Islam The Critical Stalemate re Violence in Islam

[dzheremi]

What does Isis do that’s different to what the original Caliphate did, that’s million dollar question that I’ve been asking Muslims for years now none have really given me an answer, show me one way Isis contradicts what the companions of Mohammed were already doing after his death.

I think I remember some criticizing ISIS once because they burnt that Jordanian pilot to death in a cage, not because it was wrong that they murdered him, but because there is some hadith somewhere where one of Muhammad's companions said that it's not permissible to burn people to death with fire, since burning to death with fire is a punishment reserved for only Allah to use. I don't know if that's true, but that's the only thing I ever heard where other Muslims showed from their own sources how ISIS was wrong. Mostly it is instead that they are "perverting" the religion or something, with no real specifics.

 

[JosephZ]

You did say that the Bible justifies colonialism in your previous post and suggested that it promotes Jew hatred.

Please show me where I say the Bible justifies colonialism or suggest that it promotes Jew hatred. That's quite a charge to make against someone like myself who despises both.

 

[Joyousperson]

I gave you a source that will show that he is a right wing extremists. You will have to do a google search to find it. I don't want to put a link to his social media account here because what he says about Muslims, immigrants, and homosexuals is that vile. From what he posts, I doubt even he would deny that he's a right wing extremist.

I don't believe he claimed to be right wing. He may be harsh, but what count is whether his views, in this particular case re rapes by grooming gangs who are Muslims, are supported by evidence and logical arguments that can be verified objectively.
Show me evidences where he is critically wrong in his supporting evidences.

Note the usual accusations by the 'left' where any views which they do NOT agree with are labelled as extreme 'right wing' or alt-right. I bet if they read my views, they will identify me as a right-winger which I am not. In addition they will label me as Islamophobic, racist, bigot, etc.

Note the recent case of wild accusations by leftist where the leftist Oberlin College simply accused Gibson Bakery as racists merely based on subjective feelings and emotions.

Gibson’s Bakery awarded more than $33 million in damages from Oberlin College; total awarded exceeds $40 million
Gibson’s Bakery awarded more than $33 million in damages from Oberlin College; total awarded exceeds $40 million​

This is really a precedent as a warning and limit to leftists who simply throw accusations at others without any objective evidences.

The shooter was a Calvinist. Calvinist believe that God predestined individuals for salvation, and that individuals cannot choose God. This is a very popular doctrine within the evangelical community in the US especially among the Baptist, Evangelical Lutheran, Episcopal, United Methodist, Presbyterian, and United Church of Christ denominations. If you use the search feature on this forum using the word Calvinism or Calvinist you will find there are many members here that are Calvinist and believe that salvation is predestined.

Calvinist are Christians in the sense they have entered into a specific individualized covenant with the Christian God re John 3:16.
That they said "individual cannot choose God" is merely their opinions which cannot contradict what God intended.

I don't know exactly, but if the Calvinist do not reject verse John 3:16, then there is an implied covenant or contract with God to comply with the covenanted terms.

Note in many secular legal situations, there are many who do NOT claim there is an implied contract between two opposing parties, but it is up to the court to decide based on the universal principles to determine the existence of an implied contract.

In the case of Christianity, the Christian God being all powerful and all-knowing is 100% well aware to decide whether anyone is a Christian or not as grounded on verse John 3:16 and similar verses.

Again who are you to counter God in terms of verse John 3:16 [so clear] where God made an OFFER to anyone to accept thus establishing a personal relation and contract with God.

It does, you just believe it has been abrogated.

The abrogation is true for time is a fact, whatever is grey related to peace offered by Allah is abrogated by the later Medinian verses of contempt in Chapter 5, 9 and from the 3400++ antagonistic verses loaded upon the non-Muslims.

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. Until you stop looking at the Qur'an from a modern perspective and start looking at it through a historical lens, you will continue to misinterpret what it is saying.

Your 'historical' argument don't jive at all and it is toothless to support Islam is peaceful.

Again, WHO ARE YOU, Muslims, me and others as weak slaves to judge on behalf of Allah that those verses are meant to be historical.

For Muslims and other human slaves [Abdul] to insist certain verses [1000s] of their discretion are meant to be historical is a direct insult to Allah's omnipotence.

Btw, whatever the argument, you are faced with, the inherent STALEMATE DILEMMA where no humans and Muslims as slave of Allah can make any final judgment on the words of Allah. Thus those [from the pool of 320 million] who believe 9:5 and others are not historical would continue to kill non-Muslims in the name of Islam in order to gain salvation. No humans has any divine authority to stop them!

It's far more than 10 and well over 100. I think you even provided a link that showed this in one of the threads. How many verses do you think the Bible has abut loving others and being passive? I would guess that the numbers between the two would be pretty close to being the same percentage wise.

There are about 10 which in term of 'greyness' which are more grey and look like possible evidence that Islam is peaceful, but they are easily countered, note the conditional 3:52 [kill one, kill all mankind] with an open provision for Muslims to kill non-Muslims.
Yes, there are over 100+ verses [I have my own list] that one could infer Islam is peaceful but they are very very flimsy, e.g.

2:36. And serve Allah. Ascribe no thing as partner unto Him. (Show) kindness [arabic = good] unto parents, and unto near kindred, and orphans, and the needy, and into the neighbour who is of kin (unto you) and the neighbour who is not of kin* and the fellow traveller and the wayfarer and (the slaves) whom your right hands possess. Lo! Allah loveth not such as are proud and boastful,​

But 2:36 and the likes are abrogated by the later 9:23 and similar verses.

9:23. O ye [Muslims] who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends* if they take pleasure in disbelief [as infidels] rather than faith. Whoso of you [Muslims] taketh them [infidels] for friends, such [Muslims] are wrong doers [zalim].​

There are many verses exhorting the Muslims to do 'good' but such 'good' is only conditional toward Muslims only but not to non-Muslims, i.e. act good if the other party is also a Muslim brother, but bad and evil [e.g. 9:5, 9:29, etc.] if the others are kuffar [disbelievers].

My point;
Whatever verses that has an inkling of greyness that apparently indicate Islam is peaceful, all these 'grey' verses are contradicted in context and abrogated by later verses.

This is incorrect.

Jesus lived under the system of the Old Covenant of the Law given by Moses. He was a Jew and lived His life according to the Law. He also instructed His disciples and the Jews to follow the law.

Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe... (Matthew 23:1-3)

Jesus' ministry was only to Israel.

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

Jesus instructed His original disciples to take His message to Israel only.

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)

Jesus came to Israel to confirm the promises given to the fathers.

For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers, (Romans 15:8)

During Jesus' earthly ministry, no one was preaching the message that Jesus died for our sins and that faith is all that is required for salvation. Jesus had not even died yet, and even many years after His Resurrection, the original disciples had no concept of this.

It was only after Jesus ascended into Heaven that Paul came as a minister of Jesus Christ to the gentiles and to provide testimony to His life and His work at the cross. The message that Paul received was delivered to him by the resurrected Christ.

“I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:11, 12)

Paul was the minister to the Gentiles.

Because of the grace that was given me from God, to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, (Romans 15:15-16)

What Paul taught was not shared by Jesus to the Jews during His earthly ministry. It had remained a mystery until it was revealed to Paul several years after the ascension of Jesus.

Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. (Colossians 1:25-27)

“Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, who has made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be glory forever.” (Romans 16:25-27)

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)

This message of the gospel of grace through faith alone had to remain a secret in order for the prophesies to be fulfilled.

but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; (1 Corinthians 2:7-8)

Had this mystery not been concealed the work at the cross wouldn't have taken place. This is why even the disciples that were the closest to Jesus during His earthy ministry did not understand the gospel of grace It was never preached to Israel until after the work on the cross and only after it was revealed to Paul.

So as can be seen, Christianity is not limited to what Jesus Christ preached within the gospels only, nor are the other books found in the New Testament just appendixes.

Note whatever Paul expressed is merely an exposition of Jesus' teachings. That is why Christianity is not "Pualianity"

The final authority of Christianity is not Jesus Christ [merely the Son] but the 'Father' Christian God.
The central leverage of Christianity is God's words grounded on John 3:16.

Thus the only way to God via a personal relationship is an agreement [covenant] via John 3:16 and the likes.

I believe that I am justified by my faith in Jesus Christ rather than trying to adhere to terms of a covenant that would require works on my part to earn salvation. The only term I feel that I need to comply with in regard to salvation is to put my faith in Jesus Christ and in Him alone.

