The Price This Christian Pays For Respecting Islam | Craig Considine

The Price This Christian Pays For Respecting Islam | Craig Considine May 11, 2015

Guest Post by Craig Considine

1922507_654643201300149_2801539919764139331_n

Never in my wildest imagination did I ever think I would become a scholar focusing on Islam and Christian-Muslim relations. Growing up, my passion was playing basketball and following the Boston Celtics. I never had any Muslim friends. In fact, I did not even know a single follower of Islam until my college years. If you had asked me “What is a Muslim?” when I was 16 years old, I would not be able to answer you.

Everything changed when 9/11 happened. Muslims were seen as “terrorists” and Islam was an “evil” force that had to be crushed by “freedom loving people.” When it came time to choose an academic discipline in college, I chose “Islamic studies” – not because I wanted to learn about a great religion and world civilization, but rather to work for the CIA and become a spy to nab the “bad guys.”

One of the first classes that I enrolled in at American University was “The World of Islam.” I figured this was a way for me to learn about why an event like 9/11 happened. On the first day of class, I learned about basic Islamic principles like giving alms to charity and praying five times per day. I was told about a hadith, or saying of the Prophet Muhammad, which stated:

The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr.

I remember one of the Muslim students in the class standing up and reciting a Qur’anic verse, which read: “Taking the life of an innocent person is like killing all of mankind.” What I learned on that first day of class was not reflective of what you hear daily in the media about Islam and Muslims.

 

Since 2004, I have focused most of my time on researching Islam, US foreign policy with the “Muslim world,” and ways of bridging the gap between Christians and Muslims worldwide. My dedication to these academic pursuits have been enriching beyond imagination. I have made dear Muslims friends who I hold in the highest esteem. I have been able to travel the world and spend time with Muslim communities of various backgrounds.

They have opened their schools, homes, and mosques to me. The hospitality, warmth, and love that Muslims have showed me over the years has made me an admirer of Prophet Muhammad and an individual who has deep respect for Islam. There is no doubt that these activities and experiences have made me a better person.

Muslims have brought me closer to God. For that I am ever thankful. However, researching Islam and becoming friends with Muslims have also come at a serious cost to my relationships and social interactions.

 

I have lost a good amount of friends because of my efforts in shedding a positive light on Islam and Prophet Muhammad. Fraternity brothers who do not share my political beliefs have unfriended me on Facebook. I have been told by some of them that I am on an “FBI watch list” because of my “radical” views on improving relations between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Other friends who do not care as much about religion or politics simply cannot understand the kind of work that I do. Years ago, one of my friends asked me “So what is the difference between Islam and Muslims?” Most of my friends have no idea about either of these subjects, therefore it is difficult for me to share my passion for learning with them. They simply cannot comprehend the benefits of a non-Muslim studying Islam.

Some people in my family consider me to be “weird” because I have an interest in studying a religion that they think is “foreign.” This is difficult for me because these are my family members who are supposed to care about things that matter to me. One person in my family has been so brainwashed by media coverage of Islam that he once told me: “Muslims kill us because that’s what they’re supposed to do to Christians. It’s in the Qur’an.”

One Christmas, a family member wanted to buy me a book that she thought would be interesting to me. It turned out that the book was “Islam For Dummies” by the anti-Muslim activist Robert Spencer. On another occasion, someone close to my immediate family went through my library and picked up a book called “The Mystics of Islam.” He looked at me and said sarcastically “Remind me to read this one!” He said that in a condescending tone as if the book was useless.

To be honest, it is painful to be seen as someone who studies something that other people consider to be irrelevant. As you can imagine, it does not feel great to feel unappreciated.

 

Non-Muslims are not the only people who look down on me for researching Islam. I tweet regularly about interfaith dialogue and ways of improving Christian-Muslim relations. Muslims will tweet loving messages to me about the great work that I am doing. When I respond back with “peace be with you” and “Amen,” two typical Christian phrases, they start to question me on my religious background. “Are you Muslim?” these tweeters ask, to which I respond “No, I am Catholic.” Seconds later, I realize that I have fewer Twitter followers. These people “unfollow” me for the simple reason that I am not Muslim.

Other Muslims on Twitter do their best to convert me to Islam. They tell me that it is impossible to fully understand a religion if you do not follow that religion. They suggest that I “revert” to Islam “before it’s too late, before the end times,” as if I am going to hell for being Catholic. Granted, I have many Muslim followers who genuinely admire my work in bridging the gap between Muslims and non-Muslims, but to be put down as a non-Muslim scholar leads me to believe that some Muslims are not tolerant of my work.

Studying Islam has come at a price. Old friends see me as a traitor; family members see me as “strange,” and Muslims see me as someone who will never be good enough. These developments make me think deeply about the issues of loyalty, love, and knowledge. Thankfully, I do have kindred spirits around the worldwide who understand my mission and who appreciate the courage it takes for an individual to put relationships on the line in an effort to acquire knowledge and understand the mysteries of our world.

I certainly will carry on with this journey. To stop now would be to surrender to narrow-mindedness, bigotry, and religious supremacy. These are the evils in our world and I will not stop challenging them until my days on this planet are over.

This article first appeared in Huffington Post

Dr. Craig Considine is a Catholic American of Irish and Italian descent. As a sociologist, his main research interests include interfaith dialogue, Christian-Muslims relations, race and ethnicity, as well as comparative research and ethnography. Read more from his blog at http://craigconsidinetcd.com/

 

Join the conversation on our Facebook page!

"whats the very next verse after the compulsion one?.....exactlyyou know damn well abrogation exists in ..."

Yes, You Are Taking Those Verses ..."
"In most/all illiberal Muslim-majority countries, it is."

ISIS Has Something to do With ..."
"Does the Qur'an tell us to flay him, stone him, quarter him, boil him, or ..."

ISIS Has Something to do With ..."
"Ma sha Allah, thanks for summarizing the Surah. This is very helpful. I ll comeback ..."

A Short Summary & Chapter Notes ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Muslim
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Donald Hysa

    There are people who get killed for not agreeing with muslims or leaving islam about their religion and you think you are are in a tough postion? You are just another western brat who has no idea what he is talking about

  • Katy Bodman

    Thanks for what you do, I love Brian MacLaren’s leanings in the same direction and think this is among the most important work that can be done by religious people right now.

  • Mark Zimmer

    You must continue this journey. The Quran is the truth.

    [Quran 4:82] Why do they not study the Quran carefully? If it were from other than God, they would have found in it numerous contradictions.

    The problem lies in the Hadiths, written hundreds of years after Prophet Muhammad death. These hadiths are full of contradictions and written by people with own agendas.

    [Quran 7:185] Have they not looked at the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all the things God has created? Does it ever occur to them that the end of their life may be near? Which Hadith, beside this, do they believe in?

    [Quran 45:6] These are God’s revelations that we recite to you truthfully. In which Hadith other than God and His revelations do they believe?

    [Quran 31:6] Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless Hadith, and thus divert others from the path of God without knowledge, and take it in vain. These have incurred a shameful retribution.

    People will say that the Quran is difficult to read and that the hadiths are needed for explanation.

    [Quran 54:17, 54:22, 54:32. 54:40] We made the Quran easy to learn. Does any of you wish to learn?

    [Quran 17:36] “You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.”

    Please continue your journey Dr Craig

    May peace be with you

  • ronmurp

    Thank you Ro and Craig, and indeed Mark Zimmer for his Quran quotes.

    Part of the problem for many non-Muslims are the mixed messages we get from Muslims. In principle this isn’t necessarily a problem, because in Christianity there are many sects with a variety of interpretations of the many books of the Bible.

    However, the Quran is supposed to be inerrant, the one-time for-all-time final message from God. So the conflicting messages are particularly troublesome.

    For example, we have someone like Reza Aslan telling us how foolish New Atheists are in taking it all so literally, and that nobody else does really. But the New Atheists are merely echoing what many Muslims claim about the Quran.

    Mark, for example, quotes how ‘easy to learn’ the Quran is. With that in mind, I can quote 24:2:

    “The [unmarried] woman or [unmarried] man found guilty of sexual intercourse – lash each one of them with a hundred lashes, and do not be taken by pity for them in the religion of Allah , if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a group of the believers witness their punishment.”

    Now many liberals (non-Muslim and many liberal Muslims) will not wish to accept that verse. It seems to me that Muslim accepting this verse in the literal sense, and as part of a ‘for-all-time’ final word of God, is really condoning inhumane punishment for something that’s none of their business.

    When I put this to some Muslims I’m told, well, I don’t really understand this (easy-to-understand) book, and I need scholars to explain it too me. Well, then, the Quran doesn’t seem that straight forward after all.

    In fact, if these sorts of verses do need scholarly interpretation, then the bare bones Quran in the hands of people that only recite it without understanding it would explain why so many British Muslims, for example, are seeing within it the necessity to join ISIS. It seems that handing to Quran to an unscholarly person is like giving a loaded gun to a child.

    Perhaps Craig, Ro, mark could shed some light on this.

    Thanks

  • KingHasNoClothes

    Tired. tired tired of hearing this auld sh1te spouted over and over again. Mr. Considine comes out – as if in cue – with the old time honoured – but hopelessly unoriginal Koranic quote ““Taking the life of an innocent person is like killing all of mankind.” the mots used and dare I say abused quote from the Koran. Well Mr. Considine, that is 5:32. Would you care to tell us what 5:33 says – the very next verse? – I’ll save you the trouble – 5:33 says “The penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.” Now any honest Muslim will tell you that ALL Non-Muslims “cause corruption”. These two verses make it clear that 5:32 applies to MUSLIMS only, while 5:33 applies to non-Muslims. Quoting 5:32 without also quoting 5:33 is to engage in an Islamic form of “deception by omission” which is known as “Kitman”.

  • KingHasNoClothes

    ” [Quran 4:82] Why do they not study the Quran carefully? If it were from other than God, they would have found in it numerous contradictions.” – But, the Koran is FULL of contradictions. This fact is even acknowledged within the Koran ITSELF!. Sura; 2:106 states: “We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?”

  • Michael Cottrill

    All religions by their very nature are discriminatory!
    Islam is one of the big three Abrahamic religions, the other two are Judaism and Christianity. All three of these religions have been the cause of much strife,conflict and hostility between them selfs an others for millennia,They are apocalyptic prophesying the complete destruction of the world with intense and eager enjoyment! Their dogma will never change!! Craig Considine is delude, buy thinking the followers of these religions, can cherry pick what dogma they will follow! The problem is future shock!

  • Michael Cottrill

    Putting “God ” in a book is a contradiction!

  • Thank you dear Craig for your blessed efforts to build peace among Christians and Muslims. As a Muslim woman I feel a lot of appreciation for your courage and sincerity. May God/Allah bless you and give you strength.

  • S H

    Now you need to study Buddism and learn to detach from other people’s baggage.
    Seriously, I think you are doing important work. And it is a brave thing to swim against these particular social tides.

  • Em

    I echo the gratefulness of Sheima for your courage.
    I don’t know how Muslims are called to live, though I’d like to learn more. Jesus’ commandments in the bible make it very clear that the Christian response to everyone should be love. Thank you for your courage to live out that love. Matthew 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God”.

  • Carl Fales

    From the column: {One person in my family has been so brainwashed by media coverage of Islam that he once told me: “Muslims kill us because that’s what they’re supposed to do to Christians. It’s in the Qur’an.”}. Notice how he does not refute this – just puts it out there like “Can you believe this idiot”? – except, the Koran does call for death to: infidels, Jews, and apostates (not necessarily in that order).

    ISIS and other radical Islamic terrorist groups interpret the Koran to justify horrific acts of savagery and barbarism including: killing; raping; stoning; selling young girls and women into sexual slavery; crucifying people; etc. Do lunatics on the fringes of other religions occasionally commit horrific acts of violence? Yes – Timothy McVeigh is probably the most famous example of a so-called “Christian terrorist”.

    But the Oklahoma City bombing occurred over 20 years ago. And was a “one-off” event. Radical Islamic terrorists are killing, raping, stoning, crucifying people every day. EVERY SINGLE DAY. And every day, they do so, in their minds, to fulfill the will of Allah and his pedophile prophet, Mohammed.

    And I am so, so tired of hearing “Well, it is just a small minority – most Muslims are peace loving people.” Really? Where are the massive street rallies held by all of these so-called “moderate Muslims” protesting against ISIS and other terrorist groups? I’m sure these demonstrations would get wall to wall media coverage – if they ever took place. But they don’t. So even if most Muslims are “moderate” peace loving people – so what? They are not doing anything that is having any impact on the more excitable members of the “religion of peace”.

  • Where are the moderate christians who speak out against extremist christians when they do something evil or stupid? The christian religion has more than it’s fair share of atrocities committed in the name of christ, yet I have never heard one evangelical apologise for how their fellow believers behaved.

  • Kiren

    Because its not a moderate muslim’s responsibility to apologize for some radical nutjobs half way across the world that uses the Koran as a justification to act on his own sick demons? I think its pretty clear nobody that isn’t joining ISIS, supports it. It’s not even about religion, these people were tyrannized for years and now they have power, its not a religious fight, they are like this because the leader before them was a power-hungry tyrant and he was overthrown and now they want that same power, its a human epidemic in an Islamic area.

  • Mark Zimmer

    Dear Ronmurp,

    I am not an expert on the Quran but i can give you my view on it.

    I believe that you would have to ask these many liberals (non-Muslim and many liberal Muslims) who will not wish to accept that verse, if they would accept this if they would have been cheated on by their spouse, the one they love.

    There are no scholars needed for this verse, it is very straightforward.

    Besides, the Quran does not mention the severity of the lashes, it can be compared to the spanking of a kid by its mother. The real punishment is in the humiliation by including witnesses. The same humiliation that he/she inflicted on the spouse. Fair is fair.

    You are right, the problem is in the interpretation. But we are all equipped with a brain and conscience. We have a sense of right and wrong. If we do not understand things, then we must learn. We have to use our commonsense.

    [Quran 17:36] You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.

    Just one more thing. A Muslim is not a Muslim because he claims to be one or by the clothes he wears. A Muslim is defined by actions. ISIS are not Muslims.

    [Quran 2:62] Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who believes in God, and believes in the Last Day, and leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

  • Mark Zimmer

    That is not correct.
    Making a verse better or similar does not mean it would be contradicting.

  • ronmurp

    Hi Mark,

    What I’ve found, and what Muslim Maajid Nawaz has tried to show, is that so many Muslims will claim they are moderates, but will not reject verses like 24:2.

    I think your reference to someone who has been ‘cheated’ on is significant. Yes, a jealous person may well feel so hurt they want some sort of payback, but there are a few important points:

    – We’re talking about a religion, a supposed religion of peace, with a supposed merciful god. It’s the religion that demands this punishment, not some aggrieved spouse.

    – That an aggrieved spouse is suffering from jealously. Surely that is not a virtue. Why would a religion encourage such a vengeful attitude?

    – We’re not talking about adultery with 24:2. That’s lashes for sex outside marriage for unmarried people. Stoning to death is the rule for adulterers.

    The last point bringing me to this:

    “Besides, the Quran does not mention the severity of the lashes”

    That’s a bit weak, frankly, and would only apply if the punishment were symbolic. But the Quran, valid for all time, inerrant, doesn’t say that. And from all examples of public punishment online it looks pretty serious. And, how more severe can stoning to death get?

    “The real punishment is in the humiliation by including witnesses. The same humiliation that he/she inflicted on the spouse. Fair is fair.”

    Really? You really think that’s what it’s about? Remember, Islam comes from a culture were vengeful punishments for some grievance were common. Kill someone from another clan, and you can expect their brothers, cousins, uncles to come after you. Everything has a price that must be paid – in blood if necessary. The shame is already carried by the aggrieved, and it is the alleviation of such shame that demands such cruel punishments.

    “We have to use our commonsense.”

    The common sense to know that so many different religions, from ancient and ignorant times, and every religion but one’s own is obviously false? Common sense should cause anyone to complete that circle and reject their won religion too.

    “A Muslim is not a Muslim because he claims to be one or by the clothes he wears. A Muslim is defined by actions. ISIS are not Muslims.”

    But then who defines what actions count as Islamic actions? ISIS are Muslims. As are a variety of other Muslims, liberal, moderate, conservative, fundamentalism, extremist.

    It’s no surprise that a religion such as Islam has the specific term, Takfir, dealing with the denouncement of other Muslims – which conveniently makes them non-Muslims, therefore apostates, therefore punishable by death. Quite a net process. Until it must have dawned on those promoting Takfir that they could be the victims of it. So they add the caveat that if you make an incorrect denunciation of another Muslim that reflects the accusation back at you, and you become the apostate. “You’re an apostate!”, “No, you are,” “No, you are,” … Laughably childish, but yet so deadly. What a crazy religion.

  • ronmurp
  • Mark Fisher
  • MichaelElwood

    Carl Fales wrote: “Notice how he does not refute this – just puts it out there like ‘Can you believe this idiot’? – except, the Koran does call for death to: infidels, Jews, and apostates (not necessarily in that order).”

    Notice how you don’t provide any evidence that the Quran says to kill infidels, Jews, and apostates. The onus doesn’t fall on Muslims to prove that the Quran DOESN’T say to kill all non-Muslims, but on those who claim that it DOES.

    Carl Fales wrote: “ISIS and other radical Islamic terrorist groups interpret the Koran to justify horrific acts of savagery and barbarism including: killing; raping; stoning; selling young girls and women into sexual slavery; crucifying people; etc.”

    Whoop-dee-damn-doo! The Iron Guard, KKK, Hutaree, Blackwater, Holy Rus, La Familia Michoacana, Los Caballeros Templarios (Knights Templar), Lord’s Resistance Army, and the National Liberation Front of Tripura, interpret the Bible to justify horrific acts of savagery and barbarism. As Shakespeare said:

    “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek, A goodly apple rotten at the heart. O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”

    Carl Fales wrote: ” Do lunatics on the fringes of other religions occasionally commit horrific acts of violence? Yes – Timothy McVeigh is probably the most famous example of a so-called ‘Christian terrorist’. But the Oklahoma City bombing occurred over 20 years ago. And was a ‘one-off’ event. Radical Islamic terrorists are killing, raping, stoning, crucifying people every day. EVERY SINGLE DAY. And every day, they do so, in their minds, to fulfill the will of Allah and his pedophile prophet, Mohammed.”

    You don’t have to take a time machine back 20 years to witness such an event (see above).

    Carl Fales wrote: “And I am so, so tired of hearing ‘Well, it is just a small minority – most Muslims are peace loving people.’ Really? Where are the massive street rallies held by all of these so-called ‘moderate Muslims’ protesting against ISIS and other terrorist groups? I’m sure these demonstrations would get wall to wall media coverage – if they ever took place. But they don’t. So even if most Muslims are ‘moderate’ peace loving people – so what? They are not doing anything that is having any impact on the more excitable members of the ‘religion of peace’.”

    Where are the massive street rallies by all these so-called moderate Christians protesting against the groups I mentioned above? They’re not doing anything that is having any impact on the more excitable followers of the “Prince of Peace”.

  • MichaelElwood

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Tired. tired tired of hearing this auld sh1te spouted over and over again. Mr. Considine comes out – as if in cue – with the old time honoured – but hopelessly unoriginal Koranic quote”

    You can’t possibly be a tired as Muslims are of hearing this BS about waging war against “all non-Muslims” and “kitman”.

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “5:33 says ‘The penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.’ Now any honest Muslim will tell you that ALL Non-Muslims ’cause corruption’.”

    Islamophobes really need to get some new material:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/quranalyzeit/2015/04/10/yes-you-are-taking-those-verses-out-of-context-a-muslim-responds-to-atheist-ali-a-rizvi/#comment-1962887278

    Even though your own translation says that the “penalty” is for “those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger,” you want us focus on the “causing corruption” part, and conclude that Muslims can wage war against someone for simply “causing corruption”. And since ALL non-Muslims “cause corruption” according to you, the “penalty” must apply to ALL non-Muslims, not just those who wage war against Muhammad. Do you see how tortured the “logic” of an Islamophobe is? Do you see all the mental gymnastics they have to perform in order to see the Quran as advocating war against all non-Muslims?

    The Quran makes it crystal clear that simply being non-Muslim is not a justification to wage war on someone:

    “O you who believe, if you strike in the cause of GOD, you shall be absolutely sure. Do not say to one who offers you peace, ‘You are not a believer,’ seeking the spoils of this world. For GOD possesses infinite spoils. Remember that you used to be like them, and GOD blessed you. Therefore, you shall be absolutely sure (before you strike). GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you do.” [Quran 4:94]

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “These two verses make it clear that 5:32 applies to MUSLIMS only, while 5:33 applies to non-Muslims.”

    Verse 5:32 to isn’t referring to some Muslims, but to some Jews (bani isra’il) in Medina during the time of Muhammad. It’s noting the irony that the Jews of Medina gave lip-service to the idea that when one kills, it’s as if they killed all of humanity, while at the same time they were engaging in bloodletting.

    Islam’s position on the sanctity of life is stated elsewhere in the Quran:

    “. . . .’Come let me tell you what your Lord has really prohibited for you: You shall not set up idols besides Him. You shall honor your parents. You shall not kill your children from fear of poverty – we provide for you and for them. You shall not commit gross sins, obvious or hidden. You shall not kill – GOD has made life sacred – except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you, that you may understand.'” [Quran 6:151]

    “You shall not kill any person – for GOD has made life sacred – (wa la taqtulu an-nafsa allaty HARRAMA allahu) except in the course of justice. If one is killed unjustly, then we give his heir authority to enforce justice. Thus, he shall not exceed the limits in avenging the murder; he will be helped.” [Quran 17:33]

    “They never implore beside GOD any other god, nor do they kill anyone – for GOD has made life sacred – (wa la yaqtuluna an-nafsa allaty HARRAMA allahu) except in the course of justice. Nor do they commit adultery. Those who commit these offenses will have to pay.” [Quran 25:68]

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Quoting 5:32 without also quoting 5:33 is to engage in an Islamic form of ‘deception by omission’ which is known as ‘Kitman'”.

    Again, Islamophobes need to get some new material. There is no Islamic form of deception called kitman:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/236786-will-iran-abandon-taqiya-by-signing-a-nuclear-treaty-with#comment-1928383986

  • MichaelElwood

    There is no “contradiction” or “abrogation” in the Quran:

    http://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/quran/false_accusations/abrogation_claims_%28P1216%29.html

  • Daniel Söderberg

    I find myself having to say this over and over. Sura 5 verse 32 (““Taking the life of an innocent “) person is like killing all of mankind.”is about The Children of Israel, ergo the Jews. It is constantly quoted out of context omitting this fact. It also exempts corruptors, who you can safely slaughter with Allah’s approval.

    Go to Sura 2 verse 6-12 to find out who the corruptors are. They are us, the Kafirs.

  • Daniel Söderberg

    Read the Quran!

  • Mark Zimmer

    Hi Ronmurp,

    – That an aggrieved spouse is suffering from jealously. Surely that is not a virtue. Why would a religion encourage such a vengeful attitude?

    I do not see it as an encouragement, I see it as a warning. Just don’t do it.

    – We’re not talking about adultery with 24:2. That’s lashes for sex outside marriage for unmarried people. Stoning to death is the rule for adulterers.

    Can you show me a verse that mentions lashes for unmarried people outside marriage? I could not find one.

