Islam The Critical Stalemate re Violence in Islam

Status
Not open for further replies.

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Not all Salafis are Wahhabistst.

Wahhabism is a modern concept as you pointed out and is only a sect of Islam that is found within the Salafi movement. This is the sect of Islam that you have been indoctrinated into believing is true Islam having lived in Saudi Arabia for most of your life and what is being described in this thread and others like it by those who have gotten there education of Islam from extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists. Even within the Salafi movement Wahabbism is widely rejected.
Muhammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab started the Salafi reform movement, or rather inspired it. Muhammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab is highly respected in the Salafi movement. And its true Islam because it is based on two words Allah said, Mohammed said, nothing else. So it is true Islam.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Joyousperson
Upvote 0

JosephZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2017
2,992
2,859
Davao City
Visit site
✟226,464.00
Country
Philippines
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
You said he doesn’t have any expertise’s on Islam based on his bio I refuted you using his bio, what part of what I’m saying don’t you understand.
What part of "Bill Warner wrote that about himself, so he say whatever he wants" do you not understand? It's a fact that he has no academic background in Religious Studies, Islamic Studies, or History. He is a self proclaimed expert, not a real expert.

This is what a real expert has to say about Bill Warner: Dr. Jeffery Bale, Director of the Monterey Terrorism Research and Education Program says that Bill Warner is an Islam-Basher because he considers Islam and extremism to be one in the same and attributes all of the regressive, bellicose and other undeniably negative characteristics associated with extremism and its jihadist components to Islam in general. He also classifies Bill Warner as a ‘concerned’ conservative Christian with a theological as well as a political axe to grind, that Islam per se is the problem, not merely extremism and that he clearly is not a disinterested or neutral observer.

Let's now compare the bio of Dr. Bill Warner to that of Dr. Jeffrey Bale:

Dr. Bill Warner:

Bill Warner is the pen name of Bill French (born 1941, United States), a writer, critic of Islam, and the founder of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. He is a former Tennessee State University physics professor. Warner graduated from North Carolina State University where he got his PhD in Physics and Mathematics in 1968. After the September 11th Attacks, he decided to make Islamic texts more accessible to the public. He gained a knowledge of Islam by studying all the Islamic texts he considered relevant from the time he was 30 years old.

Dr. Jeffry Bale:

Jeff is the Director of the Monterey Terrorism Research and Education Program (MonTREP) and Associate Professor in the Graduate School of International Policy Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS). He obtained his B.A. in Middle Eastern, Islamic, and Central Asian history at the University of Michigan, his M.A. in social movements and political sociology at the University of California at Berkeley, and his Ph.D. in contemporary European history at Berkeley. He has taught at Berkeley, Columbia University, and the University of California at Irvine, and was the recipient of postdoctoral fellowships from the Society of Fellows in the Humanities at Columbia, the Office of Scholarly Programs at the Library of Congress, and the Center for German and European Studies at Berkeley. Dr. Bale has been studying extremist and terrorist groups for many years, has done archival research and interviewed extremists in several countries, and has published numerous articles on terrorism, right-wing extremism, Islamism, and covert operations. In addition to his teaching and research duties at MIIS, he also teaches courses on an adjunct basis at the Naval Postgraduate School and regularly consults for the U.S. government on matters related to political and religious extremism.

Which of these two men would you consider to be an expert on the history of Islam and Islamic extremism based on the information above?

I don’t care about interpretations of Islam.
I don’t care how many Muslims reject Orthodox Islamic interpretations of their religion or how many are liberal. i care about what the sources state and how they’ve been historically interpreted nothing else
In Salafism and Orthodox Sunnis Islam it’s Allah said and Mohammed said that’s the basis for interpretation among them, nothing else so why should I squander that to listen the nonsense your spewing.
You should care how Muslims interpret their religion because right now better than 90% of the world's Muslims reject the brand of Islam you are teaching and fewer than 1/10th of 1% of Muslims are actively participating in violent jihad.

This is something I really can't understand about people like yourself who are so adamant about Islam and so determined in their efforts to convince people, both Muslims and non-Muslims alike, that the Islamic extremists and terrorists are teaching true Islam.

Why do you want to legitimize the teachings of extremists and push the extremist narrative on non-Muslims and the more 90% of Muslims who reject this teaching?

Why do you post on multiple Christian and Islamic forums promoting the extremist narrative knowing that it will only lead to further division, confusion, and anger in the world? Why not be an agent of peace instead?

I can understand why people like Bill Warner, Robert Spencer, and David Wood do this. The anti-Islamic propaganda business is huge and these men are making quite a bit of money pushing this narrative, but what motivates you to do this? What do you have to gain?

Don't try to use the argument that you are trying to lead people away from the religion of Islam, because that's nonsense. More often than not telling someone they are wrong about what their religion is going to cause them to dig their heals in even deeper to defend it, and in rare cases even lead to violence.

As a Christian, I assume that you, like myself, want to see all Muslims come to Christ. Very few Muslims have left Islam because of someone debating with them or by trying to teach them that it's violent. I know about the ones on Youtube and elsewhere who make the claim that they left Islam for that reason or they left because Islam teaches hatred and violence, but just like the anti-Islamic propagandist, those "ex-Muslims" usually have a book for sale, are soliciting for donations, or are in someway connected to people like David Wood, Robert Spencer, or some other notorious anti-Islamic propagandist. It's all about the money to these people rather than the truth.

Below is a post I made in another thread that shares some information from various studies that show why Muslims leave Islam to become Christians. Muslims come to Christ because of Christ Himself and seeing Christ in us, not from criticizing their religion and arguing with them.

How many testimonies from former Muslims have you heard where they mention arguing or debating is what led them to Christ?

Fortunately there have been many studies on this subject, and they always come to the same conclusion. Muslims come to Christ because of Christ Himself and seeing Christ in others. Below is a sample of some of these studies.

A case study of 170 conversion narratives; mostly from Sudan; a case study of Palestinians and Bangladeshis; a paper examining the written testimonies of 173 Muslims worldwide who came to faith in Jesus Christ, and a study of 750 former Muslims, a study in Kenya of 17 urban ex-Muslims, These all confirm what all other studies have shown: the Living Christ and living Christians are the main keys to conversion.

Jean-Marie Gaudeul’s Study (1999)

Gaudeul published his findings of 170 publicly available conversion stories in a book named Called from Islam to Christ. He lists five main factors in conversion:
  • “Jesus is so attractive”
  • Jesus alone satisfies their “Thirst for Truth”
  • Christianity satisfies their longing for community as they felt like they were “without a family”
  • Christianity satifies an existential need for actual forgiveness
  • “a thirst for God” by which he means a thirst to encounter God in a personal way
Anthony (Ant) Greenham’s Study (2004)

Ant Greenham conducted research on Palestinian Muslim converts and then compared that data with conversions in Bangladesh. His research shows that among both men and women, the overwhelming factor that they cited in their coming to faith in Christ was the person of Jesus. He states, that “the person of Jesus is always central.”
  • The person of Jesus,
  • the truth of Jesus’ message,
  • God’s honor,
  • the lives of believers,
  • reading the Bible,
  • God’s miraculous action.
Bruce L. Bronoske's Study (2005):

In 2005 Bronoske studied conversion narratives of 173 people throughout the world and compiled the data in his study entitled “A Comparative Study Of The Self-Revelation Of Jesus Found In The Canonical New Testament And The Jesus of The Qur'an, And The Effect A Muslim Seeker's Understanding Of Jesus Has Upon Their Decision To Convert To Christianity." [Northwest Graduate School Of The Ministry, D.Min]

92% of converts from Islam cited the Biblical Jesus as the focal point of their conversion.

...these Muslims gave their devotion was as Bronoske stated, “was the New Testament understanding of Jesus Christ. That is, Jesus Christ as He was revealed within the text of the canonical New Testament”. This Jesus had been introduced to them primarily through a "familiar voice" namely through a “friend, a family member, or a trusted acquaintance”

Bronoske summarized his work by citing a quote from Francis Schaeffer, namely that if he had only one hour to share the gospel with a person, he would spend the first forty-five minutes finding out what the person believed about God and the last fifteen minutes presenting Christ from that basis.


J. Dudley Woodberry, Russell G. Shubin, and G. Marks study (2007):

In 2007 an article which summarized 750 interviews with former Muslims was featured in Christianity Today under the title: “Why Muslims Follow Jesus?: The results of a recent survey of converts from Islam.” The study, done between 1991 and 2007, surveyed people from 30 countries and 50 ethnic groups. The researchers ranked the order of influences stated by their correspondents on their conversions:
  • the lifestyle of Christians
  • the power of God in answered prayers and healing
  • dissatisfaction with the type of Islam they had experienced
  • spiritual truth in the Bible
  • love expressed through the life and teachings of Jesus.

Reinhold Strahler's Study (2009):

In Nairobi, Kenya, Reinhold Strahler conducted extensive interviews with 17 urban former Muslims who had come to faith. Like Bronoske he found strong evidences for the “familiar voice” as being decisive in the conversion stories. Similarly the life of Christians and the Bible figures strongly in the findings.

Significant factors in all conversion processes, sorted by frequency

  • personal witness by Christians
  • attractive lifestyle of Christians
  • love / friendship shown by Christians
  • reading Bible
  • dissatisfaction with practice of Islam
  • evangelistic meetings
  • answered prayer
In a nutshell these Muslim converts encountered the living Jesus, the living Word of God, and living Christians.