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed... Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus 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. (Romans 5:1)(Romans 3:23)(Galatians 2:20)

All your faith and above verses don't apply until you have entered into a personal relationship with God via an agreement [covenant, contract] with God to comply with the stipulated covenanted terms in the Gospels only with support from the epistles, acts and relevant verses from the OT as appendixes to the contract.

No matter how you deny [as ignoramus], the covenant and covenanted terms are implied within the context of Christianity as its constitutional doctrines.

Example, you may have had faith your wife was the right woman then but that faith don't count until the marriage was recognized e via a marriage agreement or contract explicitly or implicitly​

Therefore there must be a contract [implied or explicit] after faith is established.
Example, in the absence of a legal marriage certificate, if any husband were to oppose the existence of a marriage to avoid alimony or splitting of 50% of his assets, it would be up to the Judge to decide whether there is an implied contract based on the circumstances and many such implied contracts had been proven in courts.​

As a Christian, when you sit in God's court on the Day of Judgment expecting salvation, God [all knowing] will first determine whether you have established an agreement [covenant] with God via John 3:16 to believe in Christ and to comply with the covenanted terms.

Even if you don't ask, the angel will bring out the book and inform you which covenanted terms you have complied and not complied and God will judge accordingly using its wisdom whether you go to hell or forgiven and allowed to go the heaven with eternal life.

God is all-fair and all-wise, God will not punish anyone without basis and grounds. This is why the covenanted terms are stipulated in the Gospels with an overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all - even enemies' and other commands.
No matter how you deny there will be the covenanted terms else the Christian God will be very cruel and vicious.

Note the general rule, ignorance is no defense.

Show me where I am wrong in the above principles?

 

[JosephZ]

Note whatever Paul expressed is merely an exposition of Jesus' teachings. That is why Christianity is not "Pualianity"

Jesus ministry was to Israel and Paul's ministry was to the Gentiles. Without Jesus revealing the gospel to Paul and Paul teaching what he received from the resurrected Christ, then Christians would still follow the law under the Old Covenant because this is what Jesus taught during His ministry.

But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:11–12

The plan of salvation taught by Paul is not found in the gospels. If Jesus had come into the world teaching the gospel of grace through faith alone, the prophesies found in the Old Testament would have failed and the work on the cross would have never taken place.

but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; (1 Corinthians 2:7-8)

Paul taught that salvation came by grace through faith alone and was a minister to the gentiles. Jesus' teachings found in the gospels are according to the Old Covenant of law of Moses and He was a minister to Israel. The audiences were not the same and the messages are different. Therefore, Paul's teachings are far from just being an exposition of Jesus' teachings.

Christ is the heart of the gospel.

As a Christian, when you sit in God's court on the Day of Judgment expecting salvation, God [all knowing] will first determine whether you have established an agreement [covenant] with God via John 3:16 to believe in Christ and to comply with the covenanted terms. Even if you don't ask, the angel will bring out the book and inform you which covenanted terms you have complied and not complied and God will judge accordingly using its wisdom whether you go to hell or forgiven and allowed to go the heaven with eternal life.
No matter how you deny there will be the covenanted terms else the Christian God will be very cruel and vicious.

Christians are under no obligation to keep the law or any covenanted terms as a way of earning salvation. Salvation comes through faith in Christ alone. Instead, 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)

God is not keeping score as to what terms Christians live up to and which ones they fail to uphold. When we stand before God, Jesus is our advocate and all of the law has been fulfilled through Him.

 

[Barney2.0]

Please show me where I say the Bible justifies colonialism or suggest that it promotes Jew hatred. That's quite a charge to make against someone like myself who despises both.

Go back to post 36 which you wrote.

 

[JosephZ]

If you can’t see the difference between Islamic terrorist groups and Christian terrorist groups then read some history.

What's the difference between the two? They both use the religion they claim to follow to justify their actions; both have been known to kill innocent people using bombs, guns, and sharp edged weapons; both have been known to use rape, torture, and mutilation as forms of intimidation; both have been known to convert people to their religion by intimidation or force; and there have been examples of both attempting to create theocracy states.

Most Muslims not practicing Islam due to the current circumstances of the world doesn’t mean Islam doesn’t teach offensive Jihad.... So who are you to say Isis is killing Muslims to them they’re killing traitors and apostates who oppose the Caliphate of Allah and his messenger which is allowed in Islam.

If 99.9% of the Muslim world isn't involved in violent jihad and the vast majority of Muslims are condemning Islamic extremism and saying it goes against the teachings of Islam, shouldn't we allow Muslims to define what Islam teaches and what they believe rather than run the risk of giving false testimony against our neighbors?

I still don’t find you anymore sincere, you claim to be an ambassador for truth, yet for your sake I hope you don’t know what your talking about.

I took my first course in Islamic Studies while in the military in 1986, fifteen years before you were born; since then I have taken several courses on not only Islam, but also violent extremism and terrorism in general. While I don't consider myself an expert on these subjects, my knowledge is extensive and comes from multiple sources.

Just a few days ago Al Shabab committed another terrorist attack, do you honestly think Christian terrorism (if you can even call it that) is as frequent or deadly as Islamic terrorism?

It's impossible to have any kind of serious dialog about violent extremism and religious violence with someone who who discounts acts of violence carried out in the name of the religion they follow while harshly criticizing the other. You are also critical about centuries of Islamic imperialism and the atrocities that were committed during their conquests and occupations, but you aren't willing to admit that Christianity has had its own empires who were guilty of the same evil acts on a much wider scale globally. Do you consider that righteous judgement?

As for the frequency of Islamic terrorism, what we are seeing today is a recent phenomenon. Prior to 2010, less than 10% of all terrorism globally was Islamic related. Fortunately there has been a decline of 60 to 70% since incidents of terrorism reached a historic high in 2014.

Take a look at these two graphs below and tell me which one is the most logical as it relates to the frequency of Islamic related terrorism.

if you’ve actually read anything in Islamic history, it’s been like a nonstop tidal wave unlike any other ideology or belief system on earth, unlike other empires which conquer and either settle or collapse, the Islamic ones never stopped trying to conquer more and more like a tide of locusts.

Can you provide sources for where your information on Islamic history comes from?

 

[JosephZ]

Go back to post 36 which you wrote.

Here is the post I was responding to:

Islam however since day one has been forcibly spreading its faith and this literally hasn’t stopped, pretty much every Islamic faith has tried to spread Islam on non Muslims or other Muslims who varied with the states islam by forceful means.

Here was my response (Edited to save space):

It seems you omitted quite a bit of history and current events in your post. What is your opinion on these examples below that I gave in another thread?

(I then gave examples of Christian terrorist groups and testimonies of both victims and perpetrators)

The NPA/Communist ideology is a form of Christian Communism like what is found in Latin America. This is why you see many of it's members who also belong to the Church... Many in leadership positions of these Communist Christian terrorist groups are Priests, pastors, and other church leaders.

(An example of this given in original post)

There have been two serious attacks in just the past several months in the US where the Bible has been quoted by terrorists to justify their actions.

(Examples of this were given in original post along with the scripture used by the terrorist)

Under "The Doctrine of Discovery" and "Manifest Destiny." The Bible was used to justify the conquering of non-Christian lands and Christianizing the native populations... These doctrines lead to the deaths of countless millions and the suffering of countless more in North and South America, the Caribbean, Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific Islands.

(Examples of this were given in the original post along with a verse of scripture)

When the conquistadors made initial contact with natives they would read a proclamation called the “Requerimiento” in Spanish (A language the natives could not understand and without translators). This proclamation informed them that they must accept Christian rule and the authority of the Pope, as well the Spanish monarchy which the Pope had granted their land to without any input from the natives, and that the natives must also accept missionaries sent to preach to them or they would be considered hostile and would be killed and/or enslaved.

(An example of the Requerimiento was given in original post)

The United States followed it's policy of "Manifest Destiny" in the 19th century and continuing into the 20th century where Christianity was spread outside the US borders and into the islands of the Pacific.

(Example of this was given in original post)

How do you get that I was saying the Bible justifies colonialism or suggest that it promotes Jew hatred in that post? I'm giving examples of how Christianity and the Bible have been perverted by individuals, groups, and governments to push their agendas and commit atrocities. I have never suggested, much less said, that Christianity or the Bible justify these actions and I really can't see how you got that idea from my post; and if you put it into context of the rest of the thread and others I have participated in, it becomes even more obvious that I haven't.