    I found another though.

    [Quran 2:235] You commit no sin by announcing your engagement to the women, or keeping it secret. God knows that you will think about them. Do not meet them secretly, unless you have something righteous to discuss. Do not consummate the marriage until their interim is fulfilled. You should know that God knows your innermost thoughts, and observe Him. You should know that God is Forgiver, Clement.

    Yes, I think the main reason is the humiliation part.
    Stoning to death is not sanctioned in the Quran. It is sanctioned in the Hadith. The Hadith is the word of men, there you will find many contradictions and nonsense. The Quran is the word of God.

    In France they even have a special law for this (adultery). Crime de Passion. You can get away with murder if you kill the person that is cheating on your spouse.

    That’s a bit weak, frankly, and would only apply if the punishment were symbolic. But the Quran, valid for all time, inerrant, doesn’t say that. And from all examples of public punishment online it looks pretty serious. And, how more severe can stoning to death get?

    Sure, you can call it weak, but my interpretation is not wrong. In fact, it makes much more sense then lashing someone half to death.

    The Quran is revealed to the Arabs for a reason.

    [Quran 9:97] The Arabs are the worst in disbelief and hypocrisy, and the most likely to ignore the laws that God has revealed to His messenger. God is Omniscient, Most Wise.

    The Arabs were tested and failed. Because of this verse they tried to corrupt the Quran by adding verses. That failed too. That is why they started writing books on how to interpret the Quran and what the Prophet Mohammad had said and how he lived (Hadith)

    But then who defines what actions count as Islamic actions? ISIS are Muslims. As are a variety of other Muslims, liberal, moderate, conservative, fundamentalism, extremist.

    I find the definitions in the Quran, there are many mentioned.
    You say ISIS are Muslims, according to the Quran they are not.

    [Quran 3:7] He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses – which constitute the essence of the scripture – as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except God and those well founded in knowledge. They say, “We believe in this – all of it comes from our Lord.” Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.

  • AJ

    Some scholars of Islam teach remarkably similar concepts of “detachment”, in as much as this world is merely temporary and illusory. The book mentioned in the article, in fact, “The Mystics of Islam”, is well worth a read.

  • AJ

    There actually are experts on Qur’an, hadith, and Islamic schools of jurisprudence that can and have explained all of this over and over again. Use google. Avoid anti-Islam websites.

    If you prefer a good book on the subject by an expert, “Misquoting Muhammad” is both excellent and widely available.

    The author of this blog post is also a PhD in sociology, I imagine he has many published papers on the subject. Maybe try Google Scholar?

  • KingHasNoClothes

    I’m afraid that is nonsense. Not only teh Koran but even Islamic schools of jurisprudence disagree with you on this and in fact a whole doctrine has been developed to deal with this. This doctrine is called “Al Nasikh wa Al Mansukh”.

  • KingHasNoClothes

    I am afraid you are the one performing the mental gymnastics. the fact is the Koran contains peaceful verses and it contains violent verses which call for murder. (In fact the founder of islam – muhammed – also committed murder and rape himself.). Cherry picking peaceful verses (largely paraphrased plaigarisms from Jewish and Christian tradition anyway) while ignoring the calls for violence will do nothing to convince me that Islam is “Peaceful”.

  • KingHasNoClothes

    yeah right. Hey – do you want to buy a car?

  • KingHasNoClothes

    No, It is very much about religion.

  • KingHasNoClothes

    probably because on recent times a)it is rare, certainly compared to Islamic atrocities; b) such activity is not ordered or justified by tye Bible – in contrast to the Koran and Hadith.

  • KingHasNoClothes

    Agreed. I think 5:33 makes it clear also: “The penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment”. Charming.

  • KingHasNoClothes

    The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamicrule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called
    ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
    Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

  • KingHasNoClothes

    “The Koran is the truth”. Utter hogwash. Most of the Meccan verses are regurgitated paraphrased plagiarisms based on accounts given by teh Christian Jabr – whom Muhammed almost invariably consulted before each “revelation”. The Medinan verses are basically the result you get when a Narcissistic, Warlord (Muhammed) – who tried to appropriate existing religions and re-package them in a way that give HIM a special revered place (think personality cult) – was rejected and run out of time. (In reality more laughed out of town than run out of town). Stewing in vengeful spite, he composed the Medinan verses which urge violence and murder against all who do not follow HIM – Muhammed.

  • KingHasNoClothes

    Well said Donald.

  • MichaelElwood

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “I am afraid you are the one performing the mental gymnastics.”

    Let me get this straight. . . you believe that a verse that mentions “those who wage war against Muhammad” is actually about Muhammad and Muslims waging war against ALL non-Muslims simply for being non-Muslims. And you believe that a verse that explicitly says that Muslims can’t wage war against people simply for being non-Muslim doesn’t count. But I’M the one engaging in mental gymnastics? LOL!

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “the fact is the Koran contains peaceful verses and it contains violent verses which call for murder. (In fact the founder of islam – muhammed – also committed murder and rape himself.).”

    Can you give me a couple of examples of the “violent verses” that call for the murder of all non-Muslims simply for being non-Muslims? Let me make it easier for you. Can you give me ONE example of a “violent verse” that calls for the murder of all non-Muslims simply for being non-Muslims? Would you consider the following to be examples of “violent verses” in the Bible?:

    “And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. . . . And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?. . . . Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” [ Numbers 31:9-18]

    “And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.” [ Deuteronomy 20:13-14]

    “And as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him, and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand.” [1 Samuel 17:57]

    “So David gave an order to his men, and they killed them. They cut off their hands and feet and hung the bodies by the pool in Hebron. But they took the head of Ish-Bosheth and buried it in Abner’s tomb at Hebron.” [2 Samuel 4:12]

    “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” [Matthew 10:34]

    Can you give me ONE example of Muhammad committing murder? By the way, what’s your definition of murder? If someone “wages war against Muhammad (as the verse that you quoted said),” and he kills them in self-defense, does that constitute murder?

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Cherry picking peaceful verses (largely paraphrased plaigarisms from Jewish and Christian tradition anyway)”

    Let me get this straight. . . you believe that all the “peaceful verses” have been conveniently abrogated and that you can ignore them, but I’M the on who’s cherry picking? LOL! I bet you’re one of those Islamophobes who believes that all the “peaceful” verses in the Quran have been conveniently abrogated, and all the “violent” verses in the Bible have been conveniently abrogated, even though the Quran and Bible rejects such beliefs:

    “‘Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this book sufficiently detailed?’ Those to whom We have given the book know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt. The word of your Lord has been completed with truth and justice; THERE IS NO CHANGING HIS WORDS. He is the Hearer, the Knower.” [Quran 6:114-115]

    “When Our clear signs are recited to them, those who do not wish to meet Us said, ‘Bring a Quran other than this, or change it!’ Say, ‘IT IS NOT FOR ME TO CHANGE IT from my own accord, I merely follow what is inspired to me. I fear if I disobey my Lord the retribution of a great day!'” [Quran 10:15]

    “Recite what has been inspired to you from your Lord’s book, THERE IS NO CHANGING HIS WORDS, and you will not find besides Him any refuge.” [Quran 18:27]

    “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” [2 Timothy 3:16 ]

    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” [Matthew 5:17-18]

    By the way, can you show me the specific verses in the Bible that the “peaceful” Quranic verses were plagiarized from?

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “. . . .ignoring the calls for violence will do nothing to convince me that Islam is ‘Peaceful'”

    There are no calls to indiscriminate violence in the Quran, so I can’t ignore them. And I’m not interested in convincing Islamophobes that Islam is peaceful. I have better things to do with my time.

  • MichaelElwood

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “yeah right. Hey – do you want to buy a car?”

    No, but I got a bridge I can sell to you for a great price!

  • ronmurp

    “I see it as a warning. Just don’t do it.”

    I see it as a warning too. But a warning isn’t much use if it isn’t backed up by action. And it is backed up. But again, what has it to do with some religious doctrine whether people have sex outside marriage? Not of their business. You are only confirming the nature of the Quran being a barbaric document, that happens to contain a few nice bits too.

    “We’re not talking about adultery with 24:2”

    Yes, I know. You brought up adultery in the context of my point about that verse: “if they would accept this if they would have been cheated on by their spouse”. That’s why made the additional point about adultery, which would apply in the context you raised, about cheating on a spouse. 24:2 is about sex outside marriage, a non-adulterous case not having any other people involved, just two unmarried lovers. So your points about cheating and jealousy don’t necessarily apply, if we’re only talking about 24:2, but stoning for adultery does apply if we use your additional excuse that punishment might be justified because the cheated spouse is jealous.

    None of that detracts from the ancient barbarity of it. Lashes for unmarrieds as 24:2, or stoning of adulterers from the Hadith. I don’t see any virtue in any of this, so the nuances aren’t really making a case for Islam.

    “I found another though.”

    Oh, I’m quite sure you can find many verses that offer different perspectives. And that’s part of the problem. If you need scholars to interpret all this, then the Quran is a dangerous books in the wrong hands, because it can be interpreted simply – and is, by ISIS, by many moderate Muslims, by governments that implement Sharia. Beheadings go on. Hanging of homosexuals goes on. Stonings go on. Whatever the scholarly twists and turns, Islam is amenable to barbaric punishments for things that are perfectly reasonable.

    “Stoning to death is not sanctioned in the Quran. It is sanctioned in the Hadith. The Hadith is the word of men, there you will find many contradictions and nonsense. The Quran is the word of God.”

    No. The Quran and the Hadith are all the word of man. The Quran is passed off as the word of God. The Hadith come a close second because they are supposed to be inspired by the acts and words of Mohammad during his life, and being the inspired guy he is, that’s good enough. So, stoning is in the Hadith, and it is applied, where it can be.

    The ‘Islamic world’ is wide an varied. Some ‘Islamic nations’ are actually secular republics, that either have no specific association with Islam but which carries great influence because there are a majority of Muslims; or in some cases Islam is the state religion; or in yet others they are Islamic states. So, in Bangladesh we have a republic, but 86%+ of Muslims carry a lot of weight, and so recently we’ve seen atheist bloggers being killed. Whether state sanctioned or mob rule, Islam is bad news when someone doesn’t listen to the ‘warnings’.

    “In France they even have a special law for this (adultery). Crime de Passion.”

    Again, you are bringing adultery into this. So, this is now about the Sharia adoption of the Hadith requirement to stone adulteress. OK, so, to France …

    That’s because there is some appreciation for the feelings of passion in France. But you think that is anything like a state or religion actually prescribing punishment? It’s totally different. The French state is not punishing the adulterers or those having sex outside marriage, or for adultery, they are instead having some consideration for the passions of those involved.

    “You can get away with murder if you kill the person that is cheating on your spouse.”

    But, to get back to 24:2, you’re bringing a spouse into it again. Tell me what punishment France has equivalent to 24:2? Does it punish unmarried young couple having sex before they are married? There are no jealous spouses to consider here.

    But, if you insist on considering adultery, is there a punishment in France for adultery? No.

    “Sure, you can call it weak, but my interpretation is not wrong. In fact, it makes much more sense then lashing someone half to death.”

    Who said anything about ‘half to death’? You are trying to make the case for a warning that might never be carried out rather than one that is. It is carried out, where Sharia is implemented to require it.

    “The Quran is revealed to the Arabs for a reason.”

    It doesn’t matter what was revealed, or what you think was revealed but was actually invented by men. What matters is that we now live in times where these punishments are considered barbaric. Decent Muslims should reject them. But that’s difficult for them. So often Muslims say they cannot reject any of the Quran.

    “You say ISIS are Muslims, according to the Quran they are not.”

    It doesn’t mention ISIS. Therefore ISIS is not specifically labelled as non-Muslim.

    “He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verses – which constitute the essence of the scripture – as well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. ”

    Again, part of the problem, not a solution. Who gets to decide which verses are allegory and which are intended literally?

    “Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning.”

    ISIS harbour no doubts.

    “None knows the true meaning thereof except God and those well founded in knowledge.”

    Again, who is the judge of who is well founded in knowledge? It’s crazy system.

    “They say, “We believe in this – all of it comes from our Lord.” Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.”

    Another ambiguous passage that can be taken to support ISIS or oppose them. It’s all nonsense.

  • ronmurp

    “There actually are experts on Qur’an, hadith, and Islamic schools of jurisprudence that can and have explained all of this over and over again. ”

    Yes, and they disagree with each other. My link to the anti-Islam site was facetious to make the point about how easy it is to find fault with the Quran. Again, if you need scholars to interpret it, that only goes to confirm how dangerous a book it is. The fact that many Muslims do take it literally is part of the problem.

    “If you prefer a good book on the subject by an expert, “Misquoting Muhammad” is both excellent and widely available.”

    There are many experts. It makes no difference. Islam as contained in the Quran and Hadith is ripe for whatever interpretation is put upon it, and literal interpretations of incitements to do violence and to punish for ridiculous reasons is enough to condemn the religion as it stands, and as it is implemented across the world.

    “The author of this blog post is also a PhD in sociology, I imagine he has many published papers on the subject. Maybe try Google Scholar?”

    Or he or anyone else could just explain clearly, why 24:2* demands that punishment.

    I’ve been down the path of experts many times. I comment on a blog by a Shiite Muslim and I quote some Sunni Muslim, and I’m told I’m going to the wrong experts, and that I should seek out a good Shiite Imam. The same sort of response is what I get from Sunni Muslims. If find one quoting the same stuff, and I’m told he’s not good enough.

    Perhaps you could explain this. If Muslims on here cannot give me an answer, then presumably they too need to go check with an expert on all these matters – the implication is that they don’t actually know the answers themselves. Or, if they are concerned about giving the wrong answers** then that would imply the right answers are not easily come by, which means again Islam is a dangerous religion if it needs experts all the time and fairly straight forward questions cannot be answered directly.

    So, AJ, can you answer directly my concerns about 24:2, or can you refer to a specific person who can?

    * I use 24:2 specifically because there is no crime by any decent human standards, and there are no victims if the couple having sex before getting married are both consenting to the act. It’s nobody else’s business. If non-scholarly Muslims don’t get this and instead insist that it is a punishment that is required, whether scholars or Islamic justice systems say so or not, then it remains a dangerous passage, either in the hands of the mob or in the hands of state law.

    ** Given how risky it is to comment on Islam I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that many Muslims defer answering to someone else.

    Thanks for the book reference. It looks worth a read, but already I see flaws in the early parts. Brown recognises a problem: “It is often difficult, however, to distinguish those criticisms of Islam that are grounded in demonstrable moral realizations from those that merely mask cultural biases. Often Islam’s most denounced barbarisms are nothing more than prosaic differences in dietary preferences and dress.”

    That’s nonsense. Of course there are people that see any cultural difference is a threat – indeed many Muslims feel the same about western dress being popular in ‘Muslim lands’. But to pass that off as ‘most denounced barbarisms’ is dishonest. The most denounced barbarisms include modern use of 24:2 in a judicial system that then actually lashes people for sex outside marriage, or that uses the Hadith to justify stoning adluterers. These are ‘demonstrable moral realizations’, not ‘prosaic differences in dietary preferences’.

    Brown goes on to describe scenes from Argo. Yes, that’s a simplistic stereotypical representation. But does that film have anything to do with the lashing of a couple for having sex outside marriage?

    Nevertheless, it looks an interesting perspective, so, again, thanks for the tip, I’ll get the book.

  • KingHasNoClothes

    Let me make a few points here. First – in common with a lot of Islamic apologists – you feel the need to compare with Christianity. Why is this? – can you not address issues relating to Islam without resorting to “What-aboutery”? Do you always believe that those of us who point out unsavory aspects of Islam

    are Christians? – Or Jews? – Many of us are Athesist or agnostics (as in my case).

    That being said, I will make the following observations about your references to the Bible.

    1 – The Bible is understood to be a collection of accounts written by HUMANS. It is not understood to be the literal word of God (which is what Muslims MUST believe about the Koran).

    2 – The passages you have quoted are all from the Old Testament.
    The Old Testament is a historical account of the Jews and the “Old Law” and you will yourself not be surprised that your quotes from OT (Deuteronomy, Numbers etc. etc.) are all phrased in the past tense. The New Testament is what makes the Bible “Christian” as distinct from Jewish.

    3 – The New Testament on the other hand
    gives accounts of Jesus coming to “fulfill” the Old law and render it as no
    longer needing to be met by humans. Its message is that he gave his life in fulfillment of the old law to atone for the sins of humanity.

    You will therefore in general not find verses in the New Testament that advocate violence – quite the opposite (although you are correct with Matthew 10:34). But
    in any even I am not here to defend Christianity – like I said I am agnostic – this is not a ZERO sum game and I am not interested in “what-aboutery”.

    The Koran’s many, many violent and intolerant verses however are not phrased in the past tense, bu rather in the “imperative” – i.e. as commands or orders to commit violence and they are open-ended.

    “Can you give me ONE example of Muhammad committing murder?” – Yes, here’s a few:

    Asma bint Marwan (624) was murdered on
    orders of Muhammed for writing poetry ridiculing him.

    Banu Qurayza tribe – (627) – 600 – 900 prisoners
    of this tribe beheaded – ISIS style – by Muhammed and his “companions”. All males who has reached puberty killed – women and children enslaved and many raped
    (used as Sex Slaves or “married”).

    Al-Harith bin al-Talatil (630) – for mocking Muhammed through poetry …and on and on and on –
    the list goes.

    Also while we are at at, let’s do RAPE
    as well, shall we?:
    23 1-6: The Believers must (eventually) win through—those who humble themselves in their prayers; who
    avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who
    abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess—for (in their case) they are free
    from blame
    Etc etc.

    It is unfortunate that you seek refuge behind the meaningless term “Islamophobe” – invented with the sole purpose of closing down debate.

  • Actually the Old testament went to great lengths telling the israelites that they MUST kill the people they are going to steal the land from. (Or enslave and rape them) Also you may want to look at what countries like Uganda and Kenya are doing with the “Kill the gays” legislation they are passing. There are plenty of examples of modern christian atrocities, but I doubt you will look into it.

  • KingHasNoClothes

    The Old Testament is obsolete in Christianity.

  • That still hasnt stopped christians from using it to justify commiting acts of terror against their fellow americans

  • Kazim Nawab

    Different Muslims have different views on Islam and its history. For example, the followers of Ismaili-ism, Sufi-ism, deism of Sir Sayyid, rationalism of Ibn E Rushd and others have a very different understanding of Islam than the fundamentalist Muslim. Of course most non Muslims don’t realize this and think of the standard sharia based cruel and tribal version of Islam that was spread by tyrants who ruled the Islamic empire after the first four caliphs had passed away as the only Islam. So, they are not wrong for criticizing it. After all, it is this form of Islam that is politically and economically dominating most of the Islamic world and did dominate most of the Islamic world when the so called authentic texts of the sharia were created.

    Personally, I think there are two types of non Muslim critics of Islam, those who would like to see Islamic reform and those who would like to see the religion fade away. Among the latter there are again two kinds, those who are atheists who want to see all religions fade away and those who are Christians who secretly think Muslims will join Christianity if Islam is demonized loudly enough.

    The author probably will find acceptance only among those Jews, Christians and Muslims who think the Orthodox version of Islam can be reformed and the faith of Islam is worth saving. It is a tiny sliver of the population but it does exist. I often bump into such people on Ben Abrahamson’s Facebook page. Ben is an orthodox Jewish rabbi living in Israel who has read most of the authentic Islamic sources and is fluent in Arabic too. First time I read his work I though has this guy been reading my writings? How has he come to the same conclusions as me? You should check him out.

  • MichaelElwood

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “First – in common with a lot of Islamic apologists – you feel the need to compare with Christianity. Why is this?”

    Because you first claimed that the “peaceful verses” in the Quran were plagiarized from Judaism and Christianity. So a scriptural comparison was in order. I asked you what were the specific Biblical verses that the Quran’s “peaceful verses” were plagiarized from, and you couldn’t answer answer the question.

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “can you not address issues relating to Islam without resorting to ‘What-aboutery’?”

    Yeah, can you?

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Do you always believe that those of us who point out unsavory aspects of Islam are Christians? – Or Jews? – Many of us are Athesist or agnostics (as in my case).”

    No. But you wanna know what’s pathetic? Some Jewish and Christian Islamophobes masquerade as atheist and agnostic Islamophobes on the internet because they know that their beliefs are indefensible. They don’t seem to understand that atheist Islamophobia is just as indefensible.

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “The Bible is understood to be a collection of accounts written by HUMANS. It is not understood to be the literal word of God (which is what Muslims MUST believe about the Koran).”

    Are you serious? Many Jews and Christians DO see the Bible as the literal word of God:

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/05/majority-of-americans-believe-the-bible-is-literally-true-and-the-word-of-god/

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “The Old Testament is a historical account of the Jews and the ‘Old Law and you will yourself not be surprised that your quotes from OT (Deuteronomy, Numbers etc. etc.) are all phrased in the past tense. The New Testament is what makes the Bible ‘Christian’ as distinct from Jewish.”

    From the link above:

    “Instead of defending their initial argument (the oft-repeated claim that the Quran is a uniquely violent holy book, far more violent than the Bible) or even their ‘fall back’ argument (the claim that the violent Biblical passages are merely ‘descriptive’ unlike the Quran’s violent passages that are supposedly ‘prescriptive, open-ended, and universal’–a claim that we refuted in part 6 of this Series), Islamophobes quickly move on to their next ‘fall back’ argument:

    “Jews and Christians no longer believe in the inerrant nature of the Bible, unlike the Muslims who take the Quran as absolutely accurate. We are told that Jews and Christians have moved beyond the Bible (even ‘tossed it aside!’), whereas the primitive Muslims continue to follow their archaic holy book. Therefore, the argument goes, invoking the Bible is hardly relevant, since “most Jews and Christians no longer give credence to it.”

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “The New Testament on the other hand gives accounts of Jesus coming to ‘fulfill’ the Old law and render it as no longer needing to be met by humans. Its message is that he gave his life in fulfillment of the old law to atone for the sins of humanity.”

    Again, are you serious? How does one “fulfill” the Old Law by rendering it “no longer needing to be met by humans”? Did you not read 2 Timothy 3:16 and Matthew 5:17-18?

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “But in any even I am not here to defend Christianity – like I said I am agnostic – this is not a ZERO sum game and I am not interested in ‘what-aboutery’.”

    Yet, defend Christianity is exactly what you’ve been trying to do. Not very successfully, I might add.

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “The Koran’s many, many violent and intolerant verses however are not phrased in the past tense, bu rather in the ‘imperative’ – i.e. as commands or orders to commit violence and they are open-ended.”

    It’s invariably the case that the Quranic verses that Islamophobes claim are open-ended and referring to future events are actually close-ended and referring to past events. I pointed this out in a previous comment:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/quranalyzeit/2015/04/10/yes-you-are-taking-those-verses-out-of-context-a-muslim-responds-to-atheist-ali-a-rizvi/#comment-1962887278

  • MichaelElwood

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Asma bint Marwan (624) was murdered on orders of Muhammed for writing poetry ridiculing him.”

    LOL! Even Sunni traditionalist don’t accept the authenticity of that tale. And they have a very low standard when it comes to accepting tales like this:

    http://discover-the-truth.com/2015/04/04/story-of-asma-bint-marwans-killing-true-or-false-part-1/

    http://discover-the-truth.com/2015/04/04/story-of-asma-bint-marwans-killing-true-or-false-part-2/

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Al-Harith bin al-Talatil (630) – for mocking Muhammed through poetry …and on and on and on – the list goes.”