Source: Why Do Muslims Come to Christ? Five Case Studies

While online arguments and debates may seem like an effective way of witnessing to Muslims, in the real world, that's not the reality.
As personal witnesses to Jesus Christ and the gospel, living our lives in a Christlike manor and treating others with a Christlike attitude is of upmost importance.

“For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps” (1 Peter 2:21)

My age has nothing to do with it, we go by facts and source here not our personal lives as a weight for our arguments.
If you are 18 years old, spent most of your life in Saudi Arabia, and was educated under their system, then your age and the environment you were brought up in has a lot to do with it. Based on the information you have provided about yourself, you would have a very narrow point of view when it comes to Islam. Since you're only 18 years old, just out of high school with no level of higher education and a limited amount of real world experience outside of Saudi Arabia, it only makes sense that you would have such a negative view of Islam.
 
Upvote 0

JosephZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2017
2,992
2,859
Davao City
Visit site
✟226,464.00
Country
Philippines
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Muhammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab started the Salafi reform movement, or rather inspired it. Muhammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab is highly respected in the Salafi movement. And its true Islam because it is based on two words Allah said, Mohammed said, nothing else. So it is true Islam.
Salafis make up less than 10% of the world's Muslims, so what if they respect Wahhab? Just because you have been taught in Saudi Arabia that Salafism is true Islam doesn't mean that it is. Let me ask you this, do you follow a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible?
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What part of "Bill Warner wrote that about himself, so he say whatever he wants" do you not understand? It's a fact that he has no academic background in Religious Studies, Islamic Studies, or History. He is a self proclaimed expert, not a real expert.

This is what a real expert has to say about Bill Warner: Dr. Jeffery Bale, Director of the Monterey Terrorism Research and Education Program says that Bill Warner is an Islam-Basher because he considers Islam and extremism to be one in the same and attributes all of the regressive, bellicose and other undeniably negative characteristics associated with extremism and its jihadist components to Islam in general. He also classifies Bill Warner as a ‘concerned’ conservative Christian with a theological as well as a political axe to grind, that Islam per se is the problem, not merely extremism and that he clearly is not a disinterested or neutral observer.

Let's now compare the bio of Dr. Bill Warner to that of Dr. Jeffrey Bale:

Dr. Bill Warner:

Bill Warner is the pen name of Bill French (born 1941, United States), a writer, critic of Islam, and the founder of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. He is a former Tennessee State University physics professor. Warner graduated from North Carolina State University where he got his PhD in Physics and Mathematics in 1968. After the September 11th Attacks, he decided to make Islamic texts more accessible to the public. He gained a knowledge of Islam by studying all the Islamic texts he considered relevant from the time he was 30 years old.

Dr. Jeffry Bale:

Jeff is the Director of the Monterey Terrorism Research and Education Program (MonTREP) and Associate Professor in the Graduate School of International Policy Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS). He obtained his B.A. in Middle Eastern, Islamic, and Central Asian history at the University of Michigan, his M.A. in social movements and political sociology at the University of California at Berkeley, and his Ph.D. in contemporary European history at Berkeley. He has taught at Berkeley, Columbia University, and the University of California at Irvine, and was the recipient of postdoctoral fellowships from the Society of Fellows in the Humanities at Columbia, the Office of Scholarly Programs at the Library of Congress, and the Center for German and European Studies at Berkeley. Dr. Bale has been studying extremist and terrorist groups for many years, has done archival research and interviewed extremists in several countries, and has published numerous articles on terrorism, right-wing extremism, Islamism, and covert operations. In addition to his teaching and research duties at MIIS, he also teaches courses on an adjunct basis at the Naval Postgraduate School and regularly consults for the U.S. government on matters related to political and religious extremism.

Which of these two men would you consider to be an expert on the history of Islam and Islamic extremism based on the information above?


You should care how Muslims interpret their religion because right now better than 90% of the world's Muslims reject the brand of Islam you are teaching and fewer than 1/10th of 1% of Muslims are actively participating in violent jihad.

This is something I really can't understand about people like yourself who are so adamant about Islam and so determined in their efforts to convince people, both Muslims and non-Muslims alike, that the Islamic extremists and terrorists are teaching true Islam.

Why do you want to legitimize the teachings of extremists and push the extremist narrative on non-Muslims and the more 90% of Muslims who reject this teaching?

Why do you post on multiple Christian and Islamic forums promoting the extremist narrative knowing that it will only lead to further division, confusion, and anger in the world? Why not be an agent of peace instead?

I can understand why people like Bill Warner, Robert Spencer, and David Wood do this. The anti-Islamic propaganda business is huge and these men are making quite a bit of money pushing this narrative, but what motivates you to do this? What do you have to gain?

Don't try to use the argument that you are trying to lead people away from the religion of Islam, because that's nonsense. More often than not telling someone they are wrong about what their religion is going to cause them to dig their heals in even deeper to defend it, and in rare cases even lead to violence.

As a Christian, I assume that you, like myself, want to see all Muslims come to Christ. Very few Muslims have left Islam because of someone debating with them or by trying to teach them that it's violent. I know about the ones on Youtube and elsewhere who make the claim that they left Islam for that reason or they left because Islam teaches hatred and violence, but just like the anti-Islamic propagandist, those "ex-Muslims" usually have a book for sale, are soliciting for donations, or are in someway connected to people like David Wood, Robert Spencer, or some other notorious anti-Islamic propagandist. It's all about the money to these people rather than the truth.

Below is a post I made in another thread that shares some information from various studies that show why Muslims leave Islam to become Christians. Muslims come to Christ because of Christ Himself and seeing Christ in us, not from criticizing their religion and arguing with them.


As personal witnesses to Jesus Christ and the gospel, living our lives in a Christlike manor and treating others with a Christlike attitude is of upmost importance.

“For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps” (1 Peter 2:21)


If you are 18 years old, spent most of your life in Saudi Arabia, and was educated under their system, then your age and the environment you were brought up in has a lot to do with it. Based on the information you have provided about yourself, you would have a very narrow point of view when it comes to Islam. Since you're only 18 years old, just out of high school with no level of higher education and a limited amount of real world experience outside of Saudi Arabia, it only makes sense that you would have such a negative view of Islam.
Then read what I say, I make an argument of sources not one of authority, unlike you, your making an argument of credentials. I’m asking you to find me faults in Bill Warner’s case against Islam not Jeffery Bale, because I personally whose read quite enough history in the matter can confirm his claims. By the way Jeffery Bale if this is the same Jeffery Bale wrote an article where he does state that Orthodox Islam encourages violence in certain ways:

“Hence it is all too easy, and not at all unorthodox or heretical, for jihadists to insist that they are enjoined by the Qur'an itself to kill, subjugate, and enslave the enemies of Islam, irrespective of what Islam apologists or Islamist apologists may claim.”

No I really don’t care because adherents of a religion aren’t the religion itself or it’s teachings, so understand this before posting more nonsense because I’ll keep pounding this back to you unless you start responding with actual arguments. If you can’t understand me, then I don’t really care, if you don’t udnertand the Islamic sources then you really aren’t in a position to reply back to my comments with wild claims.

Criticizing Islam also comes with a huge price even in the West, your censored, called out for being a bigot and receive threats. I really doubt all the supposed money Robert Spencer, David Wood, and Bill Warner make is really worth it, also can you give me statistics of the money they make out of your view of being anti Muslim.

I believe I previously asked you which forums I posted in and which Muslims refuted me, you still have not answered my question. I’m portraying the sources of Islam as they are and as they were historically interpreted, I didn’t know Ibn Kathir was an extremist.

I lead people away from Islam by refuting it’s theological doctrines and its skeptical history. I’m refuting you now for spreading false information of Islam being completely peaceful like Christianity is when it clearly isn’t. We as Christians are called to refute false doctrine wherever it is whether Islam, Judaism, Bhuddism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and etc. Christ refuted false doctrine himself when he saw it being taught and so did the Apostles and there successors.

My age is of no concern to you and it definitely doesn’t concern this argument, based on what your saying and your poor arguments, you obviously have no expertise in Islam or it’s sources, have doubts you’ve ever read any of the thousands of Hadith or the works of classical Islamic commentators such as Ibn Kathir.
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Salafis make up less than 10% of the world's Muslims, so what if they respect Wahhab? Just because you have been taught in Saudi Arabia that Salafism is true Islam doesn't mean that it is. Let me ask you this, do you follow a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible?
Doesn’t matter how many Muslims they make up, my claim is not the majority of Muslims are violent, it’s that Orthodox Islam is violent. Salafism is true because it’s all based around the lauthenticated” sources of Islam Quran and Sunnah, read that before posting the nonsense that it doesn’t represent Islam again. I try my best to be strict in following the Bible, of course me like most people fail a lot, I don’t take everything literally word for word in the Bible, I identify when it uses literary devices when it does and when it doesn’t I interpret it normally, my interpretation is also based on how the Church historically interpreted the Biblical text based on Apostolic authority, just like how Salafi Muslims would interpret the Quran using the Sunnah of Mohammed only you don’t see me expressing views similar to a Orthodox Salafi Muslims, I wonder why, is it the people or the sources?
 