 

[Barney2.0]

What's the difference between the two? They both use the religion they claim to follow to justify their actions; both have been known to kill innocent people using bombs, guns, and sharp edged weapons; both have been known to use rape, torture, and mutilation as forms of intimidation; both have been known to convert people to their religion by intimidation or force; and there have been examples of both attempting to create theocracy states.


If 99.9% of the Muslim world isn't involved in violent jihad and the vast majority of Muslims are condemning Islamic extremism and saying it goes against the teachings of Islam, shouldn't we allow Muslims to define what Islam teaches and what they believe rather than run the risk of giving false testimony against our neighbors?


I took my first course in Islamic Studies while in the military in 1986, fifteen years before you were born; since then I have taken several courses on not only Islam, but also violent extremism and terrorism in general. While I don't consider myself an expert on these subjects, my knowledge is extensive and comes from multiple sources.


It's impossible to have any kind of serious dialog about violent extremism and religious violence with someone who who discounts acts of violence carried out in the name of the religion they follow while harshly criticizing the other. You are also critical about centuries of Islamic imperialism and the atrocities that were committed during their conquests and occupations, but you aren't willing to admit that Christianity has had its own empires who were guilty of the same evil acts on a much wider scale globally. Do you consider that righteous judgement?

As for the frequency of Islamic terrorism, what we are seeing today is a recent phenomenon. Prior to 2010, less than 10% of all terrorism globally was Islamic related. Fortunately there has been a decline of 60 to 70% since incidents of terrorism reached a historic high in 2014.

Take a look at these two graphs below and tell me which one is the most logical as it relates to the frequency of Islamic related terrorism.
View attachment 258334 View attachment 258335

Can you provide sources for where your information on Islamic history comes from?

I just explained that violence hasn’t been an integral part of Christian history unlike Islam. Christianity even as a state religion has no criminal law unlike Islam which has criminal and apostasy laws, which Christianity never had, Christianity used secular law for criminals or heretics and secular laws can vary place to place or time to time.

No one is saying the vast majority of Muslims are involved in Jihad, it seems you don’t even understand my claim yet attempt a response, my claim is that Islam is involved with violent jihad not the vast majority of Muslims. We don’t allow Christians to define Christianity we let the Church and it’s scrioture decide that, in Islam similarly we don’t let the Muslims define Islam, because Muslims are people with all types of people, so we let the Quran, Hadith, and Islamic sources speak for themselves.

For someone to have taken a course in Islamic studies and not quote one single Islamic source in this thread makes me question your credentials. Guess I’m supposed to take your word from it, not to mention your making a logical fallacy as appealing to claims of authority to make it seem you know what your saying. You’ve also not addressed my previous post of how Islam spread throughout history vs how Christianity spread or how I explained why they’re not equal in terms of violence. I think your mixing Christianity up with European colonialism, it would be as equal as mixing up Nasserism, Pan Arabism, or Ba’athism with Islam, a Christian war or empire is one sanctioned by the Church, not secular powers that often suppressed the Church.

It doesn’t matter how frequent Islamic terrorism is, it could have even be a single attack in the last century, point is if the doctrine of the faith really is inspiring and encouraging these attacks then there is definitely a problem. Keep in mind the Islamic world has always had problems like now going on even before Western intervention, Muslims were killing each other almost immediately after Mohammed’s death and both major sects of Islam pretty much formed after original schism (Sunnis and Shias) both with different and contradictory theology and interpretations of the Sharia. The West was just smart enough to exploit this in the past few years.

The source of my views of Islam is its prophet and Sahaba and Islam’s major jurists and theologians interpretations of there words:


"Allah said, (until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam, (with willing submission), in defeat and subservience, (and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said, (Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace."

Quran Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr and Disgrace

 

[Barney2.0]

Here is the post I was responding to:


Here was my response (Edited to save space):

(I then gave examples of Christian terrorist groups and testimonies of both victims and perpetrators)

(An example of this given in original post)

(Examples of this were given in original post along with the scripture used by the terrorist)

(Examples of this were given in the original post along with a verse of scripture)

(An example of the Requerimiento was given in original post)

(Example of this was given in original post)

How do you get that I was saying the Bible justifies colonialism or suggest that it promotes Jew hatred in that post? I'm giving examples of how Christianity and the Bible have been perverted by individuals, groups, and governments to push their agendas and commit atrocities. I have never suggested, much less said, that Christianity or the Bible justify these actions and I really can't see how you got that idea from my post; and if you put it into context of the rest of the thread and others I have participated in, it becomes even more obvious that I haven't.

You quoted Genesis 1:28 saying that it justifies colonialism and quoted Revelation and the Gospel of John to say that it justified a man who murdered Jews.

 

[JosephZ]

You quoted Genesis 1:28 saying that it justifies colonialism and quoted Revelation and the Gospel of John to say that it justified a man who murdered Jews.

Let's take a look at the conversation again at the point you jumped in. Context is everything.

Both Christianity and Islam have been corrupted and/or distorted from their original teachings and intent by individuals, groups, and governments to justify all types of atrocities throughout their histories.

Islam however since day one has been forcibly spreading its faith and this literally hasn’t stopped, pretty much every Islamic faith has tried to spread Islam on non Muslims or other Muslims who varied with the states islam by forceful means.

It seems you omitted quite a bit of history and current events in your post. What is your opinion on these examples below that I gave in another thread?

Under "The Doctrine of Discovery" and "Manifest Destiny." The Bible was used to justify the conquering of non-Christian lands and Christianizing the native populations.

This is one of the primary verses used in support of Christian Imperialism:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.(Genesis 1:28)

Notice its similarity to the statement below:

“free and ample faculty…to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens [Muslims] and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit." (Romanus Pontifex, 1455)

This was also sited in the US Supreme Court:

We maintain that the principle declared in the fifteenth century as the law of Christendom, that discovery gave title to assume sovereignty [a right of domination] over and to govern the unconverted [infidel] natives of Africa, Asia, and North and South America, has been recognized as a part of the national law [law of nations], for nearly four centuries, and it is now so recognized by every Christian power in its political department and its judicial….Our claim is based on the right to coerce obedience. (State v. Foreman, Supreme Court of Tennessee, 1835)

As you can clearly see, I was discussing how religion has been corrupted and/or distorted from their original teachings and intent by individuals, groups, and governments to justify all types of atrocities throughout their histories. I was quoting that verse to show how it was used to justify colonialism. I was not saying that verse justifies colonialism.

 

[JosephZ]

For someone to have taken a course in Islamic studies and not quote one single Islamic source in this thread makes me question your credentials.

I haven't taken "A" course in Islamic Studies, I have taken many over the past three decades. Since I'm not in the US currently, I can't provide you with the transcripts from those schools, but I can give you some evidence from two online courses I have taken fairly recently from an Islamic source and one from a Christian source.

As for the subjects of violent extremism and terrorism, here are some certificates from some of the courses I have taken over the past couple of years.

This is not a hobby of mine, it's my vocation. I'm currently a missionary serving in the Muslim communities in Mindanao and we have incorporated countering violent extremism into our ministry.

As for why I have not quoted any Islamic sources in this thread, it's because me and the OP have been having this discussion over the course of multiple ongoing threads (He creates new ones to address specific issues). This thread has not required me to quote any Islamic sources to support my position. But if you need some examples, here are just a few of many from the other threads which are related to this one.

This is the perfect example of taking a single verse out of context and making it say something it was never intended to say. In this case you didn't even quote the entire verse. Here it is in its entirety in a clear English translation with the portion you shared in blue:

You [Muslims] have had an excellent example in Abraham and those with him [Followers of the religion of Abraham before them]; when they said to their people , “We [Followers of the religion of Abraham before them] are done with you [Pagans and idol worshipers], and what you worship apart from God. We [Followers of the religion of Abraham before them] denounce you. Enmity and hatred has surfaced between us [Followers of the religion of Abraham before them] and you [Pagans and idol worshipers], forever, until you believe in God alone.” Except for the words of Abraham to his father, “I will ask forgiveness for you, though I have no power from God to do anything for you.” “Our Lord, in You we trust, and to You we repent, and to You is the ultimate resort. (Qur'an 60-4)

Here is a parallel verse from the Qur'an that shows what Abraham said to his people:

Abraham, when he said to his people, “Worship God, and fear Him. That is better for you, if you only knew. You worship idols besides God, and you fabricate falsehoods. Those you worship, instead of God, cannot provide you with livelihood. So seek your livelihood from God, and worship Him, and thank Him. To Him you will be returned.” (Qur'an 29:16-17)

"We" in that verse is referring to the followers of the religion of Abraham before the time of Muhammad (Christians and Jews). Not Muslims.