    Again, even Sunni traditionalist don’t accept the authenticity of that tale:

    http://discover-the-truth.com/2015/03/25/al-harith-bin-al-talatil-mocking-poems/

    Contrary to these later tales, the Quran mentions the mocking of Muhammad and previous messengers, but doesn’t prescribe death as a consequence:

    “Do not be saddened by their utterances. All power belongs to GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.” [Quran 10:65]

    “Therefore, do not be saddened by their utterances. We are fully aware of everything they conceal and everything they declare.” [Quran 36:76]

    “Every time a messenger went to them, they ridiculed him.” [Quran 15:11]

    “When they saw you, they always ridiculed you: ‘Is this the one chosen by GOD to be a messenger?'” [Quran 25:41]

    “How sorry is the people’s condition! Every time a messenger went to them, they always ridiculed him.” [Quran 36:30]

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Banu Qurayza tribe – (627) – 600 – 900 prisoners of this tribe beheaded – ISIS style – by Muhammed and his ‘companions’. All males who has reached puberty killed – women and children enslaved and many raped (used as Sex Slaves or “married”).”

    Uh, no. Again, even Sunni traditionalists reject that tale:

    http://19.org/blog/banu-qurayza/

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Also while we are at at, let’s do RAPE as well, shall we?”

    Huh? Verses 23:1-6 doesn’t permit or even mention rape. And I dealt with the “whom their right hands possess” nonsense in a previous comment:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/altmuslim/2015/03/to-ayaan-hirsi-ali-the-problem-is-not-with-islam-but-with-the-author/#comment-1948090745

  • MichaelElwood

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “It is unfortunate that you seek refuge behind the meaningless term ‘Islamophobe’ – invented with the sole purpose of closing down debate.”

    The term Islamophobia was not invented for the sole purpose of closing down debate:

    “It is important that the racist reality of Islamophobia is acknowledged against all those who seek to deny it in order to wield it. However, it is also crucial that its nature—how it resembles or differs from other racisms—is understood, so that it may be effectively opposed. Contrary to the right wing conspiracy theory that the term Islamophobia was an invention of the mullahs of the Iranian Revolution to deflect attention away from their theocratic excesses, the term seems to have been first used a century ago, but became common currency in 1997 with the publication in Britain of the report ‘Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All’ by the Runnymede Trust.”

    http://isj.org.uk/islamophobia-the-othering-of-europes-muslims/

    By the way, are we not debating Islam right now, Einstein? 🙂

  • Tenton

    With a lot of respect for Dr. Considine’s good intentions…..he needs to learn the difference between what the Prophet(Pbuh) taught and what groups such as the Saudia Arabian Wahabbi’s are following today. Wahabbism does not even resemble the original teachings of the Muhamad(Pbuh)) The Holy Quran was not “written down” during the life of the Prophet(Pbuh). Apparently, what was written down by his successors was a “Holy Quran” based upon supporting their dreams of “world conquest”. This is the Holy Quran that children are being “brain-washed” with today…even in polite American Muslim communities. Some wise and good Muslim persons have rewritten the Holy Quran….and removed all the hate teachings placed therein by the ambitious successors of the Prophet(Pbuh). I believe that today’s Muslim Peoples must accept this “revised Quran”….or leave the Islamic Religion altogether. If they do not do this, then we will see another thousand years of the Sunni and Shi’a Sects killing on another over who will be “top dog” in Islam. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran are hard at work (as well as the Muslim Brotherhood) to overthrow all democracies from within….while not allowing even a single piece of religious literature from Christianity or other religions to be distributed within their own nations. The nearest real interpretation of the teachings of the Prophet Muhamad(Pbuh) seems to be in the Sufi Muslim teachings. It is easy to see why Sufi Temples and Grave Monuments are often blasted down with explosives all over Islamic territories. Yes, we do have many, many good American (and other) Muslims in our world. Most are held in “mental dominance” though by tyrant Islamic Nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Since the Saudi’s award many major contracts to firms around the world….most world governments (largely elected by election campaign donations from “corporations”) do not expose Saudi Arabian and Iranian “Islam” for what they really are…or their intentions to come to dominate our world in the name of their distorted beliefs.
    http://www.tenton5.com

  • KingHasNoClothes

    Such as?

  • The murder of George Tiller being one.. Here is a good jumping off point for your research: http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/10-worst-terror-attacks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men and here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/christian-terrorism/ Use your google foo for the rest.

  • KingHasNoClothes

    George Tiller. No disrespect to him, but that is a single homicide. I therefore refer you back to my initial comment: – “Probably because in recent times it is rare, certainly compared to Islamic atrocities;”

  • Did you not read the rest of my post? Apparently you can’t be bothered looking things up on your own, even with a couple of links to help you on your way.

  • KingHasNoClothes

    Very very weak response to the murders. Even weaker response on rape. “Must try harder (to be honest with yourself)” is what I might write on your school report.

  • KingHasNoClothes

    Examples of Plagiarism.

    My apologies, I overlooked this. Let’s try these as samples then, starting with the quote that we hear ad nauseum from Islamophiliacs and quoted (unsurprisingly) by the gullible Mr. Considine above:

    Koran 5:32: – “Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land,
    were transgressors.”

    The above is plagiarized from the Talmud: [MISHNA,
    SANHEDRIN 4:5]
    “Therefore, humans were created singly, to teach you that whoever destroys a single soul [of Israel], Scripture accounts it as if he had destroyed a full world; and whoever saves one soul of Israel, Scripture accounts it as if she had saved a full world. And for the sake of peace among people, that one should not say to his or her fellow, “My parent is greater than yours;” and that heretics should not say, “There are many powers in Heaven.” Again, to declare the greatness of the Holy One, blessed be God, for one stamps out many coins with one die, and they are all alike, but the King, the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be God, stamped
    each person with the seal of Adam, and not one of them is like his or her fellow. Therefore each and every one is obliged to say, “For my sake the world was created.” (This text has parallels in Jerusalem Talmud,
    Sanhedrin 4:22, Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 37a, Psikta Zutra Bereshit 1)

    Also the creation myth – though scattered around in the Koran – is essentially the Genesis story.

    Yous say: “Some Jewish and Christian Islamophobes masquerade as atheist and agnostic Islamophobes on the internet because they know that their beliefs are indefensible. They don’t seem to understand that atheist Islamophobia is just as indefensible.”
    Islamophobia doesn’t mean anything – it is a term which was coined in the late 1990s and its purpose is to shut down debate in much the same way as accusations of racism are used to shut down debate. Anyone critical of Islam is dismissed as an “Islamophobe” – the implications being a) they should not be listened to; b) they are ipso-facto prejudiced and liars etc etc.

    “The Bible as the literal word of God:”
    The Bible is understood to be “inspired by God” but expressed by men through their words. While I am sure many Americans (given as that country is to quite a variety of crackpot and evangelist sects based on puritanical Protestantism) – as the link you provided to., er ..“loonwatch ? ” suggests – believe the Bible to be the actual, literal word of God this is not a widespread belief
    among Christians worldwide. It is understood to be inspired by God and subject to human error, translation error etc. – it is a guide. This is in stark contrast
    to Islam where it is absolutely core and mandatory to believe that the Koran is the literal, unaltered, unalterable and indeed final word of God. (Now for my part I don’t believe either of these – about The Bible OR the Koran – but the difference is important.)

    Regarding the Old testament, I am not sure what nonsense you are spouting here – you are obviously
    cutting and pasting from some Islamophiliac “primer” as you include references to “a claim that we refuted in part 6 of this Series” – what series? – Please – enough with the nonsense.

    You say: “It’s invariably the case that the Quranic verses that Islamophobes claim are open-ended and referring to future events are actually close-ended and referring to past events. I pointed this out in a previous comment”. You may have “pointed this out” in a previous comment but it doesn’t mean it is true. Islam is an aggressive, supremacist, intolerant and domineering political ideology invented by a narcissistic warlord, rapist and murderer. It bakes a load of previous traditions together – Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Indian and Greek tales and
    regurgitates all this with two critical new elements: – 1) The glorification of Muhammed and 2) Commands to suppress, fight against and kill or subjugate all
    who do not submit (and this is what Islam means – submission / surrender) to its tyranny. All hail Muhammed!

    Also, I notice you do not seem to have responded on the Murder and rape committed by and with the sanction of Muhammed? – Maybe you would like to comment.

  • KingHasNoClothes

    Indeed, Islamophobia was used – once I believe – in French – in 1918, but its meaning was something different. It entered first common usage with the Runnymeade report as you point out and its purpose is to shut down any criticism of Islam by throwing this accusation at anyone who does.

  • KingHasNoClothes

    Ok I checked out the links. Sp looking back over a twenty year period you’ve come up with a dozen or so incidents committed by a variety of nut jobs including anti-abortionists (some but not all for religious reasons), white supremacists (that’s racism, not Christianity) – the list even includes people who ” had a disdain for the IRS as well as total disgust with health insurance companies and bank bailouts”. OMFG. Like I said earlier, I refer you to my original comment: “probably because on recent times a)it is rare, certainly compared to Islamic atrocities”

  • MichaelElwood

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “The above [Quran 5:32] is plagiarized from the Talmud: [MISHNA, SANHEDRIN 4:5]”

    5:32 wasn’t one of the “peaceful verses” that I quoted, remember? And your claim is so ridiculous that even Jews–whose literature 5:32 was supposedly plagiarized from–don’t take it serious. The following Jewish writer points this out in sarcastic way:

    “Strikingly, the Qur’an has no problem citing Jewish Oral Law. ‘Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.’ Qur’an 5:32. The reference may be to Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 (‘Therefore was the first man, Adam, created alone, to teach us that whoever destroys a single life, the Bible considers it as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a single life, the Bible considers it as if he saved an entire world. Furthermore, only one man, Adam, was created for the sake of peace among men, so that no one should say to his fellow, ‘My father was greater than yours…’’) or potentially other similar references such as Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 4:1 (22a). Whether one believes an Islamic interpretation that Qur’an 5:32 was revealed to Muhammad, or a secular one that the ayah repeats something that Muhammad heard, this ayah shows a continuity of belief and a tie between the oral Jewish tradition (which by that point had been written down) and written Muslim tradition.

    “Yet for some ‘demagogic purveyors of hate,’ as Rabbi Schneier calls them, this is not a sign that Muslims view the Qur’an as part of a continuous revelation sometimes referencing Jewish and Christian scriptures. Instead, these Islamophobes claim to ‘find further proof of plagiarism of apocryphal Jewish literature; this time in the Jewish Mishnah Sanhedrin’ or title a section of an anti-Islam screed ‘Plagiarism in Quran,’ citing the same passages. If only the Qur’an had managed to avoid the charge of plagiarism by introducing the text by saying something like ‘We decreed upon the Children of Israel.’ Oh wait, it did! Presumably, the demagogic purveyors of hate would not be satisfied with anything short of a footnote and embedded hyperlink in the text when it was compiled over 1300 years ago.”

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2014/04/oral-traditions-in-islam-and-judaism/

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Also the creation myth – though scattered around in the Koran – is essentially the Genesis story.”

    You said that the “peaceful verses” that I quoted were plagiarized from Judaism and Christianity. I asked you to show me the SPECIFIC verses in Jewish and Christian scripture that they were “plagiarized” from, not some generic, unrelated example. By the way, some imaginative people believe that the “creation myth” in Genesis is essentially from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Islamophobia doesn’t mean anything – it is a term which was coined in the late 1990s and its purpose is to shut down debate in much the same way as accusations of racism are used to shut down debate. Anyone critical of Islam is dismissed as an ‘Islamophobe’ – the implications being a) they should not be listened to; b) they are ipso-facto prejudiced and liars etc etc.”

    Islamophobia is defined thus:

    “The report defined Islamophobia as an ‘unfounded hostility towards Islam [and] the practical consequences of such hostility in unfair ­discrimination against Muslim individuals and communities, and to the exclusion of Muslims from mainstream political and social affairs’.”

    http://isj.org.uk/islamophobia-the-othering-of-europes-muslims/

    It wasn’t coined in the late 1990s, it’s been around for about a century. And if the purpose was to shut down debate, it apparently isn’t working very well. Aren’t we debating Islam right now, Einstein?

    And I’ll leave it to others to decide whether the piffle you’ve written thus far qualifies as Islamophobic.

  • MichaelElwood

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “The Bible is understood to be ‘inspired by God’ but expressed by men through their words. While I am sure many Americans (given as that country is to quite a variety of crackpot and evangelist sects based on puritanical Protestantism) – as the link you provided to., er ..’loonwatch ? ‘ suggests – believe the Bible to be the actual, literal word of God this is not a widespread belief among Christians worldwide. It is understood to be inspired by God and subject to human error, translation error etc. – it is a guide.”

    Are you crazy or somethin’? Do you think I’m crazy or somethin’? Why would I just take your word for it that this is what Christians believe instead of going by the facts? Again, from the article:

    “A poll by Rasmussen Reports found that a majority of all Americans (63%) believe the Bible is literally true and the Word of God, with less than a quarter (24%) disagreeing with this belief. This is quite amazing when one considers that about 20% of Americans are neither Jewish or Christian! The percentage of those who believe in the literal meaning of the Bible jumps to 70% for Protestants, and becomes overwhelming (89%) for Evangelical Christians in specific. Meanwhile, 77% of Republicans believe in the literal truth of the Bible.

    “A Pew Research poll bore out fairly similar results, with 78% of Americans believing that the Bible is either the actual or inspired Word of God. This view is held by 88% of Protestants, 82% of Catholics, and 91% of other Christian groups.”

    [. . . .]

    “As always, our opponents will rely on a ‘fall back’ argument and claim that the case of Europe is different, that the United States is far more religious than the ‘bastion of atheism’ across the pond. The Christians in Europe, we are told, aren’t that serious about their religion.

    “We will preempt this argument by pointing out that only a quarter of the world’s Christians are in Europe. The other three-quarters are in North and South America, Africa, and Asia. Latin America has as many Christians as Europe does, and they take their religion very seriously. So too is the case in Christian Africa and Asia, which together accounts for far more Christians than in Europe. It is a reasonable assumption that the Christians in Latin America, Africa, and Asia take the Bible very seriously. Therefore, the ‘but Europe is different!’ excuse is of limited utility.

    “The majority of Christians actually live in the developing world. It is of course expected that our opponents will insist on comparing the minority of Christians in the First World to the Muslims in the Third World.”

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/05/majority-of-americans-believe-the-bible-is-literally-true-and-the-word-of-god/

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “You may have ‘pointed this out’ in a previous comment but it doesn’t mean it is true. Islam is an aggressive, supremacist, intolerant and domineering political ideology invented by a narcissistic warlord, rapist and mu rderer.”

    And you can keep typing that Islam is an aggressive, supremacist, intolerant and domineering political ideology invented by a narcissistic warlord, rapist and murderer, until your fingers fall off. But that doesn’t mean it’s true. You’ve made a number of ridiculous claims about Islam, but you seem to think the onus is on me to disprove them, and not on you to prove them.

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Also, I notice you do not seem to have responded on the Murder and rape committed by and with the sanction of Muhammed? – Maybe you would like to comment.”

    I already commented on it:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/quranalyzeit/2015/05/11/the-price-this-christian-pays-for-respecting-islam-craig-considine/#comment-2023499519

    Once again, you erroneously believe that the onus is on me to disprove these ridiculous claims, and not on you to prove them.

  • dosssva

    And every day they do this, for the most part, to other Muslims. Ultimately these are just thugs using religion as a guise to cover their criminality. Not unlike McVeigh’s feigned nationalism as an excuse to set off one those fertilizer bombs they spent years messing around with in the woods.Weak minds are easily taken in by the mob mentality of gangs.

  • KingHasNoClothes

    You say; “5:32 wasn’t one of the “peaceful verses”
    that I quoted, remember?” You also said “You said that the “peaceful verses” that I quoted were plagiarized from Judaism and Christianity. I asked you to show me the SPECIFIC verses in Jewish and Christian scripture that they were “plagiarized” from, not some generic, unrelated example.
    There are a few things wrong with this:
    a) I never referred to verses YOU quoted. Where did you get that from? – That’s simply untrue

    b) I said that a lot of the Koran was plagiarized – I did not say “copied verse for verse” – from Christian and Jewish tradition.

    Notwithstanding your disingenuous attempt to narrow the field of play, your comments on the plagiarism of 5:32 are simply laughable – pathetic. You quote a Jewish wrier as saying:
    “Whether one believes an Islamic interpretation that Qur’an 5:32 was revealed to Muhammad, or a secular one that the ayah repeats something that Muhammad heard from someone else, “this ayah shows a continuity of belief and a tie between the oral Jewish tradition (which by that point had been written down) and written Muslim tradition.” – Two things here:
    a) Exactly – “it’s simply something Muhammed heard”
    – one of the alternatives offered by yoir Jewish source – and indeed the logical one.
    b) Yes – “continuity” – insofar as this is copied from Jewish tradition by Muhammed “repeating what he heard”.

    (Another galling thing about 5:32 being plagiarized is that it is quoted ad nauseum by Islamic apologists as if it is uniquely Islamic and demonstrates that Islam is peaceful! – How pathetic. Not only is 5:32 not Islamic but Jewish, but 5:33 which IS Islamic and calls for murder and mutilation is a) never quoted and b) Uniquely, truly Islamic!

    As your passage continues, unfortunately it becomes even less coherent. You say:
    “”Yet for some ‘demagogic purveyors of hate,’ as Rabbi Schneier calls them, this is not a sign that Muslims view the Qur’an as part of a continuous revelation sometimes referencing Jewish and Christian scriptures. Instead, these Islamophobes claim to ‘find further proof
    of plagiarism of apocryphal Jewish literature; this time in the Jewish Mishnah Sanhedrin’ or title a section of an anti-Islam screed ‘Plagiarism in Quran ,’ citing the same passages.”
    This statement doesn’t actually mean anything. Muslims may very well VIEW IT as “a continuous revelation sometimes referencing Jewish and Christian scriptures” – I just don’t agree with them.
    I’m saying a lot of the Koran is just regurgitation of Jewish and Christian tradition. Simple as. And calling people who have this – entirely legitimate view – “’demagogic purveyors of hate” is unacceptable, cowardly and simply an attempt to avoid debate [I can hear “Islamophobia coming next as I have yet again said something with which you disagree”] – …. – Oh but wait…here it comes…..Islamophobia.

    In other words you are saying to me – “I don’t like what you are saying and therefore I will call you slamophobic – that’ll shut you up!”. Oh by the way I agree (and agreed in a previous comment) that the term was first used around 1918 (in French as far as I know) – but
    only entered common usage in the 1990s. You may come up with various definitions as to what it is or should mean – but its PRIMARY use these days is
    “Accusatory” – and used to close down debate. (The fact that I continue to debate is I personally do not care what you call me, Einstein). Many, many others, however – from journalists to politicians to celebrities to academics live in mortal fear of being called an “Islamophobe“. The accusation ITSLEF is enough. It reminds me of denunciations in Cambodia/Kampuchea under the Khmer Rouge to be honest.

    According to the French philosopher Pascal Bruckner, “At the end of the 1970s, Iranian fundamentalists invented the term ‘Islamophobia’ formed in analogy to
    ‘xenophobia’. The aim of this word was to declare Islam inviolate. Whoever crosses this border is deemed a racist. This term, which is worthy of totalitarian propaganda, is deliberately unspecific about whether it refers to a religion, a belief system or its faithful adherents around the world.”

    The prime minister of France, Manuel Valls, a few days after the mass murder of Charlie Hebdo staff by raving Islamists – said that he refuses to use the term ‘Islamophobia’ to describe the phenomenon of anti-Muslim prejudice, because, he says, the accusation of Islamophobia is often used as a weapon by Islamism’s apologists to silence their critics. “The charge of
    ‘Islamophobia’ is used to silence people. ” – Valls.”

  • KingHasNoClothes

    The onus IS on you. I have already quoted verses from the Koran which justify slavery and rape. I have also provided details of murder carried out and sanctioned by Muhammed. You have singularly failed to logically refute them – you simply ignored the rape verses and denied the murders. Sure we can all pretend “it isnt there…..it didnt happen.” – Now I have a question for you – are you trying to convince me – or yourself – that Muhammed wasn’t a murderer and rapist?

  • MichaelElwood

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “a) I never referred to verses YOU quoted. Where did you get that from? – That’s simply untrue”

    After I quoted some “peaceful verses” from the Quran, you wrote: “Cherry picking peaceful verses (largely paraphrased plaigarisms from Jewish and Christian tradition anyway) while ignoring the calls for violence will do nothing to convince me that Islam is ‘Peaceful’.”

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “b) I said that a lot of the Koran was plagiarized – I did not say ‘copi ed verse for verse – from Christian and Jewish tradition.”

    That’s a “distinction without a difference”. The very definition of plagiarism is to copy someone’s work (word for word or verse for verse) without giving them credit:

    http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/what-is-plagiarism/

    The Jewish writer that I quoted poked fun at this by pointing out that 5:32 was indeed attributed to Jewish tradition in and not “plagiarized”:

    “If only the Qur’an had managed to avoid the charge of plagiarism by introducing the text by saying something like ‘We decreed upon the Children of Israel.’ Oh wait, it did! Presumably, the demagogic purveyors of hate would not be satisfied with anything short of a footnote and embedded hyperlink in the text when it was compiled over 1300 years ago.”

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Another galling thing about 5:32 being plagiarized is that it is quoted ad nauseum by Islamic apologists as if it is uniquely Islamic and demonstrates that Islam is peaceful! – How pathetic.”

    Again, I didn’t quote 5:32. I quoted the following verses:

    “. . . .’Come let me tell you what your Lord has really prohibited for you: You shall not set up idols besides Him. You shall honor your parents. You shall not kill your children from fear of poverty – we provide for you and for them. You shall not commit gross sins, obvious or hidden. You shall not kill – GOD has made life sacred – except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you, that you may understand.'” [Quran 6:151]

    “You shall not kill any person – for GOD has made life sacred – (wa la taqtulu an-nafsa allaty HARRAMA allahu) except in the course of justice. If one is killed unjustly, then we give his heir authority to enforce justice. Thus, he shall not exceed the limits in avenging the murder; he will be helped.” [Quran 17:33]

    “They never implore beside GOD any other god, nor do they kill anyone – for GOD has made life sacred – (wa la yaqtuluna an-nafsa allaty HARRAMA allahu) except in the course of justice. Nor do they commit adultery. Those who commit these offenses will have to pay.” [Quran 25:68]

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Not only is 5:32 not Islamic but Jewish, but 5:33 which IS Islamic and calls for murder and mutilation is a) never quoted and b) Uniquely, truly Islamic!”

    There are no calls for murder and mutilation in the Quran. By the way, you never answered my question about whether you consider the following Biblical quotes as “violent verses” that call for murder and mutilation:

    “And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. . . . And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?. . . . Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” [ Numbers 31:9-18]

    “And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.” [ Deuteronomy 20:13-14]

    “And as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him, and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand.” [1 Samuel 17:57]

    “So David gave an order to his men, and they killed them. They cut off their hands and feet and hung the bodies by the pool in Hebron. But they took the head of Ish-Bosheth and buried it in Abner’s tomb at Hebron.” [2 Samuel 4:12]

    “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” [Matthew 10:34]

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “This statement doesn’t actually mean anything. Muslims may very well VIEW IT as “a continuous revelation sometimes referencing Jewish and Christian scriptures” – I just don’t agree with them.”