Upvote 0

JosephZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2017
2,992
2,859
Davao City
Visit site
✟226,464.00
Country
Philippines
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
By the way Jeffery Bale if this is the same Jeffery Bale wrote an article where he does state that Orthodox Islam encourages violence in certain ways:

“Hence it is all too easy, and not at all unorthodox or heretical, for jihadists to insist that they are enjoined by the Qur'an itself to kill, subjugate, and enslave the enemies of Islam, irrespective of what Islam apologists or Islamist apologists may claim.”
That's the same Dr. Bale and that quote can be found at the link I provided. You should read the entire article, you might learn something from it.

Criticizing Islam also comes with a huge price even in the West, your censored, called out for being a bigot and receive threats. I really doubt all the supposed money Robert Spencer, David Wood, and Bill Warner make is really worth it, also can you give me statistics of the money they make out of your view of being anti Muslim.
I couldn't find numbers for those individuals, but this article does mention Bill Warner. Anti-Muslim crusaders make millions spreading fear

I believe I previously asked you which forums I posted in and which Muslims refuted me, you still have not answered my question.
I'm not going to link to or promote Islamic forums an a Christian forum.

I’m portraying the sources of Islam as they are and as they were historically interpreted, I didn’t know Ibn Kathir was an extremist.
Ibn Kathir isn't an extremist, but since you brought his name again, let's revisit some things you said earlier in this thread.

Here you say Muhammad broke the treaty in Surah 9.
As for Surah 9, Mohammed himself broke the treaty of Hudaybiya when tribes allied to him attacked tribes allied to the Quraish and not to mention he refused to return captive women to the Quraish despite being bound by the treaty to return all captives to them:
Here you say Ibn Kathir is regarded as the best complied of Tafsir in Sunni Islam.
I can quote a number of classical Muslim jurists to support my position in the matter as I’m currently doing with Ibn Kathir whose regarded as the best complied of Tafsir in Sunni Islam.
Here is what Ibn Kathir has to say about who was responsible for breaking the treaty:

The Messenger of Allah and the Muslims preserved the terms of the treaty with the people of Makkah from the month of Dhul-Qa`dah in the sixth year of Hijrah, until the Quraysh broke it and helped their allies, Banu Bakr, against Khuza`ah, the allies of Allah's Messenger. Aided by the Quraysh, Banu Bakr killed some of Bani Khuza`ah in the Sacred Area! The Messenger of Allah led an invasion army in the month of Ramadan, of the eighth year, and Allah opened the Sacred Area for him to rule over them, all thanks are due to Allah. The Messenger of Allah freed the Quraysh who embraced Islam after they were overpowered and defeated. These numbered around two thousands, and they were refered to by the name `Tulaqa' afterwards. Those among them who remained in disbelief and ran away from Allah's Messenger were sent promises of safe refuge for four months, during which they were allowed to move about freely. They included Safwan bin Umayyah, `Ikrimah bin Abi Jahl and many others. Allah later on guided them to Islam, and they became excellent believers. Surely, Allah is worthy of all praise for all His actions and decrees.

More importantly the Qur'an also confirms that the treaty was broken by the Quraysh and others.

1. A declaration of immunity from God and His Messenger to the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty.

4. Except for those among the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty, and did not violate any of its terms, nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill the treaty with them to the end of its term. God loves the righteous.


Since verse 4 says "Except for those among the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty, and did not violate any of its terms, nor aided anyone against you," then this automatically tells us that some, but not all, of the polytheists have already broken their treaties.

7. How can there be a treaty with the polytheists on the part of God and His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? As long as they are upright with you, be upright with them. God loves the pious.

8. How? Whenever they overcome you, they respect neither kinship nor treaty with you. They satisfy you with lip service, but their hearts refuse, and most of them are immoral.

10. Towards a believer they respect neither kinship nor treaty. These are the transgressors.


In the above verses we again see a distinction between polytheists, Those who upheld their treaties (Verse 7) and those who didn't respect their treaties (Verses 8 & 9). Those who didn't keep their treaties are the transgressors.

13. Will you not fight a people who violated their oaths, and planned to exile the Messenger, and initiated hostilities against you? Do you fear them? It is God you should fear, if you are believers.

The above question wouldn't have been asked had there not been polytheists who had already broken their treaty.

So it’s pretty obvious already that Mohammed broke the treaties he made, not to mention the slaughter of Banu Qurayzah in where I can’t find any logical reason to justify it.
Are you sure about that? The Qur'an and "the best complied of Tafsir in Sunni Islam" disagree with you.

As for Surah 9, Mohammed himself broke the treaty of Hudaybiya when tribes allied to him attacked tribes allied to the Quraish
The Quraysh broke it and helped their allies, Banu Bakr, against Khuza`ah, the allies of Allah's Messenger. Aided by the Quraysh, Banu Bakr killed some of Bani Khuza`ah in the Sacred Area! -- Ibn Kathir
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JosephZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2017
2,992
2,859
Davao City
Visit site
✟226,464.00
Country
Philippines
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Salafism is true because it’s all based around the lauthenticated” sources of Islam Quran and Sunnah, read that before posting the nonsense that it doesn’t represent Islam again.
If Salafism represents Islam, why is it rejected by more than 90% of the world's Muslims today and has been rejected historically? It's never been accepted as true Islam outside of those who follow it. If you believe Salafism is true Islam, then you would have to accept that the Independent Fundamental Baptist Church is the true Church since they claim to follow a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible.

The only reason you believe Salafism is true Islam is because by living in Saudi Arabia you have been taught that their form of Islam is the real true form of Islam and that any other way of practicing Islam is wrong. The religion taught to you is only practiced within the Arabian Peninsula and a handful of other countries where Saudi Arabia either spread it by political/economic means, or through the spread of extremist networks.

We as Christians are called to refute false doctrine wherever it is whether Islam, Judaism, Bhuddism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and etc.
Can you provide some scriptural support for where we are called to confront non-Christians and refute their religion?

Christ refuted false doctrine himself when he saw it being taught and so did the Apostles and there successors.
Who was Jesus talking to when he was refuting false doctrine? Jesus was a Jew and refuting other Jews right? In the gospels we find where Jesus interacted with Romans, Canaanites, and Samaritans; yet he never once rebuked them, argued or debated with them.

Same question for Paul and the others, who were their audiences when any kind of refuting was taking place? Those within the Church right? Paul's sermon at Mars Hill was to pagans, but even then he didn't use your approach. He instead quotes their own poets and didn't make any charges against their religion. He found a common ground between the two and went from there.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
48
Beijing
✟48,243.00
Country
China
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
Here is 100% proof that you, Bill Warner, David Wood, Robert Spencer, ISIS, and all the rest of the Anti-Islamic propagandists and Islamic extremist out there are wrong.

They are wrong because they do not differentiate between the religion of Islam and extremism. What you and the anti-Islamic propagandist are criticizing is not the religion of Islam that almost every Muslim in the world follows; what you and the anti-Islamic propagandist are criticizing is an extremist sect of Islam that is rejected by the vast majority of Muslims in the world. It's not the religion of Islam that Islamic terrorist follow, its an extremist interpretation of Islam.

Below are some excerpts from a Report from the Center for Religious Freedom. As you read these excerpts you will notice that it describes the type of teaching that you are criticizing to the letter.

All Saudis must be Muslim, and the Saudi government, in collaboration with the country’s religious establishment, enforces and imposes Wahhabism as the official state doctrine.

The Wahhabism that the Saudi monarchy enforces, and on which it bases its legitimacy, is shown in these documents as a fanatically bigoted, xenophobic and sometimes violent ideology. These publications articulate its wrathful dogma, rejecting the coexistence of different religions and explicitly condemning Christians, Jews, all other non-Muslims, as well as non-Wahhabi Muslims. The various Saudi publications gathered for this study state that it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews and warn against imitating, befriending, or helping such “infidels” in any way, or taking part in their festivities and celebrations. They instill contempt for America because the United States is ruled by legislated civil law rather than by totalitarian
Wahhabi-style Islamic law.


Wahhabism began only 250 years ago with the movement created by fanatical preacher Muhammad Ibn Abd alWahhab. Once a fringe sect in a remote part of the Arabian peninsula, Wahhabi extremism has been given global reach through Saudi government sponsorship and money, particularly over the past quarter century as it has competed with Iran in spreading its version of the faith. With its vast oil wealth and its position as guardian of Islam’s two holiest sites, Saudi Arabia now claims to be the leading power within Islam and the protector of the faith, a belief stated in the Saudi Basic Law. Saudi Foreign Policy Adviser Adel al-Jubeir publicly states that “the role of Saudi Arabia in the Muslim world is similar to the role of the Vatican.” Even as the Saudi state asserts that it strives to keep the faith “pure” and free of innovation, it invents a new role for itself as the only legitimate authority on Islam.

Within worldwide Sunni Islam, followers of Wahhabism and other hardline or salafist (literally translated as venerable predecessors) movements are a distinct minority.

Saudi state curriculum for many years has taught children to hate “the other” and support jihad, a malleable term that is used by terrorists to describe and justify their atrocities... Recent converts with limited experience of Islam can be particularly susceptible to the Saudi publications’ toxic message... The spread of Islamic extremism, such as Wahhabism, is the most serious ideological challenge of our times. Wahhabi extremism is more than hate speech; it is a totalitarian ideology of
hatred that can incite to violence.


