accused of having procured some petrol used by the killers to set on fire and burn their victims alive..." [S2]

More recently the BBC aired:

Priests get death sentence for Rwandan genocide
BBC NEWS April 19, 1998

A court in Rwanda has sentenced two Roman Catholic priests to death for their role in the genocide of 1994, in which up to a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed. Pope John Paul said the priests must be made to account for their actions. Different sections of the Rwandan church have been widely accused of playing an active role in the genocide of 1994...


As can be seen from these events, to Christianity the Dark Ages never come to an end.



If today Christians talk to me about morality, this is why they make me sick.
References
[DA]
K.Deschner, Abermals krähte der Hahn, Stuttgart 1962.
[DO]
K.Deschner, Opus Diaboli, Reinbek 1987.
[EC]
P.W.Edbury, Crusade and Settlement, Cardiff Univ. Press 1985.
[EJ]
S.Eidelberg, The Jews and the Crusaders, Madison 1977.
[HA]
Hunter, M., Wootton, D., Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment, Oxford 1992.
[KM]
Schröder-Kappus, E., Wagner, W., Michael Sattler. Ein Märtyrer in Rottenburg, Tübingen, TVT Media 1992.
[LI]
H.C.Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, New York 1961.
[MM]
M.Margolis, A.Marx, A History of the Jewish People.
[MV]
A.Manhattan, The Vatican's Holocaust, Springfield 1986.
See also V.Dedijer, The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican, Buffalo NY, 1992.
[NC]
J.T.Noonan, Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, Cambridge/Mass., 1992.
[S2]
Newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany, 10/10/96, 12:00.
[SH]
D.Stannard, American Holocaust, Oxford University Press 1992.
[SP]
German news magazine Der Spiegel, no.49, 12/2/1996.
[TA]
A True Account of the Most Considerable Occurrences that have Hapned in the Warre Between the English and the Indians in New England, London 1676.
[TG]
F.Turner, Beyond Geography, New York 1980.
[WW]
H.Wollschläger: Die bewaffneten Wallfahrten gen Jerusalem, Zürich 1973.
(This is in german and what is worse, it is out of print. But it is the best I ever read about crusades and includes a full list of original medieval Christian chroniclers' writings).
[WV]
Estimates on the number of executed witches:

N.Cohn, Europe's Inner Demons: An Enquiry Inspired by the Great Witch Hunt, Frogmore 1976, 253.
R.H.Robbins, The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, New York 1959, 180.
J.B.Russell, Witchcraft in the Middle Ages, Ithaca/NY 1972, 39.
H.Zwetsloot, Friedrich Spee und die Hexenprozesse, Trier 1954, 56.

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:32 pm

Mission: Possible
If You are a Missionary, then Genocide is Your Profession

http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/mission.html

Oh, how happy a thing had it been,
if you had converted some before you killed any!
John Robinson, Puritan Minister
about some massacred Native Americans, ca. 1630

ARE not missionaries those nice and friendly people who, abroad, in some distant, underdeveloped countries, do good, feed hungry children, and teach the ignorant, savage, or uneducated population?

Do you really believe this?

Almost certainly you belong to the majority of people who have seen them walking around with their collecting-boxes, maybe even put some coins into them. In any case, since the missionary organizations near all have tax exempt status, if you ever paid taxes, you have indirectly funded them.

What exactly did you support?

Excerpt from the genocide convention:
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

MISSIONARIES have done all of the above, and continue to do most of these things even today (supported with your money, donations, and taxes).

Since the effects of missionary work, the cultural traditions of a people being replaced by some form of Christianity, are intentional, this means by definition that genocide is the missionary profession: converting other peoples to Christianity and thus destroying them as an ethnical group, and denying the right of native peoples to exist as what they are, with their own culture, language, religion. For a variety of reasons a massive depopulation, in other words the death of a large percentage of the native population, follows.

You say this is history? I'm afraid it is not. Just a few years ago, on a concert tour in Italy, I've seen the mission shops in Assissi (the place of Saint Francis) run by monks who sell the sculptures and other articles the wretched mission Indians must make for them...
Read about missionaries today.

See also this link: The Akha Hill People
Tahiti | California | Mission Today
Tahiti.

Let us see how missionaries - like a contagious disease infecting civilizations - annihilate native cultures, destroy the happiness of peoples, and depopulate countries even without actively killing them...
(reading this account of missionary conquest for the first time left me almost speechless with anger:)
IN 1767 THE ENGLISH navigator Wallis discovered the island of Tahiti. His visit was rapidly followed by those of the French explorer de Bougainville, and Captain James Cook... All three captains were overwhelmed by their reception at the hands of the people of Tahiti, and by the gifts showered upon them... When Cook left Tahiti... he wrote in his journal: "I directed my course to the West and we took our final leave of these happy islands and the good people on them." Some years later he was to write: "It would have been far better for these poor people never to have known us."

Captain Bligh of the Bounty - that stern judge of men - was if possible more impressed...: "I left these happy islanders with much distress, for the utmost affection, regard and good fellowship was among us during our stay..." A few days later the famous mutiny on the Bounty took place, due to the determination of members of his crew not to return to England but to remain and settle on the islands where they had found so much happiness...

A counter-attack by the religious orthodoxy of the day was inevitable. In 1795 the London Missionary Society was formed, its immediate attention focused upon the Pacific; two years later a convict ship bound for Australia put the first missionaries ashore on Tahiti. They, too, were overwhelmed by the warmth of their welcome...

The Tahitians built their houses, fed them, and provided them with servants galore, but after seven years not a convert had been made. Children called upon to line up and repeat over and over again this simple verse in Tahitian did so obligingly and with good grace,

No te iaha e ridi mei ei Jehove ia oe?
For what is Jehova angry with thee?
No te taata ino wou no to'u hamani ino
Because I am evil and do evil.

But another seven years of such attempted indoctrination produced no results, then suddenly the great breakthrough took place. The device which eventually established the unswerving missionary rule is described in a letter to home by one of the brethren, J.M.Orsmond. "All the missionaries were at that time salting pork and distilling spirits... Pomare (the local chief) had a large share..." Orsmond describes the compact by which Pomare, reduced to an alcoholic, would be backed in a war against the other island chiefs on the understanding that his victory would be followed by enforced conversion. Since Pomare was supplied with firearms to be used against his opponents clubs, victory was certain. "The whole nation", Orsmond wrote, "was converted in a day."

There followed a reign of terror. Persistent unbelievers were put to death and a penal code was drawn up by the missionaries and enforced by the mission police... it was declared illegal to adorn oneself with flowers, to sing (other than hymns), ...to surf or to dance... Within a quarter of a century the process by which the native culture of Tahiti had been extinguished was exported to every corner of the Pacific, reducing the islanders to the level of the working class of Victorian England.

...After their mass conversion it was hoped that the Tahitians might be induced to accept the benefits of civilization by putting them to [servile] work growing sugar cane... The enterprise failed, and Mr Orsmond, believing that "a too bountiful nature ... diminishes men's natural desire to work", ordered all the breadfruit trees to be cut down. By this time the population of Tahiti had been reduced by syphilis, tuberculosis, smallpox, and influenza from the 200,000 estimated by Cook to 18,000. After thirty years of missionary rule, only 6,000 remained.

Their power base firmly established in Tahiti, the missionaries moved swiftly to the outer islands... The methods employed were the same as before. A local chieftain would be baptized, crowned king, presented with a portrait of Queen Victoria, introduced to the bottle, and left to the work of conversion...A moral code of such strictness was then enforced that a man walking with his arm round a woman at night was compelled to carry a lantern in his free hand. On the island of Raiatea a man who forecast the weather ... was treated as a witchdoctor and put to death.

By 1850 the conquest of the Pacific was complete...Once the lives of the Polynesian and Melanesian people had been intertwined with the processes of creation. They seemed under compulsion to decorate everything [such as] the enormously tall prows of their canoes into which they carved such intricate designs...The desire to produce beautiful things has gone...Island dances, reduced to grass-skirts and swaying hips, are for tourist consumption, and the islanders' songs seem lugubrious as if they have never freed themselves of the influence of the gloomy hymn-chanting...
[LM1-8]

California.
THIS is what happened in California a little more than a century ago, in the Spanish missions...

[T]he Puritan minister John Robinson had complained to Plymouth's William Bradford that although a group of massacred Indians no doubt "deserved" to be killed, "Oh, how happy a thing had it been, if you had converted some before you killed any!" [Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 374f]

That was probably the only thing the New England Puritans and California's Spanish Catholics would have agreed upon. So, using armed Spanish troops, to capture Indians and herd them into the mission stockades, the Spanish padres did their best to convert the natives before they killed them.

And kill them they did... At the mission of Nuestra Señora de Loreto, reported the Franciscan chronicler Father Francisco Paloú, during the first three years of Franciscan rule 76 children and adults were baptized, while 131 were buried... The same held true at others, from the mission of Santa Rosaliá de Mulegé, with 48 baptisms and 113 deaths, to the mission of San Ignacio, with 115 baptisms and 293 deaths - all within the same initial three year period.

For some missions, such as those of San José del Cabo and Santiago de las Coras, no baptism or death statistics were reported, because there were so few survivors [...] that there was no reason for counting [...] And what was done was simply that they brought more natives in, under military force of arms.

In short, the missions were furnaces of death that sustained their Indian population levels for as long as they did only by driving more and more natives into their confines to compensate for the huge numbers who were being killed once they got there. [...] Thus for example, one survey of life and death in an early Arizona mission has turned up statistics showing that at one time an astonishing 93 percent of the children born within its walls died before the age of ten - and yet the mission's total population did not drastically decline. [SH136f]

There were various ways in which the mission Indians died. [...] The personal living space for Indians in the missions averaged about seven feet by two feet per person for unmarried captives, who were locked at night into sex-segregated common rooms that contained a single open pit for a toilet. It was perhaps a bit more space than was allotted a captive African in the hold of a slave ship sailing the Middle Passage. [...] Of course, the mission Indians also worked like slaves in the padres' agricultural fields, but they did so with far less than half the caloric intake, on average, commonly provided a black slave in Mississippi, Alabama, or Georgia. [SH138]

As one French visitor commented in the early nineteenth century, after inspecting life in the missions, the relationship between the priest and his flock "would ... be different only in name if a slaveholder kept them for labor and rented them out at will ..." But, we know now, he would have fed them better. [SH139]

The padres were also concerned about the continuing catastrophic decline in the number of babies born to their neophyte charges... here is a first-hand account of what happened at mission Santa Cruz when a holy and ascetic padre named Ramon Olbés came to the conclusion that one particular married couple was behaving with excessive sexual inhibition, thereby depriving him of another child to enslave and another soul to offer up to Christ:

He [Father Olbés] sent for the husband and he asked him why his wife hadn't borne children... they brought an interpreter. This [one] repeated the question of the father to the Indian, who answered that he should ask God. The father asked through the interpreter if he slept with his wife, to which the Indian said yes. Then the father had them placed in a room together so that they would perform coitus in his presence. The Indian refused, but they forced him to show them his penis in order to affirm that he had it in good order... Fr. Olbés asked her if her husband slept with her, and she answered that, yes... He had her enter another room in order to examine her reproductive parts.
At this point the woman resisted the padre's attempted forced inspection; for that impertinence she received fifty lashes, was "shackled, and locked in the nunnery." He then gave her a wooden doll and ordered her to carry it with her, "like a recently born child," wherever she went. [SH141]

There was, of course, good reason for the Indians to fear the consequences of running away and being caught:

Some of the run-away men were tied on sticks and beaten with straps. One chief was taken out to the open field and a young calf which had just died was skinned and the chief was sewed into the skin while it was yet warm. He was kept tied to a stake all day, but he died soon and they kept his corpse tied up.


[SH142]

Mission today.

IN A HOST OF COUNTRIES, from Southeast Asia to nearly the whole of Southern America, in countries such as Malaysia, Mexico, Guatemala, Brazil, Paraguay, Venezuela, Bolivia, U.S. funded missionary organizations and evangelists continue to bring destruction, unhappiness, and diseases to native peoples such as the Moï, the Maya-Quiché, the Huichol, the Yanomami, the Panaré, the Aché even today [LM]. Among the more notorious organizations are the Summer Institute of Linguistics and the New Tribes Mission (NTM), these two "virtually dividing the whole of Latin America, where tribal people remained to be reached, into their spheres of interest." [LM105].

Activities like these are supported with funds provided by zealous evangelist organizations in the U.S., such as the "Wycliffe Bible Translators of Arkansas."

While openly genocidal campaigns to exterminate the last forest Indians of Southern America began in the 1950's, with governmental support, for example...


The Nhambiquera Indians were mowed down by machine-gun fire
Two tribes of the Patachos were exterminated by giving them smallpox injections
A favourite method employed on several occasions was to shower gifts from a plane over a village ... booby trapped with explosive devices
[LM99]

...the missionaries effect their mopping up efforts from the other end. To learn what missionaries do today let us follow two visits to protestant Missions in Southern America, as recorded by eyewitnesses less than two decades ago, the first leading us to an NTM mission station in Paraguay.

WE LEFT before dawn the next day in Riester's Land Rover, and found the missionary camp at the end of a jungle track, along which threatening notices had been posted in the hope of keeping visitors away. Nearer the centre of the camp grimed and dishevelled women squatted round a fire on which a tortoise was being cooked... In the centre of the camp we found a large wooden hut with several male Ayoreos propped against its walls... dazed with apathy and unable or unwilling to speak...

A commotion began, led by some weeping women, who had broken through to tell us that the camp's water-supply had been cut off as a punishment for some offence, and that many sick children in the camp had been without water for some days. It seemed a matter of urgency to do something to rectify this situation so we went to see the missionary, Mr Depue, whose trim compound was adjacent to the bedraggled camp area... Mr Depue and his family were at lunch when we arrived and we were shown into an anteroom... After Mr Depue had said grace the family rose from the table... and Mr Depue joined us...

He unhesitatingly confirmed that he had ordered a collective punishment he believed most effective to deal with a case in which two or three children had broken into a store... There was to be no more water until the culprits were found, and brought into his compound there to be publicly thrashed.

"Would you be administering the thrashing, Mr Depue?" I asked.

"That is my intention," he said, "although I should not be averse to supervising the necessary chastisement undertaken by another person. But I'm afraid that's unlikely."

He went on to explain... in all the many years he had spent as a missionary he had never heard of a single instance of an Indian punishing a child...

"And do you still believe that this is a better life?" I asked Mr Depue.
"Yes," he said. "I cannot describe to you in words how much better it is."
"The Ayoreos who left the camp and went to Santa Cruz," I told him, "are living on the women's earnings from prostitution."
"There would be little alternative," he said..."I am only comforted by the knowledge that a soul once truly saved can never be lost." [LM119-122]

Of course a different picture is painted in the many colorful books and leaflets published by the missionary headquarters, intended for readers back home: "Missionary descriptions of such operations are often disarmingly simple and direct... God Planted Five Seeds, by Jean Dye Johnson, a classic of its kind, is the account of a young missionary wife... Only once in 213 pages does she refer to Indians, and then in quotes, as if real Indians were to be found only in North America. Otherwise the mission is out to capture 'naked savages', or bárbaros...

Mrs Johnson noted that the householders, 'most of whom owned ranches or farms just out of town were shameless in their desire to get their hands on some Ayoreo who would become a labourer without pay'.

The use in this passage of the adjective 'shameless' is the single example of implied criticism in this book of the servitude imposed on the Indians. For years Mrs Johnson lived among 'captives' and 'labourers without pay', but the word 'slave' is never used. On a single occasion she expressed regret for the murder of an Indian.

He (Paul Fleming, founder and head of the NTM) was troubled by the fact that the second search party had killed a savage.

Mrs Johnson's concern here is likely to have been less with the death of a savage, which was a matter of frequent occurrence, than with the mission's responsibility for a soul's condemnation to everlasting hell." [LM123f]

"Contact work, one learns from a study of the missionary publications, when not undertaken by the missionaries themselves is confined to native 'deacons'. These, in the style of the London Missionary Society's police of old, carry guns. At this time some 850 Ayoreos thus contacted are in NTM camps, and a very large, but unrecorded number have died. Cultural Survival, a US organization not wholly unsympathetic to missionary endeavour, admitted that inmates of an NTM camp... were held against their will. In the legal sense, therefore, they had been kidnapped." [LM127]

Missionary accounts of their activities display almost incredible insensitivity. A letter back home from the McClure family, dated March 1979 reads:

Dear Prayer Partners,

Early last year we asked you to claim 1978 as the year we contacted the Totobigosode or 'pig people'. The Following is what your prayers have effected.
It started the 28th December... [on] a site about 200 kilometres from El Faro [...] When the El Faro men were close they started shouting their names, and that they had come in peace. To this the 'pig people' shouted back, 'These men are saying that they have come in peace but what if it is a trick, because they have done this to us long ago.'
The turning point seemed to come when Cadui, one of the El Faro men, threw his rifle behind him and walked forward... However, they had to wait three days before all the women were rounded up; they were scared to death. One lady was injured when she fell from a tree. [She broke a leg in two places and was obliged to walk back to the mission on it, and subsequently died. Ed.] It was a joyous occasion when we arrived at the mission station...
The El Faro Indians and missionaries are just praising the Lord for his faithfulness in bringing all this about...

Reaching the lost for Christ,

The McClures [LM127]

The following is the description of a visit to a Mennonite mission station, an offshoot of a Mennonite missionary colony in Paraguay, where about three hundred Aché Indians were supposed to live.

THE MENNONITE colony enjoys some degree of autonomy, and to go there permission had to be obtained at the Mennonite headquarters in Asunción... the Mennonites commonly referred to their Indian charges (German is the language of the [main] colony) as unsere schwartze arschlöche [1] (our black arseholes). The North American evangelists, primmer by nature, prefer the description "savages", "naked savages" - or in the case of those who resist contact, "treacherous savages" - all of which terms are repeated endlessly in their publications...

Two days later the permission to visit the Mennonite colony came through... Halfway between Coronel and Caaguazú a notice proclaimed that we were entering the National Guayaki Reserve...

We found ourselves quite suddenly in a wide clearing at the end of which, from its size and style, was clearly the mission house... The first thing I noticed, apart from the presence of several Indian women in near rags mooching about in the neighbourhood of the huts, was the smell of human excrement. A white man in mechanic's overalls had been tinkering with a piece of machinery and now he straightened himself and came forward, with a look of suppressed anger. This was Mr Jim Stolz, the missionary-in-chief... Mrs Stolz now came out of the house. She invited us into the house... A moment before several hefty-looking young Americans had appeared as if from nowhere, and were closing in on us, and, a little nervous at the way things might develop, I warned Donald to get away and take what photographs he could while I engaged Mr Stolz... He agreed that no "wild" Aché were to be found anywhere in the vicinity, and those recently arrived had come from a long way away. What made them come? I asked and Mr Stolz said, "Maybe they heard this was a good place to be in."

There were many enslaved children in the neighbourhood... "It's the smart thing to own an Aché round here," he said... It was hard to believe that Indians would have faced these terrible hazards to reach what had been frequently described as a death camp.

Donald was anxious to photograph Achés playing their musical instruments; their flutes and above all a species of one-string fiddle... Mr Stolz said flatly that there were no musical instruments of any kind on the reservation. Did the Indians perform any traditional ceremonies? I asked. No, he said, none. Were there any chiefs? No. Any medicine-men? Absolutely not...

At this point I decided to ask Mr Stolz what was the function of the mission and he replied that it was to bring salvation to those who were in a state of sin... He had a problem with their language, he added, but at least he knew that they believed in three gods: the tiger (jaguar), the alligator, and the grandfather. "This makes things difficult... It's hard to get across the idea they can be redeemed from sin by a tiger's son nailed to a cross. None of these Indians can make the admission, because they do not know what to admit."

I now joined Donald at his photography, noticing that several young missionaries, not in evidence before, had come on the scene. We investigated small huts in the immediate area of the mission house. These averaged some 15ft square and it was difficult to imagine how as many as three hundred Indians could have been sheltered in them. We saw about thirty-five Achés in all... There were a half-dozen boys between eight and twelve years of age, and two girls in this age-bracket, all with the distended stomachs and decayed teeth suggestive of malnutrition...

There appeared to be no sanitary arrangements in the camp area, which smelt vilely as a result.

If there had ever in fact been three hundred Indians - and presuming women were not compelled to work with their menfolk on the farms - men would have outnumbered women 15 to 1. There were no young girls... Where had all the girl children gone? [2]

About half the Indian adults were lying on the ground in their huts in what seemed a condition of total apathy, giving no evidence of awareness of our presence as we came and went. There were gaps of up to six inches between the planks from which the walls of the huts were made, and, as these had failed to exclude the torrential rain, the floors had turned to mud, over which an occasional board had been laid. We saw no signs of food anywhere in the huts - no scraps or leftovers.

Outside, little boys with distended stomachs under their filthy shirts who came running up to stroke our hands and caress our fingers (the Achés are the most affectionate and outgoing of the Indian races) showed us their tame lizards. [LM160ff]

Conclusion.
While some of these examples of missionary activities in history and present indeed remind me of actual death camps, however, all of them end in the destruction and depopulation of what once was the home of happy native cultures. Therefore, regardless of their respective intentions, I cannot see any relevant difference between missionaries and the Nazi henchmen (except that in Nazi death camps there were musical instruments).

As long as operations like these can claim tax-exempt status, your money and taxes support these activities.

Notes.
[1]
Error of the English author of the quote: correct German would be unsere schwarzen Arschlöcher, (not that it really matters).
[2]
(Note included in the original text:) It has been alleged that young girls from Cecilio Baez, and girl victims of manhunts in other parts of Paraguay, were sent to child brothels reported a speciality of Asunción. In December 1977 the Washington Post published a harrowing account of such establishments catering for the "sexual depravity among high government officials".

References
[LM]
N.Lewis, The Missionaries, New York: McGraw-Hill 1988.
[SH]
D.E.Stannard, American Holocaust. Columbus and the Conquest of the New World, New York: Oxford University 1992.

Kai Hagbard
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 10:45 am
Location: Europe-Asia

Postby Kai Hagbard » Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:37 pm

Kai writes:

Fdjohan posted an article from:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5195/index.html

First of all let me point out that the articles you quoted has been posted by Muslims here on this forum at least five times, and usually plagiarized.

However, and I shall get back to this later, the particular article signifies nothing of relevance to the subject of this post.

Sure this post presents historical elements about atrocities, but if you look at my post again, you will notice that I laid a foundational ground, which included and resulted from the teachings of Islam, the Koran and the Hadith.

The article you posted simply revealed historical atrocities of which many were done in the name of Christianity or by individuals whose culture was Christianized. Nothing in the article indicated that the particular acts were grounded in the teachings of the Gospels or the New Testament Epistles.

Christians deplore and feel disgusted over all atrocities especially those committed by so called Christians or in the name Christianity.

What do I mean by this?

Well, the New Testament nowhere permits or even encourages invasion, killing, war, taking slaves, rape; in fact original Christianity is not even political, in the sense that it rule over people.

Hence true Christianity must be understood first and most from its text rather from history. Which implies that UNLESS HISTORY PRESENTS the CHRISTIANTIY OF THE TEXT, we are NOT LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY AT ALL.

Pretty much as stating that Muslims worship Shiva, just because some

Muslims in history may have practiced such a trend!

Matthew 5 says:

3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


How does this passage resemble the history you just posted?

The Christian standard is:

"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword (Matthew 26: 52).


In fact someone who murders has proven that he is not of the faith:

Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him (1 John 3: 15).


The Bible makes it very clear that not all who claim to be Christians are Christians; who they really are can be determined from their life; as

Christianity is a change of life:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come (2 Cor.5: 17)!


Jesus stated therefore that the true Christians are those who do the Father’s will:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers! (Matthew 7: 21-22)'


What is doing the Father’s will? Invading, killing, imposing the Christendom by force?

Not really!

Jesus continues:

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life (Matthew 25: 31-46)."


A so called Christian or a Christian nation who refrains from the Christian standard IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED to present TRUE CHRISTIANITY:

3We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did (1 John 2: 3-5).


7Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. 9No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
11This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous. 13Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you. 14We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.
16This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. 17If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? 18Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. 19This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence 20whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.
21Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him. 23And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us (1 John 3: 3-24).


Christians were never told to invade, enforce or impose but to preach, teach, live and testify:

18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age (Matthew 28: 18-20)."


[b]Hence I CHALLENGE YOU to point out WHERE in the New Testament any of such atrocities are permitted.

Any historian knows that Christianity in the fourth and fifth century was highly distorted (not in its books) politically. Virtually since Christianity became the trend, the multitudes entered Christianity without conversion or any proper understanding of its fundamentals.

In the fourth and fifth century and beyond as nations became Christianized, there was no emphasis on holy living, discipleship or following Christ. Through out the centuries this led to devastation, as the multitudes were mislead, bound by superstition, the papal order, ridiculous politic.

People were indeed killed, including those who followed the truth.

Hence there is a significant difference between Biblical and true Christianity and the fallacy of the historical state church and the influence of Christendom, or Christianized communities.

Kai Hagbard
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 10:45 am
Location: Europe-Asia

Postby Kai Hagbard » Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:48 pm

CONCERNING ISLAM THE SITUATION IS RATHER DIFFERENT

I was able to trace the history of Islamic atrocities back to sources which lay the foundation for the Islamic faith.

MY CHALLENGE TO YOU IS, IF YOU CAN POST ME THE EVIDENCES OF THE ATTROCITIES OF CHRIST, THE DISCIPLES AND THE EARLY CHURCH, THEN YOU HAVE MADE A POINT.

BUT LET’S DO A COMPARISON:

Islam TEACHES the Muslim to fight the pagans, the Jews and Christians and submit them:

9:29 Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


Islam is to fight those who worship idols, until none are left

2:193 Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil doers.


Muslims are to be hard and harsh with those who do not believe:

9:123 O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you


48:29 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe (or ruthless, vehement) against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.


Muslims are not allowed to agociate peace with the enemy:

47:35 So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam), while you are having the upper hand. Allah is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds.


Muslims are told to engage in Jihad even though they do not like it:

2:216 Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.


There is a reward for those who engage in Jihad

4:95 Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward;


You cannot exclude genocide from the Jihad commanded by the Koran:

When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah." (Sahih Bukhari 4.280)


According to Muhammad killing the male unbelievers and enslaving the
women and children (e.g. for sexual purposes as I will point out later in this post) is a judgement similar to the judgement of Allah; in other words

THIS IS DIVINE WISDOM, or what?