    This statement doesn’t actually mean anything. You may very well VIEW IT as “plagiarism” – Muslims just don’t agree with you.

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “I’m saying a lot of the Koran is just regurgitation of Jewish and Christian tradition.”

    I know. And you still haven’t said anything to prove such a claim. You still seem to think that it’s everyone else’s job to disprove this ridiculous claim.

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “And calling people who have this – entirely legitimate view – ‘demagogic purveyors of hate’ is unacceptable, cowardly and simply an attempt to avoid debate”

    . . . says the dude who continues to debate (although not very well).

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “In other words you are saying to me – ‘I don’t like what you are saying and therefore I will call you slamophobic – that’ll shut you up!’.”

    . . . says the dude who won’t shut up.

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “You may come up with various definitions as to what it is or should mean – but its PRIMARY use these days is ‘Accusatory’ – and used to close down debate.”

    . . . says the dude who continues to debate (although not very well).

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Many, many others, however – from journalists to politicians to celebrities to academics live in mor tal fear of being called an ‘Islamophobe’. The accusation ITSLEF is enough.”

    Sounds like a personal problem to me. The best way to not be called an Islamophobe. . . is to not be an Islamophobe.

  • MichaelElwood

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “The onus IS on you.”

    The onus is on the person making the claim. YOU claimed the Quran was plagiarised from Jewish and Christian sources. . . YOU prove it! YOU claimed the Quran justifies everything from slavery to rape to murder. . . YOU prove it!

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “I have already quoted verses from the Koran which justify slavery and rape.”

    I encourage everyone to read the verse that he claims justifies slavery to see how ridiculous his claim is. Now compare the verse that he tries to tease a pro-slavery interpretation from to what the Quran clearly and repeatedly says about slavery:

    “Righteousness is. . . . to free the slaves. . . .” [Quran 2:177]

    “It is not for a human that God would give him the book, the authority, and the prophethood, then he would say to the people: ‘Be servants to me rather than to God!’, rather: ‘Be devotees to what you have been taught of the book, and to what you studied.'” [Quran 3:79]

    “No believer shall kill another believer, unless it is an accident. If one kills a believer by accident, he shall atone by freeing a believing slave. . . .” [Quran 4:92]

    “. . . .If you violate an oath, you shall atone by. . . . freeing a slave. . . .” [Quran 5:89]

    “Charities shall go to. . . . free the slaves. . . .” [Quran 9:60]

    “Those who estrange their wives. . . . shall atone by freeing a slave. . . .” [Quran 58:3]

    “He should choose the difficult path. Which one is the difficult path? The freeing of slaves.” [Quran 90:11-13]

    Now, compare what the Quran says about slavery to what the Bible (which he claims the Quran is plagiarized from) says about slavery:

    “Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, ‘Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave’. ” [Genesis 9:25-27]

    “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.” [Leviticus 25:44-45]

    “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in every respect, not only when they are watching – like those who are strictly people-pleasers – but with a sincere heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you are doing, work at it with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not for people, because you know that you will receive your inheritance from the Lord as the reward. Serve the Lord Christ. For the one who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there are no exceptions.” [Colossians 3:22-25]

    “Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6 not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.” [Ephesians 6:5-8]

    “Let all who are under the yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine may not be spoken against. And let those who have believers as their masters not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but let them serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles” [1 Timothy 6:1-2]

    “Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect” [Titus 2:9-10]

    “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable.” [1 Peter 2:18]

    For the relationship of atheism/atheists to slavery, see my previous comment:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/altmuslim/2015/03/to-ayaan-hirsi-ali-the-problem-is-not-with-islam-but-with-the-author/#comment-1948095025

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “I have also provided details of murder carried out and sanctioned by Muhammed.”

    And I pointed out that those tales were of dubious historicity.

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Now I have a question for you – are you trying to convince me – or yourself – that Muhammed wasn’t a murderer and rapist?”

    I already told you, I’m not interested in trying to convince Islamophobes that Islam is peaceful religion or that Muhammad wasn’t a murderer and a rapist.

  • KingHasNoClothes

    Ah now Michael – see there you go again with the “Islamophobe” thing. It seems you need to throw this
    into all your arguments like a drunk needs a drink to face the day! You ought to have a bit more confidence in yourself – try and let your points rely on their accuracy and how you aregue them without using “Islamophobia” accusations as a crutch – I believe in you Micahel – you can do it if only you try!!

    Anyway, thanks for confirming (again) that 5:32 – (the verse most beloved – and always quoted in isolation – and without the first lines) – of those trying to portray Islam as peaceful is in fact from the Jewish tradition.

    Next it seems you want to tackle 6:151 – oh dear, must we? Ok here it is – This is just a subsection of
    the 10 commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai, with a “Twist” to try to make it look “a bit different”:
    6:151 Say, “Come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited to you. [He commands] that you not
    associate anything with Him (1st Commandment – remember I am the Lord your God you shall not have false Gods before me); , and to parents, good
    treatment (5th Commandment – Honour your Father and Mother); , and do not kill your children out of poverty; We will provide for you and them. And
    do not approach immoralities (7th, 8th, You shall not
    Steal, You Shall not Commit Adultery)- what is apparent of them and what is concealed. (9th and 10th – You shall not Covet your Neighbours Wife – You shall not covet your neighbours goods) ”And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden [to be killed] except by [legal] right (6th Commandment – You shall not Kill); This
    has He instructed you that you may use reason.”]. This is so basic as to be insulting the intelligence……

    To answer your question about Numbers (31:9 – 18) concerning Moses instructions to kill all men and women (except the virgins) and to keep the virgins as sex slaves – yes, I absolutely consider this a violent and
    repugnant instruction – and it is another that is carried over into the Koran( – paraphrased as is so often
    the case (again – like so much in the Koran – to make it seem ‘’original!”( Koran (33:50) – “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah
    has assigned to thee” – Also Koran (23:5-6) – “..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess…” Also Koran (70:29-30).) And so we
    see that in Islam as well, the taking of sex slaves (which let’s be honest is slavery and systematic, repeated rape) is sanctioned several times. Also [2 Samuel 4:12] – agreed – completely violent – and sounds to me a very likely candidate for Koran 5:33 – the penalty for those whowage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and
    feet be cut off from opposite sides.

    Now when you say “There are no calls for murder and mutilation in the Quran” I begin to wonder if I am conversing with a jabbering idiot. The Koran
    is RIDDLED with such verses – here are a sprinkling: 5:33, Koran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief]
    is worse than killing… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no
    more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)” (This
    clearly instructs Muslims to fight and kill non-Muslims until they surrender to Islam and proclaim Muhammed the messenger of God. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they
    later did). )

  • KingHasNoClothes

    Haven’t read all of the above as this is getting tedious, but yes there are lots of verses about taking slaves in the Bible and there are lots about freeing salves in The Koran. There are also many in the Koran about taking slaves and the rights to rape them. Interesting also about the verses about freeing slaves in the Koran that it is usually to atone for some other offence which has nothing to do with the salve – e.g. killing another Muslim (killing a non-Muslim demands no such remediation) – doing wrong by your wife etc – you should “free a slave” – sounds nice, but it also underscores the fact that the slave is just a chattel to be used to buy atonement and absolve the wrongdoers (really infantile type “morality”, isn’t it?). And yes, it seems you are constantly trying to convince yourself, as you ain’t convincing me one bit – and as you say yourself you are not interested in convincing “Islamophobes (yawn)” of anything. Adios Miguel – I must leave you with that.

  • MichaelElwood

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Anyway, thanks for confirming (again) that 5:32 – (the verse most beloved – and always quoted in isolation – and without the first lines ) – of those trying to portray Islam as peaceful is in fact from the Jewish tradition.”

    There’s nothing to confirm. You seem to be the only one who thinks 5:32 is an allusion to a distinctly Islamic rather than Jewish belief. Islamic beliefs on the sanctity of life are stated elsewhere in the Quran. You know, the ones you’re trying to explain away as being “plagiarized” from the Ten Commandments. LOL!

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “This is so basic as to be insulting the intelligence……”

    What’s an insult to people’s intelligence is your amusing claims of plagiarism in the Quran. You claim the Quran’s “creation myth” is plagiarized from Genesis. Other geniuses claim that Genesis is plagiarized from the Epic of Gilgamesh. You claim that other Quranic verses are plagiarized from the Ten Commandments. Other geniuses claim that the Ten Commandments are plagiarized from the Code of Hammurabi.

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “To answer your question about Numbers (31:9 – 18) concerning Moses instructions to kill all men and women (except the virgins) and to keep the virgins as sex slaves – yes, I absolutely consider this a violent and repugnant instruction – and it is another that is carried over into the Koran( – paraphrased as is so oftenthe case (again – like so much in the Koran – to make it seem ‘original!'( Koran (33:50) – ‘O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee’ – Also Koran (23:5-6) – ‘..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess…’ Also Koran (70:29-30).)”

    There you go again with that “whom your right hands possess” nonsense. How many times must you be informed that the Arabic expression “Ma malakat aymanukum” doesn’t mean “whom your right hands possess”? And how many times must you be informed that it’s not referring to sex slaves? As Prof. Martha Schulte-Nafeh points out in her translation:

    “The expression Ma malakat aymanukum has been translated by most translations as ‘whom your right hands posses’ or ‘captives’ or ‘concubines.’ (See the note 23:6). We translated this and similar expressions found in 4:3; 16:71; 23:6; 24:31; 30:28; 33:50; and 70:30, as ‘those with whom you have contractual rights.’ These were the wives of the enemy combatants who were persecuted because they acknowledged the message of Islam and sought asylum at the Muslim community (60:10). Since they did not get through a normal divorce process, an exceptional contract allows them to marry muslims as free women. Marrying them could create some social, economic and personal complications for the husband. They have nothing to do with IBaD (slaves), as sectarian translations and commentaries state. As we will learn, the Quran categorically rejects slavery and considers it to be the greatest sin (See 3:79; 4:25; 5:89; 8:67; 24:32; 58:3; 90:13; 2:286; 12:39; 79:24). . . .

    “The expression in question, thus could be translated as ‘those whom your oaths/contracts have rights over’ or ‘those whom you hold rights through your contracts,’ or by reading aYMaN (oaths/contracts) as an object rather than a subject, “those who hold/possess your contracts.”

    “The marriage declaration is a mutual partnership between two sexes and is formed by participation of family members. A married woman cannot marry another man without getting divorced from her husband. However, if a woman escapes and joins muslims while her husband stayed behind participating in a war against muslims, she may marry a Muslim man without actually getting divorced from her combatant husband; she will legally be considered a divorcee (60:10). Since this contract is different from the normal marriage contract, this special relationship is described in different words. The same is valid for a man whose wife allies with the hostile enemy. See 24:31 and 33:55. Those who work for another person according to employment contracts are also referred to with the same expression. See 16:71; 30:28. Also, see 4:25; 23:6; 24:58; 33:50; 33:52; 70:30.”

    This is not a modern view either. The 12th century Quranic exegete ar-Razi also points out that ma malakat aymanukum isn’t referring to sex slaves or concubines (in Arabic, tasarri).

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “And so we see that in Islam as well, the taking of sex slaves (which let’s be honest is slavery and systematic, repeated rape) is sanctioned several times.”

    I know, right! Sex slavery is sooo 7th century. If only Muslims could adapt the modern, enlightened, form of sex slavery practiced by European atheists:

    “The Malmö district court acquitted the man on charges of aggravated assault over a weekend of slave-like sex with the then 16-year-old girl. . . .

    “The 16-year-old girl came in contact with the man through a sadomasochism-themed website and later signed a ‘slave contract’ in which she consented to being “used, abused and thoroughly humiliated’.

    “‘I want to have a really hard master. Someone who won’t wimp out,’ the teen wrote the 32-year-old during their online chat, according to the Aftonbladet newspaper.”

    http://www.thelocal.se/20100928/29302

  • MichaelElwood

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Also [2 Samuel 4:12] – agreed – completely violent – and sounds to me a very likely candidate for Koran 5:33 – the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides.”

    You still haven’t answered the question that I asked in a previous comment. What’s your definition of murder? If someone “wages war against Muhammad (as the verse that you quoted says),” and he kills them in self-defense, does that constitute murder?

    It’s also clear from the context of 5:33, that even in defending himself from those who wage war against him, Muhammad and the early Muslims were asked to exercise restraint and not exceed the bounds of Islamic ethics:

    “O you who believe. . . . Do not be provoked into aggression by your hatred of people who once prevented you from going to the Sacred Masjid. . . .” [Quran 5:2]

    “O you who believe. . . . Do not be provoked by your conflicts with some people into committing injustice.. . . .” [Quran 5:8]

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Now when you say ‘There are no calls for murder and mutilation in the Quran’ I begin to wonder if I am conversing with a jabbering idiot.”

    I don’t WONDER whether I am conversing with a jabbering idiot, I KNOW I am conversing with a jabbering idiot.

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “The Koran is RIDDLED with such verses – here are a sprinkling: 5:33, Koran (2:191-193) – ‘And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)'”

    Uh, no, The Quran isn’t riddled with such verses. And the verses that you give as evidence of this are mistranslated and full of dishonest interpolations between brackets and parenthesis. You’re using Muhsin khan’s translation. And his mistranslation creates a contradiction between the verse and its immediate context. The two words he mistranslates are “fitnah” and “zalimeen”. Khan seems to be the only translator who did this. Pickthall, Shakir, Yuksel and Schulte-Nafeh translate “fitnah” as “persecution”. And Yusuf Ali, Asad, and Khalifa translate “fitnah” as “oppression”. Only Khan translates “fitnah” as “disbelief” or “polytheism”. Khan is also the only one who translates the word “zalimeen” as “polytheists”. The verse says “if they cease, then let there be no aggression except against the oppressors/fa’ini intahaw fala udwana illa ala l-zalimina”. It doesn’t say “if they cease, then let there be no aggression except against the polytheists/fa’ini intahaw fala udwana illa ala l-mushrikina”. If it said that, there wouldn’t have been a need for Khan to put that in parenthesis.

    In the same chapter, the Quran makes it clear that people are to have religious freedom:

    “There shall be no compulsion in religion/la ikraha fi l-dini” [Quran 2:256]

    The same chapter also makes it clear that the Muslim’s enemies were fighting them to rob them of religious freedom:

    “. . . .They will always fight you to revert you from your religion, if they can/wa la yazaluna yuqatilunakum hatta yaruddukum an dinikum ini istata’u. . . .” [Quran 2:217]

    Simply being a “disbeliever” or a “polytheist” isn’t a legitimate reason for aggression in Islam. Muslims are only allowed to fight those who fight them (see 2:190-192).

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “This clearly instructs Muslims to fight and kill non-Muslims until they surrender to Islam and proclaim Muhammed the messenger of God.”

    Uh, no it doesn’t (see above).

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries.”

    Uh, yes it is refering to defensive warfare (see above).

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did).”

    Uh, no those verses don’t urge offensive warfare (see above). And you have it backwards. The non-Muslims drove Muhammad and the Muslims from Mecca, not the other way around:

    “If you fail to support him (the messenger), GOD has already supported him. Thus, when the disbelievers chased him, and he was one of two in the cave, he said to his friend, ‘Do not worry; GOD is with us.’ GOD then sent down contentment and security upon him, and supported him with invisible soldiers. He made the word of the disbelievers lowly. GOD’s word reigns supreme. GOD is Almighty, Most Wise.” [Quran 9:40]

    When Muhammad returned triumphantly to Mecca over a decade later, he didn’t exact revenge on his former oppressors:

    “He is the One who withheld their hands of aggression against you, and withheld your hands of aggression against them in the valley of Mecca, after He had granted you victory over them. GOD is Seer of everything you do.” [Quran 48:24]

  • MichaelElwood

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Haven’t read all of the above as this is getting tedious, but yes there are lots of verses about taking slaves in the Bible and there are lots about freeing salves in The Koran. There are also many in the Koran about taking slaves and the rights to rape them.”

    There aren’t any verses in the Quran about taking slaves and the right to rape them (see my previous comment).

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Interesting also about the verses about freeing slaves in the Koran that it is usually to atone for some other offence which has nothing to do with the salve – e.g. killing another Muslim (killing a non-Muslim demands no such remediation) – doing wrong by your wife etc – you should ‘free a slave’ – sounds nice, but it also underscores the fact that the slave is just a chattel to be used to buy atonement and absolve the wrongdoers (really infantile type ‘morality’, isn’t it?).”

    Some verses command the emancipation of slaves to atone for something. Other verses (like 9:60, 90:11-13, etc.) command the emancipation of slaves for no other reason than it being a meritorious act. Anyone who has a problem with the emancipation of slaves–for any reason–is the one with the infantile type morality.

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “And yes, it seems you are constantly trying to convince yourself, as you ain’t convincing me one bit – and as you say yourself you are not interested in convincing ‘Islamophobes (yawn)’ of anything.”

    I’m not trying to convince Islamophobes of anything because, frankly, I don’t care what they think about Islam and Muslims. The only reason that I occasionally engage in these debates is because I get a kick out of seeing Islamophobes struggle to defend their view of what Islam teaches (which is the same as what ISIS and al-Qa’ida thinks Islam teaches). By refuting the views of Islamophobes, I’m also refuting the views of ISIS and al-Qa’ida. It’s like killing two birds with one stone.

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Adios Miguel – I must leave you with that.”

    Mo kòne to pa parl Kreyol Lalwizyan. Mé, bonjou! I’ll leave you with that (maybe some of my Creole Muslim peeps from Louisiana and Mauritius can understand that). 🙂

  • KingHasNoClothes

    Oh dear. Your responses get more and more ludicrous each time. Watching you attempt to explain away the rape of salves (again by copy/pasting from your “ready response manual for Islamophiliac idiots” is quite amusing – like watching the wriggling and squirming of salted slugs.

    I will leave you with this – It is against Islam to rape “Muslim” women, but Muhammad actually encouraged the rape of others captured in battle. This hadith provides the context for the Qur’anic verse (4:24):”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 (i.e. rape) the female captives – in the presence of their husbands – who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)

    Actually, as the hadith indicates, it wasn’t Muhammad, but “Allah the Exalted” who told the men to rape the women in front of their husbands – which is all the more reason not to think of Islam as being the same as other religions. Note also that the husbands of these unfortunate victims were obviously alive after battle. This is important because it flatly contradicts those apologists who like to argue that the women Muhammad enslaved were widowed and thus unable to fend for themselves. (Even if the apologists were right, what sort of a moral code is it that forces a widow to choose between being raped and starving?)

    There are several other episodes in which Muhammad is offered the clear opportunity to disavow raping women – yet he instead offers advice on how to proceed. In one case, his men were reluctant to devalue their new slaves for later resale by getting them pregnant. Muhammad was asked about coitus interruptus in particular:”O Allah’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of 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.” (Bukhari34:432)

    As indicated, the prophet of Islam did not mind his men raping the women, provided they ejaculated within the bodies of their victims.

  • MichaelElwood

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “Oh dear. Your responses get more and more ludicrous each time.”

    LOL! Look who’s talkin’!

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “I will leave you with this – It is against Islam to rape ‘Muslim’ women, but Muhammad actually encouraged the rape of others captured in battle.”

    It’s against Islam to rape or enslave anyone. Period!

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “This hadith provides the context for the Qur’anic verse (4:24):’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 (i.e. rape) the female captives – in the presence of their husbands – who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.’ (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)”

    Uh, no, that hadith doesn’t provide the context for verse 4:24. But it does provide insight into why some Muslim and non-Muslim scholars don’t take hadiths–particularly those related to the occasions of revelation (asbab al-nuzul)–seriously. That hadith not only contradicts the Quran, but it also contradicts other hadiths that say that Muhammad set all the captives free after the Battle of Hunayn:

    “`Umar bin Al-Khattab said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! I vowed to observe I`tikaf for one day during the Prelslamic period.’ The Prophet ordered him to fulfill his vow. `Umar gained two lady captives from the war prisoners of Hunain and he left them in some of the houses at Mecca. When Allah’s Messenger freed the captives of Hunain without ransom, they came out walking in the streets. `Umar said (to his son), ‘O `Abdullah! See what is the matter.’ `Abdullah replied, ‘Allah’s Messenger has freed the captives without ransom.’ He said (to him), ‘Go and set free those two slave girls.’ (Nafi` added:) Allah’s Apostle did not perform the `Umra from Al-Jarana, and if he had performed the `Umra, it would not have been hidden from `Abdullah.”

    http://sunnah.com/bukhari/57/52

    Put another quarter in and try again! 🙂

    KingHasNoClothes wrote: “. . . .which is all the more reason not to think of Islam as being the same as other religions.”

    Didn’t we already go over this? If we accept your tale/hadith, and pretend not to notice the contradictions and dubious nature of it, it would make Islam exactly the “same as other religions”:

    “And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. . . . And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?. . . . Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” [Numbers 31:9-18]

    “And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.” [Deuteronomy 20:13-14]

    However, it is precisely because Islamic ethics doesn’t justify slavery in general, or sex slavery in particular, that makes Islam different from other religions and non-religions.

  • KingHasNoClothes

    You are one deluded man. “There is none so blind as he who will not see”. Ní féidir an dubh a chur ina gheal, ach seal.

  • Zohrab

    Did anybody mention here the day-to-day atrocities perpetrated by Zionist/Israeli defence force and the ordinary Israelis themselves with the collective support of the west depriving the Palestinians, their right to exist since 1948?!! Not to mention the recent Gaza assault murdering even school children. That’s the number one terrorism act by the Westerns apologists and Islamphobs that surpasses any other terrorist outfits with Muslim name. Hypocrites rule the contemporary world with the media in their support.

    Nobody is there to yell “The King Has No Clothes”

  • memike

    perhaps you can tell me Michael. when do you crucify someone? for what crime?

  • memike

    you want muslims to renounce the Koran and pick up a revised version? clearly you are insane. muslims are fanatical about the Koran.

  • HerrSkolly

    Mike, come on. There is an historical context to different forms of punishment. I know of no recent crucifixions. Do you? Have I missed something? No, I’m not looking for words from a book, but from the act of punishment itself.

  • memike

    sure. google ISIS crucifying. and I think there was a guy in yemen.
    I just typed in ‘image of man crucified in [and Yemen, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon all auto filled].
    and the Saudi’s still crucify people, but not in the roman manner. they behead you first, then display your body.
    so why put it in the Koran if ‘god’ doesn’t want it still done? same with lashing? and please don’t tell me no one gets lashed anymore.

    [edit: if you ever get your living room in order, you should invite mr elwood. another old loonwatcher. I think maybe even a contributor. medhi seemed to have great respect for him?]