Religion is the foundation of the Saudi state’s political ideology, and religion is an important part of Saudi education. Saudi Arabia defines itself as an Islamic state, and has established Wahhabism as the official state doctrine. Saudi Wahhabism is an extreme interpretation of Islam based on a dualistic worldview in which the true “monotheists” are obliged until judgment day to “fight” “polytheists,” and “idolators,” including Christians, Jews, Shiites and insufficiently devout Sunni Muslims.

Adherents of Wahhabism constitute a small minority within world Islam [Fewer than 5%], yet, Saudi Arabia is trying to assert itself as the world’s authoritative voice on Islam. Its conquest of the Hejaz in 1924 gave it control of Islam’s two holiest sites and the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca that is one of the five pillars of Islam. This role, along with its vast oil wealth, has been used by Saudi Arabia to lay claim to being the leading power within all of Islam and the protector of the faith, a claim emphasized in the Saudi Basic Law.

Saudi state textbooks propound a belief that Christians and Jews and other unbelievers have united in a war against Islam that will ultimately end in the complete destruction of such infidels. Like the statements of Osama bin Laden, they advance the belief that the Crusades never ended and continue today in various forms.

Some of the most disturbing examples include the following (See Appendix A for text excerpts.) Regarding Sunni, Shiite, Sufi and other non-Wahhabi or non-Salafi Muslims, the textbooks:

• Denounce Muslims who do not interpret the Qur’an literally.
• Muslims to hate Christians, Jews, polytheists and other unbelievers.
Christians are considered infidels who must be fought unless they have a protection contract with Muslims
• Jews and the Christian are enemies of the Muslim believers and the clash between the two realms continues until the Day of Resurrection.
• The spread of Islam through jihad is a religious obligation.
• The struggle between Muslims and Jews will continue until the hour of judgment and that Muslims will triumph because they are right and he who is right is always victorious.
• Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot be loyal to those who oppose God and His Prophet, even if they are his closest relatives.
• It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and His Prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam.
• A Muslim, even if he lives far away, is your brother in religion. Someone who opposes God, even if he is your brother by family tie, is your enemy.

https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/inline_images/Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques.pdf
https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Tier1_SAUDI ARABIA.pdf

Since the above perfectly describes what what you have been posting here on this forum, then this tells you that what you are talking about is Wahhabism and it's teachings rather than the religion of Islam. This perverted sect of Islam is also what the anti-Islamic propagandists like Bill Warner, David Wood, Robert Spencer and the others are trying to convince their followers of as being the religion of Islam. Dr. Bale, one of your sources from another thread, has described these individuals perfectly: ‘Islam bashing’ nowadays normally takes the form of conflating Islam, one of the world’s most historically important and influential religions, with Islamism [Extremism]... or, to be more precise, ‘Islam bashers’ tend to attribute all of the regressive, bellicose and other undeniably negative characteristics associated with Islamism and its jihadist components to Islam in general... What the ‘Islam bashers’ fail to acknowledge is that these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations... they are clearly not disinterested or neutral observers.
Your above point reflect very low intellectual capacity.

Prove to me the majority of points above you attribute to the so-called Wahabbism above are not in accordance to the Quran and Ahadith, i.e. the sole authority of Islam?

The critical point we need to start with is to establish the core authority of "what is Islam" which is the Quran and other supported texts.
Therefore the sole source of determining 'What is Islam' and 'Who is a Muslim' must be from the Quran supported by the Ahadith.

The question of Islamism, extreme Islam, moderate Islam, the need to differentiate them and the names of the school, e.g. Wahabbism, Salafism, Shia, Sunni is not critical in this case.
What is critical is how much the doctrine and ideology adopted by any Muslim conform to the tennets in the Quran, i.e. Allah's words. This is a very objective approach.

The point is the ideology of Wahabbism, salafism comply with >90% [appx.] of the tenets of what is the Quran while the moderate Muslims adopted <60% of the doctrines in the Quran.
Therefore Wahabbism or salafism is 90% Islamic within Allah's expectations while the Islam adopted by the moderates is >60% Islamic.
Prove i am wrong in the above claims.

The critiques like myself, Warner, Wood, Spencer and others are merely attempting to define 'what is Islam proper' objectively and we have not failed to provide references from the authority and sources of Islam-per se.
Show proofs why they are wrong.


What Ali Sina is doing is following a strict and literal interpretation of the Qur'an and not putting it into historical and textual context. What he and other extremist teachers are doing is ignoring the fact that the Muslims that were being spoken to in the Qur'an lived in a different culture, at a different point in time, and were facing unique situations.
As I have mentioned before, the verses in the Qur'an address specific audiences, during a specific point in time, and under specific circumstances. It can be read as if every single verse is addressed to a Muslim living in 2019.
Ali Sina [ex Muslim] is another critique of Islam who had established the truer Islam in accordance to the Quran and Ahadith. Show me where he is wrong on this.
The only reservation I have with Ali Sina is he did not differentiate Muslims from the ideology of Islam, perhaps due to bad personal experiences with certain Muslims.

Nope. i have already argued strongly the Quran cannot be strictly historical.
Allah never mentioned in the Quran, verses like 9:5 and related verses are meant to be historical. To interpret verses as historical, it needed human efforts which is sinful.

Btw, note the STALEMATE DILEMMA where no human can judge which verse is to be historical and which is not to be historical.

Below is an example of what kind of teaching will result if you follow a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible.


This sect of Christianity believes in the death penalty for things like Homosexuality and Adultery among other sins and they want to see it carried out in every case without exception. They believe that only those who belong to their church are Christians, all other denominations are heretics and damned to hell. Here is an example from a missionaries bio from this sect that shows this: Previously, Richard had met Jenefer, and gave her the gospel. She was a Pentecostal, but eventually got saved and left the Pentecostal church, got baptized and into a Baptist church. They also teach that being friends with people outside of their church is forbidden, women are to be submissive to their husbands under all circumstances, and women are not allowed to speak a single word within the church.

Now if you interpret the Bible literally and without putting things into textual and historical context, you can come to the conclusions like in the examples above. If you watch a complete sermon from one of these churches they read scripture straight from the Bible and it sounds like this is exactly what the Bible teaches. If one of these churches was the first one that a non-Christian with little understanding of the Christian faith walked into, they would easily be convinced that what the pastor preaching from the pulpit is teaching true Christianity.
I have already argued, in the Who is a Christian thread, whatever is literal and "grey" is overridden by the overriding pacifist maxims of 'love all - even enemies' in the Gospels.
Any Christian who acted beyond this maxim therefore cannot be acting as per Christianity itself, but rather in their own personal capacity and free will, thus subject to God's judgment.
Do think the Christian God will be very please and will highly reward those Christians who had killed non-Christian against the overriding maxim??

The above concept also works in relation to Islam. An Islamic extremists can easily convince a naive recruit with little or no understanding of the religion of Islam that what they are teaching is true Islam. This same principle also comes into play with anti-Islamic propagandist like David Wood and Bill Warner who are exploiting the west's ignorance of Islam.
I have already argued 'Who is a Muslim' is one who must comply 100% with the tenets in the Quran [with Ahadith].
When a Muslim kill non-Muslims under certain conditions of threat [fasadin] they are supported by verses [e.g. 5:32-33, etc.] in the Quran without any limit.

When those Muslims who had killed non-Muslims upon the verses where God sanction such killings of non-Muslims, Allah will definitely praise them and reward them highly as promised via the verses in the Quran. They are the muttagins who practice taqwa thus they are Muslims of the highest grades in accordance to Islam based on what is stipulated in the Quran, the core and final authority of Islam.
Prove me wrong on this??

I'm not one to make allegations against others without merit. Had I never read a single article or report from an outside source about David Wood, Bill Warner, etc; based on my personal knowledge of Islam and more than three decades of interacting with Muslims in different parts of the world I know for certain that what they are saying is in error. I have tried to show where they are in error in my discussion with you, but it's up to you which side you choose to believe.
Show me proofs where David Wood, Warners, and other critiques are wrong in extracting references [major] from the Quran and Ahadith to support their arguments??
You have not done this but merely repeating baseless accusations.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
48
Beijing
✟48,243.00
Country
China
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
There is no support for your claim that earning salvation is what motivates suicide terrorists.

Instead of religion, what over 95 percent of all suicide terrorist attacks since 1980, all around the world have in common is a specific strategic goal, to compel modern democracies to withdraw combat forces from territory the terrorists prize greatly.

What we've seen is that some of these terrorist organizations have become very innovative in digging deep in Islamic histories to find traditions, perhaps archaic traditions, to justify the killing of civilians, to justify Muslims killing Muslims, and to justify killing yourself, as an Islamic, you're strictly prohibited from suicide.

The Motivations of Suicide Bombers

The evidence from the database largely discredits the common wisdom that the personality of suicide bombers and their religion are the principal cause. It shows that though religion can play a vital role in recruiting and motivating potential future suicide bombers, the driving force is not religion but a cocktail of motivations including politics, humiliation, revenge, retaliation and altruism.
What Motivates the Suicide Bombers? | YaleGlobal Online

Eli Berman, Radical, Religious, and Violent 9-13, 212 (2009) (relying upon Israeli study of Muslim suicide bombers, among other evidence, to demonstrate that“religious terrorists, even suicide bombers [are] not particularly motivated by heavenly rewards”)

Study after study have come to the same conclusions.
On the surface of it, suicide bombing and the sacrifice of one's lives are generally for political reasons. Note the Kami-Kazi bombers of the Japanese Army in WW II.
However there is a deeper root cause below the conscious mind, i.e. the subliminal impulses that motivate suicide bombers and other evil acts.