Even children could be included

Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4321:
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.


IF CHRISTIANITY IS SUCH A RELIGION OF EVIL AS YOU ARE PROPOSING, YOU PLEASE POST TO US THE PASSAGES FROM THE NEW TESTAMENTS, FROM THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES WHICH OBLIGATE OR ENCOURAGE, WAR, INVASION, SUBMISSION OF ENEMIES AND KILLING.

I HAVE JUST PROVEN TO YOU THAT ISLAM, NOT ONLY IN ITS HISTORY BUT PRIMARILY THROUGH ITS HOLY WRITINGS DEMANDS SUCH EVIL AND SUCH ATTROCITIES.

The genocide of Jews

Narrated Abu Huraira: 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."

COULD YOU PLEASE SHOW US FROM THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST AND FROM JESUS WHERE WE AS CHRISTIANS ARE TOLD OR EVEN ENCOURAGED TO HATE OR KILL JEWS?

The killing of women and children IN ISLAM

Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4321:
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.


COULD YOU PLEASE TELL US WHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT WE ARE
TOLD TO ATTACK OUR ENEMIES, KILL THE MEN AND GIVE A HECK IF WE KILL THEIR WOMEN AND CHILDREN?

AND WHAT DID MUHAMMAD MEAN BY: THEY ARE OF THEM, IS IT NOT BECAUSE THE BLOOD OF A MUSLIM HAS MORE VALUE THAN THAT OF A NON-MUSLIM?

2) However the Islamic ideology goes far beyond social life in its functioning hatred and prejudice. For example, according to Islam the blood of a Muslim has more value than that of a Christian, thus a Muslim must not be punished for the murder of a Christian or non-Muslim (Ibn Hazm, vol.8, p.39).

WHERE DO YOU FIND SUCH RACISTIC EVIL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT? COULD YOU PLEASE POST THE PASSAGES?

Islam and the Jews

Islam is utterly racistic in its dealing with the Jews. According to Islam, Jews are considered to be the party of Satan, Muslims are not to befriend them, and finally the butchering of all Jews is inevitable.
98:6 Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Quran and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

5:51 O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliya' to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya', then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong¬doers and unjust).


58:19. Shaitan (Satan) has overtaken them (the Jews). So he has made them forget the remembrance of Allah. They are the party of Shaitan (Satan). Verily, it is the party of Shaitan (Satan) that will be the losers!


4:76 Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan); Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaitan (Satan).


Now we talk about racism, then the whole idea of black slavery was an idea which originated in Islam, centuries before the idea ever came to the European continent:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 15, Number 103:
Narrated 'Urwa on the authority of 'Aisha:
On the days of Mina, (11th, 12th, and 13th of Dhul-Hijjah) Abu Bakr came to her while two young girls were beating the tambourine and the Prophet was lying covered with his clothes. Abu Bakr scolded them and the Prophet uncovered his face and said to Abu Bakr, "Leave them, for these days are the days of 'Id and the days of Mina." 'Aisha further said, "Once the Prophet was screening me and I was watching the display of black slaves in the Mosque and ('Umar) scolded them. The Prophet said, 'Leave them. O Bani Arfida! (carry on), you are safe (protected)'."


Hence we also have a clear evidence that Muhammad and his companions engaged in slave trade, and at this particular point the slaves were even displayed in the Mosque.

DID Jesus ever capture or sell slaves?

DID Paul ever capture or sell slaves?

Where slaves displayed for sail in the early New Testament churches?

In Islam, slaves were taken, displayed, and sold

NOW ACCORDING TO THIS, WHICH RELIGION APPEARS MORE ATTRACTIVE?

COULD YOU PLEASE SHOW US WHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT SUCH EVIL AND RACISM IS ENCOURAGED?

In addition to the article I posted above here are some more details about the killing of Christians at the hand of Muslims:

A brief summary of Jihad in terms of fighting Christians (the last 700 years)
1300-1924 Ottoman Empire when Christians were subjugated the most, thus best example for us today!
1300-1700: Janissary Corps = Boys kidnapped, forced to convert, drafted for life, and then forced to kill their families.
1683: Austria burnt villages, enslaved women/children/working men; decapitated sick/old; sacked churches; trampled crucifixes (Peter Earle:261)
1842: Kurds killed 10,000 Assyrian Christian men, and enslaved 10,000 women and children (Death of a Nation pp.111-112)
1847: massacred 30,000 Assyrian Christians
1860: slaughtered 28,900 Christians in Lebanon and Syria between April-July.
1876: butchered 12,000 Christians in Bosnia in May alone (Fisher:1040; Stokes:205)
1894-1896: wiped out over 300,000 Armenian and Assyrian Christians by Abdul Hamid II (Peacock:267-268).
1915: murdered 1,500,000 Armenian & 250,000 Assyrian Christians: women raped/crucified (have pictures), children enslaved, yet 200,000 who converted were spared! Churches made into barns. Reason: Armenians were in Russian army, but so were Turks, an no Assyrians. Also 250,000 Armenians fought in the Ottoman army (Land and Walker:7)


HOW ABOUT THE SEXUAL ATTROCITIES IN ISLAM WHICH ARE RELATED TO JIHAD:

Rape of female slaves

Sura 70:22-30; 23:5-6; 4:24 give full permission for the Muslims to rape their female slaves (the girls taken in war). In Sura 33:50 a special permission is given for Muhammed.

"...who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave girls, for these are lawful to them..." (Sura 23: 5-6)


"And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess. It is a decree of Allah for you (Sura 4: 24).


According to Tabari vol.39, p.194 the ruler of Alexandria gave a young Christian girl as a gift to Muhammad, her name was Mariyam. Muhammad never married her but used to sleep with her, and she even gave birth to a son who died after 18 months..

WHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT ARE CHRISTIANS ENCOURAGED TO MAKE WAR UPON THEIR ENEMIES OR DIFFERENT THINKING, TAKE THEIR WOMEN AS SLAVES AND CONTINUALLY RAPE THEM.

COULD YOU PLEASE POST SIMILAR PASSAGES FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT...

WHAT ISLAM PERMITS IS SICK, IT LITERALLY MAKES VOMIT; HERE JUST ONE REASON IN RELATION TO THE SAME MATTER:

According to Sahih Bukhari vol.5#637 Ali had sex with a slave girl whom he saw and found beautiful, and Muhammad seemed to have no objections.

Narrated Buraida: The prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (part of the war booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)? When we reached the prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him for he deserves more than that from the Khumus." (Sahih Bukhari, vol.5, #637)


IN WHAT SENSE, SINCE ALI DESERVE MORE THAN RAPING A SLAVE GIRL FROM KHUMUS, DOES IT MEAN THAT MUSLIMS HAVE THE RIGHT TO RAPE AND EVEN TAKE FURTHER STEPS IN ATTROCITIES AS IT FITS THEM?
BUT THERE IS MORE, HOW ABOUT THE RAPE OF FEMALE CAPTIVES:

According to Sahih Bukhari vol.9#506; Sahih Muslim vol.2#3371 Muhammad’s followers used to come to Muhammad after battles, to seek permission and advise to engage in sexual activity with the girls taken in battle. They doubted for several reasons, however, permission was granted.

At one point Muhammad gave them permission and told them that it is up to Allah who gets created anyway, thus permission was given.

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with Allah's messenger we said, "Oh Allah's messenger, we got female captives as our booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence." (Sahih Bukhari, vol.3, # 432) (further reference Bukhari Vol. 3, #718)


Notice that the companions of Muhammad had doubt due to fear of loosing money for selling pregnant slaves

THIS PROVES THAT THE INTENTION WAS RAPE NOT MARRIAGE, AS SOME MUSLIMS ASSERT

Permission was EVEN granted BY the Koran:

"Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty;..." (Sura 33: 50)


IN OTHER WORDS, AFTER THESE FEMALE CAPTIVES WHOSE HUSBANDS, FATHERS AND BROTHERS HAD JUST BEEN KILLED BY THEIR MUSLIM ENEMIES NOW HAD TO BE RAPED ON THE BATTLE-FIELD BEFORE THEY WERE TO BE DRAGGED TO THE SLAVE-MARKET AND SOLD INTO MORE RAPE, MORE ATTROCITIES

COULD YOU PLEASE POST ME ANY SIMILAR PASSAGES FROM THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND THE DISCIPLES?

THERE IS MORE:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relations with them without impregnating them. So they asked the prophet about coitus interruptus. The prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection". (Sahih Bukhari, vol.9, #506) (further reference Bukhari 5: 459)


Abu Sirma said to Abu Said al Khudri: "O Abu Said, did you hear Allah's messenger mentioning about al-azl (coitus interrupts)?" He said, "Yes", and added: "We went out with Allah's messenger on the expedition to the 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 and he said: "It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born". (Sahih Muslim vol.2, # 3371)
Abu Said al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran - 4:24), (i.e. they were lawful for them when their Idda (menstrual) period came to and end). (Sahih Muslim, vol.2, #3432)


In on particular occasions the HUSBAND EVEN WATCHED WHILE THEIR WIVES WERE RAPED BY THE COMPANIONS OF THE PROPHET:

Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah 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 Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto your save those (captives) whom your right hand possesses". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period."" [The Quran verse is 4:24]. (Sunan of Abu Dawud, vol.2, #2150)


SO IN THIS CASE, THE HUSBANDS WERE ACTUALLY WATCHING THEIR WIVES BEING RAPED

COULD YOU PLEASE POST SIMILAR PASSAGES FROM THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND THE DISCIPLES?

WE SHALL WAIT FOR YOU TO MEET THE CHALLENGE, IF YOU CAN!

I have however a few comments to the article you posted
First and most (as I have already mentioned), all these events contradict Christian standard, and they find no place in the New Testament teaching; hence all these events and the individuals engaging in them, disprove their faith and religion.

I have already been through the website your are posting from; here are two comments to some points with the site which you did not post:

The website you were posting from says:

"They [the Christians] would cut an Indian's hands and leave them dangling by a shred of skin ... [and] they would test their swords and their manly strength on captured Indians and place bets on the slicing off of heads or the cutting of bodies in half with one blow...


Again this contradicts the teachings of Christianity, hence this act needs to be excluded from Christianity; however, crucifixion and the cutting off of body-parts is acceptable within Islam

The just retribution for those who fight GOD and His messenger, and commit horrendous crimes, is to be killed, or crucified, or to have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or to be banished from the land. This is to humiliate them in this life, then they suffer a far worse retribution in the Hereafter (Sura 5: 33).


further it says:

"The Spaniards took babies from their mothers' breasts, grabbing them by the feet and smashing their heads against rocks...


You will find that the same took place when the Muslims invaded India, but in that case the babies were thrown up into the air and caught by the Muslims spears (sorry I was unable to find the source right now).

further your website states:

Then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive."


In the history of Islam people were burned alive:

Narrated Ikrima: Ali burnt some people [hypocrites] and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said,"Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' " (Sahih Bukhari 4.260)


As the passage also reveals (and there are more of them), that any apostates of Islam (individuals who leave Islam) should be killed.

Kai Hagbard
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 10:45 am
Location: Europe-Asia

Postby Kai Hagbard » Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:08 pm

Let’s now look at your post:

Fdjohan posted:

John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]
Michael Sattler, leader of a baptist community, was burned at the stake in Rottenburg, Germany, May 20, 1527. Several days later his wife and other follwers were also executed. [KM]


Kai replies:

This is what I mean, When I say that you need to differentiate between true and false Christianity. Huss presents the Christianity which I stand for, and which the Bible stands for.

fdjohan posted:

Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (the greatest single mass murderer prior to the Nazi era) in 1209. Beziérs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Number of victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbors and friends) estimated between 20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]


Kai replies:

Well one outbreak of genocide in Turkey against Christians was in 1909, when two hundred villages were plundered and over 30,000 persons massacred; this was in the Cilicia district on the Mediterranean coast.

http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genoci ... nocide.htm

Of course the crusades are mentioned

Let me say here, that true Christianity had nothing to do with the crusades and that Christians deplore its brutality, Muslims tend to forget why the crusades took place.

The Crusades was European reaction to Muslim occupation and invasion of so called Christian territory, such as North Africa, Spain, Palestine, etc.

I find this funny, Muslims can simply invade our territory, and if we retaliate and fight back or take these countries back, we are referred to as the bad guys.

Did it ever occur to you THAT IF MUSLIMS HAD NOT INVADED (SO CALLED) CHRISTIAN TERRITORY, THE CRUSADES WOULD NEVER HAVE TAKEN PLACE.

IF YOU LOOK AT HISTORY THE CRUSADES DESPITE THEIR EVILS WERE INIVITABLE; THE MUSLIMS LAUNCHED SO MANY ATTACKS ON CHRISTIANS, AND THE CHRISTIANS WERE ENFORCED INITIALLY TO RETALIATE:

630 Two years before Muhammad’s death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a report that a huge army had amassed to attack Arabia, but the report turned out to be a false rumor. The Byzantine army never materialized. He turned around and went home, but not before extracting "agreements" from northern tribes. They could enjoy the "privilege" of living under Islamic "protection" (read: not be attacked by Islam), if they paid a tax.

This tax sets the stage for Muhammad’s and the later Caliphs’ policies. If the attacked city or region did not want to convert to Islam, then they paid a jizya tax. If they converted, then they paid a zakat tax. Either way, money flowed back to the Islamic treasury in Arabia or to the local Muslim governor.

632-634 Under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr the Muslim Crusaders reconquer and sometimes conquer for the first time the polytheists of Arabia. These Arab polytheists had to convert to Islam or die. They did not have the choice of remaining in their faith and paying a tax. Islam does not allow for religious freedom.

633 The Muslim Crusaders, led by Khalid al-Walid, a superior but bloodthirsty military commander, whom Muhammad nicknamed the Sword of Allah for his ferocity in battle (Tabari, 8:158 / 1616-17), conquer the city of Ullays along the Euphrates River (in today’s Iraq). Khalid captures and beheads so many that a nearby canal, into which the blood flowed, was called Blood Canal (Tabari 11:24 / 2034-35).

634 At the Battle of Yarmuk in Syria the Muslim Crusaders defeat the Byzantines. Today Osama bin Laden draws inspiration from the defeat, and especially from an anecdote about Khalid al-Walid. In Khalid’s day an unnamed Muslim remarks: "The Romans are so numerous and the Muslims so few." To this Khalid retorts: "How few are the Romans, and how many the Muslims! Armies become numerous only with victory and few only with defeat, not by the number of men. By God, I would love it . . . if the enemy were twice as many" (Tabari, 11:94 / 2095). Osama bin Laden quotes Khalid and says that his fighters love death more than we in the West love life. This philosophy of death probably comes from a verse like Sura 2:96. Muhammad assesses the Jews: "[Prophet], you are sure to find them [the Jews] clinging to life more eagerly than any other people, even polytheists" (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004; first insertion in brackets is Haleem’s; the second mine).

634-644 The Caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab, who is regarded as particularly brutal.

635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus.

636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.

637 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq at the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah (some date it in 635 or 636).

638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.

638-650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea.

639-642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.

641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.

643-707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.

644 Caliph Umar is assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war; Uthman
ibn Affan is elected third Caliph, who is regarded by many Muslims as gentler than Umar.

644-650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.

656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated by disgruntled Muslim soldiers; Ali ibn Abi Talib, son-in-law and cousin to Muhammad, who married the prophet’s daughter Fatima through his first wife Khadija, is set up as Caliph.

656 Battle of the Camel, in which Aisha, Muhammad’s wife, leads a rebellion against Ali for not avenging Uthman’s assassination. Ali’s partisans win.

657 Battle of Siffin between Ali and Muslim governor of Jerusalem, arbitration goes against Ali

661 Murder of Ali by an extremist; Ali’s supporters acclaim his son Hasan as next Caliph, but he comes to an agreement with Muawiyyah I and retires to Medina.

661-680 the Caliphate of Muawiyyah I. He founds Umayyid dynasty and moves capital from Medina to Damascus

673-678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire
680 Massacre of Hussein (Muhammad’s grandson), his family, and his supporters in Karbala, Iraq.

691 Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after Muhammad’s death.

705 Abd al-Malik restores Umayyad rule.

710-713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.

711-713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus. This article recounts how Muslims today still grieve over their expulsion 700 years later. They seem to believe that the land belonged to them in the first place.

719 Cordova, Spain, becomes seat of Arab governorship.

732 The Muslim Crusaders are stopped at the Battle of Poitiers; that is, Franks (France) halt Arab advance.

749 The Abbasids conquer Kufah and overthrow Umayyids.

756 Foundation of Umayyid emirate in Cordova, Spain, setting up an independent kingdom from Abbasids.

762 Foundation of Baghdad

785 Foundation of the Great Mosque of Cordova

789 Rise of Idrisid emirs (Muslim Crusaders) in Morocco; foundation of Fez; Christoforos, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, is executed.

800 Autonomous Aghlabid dynasty (Muslim Crusaders) in Tunisia.

807 Caliph Harun al-Rashid orders the destruction of non-Muslim prayer houses and of the Church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem.

809 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sardinia, Italy.

813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country.

831 Muslim Crusaders capture of Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy.

850 Caliph al-Matawakkil orders the destruction of non-Muslim houses of prayer.

855 Revolt of the Christians of Hims (Syria)

837-901 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France.

869-883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq

909 Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim Crusaders occupy Sicily, Sardinia.

928-969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969).

937 The Ikhshid, a particularly harsh Muslim ruler, writes to Emperor Romanus, boasting of his control over the holy places.

937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked .

960 Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam

966 Anti-Christian riots in Jerusalem

969 Fatimids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Egypt and found Cairo.

c. 970 Seljuks enter conquered Islamic territories from the East.

973 Israel and southern Syria are again conquered by the Fatimids.

1003 First persecutions by al-Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed.

1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al-Hakim (see 937)

1012 Beginning of al-Hakim’s oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians

1015 Earthquake in Palestine; the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapses.

1031 Collapse of Umayyid Caliphate and establishment of 15 minor independent dynasties throughout Muslim Andalus

1048 Reconstruction of the Church of the Resurrection completed

1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (also known as Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.

1055 Seljuk Prince Tughrul enters Baghdad, consolidation of the Seljuk Sultanate.

1055 Confiscation of property of Church of the Resurrection

1071 Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks (Muslim Crusaders) defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia.

1071 Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine.

1073 Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders)

1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia.

1076 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana.

1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies.

1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca.

1090-1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands.

1094 Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970.

1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099


ACCORDING TO THIS, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT BUT RETALIATION; WHICH COUNTRY WOULD HAVE THE PATIENCE TO PUT UP WITH THIS?

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/A ... meline.htm

fdjohan posted:

Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Christians. Number of Jews slain unknown.
In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388. [DA450]
694 17. Council of Toledo: Jews were enslaved, their property confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]


Kai replies:

I simply fail to see in the Bible where Christians are told to kill Jews; could you please elaborate on this?

In fact the Koran is very explicit about the matter:

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


5:51 O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliya' to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya', then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong¬doers and unjust).


58:19. Shaitan (Satan) has overtaken them (the Jews). So he has made them forget the remembrance of Allah. They are the party of Shaitan (Satan). Verily, it is the party of Shaitan (Satan) that will be the losers!


4:76 Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan); Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaitan (Satan).


9:29 Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


In December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was CRUCIFIED by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants.

In 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in "an offensive manner." The killings sparked a wave of massacres throughout Morocco.

In the 8th century - mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco, whole communities were wiped out by Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830 and Marrakech, Morocco, where more than 300 hundred Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.

Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogue were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2),Iraq (854-859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Koran's prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen(1165 and 167, Morocco(1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344).

In19th century- Jews in North Africa were forced to live in ghettos. In Morrocco,( the largest Jewish
community in the Islamic Diaspora), Jews weremade to walk barefoot or wear shoes of straw when outside the ghetto. Even Muslim children participated in the degradation of Jews, by throwing stones at them or harassing them in other ways. The frequency of anti-Jewish violence increased, and many Jews were executed on charges of apostasy. This was all before the State of Israel existed.


Fdjohan posted:

"And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitlán [Mexico city] was next." [SH75]
Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other Spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).
"When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead." [SH95]


Kai replies:

I have presented this challenge to Muslims before

The Nazis spent years to find, hunt down and kill six million Jews. This was effectively organised and the killing by hand was virtually, hence the gas chambers.

Now you tell how a group of soldiers with less effective equipment, no trains, camps, gas-chambers, would be able to find, hunt, gather and kill 60.000.000 Indians.

Even worse how did they dispose the bodies?

Otherwise what would you think would have happened if the entire land was covered with 60.000.000 corpses?

I will let you figure it out; please expound on this.

Fdjohan posted:

A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery.


Kai replies:

Now if Christians are to be blamed for epidemics, are you then saying THAT MUSLIMS SHOULD TAKE THE BLAME FOR THE BLACK DEATH WHICH ELIMINATED A THIRD OR MORE OF EUROPE?

It has been historically suggested that Muslim invaders attacking the Christian Kaffa in 1340 brought along with the Black Death, which then reached Europe; it has even been suggested according to historical sources that the Muslims catapulted corpses infected with Black Death into Christian cities; while certain arguments have been raised as to the catapulting, then according to your own criteria, we can blame Islam for the Black Death in Europe in the fourteenth century.

fdjohan posted:

Catholic extermination camps
Surprisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveliç, a practicing Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!
In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar - orthodox-Christian Serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdienst der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did nothing to prevent them. [MV]


Kai replied:

Good point, but you need to read Main Kampf, in the second chapter Hitler explicitly states that his ideology builds upon the philosophy of the day, which would be Darwin, Nietzsche, and others. This would clearly exclude Christianity.

As to the priests and other being involved with the Killing, I can only repeat that individuals who commit atrocities according to the Bible are not Christians, Secondly, most of us here do not consider the Roman Catholic Church to be Christian, while we do recognise that there are Christians within it; does that answer your question?

However, it becomes a fact that Muslims were actively involved in the genocide of Jews, alongside the Nazis:

http://www.jesus-christ-forums.com/islam/index.php

Conclusion:

I was able to base the bloody history of Islam on the actual foundational sources of Islam, the Koran and the Hadith!
While you were unable to base the history of so called Christianity (I would rather call it the West) upon the New Testament!

Kai Hagbard
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 10:45 am
Location: Europe-Asia

Postby Kai Hagbard » Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:31 pm

Let me however warn you

What you are attempting at the moment is Spamming and internet trolling, which you are posting thousands of lines from a specific or several website which completely deviate from the subject of this thread.

The subject of this thread is:

HISTORY OF ISLAMIC TERROR

NOT THE

HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN TERROR


If you want to debate the actual issue on this thread then reply to the actual subject rather than starting a new one.

I have been graceful and actually interacted with your topic anyway, which in fact is not your topic, BUT AN ARTICLE FROM ANOTHER WEBSITE.

Let me also state that the threads are not places where you wildly post external articles without engagement from yourself.

So basically

STOP THE SPAMMING (I can easily do it myself)
START REPLYING TO THE ACTUAL TOPIC ON THIS THREAD (I have been kind enough to deviate for your sake, answering a post which you have not even written)
START INTERACTING


OTHERWISE THERE IS NO MEAN TO CONTINUE

I WILL DELETE ANY MORE SPAMMING

YOU ARE MOST WELCOME TO POST THE SITE, BUT THEN I EXPECT SOME INTERACTION

HOWEVER, LETS GET TO THE ACTUAL TOPIC

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:53 am

BISMILLAHIRRAHMAANIRRAHIIM.

Hi KAI.
Thanks for spreading hate against Islam.
Actually forums like this that make me run away from Christianity and embrace Islam.
Anyway.

I posted those things about the victims of Christianity as my first move to show people in this forum about the dark side of Christianity. That's what we call the "ballance act".
I love talking in vocus. Let's just do it then.

Please remember, in this discussion, WE want BALLANCE and FAIR rules.
We have right to use our own references and so are you.
We have right to ask you the SOURCES.

From a Muslims perspective, I can see clearly what your problem is.
1. You have no knowledge (or don't care?) about the background (history) of the verses of AL-Qur'an . I keep telling this forum not to ignore the history of the verses. I don't care you believe the term of REVELATION or not, but every verses have their own history. This thing you can't ignore.
2. You have no knowledge (or don't care?) about the history of Prophet Muhammad(saw) him-self.
3. You have no knowledge what ISlam is and even al-Qur'an it self.

You make your argument by looking twice at what your Bible teach you. But you attack AL-Qur'an by accusing and exposing the verses that you have no knowledge about them.

OK For the start, I want us to talk and focusing to what we call as the TEACHING it self since you keep blaming the teaching as the fire starter of such an EVIL ACTS. Hope we will strict our self about this. to make this discussion more order. Please reply you comment to the things I posted.

I don't know if you've ever discuss this one or any Muslims have ever posted the peaceful act toward other human no matter what their religion are.
For this second move, I personally want to know your responses about what are given below.

All traslation by Yusuf Ali

6:151. Say: "Come, I will rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited you from": Join not anything as equal with Him; be good to your parents; kill not your children on a plea of want;- We provide sustenance for you and for them;- come not nigh to shameful deeds. Whether open or secret; take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.


Prohibited to TAKE any life without any justice and law.

[5:32]. On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.


The religion of Islam condemns the killing or even the persecution of people merely because they embrace a different religion. The Quran mandates the absolute freedom of religion in a society. It does not allow Muslims to fight except for self defense and to enforce peace. It does not allow restrictions on those who disagree on religious matters. It urges the Muslims to treat such people kindly and equitably.

[17:33]. Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him nor exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law).


No way to take any life without a cause.

60:8. Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.


For those who do not do harm and evil toward Muslims, we are taught to deal with them kindly and justly.

60:9. Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.


So Muslims fight people for those who fight you for (their) Faith and drive them drive them out of their homes.

9:123. O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.


Muslims fight people only if they are attacked.
[8:61]. But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah. for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).


We are tought to come to peace for any body who wants peace with us.

So There are teaching about peaceful act toward people no matter what religion they are.

I will talk about the verses you refer to us after this inshaALLAH.
Let us talk peaceful way since now.
Again now our first focus, talking about the teaching it self. So we better strict our discussion to this part first. Ok my friend?

Salaam

Kai Hagbard
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 10:45 am
Location: Europe-Asia

Postby Kai Hagbard » Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:37 pm

fdjohan wrote:

Hi KAI.
Thanks for spreading hate against Islam.
Actually forums like this that make me run away from Christianity and embrace Islam.
Anyway.