See how important it is to not take things out of context? It changes the whole meaning. Here the Qur'an is telling Muslims that those who follow the religion of Abraham before them were a good example as they should denounce and have nothing to do with idol worship and pagans.

Islam has very similar teachings to Christianity on responding to evil and showing kindness and love towards others. This is why better than 99% of Muslims live in peace and harmony with their non-Muslim neighbors. Below are a few examples from various Islamic sources:

Good and evil are not equal. Repel evil with good, and the person who was your enemy becomes like an intimate friend. (Qur'an 41:34)

And those who patiently seek the presence of their Lord, and pray regularly, and spend from Our provisions to them, secretly and openly, and repel evil with good. These will have the Ultimate Home. (Qur'an 13:22)

Repel evil by what is better. We are aware of what they describe. And say, “My Lord, I seek refuge with You from the urgings of the devils. And I seek refuge with You, my Lord, lest they become present.” (Qur'an 23:96-98)

He told Jesus, “I will save you from your enemies, raise you to Myself, keep you clean from the association with the disbelievers, and give superiority to your followers over the unbelievers until the Day of Judgment. On that day you will all return to Me and I shall resolve your dispute.” (Qur'an 3:55

Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel: that whoever kills a person—unless it is for murder or corruption on earth—it is as if he killed the whole of mankind; and whoever saves it, it is as if he saved the whole of mankind. (Qur'an 5:32)

It is by of grace from God that you were gentle with them [Non-Muslims]. Had you been harsh, hardhearted, they would have dispersed from around you. So pardon them, and ask forgiveness for them, and consult them in the conduct of affairs. And when you make a decision, put your trust in God; (Qur'an 3:159)

The below comes directly from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying : Verily, Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, would say on the Day of Resurrection: O son of Adam, I was sick but you did not visit Me. He would say: O my Lord; how could I visit Thee whereas Thou art the Lord of the worlds? Thereupon He would say: Didn't you know that such and such servant of Mine was sick but you did not visit him and were you not aware of this that if you had visited him, you would have found Me by him? O son of Adam, I asked food from you but you did not feed Me. He would say: My Lord, how could I feed Thee whereas Thou art the Lord of the worlds? He said: Didn't you know that such and such servant of Mine asked food from you but you did not feed him, and were you not aware that if you had fed him you would have found him by My side? (The Lord would again say O son of Adam, I asked drink from you but you did not provide Me. He would say: My Lord, how could I provide Thee whereas Thou art the Lord of the worlds? Thereupon He would say: Such and such of servant of Mine asked you for a drink but you did not provide him, and had you provided him drink you would have found him near Me. (Sahih Muslim, Book 32, Number 6232)

Some other examples:

Be devout and you will be the most pious of people. Be content and you will be the most grateful of people. Love for people what you love for yourself and you will be a believer. Behave well with your neighbors and you will be a Muslim. (Sunan Ibn Ma¯jah 4217)

O son of Adam, be disinterested in what people own and they will love you. Be content with what God has apportioned for you and you will be the richest of people. Love for people what you love for yourself and you will be a believer. Do not harm your neighbour and you will be a Muslim. (Ibn ’Askir, Tarikh Madinat Dimashq 47:439)

None of you has faith until he loves for his brother or his neighbor what he loves for himself. (Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 72)

Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away. (Surah al-Nisa 4:36)

A commentary on the above verse:

I say based upon this verse, kind treatment of neighbors is enjoined and is recommended, whether they are Muslim or an unbeliever, and this is the right thing to do. Kind treatment may be in the sense of helping or it may be in the sense of being kind, refraining from harm, and supporting them. (Tafsi¯r al-Qurt?ubi¯ 4:36)

Below is a portion of Muhammad’s Letter to the Monks of St. Catherine Monastery:

“This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.

Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).”
(Muslim History: 570 – 1950 C.E.’ by Dr. A. Zahoor and Dr. Z. Haq)

Here are the five pillars of Islam:

Profession of Faith (shahada)
Prayer (salat)
Charitible Giving (zakat)
Fasting (sawm)
Pilgrimage to Mecca (hajj)
Here are the six pillars of faith in Islam:

Belief in Allah
Belief in His Angels
Belief in His Messengers
Belief in His Books
Belief in the Last Day
Belief in Pre-Ordainment

Since the above pillars are the core beliefs and practices of Islam, why isn't one of them violent jihad?

First let's look at the beginning of Chapter 9 so we can see which polytheists are being talked about.

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.

As seen in these two verses, it's not talking about all polytheists. 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 of the polytheists have 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 when you read verse 5:

When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayers, and pay the alms, then let them go their way. God is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.

When it says "kill them wherever you find them," it's obvious that it's only talking about those who have already broken their treaties, and not all polytheists.

Your trustworthy source whom you think is the most famous Islamic scholar confirms that there were certain polytheists that had violated their 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!

So as you can see, there is mention in those verses and in the historical record of violations of the treaty by the non-Muslims in Mecca at that time.

Once again, textual and historical context are key to interpreting religious scriptures. Qur'an chapter 9 was revealed to a very specific audience who were defending themselves under a specific circumstance which happened over 1,400 years ago. This point in history and those being spoken too have long passed and these verses are no longer applicable to Muslims living in 2019.

The word taqiyya isn't found anywhere in the Qur'an, but here is the definition:

Takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya); “The principle of dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs in order to avoid persecution or imminent harm, where no useful purpose would be served by publicly affirming them.”

That definition is very specific as to when a lie is permissible.

Below is the ONLY verse found in the Qur'an that suggests that lying is acceptable and even then it is better to choose death rather than to lie as the hadith below it states:

"As for anyone who denies God after having once attained to faith - and this, to be sure, does not apply to one who does it under duress, the while his heart remains true to his faith, but only, to him who willingly opens up his heart to a denial of the truth upon all such falls God's condemnation, and tremendous suffering awaits them" (Qur'an 16:106)

"There is a consensus that whomsoever is forced into apostasy and chooses death has a greater reward than a person who takes the license to deny one's faith under duress, but if a person is being forced to eat pork or drink wine, then they should do that instead of choosing death." (Sahih al-Bukhari)

The following hadiths make it clear that lying is forbidden:

Verily, truthfulness leads to righteousness and righteousness leads to Paradise. A man may speak the truth until he is recorded with Allah as truthful. Verily, lying leads to wickedness and wickedness leads to the Hellfire. A man may tell lies until he is recorded with Allah as a liar. (Sahih al-Bukhari 5743, Sahih Muslim 2607)

"Avoid falsehood, for falsehood leads to wickedness, and wickedness to Hell; and if a man continues to speak falsehood and makes falsehood his object, he will be recorded in God's presence as a great liar. And adhere to the truth, for truth leads to good deeds, and good deeds lead to Paradise. If a man continues to speak the truth and makes truth his object, he will be recorded in God's presence as eminently truthful." (Sunan Abu Dawood vol. 3, no. 4971)

Aisha reported: There was no behavior more hateful to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, than dishonesty. A man would tell a lie when speaking in the presence of the Prophet and he would not be satisfied until he knew that he had repented. (Sunan al-Tirmidhī)

The following hadith says it is one of the greatest of sins.

"Beware I inform you regarding the greatest of the mortal sins: Associating anything with Allah, disobeying parents and lying!" (Wasaelush Shia)

There you have it plain as day, lying is forbidden in Islam; and only when a Muslim faces harm and persecution and only as a last resort is lying permissible.

In this verse it clearly shows that the Muslims do love others, even those who hate them and want to do them harm. Where would they have learned this?

O you who believe! Do not befriend outsiders who never cease to wish you harm.They love to see you suffer. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their hearts conceal is worse. We have made the messages clear for you, if you understand. There you are, you love them, but they do not love you, and you believe in the entire scripture. And when they meet you, they say, “We believe;” but when they are alone, they bite their fingers in rage at you. Say, “Die in your rage; God knows what is within the hearts.” (qur'an 3:118-119)

Once again, there is no question that Islam teaches that the Torah and the gospel (singular) have been corrupted.

Keep in mind that the Qur'an isn't talking about the gospels of Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark. It's talking about the gospel that was revealed to Jesus. It doesn't exist in written form. The original Torah that was revealed to Moses has also been distorted. Regardless, if the words of Jesus found in one of the four gospels today don't contradict what is written in the Qur'an, then it's accepted. Examples would be Jesus saying there is one God or to love others. Since these are also teachings in Islam, there is no contradiction.