Note this from your point above;

It shows that though religion can play a vital role in recruiting and motivating potential future suicide bombers,

the driving force is not religion but a cocktail of motivations including politics, humiliation, revenge, retaliation and altruism.

The researchers above got it wrong.
The point is where there are any religious elements involved, e.g. Muslims of Islam, the driving force is religion as catalyzed by the evil and violent elements within the ideology of that religion.

The underlying impulse is the existential crisis which is common in ALL [religious and non-religious] suicide bombings. But this deadly existential crisis is catalyzed by the evil and violent elements within the ideology of the religion, in this case, Islam.
There is direct correlation between the existential crisis and salvation as the root cause of evil and violent acts by SOME evil prone Muslims [20% of pool of 320 millions].

Note the element of salvation and its threat is represented by >30% of the verses in the Quran. So how can you deny salvation do not play a role in any acts [good or evil] of Muslims.

Note I quoted from IS direct sources, the PRIMARY reasons why IS killed non-Muslims is because they are disbelievers, thus a threat to the religion [as supported by verses in the Quran], the other reasons, i.e. political, etc. are SECONDARY reasons.


That quote from Bilal Philips is from 2006. The video below should start around the 15:50 mark where he starts leading up to where he is talking about suicide bombing which comes about a minute later. You may have to adjust it a bit because for some reason it starts at a different point each time I click on it. It may just be a problem on my end though.


The material from the course I took in contemporary issues dates back to 2002, so his position on suicide bombing seems to be consistent.
In the above, Bilal Philips acknowledged general suicide bombing is not permitted in Quran but he defended the sacrificing of one lives by Muslims for the cause of Allah as halal and not haram.

Btw, in the video, Bilal Philips quoted 5:32 and mentioned [trying to be deceptive] the exception as 'upon retaliations' which is misleading. The exception is 'fasadin' which is any threat [very vague] against Islam, thus even drawing of cartoons is a threat.

It is very likely you have been deceived and brainwashed by Bilal Philips to serve his purpose.


The very first course I took in Islamic Studies in 1986 was offered by the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary. The online course that I have recommended to you is also offered from a Christian source.

I have taken courses from Christian, Islamic, and secular schools of thought over the past three decades and they all teach pretty much the same thing about Islam. So your assertion that I have been brainwashed and that I'm doing the biddings for Bilal Philips is misguided. I would never intentionally deceive or mislead anyone.
Yes, I accept you would never deceive or mislead anyone intentionally.

But when you are brainwashed you will never consciously know what is going on within your unconscious and subliminal mind. This is very common especially in the advertising world where advertisers trigger subliminally the primal existential crisis, fears and angst within consumers to steer them to certain products in a subconscious mode.

What counts is truth based on objectivity that is verifiable to source of evidences and rational arguments. In this case, the sole authority of Islam is the Quran supported by the Ahadith. It is Allah's words, so the primary basis is the literal interpretation of what Allah had conveyed.

Why do you keep recommending me Islamic courses by Christians, non-Muslims and even from Muslims who are the most will offer their subjective opinions.

The most objective understanding of Islam is to study the direct words of the Islamic God in the Quran - the core and final authority of Islam. I have done that. Show me where I am wrong in interpreting the verses of the Quran in alignment with Allah's intention?
 
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
48
Beijing
✟48,243.00
Country
China
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
If Salafism represents Islam, why is it rejected by more than 90% of the world's Muslims today and has been rejected historically? It's never been accepted as true Islam outside of those who follow it. If you believe Salafism is true Islam, then you would have to accept that the Independent Fundamental Baptist Church is the true Church since they claim to follow a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible.
The above view represent low intellectual capacity and objectivity.

We should not too focused on the names of the school of thoughts.
In principle the ideal Muslim is one who had complied with 100% of Allah words in the Quran [and supposedly the Ahadith].

If what the Salafist or Wahabists adopted are aligned with 100% of what is the Quran, then they are the ideal Muslim following the true Islam.
If they comply and is 90% in alignment with the Quran then they are 90% Islamic.
From what I have read of the Salafists' intent and their actual acts they comply with more and a higher % of the verses in the Quran.

The so-called moderates Muslims do not conform to a large % of what is dictated in the Quran. My estimation is the most they complied with what is in the Quran is >60%.
E.g. the Quran do not permit Muslims to befriend non-Muslims but the "moderate Muslims" do not comply with such a command. There are many other commands of Allah in the Quran that the "moderate" do not comply with, i.e. be stern & hate, dominate and subjugate, go to war against non-Muslims and others.

66:9. O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers [infidels] and the hypocrites, and be stern with them [infidels] . Hell will be their [infidels] home, a hapless journey's end.​

Note, the prophet is the exemplar for a Muslim.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
48
Beijing
✟48,243.00
Country
China
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
, my claim is not the majority of Muslims are violent, it’s that Orthodox Islam is violent.
I would disagree with your above.

In principle, there is only one Islam. Note this from Tayyip Erdogan;

These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan - Wikiquote

Like Bill Warner, I have done extensive research analysis into the Quran and noted 3400++ verses or 55% of the 6236 verses of the Quran contain elements that are contemptuous and antagonistic to non-Muslims on the basis they are disbelievers.
Bill Warner's result is 64% of the Quran [based on words] is anti-Disbelievers and the Quran in worse that the Mein Kempf in terms of anti-semitism.
Islam in numbers

As such, objectively the Quran itself is inherently evil, violent and malignant.

Elsewhere I have demonstrated 20% of all humans are born naturally with an active evil tendency.
Thus 20% of 320 million of Muslims are evil prone.

The potency of evil of Islam is from the combination of its 55% of evil and violent verses being exposed to 320 million vulnerable evil prone Muslims.

In this sense, evil and manifest from any Muslim with that active evil tendency regardless of which school of thought they belong to.
As such, the evil and violent acts can be from non-Salafist Muslims.
 
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
48
Beijing
✟48,243.00
Country
China
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
I couldn't find numbers for those individuals, but this article does mention Bill Warner. Anti-Muslim crusaders make millions spreading fear
The above point depict shallow thinking.

Bill Warner born in 1941 is 78 years old.
With that sort of age, you have to wonder why is he that greedy for the millions of $$ if he actually had made them.

Dr. Warner is a morally responsible human who cares for humanity's future after being aware of the threat of Islam after being confirmed of the evil and violence of Islam upon the 911 incident.

Note Dr. Warner mentioned he was into Sufism when he was younger.

Subsequently, his first experience with true Islam was his experiences with his Muslim students who acted very distance and aloof from non-Muslims.

66:9. O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers [infidels] and the hypocrites, and be stern with them [infidels] . Hell will be their [infidels] home, a hapless journey's end.
Then, for Warner, 911 sounded the real alarm of the threat of real Islam to humanity.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,499
13,648
✟426,073.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
I like how even though I've blocked this hopeless proselytizer of Islam, I can tell exactly the tired arguments he is posting thanks to the good replies of the OP and Al Masihi.

Some people really want Islamic violence to be non-sectarian, political, etc. -- anything so long as it does not indict Islam for said violence, even when the Islamic corpus (Qur'an, Sahih hadith collection, the Sira of Muhammad, etc.) itself does that by being filled with explicit calls to violence and humiliation against those who do not follow Islam or otherwise conflict with its prophet and what he supposedly brought down from God.

This is in the religion itself. Heck, this is the religion itself, if we are going to separate the people from their faith, which I guess in this context is fair, albeit weird, if only to emphasize that the point is not to say that every Muslim more most Muslims do or believe these things, only that Islam teaches them; doesn't the Qur'an say, in 2:216, that "fighting is prescribed for you, though you dislike it"? So even the Qur'an recognizes that fighting in Allah's cause against non-Muslims -- in that case, the pagans -- is necessary, regardless of who really wants to or what they really think about it.

You can tout your credentials all you want (no matter what 'side' of this issue you are on), but what you cannot do is change the Qur'an to say something it does not say. And if we go by what the immediate successors of Muhammad did, they apparently took this command to fight to spread their religion very, very seriously, and very literally. Do any of us know better than them what the Qur'an and Islam are supposed to be about? I wouldn't think so. We in traditional Christianity rely on the fathers and other early witnesses of the Christian religion and Church to know what was taught and what was not in our religion, and those who discard them in favor of something else because they like it better are generally not taken seriously, when they make unverifiable claims based on their idea of how they would like the faith and the Church to be, against the evidence that It itself left us.

Now why we would have any different standard for Islam than we do for our own religion? Islam is a false religion, so of course its teaching are going to be false (with some truth sprinkled in, as the best heresies have), but at this level the point shouldn't be "look how bad XYZ is" (because of course the Muslims and the Islamic sycophants are going to answer with various nonsense claims, e.g., what about when the Bible says also XYZ? What about Paul, who corrupted Christianity? What about the prophecy of X Bible passage, even though the Bible is otherwise corrupted?; etc), but rather look at what XYZ is, and look at the implementation of it in history when Islam came to the places it now rules.