Kai replies:

Fair enough, you have reacted to something pretty grose.

However, I don't understand what you mean by hatred; I am simply informing about reality.

Would you say that every story or film or article referring to the Killing of Jews under the Nazi regime are necessarily propaganda of hatred; would it not be more likely that they are informing us about historical truth.

Why this should necessarily turn people off from Christianity, is to me still a paradox.

Why I included the sources of Islam, well that again should be pretty obvious, the passages I qouted encouraged insult upon Jews and Christianity, which is why the Koran and the Hadith should be scrutinized about these matters.

Obviously we ban Nazism or condemn nazism for its ideology, but here is a religion, which calls the Jews the worsth of all creatures, which reveals how Muhammad and his companions displayed black slaves in the Mosques, and how the unbelievers should be attacked and subjugated. Not to forget the permission to take slaves and use these slaves for sexual purposes.

Don't take me up negatively, but the question is, am I spreading hatred, or am I exposing the truth.

Who will point out the attrocities against the Armenian Chrisitians, who will be their voice, and remind the world what happened; now is that spreading hatred or informing the world of what has to be said?

Anyway I will answer your questions fairly soon; I am in a state of moving house; possibly to night or tomorrow.

Be blessed

Kai

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Wed Jan 25, 2006 01:06 pm

Kai Hagbard wrote:fdjohan wrote:

Hi KAI.
Thanks for spreading hate against Islam.
Actually forums like this that make me run away from Christianity and embrace Islam.
Anyway.


Kai replies:

Fair enough, you have reacted to something pretty grose.

However, I don't understand what you mean by hatred; I am simply informing about reality.

Would you say that every story or film or article referring to the Killing of Jews under the Nazi regime are necessarily propaganda of hatred; would it not be more likely that they are informing us about historical truth.

Why this should necessarily turn people off from Christianity, is to me still a paradox.

Why I included the sources of Islam, well that again should be pretty obvious, the passages I qouted encouraged insult upon Jews and Christianity, which is why the Koran and the Hadith should be scrutinized about these matters.

Obviously we ban Nazism or condemn nazism for its ideology, but here is a religion, which calls the Jews the worsth of all creatures, which reveals how Muhammad and his companions displayed black slaves in the Mosques, and how the unbelievers should be attacked and subjugated. Not to forget the permission to take slaves and use these slaves for sexual purposes.

Don't take me up negatively, but the question is, am I spreading hatred, or am I exposing the truth.

Who will point out the attrocities against the Armenian Chrisitians, who will be their voice, and remind the world what happened; now is that spreading hatred or informing the world of what has to be said?

Anyway I will answer your questions fairly soon; I am in a state of moving house; possibly to night or tomorrow.

Be blessed

Kai


Ok KAI :wink:
I hope you enjoy your new house.
Salaam

Kai Hagbard
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 10:45 am
Location: Europe-Asia

Postby Kai Hagbard » Wed Jan 25, 2006 01:58 pm

fdjohan wrote:

I hope you enjoy your new house.
Salaam


Kai replies:

I will hopefully enjoy it when we finally manage to move in

God bless bro

john doe
Assitant Deacon
Assitant Deacon
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 07:25 pm

Re: History of Islamic Terror

Postby john doe » Fri Jan 27, 2006 03:21 am

Kai Hagbard wrote:Islam is frequently portrayed by Islam as a religion of peace. Indeed these same voices attempt to portray the history of Islam as everything but negative.

I will start of this thread by looking at the Armenian Genocide, in which the Islamic regime of Turkey 1915-1918 butchered no less than 1.5 million Christians.

These Christians were deported to concentrations camps (death camps) of which most died on the actual transport.

The victims of the genocide (Christian men, women and children), faced total devastation, starvation, torture, death by all horrible means, even crucifixion.

The Koran teaches:

9:29 Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


48:29 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe (or ruthless, vehement) against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.


9:123 O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you...


No wonders therefore that history has revealed the fruit of Islam:

Image

Christian victims of Islamic terror

Mass-genocide of Christians committed by the Islamic regime:

Image

Image

The mass-Killing of Christian women and children

Image

Image

Image

Christian children (orphans) left to starve on the street

Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4321:
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.


Image

Image

Christian martyrs beheaded:

Image


Image

Image

And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the Word of God (Revelation 20: 4)


Christian martyrs hanged:

Image

Christian martyrs (all ages) awaiting their destiny:

Image

Image



It’s painful looking at theses pictures since they are my ancestors, but what’s more excruciating is the fact that even till today the current Turkish government completely denies the whole massacre.

We know how desperate the Turks are to get in the EU and we’re trying our best to make sure that they don’t get in. We’ve even set up an organisation to help convince Europe what the Turks are accountable for.

They even imprisoned one of theirs just for writing about it. Turks are afraid that if they are linked to any genocide they will not be accepted into the EU and instead would have to compensate the Assyrians & Armenians.
To be religious is to do something for God, without Christ.

Kai Hagbard
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 10:45 am
Location: Europe-Asia

Postby Kai Hagbard » Sat Jan 28, 2006 01:02 am

Hi again fdjohan, sorry for the delay of my reply, the moving of house is still on, and I might be unavailable to use net for a week or so. But I will get back to you

fdjohan wrote:

Hi KAI.
Thanks for spreading hate against Islam.
Actually forums like this that make me run away from Christianity and embrace Islam.
Anyway.

I posted those things about the victims of Christianity as my first move to show people in this forum about the dark side of Christianity. That's what we call the "ballance act".
I love talking in vocus. Let's just do it then.


Kai replies:

But which dark side of Christianity; because when you refer to Christianity you need to look at original Christianity, which is portrayed by Christian Scripture, not by any later distortion.

Fdjohan wrote:

Please remember, in this discussion, WE want BALLANCE and FAIR rules.
We have right to use our own references and so are you.
We have right to ask you the SOURCES.


Kai replies:

By all means

Fdjohan wrote:

From a Muslims perspective, I can see clearly what your problem is.
1. You have no knowledge (or don't care?) about the background (history) of the verses of AL-Qur'an . I keep telling this forum not to ignore the history of the verses. I don't care you believe the term of REVELATION or not, but every verses have their own history. This thing you can't ignore.
2. You have no knowledge (or don't care?) about the history of Prophet Muhammad(saw) him-self.
3. You have no knowledge what ISlam is and even al-Qur'an it self.


Kai replies:

This is overstating your presumptions; how do you know that I have no knowledge, or do not care about the rules? What I presented were Koranic passages and Hadiths to back them up. But lets get back to it.

Are you shore that every verse has a history from which you can base your conclusions?

Fdjohan wrote:

You make your argument by looking twice at what your Bible teach you. But you attack AL-Qur'an by accusing and exposing the verses that you have no knowledge about them.


Kai replies:

Well it is not as simple as that; the New Testament does not teach me to engage in warfare, to invade or enslave people; that is a fairly easy conclusion to derive at.

Yet the Koran does include these elements. For example you are told to fight those who follow not Islam, you are told that the Jews are the worse of all creatures; you are permitted to have sex with slave girls and women captives.

None of these are included in the teachings of the New Testament; neither in the Old Testament (except unless you read the distortions of Osama Abdallah).

Fdjohan wrote:

OK For the start, I want us to talk and focusing to what we call as the TEACHING it self since you keep blaming the teaching as the fire starter of such an EVIL ACTS. Hope we will strict our self about this. to make this discussion more order. Please reply you comment to the things I posted.


Kai replies:

Cool

Fdjohan wrote:

I don't know if you've ever discuss this one or any Muslims have ever posted the peaceful act toward other human no matter what their religion are.


Kai replies:

On several occasions

Fdjohan wrote:

For this second move, I personally want to know your responses about what are given below.


Kai replies:

Ok, go ahead bro

Fdjohan wrote:

All traslation by Yusuf Ali
Quote:
6:151. Say: "Come, I will rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited you from": Join not anything as equal with Him; be good to your parents; kill not your children on a plea of want;- We provide sustenance for you and for them;- come not nigh to shameful deeds. Whether open or secret; take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.


Prohibited to TAKE any life without any justice and law.


Kai replies:

That is fine! Notice, that I never stated that Islam does not possess any positive values. Every religion possess values, often the same values.
Sura 6: 151 in its context does not refer to Jihad or Islam in war, but the Muslim in his general daily day; probably among Muslims; hence this verse despite its goodness does not exclude the elements of evil which I posted earlier.

Even in the Nazi regime, murder was banned, even stealing and rape; it did however not exclude the means to invade, suppress and commit genocide.

Hence Sura 6: 151 proposes excellent virtue but does not exclude evil.

Fdjohan wrote:

Quote:
[5:32]. On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.


Kai replies:

As with the previous verse, the verse simply states the moral of any society, even Nazi Germany, even the ancient Assyrian culture. Yet this moral did not exclude the ideology which included invasion, genocide and submission.

Fdjohan wrote:

The religion of Islam condemns the killing or even the persecution of people merely because they embrace a different religion. The Quran mandates the absolute freedom of religion in a society. It does not allow Muslims to fight except for self defense and to enforce peace. It does not allow restrictions on those who disagree on religious matters. It urges the Muslims to treat such people kindly and equitably.


Kai replies:

I fail to see how you arrive to that conclusion; clear mandate is given to fight and subjugate the unbelievers:

2:193 Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme.


9:123 O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you


48:29 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe (or ruthless, vehement) against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.


9:29 Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


We can simply let the Hadith’s interpret the Koranic passages:

Bukhari 4.386:
Narrated Jubair bin Haiya:
'Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, 'Umar said to him. "I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade." Al-Hurmuzan said, "Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs; If one of its wings got broken, it would get up over its two legs, with one wing and the head; and if the other wing got broken, it would get up with two legs and a head, but if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless. The head stands for Khosrau, and one wing stands for Caesar and the other wing stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau." So, 'Umar sent us (to Khosrau) appointing An-Numan bin Muqrin as our commander. When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, "Let one of you talk to me!" Al-Mughira replied, "Ask whatever you wish." The other asked, "Who are you?" Al-Mughira replied, "We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life: we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." (Al-Mughira, then blamed An-Numan for delaying the attack and) An-Nu' man said to Al-Mughira, "If you had participated in a similar battle, in the company of Allah's Apostle he would not have blamed you for waiting, nor would he have disgraced you. But I accompanied Allah's Apostle in many battles and it was his custom that if he did not fight early by daytime, he would wait till the wind had started blowing and the time for the prayer was due (i.e. after midday)."


Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4294:
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhajirs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them….


People of from a e.g. a Muslim background who embrace the Christian faith are to be exterminated:

Bukhari, volume 9, #17

"Narrated Abdullah: Allah's Messenger said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslims."



Bukhari volume 9, #57

Narrated Ikrima, "Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's messenger forbade it, saying, "Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire)." I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."


Bukhari volume 9, #64

Narrated Ali, "Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah's messenger, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky, then ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you, (not a Hadith), then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah's messenger saying, "During the last days there will appear some young foolish people, who will say the best words, but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will leave the faith) and will go out from their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection."



Fdjohan wrote:

Quote:
[17:33]. Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him nor exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law).


No way to take any life without a cause.


Kai replies:

Again is this within the everyday of the Muslim in his conduct among non-Muslims or within the context of the passages we looked at earlier.
Notice that the Koran teaches Muslims to be merciful among themselves but harsh toward the non-believers:

48:29 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe (or ruthless, vehement) against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.


Fdjohan wrote:

Quote:
60:8. Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.


For those who do not do harm and evil toward Muslims, we are taught to deal with them kindly and justly.


Kai replies:

But then again what is the context and history behind this verse? In other verses they are told to fight those who believe not in Allah or perform Islam, even the Jews and Christians, until they are subdued:

9:29 Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


Fdjohan wrote:

Quote:
60:9. Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.


So Muslims fight people for those who fight you for (their) Faith and drive them drive them out of their homes.


Kai replies:

Of course every nation is permitted to defend itself, yet this is not the same context as Sura 9: 29

Fdjohan wrote:

Quote:
9:123. O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.


Muslims fight people only if they are attacked.


Kai replies:

Look at my previous reply

Fdjohan wrote:

Quote:

[8:61]. But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah. for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).


We are tought to come to peace for any body who wants peace with us.


Kai replies:

How do you then explain this verse:

47:35 So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam), while you are having the upper hand. Allah is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds.


Fdjohan wrote:

So There are teaching about peaceful act toward people no matter what religion they are.


Kai replies:

Every religion and ideology has its room for peace

Fdjohan wrote:


I will talk about the verses you refer to us after this inshaALLAH.
Let us talk peaceful way since now.
Again now our first focus, talking about the teaching it self. So we better strict our discussion to this part first. Ok my friend?


Kai replies:

Well I have replied to your reply; I still cannot come to turns with the claim that Islam is a religion of peace!

Much like every other ideology and religion it contains elements of peace, yet that does not render Islam as a peaceful religion.

No offence bro

Remember, the intention is not to spread hatred but to expose sources for suppression as was the case with the Armenian Genocide.

As for the sources you posted, I am unable to traces its nature to its original sources

Kai Hagbard
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 10:45 am
Location: Europe-Asia

Postby Kai Hagbard » Sat Jan 28, 2006 04:40 pm

John Doe wrote:

It’s painful looking at theses pictures since they are my ancestors, but what’s more excruciating is the fact that even till today the current Turkish government completely denies the whole massacre.

We know how desperate the Turks are to get in the EU and we’re trying our best to make sure that they don’t get in. We’ve even set up an organisation to help convince Europe what the Turks are accountable for.

They even imprisoned one of theirs just for writing about it. Turks are afraid that if they are linked to any genocide they will not be accepted into the EU and instead would have to compensate the Assyrians & Armenians.


Kai replies:

This is the very reason why I posted the pictures. Obviously if we expose Nazi Germany, we are simply exposing the truth, and we are being the voice of the victims.

Funny then when you reveal the victims of Islam, you are ussually portrayed as a hate-preacher, racist or suffering from islamophobia.

The victims of Islam are ussually ignored because due to the risk of being labelled both this and that.

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Sun Jan 29, 2006 02:52 pm

BISMILLAHIRRAHMAANIRRAHIIM

Hi KAI. How is you new home. :D
Gosh I've been off from internet about 3 days.
Where are we now?

I read your reply. Gosh..why are Christians so impatient in debate forum.
Let us take a fresh air a bit and let the discussion flows orderly.
I call you all to come in peace with your Jesus heart who teach you to love your enemies. All I can see in this JCF is full of hate to your enemies and what belongs to them.

This one is attached to your signature

Surah 29:46 And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)."

ALLAH the Almighty command us to use better way to discuss things to non-Muslims. AGAIN, EVEN in dispute non-Muslims WE have to use better way. Then HOW in the world we gonna do HARM or EVIL deeds to them? This is a COMMAND for our ALLAH. You know what will happen if you against the command of ALLAH.

Anyway, KAI, didn't I tell you the I will come later to response the verses you refer to us? Be patient.

Kai replies:

But which dark side of Christianity; because when you refer to Christianity you need to look at original Christianity, which is portrayed by Christian Scripture, not by any later distortion.


I record this word. We'll talk about it later inshaALLAH.

Fdjohan wrote:

Please remember, in this discussion, WE want BALLANCE and FAIR rules.
We have right to use our own references and so are you.
We have right to ask you the SOURCES.


Kai replies:

By all means


Good.

Fdjohan wrote:

From a Muslims perspective, I can see clearly what your problem is.
1. You have no knowledge (or don't care?) about the background (history) of the verses of AL-Qur'an . I keep telling this forum not to ignore the history of the verses. I don't care you believe the term of REVELATION or not, but every verses have their own history. This thing you can't ignore.
2. You have no knowledge (or don't care?) about the history of Prophet Muhammad(saw) him-self.
3. You have no knowledge what ISlam is and even al-Qur'an it self.


Kai replies:

This is overstating your presumptions; how do you know that I have no knowledge, or do not care about the rules? What I presented were Koranic passages and Hadiths to back them up. But lets get back to it.

Are you shore that every verse has a history from which you can base your conclusions?


I'll let you know about it along with this discussion inshaALLAH.

Fdjohan wrote:

You make your argument by looking twice at what your Bible teach you. But you attack AL-Qur'an by accusing and exposing the verses that you have no knowledge about them.


Kai replies:

Well it is not as simple as that; the New Testament does not teach me to engage in warfare,


This is why I tell you that you haven't learned about the history of AL-Qur'an or even the history of the life of the Prophet him-self.
Please spend your time a bit to learn about the history of Al-Qur'an here
http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_libra ... _al_quran/

Al-Qur'an has it's own history that can't be ignored. The verses existed PIECE BY PIECE or STAGES along the life of the Prophet (saw). And The Prophet(saw) had to face a lot of wars in his time to face Meccan pagans, Jews etc.
So you have to understand this one. AL-Qur'an and the Bible formed with too much different way. There are no story about Jesus faced the war. But Muhammad (saw) faced wars.
There are verses encourage Muslims to be brave facing the enemies. And this one is related to the verses you rever to me.

to invade or enslave people; that is a fairly easy conclusion to derive at.

Yet the Koran does include these elements. For example you are told to fight those who follow not Islam, you are told that the Jews are the worse of all creatures; you are permitted to have sex with slave girls and women captives.


We'll talk about this along the discussion inshaALLAH.

None of these are included in the teachings of the New Testament; neither in the Old Testament (except unless you read the distortions of Osama Abdallah).


Remember how many Christians distort the meaning of verses in Al-Qur'an also.

Fdjohan wrote:

OK For the start, I want us to talk and focusing to what we call as the TEACHING it self since you keep blaming the teaching as the fire starter of such an EVIL ACTS. Hope we will strict our self about this. to make this discussion more order. Please reply you comment to the things I posted.


Kai replies:

Cool


Way cool :wink:

Fdjohan wrote:

All traslation by Yusuf Ali
Quote:
6:151. Say: "Come, I will rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited you from": Join not anything as equal with Him; be good to your parents; kill not your children on a plea of want;- We provide sustenance for you and for them;- come not nigh to shameful deeds. Whether open or secret; take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.


Prohibited to TAKE any life without any justice and law.


Kai replies:

That is fine! Notice, that I never stated that Islam does not possess any positive values.


Better not take it for granted my friend. Verses like this NOT just valuable but THE TEACHING and COMMAND. So if you wanna be fair, you have to say verses like these are the basic rules to do PEACEFUL acts.

Every religion possess values, often the same values.
Sura 6: 151 in its context does not refer to Jihad or Islam in war, but the Muslim in his general daily day; probably among Muslims; hence this verse despite its goodness does not exclude the elements of evil which I posted earlier. [/quote]

You have to understand the character of AL-Qur'an. Verses support verses, verses explain verses.
You your-self put the rule of discussion on your signature.
Surah 29:46 And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)."

We are commanded by ALLAH to choose the better way to discuss things with non_Muslims. Don't you think this verse is a basic teaching how to deal with you people? and if you are stubborn, we shall not do any harm to you but just say :"We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)."
Do we have to do evil things to you? no.

Even in the Nazi regime, murder was banned, even stealing and rape; it did however not exclude the means to invade, suppress and commit genocide.


Wrong sample KAI. We are talking about What HOLY BOOK teaches us. Isn't that what your thread about? Nazi nothing to do with holy book.
Let us forget about things about genocide for now. This discussion is not over yet. There are so much questions will come to you and you are responsible to answer it. Bring your mind and focus to the teaching mainly (as we discuss now) in Al-Qur'an. OK ma friend?

Hence Sura 6: 151 proposes excellent virtue but does not exclude evil.


Will come to it InshaALLAH.

Fdjohan wrote:

Quote:
[5:32]. On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.


Kai replies:

As with the previous verse, the verse simply states the moral of any society, even Nazi Germany, even the ancient Assyrian culture. Yet this moral did not exclude the ideology which included invasion, genocide and submission.


Let's forget about genocide for now.
There is no mention in that verses the we have to do such peaceful act for Muslims only. That verse is a COMMAND NOT TO KILL from ALLAH to Muslims. Read carefuly.
if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people

ALLAH reminds us, if you kill a person without any reason ,it would be as if he slew the whole people. There is no sound of "Muslims only" here.

and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people

Is there command for Muslims only? no. This is a teaching to do more SAVE human life than killing without any reason.
If youare fair, you will say those are above the basic teaching of Muslims to do peaceful acts.


Fdjohan wrote:

The religion of Islam condemns the killing or even the persecution of people merely because they embrace a different religion. The Quran mandates the absolute freedom of religion in a society. It does not allow Muslims to fight except for self defense and to enforce peace. It does not allow restrictions on those who disagree on religious matters. It urges the Muslims to treat such people kindly and equitably.


Kai replies:

I fail to see how you arrive to that conclusion; clear mandate is given to fight and subjugate the unbelievers:

2:193 Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme.


Now we are coming to this discussion. You need to learn about the history of the verse it self. That verse existed (if you don't like the term REVEALED) CONCERNING WAR in time of BADR WAR. Nothing about killing innocent Non-Muslims.
Let's talk about the history. I will show you all the reference, so we can see it together.
http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/seerah/24.htm

After this event, Quraish began to realize the real danger that Madinah could present with. They came to know that Madinah had always been on the alert, watching closely their commercial caravans. It was then common knowledge to them that the Muslims in their new abode could span and extend their military activities over an area of 300 miles. and bring it under full control. However, the new situation borne in mind, the Makkans could not be deterred and were too obstinate to come to terms with the new rising power of Islam. They were determined to bring their fall by their own hands and with this recklessness they precipitated the great battle of Badr.

The Muslims, on the other hand, and at the behest of their Lord, were ordered to go to war in Sha‘ban 2 A.H:
“And fight, in the way of Allâh those who fight you; but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah (polytheism or calamity) is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-Al-Harâm (the Sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. But if they cease, then Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of ) worship is for Allâh (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimûn (polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” [2:190-193


So you better read those BOLD letters carefully ma friend.
surah 2:190,192,193 all in a tie and much related. You can't make them separate unless the meaning will be distorted.
Allâh likes not the transgressors
unless they (first) fight you there
Again. DO NOT FIGHT UNLESS they fight you.
if they attack you
ATTACK only IF THEY ATTACK YOU.

That verse is not legalize killing non Muslims, but URGES Muslims to be brave to FIGHT BACK they are ATTACKED. so this is merely DEFENCE.
Again these verses existed regarding BADR WAR.
Those verses are three of the BASIC RULES OF WAR. and these verses


9:123 O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you


That verse existed in time of TABUK war.
Reff: http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/ ... /mau9.html
The third discourse (vv. 73-129) was revealed on his return from the Campaign of Tabuk. There are some pieces in this discourse that were sent down on different occasions during the same period and were afterwards consolidated by the Holy Prophet into the Surah in accordance with inspiration from Allah. But this caused no interruption in its continuity because they dealt with the same subject and formed part of the same series of events. This discourse warns the hypocrites of their evil deeds and rebukes those Believers who had stayed behind in the Campaign of Tabuk. Then after taking them to task, Allah pardons those true Believers who had not taken part in the Jihad in the Way of Allah for one reason or the other.


Again that verse existed in time of WAR. And about the TABUK war, this is the explanation:
The Campaign to Tabuk was the result of conflict with the Roman Empire, that had started even before the conquest of Makkah. One of the missions sent after the Treaty of Hudaibiyah to different parts of Arabia visited the clans which lived in the northern areas adjacent to Syria. The majority of these people were Christians, who were under the influence of the Roman Empire. Contrary to all the principles of the commonly accepted international law, they killed fifteen members of the delegation near a place known as Zat-u-Talah (or Zat-i-Itlah). Only Ka'ab bin Umair Ghifari, the head of the delegation, succeeded in escaping and reporting the sad incident. Besides this, Shurahbll bin Amr, the Christian governor of Busra, who was directly under the Roman Caesar, had also put to death Haritli bin Umair, the ambassador of the Holy Prophet, who had been sent to him on a similar minion.


Tabuk CAMPAIGN happened after Muslims delegation were killed by Christians from Roman Empire. Read the history on that web above.
That verse is NOT a teaching to kill Non Muslims but merely DEFENCE.

48:29 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe (or ruthless, vehement) against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.


The word that translated as "severe (or ruthless, vehement)" derived from the word Ashiddå’ is plural of shadid, which means firm, strong, powerful, as well as brave Can be translated as firm of heart.
Shiddat, the root word, also signifies firmness of heart.
Nothing about harmness. Back to the Prophet's history of life. Too much pressure to him and Muslims. Without "ASHIDDA", Islam will no be exist until now.
The Muslims stood firm against the disbelievers but they will never fierce or hard in their treatment towards them. The rules had been made by ALLAH.

9:29 Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


We can simply let the Hadith’s interpret the Koranic passages:


I delay the hadiths later KAI, to bring more focus to the teaching of Al-Qur'an.
So far I refute your claims by the history of the verses themselves. Nothing of the intention of the verses to do any harm to the Non Believers.

Fdjohan wrote:

Quote:
[17:33]. Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him nor exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law).

No way to take any life without a cause.


Kai replies:

Again is this within the everyday of the Muslim in his conduct among non-Muslims or within the context of the passages we looked at earlier.
Notice that the Koran teaches Muslims to be merciful among themselves but harsh toward the non-believers:

48:29 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe (or ruthless, vehement) against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.


Explanation above.

47:35 So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam), while you are having the upper hand. Allah is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds.


What about it?

Fdjohan wrote:

So There are teaching about peaceful act toward people no matter what religion they are.


Kai replies:

Every religion and ideology has its room for peace


Those are the BASIC TEACHING of Muslims to do PEACEFUL ACTS.

Fdjohan wrote:


I will talk about the verses you refer to us after this inshaALLAH.
Let us talk peaceful way since now.
Again now our first focus, talking about the teaching it self. So we better strict our discussion to this part first. Ok my friend?


Kai replies:

Well I have replied to your reply; I still cannot come to turns with the claim that Islam is a religion of peace!


Bring us more verses you claimed as the EVIL TEACHING toward Non-believers.

Much like every other ideology and religion it contains elements of peace, yet that does not render Islam as a peaceful religion.


We'll come to the conclution after we finish this discussion. But argue me with good references.
This time let us focus to what Al-Qur'an teach Muslims.

Salaam

Kai Hagbard
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 10:45 am
Location: Europe-Asia

Postby Kai Hagbard » Sun Jan 29, 2006 06:07 pm

Hi Fdjohan

I will be absent for at least five days (at least until Friday)

Unless I will reply to you later on today, I will reply to your post next weekend.