If you visit one of the threads the above quotes came from you will find far more examples. I would have given more here, but there's an 18,000 character limit on individual posts.

 

[JosephZ]

You’ve also not addressed my previous post of how Islam spread throughout history vs how Christianity spread or how I explained why they’re not equal in terms of violence.

You still haven't addressed my question of how long you have lived in Saudi Arabia, so I guess were even.

The source of my views of Islam is its prophet and Sahaba and Islam’s major jurists and theologians interpretations of there words:

"Allah said, (until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam, (with willing submission), in defeat and subservience, (and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said, (Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace."

Textual and historical context mean everything.

BTW, I didn't ask where your views came from, I was asking if you could provide sources for where your information on Islamic history comes from.

Can you provide sources for where your information on Islamic history comes from?

 

[Barney2.0]

You still haven't addressed my question of how long you have lived in Saudi Arabia, so I guess were even.


Textual and historical context mean everything.

BTW, I didn't ask where your views came from, I was asking if you could provide sources for where your information on Islamic history comes from.

I lived here most of my life, as for why your asking, that’s my own privacy. Islamic is good for all time and places in the mind of a Muslim so the time and context argument doesn’t really work here especially since Mohammed is considered the perfect moral example in Islam. My source on Islamic history comes from a combination of Muslim and non Muslim sources, such as the Hadith, Sirah, and both ancient and modern non Muslim approaches to Islam.

 

[Barney2.0]

I haven't taken "A" course in Islamic Studies, I have taken many over the past three decades. Since I'm not in the US currently, I can't provide you with the transcripts from those schools, but I can give you some evidence from two online courses I have taken fairly recently from an Islamic source and one from a Christian source.
View attachment 258344 View attachment 258343
As for the subjects of violent extremism and terrorism, here are some certificates from some of the courses I have taken over the past couple of years.
View attachment 258345
This is not a hobby of mine, it's my vocation. I'm currently a missionary serving in the Muslim communities in Mindanao and we have incorporated countering violent extremism into our ministry.

As for why I have not quoted any Islamic sources in this thread, it's because me and the OP have been having this discussion over the course of multiple ongoing threads (He creates new ones to address specific issues). This thread has not required me to quote any Islamic sources to support my position. But if you need some examples, here are just a few of many from the other threads which are related to this one.




If you visit one of the threads the above quotes came from you will find far more examples. I would have given more here, but there's an 18,000 character limit on individual posts.

Muslims can show kindness to non Muslims, but this kindness comes with strings attached, it’s the type of kindness between master and slave not one of actual love of friendship, as we see in the pact of Umar attributed to Umar Ibn Al Khattab the second Rashidun Caliph although it wa probably written by Umar Ibn Abul Aziz the eighth Ummayad Caliph or possibly some other Caliph, nevertheless this document is key to helping us understand how the relationship between Muslims and Non Muslims in the Islamic empires worked in through the concepts of Jizyah and Dhimminitude:

Pact of Umar - Wikipedia

As I said in my previous post your making a logical fallacy appealing to your authority despite most of the verses you quoted were taken out of context by you, keep in mind any verse in Islam needs to be understood in Islamic context and theology unless it contradicts Islamic theology and context which sometimes is the case with the Quran relying on the Torah and Gospel to validate it, but that’s another story. I’m going to skip the claim on taqiyya since it’s not a claim that I make so I won’t bother on it. Anyone who rejects one of the arkan Al Eman in Islam or one of the pillars of faith is a kaafir and heretic and needs to be brought into the fold of Islam:

Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.) Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah's Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad's advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets . Hence Allah's statement, Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,) This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing.

Quran Tafsir Ibn Kathir - The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah

So Islam does infact command offensive jihad on anyone that rejects one of the pillars of faith because of their virtue of being disbelievers 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.

As for your appeal to Surah Imran to say Islam promotes love of non Muslims, reading it in context shows that it contains numerous attacks on Christians and Jews:

Tafsir Ibn Kathir - English [3. Ali-Imran - Verse: 117]

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:

Later, other Meccans came to Muhammad and according to the Treaty asked Muhammad to return some women. Muhammad refused to honor his word and the Treaty. Instead he had the Muslims return any dowries that were given to the women.

"Umm Kulthum Uqba Muayt migrated to the apostle during this period. Her two brothers Umara and Walid sons of Uqba came and asked the apostle to return her to them in accordance with the agreement between him and Quraysh at Hudaybiyya, but he would not. God forbade it. ..... Sirat page 509.

The late Muslim writer Muhammed Asad writes:

11 Under the terms of the Truce of Hudaybiyyah, concluded in the year 6 H. between the Prophet and the pagan Quraysh of Mecca, any Meccan minor or other person under guardianship who went over to the Muslims without the permission of his or HER guardian was to be returned to the Quraysh (see introductory note to surah 48). The Quraysh took this stipulation to include ALSO MARRIED WOMEN, whom they considered to be under the "guardianship" of their husbands. Accordingly, when several Meccan women embraced Islam against the will of their husbands and fled to Medina, the Quraysh demanded their forcible return to Mecca. This the Prophet refused on the grounds that married women did not fall within the category of "persons under guardianship". However, since there was always the possibility that some of these women had gone over to the Muslims not for reasons of faith but out of purely worldly considerations, the believers were enjoined to make sure of their sincerity; and so, the Prophet asked each of them: "Swear before God that thou didst not leave because of hatred of thy husband, or out of desire to go to another country, or in the hope of attaining to worldly advantages: swear before God that thou didst not leave for any reason save the love of God and His Apostle" (Tabari). Since God alone knows what is in the heart of a human being, a positive response of the woman concerned was to be regarded as the only humanly attainable - and, therefore, legally sufficient - proof of her sincerity. The fact that God alone is really aware of what is in a human being's heart is incorporated in the shar’i principle that any adult person's declaration of faith, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, makes it mandatory upon the community to accept that person - whether man or woman - as a Muslim on the basis of this declaration alone. (Source; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours).

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.

Also Surah 9 is talking about all polytheists, it’s only talking about keep the Treaty of Hudaybiyah made with the Quraish and it’s allies which was temporary and lasted for four months only in which the killing and jihad was to resume, unfortunately Mohammed as I previously explained already broke the treaty before it expired.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir - English [9. At-Tawbah - Verse: 1]

I’ve presented proof from Islamic sources that the Ayahs are still regarded as open commands and are applicable, keep in mind that these are prescriptive commands o violence, not narratives of violent events like in other scrioture such as the Bible. Could you also show me one conservative Islamic jurist or commentator that said or says that the commands of Surah 9 are no longer applicablem show me one, just one.

As for the Ashtiname of Mohammed or the supposed covenant Mohammed made within the monks of Sinai, most scholars regard it to be a forgery probably done by the monks themselves to prevent any sort of harm to the monastery, not to mention the Ashtiname or covenant of Mohammed to Saint Catherine’s monastery in Sinai is dated to the 16th century and is believed to be a copy of an original which has been lost, furthermore no ancient Islamic sources that we possess state Mohammed made any sort of covenant with the Monks of Saint Catherine’s monastery in Sinai. All of which suggests the document to be a late medieval forgery long after Mohammed’s death.

It’s also debatable if early Islam believed in the corruption of previous scriptures as we find nothing in the Quran to support the Islamic concept of tahrif some Hadiths even make it clear that Mohammed literally thought the scriptures the people of the book had with them in his time were the same ones revealed to them by God.

Your misquoting sources you claim people are misquoting to paint a view of Islam that betrays both it’s founders, sources, and history.

 

[Barney2.0]

Let's take a look at the conversation again at the point you jumped in. Context is everything.


As you can clearly see, I was discussing how religion has been corrupted and/or distorted from their original teachings and intent by individuals, groups, and governments to justify all types of atrocities throughout their histories. I was quoting that verse to show how it was used to justify colonialism. I was not saying that verse justifies colonialism.

Keep in mind these weren’t the words used used in the posts where you misquoted the Bible. I asked you to actually provide colonial historical documents quoting those verses and to prove if there interpretation of the passage even makes sense. And your claim came right after I put forth the claim that Islam is violent in its ore teachings, so you were going for attacking the Bible to try to justify Islam violence based on it also being violent. Either way I responded to your assertions while your still here trying to justify them.