  • memike

    looks like if you hang in there for 3 days, they might let you go. inshallah
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Contemporary_use
    Crucifixion is still used as a rare method of execution in some countries. The punishment of crucifixion (șalb) imposed in Islamic law is variously interpreted as exposure of the body after execution, crucifixion followed by stabbing in the chest, or crucifixion for three days, survivors of which are allowed to live.[96]

    Burma[edit]

    The human rights group Karen Women Organization documented a case of Tatmadaw forces crucifying several Karen villagers in 2000 in the Dooplaya District in Burma’s Kayin State.[97][98]

    Iraq[edit]

    On 5 February 2015 The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) reported that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) has committed “several cases of mass executions of boys, as well as reports of beheadings, crucifixions of children and burying children alive.”[99]

    Iran[edit]

    Theoretically, crucifixion is still one of the Hadd punishments in Iran.[100][101] although it is not actually applied and there is no example of its use.[citation needed] If a crucified person were to survive three days of crucifixion, that person would be allowed to live.[102] Execution by hanging is described as follows: “In execution by hanging, the prisoner will be hung on a hanging truss which should look like a cross, while his (her) back is toward the cross, and (s)he faces the direction of Mecca [in Saudi Arabia], and his (her) legs are vertical and distant from the ground.”[103]

    Saudi Arabia[edit]

    Several people have been executed by crucifixion in Saudi Arabia in the 2000s, although on occasion they were first beheaded and then crucified. Most recently, in March 2013, a robber was set to be executed by being crucified for three days.[104] However, the method was changed.[105]

    Sudan[edit]

    Sudan’s penal code, based upon the government’s interpretation of shari’a,[106][107][108] includes execution followed by crucifixion as a penalty. When, in 2002, 88 people were sentenced to death for crimes relating to murder, armed robbery, and participating in ethnic clashes, Amnesty International wrote that they could be executed by either hanging or crucifixion.[109]

    Syria[edit]

    On 30 April 2014 Islamic extremists carried out a total of seven public executions in Raqqa, northern Syria.[110] The pictures, originally posted to Twitter by a student at Oxford University, were retweeted by a Twitter account owned by a known member of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) causing major media outlets to incorrectly attribute the crucifixions to the militant group.[111] In most of these cases of “crucifixion” the victims are shot first then the bodies displayed[112] but there have also been reports of “crucifixion” preceding being shot or decapitated[113] as well as a case where a man was said to have been “crucified alive for eight hours” with no indication of whether he died.[112]

    United Arab Emirates[edit]

    Crucifixion is a legal punishment in the United Arab Emirates.

  • HerrSkolly

    Mike, ISIS is not Islam. Though no one may wish me to say so, you are well versed in your verses and such. Nonetheless, history is history. People do progress by worldly convention – all people do, all people. They who have a god or gods do often enough understand this. Those with a god or gods often enough feel that their god/s follow the “progress” of our current world. I don’t know, perhaps you and I speak with different people. Perhaps we don’t. History is static. Human nature, nature as given by God/Allah is not. We are in flux. You and I will likely admit that far more quickly than others – nonetheless, plenty of others who abide by their book or books do understand this. Please don’t tell me I’m riddling again – I’m not. Take care.

  • memike

    ok. isis is not islam. so tell me, what is islam? if it is not a monolith and there are many interpretations. then how do you know the isis interpretation is wrong?

    “People do progress by worldly convention – all people do, all people” have you never heard of the un-contacted tribes in the amazon? did you ever see ‘living with the mek’? two brits went down to papa new guinea and hung out with the guys who wear gourdes on their penises. they don’t seem to have progressed much in the last 5 thousand years. but back to islam. so why does their god say to crucify people in the ‘last revelation’ if he was looking for progress beyond that? why not outlaw slavery in the Koran?

    your only riddle here is “nature as given by God/Allah is not”. yet you claim to be an atheist. now I’m confused.
    did you see your girl ilisha say that she doesn’t find it disconcerting that 100s of millions of muslims believe you should put an apostate to death. and that is today. well 2014, but I doubt many have changed their minds since the survey.

  • HerrSkolly

    Mike, I’ll try my best – I’m way under the weather. Sucks to get old-ish.

    I cannot know that ISIS’ interpretation of Islam is not wrong – I’m an atheist … it’s not my business to sort that out. However, each and every Muslim that I know denounces ISIS – yes, here in the state of friendliness.

    The un-contacted tribes provide for a great story. I cannot answer for any progress or lack thereof, for I am a cyborg … kinda. My suspicion tells me that even their attitudes, beliefs, morals, etc. have changed over time – but, how could I possibly know … I don’t.

    Crucifixion as promoted by a god … I don’t know, I’m not religious. In my understanding, slavery had not been banned or outlawed in Islam, but that its practice was meant to be done away with – again, I’m not Muslim, so I cannot answer that with any intimate knowledge – though I am studying (slowly, but surely).

    “… nature as given by God/Allah …” Certainly, I’m permitted to speak in what to me is metaphor.

    I did not see those words by Ilisha. I do suspect she would not wish death upon an apostate; but, I cannot speak for her. She lives in the country in which I live. She’s held to abide by the same laws that I am.

    Later.

  • MichaelElwood

    Oh, boy! Here we go again, Mike! Do you ever get tired of these silly polemics? I know I do! Is this supposed to be another one of those questions that’s suppose to stump Muslims? You know, like the Gog and Magog one? 🙂

    I think this issue is particularly tricky for atheist critics of Islam because of their own crappy “ethics” (to the extent that they can be said to have any ethics at all).

  • memike

    no I never tire. no this isn’t like the silly belief in gog and magog. this has real world ramifications. silly superstitions passed on by your prophet mostly mean nothing. although I do see the Saudis have beheaded a few people for sorcery in the last 5 years. I know it sounds like a joke, but alas, sadly it is true.
    what makes this issue trick for me. I’m against the death penalty. and I’m most certainly against executing someone by crucifixion. seems like a rather sadistic and brutal way to kill someone. don’t you think?
    so you can’t tell me when it is that crucifixion is the proper punishment?

  • MichaelElwood

    Memike wrote: “silly superstitions passed on by your prophet mostly mean nothing. although I do see the Saudis have beheaded a few people for sorcery in the last 5 years. I know it sounds like a joke, but alas, sadly it is true.”

    And bullshit peddled by atheists means nothing. . . but it can have ramifications in the real world. For example, Kim Jong Un recently murdered his own uncle, Jang Song Thaek.

    Memike wrote: “what makes this issue trick for me. I’m against the death penalty.”

    Because you’re an atheist, and atheists should be held responsible for what other atheists do and say. You know, the way you think Muslims should be held responsible for what other Muslims do and say. You may not believe in the death penalty, but other atheists like Kim Jong Un do. Sam Harris also believes in the death penalty. In fact, he even believes that it’s ethical to kill people who believe in “dangerous” propositions. Of course, atheist apologists will assure us that people like Kim aren’t true atheists (shout out to all the true Scotsmen out there). But how are we to know which position is the true atheist position and which atheists are the true atheists? Atheists often feign an inability to gauge the validity of the beliefs of “moderate” and “extremists” Muslims (claiming that the beliefs of the extremists are as Islamically valid as the moderates). But when two Muslims disagree. . . God is the tie-breaker. When two atheists disagree. . . what authority can be appealed to to resolve the disagreement? Especially when both claim to be basing their actions on their “rational” and “scientific” atheist beliefs?

    Memike wrote: “and I’m most certainly against executing someone by crucifixion. seems like a rather sadistic and brutal way to kill someone. don’t you think?”

    I’m against executing someone by crucifixion as well. It’s a pretty sadistic and brutal way to kill someone. Then again, killing someone with an anti-aircraft gun–the way Kim Jong Un killed his uncle–is a pretty sadistic and brutal way to kill someone too. Everyone has a crazy uncle, but most people wouldn’t entertain the idea of killing him. Some atheists are real moral degenerates, aren’t they? It’s odd that they always hold themselves up as some kind of models for theists, isn’t it?

    Memike wrote: “so you can’t tell me when it is that crucifixion is the proper punishment?”

    Sure, I’ll tell ya! Crucifixion is not considered a legitimate way to execute someone from an Islamic perspective. In Islam, it’s a method of execution associated with non-Muslim Egyptians, Romans, and the Quraysh:

    “‘I will cut off your hands and feet from alternate sides; then I will crucify you all.'” [Quran 7:124]

    “He said, ‘Have you acknowledged him before taking my permission? He is surely your great one who has taught you magic. So, I will cut off your hands and feet from alternate sides, and I will crucify you on the trunks of the palm trees, and you will come to know which of us is greater in retribution and more lasting!'” [Quran 20:71]

    “He said, ‘Have you acknowledged him before I permitted you? He is surely your great one who has taught you magic. So you shall come to know. I will cut off your hands and feet from alternate sides, and I will crucify you all.'” [Quran 26:49]

    The Quran mentions this method of execution in 5:33, which you seem to think is a command for Muslims:

    “The recompense of those who fight God and His messenger and seek to corrupt the land, is that they will be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off on alternate sides or that they be banished from the land. That is a disgrace for them in this world. In the Hereafter, they will have a great retribution” [Quran 5:33]

    However, Prof. Martha Schulte-Nafeh and Edip Yuksel explain the verse in their translation thus:

    “The repeated use of the passive voice is not a coincidence; it is to indicate that the acts are not instructions, but statements of fact. In other words, those who roam the earth to promote and commit atrocities and bloodshed are going to get what they promote. Those who live by the sword die by the sword. The Arabic word fasad means destruction, mischief, discord, warmongering or corruption. It is frequently contrasted with islah and its derivatives, which mean reform or promoting peace (7:56). Fasad is not mere faith or opinion; it refers to the acts of corruption or aggressive and destructive actions (See 2:30; 5:64; 10:91; 18:94; 21:22; 22:40; 28:4; 33:71; 89:12; 2:256, and 4:140). The Bible has a similar statement: ‘those who kill by the sword must die by the sword.’ See Matthew 26:52 ; Revelation 13:10 . Also see the Quran 9:3.”

    Verse 5:33 is an allusion to the Muslims’ enemies practice of crucifying them. Perhaps the most well-known early Muslim victim of crucifixion was Khubayb al-Ansari.

  • B.D.S.

    ‘No. But you wanna know what’s pathetic? Some Jewish and Christian Islamophobes masquerade as atheist and agnostic Islamophobes on the internet because they know that their beliefs are indefensible. They don’t seem to understand that atheist Islamophobia is just as indefensible.’

    Indeed, you did noticed well Michael, they do do that, perhaps under the silly assumption that just because atheism do not possess scriptures it will be an easier, less challenging venue to attack Islam than lets say those verses in the Bible they fear will be ‘damning’ as much as the Quranic ones they deemed ‘damnable’ :).

  • memike

    lol. kim jong un. I’m responsible for his actions? you are truly hilarious. so you still don’t know where gog and magog are then? all this dispite the ‘divine revelation’ of the ‘holy koran’? so why do the Saudis behead people for ‘sorcery’? does it have anything to do with the teachings of Muhammad? the belief in the ‘evil eye’?
    I’m not trying to hold you responsible for what Muhammad did or said. just for what you think is ‘divine writ’.
    1. do you believe in black magic?
    2. so the Koran is not an instruction?
    3. so what is ‘mischief’?
    4. what do I care what the bible says?

    5. “Verse 5:33 is an allusion to the Muslims’ enemies practice of crucifying them” so why would the muslim enemy crucify someone for making war on allah and his apostle? and for spreading mischief against the muslims? that makes absolutely no sense.

    6. “Verse 5:33 is an allusion to the Muslims’ enemies practice of crucifying them” so is there a death penalty in islam? should someone be beheaded for sorcery? for adultery? for apostasy?

  • memike

    hey ilisha and bds? sup? y’all just bystanders in this ‘baffle them with bullshit’ nonsense? are you responsible for what Michael says? of course not. although you did vote it up. funny how he tries to manipulate what is said. can y’all tell me why the Koran says it is a just punishment for people to be crucified?

  • Munna

    Hey, you dishonest scumbag, why the hell are you obsessed with giving Atheist the title of following some sort of religion,atrocity, inhuman…?
    Atheism doesn’t involve any prescription for doing this or that sort of act unless it’s based on good for humanity in general and logic, yet you quote reference after reference of your so-called imagined atheists as doing this or that. If you’re including the ‘Karma’ of these so-called atheist, then isn’t it your wild imagination that is gasping for associating this or that acts with their philosophy or ideology, or is there something written on stones to highlight the laws of atheism for doing this or that.
    Regarding morality, it would be better to regard anything good for the benefit of humanity as not only the conduct of atheist but to all religious persons as well, yet you indulging in only allocating this or that to your dishonesty personified, allocations…!

  • memike

    it’s muslim who seem to think this is a command to them.
    so do you support the Saudis beheading people for sorcery?

    as a muslim do you believe in the ‘evil eye’? is there a legal injunction against black magic? or do we find another passive verb?

  • memike

    can you tell me where gog and magog are?

  • B.D.S.

    Get lost, “Mike3” aka “Joe” aka whatever other puppets. I’ve already told you long time ago troll, I have zero desire to give you room to satisfy your racism.

  • MichaelElwood

    B.D.S. wrote: “Indeed, you did noticed well Michael, they do do that, perhaps under the silly assumption that just because atheism do not possess scriptures it will be an easier, less challenging venue to attack Islam than lets say those ‘damnable’ Bible verses :).”

    Back in the day, when I was a teenager, it used to be more common. Christian and Jewish Islamophobes would claim to be atheists (sometimes throwing in that they are ex-Muslims), but spend most of their time defending Judaism and Christianity. 🙂

    It’s not as common now, but you’ll still occasionally come across some who’ll pretend to be atheists. Now, most of the atheist Islamophobes on the internet are actually atheist Islamophobes. Instead of pretending to atheists, Christian Islamophobes will just copy the arguments they see atheists making (like the amusing one about Muhammad not existing and the Quran being written by some anonymous Arab dudes centuries later):

    http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/islam/anjem-choudary-publically-confronted-with-the-historical-problems-with-islam

    Prof. J. Mark Nicovich wrote an excellent critique of this line of reasoning:

    http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1497/muhammad_man_or_myth.aspx

  • MichaelElwood

    Memike wrote: “kim jong un. I’m responsible for his actions?”

    It depends. If you hold me responsible for what other Muslims do and say, I’m gonna hold you responsible for what other atheists do and say.

    Memike wrote: “so why do the Saudis behead people for ‘sorcery’?”

    I don’t know. Why don’t you ask the Saudis?

    Memike wrote: “does it have anything to do with the teachings of Muhammad?”

    Nope. The Quran tells Muslims that sorcery is useless, but it doesn’t prescribe capital punishment for those who practice it:

    “They pursued what the devils taught concerning Solomon’s kingdom. Solomon, however, was not a disbeliever, but the devils were disbelievers. They taught the people sorcery, and that which was sent down through the two angels of Babel, Haroot and Maroot. These two did not divulge such knowledge without pointing out: ‘This is a test. You shall not abuse such knowledge.’ But the people used it in such evil schemes as the breaking up of marriages. They can never harm anyone against the will of GOD. They thus learn what hurts them, not what benefits them, and they know full well that whoever practices witchcraft will have no share in the Hereafter. Miserable indeed is what they sell their souls for, if they only knew.” [Quran 2:102]

    “Did you not see those who were given a portion of the Book, they believe in sorcery and evil, and they say to those who rejected: ‘You are better guided than those who believed the path.'” [Quran 4:51]

    Memike wrote: “I’m not trying to hold you responsible for what Muhammad did or said.”

    Yeah, you are trying to hold me responsible for what Muhammad did or said. You’re also trying to hold me and other Muslims responsible for what some dudes in Saudi Arabia do and say.

    Memike wrote: “1. do you believe in black magic?”

    No.

    Memike wrote: “2. so the Koran is not an instruction?”

    Huh?

    Memike wrote: “3. so what is ‘mischief’?”

    Fasad, or what you call “mischief,” was already explained to you in my previous comment.

    Memike wrote: “4. what do I care what the bible says?”

    I don’t know. What do you care what the Bible says?

    Memike wrote: “5. so why would the muslim enemy crucify someone for making war on allah and his apostle? and for spreading mischief against the muslims?”

    Aren’t you paying attention? Muslims’ enemies didn’t crucify people like Khubayb al-Ansari for “making war on allah and his apostle,” they crucified them for being Muslims.

    Memike wrote: “6. so is there a death penalty in islam?”

    Yes, for murder:

    “You shall not kill any person – for GOD has made life sacred – except in the course of justice. If one is killed unjustly, then we give his heir authority to enforce justice. Thus, he shall not exceed the limits in avenging the murder; he will be helped.” [Quran 17:33]

    Although, the murderer can be pardoned in some instances:

    “. . . .If one is pardoned by the victim’s kin, an appreciative response is in order, and an equitable compensation shall be paid. This is an alleviation from your Lord and mercy. Anyone who transgresses beyond this incurs a painful retribution. [Quran 2:178]

    Memike wrote: “should someone be beheaded for sorcery?”

    No.

    Memike wrote: “for adultery?”

    No.

    Memike wrote: “for apostasy?”

    No. During Muhammad’s lifetime, only murder was a capital offense. Later on, the Sunni and Shia sects prescribed capital punishment for a variety of things.

  • MichaelElwood

    Now, let me ask you some questions:

    1. Do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

    2. Do you know the etymology of the words “terrorism” and “terrorist”?

    3. Do you know what the “Reign of Terror” is?

    4. Were the ringleaders of the “Reign of Terror” atheists or theists, secularists or religionist?

    5. Who was it that said, “Terror, salutary terror, is now the order of the day here….We are causing much impure blood to flow, but it is our duty to do so, it is for humanity’s sake”?

    Was he an atheist or a Muslim?

    6. Who was it that said:

    “One of Ivan the Terrible’s mistakes was to overlook the five great feudal families. If he had annihilated those five families, there would definitely have been no Time of Troubles. But Ivan the Terrible would execute someone and then spend a long time repenting and praying. God got in his way in this matter. He ought to have been still more decisive!”

    Was he an atheist or a Muslim?

    7. Who was it that said, “As for us, we were never concerned with the Kantian-priestly and vegetarian-Quaker prattle about the ‘sacredness of human life.'”?

    Was he an atheist or a Muslim?

    8. Do you believe in freedom of religion? Who was it that said:

    “I am fed up with Islam in the Netherlands: let’s put a stop to the influx of Muslim immigrants. I am fed up with the worshipping of Allah and Mohammed in the Netherlands: let’s put a stop to the building of mosques. I am fed up with the Koran in the Netherlands: let’s ban that fascist book.”

    Was he an atheist or a Muslim (this one’s a no brainer :-))?

    9. Do you believe in freedom of conscience? Who was it that said, “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.”?

    Was he an atheist or a Muslim?

    10. Do you believe in torture? Who was it that said, “Fearing that the above reflection on torture may offer a potent argument for pacifism, I would like to briefly state why I believe we must accept the fact that violence (or its threat) is often an ethical necessity. . . .”?

    Was he an atheist or a Muslim?

    Do you believe racial profiling? Who was it that said, “We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it.”?

    Was he an atheist or a Muslim (this one’s a no brainer too :-))?

    11. Do you think gulags and guillotines are ethical?

    12. Do you think shooting your uncle with an anti-aircraft gun is okay?

    13. And for extra credit, Coke or Pepsi? 😉

  • B.D.S.

    (sometimes throwing in that they are ex-Muslims)

    I think that trick still is a bit more popular among both religious & atheist twitter Islamophobic trolls (usually under a 2nd sock-puppet account with a ‘Muslim’ name) than perhaps on Disqus.

    Now, most of the atheist Islamophobes on the internet are actually atheist Islamophobes.

    Yes, I remember it wasn’t that long ago when they were just a few occasionally jumping on the Christian/Jewish Islamophobia wagon, seems now unfortunately atheist Islamophobes are riding their own wagon.

  • memike

    what racism? what are you talking about?

  • memike

    I’m always up for some questions.
    1. no.
    2. no. I would imagine it comes from the latin or greek?
    3. no. I would think lots of things could take the title, ‘reign of terror’. I’m going to guess Stalin?
    4.i’ll guess again – atheists.
    5. don’t know? hitler? which Nazi was in charge of the ‘final solution’? goebbels? but i’ll say it was an atheist.
    6. don’t know. but I’m going with another Russian for my guess. Lenin?
    7. don’t know. i’ll guess a ‘new atheist’. sam harris?
    8. yes I believe in freedom of religion. geeters. what’s his name? the white haired guy.
    9. yes I believe in freedom of consciousness. people can believe whatever they want. worship whatever god or gods they want. sam harris
    10. I do not believe torture is ethical, if that is your question. certainly torture does exist. i’ll say sam harris again.
    yes I believe in racial profiling. bill maher? funny story. first time I got on a plane after 9/11, they pulled me from the security line for a pat down. the guy behind me was a southeastern asia. looked Pakistani to me. as I walked away with the agent the guy looked at me and shrugged his shoulders and looked befuddled.
    11. no and no
    12. no
    13. I don’t drink much soda. usually only when mixed with whiskey. they taste the same to me. I have no preference.

  • memike

    ah. the French.

    “Terrorism” comes from the French word terrorisme,[16] and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the French government during the 1793–1794 Reign of terror. The French word terrorisme in turn derives from the Latin verb terreō meaning “I frighten”.[17] The terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome in response to the approach of warriors of the Cimbri tribe in 105 BC. The Jacobins cited this precedent when imposing a Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.[18][19] After the Jacobins lost power, the word “terrorist” became a term of abuse.[10] Although “terrorism” originally referred to acts committed by a government, currently it usually refers to the killing of innocent people[20] for political purposes in such a way as to create a media spectacle. This meaning can be traced back to Sergey Nechayev, who described himself as a “terrorist”.[21] Nechayev founded the Russian terrorist group “People’s Retribution” (Народная расправа) in 1869.[22]

  • memike

    when have I ever said you are responsible for someone else’s actions or words? I think you have me confused with another mike?

    I ask ever Saudi I ever come across.

    how am I trying to hold you responsible for what Muhammad did or said. so are there things he did or said that you find unethical?

    1. “that whoever practices witchcraft will have no share in the Hereafter.” I’m confused. you said you don’t believe in black magic, but then quote this from the Koran. seems self contradictory. witchcraft and black magic are the same thing, right?

    2. the Koran is not a book of instructions? a guidance for all mankind?

    4. I don’t care what the bible says. I’ve read it, it’s a book of nonsense.

    5. ‘it is but a just recompense that those who make war on god and…..that they be crucified…’ so who is doing the crucifying of ‘those’?

    6. if capital punishment is only for murder, why does 5:32 say, ‘murder OR for spreading corruption’?

    “Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.”

  • memike
  • HerrSkolly

    memike, I think it would be great if you’d take B.D.S’ wishes into consideration. She really doesn’t want to have a conversation with you. For real, it’s obvious. Just sayin’.

  • memike

    why did she respond then? but I think you are right, she doesn’t want a conversation. she just wants to sling mud. so be it. another shining example of a muslim. for people who claim to follow ‘the religion of peace’, they are awfully angry, don’t you think.

    ‘No. But you wanna know what’s pathetic?” this comment here: “Get lost, “Mike3” aka “Joe” aka whatever other puppets. I’ve already told you long time ago troll, I have zero desire to give you room to satisfy your racism.” is she 12 or something? maybe she shouldn’t be on the computer unsupervised? but I will speak no more to bds, unless first spoken to by bds.

    anyway, what do you, you unethical atheist, think of this gog and magog mythology?

  • MichaelElwood

    B.D.S. wrote: “I think that trick still is a bit more popular among both religious & atheist twitter Islamophobic trolls (usually under a 2nd sock-puppet account with a ‘Muslim’ name) than perhaps on Disqus.”