Be blessed

Kai

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:20 pm

sorry double posting. :(
Last edited by fdjohan on Mon Jan 30, 2006 01:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Mon Jan 30, 2006 01:43 pm

BISMILLAHIRRAHMAANIRRAHIIM

I missed this one.
4:95 Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward;


Your Response for that verse:
There is a reward for those who engage in Jihad

Ok, KAI, I am using Tafsir Ibn Katsir (very famous commentator of Al-Qur'an). He gives us the explanation of surah 4:95
I cut and paste here for people to see it together. Please have a look at the BOLD letters.

The Mujahid and those Who Do not Join Jihad are Not the Same, [and Jihad is Fard Kifayah]

Al-Bukhari recorded that Al-Bara' said, "When the Ayah (verse),

[لاَّ يَسْتَوِى الْقَـعِدُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ]

(Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home),) was revealed, the Messenger of Allah called Zayd and commanded him to write it. Then, Ibn Umm Maktum came and mentioned that he was blind. Allah revealed,

[غَيْرُ أُوْلِى الضَّرَرِ]

(except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame)).'' Al-Bukhari recorded that Sahl bin Sa`d As-Sa`di said, "I saw Marwan bin Al-Hakam sitting in the Masjid. I came and sat by his side. He told us that Zayd bin Thabit told him that Allah's Messenger dictated this Ayah to him,

[لاَّ يَسْتَوِى الْقَـعِدُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ غَيْرُ أُوْلِى الضَّرَرِ وَالْمُجَـهِدُونَ فِى سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ]

(Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled, and those who strive hard and fight in the cause of Allah)
Ibn Umm Maktum came to the Prophet as he was dictating that very Ayah to me. Ibn Umm Maktum said, `O Allah's Messenger! By Allah, if I had power, I would surely take part in Jihad.' He was a blind man. So Allah sent down revelation to His Messenger while his thigh was on mine and it became so heavy for me that I feared that my thigh would be broken. That ended after Allah revealed,

[غَيْرُ أُوْلِى الضَّرَرِ]

(except those who are disabled).'' This was recorded by Al-Bukhari. At-Tirmidhi recorded that Ibn `Abbas said,

[لاَّ يَسْتَوِى الْقَـعِدُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ غَيْرُ أُوْلِى الضَّرَرِ]

(Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled), refers to those who did not go to the battle of Badr and those who went to Badr. When the battle of Badr was about to occur, Abu Ahmad bin Jahsh and Ibn Umm Maktum said, `We are blind, O Messenger of Allah! Do we have an excuse' The Ayah,

[لاَّ يَسْتَوِى الْقَـعِدُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ غَيْرُ أُوْلِى الضَّرَرِ]

(Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled) was revealed. Allah made those who fight, above those who sit in their homes not hindered by disability.

[وَفَضَّلَ اللَّهُ الْمُجَـهِدِينَ عَلَى الْقَـعِدِينَ أَجْراً عَظِيماًدَرَجَـتٍ مِّنْهُ]

(but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home), by a huge reward. Degrees of (higher) grades from Him), above the believers who sit at home without a disability hindering them.'' This is the wording recorded by At-Tirmidhi, who said, "Hasan Gharib. Allah's statement,

[لاَّ يَسْتَوِى الْقَـعِدُونَ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ]

(Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home),) this is general. Soon after, the revelation came down with,

[غَيْرُ أُوْلِى الضَّرَرِ]

(except those who are disabled). So whoever has a disability, such as blindness, a limp, or an illness that prevents them from joining Jihad, they were not compared to the Mujahidin who strive in Allah's cause with their selves and wealth, as those who are not disabled and did not join the Jihad were. In his Sahih, Al-Bukhari recorded that Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said,

«إِنَّ بِالْمَدِينَةِ أَقْوَامًا مَا سِرْتُمْ مِنْ مَسِيرٍ، وَلَا قَطَعْتُمْ مِنْ وَادٍ، إِلَّا وَهُمْ مَعَكُمْ فِيه»

قالوا: وهم بالمدينة يا رسول الله؟ (There are people who remained in Al-Madinah, who were with you in every march you marched and every valley you crossed.) They said, "While they are still in Al-Madinah, O Messenger of Allah'' He said,

«نَعَمْ حَبَسَهُمُ الْعُذْر»

(Yes. Only their disability hindered them (from joining you).) Allah said,

[وَكُلاًّ وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الْحُسْنَى]

(Unto each, Allah has promised good) meaning, Paradise and tremendous rewards. This Ayah indicates that Jihad is not Fard on each and every individual, but it is Fard Kifayah (which is a collective duty). Allah then said,

[وَفَضَّلَ اللَّهُ الْمُجَـهِدِينَ عَلَى الْقَـعِدِينَ أَجْراً عَظِيماً]

(but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home), by a huge reward). Allah mentions what He has given them rooms in Paradise, along with His forgiveness and the descent of mercy and blessing on them, as a favor and honor from Him. So He said;

[دَرَجَـتٍ مِّنْهُ وَمَغْفِرَةً وَرَحْمَةً وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُوراً رَّحِيماً ]

(Degrees of (higher) grades from Him, and forgiveness and mercy. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.). In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said that the Messenger of Allah said,

«إِنَّ فِي الْجَنَّةِ مِائَةَ دَرَجَةٍ، أَعَدَّهَا اللهُ لِلْمُجَاهِدِينَ فِي سَبِيلِهِ، مَا بَيْنَ كُلِّ دَرَجَتَيْنِ كَمَا بَيْنَ السَّمَاءِ وَالْأَرْض»

(There are a hundred grades in Paradise that Allah has prepared for the Mujahidin in His cause, between each two grades is the distance between heaven and Earth.)


I show that for you to understand that part of the VERSES in Al-Qur'an existed concerning the situation and condition along the Prophet(saw)'s life.
Take a look at this text:
refers to those who did not go to the battle of Badr and those who went to Badr

Again. That's concerning Battle of Badr. And Batle of Badr is about defending Muslims from Meccan Pagans attack. (I can give you references for this.

If you say Jihad merely about killing Innocent Non-Muslims, you have to tell people here about what you know about JIHAD it self.
Please explain what JIHAD is.

Muslims are told to engage in Jihad even though they do not like it:

Quote:
2:216 Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.


Jihad is a must for every Muslims since ALLAH commands us to do it.
You don't understand the situation of the Prophet(saw) and Muslims in the early years in Mecca and Medina. You;d better learn about it. Then you'll understand why every Muslims obligated to perforn jihad.
This a small part of explanation about Badr war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badr
However, Talib died in 619 and the leadership of the Banu Hashim passed to the anti-Muslim Amr ibn Hisham,[2] who withdrew the protection and stepped up persecution of the Muslim community.

In 622 C.E., with open acts of violence being committed against the Muslims by their fellow Quraishi tribesman, Muhammad and many of his followers fled to the neighboring city of Medina. This migration is called the Hijra and marked the beginning of Muhammad's reign as a secular chief, in addition to religious leader.


Presure by presure the got. That is why ALLAH urge Muslims to fight. That is what JIHAD for.
Al-Qur'an gave Muslims the rule of war. And that's being the rule of jihas it self.
Nothing wrong with that verse.


Muslims are not allowed to agociate peace with the enemy:

Quote:
47:35 So be not weak and ask not for peace (from the enemies of Islam), while you are having the upper hand. Allah is with you, and will never decrease the reward of your good deeds.



Learn about the situation and the condition of surah 47
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maudu ... 7.html#S47
Period of Revelation

The contents of this Surah testify that it was sent down after the hijrah at Madinah at the time when the fighting had been enjoined, though active fighting had not yet been undertaken. Detailed arguments in support of this view have been given in E. N. 8 below.

Historical Background

The conditions at the time when this Surah was sent down were such that the Muslims were being made the target of persecution and tyranny in Makkah in particular and in Arabia in general, and life had become miserable for them. Although the Muslims had emigrated to the haven of Madinah from every side, the disbelieving Quraish were not prepared to leave them alone and let them live in peace even there. Thus, the small settlement of Madinah was hemmed in by the enemy, who was bent upon exterminating it completely. The only alternative left with the Muslims were that either they should surrender to the forces of ignorance, giving up their mission of preaching the true Faith, or even following it in their private lives, or should rise to wage a war at the cost of their lives to settle finally and for ever whether Islam would stay in Arabia or the creed of ignorance. On this occasion Allah showed the Muslims the same way of resolution and will, which is the only way for the true believers. He first permitted them to fight in Surah Al Hajj 39 and then enjoined fighting in Al Baqarah 190. But at that time everyone knew fully well what it meant to wage a war in those conditions. There were only a handful of Muslims in Madinah, who could not muster even a thousand soldiers; yet they were being urged to take up the sword and clash against the pagan forces of the whole of Arabia. Then the kind of the weapons needed to equip its soldiers for war could hardly be afforded by the town in which hundreds of emigrants were still homeless and unsettled even by resort to starving its members at a time when it had been boycotted economically by the Arabs on all sides.


Remember by that time Muslims are under pressure. That verse is to show Muslims to be strong and show not the weakness.
That's the background of the verse. Nothing about urge Muslims to fight innocent unbelivers.

Muslims are to be hard and harsh with those who do not believe:

Quote:
9:123 O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you

Quote:
48:29 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe (or ruthless, vehement) against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.


Explained above.

to be continued

sardab
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 03:36 pm

Postby sardab » Tue Jan 31, 2006 07:53 am

Kai Hagbard wrote:This is the very reason why I posted the pictures. Obviously if we expose Nazi Germany, we are simply exposing the truth, and we are being the voice of the victims.

Funny then when you reveal the victims of Islam, you are ussually portrayed as a hate-preacher, racist or suffering from islamophobia.

The victims of Islam are ussually ignored because due to the risk of being labelled both this and that.


Here we cannot solve a histroical issue debated so harshly. But just for the sake of argument let's accept your claims. The problem here is that when Nazi Germany does this it is Nazi Germany but not Christianity, and when Turkish CUP leadership does this it is Islam.

Now do you have any idea what CUP means or who are the triumvirate in charge in Ottoman Empire at that time? Do you know CUP chauvenists called Arabs and Iranians as dogs. So where's Islam in the picture? Do you know some leaders of the CUP were ethnic Jews?

You are the same usual Kai. No change.

(CUP: Committee of Union and Progress)

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Tue Jan 31, 2006 01:39 pm

BISMILLAHIRRAHMAANIRRAHIIM

I double checked the verses about EVIL TEACHING against non-believers you posted. I guess I response all of them. Please tell me if I missed.

Temporary conclusion:
- There are no such things in Al-Qur'an the TEACHING LEGALIZED EVIL DEEDS against the UNBELIEVERS.
If Al-Qur'an says we have to choose better way to argue the unbelievers, how in the world we do any harm to them? That’s counter logic.
In many occasion, ALLAH made the rule of engagement to Muslims about how to behave to non-believers.
- People who claim the alleged verses are totally ignorance of the situation and the condition of the verses existed. They even forget to look the verses before and after the alleged verse.

Now let us talk about JEWS in time of the Prophet(saw).

KAI's comment.

Islam and the Jews

Islam is utterly racistic in its dealing with the Jews. According to Islam, Jews are considered to be the party of Satan, Muslims are not to befriend them, and finally the butchering of all Jews is inevitable.
98:6 Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Quran and Prophet Muhammad) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

5:51 O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.), they are but Auliya' to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as Auliya', then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong¬doers and unjust).


58:19. Shaitan (Satan) has overtaken them (the Jews). So he has made them forget the remembrance of Allah. They are the party of Shaitan (Satan). Verily, it is the party of Shaitan (Satan) that will be the losers!


4:76 Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan); Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Shaitan (Satan).


The problem of Mr KAI is he PICKED the verses careless the history of them (as always). This is why I said he didn't learn about the history if Islam or AL-Qur'an or the life of Prophet Muhammad (saw). Because if he learn about it, he will understand the character of the Jews and what the Jews did to the Prophet (saw) and Muslims.

History recorded the early time Muhammad (saw) in Medina.
Taken from :
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Book ... period.htm

[By this new brotherhood, Muhammad achieved an operational Muslim unity. Politically, it was a very wise move destined to show Muhammad's sound judgment and foresight. We shall better appreciate its wisdom when we learn of the attempts to divide al Aws against al Khazraj, and al Ansar against al Muhajirun. The politically greater achievement of Muhammad was his realization of a unity for the, city of Yathrib as a whole, his construction of a political structure in which the Jews entered freely into an alliance of mutual cooperation with the Muslims. We have already seen how the Jews gave Muhammad a good welcome in the hope of winning him as an ally. He, too, returned their greeting with like gestures and sought to consolidate his relations with them. He visited their chiefs and cultivated the friendship of their nobles. He bound himself to them in a bond of friendship on the grounds that they were scripturists and monotheists. So much had Muhammad defended the Jews that the fact that he fasted with them on the days they fasted and prayed toward Jerusalem as they did increased his personal and religious esteem among them. Everything seemed as if the future could only strengthen this Muslim Jewish friendship and produce further cooperation and closeness between them. Similarly, Muhammad's own conduct, his great humility, compassion, and faithfulness, and his outgoing charity and goodness to the poor, oppressed and deprived, as well as the prestige and influence which these qualities had won for him among all the people of Yathrib-all these enabled him to conclude the pact of friendship, alliance, and cooperation in the safeguarding of religious freedom throughout the city. In our opinion, this covenant is one of the greatest political documents which history has known. Such an accomplishment by Muhammad at this stage of his career had never been reached by any prophet. Jesus, Moses, and all the prophets that preceded them never went beyond the preaching of their religious messages through words and miracles.


Have a look at this:
He, too, returned their greeting with like gestures and sought to consolidate his relations with them. He visited their chiefs and cultivated the friendship of their nobles. He bound himself to them in a bond of friendship on the grounds that they were scripturists and monotheists. So much had Muhammad defended the Jews that the fact that he fasted with them on the days they fasted and prayed toward Jerusalem as they did increased his personal and religious esteem among them.


That story refute Mr KAI's comment: "Islam is utterly racistic in its dealing with the Jews"
Prophet treat them fair justice. Prophet(saw) gave them great honor.

===============

The history recorded how later JEWS betrayed the treaty and ATTACKED Muslims.

http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/seerah/26.htm

THE QAINUQA' JEWS BREACH THE COVENANT:

Seeing that Allâh sided with the believers and granted them a manifest victory and perceiving the Muslims’ awesome presence in Madinah, the Jews could no longer contain themselves or conceal indignation. They started a series of provocative and harmful deeds publicly. The most wicked amongst them were the tribe of Banu Qainuqa‘, who lived in quarters within Madinah named after them. As for jobs, they took up goldsmithery, blacksmithing and crafts of making household instruments, that is why war weaponry was available in large quantities in their houses. They counted 700 warriors, and were the most daring amongst the Jewish community in Arabia, and now the first to breach the covenant of cooperation and non-aggression which they had already countersigned with the Prophet (Peace be upon him). Their behaviour grew too impolite and unbearable. They started a process of trouble-making, jeering at the Muslims, hurting those who frequented their bazaars, and even intimidating their women. Such things began to aggravate the general situation, so the Prophet(Peace be upon him) gathered them in assemblage, admonished and called them to be rational, sensible and guided and cautioned against further transgression. Nevertheless they remained obdurate and paid no heed to his warning, and said: “Don’t be deluded on account of defeating some Quraishites inexperienced in the art of war. If you were to engage us in fight, you will realize that we are genuine war experts.”


It's JEWS started everything. And what did the Prophet do? He (Peace be upon him) gathered them in assemblage, admonished and called them to be rational. There are no sign to kill on the spot. Even the Prophet called Muslims to be more patient .
The answer of Banu Qainuqa‘ amounted, as seen, to war declaration. The Prophet (Peace be upon him) suppressed his anger and advised the Muslims to be patient and forbearing and wait for what time might reveal.

The Jews, went too far in their transgression, presumptuous behaviour and licentious practices. One day a Jewish goldsmith provoked a Muslim woman whose genitals become uncovered when he had tied the edge of the garment to her back. A Muslim man happened to be there and killed the man; the Jews retaliated by killing that Muslim. The man’s family called the Muslims for help and war started.


JEWS who started the war and created so much problem to the Muslims.
This part of history to explaining the BACKGROUND of those verses KAI posted.
This is other prove that Muslims do not attack such INNOCENT un-believers. Muslims will fight people who attack them, not if they want peace with them.

JEWS WORKED TOGETHER WITH PAGANS MECCA (QURAISY) TO ATTACK THE PROPHET (SAW) AND MUSLIMS.

Two-pronged hostile activities were being independently conducted against the Prophet (Peace be upon him) ; plots and intrigues being hatched by Safwan bin Omaiyah, the hypocrites and Jews on the one hand, going on and on parallel lines with military hostilities being prepared by Abu Sufyan aiming at saving the face of his people and impressing on the other Arabs that Quraish was still a military power to be counted for. In the aftermath of Badr, Abu Sufyan was burning for revenge and took a solemn vow he would never bathe off impurity unless he had avenged himself on Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and his followers. He set out at the head of 200 men towards Madinah but was not brave enough to attack it in broad daylight. He, instead resorted to acts of piracy that are performed in the dark. He infiltrated into the Prophet ’s town and went to see an old ally Huyai bin Akhtab, who was too cowardly to let him in, so he left for Salam bin Mashkam, chief of Bani Nadeer, a tribe of Jews. The Jew entertained and gave him a full account of the situation therein. Late at night he despatched a group of his men to raid Al-‘Uraid, a suburb of Madinah. There, the men felled and burnt the palm trees, killed two Muslims and then took swiftly to their heels.

On hearing the news, the Prophet (Peace be upon him) gathered his men and set out at their heels, but could not catch them. The Muslims brought back the provisions (Sawiq, a kind of barley porridge) which the polytheists had thrown aside in order to lighten their loads and hasten their escape; hence this campaign was called As-Sawiq Invasion. It took place in Dhul-Hijjah 2 A.H., two months after the event of Badr.


It is clear now. Muslims were attacked by JEWS (together with the Quraisy).
This will show the character of the JEWS in time of aMuhammad (saw).

KAI talked about FACTS. Those are above the historical FACTS which was missed and untold by KAI. Slowly by slowly we can see how he spread HATE against Islam without any consideration to DOUBLE CHECK the information.

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Tue Jan 31, 2006 07:52 pm

BISMILLAHIRRAHMAANIRRAHIIM

sardab wrote:
Kai Hagbard wrote:This is the very reason why I posted the pictures. Obviously if we expose Nazi Germany, we are simply exposing the truth, and we are being the voice of the victims.

Funny then when you reveal the victims of Islam, you are ussually portrayed as a hate-preacher, racist or suffering from islamophobia.

The victims of Islam are ussually ignored because due to the risk of being labelled both this and that.


Here we cannot solve a histroical issue debated so harshly. But just for the sake of argument let's accept your claims. The problem here is that when Nazi Germany does this it is Nazi Germany but not Christianity, and when Turkish CUP leadership does this it is Islam.

Now do you have any idea what CUP means or who are the triumvirate in charge in Ottoman Empire at that time? Do you know CUP chauvenists called Arabs and Iranians as dogs. So where's Islam in the picture? Do you know some leaders of the CUP were ethnic Jews?

You are the same usual Kai. No change.

(CUP: Committee of Union and Progress)


Assalammu'alaikum br Sardab. That's interesting. Not all people claim such genocide done by Muslims. Please look at the info below.

This one from RENSE.com

Jews, Zionists Behind Armenian Genocide Holocaust
By Jack Manuelian 4-23-5


The plans of the 1915-23 Armenian Genocide, where a million and half Armenians perished in a barbaric way in their ancestral lands in modern Turkey, actually were drawn up and were in place by the year 1910 or 1912.

There is the book "Inner Folds of the Ottoman Revolution" written by Mevlan Zadeh Rifat in Turkish and published in 1929, the author, a pro-sultan Turk, claims that the "Armenian genocide was decided in August 1910 and October 1911, by a Young Turk committee composed entirely of displaced Balkan Jews in the format of a syncretist Jewish-Muslim sect which included Talaat, Enver, Behaeddin Shakir, Jemal, and Nizam posting as Muslims. It met in the Rothschild-funded Grand Orient loge/hotel of Salonika." Syncretism means a combination of different forms of belief or practice; masonism fits that description. As the masons started the 1897 revolution in France with the cry "liberty, fraternity, equality," Young Turks used the same slogan in their revolution of 1908.

A 1994 conference paper/lecture by Joseph Brewda of Schiller Institute entitled "Palmerson launches Young Turks to permanently control Middle East " claims the founder of the Young Turks to be a certain Jew by the name of Emmanuel Carasso. He states: "Carasso set up the Young Turk secret society in the 1890s in Salonika, then part of Turkey, and now part of Greece. Carasso was also the grand master of an Italian masonic lodge there, called 'Macedonia Resurrected.' The lodge was the headquarters of the Young Turks, and all the top Young Turk leadership were members."

Further on Mr. Brewda says: "During the Young Turk regime, Carasso continued to play a leading role. He met with the sultan, to tell him that he was overthrown. He was in charge of putting the sultan under house arrest. He ran the Young Turk intelligence network in the Balkans. And he was in charge of all food supplies in the empire during World War I." It is ironic that four centuries after the Turkish sultans welcomed the expelled European Jews into Turkey, certain Jews belonging to secret societies and to Zionism will kick the sultan out of power early in 20th century, destroy the Ottoman Empire, and celebrated their victory by massacring by proxy almost the whole Christian Armenian people, one million and half Armenians; half million Greeks; and half million Christian Assyrians & Arameans.

In 1982, after the Israeli army conquered Lebanon, they celebrated their victory by massacring by proxy children and women in the Palestinian camp of Shattila, in Lebanon, by allowing Lebanese Phalanger militia fighters to move into the camp for two days and murder its inhabitants. Eighty percent of the camp were killed. Nearly all of the dead were old men, women and children and all of them had been unarmed. Not one gun, not one knife was found in their possession, claims a Palestinian witness.

All this according to the percepts of the Talmud, the Satanic Bible of the Jews, which encourages Jews to kill, directly or indirectly, by sayings like: "Every Jew who spills the blood of the godless, is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God." Talmud: Bammidber Raba c21 & Jalkut 772. In the eyes of Talmudists all non-Jews are godless. And "It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah." Talmud: Coschen Hamischpat, Hagah 425. Very neatly put sentence indeed.

Jesus came and shed his blood for us in order to save humanity and put an end to human and animal sacrifices practiced by Talmudist Jews who believe that the shedding of the blood of the innocents is a prerequisite of their reptilian gods, specially before embarking on an enterprise. They have orchestrated the massacres and slaughters of millions and millions of humanity so that their demonic gods will be appeased and grand them a new homeland in the near-east. Apparently, the sacrifice of hundreds of millions of humanity during the first half of the twenty century (including the six million Jews of Nazi Holocaust) have appeased their gods and their wish was granted.

Back to the Young Turks. Mr. Brewda writes: "Another important area was the press. While in power, the Young Turks ran several newspapers, including 'The Young Turk,' whose editor was none other than the Russian Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky had been educated as a young man in Italy."

Mr. Brewda, ignoring the possibility that Talaat could have been a secret infiltrated Jew, writes: "Of course, there were also some Turks who helped lead the Young Turk movement. For example, Talaat Pasha. Talaat was the interior minister and dictator of the regime during World war I. He had been a member of Carasso's Italian masonic lodge in Salonika. One year prior to the 1908 coup, Talaat became the grand master of the Scottish Rite Masons in the Ottoman Empire. If you go to the [archives of] Scottish Rite headquarters in Washington, D.C., you can find that most of the Young Turk leaders were officials in the Scottish Rite."

By 1916 the British and French, overpowered by greed, already had a secret agreement to divide the Ottoman Empire between themselves. Presently Hitler's "Mien Kempt " anti-semitic book is a best-seller in Turkey, it is published by various Turkish publishers by thousands and thousands. Are the Turks finally waking up and realizing that their Sultan's refusal to grant Palestine to the Zionist Jews as a homeland had cost them their centuries-old empire? And are the subjugated Turks about to discover who their real rulers are? There are claims that the blue-eyed founder of modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk had Jewish origins. And it is known that at least two presidents of modern Turkey (Inonu and Bayar) were Jewish.

In Istanbul, which was the capital and the power center of the Ottoman Empire, there was only few thousands (less than 10,000) Jews and some 200,000 Armenians and Greeks who controlled the trade, finances and arts of the Empire. Jews and Christians were in strong competition through hundreds of years of the life of the empire. Jews were the losers and Christians were the winner always because the Sultans ( there were very few bad sultans who killed Christians) listened to and favored the Christians. For the Zionist Jews to take over Turkey, its Christians had to be eliminated; and that is another ugly facade of the first Genocide of the 20th Century in Turkey.

Another source is the lengthy article "The Armenian & Jewish Genocide Project: Eliminating Ethnic Conflict Along the Oil Route From Baku to the Suez Canal Region " written by Clifford Shack and posted in his web-site.

Mr. Shack writes: "In the 1880's, the French branch of the Rothschild family acquired interests in Russia's Baku oil fields in an effort to supply their refinery on the Adriatic with cheap Russian oil. In exchange for these interests they built a railroad linking Baku to the newly acquired Black Sea port of Batum. This opened up the Baku oil, a major world supply, to the world. With the success of the new railroad, the Rothschilds had more oil than they could actually sell. Overcoming their fear of competing with the giant Standard oil [of USA], they sought out the huge [Far East] markets east of Suez."

Further on Mr. Shack makes his point: "The decision by the shrewd French Rothschild branch to diversify into other areas of oil exploitation was, presumably, a calculated one. Three years after they joined Royal Dutch, production at Baku would come to an abrupt halt in 1905. Although shaken by political activity, the principal disruption was due to the violence of the ethnic conflict between the region's Muslims and the minority population of Armenians who are Christians. This ethnic conflict caused the first interruption of oil distribution to the world market. Standard oil was quick to supplant the needs of the effected markets as its source was operating under the blanket of peace. The Royal/Dutch/Shell Group (and the Nobles) watched their Baku investments go up in flames. Ethnic conflict was at the root of the matter. It could be safely assumed that they were taking measures to eliminate the possibility of that happening in the future." Oil corporations seem to have learned their lessons from history because before the construction of present-day Baku-Ceyhan pipeline has began, someone has made sure that no Armenians were left in Baku anymore. Mr. Shack notes that "the mere elimination of the Armenian population of Baku would not solve the problem of ethnic conflict in that region. The surrounding areas would provide reservoir effect in resupplying the conflicting minority element." And he asks: "was the removal [in 1915-23] of a small minority like the Armenians [from historical Armenia] a fair price to pay for the peace in a region so crucial to the development and investment of the Far East?" Apparently Mr. Shack ignores the factor of revenge raging in the heart of human beasts.