 

[Joyousperson]

Jesus ministry was to Israel and Paul's ministry was to the Gentiles. Without Jesus revealing the gospel to Paul and Paul teaching what he received from the resurrected Christ, then Christians would still follow the law under the Old Covenant because this is what Jesus taught during His ministry.

But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:11–12

The plan of salvation taught by Paul is not found in the gospels. If Jesus had come into the world teaching the gospel of grace through faith alone, the prophesies found in the Old Testament would have failed and the work on the cross would have never taken place.

but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; (1 Corinthians 2:7-8)

Paul taught that salvation came by grace through faith alone and was a minister to the gentiles. Jesus' teachings found in the gospels are according to the Old Covenant of law of Moses and He was a minister to Israel. The audiences were not the same and the messages are different. Therefore, Paul's teachings are far from just being an exposition of Jesus' teachings.

Christ is the heart of the gospel.


Christians are under no obligation to keep the law or any covenanted terms as a way of earning salvation. Salvation comes through faith in Christ alone. Instead, 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)

God is not keeping score as to what terms Christians live up to and which ones they fail to uphold. When we stand before God, Jesus is our advocate and all of the law has been fulfilled through Him.

I have to admit I am not expert down to the details of each verse of the NT as I am with the verses of Quran.

Nonetheless, I believe it is very sufficient for me to rely on the central doctrines and principles of Jesus Christ and GOD plus the holy spirit.

In principles I don't believe Paul's teachings override that of Jesus Christ in the Gospels and God's words.
Note Paul proclaimed "love is the greatest" which is an exposition of the overriding pacifist maxim "love all - even enemies."

Note "grace through faith" to be effective, definitely require a personal relationship with God established at the least via an implied agreement via John 3:16.
Whatever Paul said, he could not have abrogated John 3:16 which implied the requirement of an agreement, contract or covenant to be established.

It does not matter whether Paul addressed to the gentiles of whoever. If he claimed relationship to God, Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit, his views has to conform to the doctrines within the Gospels.

Btw, Paul's claims are self-proclaimed which arose out of a personal altered states of consciousness. To base on such an experience is never reliable, but fortunately Paul's teachings are merely expositions of the principles within the Gospels and did not introduce elements of unconditional violence.

Note over the history of mankind up the present, many has claim to be agent of God, association with Jesus Christ, etc.
In recent times, all such experiences have been traced to mental illnesses. I have done extensive research into this subject of altered states of consciousness and claims of spirituality.

Note this one among thousands others;
(if you have not come across this, it will an 'ah ha' knowledge and experience for you.)

We could also link Muhammad's initial frightening and terrific experiences where he had to be consoled by his wife, then convinced by a relative he is the prohesized-one, to an altered state of consciousness. I believe that experience is due to some kind of mental issue than a visit by angel Gabriel.

Btw, what about my arguments that what is critical in the Quran is the principles that Muslims must adopt, and any relationship to historical events are merely secondary.

In general, it is most likely the stories within a religious ideology are merely to present and explain the principles and doctrine of the religion.

For example, the story of the Buddha, where a Prince with potential ascension to the throne of a kingdom just ran away and give up his inheritance to be a pauper. This is not likely to happen in reality during 2500 years ago.
The Buddha story is merely a MYTH to represent the main principles of Buddhism.

It is the same for all the major religions, the stories and history are secondary to merely support and explain the main principles.

What about the inevitable STALEMATE DILEMMA of Islam of this OP?
So far you have not counter this point.

Are you familiar with the Muʿtazila founded in the 8th to the 10th centuries, who tried to reform Islam with 'reason' and wisdom.

Muʿtazila
The first group to pursue this undertaking were the Mu'tazila, who asserted that all truth could be known through reason alone. Mu'tazili theology originated in the 8th century in Basra when Wasil Ibn 'Ata' stormed out of a lesson of Hasan al-Basri following a theological dispute.

The Mu'tazila asserted that everything in revelation could be found through rational means alone. The Mu'tazila were heavily influenced by the Greek philosophy they encountered and began to adopt the ideas of Plotinus, whose Neoplatonic theology caused an enormous backlash against them. The political backlash the Mu'tazila faced, as well as the challenged brought forth by new schools of theology caused this group to atrophy and decline into irrelevancy. They are no longer considered an Orthodox school of theology by Sunni Muslims.
​

The above school of Mu'tazila who tried to 'reason' failed because evil and violent is inherent within the DNA of Islam as represented by its doctrines loaded with evil and violent elements.

Yours and others' view that Islam is reasonable and peaceful, verses are primarily historical, will also fail when it comes to the crunch of "what Islam really is" to ensure a Muslim achieve salvation in paradise with eternal life.
Btw, I have not come across a moderate Muslim winning a debate against the fundamental Muslim [the jihadists preference] on the subject what is true Islam in relation to salvation.

 

[Joyousperson]

I just explained that violence hasn’t been an integral part of Christian history unlike Islam. Christianity even as a state religion has no criminal law unlike Islam which has criminal and apostasy laws, which Christianity never had, Christianity used secular law for criminals or heretics and secular laws can vary place to place or time to time.

Btw, note my thread;
The Covenant as a Watertight Defense for Christianity

The above argument from the "covenant" perspective is solid and watertight defense to be used whenever Christianity itself is being accused as evil and violent in nature by association with the Crusades, inquisitions, Salem Witch hunts, any other Christian groups who war against others, pedophile priests, etc.

The defense is based on an overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all - even enemies' as a covenanted term the religion of Christianity per se imposed on all Christians.

What is your view of the above argument?

If you do not rely on the above you will likely be engaged in long drawn to and fro arguments like the current ones.

 

[JosephZ]

Keep in mind the Islamic world has always had problems like now going on even before Western intervention, Muslims were killing each other almost immediately after Mohammed’s death and both major sects of Islam pretty much formed after original schism (Sunnis and Shias) both with different and contradictory theology and interpretations of the Sharia.

You do realize that Christian Europe has a history of more conflict and bloodshed than the Islamic Middle East and North Africa don't you? There were many religious wars and battles fought between the Catholic Church and protestants for example and terrorism carried out by Christians has been frequent especially during the period of the troubles in Northern Ireland.

I lived here most of my life, as for why your asking, that’s my own privacy.

I was asking because your point of view and posting style comes from a western perspective and point of view. Everyone I know who is either from Saudi Arabia or has spent several years of their lives there have no issues when it comes to distinguishing between the religion of Islam and Islamic extremism.

My source on Islamic history comes from a combination of Muslim and non Muslim sources, such as the Hadith, Sirah, and both ancient and modern non Muslim approaches to Islam.

After looking at some of your past posts on this forum it is clear now why your version of history doesn't coincide with that which is taught by legitimate historians or in any history class.

The sources you have been using on this forum are all well known anti-Islamic and anti-Islamic propagandist sites. You have quoted these sources dozens of times based on a search of forum content.

List of Genocides, Cultural Genocides and Ethnic Cleansings under Islam - WikiIslam

https://stage.wikiislam.net/wiki/Th...of_Martyrdom_Operations#Definition_of_Suicide

Wikiislam even has a whole article on the subject:

Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Racism - WikiIslam

Read more here:

Jizyah (Tax) - WikiIslam

WikiIslam is an anti-Islamic website disguised to look like a legitimate source for information about Islam. It's not a reliable source for getting information about Islam.

WikiIslam was founded in 2006 by Ali Sina and Faith Freedom International. Essentially, WikiIslam is an anti-Islam wiki that purports to have 2893 articles/pages about Islam as of today.

In review, most information on this wiki paints a negative picture of Islam. It also favors other non-Islamic religions over Islam. Another aspect of this Wiki that is Questionable is that anyone can edit the contents. Therefore, it may not be trustworthy for factual information. While there is some very factual and in-depth information about the Quran on this wiki, there is also many opinion pieces that are not based in fact, but rather conjecture. On the other hand, because WikiIslam can be edited by anyone there are also many pro-Islam refutations that may not be rooted in fact.

In addition, here are a couple of quotes from the co-founder of this site.

"We see mankind as one family. We see Muslims as stupid and backward brainwashed people who harbor hate," -- Ali Sina

"Foolishness is written all over your faces. Donkeys in comparison to Muslims are philosophers. It is just disgusting to know we have to share the air in this planet with such idiot animals called Muslims." -- Ali Sina

Ali Sina is an Iranian-born Canadian activist and critic of Islam, who refers to himself as an ex-Muslim. He is the founder of Faith Freedom International, which he describes as a grassroots movement of ex-Muslims. Sina is a board member of Stop Islamization of Nations, an organization founded by Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Anders Gravers Pedersen.