    I’m not aware of what Islamophobes do on twitter because I don’t have an account and I don’t really read it. But it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s what they’re doing. For Islamophobes the ends justify the means.

    B.D.S. wrote: “Yes, I remember it wasn’t that long ago when they were just a few occasionally jumping on the Christian/Jewish Islamophobia wagon, seems now unfortunately atheist Islamophobes are riding their own wagon.”

    When I was younger, the most prominent ex-Muslim atheist were Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasrin. Rushdie is perpetually wrong about things related to Islam and Muslims. But I wouldn’t consider him an Islamophobe. The atheist Islamophobe thing seems to have been initiated by ex-Muslim atheists like Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina (whom I used to debate back in the day).

    In the marketplace of ideas, I think people who peddle the ideas that they’re peddling are at a disadvantage. But if atheist polemicists think they can succeed where Christian polemicists have failed, let them give it a try! 🙂

  • MichaelElwood

    Memike wrote: “when have I ever said you are responsible for someone else’s actions or words? I think you have me confused with another mike?”

    Sure, you never said that I’m responsible for someone else’s actions and words. But that’s what is implied when you ask me and other Muslims, “but what about these dudes over here and those dudes over there”. Should you constantly take responsibility for these atheist dudes over here and those atheist dudes over there?

    Memike wrote: “how am I trying to hold you responsible for what Muhammad did or said. so are there things he did or said that you find unethical?”

    Do you not perceive a contradiction in saying that you don’t hold me responsible for what Muhammad did or said, and then immediately asking me are there things he did or said that I find unethical? But I’ll answer your question anyway. Muhammad didn’t claim to be perfect, and admitted his foibles. But I don’t find anything he did or said as unethical.

    Memike wrote: “1. ‘that whoever practices witchcraft will have no share in the Hereafter.’ I’m confused. you said you don’t believe in black magic, but then quote this from the Koran. seems self contradictory. witchcraft and black magic are the same thing, right?”

    What are you confused by? I said that I don’t believe in black magic. I said the Quran tells us that black magic/witchcraft/sorcery is useless, and I quoted a verse to that effect:

    “. . . .They can never harm anyone against the will of GOD. They thus learn what hurts them, not what benefits them, and they know full well that whoever practices witchcraft will have no share in the Hereafter. Miserable indeed is what they sell their souls for, if they only knew.” [Quran ]

    Memike wrote: “2. the Koran is not a book of instructions? a guidance for all mankind?”

    Yes, it is.

    Memike wrote: “6. if capital punishment is only for murder, why does 5:32 say, ‘murder OR for spreading corruption’?”

    Huh? 5:32 isn’t referring to capital punishment. I mentioned the relevant verses in my previous comment.

  • MichaelElwood

    Memike wrote: “4.i’ll guess again – atheists.”

    Yep.

    Memike wrote: “5. don’t know? hitler? which Nazi was in charge of the ‘final solution’? goebbels? but i’ll say it was an atheist.”

    Nope. It’s Joseph Fouche aka the Butcher of Lyons. He had a reputation for murdering religious people, particularly members of the Catholic clergy.

    Memike wrote: “6. don’t know. but I’m going with another Russian for my guess. Lenin?”

    Nope. It’s Stalin. When it came to murdering people without remorse, he believed that being an atheist made it easier on the conscience. Atheist apologists often explain away all the mass murder done by atheists like Stalin by claiming that they were for “political reasons,” and they weren’t done “in the name of atheism” (the way they claim people kill “in the name of Islam”). Stalin wasn’t an atheist mass murderer, he was a mass murderer who just happened to be an atheist, says the atheist apologists. Stalin did murder a lot of people for “political reasons”. But he also murdered a lot of people for simply being religious, and to advance atheism. Stalin delegated this job to his comrade, Yemelyan Yaroslavsky, the leader of the League of Militant Atheists:

    “The League of Militant Atheists aided the Soviet government in killing clergy and committed believers.[48] The League also made it a priority to remove religious icons from the homes of believers.[49] Under the slogan, ‘the Storming of Heaven,’ the League of Militant Atheists pressed for ‘resolute action against religious peasants’ leading to the mass arrest and exile of many believers, especially village priests. By 1940, ‘over 100 bishops, tens of thousands of Orthodox clergy, and thousands of monks and lay believers had been killed or had died in Soviet prisons and the Gulag.'”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists#Activities

    Memike wrote: “7. don’t know. i’ll guess a ‘new atheist’. sam harris?”

    Nope. It’s Leon Trotsky. An old atheist. A lot of new atheists and neocon warmongers were former Trotskyists, like Christopher Hitchens. The quote vividly illustrates how some atheists view the sanctity of human life, while hypocritically referring to Islam as a “death cult”.

    Memike wrote: “8. yes I believe in freedom of religion. geeters. what’s his name? the white haired guy.”

    Yep. It’s Geert Wilders. I get the feeling that Wilders’ Islamophobia (and the weird hair dye job) is just him overcompensating for being of Indonesian descent. I also get the feeling that Sarkozy’s Islamophobia and nativist schtick is just him overcompensating for being of Greek Jewish descent. Just a hunch. . .

    Memike wrote: “9. yes I believe in freedom of consciousness. people can believe whatever they want. worship whatever god or gods they want. sam harris”

    Yep. It’s Harris.

    Memike wrote: “10. I do not believe torture i s ethical, if that is your question. certainly torture does exist. i’ll say sam harris again.”

    Yep. It’s Harris.

    Memike wrote: “yes I believe in racial profiling. bill maher? funny story. first time I got on a plane after 9/11, the pulled me from the security line for a pat down. the guy behind me was a southeastern asia. looked Pakistani to me. as I walked away with the agent the guy looked at me and shrugged his shoulders and looked befuddled.”

    You believe in racial profiling? That doesn’t bode well for Pakistani looking atheists like Ali A Rizvi, who conceivably looks like he could be a Muslim (at least how people here in the West stereotypically think a Muslim is supposed to look). But no, it’s not Maher. It’s Harris, again.

  • memike

    are you French?

    I had never even heard of sam harris until the whole ben Affleck thing on bill maher’s show.

    yes I imagine Stalin was a true atheists. he didn’t believe in god, and that makes one a true atheists. neither was he a very ethical man for sure. and the kim family of north korea is loony as all get out. and they may very well be atheists too. but what does any of this have to do with islam and the Koran?

    “That doesn’t bode well for Pakistani looking atheists like Ali A Rizvi” no it doesn’t. he should probably get to the airport 2 hours before his flight. I have no idea who he is, but I imagine he would be the first person I would pull out of line if I were in charge of security. especially if he is wearing a suit and tie. dumbest thing juan Williams has ever said, and he has said a lot of dumb things, but a muslim terrorist would most likely not be dressed in muslim garb.
    1. do you believe in freedom of religion? consciousness?
    2. freedom of speech
    3. separation of religion and governance?
    4. that the Koran is perfect?
    5. that the Koran is divine writ?
    6. do you follow the sunnah?
    7. do you pray 5 times a day?
    8. do you believe in the ‘night of the long journey’?
    9. is music haram?
    10. monster or red bull?

  • memike

    you can ask me anything you want about those ‘atheist dudes over there’. I would be happy to give my opinion on what motivates their actions. the reason I ask about Saudis and Iranians and ‘those muslims over there’ and now unfortunately over in garland texas is because they read the same book as you and draw the exact opposite opinion on what it is saying.

    the only contradiction I perceive is in a muslim wanting to distance himself from the words and actions of Muhammad. why would there be a contradiction in saying you aren’t responsible for what someone did 1400 years ago and then asking if he did anything unethical?

    everyone is responsible for their own words and actions. don’t you think?

    if black magic is useless, how was it used to break up marriages? why would god punish someone for practicing what is useless? do you then not read the hadiths about the ‘evil eye’?

    of course 5:32 is referring to capital punishment. it says to kill someone, unless for murder or spreading corruption, is like killing all mandkind… or as the translation I posted says: “that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land”. or this translation: ”

    5:32

    Because of this did We ordain unto the children of Israel that if anyone slays a human being unless it be [in punishment] for murder or for spreading corruption on earth
    -it shall be as though he had slain all mankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind….”

  • MichaelElwood

    Memike wrote: “you can ask me anything you want about those ‘atheist dudes over there’. I would be happy to give my opinion on what motivates their actions.”

    I’m not talking about giving your opinion about what motivates random atheist dudes over there. We already know what motivates them. . . atheism. I’m talking about taking responsibility for the beliefs and actions of random atheist dudes over there. Do you feel like atheists should take responsibility for all the dumb stuff atheists like Joseph Stalin and Sam Harris say and do, the way some atheists think Muslims should take responsibility for what Bin Laden and Anjem Choudary say and do? Do you feel like atheists should take responsibility for terrorist groups like the PFLP and DHKP, the way some atheists think Muslims should take responsibility for terrorist groups like al-Qa’ida and ISIS? Sounds like an absurd suggestion, doesn’t it? Well, welcome to our world!

    Memike wrote: “the reason I ask about Saudis and Iranians and ‘those muslims over there’ and now unfortunately over in garland texas is because they read the same book as you and draw the exact opposite opinion on what it is saying.”

    And the reason I ask about atheist dudes in Europe and America is because they say their actions and beliefs are based on atheism, but they come to the exact opposite conclusions as you (with the exception of racial profiling).

    Memike wrote: “the only contradiction I perceive is in a muslim wanting to distance himself from the words and actions of Muhammad.”

    Which Muslim wants to distance himself from Muhammad?

    Memike wrote: “why would there be a contradiction in saying you aren’t responsible for what someone did 1400 ye ars ago and then asking if he did anything unethical?”

    Because the implication is that Muslims are responsible for what someone did 1400 years ago. Do you really think there is any other reason why atheists ask those type of questions?

    Memike wrote: “everyone is responsible for their own words and actions. don’t you think?”

    . . . except if you’re a Muslim. Then some atheists will expect you to be responsible for random Muslim dudes over here, and random Muslim dudes over there, and random Muslim dudes back then.

    Memike wrote: “if black magic is useless, how was it used to break up marriages?”

    Because people who believe in black magic think it “works”. It “works” the same way a placebo works, or a psychosomatic illness. However, for Muslims it doesn’t “work”. It reminds me of something Imam WD Mohammed said: “You cannot work voodoo on a Muslim because the Muslim is not vulnerable to superstition.”

    Memike wrote: “why would god punish someone for practicing what is useless?”

    Because people peddling break-up spells are often con artists who prey on poor and ignorant people. There was areal problem with this type of stuff in Louisiana back in the day.

    Memike wrote: “do you then not read the hadiths about the ‘evil eye’?”

    Did you not read the Quranic verses about black magic/witchcraft/sorcery?

    Memike wrote: “of course 5:32 is referring to capital punish ment.”

    No, 5:32 not talking about capital punishment. It’s talking about generic killing. Someone can be killed anytime and anywhere. However, in Islam, capital punishment is only applied by the state for murder after guilt is established. Again, I provided the relevant verses in my previous comment. By the way, 5:32 is not even about Muslims, it’s about the “Children of Israel”.

  • MichaelElwood

    Memike wrote: “are you French?”

    No, I’m an American of Creole descent.

    Memike wrote: “I had never even heard of sam harris until the whole ben Affleck thing on bill maher’s show.”

    I had never heard of a lot of the dudes that you keep mentioning to either.

    Memike wrote: “yes I imagine Stalin was a true atheists. he didn’t believe in god, and that makes one a true atheists. neither was he a very ethical man for sure. and the kim family of north korea is loony as all get out. and they may very well be atheists too. but what does any of this have to do with islam and the Koran?”

    It begs the question: If atheism and secularism has no mitigating effect on violent tendencies, why is it being offered as an alternative to theism and Islam? That’s the relevance.

    Memike wrote: “he should probably get to the airport 2 hours before his flight. I have no idea who he is, but I imagine he would be the first person I would pull out of line if I were in charge of security.”

    Ali A. Rizvi is this dude right here:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/quranalyzeit/2015/04/10/yes-you-are-taking-those-verses-out-of-context-a-muslim-responds-to-atheist-ali-a-rizvi/

    And we should all thank God that you and Harris aren’t in charge of security, because airplanes would be continually blown up. Although I’d enjoy seeing only Rizvi being singled out at the airport, singling out people who look like him isn’t a solution. Do you really think that Muslims have a certain look? Do you really think that there are no Muslims who look like you (which would necessitate people like you being profiled as well)? I think you’ve been watching too much TV (where all the Muslims look like Rizvi).

    Memike wrote: “especially if he is wearing a suit and tie. dumbest thing juan Williams has ever said, and he has said a lot of dumb things, but a muslim terrorist would most likely not be dressed in muslim garb.”

    “Muslim” terrorists would not likely send someone who looks like Rizvi to carry out a mission knowing that someone who looks like Rizvi is being profiled.

    Memike wrote: “1. do you believe in freedom of religion? consciousness?”

    Yes and yes.

    Memike wrote: “2. freedom of speech”

    Yes.

    Memike wrote: “3. separation of religion and governance?”

    Yes.

    Memike wrote: “4. that the Koran is perfect?”

    Yes.

    Memike wrote: “5. that the Koran is divine writ?”

    Yes.

    Memike wrote: “6. do you follow the sunnah?”

    No.

    Memike wrote: “7. do you pray 5 times a day?”

    No.

    Memike wrote: “8. do you believe in the ‘night of the long journey’?”

    No.

    Memike wrote: “9. is music haram?”

    No.

    Memike wrote: “10. monster or red bull?”

    Neither. I’m a Coke man. And I keep hearing that Red Bull tastes like piss. And I’m not trying find out if that’s true.

  • memike

    why would I be held responsible for the random acts of someone else? Stalin was a fascist. I’m a libertarian, why would I even support his actions.

    have no idea who the pflp or dhkp are or were?

    no one today could possible be held responsible for the actions of someone in the past. who does that?

    “However, for Muslims it doesn’t “work”. – “You cannot work voodoo on a Muslim because the Muslim is not vulnerable to superstition.”” lol. I guess he is not familiar with the practice of saying inshallah when saying you will do something in the future. or what is the one when you compliment someone? you know, so as not to give them the ‘evil eye’ of envy. mashallah???? don’t many muslims say something when entering a building to let the jinn know they are coming? or when going into the toilet. you know, because jinn live in toilets. not superstitious, that is hilarious. I take it he has never read the book, “the world of jinn and devils in the light of the Koran and sunnah”.

    (for some reason links aren’t pasting) I just googled ‘islam black magic’. mydeenislam.com gives a punch of verses to protect you from black magic. if that is not superstition, I don’t know what is. hell some muslims believe that jinn will wrap around your urethra and penetrate your wife if you don’t invoke the name of allh before sex. and that can result in transgendered babies.

    yes I read the verses on witchcraft. they look to acknowledge the existence of magic. and per your earlier post, two angels taught humans this ‘magic’. doesn’t Solomon send a jinn to steal the throne of the queen of Sheba in the Koran? the sura ‘the ants’. is that ‘white magic’? don’t the practitioners of witchcraft often use the jinn to do their bidding? I mean in Islamic mythology, not in real life. you should check out islam.com in the Q&A section you will find quite a few muslims who believe in magic.

    was cain and abel not muslims? cain kills abel in the earlier verses, right. that is why it says, ‘because of this’. so was cain executed for killing his brother?

    and again, the verses main purpose may not be to address capital punishment. but clearly it says you can execute someone for ‘murder’ or ‘mischief’.

    yeah, now I remember you saying you are creole on rawstory. so do you live in the bayou? you ever come across the blog myprivatecasbah?
    some woman bint al shama (something like that).

  • memike

    man, my memory isn’t what it used to be. that name escaped me, even though I commented on that post. but you did not reply. oh well.
    why would planes be blowing up? certain muslim have a certain look. just like certain jews have a certain look. Sikhs too. the poor Sikhs have taken the blunt of the blow back from 9/11. yes there are muslim who look like me. there is a Moroccan I talk to at the Y all the time who, is bald like me, fair white completion. in fact I’m probably darker than he is.
    I would hope that the muslim terrorists don’t have their pick of the racial litter. but yes, if they can find an 80 year-old white woman to blow herself up, that would be the bees knees for them. that is one reason why these Islamic State guys are such a concern. did you see the kid from Vero beach who blew himself up in Syria? I think his mother was an Italian convert. racial profiling most certainly wouldn’t have singled him out. although his name would have raised an alarm hopefully. but luckily he blew himself up over there, rather than over here. locally, we had a kid, sami osmack who wanted to blow up an irish pub, mcdintons and the hardrock in tampa and some other stuff in ybor city. if he didn’t have a little scruffy beard and the skull cap and dress like think the arabs wear, looking at him you wouldn’t think he is muslim. he is bosnia. quite white. that reminds me of another funny story shortly after 9/11. I used to tailgate at the bucs game. this one older guy was there and I noticed he never had a beer. so I asked him why he didn’t drink. he said he was a muslim. he was an Albanian. he told me how after 9/11 one of his co workers at the hospital, he was a doctor, came up to him and said, ‘we need to kick all these muslims out of the country’. so he said, ‘you mean muslims like me’.
    not everybody is good at profiling. nor is it 100%. micheal elwood may slip right under the profiling radar.

  • memike

    “It begs the question: If atheism and secularism has no mitigating effect on violent tendencies, why is it being offered as an alternative to theism and Islam? That’s the relevance.” who said ‘no’ mitigating effects. it mitigates the ‘killing for christ’ that we have seen throughout much of history and the ‘killing in the name of islam’ that we are witnessing as we speak. but obviously atheists can negate that mitigation with their own reasons for killing. if an atheist tells you it is perfect, s/he is a fool. as for secularism, that certainly can mitigate a government killing in the name of a religion. strange that you say you believe in separation of religion and governance, yet say this. now that is a contradiction.
    #4. so perfection is open to misinterpretation?
    #5. if you believe that the Koran is divine writ, why don’t you want it to rule?

  • B.D.S.

    I’m not aware of what Islamophobes do on twitter because I don’t have an account and I don’t really read it. But it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s what they’re doing. For Islamophobes the ends justify the means.

    Oh, same old thing, they parrot the same old debunked diatribes over & over, just like they do elsewhere, except that there rants are cut short in 140 characters. 🙂

    But you should open one, even for the fun of it. I know there are plenty of behinds you could kick while at the same time amusing yourself (and us :)) doing it, but also many others that could benefit from your perspectives on Islam, especially the Qur’an.

    When I was younger, the most prominent ex-Muslim atheist were Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasrin.

    I don’t know much about Taslima Nasrin, and I was too young when the Rushdie controversy broke out. I admit I didn’t bother knowing more about him later on, and I still don’t. Though I do know he did speak out against that trashy “Innocence of Muslims” provocation. I think in some sections of the ‘West’ where Islam is still viewed as an enemy and of inferior ethics/values, anyone ‘brave’ enough that speaks against it is celebrated, add to that an ‘ex-Muslim’ tag and it’s even better, particularly for females.

    The atheist Islamophobe thing seems to have been initiated by ex-Muslim atheists like Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina (whom I used to debate back in the day).

    I remember the day years back when I was barely out of my teenage years, and not knowing who Ibn Warraq was, taking home by mistake his book “The origins of the Koran” from our local little library. Finding the tittle of the book catchy, I just quickly grabbed it with other 3 or 4 books as I was in hurry to meet a friend. I’ll tell you, I couldn’t even pass the introduction. As for Ali Sina, many find his “ex Muslim”claim dubious. And he’s not longer an atheist either (if he ever was one), at least according to what he admitted during one of his debates with Chameleon, claiming he “converted” to Christianity from atheism, but even before his admission, it was pretty easy to notice his polemics was from a Christian fundamentalist viewpoint. He is one if the not the most shadiest Islamophobe out-there.

  • B.D.S.

    Thanks HSkol, it should have been obvious to “Mike3” the first time I asked him to stop bothering my notification. Obviously he can’t get the hint that I have no interest wasting my time answering his same repeated talking-points that has already been tackled and refuted by others including AJ, Ilisha, Michael and you. Him and his buddy “Munna” (if they are not one & same) are a classic case of a troll, and I think for some reason they particularly enjoy trolling LW regulars. I want nothing to do with either of them. I hope “Mike” and his buddy are reading this and will respect my wishes.

  • MichaelElwood

    B.D.S. wrote: “But you should open one, even for the fun of it. I know there are plenty of behinds you could kick while at the same time amusing yourself (and us :)) doing it, but also many others that could benefit from your perspectives on Islam, especially the Qur’an.”

    I never really got into the whole social media thing. One reason is my personality is gruff. I’m about as sociable online as I am offline (which is not very sociable). Another reason is, as you can tell from some of my long ass comments, I can’t express myself in 140 characters. 🙂

    B.D.S. wrote: “I don’t know much about Taslima Nasrin, and I was too young when the Rushdie controversy broke out. I admit I didn’t bother knowing more about him later on, and I still don’t. Though I do know he did speak out against that trashy “Innocence of Muslims” provocation.”

    I can’t be too much older than you. When I say “back in the day,” I’m thinking mid 1990s (a few years after I converted). Before 9/11, there just weren’t a whole lot of prominent atheist Islamophobes back then.

    B.D.S. wrote: “I think in some sections of the ‘West’ where Islam is still viewed as an enemy and of inferior ethics/values, anyone ‘brave’ enough that speaks against it is celebrated, add to that an ‘ex-Muslim’ tag and it’s even better, particularly for females.”

    Tru dat! It makes for a good story.

    B.D.S. wrote: “I remember the day years back when I was barely out of my teenage years, and not knowing who Ibn Warraq was, taking home by mistake his book “The origins of the Koran” from our local little library. Finding the tittle of the book catchy, I just quickly grabbed it with other 3 or 4 books as I was in hurry to meet a friend. I’ll tell you, I couldn’t even pass the introduction.”

    I had a similar experience. The first time I ran into Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq online was by accident. It was the late 1990s and I was just surfing the net for Islamic websites. I stumbled across one called the Society for Islamic Humanists (or something like that). For some reason, I thought humanist was the same as humanitarian. So I clicked on it. That’s when I first came across Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, and the whole ex-Muslim atheist thing. Ibn Warraq didn’t really comment that much. But Ali Sina never shut up. Sina and I debated back and forth for over a year until Sunni hackers deleted the website. Which is fortunate for me because that debate wasn’t some of my best work. Keep in mind that I was a teenager back then. And my vocabulary consisted mostly of curse words. Had they not deleted it, that stuff would still be floating around somewhere on the internet. 🙂

    B.D.S. wrote: “As for Ali Sina, many find his “ex Muslim”claim dubious. And he’s not longer an atheist either (if he ever was one), at least according to what he admitted during one of his debates with Chameleon, claiming he “converted” to Christianity from atheism, but even before his admission, it was pretty easy to notice his polemics was from a Christian fundamentalist viewpoint. He is one if the not the most shadiest Islamophobe out-there.”

    LOL! I read that debate. Chameleon really tore him a new one. But, yeah, his story seemed fishy to me even back then. He was supposed to be Iranian, but he spoke Spanish and liked to square dance. 🙂

  • MichaelElwood

    Memike wrote: “why would I be held responsible for the random acts of someone else?”

    I don’t know. Why are Muslims held responsible for what someone else does?

    Memike wrote: “Stalin was a fascist. I’m a libertarian, why would I even support his actions.”