Mr. Shacks answers his own question by stating in his article about the big business or big corporations: "It would be fair to say that the genocide of a group of a million or so, to serve the benefit of a billion or so [in the Far East], is less of a question of should it be done, than how it could be done. So as not to reveal any plausible motive which could link the actual planners to the genocide, the scheme involved a proxy party [namely the Muslim Turks, Kurds & Azeris] , which was manipulated through layers of influence, providing sufficient cover for the planners."

In chapter 30 of the book of Isaiah we read God speaking by His prophet: "Woe to the rebellious children, who execute a plan, but not Mine, and make an alliance, but not of My Spirit, in order to add sin to sin;...For this is a rebellious people, false sons, sons who refuse to listen to the instruction of the Lord."

This is not the whole story; there is an evil aliens connection to it. Amitakh Stanford, in her web-site <http://www.xeeatwelve.com> and in her article "The Anunnaki Remnants Are Still on Earth" writes: "It is these horrible beings, the Anunnaki, that Sitchin has written an apology for. Reading Sitchin's material, he has painted these evil aliens as palatably as possible by presenting the story that they are trying to save their own planet, and leaves the readers to believe that after that is accomplished, they would leave without a trace, so to speak. But, the Anunnaki came here to conquer and enslave, not for any worthy purpose whatsoever, nor will they leave voluntarily. "Anunnaki cull people and other species from the planet. Before, this was often referred to as genocide. However, today the more euphemistic term of "ethnic cleansing" is used. The disdain of other races is another vile Anunnaki-sponsored trait to divide people into factions and create hatred and distrust of one another. Any fair look at history will verify this as true. The twentieth-century Holocaust is one such example." So after all, we are not dealing with normal human beings, but by humans who are possessed with those alien entities and humans that are manipulated, influenced, and given instructions by those evil aliens in their various factions.

_____

This research article is not copyrighted. Reproduction is permitted. No one need waste time calling the author an 'anti-semite.' He will be the first to come to the help of a Jew if and when a Jewish life is in peril. Before you call him anti-semite your better call the God of the Bible and His prophets 'anti-semites.' If not, then you have to re-read the Bible...carefully.

For Joseph Brewda's article go to : SchillerInstitute.org then put the name of the author or title of his article in the search tab of the web-site of the institute. For Clifford Shack's article, put his name in the search tap of Yahoo in order to find his web-site where his article is posted.

The Turkish book "Inner Folds of the Ottoman Revolution" has no known English translation. It was translated into Armenian in 1939 in Beirut, Lebanon, by Donigian Press.


Again, JEWS behind the Armenian Genocide
http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID ... 2300-9572r

The American-Israel Public Action Committee, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and, more generally, the almighty Jewish lobby in Washington often support Turkish causes on the Hill. Three years ago, for example, Jews helped quash a resolution commemorating the Armenian genocide perpetrated by Turkish forces during the first World War. This exercise in hypocrisy did not endear the Jewish community or Israel to either Armenians or to European Union cardholding Greeks who have long permitted Palestinian terrorists to operate from the Greek part of Cyprus with impunity. The friend of my enemy is my enemy, and Israel is clearly Turkey's Jewish friend.

But Israeli hopes that Turkey will reciprocate by serving as a conduit to Arab regimes in the Middle East proved to be ill-founded. Only one-tenth of Turkish trade is with its neighbors near and far. Turkey's leverage is further limited by its chronic economic distress and its offensive designs to monopolize waterways shared by adjacent countries.


If you seek the knowledge about the Armenian Massacre, you will find the name such "YOUNG TURK"
http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?t ... n_Genocide

"World War One gave the Young Turk government the cover and the excuse to carry out their plan. The plan was simple and its goal was clear. On April 24th 1915, commemorated worldwide by Armenians as Genocide Memorial Day, hundreds of Armenian leaders were murdered in Istanbul after being summoned and gathered. The now leaderless Armenian people were to follow. Across the Ottoman Empire (with the exception of Constantinople, presumably due to a large foreign presence), the same events transpired from village to village, from province to province.


What about YOUNG TURK? this is the explanation
http://www.panarmenian.net/library/eng/?nid=60
Barry, in his first article, says that "Morrison doesn't realize that he is reporting a Sabbatean massacre, yet he instinctively writes about the Young Turks." On page 48, Morrison writes: "The Young Turks who led the 1908 revolution were Turkish nationalists and established secular institutions, overthrowing the religious Moslem order. They viewed Armenians as a direct threat to their revolutionary plans. The evidence is overwhelming that the massacre of the Armenians was a deliberate, planned genocide. The Young Turks allied themselves with Germany and used World War I as a cover for their slaughter of Armenians... As did the Nazis in World War II, the Turks used their intended victims as slave laborers building a trans-Turkish railway for German business interests."


Young Turks allied themselves with Germany

You know what, Young TURK invected by JEWISH

Other Jews active in the Young Turks were Nissim Mazliah from Izmir and Vitali Faradji , Moise Cohen (later called Munis Tekinalp) who was an active Jew and once rabbinical student who turned to business and actively asserted a proud Turkish identity along with Zionist sentiments...It is curious that Israel’s first and second Prime Ministers, David Ben Gurion and Moshe Sharett and her second president Yitzchak Ben Zvi had lived and studied in Istanbul and embraced the concept 'lehitatmen', Hebrew for 'to become an Ottoman'. Ben Zvi is alleged by some to be descendant of a Sabbatean family. Sharett served in the Ottoman army in WW1. Ben Gurion gave up Russian citizenship for Ottoman citizenship, something many others in Palestine were afraid to do. Israeli Presidents Ben Zevi, Zalman Shazar and to a lesser degree Yitzchak Navon became students of Ottomanism.


Young TURK is full house of JEWISH people. They massacre the Armenians.
KAI BLAME MUSLIMS FOR THIS. :lol: :lol:

Aburaees
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:25 pm

Postby Aburaees » Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:59 pm

Yet another muslim conspiracy theory blaming the Jews for things that other people did. :roll:

Only 12 million Jews in the world and 1,200 million muslims are still afraid of them because they were responsible for the Jewish Holocaust, Armenian Holocaust, 9/11 Attacks, and goodness knows what else!!!

Look, I'm not trying to make fun but you're hardly going to convince Christians that the Jews are the sinister conspiracists you make them out to be. Especially when the sources you cite are from Muslim authors!!!

On the other hand, I do acknowledge that the Ottomans aren't neccessarily the best representatives of Islam, just as the Nazis aren't the best representatives of Christianity.

I guess that the best way to continue this thread would be to explore whether or not Islam PROHIBITS or ALLOWS the genocide of non-muslim peoples.

Only then can we judge whether Islam should answer for the above mentioned genocide.


.

sardab
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 03:36 pm

Postby sardab » Wed Feb 01, 2006 06:48 am

Aburaees wrote:I guess that the best way to continue this thread would be to explore whether or not Islam PROHIBITS or ALLOWS the genocide of non-muslim peoples.

Only then can we judge whether Islam should answer for the above mentioned genocide.


.


And who said you deserve such a discussion?

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Wed Feb 01, 2006 09:31 am

BISMILLAHIRRAHMAANIRRAHIIM

Hi Aburaees :D How are ya.

Aburaees wrote:Yet another muslim conspiracy theory blaming the Jews for things that other people did. :roll:


On the other hand, you all guys blaming ISLAM for things that other people did.

Only 12 million Jews in the world and 1,200 million muslims are still afraid of them


Excusme newseed. Muslims are taught not to be afraid of anybody but their ALLAH. There are no such word like "afraid" in the heart of Muslims.


because they were responsible for the Jewish Holocaust, Armenian Holocaust, 9/11 Attacks, and goodness knows what else!!!


Sorry, who are "THEY" in this case that you mean?
The history recorded the "YOUNG TURK" massacred the Armenians. It is recorded that the JEWISH inside the "YOUNG TURK". It was caught that the Young Turk fought their own Muslim brothers. And suddenly Islam is to be blame. Cmoon mann!! can Christians be fair even just a bit?

And 9/11? Do you blame Muslims? even americans themselves proved such evil act done by their own government. Part of them blame JEWS for this. the more research they made about 9/11, the more they realize the conspiracy theory behind all of it and part of them proved that no Muslims behind the ATTACK.
Have a look at this:
CNN Reported No Plane Hit Pentagon
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_photos_prove_hoax.htm
Here is a video clip from CNN coverage on the morning of 9/11. CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it is obvious no plane crashed there.

JAMIE MCINTYRE: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.

WATCH VIDEO http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/


Even CNN it-self making such statement.
Now explore this web about research on 9/11
http://www.islamdefenders.com/911/link_911/link_911.htm
No Muslims involved in 9/11 attack.

Look, I'm not trying to make fun but you're hardly going to convince Christians that the Jews are the sinister conspiracists you make them out to be. Especially when the sources you cite are from Muslim authors!!!


Which part of those we created by Muslims?
rense.com is belongs to Jeff Rense. He is not a Muslim.

http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID ... 2300-9572r
That article created by By SAM VAKNIN UPI Senior Business Correspondent. Not a Muslim.

http://www.panarmenian.net/library/eng/?nid=60
WAS THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE A DRY-RUN FOR THE JEWISH HOLOCAUST?
by Jack Manuelian --Not A Muslim

You know what, more people are sick of "KEEP BLAMING ISLAM" now adays.

On the other hand, I do acknowledge that the Ottomans aren't neccessarily the best representatives of Islam, just as the Nazis aren't the best representatives of Christianity.


This is sound wise.

I guess that the best way to continue this thread would be to explore whether or not Islam PROHIBITS or ALLOWS the genocide of non-muslim peoples.


Under discussion.

Only then can we judge whether Islam should answer for the above mentioned genocide.
.


Ok then. Fair judgement please.

Salaam for you newseed :D

Aburaees
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:25 pm

Postby Aburaees » Thu Feb 02, 2006 04:01 am

fdjohan wrote:Sorry, who are "THEY" in this case that you mean?
The history recorded the "YOUNG TURK" massacred the Armenians. It is recorded that the JEWISH inside the "YOUNG TURK". It was caught that the Young Turk fought their own Muslim brothers. And suddenly Islam is to be blame. Cmoon mann!! can Christians be fair even just a bit?


I think you've misunderstood me, THEY refers to te Jews. I've come across many crackpot theories where some Muslims try to claim that the Jews plotted the 9/11 attacks, and the Jews planned the holocaust in Germany. I'm sorry but these ideas are just plain ridiculous.

And like I said, the Armenian holocaust has nothing to do with Islam unless someone can prove that Islamic teachings permitted it in he first place. This is what should be under dispute.

The source you cited for the "YOUNG TURK" evidence was a Turkish Muslim source, which is hardly going to be accepted by Christians considering that Muslims are still trying to claim that the Jews were responsible for 9/11 and the holocaust of their own people.

Aburaees
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:25 pm

Postby Aburaees » Thu Feb 02, 2006 04:02 am

sardab wrote:
Aburaees wrote:I guess that the best way to continue this thread would be to explore whether or not Islam PROHIBITS or ALLOWS the genocide of non-muslim peoples.

Only then can we judge whether Islam should answer for the above mentioned genocide.


.


And who said you deserve such a discussion?


And who said you deserve to ask such a pointless question?

Joseph
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 09:24 pm
Location: California

Postby Joseph » Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:55 pm

fdjohan wrote:That's the background of the verse. Nothing about urge Muslims to fight innocent unbelivers.


If that is the background then what is its present day relevance and application, or is verse outdated; whose judgment determines innocence; do you know more about Islam than Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

And 9/11? Do you blame Muslims? even americans themselves proved such evil act done by their own government. Part of them blame JEWS for this. the more research they made about 9/11, the more they realize the conspiracy theory behind all of it and part of them proved that no Muslims behind the ATTACK.
Have a look at this:


You're living in a dream palace.

joseph

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Sat Feb 04, 2006 08:53 am

Aburaees wrote:
fdjohan wrote:Sorry, who are "THEY" in this case that you mean?
The history recorded the "YOUNG TURK" massacred the Armenians. It is recorded that the JEWISH inside the "YOUNG TURK". It was caught that the Young Turk fought their own Muslim brothers. And suddenly Islam is to be blame. Cmoon mann!! can Christians be fair even just a bit?


I think you've misunderstood me, THEY refers to te Jews. I've come across many crackpot theories where some Muslims try to claim that the Jews plotted the 9/11 attacks, and the Jews planned the holocaust in Germany. I'm sorry but these ideas are just plain ridiculous.

And like I said, the Armenian holocaust has nothing to do with Islam unless someone can prove that Islamic teachings permitted it in he first place. This is what should be under dispute.

The source you cited for the "YOUNG TURK" evidence was a Turkish Muslim source, which is hardly going to be accepted by Christians considering that Muslims are still trying to claim that the Jews were responsible for 9/11 and the holocaust of their own people.


Let us forget the word "CLAIM". I am asking you to talk more objective.
This is about "YOUNG TURK" and their revolution.

Young Turk Revolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Turk_Revolution

The 1908 Young Turk Revolution even though a popular constitutional movement, was a watershed in the history of the late Ottoman Empire. It not only put an end to Hamidian regime, but also identified an ancient regime in Ottoman politics in the strongest terms and attempted to replace old institutions and policies with the new ones. Abdülhamid II's carefully created regime, refined and revamped by its founder over more than three decades, simply vanished from the scene, and no one who possessed any weight in politics, even among the opponents of Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), either defended it or yearned for its return.

The Young Turk Revolution not only established a new power center in Ottoman politics, namely CUP, but also gave rise to a dynamic opposition that disputed the political program of the CUP.

Another result of the 1908 Young Turk Revolution was the gradual creation of a new governing elite, which had consolidated and cemented its control over the Ottoman civil and military administration by 1913.

Besides making the CUP the dominant actor in Ottoman politics, the 1908 Young Turk Revolution marked a strong shift in the organization of the elites of many ethnic and religious gruops in the Ottoman Empire. For instance, the Dashnaktsutiun replaced the pre-1908 Armenian elite, which had been composed of merchants, artisans, and clerics who saw their future in obtaining more privileges within the boundaries of the state's version of Ottomanism.

The loyal Muslim Albanian elite, who had greatly benefited from the Hamidian regime in return for their fidelity to the sultan, was replaced by an intellectual-nationalist elite, with members such as Bajram Curri, Nexhib Draga, and Myfit Libohova; all of these aimed at uniting Albanians of three different faiths under the flag of Skenderbeu and called for reforms for the benefit of all Albanians.

In some communities, such as the Jewish one (see more at Jews in Islamic Europe and North Africa and History of Jews in Turkey), reformist groups emulating the Young Turks ousted the conservative ruling elite and replaced them with a new reformist one.

The Young Turks and the expatriate organizations of the various ethnic groups had not been able to find common ground during their years in opposition. After the revolution their disagreements grew in importance, since they gained the upper hand in in the administration of the empire and of community affairs.

The CUP's adoption of an aggressive Ottomanism, which its opponents considered tantamount to Turkification, strained relations even more.


Can you prove me that the article from wikipedia wrote by a Muslim?

This article I picked from Jewish website.
"TO DAY IN SEPHARDIC JEWISH HISTORY"
http://isfsp.org/apr.html

1909: Jews take active part in uprising of the Young Turk movement, notably Nissim Effendi Mazliah and Emmanuel Effendi Carusso, members of the Parliament. Many Jews from Adrianople, Constantinople, Monastir and Salonica volunteer in the Army of the Young Turks.


If you say the all of those claimed by Muslims, you are dead wrong my friend. That's a historical record. And the information is there.

One the FOUNDERS of the YOUNG TURK is A JEWISH.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=531420

So who was this Emanuel Karasu? Most sources that mention his name
are, alas, in Turkish; and unfortunately my Turkish vocabulary is
extremely limited. But based on what I could understand, these are
some basic (and very incomplete) biographical facts:

- He was born in 1862.

- He originally was a lawyer in Thessaloniki in the late 19th century,
when that part of Greece was still part of the Osman Empire.

- He was a Sephardic Jew.

- He also was a Freemason, a distinguished member of the lodge
"Macedonia Rissorta" in Thessaloniki (founded in 1864 by the lodge
"Italia" of Istanbul). It may be interesting that Turkish Prime
Minister Talat Pasha (1917-1918) was also a member of Karasu's lodge.

- He was one of the founders of the "Young Turks" movement in the 1890s.


That info above supported by Rense.com
http://www.rense.com/general64/genoc.htm
A 1994 conference paper/lecture by Joseph Brewda of Schiller Institute entitled "Palmerson launches Young Turks to permanently control Middle East " claims the founder of the Young Turks to be a certain Jew by the name of Emmanuel Carasso. He states: "Carasso set up the Young Turk secret society in the 1890s in Salonika, then part of Turkey, and now part of Greece. Carasso was also the grand master of an Italian masonic lodge there, called 'Macedonia Resurrected.' The lodge was the headquarters of the Young Turks, and all the top Young Turk leadership were members."


I am not "CLAIMING" something, but I am talking about the history of "YOUNG TURK" who was massacre the Ermenians.

Do Muslims only claim that JEWS were behind 9/11 attack?

http://student.fortlewis.edu/DEWARNER/
The Real 9/11 Terrorists: The Jews
This website, created by the Patriot Friends of America Network (APFN), claims that Israel was solely responsible for the 9-11 attacks, especially the Israeli secret intelligence network known as the Mossad. The Mossad used the remote controlled plans that attacked the trade center through a secret radio control system. The U.S. government had long known about the planned attacks on the trade center, through communications between Paul Wolfowitz and Israel's Zbiniew Brzezinski, but were blackmailed into cooperating and covering it up because Israel had hundreds spies in the United States with the capability to detonate nuclear weapons in U.S. cities.


This website article was written by Sean McBride, who is a reporter investigating U.S. CIA-Drug trade involvement. He researched 9-11, and according to him, he unwillingly found out that the 9/11 attacks were a Israeli government plan carried out by the Mossad secret intelligence agency, in accordance to on of the Mossad mottos, "By way of deception, thou shall do war."


I'll be glad to talk more about the EVIL behind 9/11.
More and more people point their finger to JEWISH. Most of them are Americans which are not all Muslims.

And about Blaming Islam for Armenians massacre, That's really a SLANDER. Coming from a MODERATOR of this forum.
It's so sad. :cry: How Christian legalize SLANDER against other religion.

Salaam
Last edited by fdjohan on Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Sat Feb 04, 2006 09:05 am

BISMILLAHIRRAHMAANIRRAHIIM

Peace Joseph :D


Joseph wrote:
fdjohan wrote:That's the background of the verse. Nothing about urge Muslims to fight innocent unbelivers.


If that is the background then what is its present day relevance and application, or is verse outdated; whose judgment determines innocence;


Al-Qur'an determines everything about the innocent non-believers.
Want to talk about it?

do you know more about Islam than Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?


Can you prove me that all Muslims in this world support their movements?

And 9/11? Do you blame Muslims? even americans themselves proved such evil act done by their own government. Part of them blame JEWS for this. the more research they made about 9/11, the more they realize the conspiracy theory behind all of it and part of them proved that no Muslims behind the ATTACK.
Have a look at this:


You're living in a dream palace.


I can prove you that I am not dreaming.
This is a chalenge for you.
We talk about 9/11. You prove that Muslims behind 9/11 and I prove you that no Muslims behind 9/11. Fair and mature discussion and debate with a solid references.

Agree? if you say agree, I will make a new thread about 9/11.

Salaam

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Tue Feb 07, 2006 08:16 am

Is anybody home?
Joseph, KAI? you there?

Kai Hagbard
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 10:45 am
Location: Europe-Asia

Postby Kai Hagbard » Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:40 pm

Hi bro I am finally back

But be patience with me, I am only online right now for a few minutes.

Sadly I will have had no internet for the last week or so, and I will have no internet for the next 8 days or so

And where I am going I have fairly little possibility use it; if I do, it will only be for a few minutes and probably not for debating.

I shall get back to you in approximately 8 days.

Be blessed

Kai

Joseph
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 09:24 pm
Location: California

Postby Joseph » Tue Feb 07, 2006 09:55 pm

fdjohan wrote:Al-Qur'an determines everything about the innocent non-believers. Want to talk about it?


I want explanation instead of the confusing the issue you always want to offer. Here is how discussions with are going: Learned ones determine correct interpretations of Quran and Quran determines correct action for Muslims.

Can you prove me that all Muslims in this world support their movements?


The question was, are you more knowledgeable on Islam than Islam's learned ones, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

This is a chalenge for you.


Hardly. I simply accept your state of denial.

joseph

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:36 pm

Joseph wrote:
fdjohan wrote:Al-Qur'an determines everything about the innocent non-believers. Want to talk about it?


I want explanation instead of the confusing the issue you always want to offer.


I just wonder. Which confusing isue? You came here with nothing to do with the title of the thread. My replies related to the title. Which is confusing?

Here is how discussions with are going: Learned ones determine correct interpretations of Quran and Quran determines correct action for Muslims.


The learned ones provide you the historical fact of the verses and in what situation and condition the verses about, and the real message of the verses. Those things ignored by you all. Correct action of Muslims is what
Qur'an determine what Muslims must be.

Can you prove me that all Muslims in this world support their movements?


The question was, are you more knowledgeable on Islam than Islam's learned ones, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?


I've never said that I am more knowlegeable than any Muslims.
Are those knowledgeable in Christianity who massacre people represent Christians in this world?

Are you challenge me to talk about Al-Qaeda include their involvement in 9/11?

This is a chalenge for you.


Hardly. I simply accept your state of denial.

joseph


What denial? you said :"You're living in a dream palace."
I said :"I can prove you that I am not dreaming."
The I challenge you to talk about it. It's that denial? no that's a brave act than the one who can not make their desicion when some one challenge him.
So answer me. Are we gonna talk about this?

Salaam

Joseph
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 09:24 pm
Location: California

Postby Joseph » Sat Feb 11, 2006 07:15 am

fdjohan wrote:I just wonder. Which confusing isue? You came here with nothing to do with the title of the thread. My replies related to the title. Which is confusing?


Nothing to do with topic? Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are learned ones of Islam. And seems you have missed their sermons on historical facts of Quran verses, situation and condition which are supporting their Islamic terrorism. I remind forum readers of your position, only learned ones are allowed to make Quran interpretations. Inferring from your comment ("I've never said that I am more knowledgeable than any Muslims") , you are unable to determine if words and deeds of the mentioned Muslim scholars are Islamic or kafirun.

Are those knowledgeable in Christianity who massacre people represent Christians in this world?


Perhaps if you give a case of Christianity "learned one" quoting Lord Jesus then doing evil, then I will know where is the event comparison. However, no argument is being made the evil men generally represents Muslims, atleast none of the Muslims I know. The argument concerns whether justification for terrorism has foundation in Islam, hence Islamic.

What denial? you said :"You're living in a dream palace." I said :"I can prove you that I am not dreaming." The I challenge you to talk about it. It's that denial? no that's a brave act than the one who can not make their desicion when some one challenge him. So answer me. Are we gonna talk about this?


Then there is no reason for you to disassociate yourself or Muslims from Osama since 9/11 was a conspiracy by non-Muslims. No, we, or atleast myself, are not going to talk about the dismissal of 9/11. There are plenty of Muslim sites propagating the conspiracy theory, no sense in making JCF yet another soapbox for Muslims in denial. Really, it's down-right silly to debate 9/11 with brave Muslims.

joseph

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Mon Feb 13, 2006 05:20 pm

BISMILLAHIRRAHMAANIRRAHIIM
=====================
Hi all PEACE :D

Joseph wrote:
fdjohan wrote:I just wonder. Which confusing isue? You came here with nothing to do with the title of the thread. My replies related to the title. Which is confusing?


Nothing to do with topic? Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are learned ones of Islam. And seems you have missed their sermons on historical facts of Quran verses, situation and condition which are supporting their Islamic terrorism.


Which verses that support them? Tell me.


I remind forum readers of your position, only learned ones are allowed to make Quran interpretations.


Sure!!

Inferring from your comment ("I've never said that I am more knowledgeable than any Muslims") , you are unable to determine if words and deeds of the mentioned Muslim scholars are Islamic or kafirun.


Let us talk about the verses that support them

Are those knowledgeable in Christianity who massacre people represent Christians in this world?


Perhaps if you give a case of Christianity "learned one" quoting Lord Jesus then doing evil, then I will know where is the event comparison. However, no argument is being made the evil men generally represents Muslims, atleast none of the Muslims I know. The argument concerns whether justification for terrorism has foundation in Islam, hence Islamic.


Please talk more about terrorism has foundation in Islam Complete with you referenses form Muslims main source.


What denial? you said :"You're living in a dream palace." I said :"I can prove you that I am not dreaming." The I challenge you to talk about it. It's that denial? no that's a brave act than the one who can not make their desicion when some one challenge him. So answer me. Are we gonna talk about this?


Then there is no reason for you to disassociate yourself or Muslims from Osama since 9/11 was a conspiracy by non-Muslims. No, we, or atleast myself, are not going to talk about the dismissal of 9/11. There are plenty of Muslim sites propagating the conspiracy theory, no sense in making JCF yet another soapbox for Muslims in denial. Really, it's down-right silly to debate 9/11 with brave Muslims.

joseph


If I use neutral sources (non Muslims sources) You want to talk about it?

Salaam to you Jospeh :D

Joseph
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 09:24 pm
Location: California

Postby Joseph » Wed Feb 15, 2006 07:22 am

fdjohan wrote:Which verses that support them? Tell me.


Islam's learned ones defense which you used in nearly every rebuttal, has come back to haunt you. Now you expect me to validate Islam's learned ones (Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, etc, ect.) interpretation of Quran.

Please talk more about terrorism has foundation in Islam Complete with you references form Muslims main source.


Either you're being funny or pathetic. You must believe doing an imitation of the three monkeys is an answer. Train bombings in Spain, London, the Bali bombing, etc, and here you are asking for Muslim source reference.

If I use neutral sources (non Muslims sources) You want to talk about it?