I honestly couldn't give half a fig about anyone's credentials on any side. I have learned about the Arabization and Islamification of Coptic culture from the Coptic people themselves, which all came about through forced conversion -- if not religiously, in all cases of the people, then certainly of the society itself. By violence. By force. The Muslims who know this, particularly the Egyptians, are not shy about it. So who is going to tell me or any of my Egyptian (or Sudanese, or Libyan, or Iraqi, etc.) that their histories are anything other than what they are? Sources like the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, began by HG Bishop Severus Al Ashmunein (Severus Ibn Al Muqaffa') in the 10th century, were recording events contemporaneously with their occurrence.

If you refuse to believe in what actually happened in favor of defending Islam, the religion of Satan which has cursed the earth by the devil's servant Muhammad for 1400 years now, then what can anyone do for you? Go away with your certifications and degrees. That stuff is impressive to the world, but if you apply them to something that is intrinsically evil, such as the defense of a religion that denies the incarnation of the Word of God as the Only-Begotten Son of the Father, our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, then they are worthless and deserve to be burnt, as the writings of heretics before Muhammad were.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Joyousperson
Upvote 0

JosephZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2017
2,992
2,859
Davao City
Visit site
✟226,464.00
Country
Philippines
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Although this member claims they have blocked me, I would like to address his issues in my defense.

I like how even though I've blocked this hopeless proselytizer of Islam, I can tell exactly the tired arguments he is posting thanks to the good replies of the OP and Al Masihi.
Proselytizer of Islam? Really? Here was my response to you in a previous thread when you made a similar accusation.
Go preach Islam to someone who gives a damn and doesn't know any better. I know too many Middle Eastern and African Christians to swallow the rosy vomit you have swallowed, no matter how delicious you may claim that it is.
I'm neither pro-Islam nor do I preach Islam. Islam is a false religion and Muhammad is a false prophet. I preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and how "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4) I'm also willing to take this gospel to wherever God leads me, even if that means putting my life at risk to do so.
I have even brought up the gospel in this thread.
Below is the gospel:
“Now brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)
Salvation comes through faith in Christ alone... Christians through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit have a desire and thrive to keep God’s laws. Christians keep the moral commands, not because it's a requirement of salvation, but because they love God and want to be imitators of Christ.

I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
(Galatians 2:20)


If you refuse to believe in what actually happened in favor of defending Islam, the religion of Satan which has cursed the earth by the devil's servant Muhammad for 1400 years now, then what can anyone do for you?
I am not defending Islam, and I have made this clear in past threads. There are reasons why I as a follower of Christ post in threads like this one about Islam. The primary reason is to educate my brothers and sisters in Christ about Islam and what Muslims believe, so they will not fear this religion and those who follow it. I hope by posting in threads like this, in addition to dispelling the many myths and misconceptions many have about what Islam teaches, that it will encourage more Christians to share their faith with the Muslims who live in their communities.
I'm in no way defending or trying to justify Islam. As a Christian I believe it's a false religion and Muhammad was a false prophet; however; I will defend Muslims and dispel the misinformation and falsehoods being spread by extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists. I'm just trying to educate my brothers and sisters in Christ about Islam and what Muslims believe, so they will not fear this religion and those who follow it. How can Christians share their faith with Muslims if they don't interact with them and have already prejudged them based on all of the misinformation being pushed by Islamic extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists? Ignorance of Islam by non-Muslims is at the root of many of the problems we are seeing in the world today and if more people would take the time to study the religion and reach out to Muslims, the world we live in would be a better place for everyone.
My purpose for sharing what I know about Islam and Muslims is primarily so my brothers and sisters in Christ will not fear this religion and those who follow it. I'm just trying to counter the false narrative the anti-Islamic propagandists are spreading. Their motivations are self serving, divisive, and fuel hatred for others. My motivations are the opposite and are motivated by love for my brothers and sisters in Christ and for all of those who do not know Him yet... Those anti-Islamic propagandists don't care about you, me, or anyone else, much less the truth. They are the ones who have no support for their position on Islam and are only parroting what Islamic terrorists and extremists preach. They know this is what sells and they have made lucrative careers out of exploiting the west's ignorance of Islam and what real Muslims actually believe.
I'm in no way defending Islam. I will state again that it is a false religion and Muhammad was a false prophet. I'm just trying to dispel the misinformation and falsehoods being spread by extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists. They both thrive on conflict, and people falling for their narrative is what has led to so much division and conflict between the two faiths in recent years.

The recent attacks in New Zealand and Sri Lanka were attempts to cause even further discord, and we can't allow ourselves to fall into the traps being laid by these extremists.



Go away with your certifications and degrees. That stuff is impressive to the world, but if you apply them to something that is intrinsically evil, such as the defense of a religion that denies the incarnation of the Word of God as the Only-Begotten Son of the Father, our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, then they are worthless and deserve to be burnt, as the writings of heretics before Muhammad were.
When I took my first course in Islam while in the military in 1986 I really had no say in the matter. It was a requirement. I had no idea at the time that God was preparing me even back then for the mission he has assigned me to today. If someone would have told me back in 1986 that I would someday be a missionary to animists and Muslims serving in the conflict regions of Mindanao, I would have laughed. Oddly enough, after my first course in Islam I found it intriguing enough to continue my studies in that subject off and on for years after, never knowing that someday I would be a missionary serving in Muslim communities. Of course God knew this all along and had been preparing me for my future mission without my knowing. After wall, we are "His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." -- Ephesians 2:10

The only reason I posted those certificates is because my credentials were doubted by the individual I was responding to. I didn't post them to impress anyone and I don't take courses on Islam and violent extremism to impress the world. While I already had a background in Islamic studies prior to becoming a missionary, I continue to educate myself today so that I can better serve the people God has sent me to. Therefore, I don't apply them to defend a religion that denies the incarnation of the Word of God as the only begotten Son, it's quite the opposite; I apply them so that I can better reach those God has entrusted me to serve among who deny Christ as being their Lord in the hope that they will someday know Him as I do. As a matter of fact, my hope is to see all Muslims come to Christ.

I hope this post erases any confusion.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That's the same Dr. Bale and that quote can be found at the link I provided. You should read the entire article, you might learn something from it.


I couldn't find numbers for those individuals, but this article does mention Bill Warner. Anti-Muslim crusaders make millions spreading fear


I'm not going to link to or promote Islamic forums an a Christian forum.


Ibn Kathir isn't an extremist, but since you brought his name again, let's revisit some things you said earlier in this thread.

Here you say Muhammad broke the treaty in Surah 9.

Here you say Ibn Kathir is regarded as the best complied of Tafsir in Sunni Islam.

Here is what Ibn Kathir has to say about who was responsible for breaking the treaty:

The Messenger of Allah and the Muslims preserved the terms of the treaty with the people of Makkah from the month of Dhul-Qa`dah in the sixth year of Hijrah, until the Quraysh broke it and helped their allies, Banu Bakr, against Khuza`ah, the allies of Allah's Messenger. Aided by the Quraysh, Banu Bakr killed some of Bani Khuza`ah in the Sacred Area! The Messenger of Allah led an invasion army in the month of Ramadan, of the eighth year, and Allah opened the Sacred Area for him to rule over them, all thanks are due to Allah. The Messenger of Allah freed the Quraysh who embraced Islam after they were overpowered and defeated. These numbered around two thousands, and they were refered to by the name `Tulaqa' afterwards. Those among them who remained in disbelief and ran away from Allah's Messenger were sent promises of safe refuge for four months, during which they were allowed to move about freely. They included Safwan bin Umayyah, `Ikrimah bin Abi Jahl and many others. Allah later on guided them to Islam, and they became excellent believers. Surely, Allah is worthy of all praise for all His actions and decrees.

More importantly the Qur'an also confirms that the treaty was broken by the Quraysh and others.

1. A declaration of immunity from God and His Messenger to the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty.

4. Except for those among the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty, and did not violate any of its terms, nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill the treaty with them to the end of its term. God loves the righteous.


Since verse 4 says "Except for those among the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty, and did not violate any of its terms, nor aided anyone against you," then this automatically tells us that some, but not all, of the polytheists have already broken their treaties.

7. How can there be a treaty with the polytheists on the part of God and His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? As long as they are upright with you, be upright with them. God loves the pious.

8. How? Whenever they overcome you, they respect neither kinship nor treaty with you. They satisfy you with lip service, but their hearts refuse, and most of them are immoral.

10. Towards a believer they respect neither kinship nor treaty. These are the transgressors.


In the above verses we again see a distinction between polytheists, Those who upheld their treaties (Verse 7) and those who didn't respect their treaties (Verses 8 & 9). Those who didn't keep their treaties are the transgressors.

13. Will you not fight a people who violated their oaths, and planned to exile the Messenger, and initiated hostilities against you? Do you fear them? It is God you should fear, if you are believers.

The above question wouldn't have been asked had there not been polytheists who had already broken their treaty.


Are you sure about that? The Qur'an and "the best complied of Tafsir in Sunni Islam" disagree with you.