Ali Sina has a connection to Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and Anders Peserson who are well known anti-Islamic propagandists.

I had to use screen shots for the following sources you have used since the threads were closed.

The founder of this site is an Islamic extremist and a favorite of anti-Islamic propagandists to use as a source when attempt to legitimize their position. Here's a post I made previously about the site you linked to in the above posts.

Here you are once again using the point of view of an extremist to support your position.

Muhammad Al-Munajjid, [A Saudi Arabian Whahhabist Cleric] -- "Follows Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab movement." He is the founder of IslamQA.info and oversees the fatwas issued on the website. He follows the Hanbali jurisprudence and uses the basis of the salafi movement to answer questions on the website.

Salafis, and especially those who follow the Hanbali school of thought, follow a very strict literal interpretation of the Qur'an. They are much like the Fundamental Independent Baptists in Christianity and their numbers are very small.

The Hanbali school was founded by Ahmad ibn Hanbal in the 9th century. It is primarily found in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and has some presence in the countries surrounding the KSA, such as Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Yemen, and Oman. It is the smallest Sunni school by far, estimated to contain fewer than 5% of the world’s Muslims as adherents, but as they are concentrated in areas of great wealth and power it has a stronger influence on global Islamic thought than might be expected.

Here are some examples of the extreme teachings found at that site you inked to:
Women who drive are prostitutes, women being "weak, defeated and dazzled" if they take part in politics, women being intellectually inferior to men, women who work as broadcasters will lead to illegitimate children, needing to divorce women who don't wear the hijab, needing to leave work if there are women working there too, polygamy being necessary for all Muslim males, women who do not marry will become prostitutes and the illegitimacy of the children will be reflected in their behavior, a muslim male being sinful for getting to know a girl for the sake of marriage, being sinful to live in non-Muslim countries (and needing to hate non-muslims if one does live in a non-muslim country), and not being allowed to appreciate the skills of non-muslim football players, because they are non-muslim.

Needless to say, the above are not a part of the teachings of the religion of Islam, nor do very many Muslims believe that way.

Bill Warner, has said the American flag offends Allah and Americans offend Allah, that we will either defeat Islam or we will cease to exist as a nation, and has asked why do we keep immigration as an open door into our country with regard to Muslims. He is clearly anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim.

Bill Warner has no background in Islamic or Religious studies according to his bio.

Bill Warner holds a PhD in physics & applied mathematics from North Carolina State University. He has been a research scientist at the Sarnoff Princeton Labs, a business owner of an energy efficiency company and a university professor.

The fact that Bill Warner has no background in Islam is also mentioned in this article: Anti-Muslim crusaders make millions spreading fear

A physics and math professor who by his own words is anti-Islam and anti-Muslim isn't your best option for an education on Islam or history.

I'd urge you to watch David Wood or Christian Prince

I can't access answering Islam it's blocked in my country but I do know of it and I watch the videos of David Wood and Sam Shamoun sometimes.

Yet when Christians such as Robert Spencer even mention the crusades they are called hate preachers. To be honest I wouldn't mind another crusade against these Islamofacists.

Anti-Islamic propagandists like David Wood and Robert Spencer make a lot of money exploiting non-Muslims in the west and their ignorance of Islam. It's a business to them and they thrive on conflict and discord. They have no motivation to tell the truth about Islam because if there was no conflict and division between Muslims and non-Muslims, they would be out of business. Below is a comment I made in another thread quoting an article written by Dr. Jeffery Bale. Dr. Bale is the Director of the Monterey Terrorism Research and Education Program and Associate Professor in the Graduate School of International Policy Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. He has been studying violence-prone political and religious extremists for over four decades.

Most people recognize sites and people like Religionofpeace, the Clarion Project, WikiIslam, David Wood, Bill Warner as anti-Islamic and the material they produce anti-Islamic propaganda. They try to equate Islamic extremists and extremism to Islam. This is also the same mistake you are making.

‘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. The allegation is, explicitly or implicitly, that such characteristics are intrinsic to Islam itself, and therefore that Islamism and jihadism are simply logical extensions – or simple applications in practice – of the authentic tenets and core values of Islam. Although it is certainly true that Islamism and its jihadist variants do indeed derive from specific interpretations of Islam, some of which are quite orthodox and hence arguably legitimate whereas others are instead highly idiosyncratic, 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.

For good examples of the conflation of Islam in general with Islamism, see the article that appeared on the ‘Stop Islamization of America’ (SIOA) website (and was subsequently reprinted on Bill Warner’s ‘Political Islam’ website), wherein D. L. Adams, in the course of describing a demonstration held in Copenhagen by a Danish sister organisation called Stop Islamisation of Denmark (SIAD), insisted that ‘Islam is a political ideology’, thereby collapsing the crucial distinction between Islam the religion and Islamism the modern political ideology; this article is available at http://sioanetwork.com/?p=101 . See also the film Fitna, which was produced at the behest of Geert Wilders, a right-wing Dutch politician who considers Muslim immigration to be a threat to Holland and other Western societies. In that film, various citations from the Qur’an and the ahadith (i.e. written collections of oral reports, canonical and otherwise, about what Muhammad allegedly said and did) are juxtaposed with statements by jihadist leaders and spokesmen, in order to suggest that the latter are not only following authentic Islamic injunctions but faithfully applying Islamic tenets by carrying out their violent actions. Ironically, although the jihadists themselves would make the very same claim in other contexts, they have bitterly attacked the film in their propaganda broadsides as an example of ‘Islamophobia’. The film can be accessed at http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/2/Fitna-Documentary-about-Islam-660675.html.

For examples of this ‘Islam bashing’ tendency, see Serge Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet: Islam – History, Theology, and Impact on the World (Boston, MA: Regina Orthodox Press, 2007); Gregory M. Davis, Religion of Peace? Islam’s War against the World (Los Angeles, CA: World Ahead, 2006); several pamphlets by Bill Warner and his colleagues, including Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI), The Political Traditions of Mohammed: The Hadith for the Unbelievers (Nashville, TN: CSPI, 2006), and Mohammed and the Unbelievers: A Political Life (Nashville, TN: CSPI, 2006); a number of books by Mark A. Gabriel (a Muslim convert to Christianity), including Culture Clash: Islam’s War on the West (Lake Mary, FL: FrontLine, 2007); and several works by Robert Spencer, including Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions about the World’s Fastest-Growing Religion (New York: Encounter, 2003), and The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion (Chicago, IL: Regnery, 2007). The thrust of these books, most of which were written by ‘concerned’ conservative Christians with a theological as well as a political axe to grind, is that Islam per se is the problem, not merely Islamism... they are clearly not disinterested or neutral observers.

Based on your sources, you would fall into the category below that I mentioned earlier in this thread when you claimed that I am being refuted over and over.

As for being refuted, refuted by who? Two or three anonymous people on an internet forum who have an obvious anti-Islamic bias who use notorious anti-Islamic propagandist and propaganda sites to support their positions? The counter arguments from these individuals are the same tiring arguments that have been used since 9/11 in an attempt to make Islam look like a violent religion and to shine a bad light on those who follow it. They are also using the same handful of verses taken from the Qur'an and sentences from hadiths over and over out of their textual and historical context to try and show this. Just look at any anti-Islamic propaganda site you can find online. Those who you say are refuting me are using the same exact verses and the same content that can be found on those sites.

Have I really been refuted over and over, or have different people just been parroting the same information over and over that they have all found on the exact same anti-Islamic propaganda sites?

 

[JosephZ]

As I said in my previous post your making a logical fallacy appealing to your authority despite most of the verses you quoted were taken out of context by you,

I didn't quote my posts from other threads to start a debate on these subjects, it was in response to this comment you made in an attempt to discredit me:

For someone to have taken a course in Islamic studies and not quote one single Islamic source in this thread makes me question your credentials. Guess I’m supposed to take your word from it, not to mention your making a logical fallacy as appealing to claims of authority to make it seem you know what your saying.

I was only providing evidence to the contrary.

Your misquoting sources you claim people are misquoting to paint a view of Islam that betrays both it’s founders, sources, and history.

Your position on Islam is not what is taught in schools that offer courses in Islamic Studies. More importantly, Muslims do not share your point of view in regards to their religion and reject your views. Is it really worth running the risk of giving false testimony against your Muslim neighbors by ignoring what they tell us about the religion they follow?

And your claim came right after I put forth the claim that Islam is violent in its ore teachings, so you were going for attacking the Bible to try to justify Islam violence based on it also being violent. Either way I responded to your assertions while your still here trying to justify them.

This is absurd. I was in no way attacking the Bible or trying to justify Islamic violence. What is wrong with you?

It's pains me to see Christians spreading anti-Islamic propaganda and denying the fact that our own religion has been twisted and distorted in the exact same way as Islam by individuals, groups and governments to commit injustices and atrocities against others throughout its history. Why Christians would choose to believe the extremist narrative of Islam that only a very small majority of Muslims follow to the peaceful and tolerant version of Islam that nearly all of the world's Muslims follow is beyond me. When Christians do this it shines a negative light on all of us and it makes those who do this come across as self righteous and hypocritical. Not only that, but it puts them at risk of bearing false witness against their neighbor.

I'm going to recommend the same advice to you that I have to the OP in another thread since you are having a difficult time distinguishing between Islamic extremism and the religion of Islam. There's no substitute to learning about what Muslims believe and what Islam teaches than going to actual Muslims. Another alternative is to take some courses in Islamic studies offered from legitimate sources. As a Christian missionary the one I always recommend to those who are considering witnessing to Muslims is this one: The Gospel and Islam - TVSEMINARY Trinity Video Seminary It's free and while it's just an introductory course, it does go into the History of Islam and many other concepts of the religion which will go a long way in dispelling many of the myths and misconceptions that many non-Muslims have about this religion.

 

[Barney2.0]

You do realize that Christian Europe has a history of more conflict and bloodshed than the Islamic Middle East and North Africa don't you? There were many religious wars and battles fought between the Catholic Church and protestants for example and terrorism carried out by Christians has been frequent especially during the period of the troubles in Northern Ireland.


I was asking because your point of view and posting style comes from a western perspective and point of view. Everyone I know who is either from Saudi Arabia or has spent several years of their lives there have no issues when it comes to distinguishing between the religion of Islam and Islamic extremism.


After looking at some of your past posts on this forum it is clear now why your version of history doesn't coincide with that which is taught by legitimate historians or in any history class.

The sources you have been using on this forum are all well known anti-Islamic and anti-Islamic propagandist sites. You have quoted these sources dozens of times based on a search of forum content.





WikiIslam is an anti-Islamic website disguised to look like a legitimate source for information about Islam. It's not a reliable source for getting information about Islam.

WikiIslam was founded in 2006 by Ali Sina and Faith Freedom International. Essentially, WikiIslam is an anti-Islam wiki that purports to have 2893 articles/pages about Islam as of today.

In review, most information on this wiki paints a negative picture of Islam. It also favors other non-Islamic religions over Islam. Another aspect of this Wiki that is Questionable is that anyone can edit the contents. Therefore, it may not be trustworthy for factual information. While there is some very factual and in-depth information about the Quran on this wiki, there is also many opinion pieces that are not based in fact, but rather conjecture. On the other hand, because WikiIslam can be edited by anyone there are also many pro-Islam refutations that may not be rooted in fact.

In addition, here are a couple of quotes from the co-founder of this site.

"We see mankind as one family. We see Muslims as stupid and backward brainwashed people who harbor hate," -- Ali Sina

"Foolishness is written all over your faces. Donkeys in comparison to Muslims are philosophers. It is just disgusting to know we have to share the air in this planet with such idiot animals called Muslims." -- Ali Sina

Ali Sina is an Iranian-born Canadian activist and critic of Islam, who refers to himself as an ex-Muslim. He is the founder of Faith Freedom International, which he describes as a grassroots movement of ex-Muslims. Sina is a board member of Stop Islamization of Nations, an organization founded by Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Anders Gravers Pedersen.

Ali Sina has a connection to Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and Anders Peserson who are well known anti-Islamic propagandists.

I had to use screen shots for the following sources you have used since the threads were closed.


View attachment 258378 View attachment 258379

The founder of this site is an Islamic extremist and a favorite of anti-Islamic propagandists to use as a source when attempt to legitimize their position. Here's a post I made previously about the site you linked to in the above posts.




View attachment 258380

Bill Warner, has said the American flag offends Allah and Americans offend Allah, that we will either defeat Islam or we will cease to exist as a nation, and has asked why do we keep immigration as an open door into our country with regard to Muslims. He is clearly anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim.

Bill Warner has no background in Islamic or Religious studies according to his bio.

Bill Warner holds a PhD in physics & applied mathematics from North Carolina State University. He has been a research scientist at the Sarnoff Princeton Labs, a business owner of an energy efficiency company and a university professor.

The fact that Bill Warner has no background in Islam is also mentioned in this article: Anti-Muslim crusaders make millions spreading fear

A physics and math professor who by his own words is anti-Islam and anti-Muslim isn't your best option for an education on Islam or history.





Anti-Islamic propagandists like David Wood and Robert Spencer make a lot of money exploiting non-Muslims in the west and their ignorance of Islam. It's a business to them and they thrive on conflict and discord. They have no motivation to tell the truth about Islam because if there was no conflict and division between Muslims and non-Muslims, they would be out of business. Below is a comment I made in another thread quoting an article written by Dr. Jeffery Bale. Dr. Bale is the Director of the Monterey Terrorism Research and Education Program and Associate Professor in the Graduate School of International Policy Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. He has been studying violence-prone political and religious extremists for over four decades.


Based on your sources, you would fall into the category below that I mentioned earlier in this thread when you claimed that I am being refuted over and over.

Have I really been refuted over and over, or have different people just been parroting the same information over and over that they have all found on the exact same anti-Islamic propaganda sites?

Do you think the religious wars in Europe were actually being carried out by the Church in joy, or was it because the Protestant reformers wanted to forcefully reform the Church against everyone’s will. How does this in any way compare to the Sahaba who knew Mohammed conquering nations and subjugating people, the religious wars done by Catholics and Protestants aren’t by people I admire or care for, unlike Muslims who admire men like Umar Ibn Al Khattab. Furthermore we’re the religious wars in Europe really backed by the Church or used by secular powers to control the Church, with each state backing different religious parties and sects.

I really don’t care how many people who you know who have lived in Saudi or how many people you know are form there, this is completely irrelevant, we’re not discussing problems with Saudi, we’re discussing problems with Islam. So far your pointing the unfair finger and not addressing anything I’m posting, I’m responding to your arguments with sources that include Islamic sources in them, my perspective and opinion on the matter is irrelevant, what matters is what Islamic sources say and how Muslims have historically interpreted them.

Ibn Kathir must be a really Anti Islamic source, I personally don’t care who Ali Sina or what he thinks about Islam or Muslims, I care about how WikiIslam presents its sources on Islam and to check they’re not actually manipulating the sources being given, I won’t quote an article unless it gives sources back to Islamic text when discussing Islam which WikiIslam does. I really don’t care who the people are or what they’re private views are, I care if Islamic sources are violent or not, so far your not addressing what I’m posting your giving me names and dismissing them for being anti Islamists despite me not mentioning them or parading them and you not even addressing their claims.

Muhammed Al Munnajid is an Islamic extremist, that’s the dumbest and most nonsensical thing you’ve posted here so far, in Saudi he’s a well respected Islamic scholar and Sheikh of high standing, keep in mind his website IslamQa always backs any fatwas, rulings, or claims with sources, nothing is quoted out of context. Since you seem to claim to know more about Islam then he does then it’s your job to respond to his fatwas and other claims using Islamic sources.

I care if Bill Warner is accurately presenting the spread of Islam or not, even going to Oxford confirms the spread of Islam through massive conquests:

Spread of Islam, The - Oxford Islamic Studies Online

You quoting his Bio must really backfire on you when it says he’s well read on Islam and an expert on its political ideology:

Dr. Bill Warner - Author, Speaker, and Teacher on the History of Political Islam

Not to mention he’s invitied to many universities to speak on the topic. The definition of Anti Islam is hating Islam for no reason other then hate and the same goes for Anti Muslims, it’s prejudice against Muslims as a people. Criticizing Islam for being backward and violent isn’t that, nor is criticizing Christianity or Christian doctrines anti Christian.

Fact is anyone readi this thread can see your not addressing anything I’m putting forward or actually addressing the text I’m quoting from medieval Islamic jurists whose views are still applied in Sharia courts today all over the world, so you are getting refuting and the problem is your not even attempting to respond to any claims I’m making with evidence.