Let me see if I have the logic right. If a non-Muslim site propagates the 9/11 conspiracy theory, then it is neutral? Also had I used the term, neutral, as sure as night follows day you would have responded with, "prove to me" they are neutral. Like I said, no reason to disassociate yourself from Osama bin Laden and you're living in dream palace

joseph

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Thu Feb 16, 2006 02:24 pm

BISMILLAHIRRAHMAANIRRAHIIM
=====================

[code]
Joseph wrote:
fdjohan wrote:Which verses that support them? Tell me.


Islam's learned ones defense which you used in nearly every rebuttal, has come back to haunt you.
Now you expect me to validate Islam's learned ones (Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, etc, ect.) interpretation of Quran.


Hmm :-? You seems very serious about those 4 man.
Let us talk more seroius about them. Remember, you come with those name, not me. Start from Osama bin Laden. Tell me about him more and a so called his "Terrorism". Let us make everything clear.

Please talk more about terrorism has foundation in Islam Complete with you references form Muslims main source.


Either you're being funny or pathetic.


Ups. He doesn't love his enemy by saying this.

You must believe doing an imitation of the three monkeys is an answer. Train bombings in Spain, London, the Bali bombing, etc, and here you are asking for Muslim source reference.


Be calm my friend. haha :D :D I can see fire in my monitor.

Let's talk about it one by one. Which one you want? Al-Qaeda first, Osama frist? Which one? If you wanna serious to talk about it, let start. But don't tell me to do it first because you came with such name.

If I use neutral sources (non Muslims sources) You want to talk about it?


Let me see if I have the logic right. If a non-Muslim site propagates the 9/11 conspiracy theory, then it is neutral? Also had I used the term, neutral, as sure as night follows day you would have responded with, "prove to me" they are neutral. Like I said, no reason to disassociate yourself from Osama bin Laden and you're living in dream palace




Ok If I start from CNN REPORTs, do you stiil think "propagates the 9/11 conspiracy theory"?

Salaam

Joseph
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 09:24 pm
Location: California

Postby Joseph » Fri Feb 17, 2006 03:39 am

fdjohan wrote:Hmm You seems very serious about those 4 man. Let us talk more serious about them. Remember, you come with those name, not me. Start from Osama bin Laden. Tell me about him more and a so called his "Terrorism". Let us make everything clear.


Three learned men were named, w/Osama being the poster child for Islamic terror, etc, etc means, so on and so on. Only a fool would not be serious and take them seriously. You are having a hard time dealing with Islam's learned one as knowledgeable representative of Islam and trying to make it my burden. As for "Remember, you come with those name, not me." I wanting for you to drop the big bomb (so to speak) Get on with the earth shattering revelation.

Be calm my friend. haha I can see fire in my monitor. Let's talk about it one by one. Which one you want? Al-Qaeda first, Osama frist? Which one? If you wanna serious to talk about it, let start. But don't tell me to do it first because you came with such name.


How I wish there was fire in soul for their dastardly actions instead of the denial which brings you rest. I do not care which Islamic terrorist you want to defend, make your defense for them. You're hoping to talk the issue to death in it goes away.

Ok If I start from CNN REPORTs, do you stiil think "propagates the 9/11 conspiracy theory"?


I though it was made clear to you but let me make it clearer. I have no interest in fiction which help Muslims deal with their faith.

joseph

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Fri Feb 17, 2006 04:15 pm

BISMILLAHIRRAHMAANIRRAHIIM
====================

Joseph wrote:
fdjohan wrote:Hmm You seems very serious about those 4 man. Let us talk more serious about them. Remember, you come with those name, not me. Start from Osama bin Laden. Tell me about him more and a so called his "Terrorism". Let us make everything clear.


Three learned men were named, w/Osama being the poster child for Islamic terror, etc, etc means, so on and so on. Only a fool would not be serious and take them seriously.


Weird. I want to talk about it seriously one by one because I am ready for that. And you didn't accept this challenge seriously. From your own word, I can see that you are a fool. Am I right?

You are having a hard time dealing with Islam's learned one as knowledgeable representative of Islam and trying to make it my burden.


No, I am having fun seeing you RUN everytime I challenge you to talk. I gonna show people in this forum about the real Joseph.

As for "Remember, you come with those name, not me." I wanting for you to drop the big bomb (so to speak) Get on with the earth shattering revelation.


Are we gonna talk about Osama first? or you choose to RUN?

Be calm my friend. haha I can see fire in my monitor. Let's talk about it one by one. Which one you want? Al-Qaeda first, Osama frist? Which one? If you wanna serious to talk about it, let start. But don't tell me to do it first because you came with such name.


How I wish there was fire in soul for their dastardly actions instead of the denial which brings you rest. I do not care which Islamic terrorist you want to defend, make your defense for them. You're hoping to talk the issue to death in it goes away.


I am ready to talk josh. Why do you have to run after you throw hundreds of accusation? Isn't it better to be more gentle?

Ok If I start from CNN REPORTs, do you stiil think "propagates the 9/11 conspiracy theory"?


I though it was made clear to you but let me make it clearer. I have no interest in fiction which help Muslims deal with their faith.


Be more gentle Joseph. Don't keep running everytime people want to challenge you. That's not nice.

Salaam

Joseph
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 09:24 pm
Location: California

Postby Joseph » Fri Feb 17, 2006 05:29 pm

fdjohan wrote:Weird. I want to talk about it seriously one by one because I am ready for that. And you didn't accept this challenge seriously. From your own word, I can see that you are a fool. Am I right?


Who or what is stopping you from talking about them seriously? Talk about them one by one or two by two, ect, if you like. Then readers may see your right-side up thinking, keen logic and reasoning, Challenge, that's rich. What have you done but avoid the reality Islam's learned ones are committing mass murder of the innocent.

No, I am having fun seeing you RUN everytime I challenge you to talk. I gonna show people in this forum about the real Joseph.


Oh no! Another (and yet to happen) bombshell. Just curious in what century will your show (beside this one) start?

I am ready to talk josh. Why do you have to run after you throw hundreds of accusation? Isn't it better to be more gentle?


I am here, sir. If I hurt you feeling by speaking in disrespectful way about your terrorist learned ones, that's tuff. Ask your learned ones, who cannot kill enough, to be gentle.

Be more gentle Joseph. Don't keep running everytime people want to challenge you. That's not nice.


Right, I am supposed to read again all the nonsense which I already have read many times. I make no apology for my inhospitality.

joseph

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Tue Feb 21, 2006 01:59 pm

Joseph wrote:
fdjohan wrote:Weird. I want to talk about it seriously one by one because I am ready for that. And you didn't accept this challenge seriously. From your own word, I can see that you are a fool. Am I right?


Who or what is stopping you from talking about them seriously? Talk about them one by one or two by two, ect, if you like. Then readers may see your right-side up thinking, keen logic and reasoning, Challenge, that's rich. What have you done but avoid the reality Islam's learned ones are committing mass murder of the innocent.


Isn't it not good also for you to talk or come with the case one by one. Show people that you are not a Christian with STEREOTYPE manner.
What do you know about Osama and his movements, let us start about it. If don't know much about those people you mentioned why you come with such claims?

No, I am having fun seeing you RUN everytime I challenge you to talk. I gonna show people in this forum about the real Joseph.


Oh no! Another (and yet to happen) bombshell. Just curious in what century will your show (beside this one) start?


O no Joseph, you run.

I am ready to talk josh. Why do you have to run after you throw hundreds of accusation? Isn't it better to be more gentle?


I am here, sir. If I hurt you feeling by speaking in disrespectful way about your terrorist learned ones, that's tuff. Ask your learned ones, who cannot kill enough, to be gentle.


Wanna talk about it? let start. (uups I can see you run again).

Be more gentle Joseph. Don't keep running everytime people want to challenge you. That's not nice.


Right, I am supposed to read again all the nonsense which I already have read many times. I make no apology for my inhospitality.


You throw a stone and you run. That's Joseph.

Salaam to you.

sardab
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 03:36 pm

Postby sardab » Wed Feb 22, 2006 08:47 am

Joseph wrote:.... I have no interest in fiction which help Muslims deal with their faith.


I think this is the big delusion. You think 9/11 should make Muslims sceptical and shameful about their own faith, which is clearly not the case. There are many questions about the 9/11 event itself, but even if the Muslims did it; until Western world accepts its role there will be no real peace whatsoever. It was a reaction to something, and until West probes in that something to identify its role, fighting will go on. Sadly. And until you grasp our point of view, you'll naively countinue to expect Muslims to be shameful. No way!

Joseph
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 09:24 pm
Location: California

Postby Joseph » Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:54 pm

fdjohan wrote:Isn't it not good also for you to talk or come with the case one by one. Show people that you are not a Christian with STEREOTYPE manner. What do you know about Osama and his movements, let us start about it. If don't know much about those people you mentioned why you come with such claims?


If you feel they are simply misunderstood, esp. because of sterotyping, then you should explain how so. Listen, the argument is not the biography of the men nor goals of movement , its about whether their actions are Islamic. My argument is, the mentioned men are learned ones of Islam and they have determined by whatever religion sciences, their actions are Islamic. By your own witness, learned ones interpret the Quran for Muslims correct thought and actions. I do not know what more you want. You should make your rebuttal, instead of worrying how it shows Christians.

Joseph wrote:...whose judgment determines innocence; do you know more about Islam than Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?


fdjohan wrote:Al-Qur'an determines everything about the innocent non-believers. Want to talk about it?


Joseph wrote:I want explanation instead of the confusing the issue you always want to offer. Here is how discussions with are going: Learned ones determine correct interpretations of Quran and Quran determines correct action for Muslims.



fdjohan wrote:I just wonder. Which confusing isue? You came here with nothing to do with the title of the thread. My replies related to the title. Which is confusing?

The learned ones provide you the historical fact of the verses and in what situation and condition the verses about, and the real message of the verses. Those things ignored by you all. Correct action of Muslims is what Qur'an determine what Muslims must be.


Joseph wrote:Nothing to do with topic? Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are learned ones of Islam. And seems you have missed their sermons on historical facts of Quran verses, situation and condition which are supporting their Islamic terrorism. I remind forum readers of your position, only learned ones are allowed to make Quran interpretations. Inferring from your comment ("I've never said that I am more knowledgeable than any Muslims") , you are unable to determine if words and deeds of the mentioned Muslim scholars are Islamic or kafirun.


Again, want more do want? There is no trap being set for like that which you claim is your intention to set for opponent. The only trap I see is that which you have set for yourself, with learned ones defense that was used in nearly every argument. Make your case of whether the learned ones actions are Islamic or not.

As for 9/11 conspiracy theory, if you and readers believe I am running from debate on matter, so be it.

joseph

Joseph
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 09:24 pm
Location: California

Postby Joseph » Thu Feb 23, 2006 02:27 pm

sardab wrote:I think this is the big delusion. You think 9/11 should make Muslims sceptical and shameful about their own faith, which is clearly not the case. There are many questions about the 9/11 event itself, but even if the Muslims did it; until Western world accepts its role there will be no real peace whatsoever. It was a reaction to something, and until West probes in that something to identify its role, fighting will go on. Sadly. And until you grasp our point of view, you'll naively countinue to expect Muslims to be shameful. No way!


There are many Muslims who do not subscribe to the 9/11 conspiracy theory. They are neither skeptical nor shameful of their faith, while rejecting what fdjohna wishes to propagate. On what higher ground do you and fdjohna stand on, and what reason do you have in suggesting for person to be true Muslim, one must fall in line with, "our point of view"? Muslim monolithism is a product of your imagination.

Fdjohna speaks for Muslims with his Learned Ones argument, or it was made to appear so during his moment of addressing the JCF Muslim gallery, to remind them what Muslims believe. I read no disagreements to his statement directed toward Muslim readers nor objections to his Learned Ones argument which he practically used in every rebuttal: No protest to his argument which rendered Islam's Learned Ones into a bunch of mini-Mohammeds. I objected to fdjohna's incessant use of Learned Ones, stating, constant beckoning to them is not a defense, and he begged to differ. Now both (you and fdjohna) are looking for a way out by blaming me for pointing to where Learned Ones argument has led and accusing me of merely attempting to instill malaise into Muslim readers. And both are trying to have the issue yield to geopolitics.

Nonetheless, although a sound argument has been made, I certainly do not believe I have made a convincing argument, that terrorism has foundation in Islam, notwithstanding the excellent contributions from fdjohna for argument.

joseph

sardab
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 03:36 pm

Postby sardab » Fri Feb 24, 2006 07:24 am

Joseph wrote:There are many Muslims who do not subscribe to the 9/11 conspiracy theory. They are neither skeptical nor shameful of their faith, while rejecting what fdjohna wishes to propagate.


When a Christian starts with "There are many Muslims..." then the argument by its nature is weak. You cannot know as many Muslims as I know.

On what higher ground do you and fdjohna stand on, and what reason do you have in suggesting for person to be true Muslim, one must fall in line with, "our point of view"? Muslim monolithism is a product of your imagination.


We are on the higher ground of being Muslim. We can make safer generalizations on Muslims. You are an outsider, so know your place.

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Sat Feb 25, 2006 06:28 am

BISMILLAHIRRAHMAANIRRAHIIM
======================

Joseph wrote:
fdjohan wrote:Isn't it not good also for you to talk or come with the case one by one. Show people that you are not a Christian with STEREOTYPE manner. What do you know about Osama and his movements, let us start about it. If don't know much about those people you mentioned why you come with such claims?


If you feel they are simply misunderstood, esp. because of sterotyping, then you should explain how so.


You come with the claim, you explain and I will response or debate you.

Listen, the argument is not the biography of the men nor goals of movement , its about whether their actions are Islamic. My argument is, the mentioned men are learned ones of Islam and they have determined by whatever religion sciences, their actions are Islamic.


Now, you also have to listen to us Josh. Don't come with such claim or accusation if you confuse when people ask you to talk about it one by one.
You come with such NEGATIVE claims about Islam so YOU have to come to explain. You have to prove if you have good knowledge about what you are talking about.
You mention something about " My argument". WHERE is your argument? I believe you your self confuse about the meaning of the word ARGUMENT.
Argument: "A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence" That os the best meaning of argument in DEBATE forum. And what did you do? You came with nothing but just gave us the names and make NEGATIVE claims about Islam. Do you all people see his so called ARGUMENT? NO Josh. People is this forum read that you come with nothing but just NEgative claim. That's all. Nothing about ARGUMENT.
So if you have a GOOD KNOWLEDGE about what you claimed, show it to us.


By your own witness, learned ones interpret the Quran for Muslims correct thought and actions. I do not know what more you want. You should make your rebuttal, instead of worrying how it shows Christians.


I don't like to RUN like you Josh, and I am also not a chicken. It's time for people with tons of accusations PROVES what they've learned so far. If you can't come with your so CALLED ARGUMENT, we can call you a wishfull thinking. Making claims without any knowledge.

Joseph wrote:...whose judgment determines innocence; do you know more about Islam than Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?


fdjohan wrote:Al-Qur'an determines everything about the innocent non-believers. Want to talk about it?


Joseph wrote:I want explanation instead of the confusing the issue you always want to offer. Here is how discussions with are going: Learned ones determine correct interpretations of Quran and Quran determines correct action for Muslims.



fdjohan wrote:I just wonder. Which confusing isue? You came here with nothing to do with the title of the thread. My replies related to the title. Which is confusing?

The learned ones provide you the historical fact of the verses and in what situation and condition the verses about, and the real message of the verses. Those things ignored by you all. Correct action of Muslims is what Qur'an determine what Muslims must be.


Joseph wrote:Nothing to do with topic? Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are learned ones of Islam. And seems you have missed their sermons on historical facts of Quran verses, situation and condition which are supporting their Islamic terrorism. I remind forum readers of your position, only learned ones are allowed to make Quran interpretations. Inferring from your comment ("I've never said that I am more knowledgeable than any Muslims") , you are unable to determine if words and deeds of the mentioned Muslim scholars are Islamic or kafirun.


Again, want more do want? There is no trap being set for like that which you claim is your intention to set for opponent. The only trap I see is that which you have set for yourself, with learned ones defense that was used in nearly every argument. Make your case of whether the learned ones actions are Islamic or not.


It's not about TRAP or not A TRAP. We are in debate forum. People come with such claims MUST followed by ARGUMENTS, and we will debate you by ARGUMENTS. That's what the things work if you stll believe we are in MATURE discussion. Don't you throw other STONE and you run Josh.
At this point we can claim you don't know nothing about what you are talking about unless you start to explain.

As for 9/11 conspiracy theory, if you and readers believe I am running from debate on matter, so be it.


If you know the end will be like this, so DON'T make any claim such as "you are dreamin..etc". Regardless their religion are, people will see you youer own quality.

Salaam

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Sat Feb 25, 2006 07:03 am

BISMILLAHIRRAHMAANIRRAHIIM
=====================

Joseph wrote:
sardab wrote:I think this is the big delusion. You think 9/11 should make Muslims sceptical and shameful about their own faith, which is clearly not the case. There are many questions about the 9/11 event itself, but even if the Muslims did it; until Western world accepts its role there will be no real peace whatsoever. It was a reaction to something, and until West probes in that something to identify its role, fighting will go on. Sadly. And until you grasp our point of view, you'll naively countinue to expect Muslims to be shameful. No way!


There are many Muslims who do not subscribe to the 9/11 conspiracy theory. They are neither skeptical nor shameful of their faith, while rejecting what fdjohna wishes to propagate.


Now, after you claim me as "A dreamer", you accused me as a "PROPAGATOR". What a nice Christian you are Josh. This guy is really-really a coward. Come with hundreds of accusation but RUN when people challenge him to talk. You just make Christianity a bad name.

On what higher ground do you and fdjohna stand on, and what reason do you have in suggesting for person to be true Muslim, one must fall in line with, "our point of view"? Muslim monolithism is a product of your imagination.


Another accusation. Now he called people as "IMAGINATOR".


Fdjohna speaks for Muslims with his Learned Ones argument, or it was made to appear so during his moment of addressing the JCF Muslim gallery, to remind them what Muslims believe. I read no disagreements to his statement directed toward Muslim readers nor objections to his Learned Ones argument which he practically used in every rebuttal: No protest to his argument which rendered Islam's Learned Ones into a bunch of mini-Mohammeds. I objected to fdjohna's incessant use of Learned Ones, stating, constant beckoning to them is not a defense, and he begged to differ. Now both (you and fdjohna) are looking for a way out by blaming me for pointing to where Learned Ones argument has led and accusing me of merely attempting to instill malaise into Muslim readers. And both are trying to have the issue yield to geopolitics.


Josh, you just talk too much but you show nothing about your own quality.
You prove us that you don't know anything about what you accused. But you tried to hide it by your own rethoric. If you are strong and good knowledge about what you claimed. You won't be a chicken like this when people challenge you to talk first. We are standing here waiting for you to throw your weapon. but what I see that you left your own post.

Nonetheless, although a sound argument has been made, I certainly do not believe I have made a convincing argument, that terrorism has foundation in Islam, notwithstanding the excellent contributions from fdjohna for argument.


Isn't it better for you to prepare before you go to war Josh. Isn't it better for you to control your word if you know later people will fire back and you are STUCK.
You know what, you claim muslims as terrorists but the way you talk by throwing stone and run is not better that terrorism it self.

Now if you don't have any knowledge about what you accused, show that to this forum and admit it.

Salaam

Joseph
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 09:24 pm
Location: California

Postby Joseph » Sat Feb 25, 2006 07:27 am

sardab wrote:When a Christian starts with "There are many Muslims..." then the argument by its nature is weak. You cannot know as many Muslims as I know.


Couple things wrong here, sardab. First one may not be crucial for Muslims, but it's called logical reasoning.

When a Christian starts with "There are many Muslims..." then the argument by its nature is weak.


Your premise and conclusion are the same, and that does not speak well for defender of the Quran. Next one is relatively mild.

You cannot know as many Muslims as I know.


I made no mention of Muslim acquaintances or suggesting I knew more Muslims than you do. On that matter, who cares how many Muslims you know.

When a Muslim believes simply because he is Muslim he has countered the Christian it is not only weak but also pathetic. In world with 1.2 bn Muslims, a fraction would suffice to produce many, notwithstanding your "safer generazation" (sic), many is only applicable to majority, if not overwhelming majority. How many Muslims you know in comparison hardly factors in my question, which you misunderstood and I will reword. What higher ground do you and fdjohna stand on than Muslims who do not subscribe to conspiracy theory, and what reason do you have in suggesting for person to be true Muslim, one must fall in line with, "our point of view"?

It would have been reasonable to request clarification of, many Muslims, and for examples of Muslim persons or organizations (i.e. recognizable and not just existing on internet) who do not march to the beat of conspiracy theory drum.

We are on the higher ground of being Muslim. We can make safer generalizations on Muslims. You are an outsider, so know your place.


Senseless but consistent

joseph

Joseph
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 09:24 pm
Location: California

Postby Joseph » Sun Feb 26, 2006 12:26 am

fdjohan wrote:You just make Christianity a bad name.



When a Muslim states "You just make Christianity a bad name. ..." then the argument by its nature is weak. Fair enough, sardab?

Do not concern yourself with how I reflect on Christianity. There are no Christians (atleast none I have knowledge of) killing in my name and quoting the Bible to prove it.

You won't be a chicken like this when people challenge you to talk first. We are standing here waiting for you to throw your weapon. but what I see that you left your own post
.

And turkeys have been known to drown while standing and looking up into the rain. Stand, sit, recline, being oblivious to something which is happening does not prevent the end result. Wanton conceit is what got the best of you, even does so now.

The ending statement was acknowledging a reality, weightiness of my argument was dependent upon your truthfulness about Islam. However purposeful your witness for Learned Ones was for argument here on JCF it would be useless in the streets. Whatever the reasons Muslims readers here (if there are any beside you and sardab) for accepting your Catch-22 formula ( Quran determines correct thoughts and actions for Muslims and only Learned Ones can interpret Quran) those reasons will not exist nor will your formula be accepted outside of forum. I do not naively assume much of anything you have said here will have creditability should they be referred to in person to person discussions I may have with Muslims. I fully expected the ending statement would be taken as a victory for yourself.

joseph

sardab
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 03:36 pm

Postby sardab » Mon Feb 27, 2006 09:23 am

Joseph wrote:
sardab wrote:When a Christian starts with "There are many Muslims..." then the argument by its nature is weak. You cannot know as many Muslims as I know.


Couple things wrong here, sardab. First one may not be crucial for Muslims, but it's called logical reasoning.

...

Your premise and conclusion are the same, and that does not speak well for defender of the Quran. Next one is relatively mild.



Sorry I dont "subscribe to" your logic. I talk about the general view and you try to refute it by an ambigious "There are many Muslims...".

Yes for example there might be some 10 milyon Turks who believe in American lies and they are "many" in number indeed. But there are 70 million more who do not believe in lies. That makes your "many" void.

Logic is not a game.

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Mon Feb 27, 2006 11:08 am

Joseph wrote:
fdjohan wrote:You just make Christianity a bad name.


When a Muslim states "You just make Christianity a bad name. ..." then the argument by its nature is weak. Fair enough, sardab?

Do not concern yourself with how I reflect on Christianity.


Was I wrong? What does Jesus teach you about being a Christian Josh?
Accuse people here and there and you run? I know that Christianity prohibit you to fight. But that doesn't mean you have run when people challenge you to fight. What kind accusation after this you gonna give to people? What a nice Christian you are Josh.

There are no Christians (atleast none I have knowledge of) killing in my name and quoting the Bible to prove it.


I know about that. I am an EX Christian. And there are no theaching in the Bible to be brave to face people also.

You won't be a chicken like this when people challenge you to talk first. We are standing here waiting for you to throw your weapon. but what I see that you left your own post
.

And turkeys have been known to drown while standing and looking up into the rain. Stand, sit, recline, being oblivious to something which is happening does not prevent the end result. Wanton conceit is what got the best of you, even does so now.

The ending statement was acknowledging a reality, weightiness of my argument was dependent upon your truthfulness about Islam. However purposeful your witness for Learned Ones was for argument here on JCF it would be useless in the streets. Whatever the reasons Muslims readers here (if there are any beside you and sardab) for accepting your Catch-22 formula ( Quran determines correct thoughts and actions for Muslims and only Learned Ones can interpret Quran) those reasons will not exist nor will your formula be accepted outside of forum. I do not naively assume much of anything you have said here will have creditability should they be referred to in person to person discussions I may have with Muslims. I fully expected the ending statement would be taken as a victory for yourself.


Another rhetoric. You talk this much. None of them showing what you know about the people you mentioned Josh. You don't have enough knowledge about them don't you.
Cmon. show us your arguments.

Btw, where is KAI? he's been away too long. If he fail to prove that Armenian Massacre did by Muslims, then I'll be ready to make a Thread:
A MODERATOR CAUGHT SLANDERS ISLAM AND MUSLIMS.

Salaam

Joseph
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 09:24 pm
Location: California

Postby Joseph » Tue Feb 28, 2006 03:03 am

sardab wrote:Sorry I dont "subscribe to" your logic.


No need to apologize although it would be helpful to make known to what logic you do subscribe, so I may see the wisdom in your senseless speech.

I talk about the general view and you try to refute it by an ambigious "There are many Muslims..."


You talk about many things sardab, mostly with little thought behind your words or even remembering what you previously talked about. I did not try to refute your arrogant speech, I shoved it so far back into your face, that you no longer have sight of your initial argument.

I think this is the big delusion. You think 9/11 should make Muslims sceptical and shameful about their own faith, which is clearly not the case. There are many questions about the 9/11 event itself, but even if the Muslims did it; until Western world accepts its role there will be no real peace whatsoever. It was a reaction to something, and until West probes in that something to identify its role, fighting will go on. Sadly. And until you grasp our point of view, you'll naively countinue to expect Muslims to be shameful. No way!


You accused me of being underhanded and that I was pandering to emotions. Fine, I accepted it as moment to dispel a notion which Muslims readers may shared with you. Rather than admit your were presumptuous you now want readers to believe you were merely arguing the vast majority of Muslims adhere to conspiracy theory as opposed to the naysay, which you contrived and attributed to me.

Yes for example there might be some 10 milyon Turks who believe in American lies and they are "many" in number indeed. But there are 70 million more who do not believe in lies. That makes your "many" void.


There now, many was not so ambigious after all, but I am not the person in need of example. Nonetheless, I do not care about your general view, what your logic voids and above all I do not care about your politics.