    Stalin was a communist. But I see what you’re trying to say. Bin Laden and al-Baghdadi are Sunnis. I’m a non-sectarian Muslim. Why would I even support their actions?

    Memike wrote: “have no idea who the pflp or dhkp are or were?”

    They’re terrorist groups whose members are atheists.

    Memike wrote: “no one today could possible be held responsible for the actions of someone in the past. who does that?”

    Critics of Islam and Muslims. That’s who does it.

    Memike wrote: “lol. I guess he is not familiar with the practice of saying inshallah when saying you will do something in the future.”

    I’m sure he was familiar with that practice.

    Memike wrote: “or what is the one when you compliment someone? you know, so as not to give them the ‘evil eye’ of envy. mashallah????”

    Saying mashallah has nothing to do with the evil eye. It’s a common expression that muslims say when they’re happy. You seemed to have gotten that evil eye thing from wikipedia.

    Memike wrote: “don’t many muslims say something when entering a building to let the jinn know they are coming? or when going into the toilet. you know, because jinn live in toilets.”

    No.

    Memike wrote: “not superstitious, that is hilarious.”

    What’s hilarious is that you think “many Muslims” believe that stuff (or have ever heard of it). Just ask a random Muslim wherever you are and you’ll see what I mean.

    Memike wrote: “I take it he has never read the book, ‘the world of jinn and devils in the light of the Koran and sunnah’.”

    And I take you’ve never read the Quran. The article below by Maulana Muhammad Ali gives a decent overview on jinn:

    https://sites.google.com/site/sunrisinginwest/literature/the-religion-of-islam/jinn

    Memike wrote: “I just googled ‘islam black magic’. mydeenislam.com gives a punch of verses to protect you from black magic. if that is not superstition, I don’t know what is. hell some muslims believe that jinn will wrap around your urethra and penetrate your wife if you don’t invoke the name of allh before sex. and that can result in transgendered babies.”

    I think you’ve been watching too much TV. The article below by Edip Yuksel gives a decent overview on the paranormal:

    http://19.org/blog/paranormal/

    Memike wrote: “yes I read the verses on witchcraft. they look to acknowledge the existence of magic. and per your earlier post, two angels taught humans this ‘magic’.”

    You’ve mentioned Muhammad Asad’s translation before. So you already know that’s not true. Asad says in his footnote for 2:102:

    “As regards the designation of Harut and Marut, most of the readings of the Qur’an give the spelling malakayn (‘the two angels’); but it is authentically recorded (see Tabari, Zamakhshari, Baghawi, Razi, etc.) that the great Companion of the Prophet, Ibn `Abbas, as well as several learned men of the next generation – e.g., Al-Hasan al-Basri, Abu ‘l-Aswad and Ad-Dahhak-read it as malikayn (‘the two kings’). I myself incline to the latter reading; but since the other is more generally accepted, I have adopted it here. Some of the commentators are of the opinion that, whichever of the two readings is followed, it ought to be taken in a metaphorical sense, namely, ‘the two kingly persons’, or ‘the two angelic persons’: in this they rely on a saying of Ibn ‘Abbas to the effect that Harut and Marut were ‘two men who practiced sorcery in Babylon’ (Baghawi; see also Manar I, 402). At any rate, it is certain that from very ancient times Babylon was reputed to be the home of magic arts, symbolized in the legendary persons – perhaps kings – Harut and Marut; and it is to this legend that the Qur’an refers with a view to condemning every attempt at magic and sorcery, as well as all preoccupation with occult sciences in general.”

    “was cain and abel not muslims? cain kills abel in the earlier verses, right. that is why it says, ‘because of this’. so was cain executed for killing his brother?”

    No. His brother said:

    “‘If you extend your hand to kill me, I am not extending my hand to kill you. For I reverence GOD, Lord of the universe.'” [Quran 5:28]

    Memike wrote: “and again, the verses main purpose may not be to address capital punishment. but clearly it says you can execute someone for ‘murder’ or ‘mischief’.”

    Like I said, in Islam, capital punishment is reserved for those guilty of murder, not “mischief” (whatever you think that means).

    Memike wrote: “yeah, now I remember you saying you are creole on rawstory. so do you live in the bayou?”

    Nope, I’m not even in Louisiana, but in the diaspora.

    Memike wrote: “you ever come across the blog myprivatecasbah?”

    Yeah, I think I stumbled across it a while back.

  • MichaelElwood

    Memike wrote: “as for secularism, that certainly can mitigate a government killing in the name of a religion.”

    But if the state kills in the name of atheism and secularism instead of religion, the end result is still the same. . . dead people.

    Memike wrote: “#4. so perfection is open to misinterpretation?”

    Yep.

    Memike wrote: “#5. if you believe that the Koran is divine writ, why don’t you want it to rule?”

    Because part of the Quran’s teachings is that it cannot be imposed on people:

    “There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.” [Quran 2:256]

    “Say, ‘O you disbelievers. I do not worship what you worship. Nor do you worship what I worship. Nor will I ever worship what you worship. Nor will you ever worship what I worship. To you is your religion, and to me is my religion.'” [Quran 109:1-6]

    “Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. Do you want to force the people to become believers?” [Quran 10:99]

  • MichaelElwood

    Memike wrote: “why would planes be blowing up?”

    Because if terrorist knew that you were profiling people who look like Rizvi, they’d just send someone who didn’t look like him.

    Memike wrote: “certain muslim have a certain look.”

    No, Muslims don’t have a certain look. Even within the same ethnic group they look different. Take Creole Muslims, for example. Some have pale skin and blue eyes like Theresa Corbin and Vernel Fournier. Some have brown skin and brown eyes like me and Keith Ellison.

    Memike wrote: “I would hope that the muslim terrorists don’t have their pick of the racial litter. but yes, if they can find an 80 year-old white woman to blow herself up, that would be the bees knees for them.”

    “Muslim” terrorists may be relatively small in number, but they’re diverse because Muslims are diverse. Muslims can look like Ha Hui:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV5OD1X75Ks

    Or Muslims can look like 80 year old “white” women. Have you heard of the Chechen black widows? That’s why racial profiling doesn’t work. And that’s why planes would keep getting blown up if you and Harris were in charge of security. This will be my last comment on this. My vacation is over and I have some work to do.

  • memike

    you don’t seem to understand profiling. it doesn’t mean you ignore everyone else. if the muslims had people to send, wouldn’t they have already sent them?
    certain muslims don’t have a certain look? you are telling me the grand ayatollah doesn’t have a certain look? a Saudi with a red and white kerchief? a hijabi? niqab? a burka wearing woman? please, now you are just being silly.
    yes I’ve heard of Chechen black widows. I’ve seen videos of them in the Moscow theater. very chilling stuff. obviously the boston bombers didn’t fit a profile. hell one might think the younger brother was Italian.
    the Uighurs keep doing attacks in china.
    you seemed to miss that fact that I know not all muslim look alike. but I would still profile people by name and known religious affiliation. I would send fbi agents into mosques, just like fbi agents were sent into anti-government camps after OKC.

  • memike

    yes, if you kill someone they are dead. regardless of the reason. this goes without saying. but if you eliminate the religion facture, that is one less reason to kill. just take note of the islamic state.

    no 49:13? you didn’t want to draw from the 60th sura? the treaty of huddiyyah? (how do you spell that?)

    too bad your brothers and sisters in the ummah don’t all have your fiqh.

    “Memike wrote: “#4. so perfection is open to misinterpretation?”

    Yep.” it shouldn’t be. that is a flaw right there. reminds me of a skit I saw once. two guys are locked in a room with a bomb. guy one says don’t worry, I have my universal bomb defusing manual right here. he pulls a booklet out of his pocket and reads the first page: “cut the red wire”. so guy two cuts the red wire. then guy one turns the page and continues, “after you cut the green wire”…BOMB.
    good luck at work. what is it you do?

  • HerrSkolly

    Quick note: Certain Muslims do have a certain look – but, their fellow non-Muslim countrymen often share that same perceived look with them. Case in point, I live among many Somali refugees, most are Muslim, not all are Muslim (some are Christian, and there may be a handful of others as well … I don’t know). They are clearly enough identifiable as Somali – and, a good guess would be that they are Muslim; however, a guess is only as good as a guess – which is not fact.

  • memike

    I’ve never held anyone responsible for someone elses action. I don’t know how many times I have to say that. I’m not even a proponent to the whole ‘creates an atmosphere’ theory. it seems to be muslims who want to blame ‘islamophobes’ for vandalism against mosques and what not.

    yes I gathered they are/were atheist terror groups. i didn’t think you would bring up a religious terror group. I was hoping for a time and place. oh well, i’ll google.

    cain doesn’t kill abel? 5:30 And his soul permitted to him the murder of his brother, so he killed him and became among the losers.

    as for capital punishment only being for murder, i don’t think that is the ijma.

    so the angels are now two guys? magicians? I’m too drunk and confused to figure this out tonight.

    it’s not too much tv. it’s too many Islamic websites.
    so you don’t believe in jinn? the shayteen?

  • memike

    no doubt. there may be animist among them. but i think Somalia is 98% muslim. I’m a gambler, those are great odds.

    hell that is a bit low. 99.8% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#Religion

    racial profiling is not about facts, it is about percentages.

  • memike

    the link wouldn’t paste for some reason. eshaykh.com

    <>

    edit: that is funky?

  • HerrSkolly

    Racial/Ethnic/Religious profiling goes against my ownmost personal nature. To each his own, for the most part. That an individual who might be suspect, whatever the reason, is surveilled is out of my hands. That an entire race/ethnicity/religion is surveilled – big problem …

    Too late for me to make an adequate point. Good night.

  • memike

    it is late. and I’m 2 hours ahead of you. but I’ve got miles to go before I sleep.. or at least vodka to drink.

    yes it goes against American nature. illegal search and seizure, but we already submit to search for no reason, other than our collective safety. there are technologies and situations that the founders couldn’t have foreseen. we all give up some liberties. after OKC the feds went into Midwestern anti-government groups. there will probably be an increase in infiltrations of motorcycle clubs now after the shooting in Waco. kind of ironic.

    you don’t think the Puerto Ricans where being surveilled in the 50s and 60s?

    when your race/ethnicity/religion resorts to terror, you get surveilled. those are the facts of the world.

  • El Cid

    She [if a she] is an ugly racist runt from Bangladesh. She/it is a hypocrite, shames Islam and Muslims, much like the other ZionistsHindooLovers on Loonwatch masquerading as Muslims.

    Loonwatch, is an anti-Islam websites set up by losers to look as if it was being run by Muslims. When they go elsewhere, as in here, they choose to open themselves to questions, they can however refuse to reply.

    And you have the right to respond in kind, in the racist hate filled lingo/abuses they use. When you have the temerity to call me names and even dare to disparage Islam calling it insane then what holds you back from hitting back against these lowlife.

    These loons hate your guts because you are white and for no other reason. [I am assuming you are white]. Since you pose tough questions they have no interest in or ability to answer…that’s two strikes against them. They are online for reasons other than seeking truth or having a civil exchange.

    That’s strike three…and thus they are open to you for what you will. That other Hijaban Feminist Hypocrite Saudi liar is the same…giving Islam and Muslims a bad name.

    Banning you from their site is proof enough that it is not run by Muslims, not even by regular fair minded Americans. Muslims can not ban free speech…a fundamental of Islam. They are probably Hindoos from the Subcontinent, a sorry sad ugly runty lot indeed.

    Like that last scene in Orwell’s “Animal Farm” they have become like that which they criticize: Non-Muslim Islamaphobes, lowlife frustrated haters riddled with inferiority and poor self esteem.

    My take on Gog and Magog:
    As for Gog and Magog, Gog and Magog are in the Hebrew bible (Old Testament), the Book of Revelation ( NT ) and the Qur’an, sometimes indicating individuals, sometimes lands and peoples.

    Often, in Bible Sources, they are connected with the “end times”. Passages from the book of Ezekiel and Revelation in particular have attracted attention in the Western World.

    Ancient times to Middle Ages Gog and Magog were Eurasian nomads Huns and Mongols [Islam], identified first with Central Asian Turkic tribes, later with the Mongol Hordes.

    Throughout they have been conflated with various legends, notably those concerning Alexander the Great, the Amazons, Red Jews, and the Lost Tribes of Israel…subject of fanciful
    literature in my opinion. Currently they are associated with apocalyptic thinking, especially in the United States and the Muslim world.

    In Surah 18 of the Qu’ran, Alexander the Great is known as Dhul-Qarnayn,”the two-horned one” probably referring to his helmet having two horns on it or from the Syrian legend that describes his journeys from one extremity (“horn”) of the world to the other.

    [Qur’an, Al-Kahf, 18:98][He said: “This (wall) is a mercy from my Lord: but when the warning of my Lord comes to pass, He will reduce it to dust (and Gog and Magog would thus be released into the world); and the promise of my Lord is true.”

    [Qur’an, al-Anbiyah, 21:95-96][“But there is a ban on a town which We have destroyed: that they (the people of the town) shall not return (to reclaim that town as their own); until Gog and Magog are let through (their barrier), and they swiftly spread out in every direction (replicating themselves amongst all the peoples of the world].”

    Dhul-Qarnayn (Alexander the Great), journeyed the world, meets “a primitive people who scarcely understood a word” who seek his help in building a barrier that will separate them from the people of Yajuj and Majuj (Gog and Magog) who “do great mischief on earth” and live across the mountain.

    He agrees to build it for them, but warns that when the time comes (End Times; Last Age?), Allah will remove the barrier and Yajuj and Majuj will swarm through.

    Surah al-Kahf has described how they were contained behind an iron barrier because they used their power to commit acts of Fasad [Fassad are acts of wickedness, oppression, corruption, brutality…much like what the West is doing in Muslim Lands today].

    The Surah also implied that they would use brute invincible ruthless power to wage war on those who lived lives of faith and righteousness, and that they would act brutally, malevolently against those who lived the primitive way of life, or who eked out a bare subsistence living, poorest of the poor [Afghanistan?]

    Thus the picture emerges of an absolutely godless and ruthless people who had the hearts more brutal than of beasts. Note the it describes the West’s assault on Islamic People.

    The Surah went on to inform that when the Last Age commenced, “Allah would bring down the barrier” and Gog and Magog (who are a major sign of the Last Age) would be released into the world.

    Next: Surah al-Anbiyah, referenced above, then revealed that they would eventually “spread out in every direction” indicating that with their invincible power they would take hegemonic control of the whole world and that, for the first time in history, one people would brutalize all of mankind in one way or another.

    The following is NOT from the Noble Qur’an but based on it and on speculative subjective thinking of Muslim scholars interpreting it in current times in the light of the ‘One World Order’:

    Since that world-order would witness oppression and war on religion, it would be in total conflict with the heavenly order above. No believer could possibly be comfortable with ‘mainstream society’ in such a world.

    In Surah al-Anbiyah above, the Qur’an referred one more time to Gog and Magog while making mention of a ‘town’ that Allah destroyed, and its people were expelled and then banned from returning to reclaim that ‘town’ as their own until Gog and Magog were released and had spread out in every direction.

    Those whose spiritual vision is illumined by ‘light’ that comes from Allah Almighty recognize both the ‘town’ and the Gog & Magog world order. That Divine Light gives them the capacity to penetrate the ‘internal reality’ of things.

    The ‘town’ is Jerusalem. Allah destroyed that ‘town’ and expelled the Jews from it. They were then banned from returning to it to reclaim it as their own.

    Today they have returned, reclaimed and expanding their control over it as their own. But they have done so while riding on the backs of an essentially secular godless people whose power is such that they have taken hegemonic total control of the world, and ruthlessly, relentlessly use that power to oppress mankind, and have waged War on Islam…which no one can deny.

    From the time of medieval Euro-Christendom to the age of secular western civilization, Europe has progressively displayed the characteristics of the world order of Gog and Magog, and has also fulfilled their basic mission.

    European people in Europe, North America, Australia, and in the Holy Land today dominate the whole world. They used brute ruthless power to plunder, loot, oppress, corrupt demolish and destroy the peoples of every continent, people of a lesser god.

    And finally, now they have taken up arms, on a global scale, against Islam and Muslims: People of Allah Almighty Creator. And have been defeated on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan…even as the peace of the World unravels.

    More death and devastation of the Muslim World is at hand. Even as a ricochet back to the Faranghi: Crusader Cross and his ZioNazi Overlord…awaits. At a time, a time certain.

    They took the ‘Holy Land’, and brought the Jews back to reclaim it
    as their own. They created the secular godless Apartheid Illegal Euro-State of Israel and presented it to the non-European Jews as David’s Holy Israel.

    It is an indication of the spiritual blindness of the non-European Jewish people that they allowed themselves to be deceived and led down the road to their final destruction by Gog and Magog.

    Note that many regular Kosher Jew, God fearing people reject the concept of present day Israel…as it has been established, it is cursed and punishable by their LORD God Yahweh: YHWH ;There are NO vowels in Hebrew spelling of Yahweh. And prohibited to Kosher Jews to use them. It is almost amounts to blasphemy for them.

    Prophet MuhammadPBUH seems to have provided additional
    information on Gog and Magog. For example, he said, “None of them dies without leaving a thousand more behind.” Perhaps meaning that they will kill a thousand others for each of them killed. Note the over 2.7 million Muslims slaughtered by their blood lust revenge for the less than 3000 of 9-11.

    And so the reality of contemporary globalization that is corrupting and enslaving mankind can now be understood…in reference to Gog and Magog or Yajujh and Majugh as they are called in Islam.

  • El Cid

    This venue is open to memike as it is to anyone else. The Loonwatch Loons cannot ban him from here. They cannot take it away from him.They can get out, however and have this conversation on their failed apartheid racist website.

    I suggest that you abstain from taking sides. Unless you too want to enter the fray…as catch as catch can, and all that entails.

    That would indeed be great…if you allow, take memike his rights into consideration too.
    Thanks.

  • El Cid

    So if you are so sure then why the arrogant brush off typical of an uneducated semiliterate. Why give Islam and Muslims a bad name.

    Now set a good example. Answer him if you can. Calling other people having “crappy” ethics…and denying them ethics altogether says more about you than them.

    Now answer him, politely this time.

  • El Cid

    “Verse 5:33 is an allusion to the Muslims’ enemies practice of crucifying them”

    How so?

    Tell me what defines the following as an “allusion” to you:
    [Surah5:33]“Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.”

    Please explain how the above qualifies as an “allusion”. And why the red herring you placed in there:
    “Perhaps the most well-known early Muslim victim of crucifixion was Khubayb al-Ansari.”

    How does this relate to 5:33?

  • El Cid

    He is taking you for a ride. Could be from Loonwatch. That’s typical of them.

  • memike

    you are the one who told me he is from loonwatch.

  • El Cid

    His devious style is typical Loonwatch. Too defensive and evasive for a Muslim. So I may have guessed. I still think he is LW.

    You have been putting up a good fight against these hypocrites. Impressive knowledge of esoterica, I must say. Not bad for one who calls himself an Atheist. Impressive in fact.

  • HerrSkolly Solo

    El Cid, I appreciate your sentiments – I’m pretty sure you understand this – nah, you actually know this. Though I am quite loyal to those that I am loyal to, I would never wish to halt a voice … any voice, really – let each voice stand for itself. My words/advice to memike involved simple etiquette. We all look at the world differently – that is one of my greatest interests where the world is concerned. I just find it proper to back off and not engage when one asks that another do so. I guess I had my fatherly self out in my “advice” to him. Nonetheless, we all (or most) abide by our own nature, regardless of another’s request. On my armor, I try to be neutral – more so than that, however, I do my best to be cordial and polite. I do fail at times. I’ve had to regroup with myself in certain instances and I’m sure I’ll need to do so yet again – over and over. Oh, well. I consider this water that has passed beneath a grand bridge.

  • memike

    like I said I think you are right. she doesn’t want a conversation. she wants to insult and try to slander people with no one able to respond. no doubt she is a true loonwatcher. she should remained sheltered in her echo chamber.

  • memike

    el cid. you are nuts. one day you are calling me illiterate and what not. the next I’m making a brilliant argument. one day I blah blah blah part of a verse in the Koran and I think you want to behead me. next day I say it is a poorly written instruction book and you compliment me.
    that’s what make you so interesting. I never know what you are going to say. and now you are defending atheist, the greatest corruptor in the land according to most muslims.

  • El Cid

    “you are nuts.”
    May be but so far that has not stood in my way. Credentials from some of the top universities seem not to think so. And you have none to support your outburst. But have the right to your opinion…as long as you know it is just that, no more.

    “I think you want to behead me…”
    You seem drunk again. Stop fantasizing about me. I have no intention of beheading anyone, even if I could Islam would not allow me to, least of all one who ridicules the Qur’an from a lack of knowledge, lazy low mental energy. Your reading, curiosity and interest, that is impressive. That is what I said.

    It is far far better to correct you rather than even think of beheading. The thought never entered my head. It has never entered my head even about those Loony Bigots where, in their case, it would be an improvement.

    They do more harm to Muslims and Islam with their insidious undercutting than you can ever with your curiosity and honest endeavor to know it…even if is only to disprove, defeat it. At least then you would be up front. And not shooting from the shadows as they do and hide.

    I don’t recall calling you illiterate except perhaps in context of understanding the Noble Qur’an. When you don’t understand it you are likely to call it poorly written. Has it not been said that a ‘bad carpenter blames his tools’.

    You ask questions that have made me think. Organized my thoughts on the subject. That is what’s impressive. Knowing some thing and teaching it to another are two different things.The latter is exponentiallay more difficult and time consuming if you want to be fair to the other and true to yourself.

    Most are unable to understand the Qur’an for the simple reason that they have not prepared their mind and body to understand it and worked not on acquiring a body of knowledge as a prerequisite.

    Same thing in any other area of knowledge requiring prerequisites. A knowledge base to proceed from is mandatory in all disciplines. And the Noble Qur’an is no exception.

    “now you are defending atheist, the greatest corruptor in the land according to most muslims.

    When an Atheist is speaking the truth…I am standing by the truth, the Atheist is by coincidence standing there too. That does not change my stand.

    I am NOT like most Muslims. I don’t think Atheists are the “greatest corrupter” in the land. Far from it. An honest Atheist is way better than a hypocrite ‘muslim’. I have not discerned any deceit or guile in you, so far. I have not heard a lie from you, so far.

    Your banter or ridicule of me is like water off a ducks back. Men often do that as juveniles. I have lived through that. Changing room humor is not meant to harm. I can tell its intent. I understand men, women not so much. They are obsessively aggressive repressive, specially feminists with penis envy. Normal women, they are pleasant company. Never had a problem with them.

    Should you do that–be frivolous about the Noble Verses–that’s different. Here, I would just walk away. Outside I would consider you as a potential enemy. Avoid you if possible…as the Qur’an advises. Questioning the Noble Qur’an is not a deal breaker with me. I do it too. As it instructs me to.

  • memike

    el cid, you never fail to baffle me. from locker room humor to Freudian penis envy. always good to hear from ya. even if I have no idea what you are talking about.

    even better to hear you wouldn’t behead me. after your call for delivering one nuke to Riyadh and Jeddah I was starting to think you maybe a little on the violent side.