The Quraysh broke it and helped their allies, Banu Bakr, against Khuza`ah, the allies of Allah's Messenger. Aided by the Quraysh, Banu Bakr killed some of Bani Khuza`ah in the Sacred Area! -- Ibn Kathir
Unfortunately for you Dr. Bale agrees with me that violent jihad has its sources in Islamic text and is inspired by the teachings of Islam as I’ve quoted. Give me numbers of how much Bill Warner makes out of spreading “hate for Islam.” I want numbers and facts not propaganda.

I already proved Mohammed broke the treaty by not returning the women from Mecca who fled to the Muslims, although under the treaty he was obliged to do this. Keep in mind I’m pretty sure best complier of Tafsir and interpretation of the Quran is Ibn Kathir, not however when it comes to the Sirah of Mohammed’s life or his biography or early Islamic history. However the Banu Bakr had a justified reason for attacking the Banu Khuza’ah, they didn’t attack them for no reason or for aggressive reasons, according to renowned early Muslim commentator and historian al-Tabari wrote:

According to Ibn Humayd – Salamah – Ibn Ishaq, who said: After sending his expedition to Mut’ah, the Messenger of God stayed in Medina during Jumada II and Rajab. Then the Banu Bakr b. ‘Abd Manat b. Kinanah assaulted [the tribe of] Khuza’ah while the latter were at a watering place called al-Watir belonging to Khuza’ah in Lower Mecca. The cause of the strife between Banu Bakr and the Banu Khuza’ah was a man from the Banu al-Hadrami named Malik b. ‘Abbad. This man of the Banu al-Hadrami had a covenant of protection at that time with al-Aswad b. Razn. Malik set out on a journey as a merchant. When he was in the middle of Khuza’ah territory, THE KHUZA’AH ASSAULTED HIM, KILLED HIM, AND TOOK HIS PROPERTY. The Banu Bakr therefore attacked and killed a man from Khuza’ah. Just before Islam, the Khuza’ah in turn assaulted Salma, Kulthum, and Dhu’ayb, the sons of al-Aswad b. Razn al-Dili – they were the leading men and dignitaries of the Banu Bakr – and killed them at ‘Arafah, by the border markers of the sacred territory.

According to Ibn Humayd – Salamah – Muhammad b. Ishaq – a man from the Banu al-Dil, who said: In pagan times two payments of blood money would be paid for each of the sons of al-Aswad, while a single payment of blood money would be paid for us; and that because of their excellence [compared with us].

Matters stood thus between the Banu Bakr and Khuza’ah when Islam intervened to separate them and occupy people’s minds. When the peace of al-Hudaybiyah was concluded between the Messenger of God and Quraysh (this information is according to Ibn Humayd – Salamah – Muhammad b. Ishaq – Muhammad b. Muslim b. ‘Abdallah b. Shihab al-Zuhri – ‘Urwah b. al-Zubayr – al-Miswar b. Makhramah, Marwan b. al-Hakam, and other learned men of ours), among the terms they imposed on the Messenger of God and that he granted to them was that whoever wanted to enter into a treaty and pact with the Messenger of God might do so, and whoever wanted to enter into a treaty with Quraysh might do so. The Banu Bakr entered into a pact with Quraysh, and Khuza’ah entered into a pact with the Messenger of God.

The truce having been concluded, the Banu al-Dil of the Banu Bakr took advantage of it against Khuza’ah. To RETALIATE for the sons of al-Aswad b. Razn they wanted to kill the persons from Khuza’ah WHO HAD KILLED THEIR MEN. Nawfal b. Mu’awiyah al-Dili set out with the Banu al-Dil (at that time he was a leader of the Banu al-Dil, though not all the Banu Bakr followed him). He made a night raid on the Khuza’ah while the latter were at their watering place of al-Watir, and they killed a man [of the Khuza’ah]. They tried to drive each other away and fought. Quraysh aided the Banu Bakr with weapons, and some members of Quraysh fought on their side under cover of darkness until they drove Khuza’ah into the sacred territory.

According to al-Waqidi: Among the members of Quraysh who helped the Banu Bakr against Khuza’ah that night, concealing their identity, were Safwan b. Umayyah, ‘Ikrimah b. Abi Jahl, Suhayl b. ‘Amr, and others, along with their slaves.

Resumption of the account of Ibn Ishaq, who said: When they reached the sacred territory, the Banu Bakr said: "Nawfal, we have entered the sacred territory. Be mindful of your God! Be mindful of your God!" To which he replied blasphemously: "Today he has no God! Banu Bakr, TAKE YOUR REVENGE! By my life you steal in the sacred territory; WILL YOU NOT TAKE YOUR REVENGE IN IT?"

The night that the Banu Bakr attacked the Khuza’ah at al-Watir, they killed a man of Khuza’ah named Munabbih. Munabbih was a man with a weak heart. He had gone out with a tribesman of his named Tamim b. Asad. Munabbih said to him: "Tamim, save yourself! As for me, by God, I am a dead man whether they kill me or spare me, for my heart has ceased beating." Tamim ran away and escaped; Munabbih they caught and killed. When the Khuza’ah entered Mecca, they took refuge in the house of Budayl b. Waqa’ al-Khuza’i and the house of one of their mawlas named Rafi‘.

When Quraysh leaguered together [with Banu Bakr] against Khuza’ah and killed some of their men, breaking the treaty and covenant that existed between them and the Messenger of God by violating the Khuza’ah, who had a pact and treaty with him. ‘Amr b. Salim al-Khuza’i, one of the Banu Ka‘b, went to the Messenger of God in Medina. This was one of the things that prompted the conquest of Mecca… (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany, 1997], Volume VIII, pp. 160-163; capital emphasis ours; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

Infact this makes it much worse for anyone who wants to defend the claim that the Quraysh broke the treaty of Hudaibiyah, why would Mohammed ally with a tribe that were known to have committed unjust acts to a tribe that the Quraysh were allied to only a few years prior to the treaty, and one that obviously had no regard for honor or the Arabian traditions of the day, why ally with a tribe that the Banu Bakr had a grudge on (for good reasons)? If Mohammed really was all about keeping the peace why ally with such a tribe when he knew the treaty would must likely be disrupted by them since they clearly entered the treaty out of spiting the Banu Bakr who were allied to the Quraysh? Since your trying to portray the narrative that Mohammed did his best to keep the treaty, but the evil pagan Quraysh and their allies broke it, although as we clearly see through Islamic sources Mohammed broke it and didn’t even bother keeping it. The point you brought up is also irrelevant due to Mohammed previously breaking it due to not returning the women who fed Mecca from their guardians even though he was obliged to by the treaty.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If Salafism represents Islam, why is it rejected by more than 90% of the world's Muslims today and has been rejected historically? It's never been accepted as true Islam outside of those who follow it. If you believe Salafism is true Islam, then you would have to accept that the Independent Fundamental Baptist Church is the true Church since they claim to follow a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible.

The only reason you believe Salafism is true Islam is because by living in Saudi Arabia you have been taught that their form of Islam is the real true form of Islam and that any other way of practicing Islam is wrong. The religion taught to you is only practiced within the Arabian Peninsula and a handful of other countries where Saudi Arabia either spread it by political/economic means, or through the spread of extremist networks.


Can you provide some scriptural support for where we are called to confront non-Christians and refute their religion?


Who was Jesus talking to when he was refuting false doctrine? Jesus was a Jew and refuting other Jews right? In the gospels we find where Jesus interacted with Romans, Canaanites, and Samaritans; yet he never once rebuked them, argued or debated with them.

Same question for Paul and the others, who werema their audiences when any kind of refuting was taking place? Those within the Church right? Paul's sermon at Mars Hill was to pagans, but even then he didn't use your approach. He instead quotes their own poets and didn't make any charges against their religion. He found a common ground between the two and went from there.
It’s rejected by most of the world’s Muslims, because most Muslims aren’t stupid or backward enough to still be Salafis or pay attention to them, many are also becoming Liberlized and Secularized this has nothing to do with religion or dogma. The Independent Fundamental Baptist Church don’t believe in Apostolic tradition (like most Protestants) they being Protestants have a number of views I don’t accept. Not to mention they contradict historical Church teaching which I could give you many examples of. They’re teaching on the scriptures being the first and final authority on all matters of faith is only one example I could give you, but this isn’t a thread for me to criticize or bash Fundementalist Protestant beliefs. A strict and literal interpretation of the Bible isn’t a Fundamentalist Evangelical interpretation, Orthodox and Catholics can also have a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible, which often is the case with Orthodox Churches and something I try to do when I ever can. Interpretation of the Bible can vary based on what sect or Church you belong to in Christianity.

No the reason I believe Salafism is true Islam is because it goes back to the islamic sources and is based around two things, Allah said and Mohammed said, that is the source of Salafism, any Salafi himself would tell you we only take things if Allah said them or Mohammed said them. Salafism is Islam straight from the Quran and Sunnah, it’s your job to refute this point and address is, not spewing he same nonsense over and over again, I already told you the amount of Muslims and what they practice is irrelevant, we’re not discussing Muslims, we’re discussing Islam, do you get that or not? A religion is not based on how people choose to apply it and follow it, it’s based o it’s actual sources not the people following it, that’s how we judge a faith by its own standards.

As far as refuting false doctrine is concerned:

Matthew 3:7-9

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves,’ We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.”

Acts 18:27-28

for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.

Titus 1:7-9

Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless-not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Titus 1:13

This testimony is true. For this cause reprove them severely that they may be sound in the faith…


Ephesians 5:11-14

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything visible.

Anymore baseless posts?
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Joyousperson
Upvote 0

JosephZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2017
2,992
2,859
Davao City
Visit site
✟226,464.00
Country
Philippines
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Unfortunately for you Dr. Bale agrees with me that violent jihad has its sources in Islamic text and is inspired by the teachings of Islam as I’ve quoted.
I'm in 100% agreement with Dr. Bale. Here is a post I made in another thread.

I.S.I.S has Nothing to Do With Islam?

Dr. Bales's short answer:

Islamism, including jihadism, is inconceivable without reference to Islam, just as Christian Reconstructionism is inconceivable without reference to Christianity.

Basically what Dr. Bale says is that extremists and extremist groups like ISIS use the exact same religious texts as mainstream Muslims, yet they come to opposing conclusions as to what the religion of Islam teaches. The only thing ISIS has in common with the religion Islam are their use of the Qur'an and other Islamic religious texts to justify their actions just the same as Christian terrorist groups like the NSCN, NLFT, and LRA use the Bible to support theirs. Neither Islamic extremists nor Christian extremists represent the true teachings of the religions that claim to represent.

Dr. Bale is a contributor to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism where many of the courses I have taken on the subject of violent extremism are offered. I'm very familiar with his work.

I already proved Mohammed broke the treaty by not returning the women from Mecca who fled to the Muslims, although under the treaty he was obliged to do this.
You haven't proven anything, you only parroted something you found on some anti-Islamic propaganda site somewhere. The only place you hear that version of history is from anti-Islamic propaganda sites and from people like Bill Warner. Below is his version from his book Political Islam.

Mohammed took a large number of people to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. [Arabs had been going to Mecca for religious pilgrimages for many years before Mohammed. Mohammed incorporated most of the pagan practices into Islam.] The Meccans met him outside and forbade the Muslims entrance to Mecca. Mohammed signed a treaty with the Meccans. This treaty was a political victory for Mohammed

The treaty at al Hudaybiya established Islam’s attitudes about treaties to this day. Islam makes a treaty, if and only if, it is in a losing position. The treaty is good only as long as it is weak. When Islam is strong, jihad will start again.

About a year later, Mohammed found a reason to break the treaty of Hudaybiya. He had been making raids against Kafir tribes, gaining wealth and converts. Islam was stronger than when he made the treaty. It was time and he marched against Mecca with an army of 10,000. Mecca surrendered without a fight. Islam triumphed

This event is well documented and there is no dispute among historians what took place. Here are two non-Islamic sources.

In the spring of 628 CE, guided by a dream or vision, Muḥammad led a huge group of Muslims on the 270-mile journey from Medina to Mecca to perform the pilgrimage ceremonies. They camped at al-Ḥudaybīyah on the edge of the ḥaram, the sacred territory that surrounds Mecca. There Muḥammad negotiated a treaty in which he agreed not to press his claim to complete the pilgrimage ceremonies that season, while the Meccan leaders promised to open the city to the Muslims the following year. They also agreed to a ten-year truce during which neither side would attack the other. In the spring of 629 CE, Muḥammad led the first Muslim pilgrimage, an ʿumrah or “lesser pilgrimage” to Mecca. Later that year, a clan allied to the Meccans attacked a clan allied to Muḥammad, thus breaking the treaty.
Muḥammad - Oxford Islamic Studies Online

In 629 Muhammad was allowed to lead a pilgrimage there in exchange for a peace treaty. Shortly after, he was attacked by allies of the Meccans, and Muhammad denounced the treaty. In January 630, he returned to his birthplace with 10,000 men, and the Meccans swore allegiance to its Muslim conquerors.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/muhammad-completes-hegira

Even the source you provided in your last post confirms that the Quraysh violated the treaty.

When Quraysh leaguered together [with Banu Bakr] against Khuza’ah and killed some of their men, breaking the treaty and covenant that existed between them and the Messenger of God by violating the Khuza’ah, who had a pact and treaty with him. ‘Amr b. Salim al-Khuza’i, one of the Banu Ka‘b, went to the Messenger of God in Medina. This was one of the things that prompted the conquest of Mecca… (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany, 1997], Volume VIII, pp. 160-163; capital emphasis ours; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

People like David Wood, Bill Warner and others are relying on an audience that doesn’t know anything about Islam or Islamic history. The fact that you support that version of history proves without doubt that your only source of education on Islam comes from anti-Islamic propagandists. I know they don't teach that version of Islamic history in Saudi Arabia, in fact it's not taught by any legitimate historian or in any history class anywhere in the world.

Keep in mind I’m pretty sure best complier of Tafsir and interpretation of the Quran is Ibn Kathir, not however when it comes to the Sirah of Mohammed’s life or his biography or early Islamic history.
Of course.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JosephZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2017
2,992
2,859
Davao City
Visit site
✟226,464.00
Country
Philippines
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
As far as refuting false doctrine is concerned:

Matthew 3:7-9

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves,’ We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.”
Those examples are Jews.

Jesus' ministry was only to the Jews, He was refuting the Jewish religious leaders at that time.

“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)

Matthew 3:7-9
Acts 18:27-28

for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.
The original apostles were Jews sent to minister to Jews.

These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 10:5-6)

The book of Acts confirms that the original apostles only went to Israel.

And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. (Acts 8:1)

So then those who were scattered because of the persecution that occurred in connection with Stephen made their way to Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews alone. (Acts 11:19)

Titus 1:7-9

Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless-not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Titus 1:13

This testimony is true. For this cause reprove them severely that they may be sound in the faith…


Ephesians 5:11-14

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything visible.
Paul's letters were written to the Church and those within the Church. The verses you are quoting from addressed to Titus are telling him to look for men of good character to be elders in the Church and in verse 1:3 he speaks of the Christians from a Jewish background.

None of those verses you quoted call for us to confront non-Christians and/or refute the religion of others.

"What business of mine is it to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside."
(1 Corinthians 5:12-13)

Our calling is to share the gospel. We are not called to criticize the Islamic religion, Muslims, or Muhammad. Our aim should never be to condemn, insult, or embarrass Muslims, but to love, respect, and accept them. A Christian is a representative of Jesus Christ and we should respect a Muslim's opinions and ways of believing even if we may disagree with them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
48
Beijing
✟48,243.00
Country
China
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
And if we go by what the immediate successors of Muhammad did, they apparently took this command to fight to spread their religion very, very seriously, and very literally. Do any of us know better than them what the Qur'an and Islam are supposed to be about? I wouldn't think so.

We in traditional Christianity rely on the fathers and other early witnesses of the Christian religion and Church to know what was taught and what was not in our religion, and those who discard them in favor of something else because they like it better are generally not taken seriously, when they make unverifiable claims based on their idea of how they would like the faith and the Church to be, against the evidence that It itself left us.

Now why we would have any different standard for Islam than we do for our own religion?
This is a great point.

Obviously those immediate successors of Muhammad would have a better sense of the inherent ethos of what Islam is exactly and its intended , mission and vision.
This inherent ethos of evil and violence is fully represented by its relevant load of verses in the Quran, and this is before the Ahadith were compiled.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
48
Beijing
✟48,243.00
Country
China
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
I am not defending Islam, and I have made this clear in past threads.
You are indirectly defending Islam by covering up its inherent evil and violent intent upon non-Muslims and Christians [notably the Coptics as minorities in Egypt] are a major victims of Islamic attacks physically and ideologically.

There are reasons why I as a follower of Christ post in threads like this one about Islam.
The primary reason is to educate my brothers and sisters in Christ about Islam and what Muslims believe, so they will not fear this religion and those who follow it.
I hope by posting in threads like this, in addition to dispelling the many myths and misconceptions many have about what Islam teaches, that it will encourage more Christians to share their faith with the Muslims who live in their communities.
You need to differentiate the ideology of Islam from its believers, the Muslims.

I have argued in this thread, the Muslims are not at fault but rather it is the ideology of Islam that is loaded with evil and violence [as demonstrated] that is at fault.
Islam - Do Not Bash Muslims

I don't deny there are positive contributions from the ideology of Islam upon the majority of good Muslims who are good human being driven by good universal human values. These good human persons will be more inclined to good human values and avoid the evil and violent elements in the ideology of Islam.

However, what is frightening is the evil and violent elements within the ideology of Islam are exposed to NATURAL intrinsic 20% or pool of 320 million evil prone Muslims who are easily influenced and inspired to commit evil and violent acts to gain greater merit for salvation and eternal life in paradise.
As I had argued, there are the truer Muslims with a higher degree of compliance to the tenets of Islam stipulated in the Quran - the core and final authority of Islam.

You cannot deny the above facts, else you would be lying and suppressing the truths re the ideology of Islam. Unfortunately this is what you are doing, i.e. lying about the truth of the ideology of Islam with the 'historical' twist.

Note the primary and critical blame is not on the naturally born evil prone Muslims, but the primary blame must be laid on the ideology of Islam itself with its inherent evil and violent elements which influences the evil prone Muslims who are desperate for salvation, thus readily comply with Allah's words.

I can understand it would be not pragmatic for you to spread the truth of the ideology of Islam within the Muslims in your present location and this could be fatal.
But at the least you should not lie about the truth of the ideology of Islam verified by the verses in the Quran and practices of the early followers [the companions] of Islam.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.