Logic is not a game.


Then you should produce an argument with this in mind instead as the last thing considered.

joseph

Joseph
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 09:24 pm
Location: California

Postby Joseph » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:32 am

fdjohan wrote:Was I wrong?


The quote was used in opportunity and directed. I was not criticizing Muslims who mention comments made by Christians friends, acquaintances or invoke Christian principles intend for both sides to observe

What does Jesus teach you about being a Christian Josh? Accuse people here and there and you run? I know that Christianity prohibit you to fight. But that doesn't mean you have run when people challenge you to fight. What kind accusation after this you gonna give to people? What a nice Christian you are Josh.


The fundamental teaching of Lord Jesus is the Kingdom of Heaven also called Kingdom of God. Contrary to your belief The Christ does not teach about being a Christian, he teaches on how person can enter his Kingdom. Perhaps you believe mere semantics is being argued, but they are important semantics.

You keep repeating I an running, having made accusation and no argument. This is based upon general view Osama and fellowship are actually victims of western disinformation. Trouble with that, there is another general view which holds, you're dead wrong: Notwithstanding how much you and sardab wish to believe the general view of Muslims is correct simply on merit of being Muslim, and therefore superior. This is the political side and subject you believe worthy of debate on JCF. I will not honor Osama and fellowhood by taking part in debate which champions the evil men. If that is running, fine, so be it.

Joseph wrote:My argument is, the mentioned men are learned ones of Islam and they have determined by whatever religion sciences, their actions are Islamic. By your own witness, learned ones interpret the Quran for Muslims correct thought and actions. I do not know what more you want.


fdjohan wrote:WHERE is your argument? I believe you your self confuse about the meaning of the word ARGUMENT.


Or so you hope. The reader is welcome to go through this thread and see which of our position had to evolve after becoming unsustainable.

joseph

sardab
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 03:36 pm

Postby sardab » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:44 am

As an overall observation I can say you never come to the point joseph. Instead try to handle things with puny mind games. What i said was clear. It is you who refuse to understand it, and I dont care why.

Joseph
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 09:24 pm
Location: California

Postby Joseph » Tue Feb 28, 2006 04:14 pm

sardab wrote:As an overall observation I can say you never come to the point joseph. Instead try to handle things with puny mind games. What i said was clear. It is you who refuse to understand it, and I dont care why.


I hold my breathe awaiting your observations, sardab. What is clear you want the right of special pleading when it comes to Islam, your declarations as sufficient unto themselves, prideful and senseless speech to go unanswered. You attempted to debase me with strawman, when that failed you simply changed the rational of your argument: In both instances you accused me of deception; as you still do so now, because I did not simply cry someone was refusing to understand the clarity of argument.

Here's one of your jewels which you believe is clear and point.

"...but even if the Muslims did it; until Western world accepts its role there will be no real peace whatsoever. It was a reaction to something, and until West probes in that something to identify its role, fighting will go on."


Whether this is proposition or conclusion matters little, but with all certainty the point is clear, Arab/Persian/Muslim world is blameless. Any argument behind or following the Muslim mantra can only be of the type which proves it true. What is there not to understand, sardab? Insanity upon insanity to assume real peace will be achieved merely by one side self-examining and accepting its culpability. If this is what the general view holds then indeed and agreed the fighting will go on.

joseph

sardab
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 03:36 pm

Postby sardab » Wed Mar 01, 2006 09:56 am

The oppressors have no right to complain about the fruit of their acts.

fdjohan
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 05:12 am

Postby fdjohan » Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:11 pm

Joseph wrote:
fdjohan wrote:Was I wrong?


The quote was used in opportunity and directed. I was not criticizing Muslims who mention comments made by Christians friends, acquaintances or invoke Christian principles intend for both sides to observe

What does Jesus teach you about being a Christian Josh? Accuse people here and there and you run? I know that Christianity prohibit you to fight. But that doesn't mean you have run when people challenge you to fight. What kind accusation after this you gonna give to people? What a nice Christian you are Josh.


The fundamental teaching of Lord Jesus is the Kingdom of Heaven also called Kingdom of God. Contrary to your belief The Christ does not teach about being a Christian, he teaches on how person can enter his Kingdom. Perhaps you believe mere semantics is being argued, but they are important semantics.

You keep repeating I an running, having made accusation and no argument. This is based upon general view Osama and fellowship are actually victims of western disinformation. Trouble with that, there is another general view which holds, you're dead wrong: Notwithstanding how much you and sardab wish to believe the general view of Muslims is correct simply on merit of being Muslim, and therefore superior. This is the political side and subject you believe worthy of debate on JCF. I will not honor Osama and fellowhood by taking part in debate which champions the evil men. If that is running, fine, so be it.

Joseph wrote:My argument is, the mentioned men are learned ones of Islam and they have determined by whatever religion sciences, their actions are Islamic. By your own witness, learned ones interpret the Quran for Muslims correct thought and actions. I do not know what more you want.


fdjohan wrote:WHERE is your argument? I believe you your self confuse about the meaning of the word ARGUMENT.


Or so you hope. The reader is welcome to go through this thread and see which of our position had to evolve after becoming unsustainable.

joseph


Good point. The reader now realize who the "REAL JOSEPH" is.

Salaam.

Joseph
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 09:24 pm
Location: California

Postby Joseph » Wed Mar 01, 2006 09:08 pm

sardab wrote:The oppressors have no right to complain about the fruit of their acts.


Yet another slogan, sardab? Or does this mean we now agree Islam's Learned Ones ("...but even if the Muslims did it...") were responsible for massacre of innocents and there is no conspiracy by western governments, and which way is the wind blowing? I know, I know...I never get to the point, instead play puny mind games.

You're in a death dive, sardab, but be assured I will try my best to help you impact.

joseph

Joseph
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 09:24 pm
Location: California

Postby Joseph » Wed Mar 01, 2006 09:26 pm

fdjohan wrote:Good point. The reader now realize who the "REAL JOSEPH" is.


That is what I am counting on.

joseph

sardab
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 03:36 pm

Postby sardab » Thu Mar 02, 2006 06:45 am

I'm bored with you. Byes.

Kai Hagbard
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 10:45 am
Location: Europe-Asia

Postby Kai Hagbard » Tue Mar 21, 2006 04:25 pm

This is a very delayed reply to fdjohan on justice and humanitarian rights within Islam.

This thread began with an emphasis on atrocities upon non-Muslim within the history of Islam, and the thread particularly and originally looked at the Islamic Genocide of Christians in Turkey in the early 20th century.

Unfortunately fdjohan managed to deviate us from the actual subject and turn us into atrocities committed in the name of Christianity.

In this debate I have so far posted a range of arguments to prove that Islam promotes invasion, persecution, rape, slavery etc.

Fdjohan made the typical fallacy to point of that Islam has a lot of good elements, and I do not deny that.

The problems with this reply however is two-fold: if we look at the full picture of Islam and its interaction with non-Muslims, most of these virtues are meant for Muslims only, not Christians or Jews, and certainly not polytheists, which Islam wants dead.

The second problem is: good virtue does not vindicate any ideology or religion, as every ideology (including Nazism and ancient Assyrian) included some virtue.

In the same manner, Islam has a good side, but also a dark side, and this dark side is what concerns Christians, as this is the side of Islam that interacts with Christians and Jews.

Lets continue the debate:

Fdjohan wrote:

This is why I tell you that you haven't learned about the history of AL-Qur'an or even the history of the life of the Prophet him-self.


Kai replies:
This is overstating your presumption, I have studied Islam for several years

Fdjohan wrote:

Please spend your time a bit to learn about the history of Al-Qur'an here
http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_libra ... _al_quran/

Al-Qur'an has it's own history that can't be ignored. The verses existed PIECE BY PIECE or STAGES along the life of the Prophet (saw). And The Prophet(saw) had to face a lot of wars in his time to face Meccan pagans, Jews etc.
So you have to understand this one. AL-Qur'an and the Bible formed with too much different way. There are no story about Jesus faced the war. But Muhammad (saw) faced wars.
There are verses encourage Muslims to be brave facing the enemies. And this one is related to the verses you rever to me.


Kai replies:

I am puzzled, Jesus and his disciples faced treats and dangers, including the early Christians, yet you do not find Jesus nor the early Christians turn to their weapons (except for Peter on one occasion, whereafter he was rebuked by the Lord Jesus).

Fdjohan continues:

Quote:
to invade or enslave people; that is a fairly easy conclusion to derive at.

Yet the Koran does include these elements. For example you are told to fight those who follow not Islam, you are told that the Jews are the worse of all creatures; you are permitted to have sex with slave girls and women captives.


We'll talk about this along the discussion inshaALLAH.


Kai replies:

Ok

Fdjohan continues:

Quote:
None of these are included in the teachings of the New Testament; neither in the Old Testament (except unless you read the distortions of Osama Abdallah).


Remember how many Christians distort the meaning of verses in Al-Qur'an also.


Kai replies:

In what sense distort, are you to fight the unbelievers or not? I mean this is what the Qur’an imposes upon you?

Can you have sex with female captives or not (even though their husbands are observing)? This was one of the options that I brought up.

This is not distorting the Qur’an, this is exposing certain painful facts!

Fdjohan continues:

Quote:
Fdjohan wrote:
Quote:
OK For the start, I want us to talk and focusing to what we call as the TEACHING it self since you keep blaming the teaching as the fire starter of such an EVIL ACTS. Hope we will strict our self about this. to make this discussion more order. Please reply you comment to the things I posted.



Kai replies:

Cool

Fdjohan wrote:

Quote:
All traslation by Yusuf Ali
Quote:
6:151. Say: "Come, I will rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited you from": Join not anything as equal with Him; be good to your parents; kill not your children on a plea of want;- We provide sustenance for you and for them;- come not nigh to shameful deeds. Whether open or secret; take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.


Prohibited to TAKE any life without any justice and law.



Kai replies:

That is fine! Notice, that I never stated that Islam does not possess any positive values.

fdjohan wrote:

Better not take it for granted my friend. Verses like this NOT just valuable but THE TEACHING and COMMAND. So if you wanna be fair, you have to say verses like these are the basic rules to do PEACEFUL acts.


Kai replies:

Do take me out of context, as I have already pointed out, aspects of peace does not exclude the nature of subjugating or suppressing, as we have seen throughout the whole of human history!

Fdjohan continues:

Every religion possess values, often the same values.
Sura 6: 151 in its context does not refer to Jihad or Islam in war, but the Muslim in his general daily day; probably among Muslims; hence this verse despite its goodness does not exclude the elements of evil which I posted earlier.


You have to understand the character of AL-Qur'an. Verses support verses, verses explain verses.
You your-self put the rule of discussion on your signature.
Surah 29:46 And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)."

We are commanded by ALLAH to choose the better way to discuss things with non_Muslims. Don't you think this verse is a basic teaching how to deal with you people? and if you are stubborn, we shall not do any harm to you but just say :"We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)."
Do we have to do evil things to you? no.[/quote]

Kai replies:

Exactly fdjohan, was this particular passage revealed when Islam had the ability to subjugate the Christian or before?

Secondly, if you agree with the text of Sura 29: 46, why are you still a Muslim? Do you believe in the Book that I follow? In fact you do not! You are not even a Muslim!

And if you truly apply that rule on me a Christian, it must indicate that I am a Christian, hence you must recognise the Book I follow to be faultless; but then again if my Book is correct, how can the Qur’an remain trusthworthy, as these books differ?

Well you brought the topic up, not me! Back to the subject.

Fdjohan continues:

Quote:
Even in the Nazi regime, murder was banned, even stealing and rape; it did however not exclude the means to invade, suppress and commit genocide.


Wrong sample KAI. We are talking about What HOLY BOOK teaches us. Isn't that what your thread about? Nazi nothing to do with holy book.


Kai replies:

In what sense wrong, the principle remains, only because a religion, philosophy or ideology contains virtue does not necessarily vindicate its righteousness; in other words, any faction of human society contains goodness, yet it also includes a dark side.

As I have pointed out, Islam contains goodness, I do not deny that; but the fact of the matter is that so do all religions and ideologies. Islam might contain some virtue, yet it commands the attack upon non-Muslims and it permits the rape of slaves and female captives.

NOW THOSE ISSUES CONCERN ME, SINCE I AM A NON-BELIEVER, ACCORDING TO YOU; HENCE THEY ALSO CONCERN MY FAMILY WHO STILL LIVE IN A MUSLIM COUNTRY, AND FACE FEAR AND SOCIAL PRESSURE CONTINUALLY.

Fdjohan continues:

Let us forget about things about genocide for now. This discussion is not over yet. There are so much questions will come to you and you are responsible to answer it. Bring your mind and focus to the teaching mainly (as we discuss now) in Al-Qur'an. OK ma friend?
Quote:
Hence Sura 6: 151 proposes excellent virtue but does not exclude evil.


Will come to it InshaALLAH.
Quote:
Fdjohan wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
[5:32]. On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.



Kai replies:

As with the previous verse, the verse simply states the moral of any society, even Nazi Germany, even the ancient Assyrian culture. Yet this moral did not exclude the ideology which included invasion, genocide and submission.

fdjohan wrote:

Let's forget about genocide for now.
There is no mention in that verses the we have to do such peaceful act for Muslims only. That verse is a COMMAND NOT TO KILL from ALLAH to Muslims. Read carefuly.
if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people

ALLAH reminds us, if you kill a person without any reason ,it would be as if he slew the whole people. There is no sound of "Muslims only" here.

and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people

Is there command for Muslims only? no. This is a teaching to do more SAVE human life than killing without any reason.
If youare fair, you will say those are above the basic teaching of Muslims to do peaceful acts.


Kai replies:

I appreciate what you are saying, and I am glad that you wanna do good; I have not difficulty with that, Yet concerning the teachings of Islam, you are confusing matters here, the ISSUE IS GENOCIDE ON THIS THREAD (WHY DON’T YOU START A NEW THREAD?), you simply ask me to exclude the genocide and focus on the positives, yet the positives do not justifiy the evil or remove the evil.

Again I ask, does Islam promote the battle upon non-believers? Yes? Does it permit sex with female captives? Yes!

Whether you are banned from committing murder or not, does not rule out these elements! Do they?

IF my ideology tells me to kill your father, and enslave your mother and sister, and even rape your sister because of their differences or religion, but the same ideology prohibits me to treat my neighbour badly or commit murder; you would not conclude that my ideology was that of peace; despite its ethics! Right? (sorry for this disturbing and sick example)

Sura 9: 29 clearly teaches the Muslim to fight THOSE who do not believe, not necessarily the enemies, but those who are unbelievers Let me underline this NOT ENEMIES BUT NON-BELIEVERS:

9:29 Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


We know from Sahih Bukhari that it was a trend among Muhammad’s followers to kill non-Muslims males and enslave females and children:
When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment,

Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah." (Sahih Bukhari 4.280)


The particular verse you mentioned Sura 5: 32 cannot not be applied upon non-Muslims for the following reason:

48:29 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe (or ruthless, vehement) against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.


9:123 O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you


(notice: fdjohn will try to deal with the problem of these verses further down, and I will reply to his interpretation)

THE BATTLE OF BADR

Fdjohan continues:

Quote:
The religion of Islam condemns the killing or even the persecution of people merely because they embrace a different religion. The Quran mandates the absolute freedom of religion in a society. It does not allow Muslims to fight except for self defense and to enforce peace. It does not allow restrictions on those who disagree on religious matters. It urges the Muslims to treat such people kindly and equitably.

Quote:
2:193 Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme.


Now we are coming to this discussion. You need to learn about the history of the verse it self. That verse existed (if you don't like the term REVEALED) CONCERNING WAR in time of BADR WAR. Nothing about killing innocent Non-Muslims.
Let's talk about the history. I will show you all the reference, so we can see it together.
http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/seerah/24.htm

After this event, Quraish began to realize the real danger that Madinah could present with. They came to know that Madinah had always been on the alert, watching closely their commercial caravans. It was then common knowledge to them that the Muslims in their new abode could span and extend their military activities over an area of 300 miles. and bring it under full control. However, the new situation borne in mind, the Makkans could not be deterred and were too obstinate to come to terms with the new rising power of Islam. They were determined to bring their fall by their own hands and with this recklessness they precipitated the great battle of Badr.

The Muslims, on the other hand, and at the behest of their Lord, were ordered to go to war in Sha‘ban 2 A.H:
Quote:
“And fight, in the way of Allâh those who fight you; but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah (polytheism or calamity) is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-Al-Harâm (the Sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. But if they cease, then Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of ) worship is for Allâh (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimûn (polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” [2:190-193


So you better read those BOLD letters carefully ma friend.
surah 2:190,192,193 all in a tie and much related. You can't make them separate unless the meaning will be distorted.
Allâh likes not the transgressors
unless they (first) fight you there
Again. DO NOT FIGHT UNLESS they fight you.
if they attack you
ATTACK only IF THEY ATTACK YOU.

That verse is not legalize killing non Muslims, but URGES Muslims to be brave to FIGHT BACK they are ATTACKED. so this is merely DEFENCE.
Again these verses existed regarding BADR WAR.
Those verses are three of the BASIC RULES OF WAR. and these verses


Kai replies:
Ok what you are saying is that Sura 2: 190-193 is passage of glorious virtue in times of war if red in context:

“And fight, in the way of Allâh those who fight you; but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah (polytheism or calamity) is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-Al-Harâm (the Sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. But if they cease, then Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of ) worship is for Allâh (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimûn (polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” [2:190-193


I am not going to repeat your interpretation here fdjohan, but as you said lets look at this together, and so far we have had the insight from a Muslim.

If you ask me, I honestly, fail to see the virtue you are portraying.
What is this passage really saying?

The only virtue might be the order not to transgress the limits (if you could point out to me specifically what that means, of course with sources).

The rule not to fight unless they fight, sounds honourable, however that applied only because of the proximity of the Meccan sanctuary; hence holy ground.

Yet, fdjohan, the passage reveals the exact opposite of what your are asserting; first and most, the wording is clear, kill them, wherever you find them; FRANKLY, IT DOES NOT SOUND LIKE DEFENCE.

Another issue is about turning them out (the enemy) where they have turned you out; but this reveals no virtue only an attitude of revenge.

Furthermore, the passage reveals nothing about defence as the purpose specifically states that they are to fight until there is no more unbelief in the land.

Hence the motive is not defence, which is why it says ‘let there be not transgression except against those who are wrong-doers and the polytheists’. Hence we are looking at transgression.

But transgressing the limits in this passage seems only to refer to the fighting near the sanctuary, and to spare them if they surrender.

Even the sentence: ‘But if they attack you, then kill them’ is ambiguous, as the verse continues with: ‘such is the recompense of the disbelievers’.

It seems like the emphasis is on the killing which is the recompense, otherwise why should the Muslims fight unless there is not more disbelief and fight wherever they find them.

I think this debunks your entire interpretation.

Fdjohn wrote:

After this event, Quraish began to realize the real danger that Madinah could present with. They came to know that Madinah had always been on the alert, watching closely their commercial caravans. It was then common knowledge to them that the Muslims in their new abode could span and extend their military activities over an area of 300 miles. and bring it under full control. However, the new situation borne in mind, the Makkans could not be deterred and were too obstinate to come to terms with the new rising power of Islam. They were determined to bring their fall by their own hands and with this recklessness they precipitated the great battle of Badr.


Kai replies:

Obviously, if Muhammad had attacked caravans and threatened the city and if the growing number of Muslims began presenting a treat, there was the urgency to intervene. In one sense this presents no less treat than the Jews in the proximity of Medina, and they all got exterminated.

About this particular passage you (fdjohan) stated:

Now we are coming to this discussion. You need to learn about the history of the verse it self. That verse existed (if you don't like the term REVEALED) CONCERNING WAR in time of BADR WAR. Nothing about killing innocent Non-Muslims.


Yet Sura 2: 190-3 revealed the exact opposite:

“And fight, in the way of Allâh those who fight you; but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah (polytheism or calamity) is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-Al-Harâm (the Sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. But if they cease, then Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allâh) and (all and every kind of ) worship is for Allâh (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimûn (polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” [2:190-193


Kill them wherever you find them

Where they have turned you out, turn them out

Al-Fitnah (polytheism…) is worse than killing

…such is the recompense of the disbelievers

Fight them until there is no more Fitnah

…let there be no transgression excep against Az-Zalimun (polytheists…)

You need to consider Sura 2: 190-193 again fdjohan

Furthermore I would rather follow the interpretation of the Hadiths, which you are supposed to do fdjohan:

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2664:
Narrated Samurah ibn Jundub:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Kill the old men who are polytheists, but spare their children.



Furthermore Fdjohan wrote:

That verse is not legalize killing non Muslims, but URGES Muslims to be brave to FIGHT BACK they are ATTACKED. so this is merely DEFENCE.

Kai replies:

Well consider who is attacking here, is it the Quraish? No! Why, does Sura 2: 190-193 then prohibit fighting at the sanctuary in Mecca, obviously the Muslims were based in Medina, right?

These are Muslims attacking non-Muslims not Muslims defending their life or territory!

The war you are describing is a final action of over five years (or so) of combat between the Quraish and the Muslims in which both groups seem to terrorize each other, attack fields and caravans etc.

The most aggressive scene derives from 623 when the Quraish seek to unite with other groups to eliminate Muhammad and Islam. It does not happen, and the years of terror continue through five years (if I am wrong about the numbers of years do correct me please), both groups being equally involved,

Fdjohan posted this site:

http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/seerah/24.htm
Urwa b. al-Zubayr’s version of the battle (written in his letter to the caliph ‘Abd al-Malik and preserved in al-Tabari, I, 1284 ff.) begins with Muhammad receiving word that Abu Sufyan, chief of the clan of Umayya, was returning from Syria to Mecca with a rich caravan. A force of 300 men (80 Emigrants and the rest Ansar) is rounded and with Muhammad at the lead, heads towards Badr to apprehend the caravan. Upon hearing of Muhammad’s advance, Abu Sufyan sends to Mecca a request for protection. The Meccans respond by dispatching Abu Jahl of the tribe of Mahkzum with a force of 950 men from the clans of Quraysh. Though Abu Sufyan eludes the Muslims, Abu Jahl continues his advance in order to make a display of strength. Muhammad finds out about Abu Jahl’s oncoming expedition the evening before the battle through a Meccan water-carrier caught at the wells of Badr. In the morning, he fills all but one well with sand, where he stations his men. The Meccans, forced to fight for the water-supply, are defeated. Abu Jahl and a dozen leaders are killed with 70 taken prisoner. The Muslims suffer fifteen deaths.


Kai replies:

First of all, I fail however to see how Sura 2: 190-193 explicitly fits the battle of Badr, as the passage includes Mecca; furthermore the passage includes the removal of polytheism of the land; that was not the solemn purpose of Badr which basically concerned the robbery of a caravan (again not really a sign of virtue, peace or defence).

Fdjohan continues:

Quote:
9:123 O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you


That verse existed in time of TABUK war.
Reff: http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/ ... /mau9.html
Quote:
The third discourse (vv. 73-129) was revealed on his return from the Campaign of Tabuk. There are some pieces in this discourse that were sent down on different occasions during the same period and were afterwards consolidated by the Holy Prophet into the Surah in accordance with inspiration from Allah. But this caused no interruption in its continuity because they dealt with the same subject and formed part of the same series of events. This discourse warns the hypocrites of their evil deeds and rebukes those Believers who had stayed behind in the Campaign of Tabuk. Then after taking them to task, Allah pardons those true Believers who had not taken part in the Jihad in the Way of Allah for one reason or the other.


Again that verse existed in time of WAR. And about the TABUK war, this is the explanation:
Quote:
The Campaign to Tabuk was the result of conflict with the Roman Empire, that had started even before the conquest of Makkah. One of the missions sent after the Treaty of Hudaibiyah to different parts of Arabia visited the clans which lived in the northern areas adjacent to Syria. The majority of these people were Christians, who were under the influence of the Roman Empire. Contrary to all the principles of the commonly accepted international law, they killed fifteen members of the delegation near a place known as Zat-u-Talah (or Zat-i-Itlah). Only Ka'ab bin Umair Ghifari, the head of the delegation, succeeded in escaping and reporting the sad incident. Besides this, Shurahbll bin Amr, the Christian governor of Busra, who was directly under the Roman Caesar, had also put to death Haritli bin Umair, the ambassador of the Holy Prophet, who had been sent to him on a similar minion.


Tabuk CAMPAIGN happened after Muslims delegation were killed by Christians from Roman Empire. Read the history on that web above.
That verse is NOT a teaching to kill Non Muslims but merely DEFENCE.


Kai replies:

Fdjohan posted me this website and claims that Sura 9: 123 concerns the battle of the Tabuk-war:

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/ ... /mau9.html

Interestingly however, the website states that verse 123 was revealed on the return from the campaign and hence has nothing to do with that war in the first place:

The third discourse (vv. 73-129) was revealed on his return from the Campaign of Tabuk.


The website which Fdjohn posted from states:

These events convinced the Holy Prophet that a strong action should be taken in order to make the territory adjacent to the Roman Empire safe and secure for the Muslims. Accordingly, in the month of Jamadi-ul-Ula A. H. 8, he sent an army of three thousand towards the Syrian border. When this army reached near Ma'an, the Muslims learnt that Shurahbil was marching with an army of one hundred thousand to fight-with them and that the Caesar, who himself was at Hims, had sent another army consisting of one hundred thousand soldiers under his brother Theodore. But in spite of such fearful news, the brave small band of the Muslims marched on fearlessly and encountered the big army of Shurahbil at M'utah. And the result of the encounter in which the Muslims were fighting against fearful odds (the ratio of the two armies was 1:33), as very favorable, for the enemy utterly failed to defeat them. This proved very helpful for the propagation of Islam. As a result, those Arabs who were living in a state of semi. independence in Syria and near Syria and the clans of Najd near Iraq, who were under the influence of the Iranian Empire, turned towards Islam and embraced it in thousands. For example, the people of Bani Sulaim (whose chief was Abbas bin Mirdas Sulaimi), Ashja'a, Ghatafan, Zubyan, Fazarah, etc., came into the fold of Islam at the same time. Above all, Farvah bin 'Amral Juzami, who was the commander of the Arab armies of the Roman Empire, embraced Islam during that time, and underwent the trial of his Faith in a way that filled the whole territory with wonder. When the Caesar came to know that Farvah had embraced Islam, he ordered that he should be arrested and brought to his court. Then the Caesar said to him, "You will have to choose one of the two things. Either give up your Islam and win your liberty and your former rank, or remain a Muslim and face death." He calmly chose Islam and sacrificed his life in the way of the Truth.