    [7.198] And if you invite them to guidance, they do not hear; and you see them looking towards you, yet they do not see.
    [7.199] Take to forgiveness and enjoin good and turn aside from the ignorant.

    but no. I’m not drunk today. at least not yet. 😉

  • mike

    you think they will let this through?

    mike dluch • a few seconds ago Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by Loonwatch.com.

    burn away. I don’t remember a single incident of anyone being attacked or killed for burning the American flag. but muslims have tried and actually killed over cartoons, movies, books, etc.
    muslims have desecrated the American flag, and americans just walked right by.

  • mike

    mike HerrSkolly • a few seconds ago Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by Loonwatch.com.

    even if there were a ‘flag of humanity’, whatever that might be, it could be burned too.

  • HerrSkolly Solo

    Ah, you know me and my silly metaphors.

  • mike

    it’s always strange when some bring up burning the flag. people have been burning America flags as long as I can remember. do you know of a time when it ‘provoked’ violence? I remember that communist kid with the Mao t-shirt burning a flag on the capital steps. no one attacked him?

  • mike

    HerrSkolly edicius4 • an hour ago

    Well, you are quite the conversation starter. Beware the Wiccan High Priestess. see more 3

    mike HerrSkolly • in a few seconds Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by Loonwatch.com.

    they don’t allow conversation starters here. see more 0

  • crackerMF

    dear craig,

    now that you’re used to all the shit you take from your co-religionists, you may as well accept reality and embrace atheism.

    signed,
    – real things

  • El Cid

    I have nothing against you, so far. You have done nothing to Islam, Muslims or to me. I understand locker room humor more than most. It rarely is hostile. That is man talk. No more.

    The passive aggressive personalities, racists, heretics at Loonwatch, their inherent hate for Muslims…their paranoid secrecy, covert insidious subtle disinformation against Islam, trailer trash behavior and language is shameful. There intent is not lost on even the casual visitor. Total low life, not Muslim.

    Some of them are loathsome creatures, indeed. Huddled together like rats. Except for their spokesperson there is nothing going for them. Dr.M and Tanveer are perhaps exceptions, the only Muslims there. The former Muslim, wholesome, committed and unafraid, the latter fledgling naive but with faith…both genuine, no doubt.

    Your asking questions about Islam, questioning Islam, is not offensive even though your ‘Adab’ etiquette could stand improvement…most people’s would. At least you are not a total hypocrite like them. I am not afraid or feel threatened by mortals. Being asked, genuine questing can be flattering if one is not careful and humble about it.

    The Saudi Arabian Monarchs are effectively eroding Islam’s Image in cahoots with the Hindoos, the Faranghi Crusader and his ZioNazi Overlord. They are demolishing, bulldozing the history and heritage of Muslims. Have demolished MuhammadPBUH’s home and bulldozed it into the ground. And many other sites of Islam and Muslim memoribila that had stood for 1400 years. The Saudi Kingdom is of the Kafireen. They have turned the Kaaba into the Temple of the Moon-god!

    Dropping a couple of nukes on Jeddah and Riyadh, one each ought to do it, and annexation of The Hijazh by the United Nations of Islam…is the need of the hour for Muslim Ummah.

    The verses you cite are not related to the aggressive War on Islam the Saudi are waging…united with the Crusader, Zionist and the Hindoo. They are related to education and benign instructions on Islamic thought to the neutral questioner, such as you.

    Islam’s ‘Rules of Engagement’ of defense when attacked are delineated elsewhere. Specifically in Surah 8 and 9.

    As usual you read a lot but understand so very little. That is how the study of any alien philosophy and ideology is in the beginning for most students. Was for me, still is. However, eventually, given your interest, curiosity and study some may indeed stick. One never knows…

  • nillalatte

    Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! Welcome to my world circa 1988. I can empathize more than you can ever imagine.

  • Marra Nathar

    Exactly. They believe emphatically that it has never changed. To say it has is blasphemy.

  • Marra Nathar

    Agreed Daniel.

    http://quran.com/5
    Pickthall SURAH 5:32

    For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.
    Followed immediately by Surah 5:33
    The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;

    So you see here that:
    a) “For THAT Cause” “That Cause” is found in the verse immediately above Surah 5: 32 is about Cain killing Abel. Nothing to do with Muslims.
    b) The verse that Muslims quote is decreed for the Children of Israel – not Muslims.
    c) They totally omit Surah 5:33 because they consider the West IS guilty of making war upon Allah and therefore our punishment is that we (every man, woman and child is guilty) be killed, crucified or hands and feet cut off or expelled. This is the verse which can be used to justify 9/11.
    d) They also consider that people in the West strive after corruption in the land with our drinking, pornography, eating pork, dress and sexual ethics or lack there of.
    So in fact using that Surah is a lie. It is meant to mollycoddle us into thinking Islam is a “Peaceful Religion”.
    It is not.
    After all Mohammed had 900 men and boys beheaded – in one day!! But it did the trick. The Meccans ended up surrendered peacefully.
    I do not understand where the author gets the idea that Mohammed was not behind all that is Islam. That Islam was hijacked. It was not.
    The Hadith explains it much better than the Koran.

  • mike

    rejoice. a sovereign nation upholds it’s laws. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33039815

  • MichaelElwood

    Mike wrote: “rejoice. a sovereign nation upholds it’s laws.”

    I don’t get it. Why would I rejoice that Saudi Arabia is punishing Raif Badawi for “insulting Islam”?

    First, Raif Badawi didn’t “insult Islam,” he criticized the Saudi clerics and their ridiculous interpretation of Islam:

    “Badawi was sentenced last May to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes. He had criticized Saudi Arabia’s powerful clerics on a liberal blog he founded. The blog has since been shut down. He was also ordered to pay a fine of 1m riyals or about $266,600.

    “Rights activists say Saudi authorities are using Badawi’s case as a warning to others who think to criticise the kingdom’s powerful religious establishment from which the ruling family partly derives its authority. . . .

    “Badawi has been held since mid-2012 after he founded the Free Saudi Liberals blog. He used it to criticise the kingdom’s influential clerics who follow a strict, conservative interpretation of Islam known as Wahhabism, which originated in Saudi Arabia.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/saudi-blogger-first-lashes-raif-badawi

    Criticizing Saudi clerics for their ridiculous interpretations of Islam is a common practice among Muslims around the world. Remember when you tried to prop up your ridiculous arguments with references to the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia (who I jokingly the Grand Pooh Bah of Saudi Arabia), and I ridiculed both him and you?

    Second, even if he did insult Islam, there is no punishment prescribed for that in Islam. The Quran says:

    “O you who believe, do not befriend those among the recipients of previous scripture who mock and ridicule your religion, nor shall you befriend the disbelievers. You shall reverence GOD, if you are really believers.” [Quran 5:57]

    Third, it’s hypocritical for people in the West to criticize Badawi’s punishment, when the West literally created Saudi Arabia (as a way to weaken the Ottoman Empire) and propped up the corrupt and tyrannical kingdom for years:

    “A figure central to 20th-century history of the Arabian peninsula was TE Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of Arabia, a quixotic army officer whose championing of Arab nationalism contributed to early British support for what became Saudi Arabia.

    “Lawrence’s was colonialism with a human face. To a credulous public, his experience conjured a romantic world of proud and ruthless Bedouin horsemen silhouetted against a burning sky; of Saladin, scimitars, keffiyehs, and desert hawks. But colonialism it was, all the same, as demonstrated when Britain turned the Arabian peninsula into a protectorate exactly 100 years ago, in a 1915 treaty with Ibn Saud, the founder of the Saudi dynasty.

    “Ibn Saud became king and absolute monarch in 1932. Britain maintained its interest and back-room clout. It was among the very first states to recognise the new country of Saudi Arabia, in 1926. The Saudis opened their first embassy in London in 1930.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/27/saudi-arabia-and-the-west-how-cosy-relationship-turned-toxic

    Lastly, as an atheist, shouldn’t you be rejoicing about a sovereign atheist nation like China upholding its laws?

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2014/11/china-targets-wild-imams-in-mass-public-sentencing/

  • mike

    “I don’t get it.” it was a reference to your up vote of ilisha’s comment. did you not see her previous comment about supporting a sovereign nation’s right to have whatever law they wished? it also goes to her comments on harry’s place about the UK wanting to pass some sort of law outlawing ‘extremist views’. and if you go back to loonwatches comments about the French law outlawing veils, it shows ilisha’s hypocrisy once again. sorry, maybe too complex to explain.

    that is kind of funny. I thought Mehdi’s picture kind of looked like omar sharif. he was in Lawrence of Arabia. yes, we have all seen the movie. lol. you are truly funny. I wasn’t alive in 1926 or 1962. how am I a hypocrite? nor am I british. but non-the-less, why isn’t the ‘perfect religion’ more clear about freedom of speech?

    as an atheists I only say there is no god. that is the end all and be all of atheism. there is no book of atheism. no rules of atheism. certainly no ‘divine writ’ of atheism. how many times do I have to say this? I didn’t open either of your links, but I assume the china one is about the uighurs? I support freedom of religion. as silly as any religion might be, I’m with greenmantle. you are allowed to be as stupid as you wish, as long as you do no harm to others. yet this man has been lashed. and now will continue to be lashed.

    herr skolly, you are an atheist. why don’t you rejoice in china’s laws?

    “Second, even if he did insult Islam, there is no punishment prescribed for that in Islam.” not according to the sunni madhabs. your fiqh is out of the mainstream. it is good to see it, but you should spend more time trying to convince your brothers and sisters in the ummah that you are right. so you are the arbitrator of what is islam?

  • MichaelElwood

    Mike wrote: “it shows ilisha’s hypocrisy once again. sorry, maybe too complex to explain.”

    It’s not too complex. It’s just silly argument on your part. Ilisha is right about the hypocrisy of the West. The West thinks it can dictate how others run their country, but they don’t think the converse should be true.

    Mike wrote: “but non-the-less, why isn’t the ‘perfect religion’ more clear about freedom of speech?”

    It couldn’t be any clearer. Why isn’t the great atheist alternative clearer about freedom of speech? Is it ethical to kill people who believe in “dangerous propositions”?

    Mike wrote: “as an atheists I only say there is no god. that is the end all and be all of atheism.”

    That’s what atheist apologists say to disassociate themselves from all the ridiculous things that they have advocated (often in the name of atheism) over the years. Disbelief in God is a metaphysical position, but it has ramifications for everything from ethics to politics. Do you believe in the separation of church and state? That’s a statement of political philosophy, not metaphysics (which you claim is the end all and be all of atheism). Do you believe that ethics should be based on secular rather than religious considerations? That’s a statement of ethics, not metaphysics (which you claim is the end all and be all of atheism). And so on and so forth. . .

    Mike wrote: “there is no book of atheism. no rules of atheism.”

    Whoop-dee-doo!

    Mike wrote: “certainly no ‘divine writ’ of atheism.”

    Again, whoop-dee-doo!

    Mike wrote: “how many times do I have to say this?”

    Until you figure out that as long as you try to associate me with what random Sunnis and Shia do and say, I’m gonna associate you with what random atheist do and say.

    Mike wrote: “as silly as any religion might be, I’m with greenmantle. you are allowed to be as stupid as you wish, as long as you do no harm to others.”

    And as stupid as I find atheism to be, I think atheists should be allowed to believe in stupid things as long as they do no harm to others. Unfortunately, atheists are harming people all over the world (like the example I mentioned in China).

    Mike wrote: “not according to the sunni madhabs.”

    Why would someone who isn’t Sunni care what Sunni madhabs say?

    Mike wrote: “your fiqh is out of the mainstream.”

    You don’t know how mainstream my fiqh is. We had this conversation before. Remember, the one about how many non-sectarian Muslims there were?

    Mike wrote: “it is good to see it, but you should spend more time trying to convince your brothers and sisters in the ummah that you are right.”

    And it’s good to see your Libertarian political philosophy (minus the racial profiling). But Libertarianism is not a mainstream political philosophy among atheists. There’s probably more Communist atheists in China alone than Libertarian atheists in the entire world. Perhaps your time would be better spent persuading other atheists of the validity of Libertarianism.

    Mike wrote: “so you are the arbitrator of what is islam?”

    No. Are you the arbiter of what is atheism?

  • mike

    “It’s not too complex. It’s just silly argument on your part. Ilisha is right about the hypocrisy of the West. The West thinks it can dictate how others run their country, but they don’t think the converse should be true.” so you don’t think the west should put forth values of free speech and freedom of religion?

    “Mike wrote: “but non-the-less, why isn’t the ‘perfect religion’ more clear about freedom of speech?”

    It couldn’t be any clearer. Why isn’t the great atheist alternative clearer about freedom of speech? Is it ethical to kill people who believe in “dangerous propositions”?” lol. clearly it is not clear. if it were clear you wouldn’t have 100s of millions of muslims who want to kill blasphemers. you wouldn’t have the OIC calling for an international blasphemy law, twice. again you speak of things that don’t exist. there is no ‘great atheist alternative’. there is no atheists doctrine, other than a disbelief in god.

    no it is not ethical to kill people who believe in dangerous propositions.

    “Mike wrote: “as an atheists I only say there is no god. that is the end all and be all of atheism.”

    That’s what atheist apologists say to disassociate themselves from all the ridiculous things that they have advocated (often in the name of atheism) over the years. Disbelief in God is a metaphysical position, but it has ramifications for everything from ethics to politics. Do you believe in the separation of church and state? That’s a statement of political philosophy, not metaphysics (which you claim is the end all and be all of atheism). Do you believe that ethics should be based on secular rather than religious considerations? That’s a statement of ethics, not metaphysics (which you claim is the end all and be all of atheism). And so on and so forth. . .” yes disbelief in god is a metaphysical position. yes, I believe in separation of religion and governance. yes I belief ethics should be based on secular considerations, not religious ones. yes I can hold a belief in secular ethics while at the same time not believing in god. I don’t follow what you are trying to say at all? I distance myself from the Chinese, not because they are atheist, but because they are fascists. my disbelief in god is just that. it is not ‘a way of life’. it is not a guiding force in my life or my politics. I support no law nor candidate based on it.

    “Mike wrote: “there is no book of atheism. no rules of atheism.”

    Whoop-dee-doo!” yes whoop-dee-doo. rejoice, that is a good thing.

    “Mike wrote: “certainly no ‘divine writ’ of atheism.”

    Again, whoop-dee-doo!” yes, double whoop-dee-doo. that is a great thing.

    “Mike wrote: “how many times do I have to say this?”

    Until you figure out that as long as you try to associate me with what random Sunnis and Shia do and say, I’m gonna associate you with what random atheist do and say.” so what is the ummah?

    “Mike wrote: “as silly as any religion might be, I’m with greenmantle. you are allowed to be as stupid as you wish, as long as you do no harm to others.”

    And as stupid as I find atheism to be, I think atheists should be allowed to believe in stupid things as long as they do no harm to others. Unfortunately, atheists are harming people all over the world (like the example I mentioned in China).” now we are getting somewhere. some common ground. so you are for freedom of consciousness. good to hear. and you don’t like the Chinese, me either.

    “Mike wrote: “not according to the sunni madhabs.”

    Why would someone who isn’t Sunni care what Sunni madhabs say?” because it affects the world. have you not heard of petro islam? just like you should care what the Chinese are doing, even though you aren’t atheist or Chinese (I assume)?

    “Mike wrote: “your fiqh is out of the mainstream.”

    You don’t know how mainstream my fiqh is. We had this conversation before. Remember, the one about how many non-sectarian Muslims there were?” I don’t recall the exact numbers. but non-sectarian muslims right? didn’t you have 67% as sunni? maybe 7% as shia.

    “Mike wrote: “it is good to see it, but you should spend more time trying to convince your brothers and sisters in the ummah that you are right.”

    And it’s good to see your Libertarian political philosophy (minus the racial profiling). But Libertarianism is not a mainstream political philosophy among atheists. There’s probably more Communist atheists in China alone than Libertarian atheists in the entire world. Perhaps your time would be better spent persuading other atheists of the validity of Libertarianism.” yeah, there are a shit ton of Chinese. tell me where a Chinese/communist atheist blog is and i’ll get right on it.

    “Mike wrote: “so you are the arbitrator of what is islam?”

    No. Are you the arbiter of what is atheism?” no. Daniel Webster is. or the oxford abridged is. the word means what the word means. I am not the redefiner of words like some. (I just make up words from time to time)

    a·the·ist

    ˈāTHēəst/

    noun

    noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists

    a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

  • MichaelElwood

    Mike wrote: “so you don’t think the west should put forth values of free speech and freedom of religion?”

    They can put forth those values if they want. Just don’t expect Muslims not to notice the hypocrisy of giving lip-service to those values while eroding the same values at home and abroad. For example, recently Pamela Geller has been portrayed as some kind of symbol of free speech and freedom of religion in America. However, this is the same dingbat who’s lawyer, David Yerushalmi, said:

    “The same way the post World War II German youth were taught by their German teachers and political leaders to despise the fascism of their fathers, with strict laws extant still today restricting even speech that casts doubt on the Holocaust, so too must the Muslim youth be taught from the cradle to reject the religion of their forebears.”

    This is also the same dingbat who’s friend, Geert Wilders, said:

    “I am fed up with Islam in the Netherlands: let’s put a stop to the influx of Muslim immigrants. I am fed up with the worshipping of Allah and Mohammed in the Netherlands: let’s put a stop to the building of mosques. I am fed up with the Koran in the Netherlands: let’s ban that fascist book.”

    Muslims aren’t supposed to notice this hypocrisy, eh? Muslims aren’t supposed to notice over a hundred years of propping up the tyrannical Saudi regime either (as I pointed out in my previous comment), eh?

    Mike wrote: “lol. clearly it is not clear. if it were clear you wouldn’t have 100s of millions of muslims who want to kill blasphemers. you wouldn’t have the OIC calling for an international blasphemy law, twice.”

    Either Islam teaches freedom of speech and freedom of religion, or it doesn’t. It doesn’t matter what 100s of millions (a number you just pulled from your a**, by the way) of Muslims believe. The validity of the proposition isn’t predicated on how many people believe it. I guess you’ve never heard of the ad populum fallacy, have you?

    Mike wrote: “again you speak of things that don’t exist. there is no ‘great atheist alternative’. there is no atheists doctrine, other than a disbelief in god.”

    Riiight, the amusing atheist subculture doesn’t exist! The t-shirts, the mugs, the billboards, the books, the conferences, the Reason Rally, the bizarre personality cults surrounding celebrity atheists, the evangelical atheists in the comments section of Muslim blogs, that’s just a figment of my imagination? LOL!

    Mike wrote: “no it is not ethical to kill people who believe in dangerous propositions.”

    But other atheists like Sam Harris think it’s ethical to kill people who believe in “dangerous propositions”. How is your understanding of atheism more valid than his?

    Mike wrote: “yes disbelief in god is a metaphysical position. yes, I believe in separation of religion and governance. yes I belief ethics should be based on secular considerations, not religious ones. yes I can hold a belief in secular ethics while at the same time not believing in god. I don’t follow what you are trying to say at all?”

    And it’s just a coincidence that many atheists believe those things too, right? Yet you expect me to believe that atheism is just a disbelief in God, and that atheists don’t peddle a boatload of other dogmas besides a disbelief in God (too many to enumerate here)? Still not following what I’m saying?

    Mike wrote: “I distance myself from the Chinese, not because they are atheist, but because they are fascists.

    They’re communists, not fascists.

    Mike wrote: “my disbelief in god is just that. it is not ‘a way of life’. it is not a guiding force in my life or my politics. I support no law nor candidate based on it.”

    But for other atheists it is a way of life and a guiding force in their life and politics. They do support laws and candidates based on it (see my comment about the atheist subculture). For someone who fancies himself so well-informed about the Muslim community, you seem oddly ill-informed about the atheist community.

    Mike wrote: “now we are getting somewhere. some common ground. so you are for freedom of consciousness. good to hear. and you don’t like the Chinese, me either.”

    I didn’t say or imply that I don’t like Chinese people.

    Mike wrote: “yeah, there are a shit ton of Chinese. tell me where a Chinese/communist atheist blog is and i’ll get right on it.”

    You don’t need my help finding a communist/atheist blog. You certainly have no trouble finding Muslim blogs. The reason why you don’t do it isn’t because you can’t find a communist/atheist blog, but because you don’t think it’s your responsibility to convince other atheists of validity of your idiosyncratic version of atheism. But, for some odd reason, you think it’s my responsibility to convince Sunni and Shia of my non-sectarian interpretation of Islam.

    Mike wrote: “no. Daniel Webster is. or the oxford abridged is. the word means what the word means.”

    No, Webster’s or Oxford isn’t the arbiter. There is no “book of atheism” or “divine writ of atheism,” remember?

    Mike wrote: “I am not the redefiner of words like some. (I just make up words from time to time)”

    Yes, you have been known to redefine words from time to time. Aren’t you the same dude who tried to argue that “many” Muslims didn’t find child marriage objectionable? And didn’t you continue to insist that that was true even after I showed you that your definition of “many” didn’t match the definition in the dictionary?

    I’m busy. So this will have to be my last comment on this.

  • mike

    many

    [men-ee] /ˈmɛn i/

    Spell Syllables

    Synonyms

    Examples

    Word Origin

    adjective, more, most.

    1. constituting or forming a large number; numerous:

    many people.

    2. noting each one of a large number (usually followed by a or an):

    For many a day it rained.noun

    3. a large or considerable number of persons or things:

    A good many of the beggars were blind.

    4. the many, the greater part of humankind. pronoun

    5. many persons or things:

    Many of the beggars were blind. Many were unable to attend.
    then didn’t we go through child marriages by country. I think Bangladesh was like 3. Yemeni is up there. Niger. millions of muslims are married off as children every years. that is many.
    of course there is no book of atheism. atheist by definition don’t submit to god or any prophets or any ‘sacred texts’. this horse is not just dead, but buried. the ‘new atheists’ have mech. whoop dee do. so what. greenmantle, do you follow the subculture of atheism? herr skolly? yes, I am horrible informed about the atheist community. I didn’t even know it existed. who are these candidates you speak of?
    patheos has atheist blogs. i’ll go tell them what they should think. I was on one once and they were a bunch of bleeding heart liberals. I said we should eliminate all welfare programs and I got blocked.
    the Chinese aren’t much of communists anymore thanks to dun zhu ping (however you spell his name). but they still are very much fascists.
    I’m going to go eat. i’ll be back to tackle the rest.

  • mike

    Pamela geller and her lawyer and the dutch guy can say whatever they want. at least in America. how is that eroding freedom of speech? if they want to advocate for the government to outlaw islam, then they are wrong. then they are hypocrites when it comes to the first amendment. but they have no power in America. they can no more eliminate the first amendment then I could eliminate the inheritance laws of the Koran.
    an atheist can peddle boatloads of whatever dogmas they want. herr skolly is probably a mid-western liberal with al sorts of dogmas that are different than mine. sir david may be a labour supporter in the UK and would be far left of me on most fiscal matters. and they both seem to want to bed over backwards not to insult islam.
    obviously not believing in god is going to lead to atheists being secular, what else could one be? ‘I don’t believe in god, but I believe we should impose god’s law’. that would make no sense. didn’t you say you are a secularist? if so then you and I share that view. many religious people in America are staunch supporters of separation of religion and governance.

  • Sumayya Betty Williamson

    From this reverted Muslim to you Sir, I think it’s wonderful… No where does it say that a person of another faith cannot know as much or more of the followers of the faith,,,,,,May Allah swt, Keep you safe and help you in your journey of unity….Ameen,,