Kai replies:

FIRST AND MOST NOTHINGN IN THIS PASSAGE EVEN INDICATES ANY ELEMENTS OF DEFENCE; IT IS ABOUT ATTACKING AND SUBJUGATING NON-MUSLIMS!

History is often written by winners; hence I am not too certain about even the accuracy of this account; IT IS A FALLACY TO RELY FULLY ONLY ON ONE PEACE OF INFORMATION, ESPECIALLY IF THE INFORMATION IS BIASED.

Furthermore if you read history, you will notice that there was much interaction between various factions at the Syrian and Persian border; these were times of war.

Let me also ask you, now you bring up the case with Farvah and Caesar (not that I approve of Caesars action); but what do you Muslims do when fellow Muslims particularly those famous in the society, turn from Islam? DO YOU BEHAVE ANY BETTER THAN CAESAR? DID MUHAMMAD OR HIS FOLLOWERS BEHAVE ANY BETTER THAN CAESAR?

Narrated Ikrima:

Ali burnt some people [hypocrites] and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' " (Sahih Bukhari 4.260)


My first question concerning Tabuk is, why were Muslims travelling in that direction in the first place?

How do we now that these Muslims were not caught and killed do to some breaking of the law, or for the suspicion of spying?

The killing is deplorable, but then again the entire Muslim force marches toward Syria, and alien country, for what?

How about the suppression of non-Muslim cities to enforce to submit to Islam:

When the Holy Prophet found that the Caesar had withdrawn his forces from the frontier, he considered thee question whether it would be worthwhile to march into the Syrian territory or to halt at Tabuk and turn his moral victory to political and strategical advantage. He decided on the latter course and made a halt for twenty days at Tabuk. DURING THIS TIME, HE BROUGHT PRESSURE ON THE SMALL STATES THAT LAY BETWEEN THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND THE ISLAMIC STATE AND WERE AT THAT TIME UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE ROMANS, AND SUBDUED AND MADE THE TRIBUTARIES OF THE ISLAMIC STATE. FOR INSTANCE, SOME CHRISTIANS CHIEFS Ukaidir bin Abdul Malik Kindi of Dumatul Jaiidal, Yuhanna bin D'obah of Allah, and the chiefs of Maqna, Jarba' and Azruh ALSO SUBMITTED AND AGREED TO PAY Jizyah to the Islamic State of Al- Madinah. As a result of this, the boundaries of the Islamic State were extended right up to the Roman Empire, and the majority of the Arab clans, who were being used by the Caesar against Arabia, became the allies of the Muslims against the Romans.


I AM SURPRISED HOW YOU CAN CATEGORIZE ALL THIS AS DEFENCE, PEACE AND GOOD DEEDS.

As to the particular issue of showing harshness, this has nothing to do with war but the treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule; NOW SUDDENLY, EVEN MUHAMMAD AND HIS FOLLOWERS ARE NO BETTER THAN THE BARBARIAN QUARISH TRIBE IN MECCA!!!

HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE ARAB-CHRISTIAN STATES WHICH SURRENDERED TO ISLAM RULE:

A Muslim cannot be punished (executed) for the murder on a Christian; as the blood of a Muslim contains more value
(Ibn Hazm, vol 8, page 39).

Abu Juhaifa said, "I asked Ali, ‘Have you got any book (which has been revealed to the Prophet apart from the Qur'an)?’ ‘Ali replied, ‘No, except Allah’s Book or the power of understanding which has been bestowed (by Allah) upon a Muslim or what is (written) in this sheet of paper (with me).’" Abu Juhaifa said, "I asked, ‘What is (written) in this sheet of paper?’ Ali replied, it deals with the Diya (compensation (blood money) paid by the killer to the relatives of the victim), the ransom for the releasing of the captives from the hands of the enemies, and the law that NO Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever).’" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 111)
Christian were not permitted to build church nor repear them (Ibn Hazm, Vol. 4 part 7, page 28) (Abu al-ala al-Mawdudu, page 28); the punishment is death (Ibn Timiyya Vol. 28-652).


Christians have virtually no right when it comes to the court (Malik Ibn Ons Vol. 5 Section 13, page 156) (Imam Al-Shafii, Ahk Al-Quran, page 142) (Bukhari, partur 3, page 237).

Christians ought not to be employed (Ibn Timiyya. Vol. 28. page 646).

Christians have no political rights (Mawdudi, page 268).

A list of rules include:

Always give a Muslim your seat
Wear clothes that exclude you and distinguish you as a non-Muslim
You are permitted to use a saddle when riding a horse or donkey
Cut of the front of your hair
Do not exhibit Christ books
Do not read aloud from the Bible
You must not be buried next to a Muslim
You are not permitted to cry
You must not have Muslim slaves
You must not possess a superior position
The punishment to break any of these is death

(Ibn Timiyya Vol. 28 og Ibn Hazm Vol. 4)

Muhammad introduced three rules concerning Christians to humiliate and pressurize the Christians in Arabia:

1. They had to pay extra tax, depending upon the need of the land; tax had to be paid for all grown-ups, at times for property, animals and trees.

2. The tax had to be paid personally and included the privilege to permit Muslim to mock and beat up these victims

3. The Christians had to admit and proclaim themselves to be of lower value, having no dignity, value or future.
(Tabari, X, 109ff.; Ibn Kathir II, 346ff.).

TO TURN BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TOPIC OF THE THREAD, THE CHRISTIANS IN TURKEY:

This was the very reason why Christians were joyfully willing to gain the freedom from the suppression of the Ottoman Empire; unfortunately the cry for freedom and equal rights and human dignity was short-lived. WHATEVER YOU SAY, THIS IS ISLAM, AND I HAVE PROVEN IT!

Fdjohan continues:

Quote:
48:29 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe (or ruthless, vehement) against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.


The word that translated as "severe (or ruthless, vehement)" derived from the word Ashiddå’ is plural of shadid, which means firm, strong, powerful, as well as brave Can be translated as firm of heart.
Shiddat, the root word, also signifies firmness of heart.
Nothing about harmness. Back to the Prophet's history of life. Too much pressure to him and Muslims. Without "ASHIDDA", Islam will no be exist until now.
The Muslims stood firm against the disbelievers but they will never fierce or hard in their treatment towards them. The rules had been made by ALLAH.


Kai replies:

Why then does it read: …
but merciful among themselves
; does the passage exclude mercy toward and amongst disbelievers and whatever you interpret it into among them instead?

Are you then saying that Muslims ought not to be brave, firm of heart and strong among themselves.

You see, your interpretation does not hold!!!!!

Fdjohan continues:

Quote:
9:29 Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Quote:
We can simply let the Hadith’s interpret the Koranic passages:


I delay the hadiths later KAI, to bring more focus to the teaching of Al-Qur'an.


Kai replies:

But we are looking at the Koran here; and my question is: are you to fight the unbelievers or not?

fdjohan wrote

So far I refute your claims by the history of the verses themselves. Nothing of the intention of the verses to do any harm to the Non Believers.


Kai replies:

I cannot see that you have refuted anything. IN FACT MOST OF THE STUFF I HAVE BROUGHT UP IN MY PREVIOUS POSTS ARE STILL LEFT UNANSWERED.

THE FACT REMAINS THAT YOUR PROPHET retorted to war and weapons to secure his rule and influence; early Christianity managed to spread and survive without any such means.
I HAVE PREPARED AT LEAST 20 MORE PAGES, I WILL HOWEVER GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO ANSWER US ON SURA 9: 29 BEFORE I POST THEM

Kai Hagbard
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 10:45 am
Location: Europe-Asia

Postby Kai Hagbard » Tue Mar 21, 2006 04:50 pm

Well, no, let me just get this over

Fdjohan wrote:


History recorded the early time Muhammad (saw) in Medina.
Taken from :
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Book ... period.htm


Kai replies:

So the Muslims reject Muhammad and there is a war of words, does that gave the reason to butcher the Jewish community?

THIS WAS THE ONLY REASON, WHY MUHAMMAD HAD TO EXTERMINATE THEM; THEY WERE ABLE TO EXPOSE HIM, THEY KNEW HOW THE QUR'AN HAD BEEN COMPOSED AND WHO HELPED MUHAMMAD DOING IT; THERE PRESENCE HINDERED ISLAM TO MOVE ON.

Fdjohan continues:

Most wicked Banu Qainuqa’ 700 warriors, trouble making hurting those frequenting their bazaars, intimidating women, Muhammad gathered them in assemblage, and admonished them to be rational, but they did not pay heed, they said, don’t be deluded because you won the Qurais, if you would engage us, you would realize that we are the experts.
The history recorded how later JEWS betrayed the treaty and ATTACKED Muslims.

http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/seerah/26.htm

THE QAINUQA' JEWS BREACH THE COVENANT:
Quote:
Seeing that Allâh sided with the believers and granted them a manifest victory and perceiving the Muslims’ awesome presence in Madinah, the Jews could no longer contain themselves or conceal indignation. They started a series of provocative and harmful deeds publicly. The most wicked amongst them were the tribe of Banu Qainuqa‘, who lived in quarters within Madinah named after them. As for jobs, they took up goldsmithery, blacksmithing and crafts of making household instruments, that is why war weaponry was available in large quantities in their houses. They counted 700 warriors, and were the most daring amongst the Jewish community in Arabia, and now the first to breach the covenant of cooperation and non-aggression which they had already countersigned with the Prophet (Peace be upon him). Their behaviour grew too impolite and unbearable. They started a process of trouble-making, jeering at the Muslims, hurting those who frequented their bazaars, and even intimidating their women. Such things began to aggravate the general situation, so the Prophet(Peace be upon him) gathered them in assemblage, admonished and called them to be rational, sensible and guided and cautioned against further transgression. Nevertheless they remained obdurate and paid no heed to his warning, and said: “Don’t be deluded on account of defeating some Quraishites inexperienced in the art of war. If you were to engage us in fight, you will realize that we are genuine war experts.”


It's JEWS started everything. And what did the Prophet do? He (Peace be upon him) gathered them in assemblage, admonished and called them to be rational. There are no sign to kill on the spot. Even the Prophet called Muslims to be more patient .
Quote:

The answer of Banu Qainuqa‘ amounted, as seen, to war declaration. The Prophet (Peace be upon him) suppressed his anger and advised the Muslims to be patient and forbearing and wait for what time might reveal.

The Jews, went too far in their transgression, presumptuous behaviour and licentious practices. One day a Jewish goldsmith provoked a Muslim woman whose genitals become uncovered when he had tied the edge of the garment to her back. A Muslim man happened to be there and killed the man; the Jews retaliated by killing that Muslim. The man’s family called the Muslims for help and war started.


JEWS who started the war and created so much problem to the Muslims.
This part of history to explaining the BACKGROUND of those verses KAI posted.
This is other prove that Muslims do not attack such INNOCENT un-believers. Muslims will fight people who attack them, not if they want peace with them.


Kai replies:

THIS IS JUST ON MORE EXAMPLE OF TYPICAL BLAIMING OTHERS AND FOCUSING ON BIASED VIEWS AND INFORMATION.

I am not denying that the Jews might have misbehaved, but I doubt that their behaviour was the solemn reason for war.

First and most because Muslims themselves misbehaving:

Shortly before Muhammad’s surprise victory at Badr, Abu Bakr, one of his chief companions, barged into a Jewish school, led by two rabbis. Abu Bakr called on one of the rabbis "to fear God and become a Muslim because he knew that Muhammad was the apostle of God who had brought the truth from Him and that they would find it written in the Torah and the Gospel." One of the rabbis sassed him, saying that Allah must be poor, if Muhammad has to borrow money from the Jews. Enraged, Abu Bakr struck him hard on the face, telling him: "Were it not for the treaty between us I would cut off your head, you enemy of Allah!" The story ends with the rabbi denying to Muhammad that he sassed Abu Bakr (note how the Jew is not only a blasphemer but also a liar), but the prophet got a revelation that the rabbi had mocked Allah. Thus, Abu Bakr was justified in using physical violence in response to disrespectful words. He is a Muslim hero. Incidentally, it is many quickly narrated stories like this one that are found everywhere in early Islamic sources that shock fair-minded readers. Islam is not the religion of peace (Summarized by James M. Arlandson).


Sources: Muslim, vol. 3, nos. 4363; Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans. A. Guillaume, Oxford UP, 1955, p. 263 / Arabic p. 388 and p. 363 / 545; Tabari, The Foundation of the Community, trans. M. V. McDonald, vol. 7 (SUNYP, 1987), pp. 85-87 / 1359-62.

Secondly, because Jews were offended by Muhammad misuse and corruption of their religion

Thirdly, because Muhammad might have had a significant political and religious motive to kill them

Since we only rely on Muslim sources here, who are the winners, I cast doubt upon the credibility of the information

There were many reasons for conflict, particularly the raiding and robbing of the Meccan traders; which Muhammad and his followers resorted to.

Modern Saudi biographer Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri expresses the right idea:

.
. . "[I]t was wise for the Muslims to bring the commercial routes leading to Makkah [Mecca] under their control" (p. 201). Then he lists eight raids between 623 and the Battle of Badr in AD 624.


Safi-ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri, The Sealed Nectar: Biography of the Noble Prophet, Darrusalam, 1996, p. 201. This biography was awarded first prize by the Muslim World League, but it is an encomium more than an objective biography.

From Muhammad’s point of view, he wanted the Kabah shrine in Mecca, and if this goal involved hindering Meccan trade, then so be it. Two early Medinan suras or chapters (2 and 8) reveal his outlook. Sura 2:189-196 and 216-218 command Muslims to fight the Quraysh because this tribe wanted to control their own shrine, even if this entailed prohibiting the Muslims, who were hampering the large tribe’s trade, from visiting it. Next, Sura 2:125-129 asserts without a shred of evidence that Abraham built and purified the shrine, and now Muhammad the monotheist is the best representative of this patriarch. He claimed this while he lived in Mecca, too (Sura 14:35-41). So in effect the shrine belonged to him by revelation, before it actually did by conquest (in early AD 630). Finally, in Sura 8:30-40, the prophet recounts his persecution back in Mecca and why the Quraysh are not the rightful guardians of the shrine. They barred people from it—never mind that about eight years later the prophet will bar pagans from the shrine. All Arab polytheists will be forced to convert or die.

According to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad had an enormous army in Medina and effectively fought the pagan Arabs by the use of new military tactics, such as the use of trenches. The Jews did not join in the war, and sat home. Muhammad then devised a plan to make the Jews in Medina and the Pagan Arabs communicate together, to complete his deceptive tricks he used Nuaym of the Ghatafan tribe. This was done with intention and full knowledge that the Pagan Arabs would loose the war, the Jews would be helpless and there would be a good reason to consider the Jews as a treat.

Sources: Ibn Ishaq, p. 458-59; Tabari vol. 8, p. 23-24
This is why Muhammad called war deceit:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle called,: "War is deceit".


This War then is inaugurated by Gabriel who tells Muhammad to attack the Jews

(1) Traditions state that as the prophet was taking a bath, the (non-Biblical) angel Gabriel appeared to him.
Gabriel tells him the battle is not finished. Muhammad is ordered to fight the Qurayza Jews.

When Allah’s Apostle returned on the day (of the battle) of Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench), he put down his arms and took a bath. Then Gabriel, whose head was covered with dust, came to him saying, "You have put down your arms! By Allah, I have not put down my arms yet." Allah’s Apostle said, "Where (to go now)?" Gabriel said, "This way," pointing towards the tribe of Bani [tribe] Quraiza. So Allah’s Apostle went out towards them. (Bukhari; see a parallel hadith here.)


This next hadith shows a regiment of Gabriel (Muslim warriors) marching towards the fortresses of the Jews.

Narrated Anas: As if I am just now looking at the dust rising in the street of Banu Ghanm (in Medina) because of the marching of Gabriel's regiment when Allah's Apostle set out to Banu Quraiza (to attack them). (Bukhari; see this parallel hadith: Muslim no. 4370 and see no. 4371)


Under the 25 days siege Muhammad has an expert in poetry, name Hassan to abuse the Jews inside the fortress

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 449:
Narrated Al-Bara:

The Prophet said to Hassan, "Abuse them (with your poems), and Gabriel is with you (i.e, supports you)." (Through another group of sub narrators) Al-Bara bin Azib said, "On the day of Quraiza's (besiege), Allah's Apostle said to Hassan bin Thabit, 'Abuse them (with your poems), and Gabriel is with you (i.e. supports you).' "

aiza’s (besiege), Allah's Apostle said to Hassan bin Thabit, ‘Abuse them (with your poems), and Gabriel is with you (i.e. supports you).’" (Bukhari)


According to Ibn Ishaq, the poetry referred to Jews as brother of monkeys since the Qur’an refers to the occasion (or fairytale) when Allah turned Jews in to apes (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 461-62)

See Sura 2: 65
To see how this utterly racistic, anti-semetic spirit is still thriving within Islam see this website:

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page= ... ID=SP68304

Interestingly, these Jews could have been sent into exile, which seems to have become the Muslim trend, in doing to Jews and Christian:

Volume 3, Book 39, Number 531:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

Umar expelled the Jews and the Christians from Hijaz. When Allah's Apostle had conquered Khaibar, he wanted to expel the Jews from it as its land became the property of Allah, His Apostle, and the Muslims. Allah's Apostle intended to expel the Jews but they requested him to let them stay there on the condition that they would do the labor and get half of the fruits. Allah's Apostle told them, "We will let you stay on thus condition, as long as we wish." So, they (i.e. Jews) kept on living there until 'Umar forced them to go towards Taima' and Ariha'.
Man what a peaceful religion; they could choose to leave (exile was dreadful and you lost home, property, and go where), or they could stay do the labour and only receive half of their usual harvest.
After the siege, Muhammad sends for Sad bin Muadh (the leader of a Medinan tribe) to decide the judgement over the Jews


This Hadith describes Sad bin Muadh judgement and Muhammad’s consent:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280:
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:

When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah."


THIS SIMPLY REVEALS THAT ISLAM IS A MAN-MADE RELIGION

See also

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 148:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, "Get up for the best amongst you." or said, "Get up for your chief." Then the Prophet said, "O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment (or the King's judgment)."


When I think about the treatment of female captives in Islam I find this utterly repulsive:

Females slaves were used for sex
Sura 70:22-30; 23:5-6; 4:24 give full permission for the Muslims to rape their female slaves (the girls taken in war). In Sura 33:50 a special permission is given for Muhammed.

"...who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave girls, for these are lawful to them..." (Sura 23: 5-6)


"And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess. It is a decree of Allah for you (Sura 4: 24).


According to Tabari vol.39, p.194 the ruler of Alexandria gave a young Christian girl as a gift to Muhammad, her name was Mariyam. Muhammad never married her but used to sleep with her, and she even gave birth to a son who died after 18 months..

According to Sahih Bukhari vol.5#637 Ali had sex with a slave girl whom he saw and found beautiful, and Muhammad seemed to have no objections.

Narrated Buraida: The prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (part of the war booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)? When we reached the prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him for he deserves more than that from the Khumus." (Sahih Bukhari, vol.5, #637)


Female captives were used for sex

According to Sahih Bukhari vol.9#506; Sahih Muslim vol.2#3371 Muhammad’s followers used to come to Muhammad after battles, to seek permission and advise to engage in sexual activity with the girls taken in battle. They doubted for several reasons, however, permission was granted.
At one point Muhammad gave them permission and told them that it is up to Allah who gets created anyway, thus permission was given.

a. The permission from the Koran

"Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty;..." (Sura 33: 50)


b. Doubt due to fear of less money for selling pregnant slaves

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with Allah's messenger we said, "Oh Allah's messenger, we got female captives as our booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence." (Sahih Bukhari, vol.3, # 432) (further reference Bukhari Vol. 3, #718)


c. Fear due to pregnancy

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relations with them without impregnating them. So they asked the prophet about coitus interruptus. The prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection". (Sahih Bukhari, vol.9, #506) (further reference Bukhari 5: 459)


d. Lust or ransom?

Abu Sirma said to Abu Said al Khudri: "O Abu Said, did you hear Allah's messenger mentioning about al-azl (coitus interrupts)?" He said, "Yes", and added: "We went out with Allah's messenger on the expedition to the 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 and he said: "It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born". (Sahih Muslim vol.2, # 3371)


e. Doubt since their men are polytheists

Abu Said al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran - 4:24), (i.e. they were lawful for them when their Idda (menstrual) period came to and end). (Sahih Muslim, vol.2, #3432)


f. Doubt since their husbands watch them being raped

Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah 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 Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto your save those (captives) whom your right hand possesses". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period."" [The Quran verse is 4:24]. (Sunan of Abu Dawud, vol.2, #2150)


Little girls could be married by the age of six or seven

Which then includes the permission to engage in sex with six and seven year old female girls and captives:

Bukhari vol. 7, #65: "Narrated Aisha that the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: "I have been informed that Aisha remained with the prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).""


Bukhari vol. 7, #88: "Narrated Urwa: "The prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).""


From Abu Dawud, Vol. 2, #2116: "Aisha said, "The Apostle of Allah married me when I was seven years old." (The narrator Sulaiman said: "Or six years."). "He had intercourse with me when I was 9 years old."


According to Ibn Ishaq (p.464) the number of men and pubescent boys killed, might have been as high as 800-900; that was a massive genocide considering and small community as Arabia.

This is how it was decided who was to be genocided or not:

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4390:
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:

I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.


One women was also killed:

Sunan Abdu Dawud Book 14, Number 2665:
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:

No woman of Banu Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed.


Muhammad even took a women to himself; this is what Ibn Ishaq as to say:

The apostle had chosen one of their women for himself, Rayhana bint Amr . . . one of the women of . . . Qurayza, and she remained with him until she died, in his power. The apostle had proposed to marry and put a veil on her, but she said: "Nay, leave me in your power, for that will be easier for me and for you." So he left her. She had shown repugnance towards Islam when she was captured and clung to Judaism. (Ibn Ishaq, p. 466)


That Muhammad was no longer the man he was when he first had entered Medina might be seen through the sharing of the spoils, where the riders (the wealthier Muslims) receive a greater share than those on foot, the poorer; this is what Ib Ishaq has to say:

Then the apostle divided the property, wives, and children . . . among the Muslims, and he made known on that day the shares of horse and men, and took out the fifth. A horseman got three shares, two for the horse and one for the rider. A man without a horse got one share (p. 466).


Furthermore this was not a war but a butchery, how could 900 men and boys fight an army of thousands of Jihad warriors?

Well fdjohan I will now wait for your reply, before I post an answer to your so called Jewish conspiracy to kill the Armenians (you guys really hate Jews, right?)

Kai Hagbard
Preacher
Preacher
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 10:45 am
Location: Europe-Asia

Postby Kai Hagbard » Wed Mar 22, 2006 06:59 pm

Kai writes:

One more thing

Fdjohan wrote:

Ok, KAI, I am using Tafsir Ibn Katsir (very famous commentator of Al-Qur'an). He gives us the explanation of surah 4:95


Kai replies:

Now I am surprised that you use Ibn Kathir to interpret for you.

Ibn Kathir recorded a lot of weird ideas, such as the concept, that Allah created the earth on the back of a enormous whale:

Does that mean, that every interpretation has to be in accordance with these commentators?

Does that mean that every interpretation of these commentators is correct?

Well, if that is the case, you need to believe what Kathir and other commentators note below:

It was said that "Nun" refers to A GREAT WHALE that rides on the currents of the waters of the great ocean AND ON ITS BACK IT CARRIES THE SEVEN EARTHS, as was stated by Imam Abu Jafar Ibn Jarir. Narrated by Ibn Bashar, narrated by Yahya, narrated by Sufyan Al-Thuri, narrated by Sulayman Al-Amash, narrated by Abu Thubian, narrated by Ibn Abbas who related, "The first thing that Allah created was the pen and He said to it ‘Write’. The pen asked, ‘What shall I write?’ Allah said, ‘Write (the) fate (of everything).’ So the pen wrote everything that shall be from that moment until judgment day.

Then Allah created the "Nun" and He caused steam to rise out of which the heavens were created AND THE EARTH WAS THEN LAID FLAT ON THE NUN’S BACK. Then the Nun became nervous and (as a result) the earth began to sway, but (Allah) fastened (the earth) with mountains lest the earth should move ...

It was narrated by Ibn Jarir, narrated by Ibn Hamid, narrated by Ata’a, narrated by Abu Al-Dahee, narrated by Ibn Abbas who stated, "The first thing my Lord created, may He be Exalted and Glorified, was the pen and He said to it, ‘Write.’ So the pen wrote all that will be until judgment day. Then Allah created the Nun (the whale) above the waters AND HE PRESSED THE EARTH INTO ITS BACK.

Al Tabarani narrated the same hadith above (from the prophet Muhammad) who narrated from Abu Habib Zaid Al-Mahdi Al Marouzi, narrated by Sa’id Ibn Yaqub Al-Talqani, narrated by Mu’amal Ibn Ismail, narrated by Hamad Ibn Zaid, narrated by Ata’a Ibn Al Sa’ib, narrated by Abu Al Dahee Muslim Ibn Subaih, narrated by Ibn Abbas who stated that the prophet – may peace and blessing be upon him and his family - said, "The first things Allah created were the pen and the whale and He said to the pen ‘Write.’ The pen asked, ‘What shall I write?’ Allah replied, ‘Everything that shall be until judgment day.’ Then He said ‘Nun. By the Pen and by what they write.’ So Nun is the whale and al-Qalam is the pen" ...

Ibn Abu Nujaih stated that Ibrahim Ibn Abu Bakir was informed by Mujahid who said, "It was said that Nun is the great whale WHO IS UNDERNEATH THE SEVEN EARTHS." Furthermore, Al-Baghawy – may Allah rest his soul - and a group of commentators stated that on the back of this whale there is a great rock whose thickness is greater than the width of the heavens and the earth and above this rock is A BULL THAT HAS FORTY THOUSAND HORNS. On the body of this bull are placed the seven earths and all that they contain, and Allah knows best.


These passages as I understood are not translated into English but can be found in their original Arabic:

http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispT ... =68&nAya=1

I think we are playing games here, rather than running around the subject, rather than conferring with commentators or the good side of Islam lets look at the text referring to genocide, and see where that leads us.


Return to “Archived Christian/Muslim Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests