Jews and Muslims: A Glimpse into the Future

Jews and Muslims: A Glimpse into the Future

If Children are the future, here is a glimpse into the future.

And a Muslim child’s prayer.

Spread The Word! Share it:

This article has 675 comments

  1. i will say ex muslim are really shame fool, many western woman convert to islam then happy life than ex muslim got problem life 

  2. have you heard about child sex tourist? shame ali sina say nothing about world got lots of problem islam,

  3. anti islam  is shame, ali sina is shame, you shame, western have lots of MOLESTATION  rape children most man crime are no muslim, priest pastor love sex with children, ukraine russia allow child porn nude picture video , japan have famous child porn cartoon called lolicon straight shotacon, they are all not muslim, you hate islam for nothing reason

  4. you really silly stupid, dont forget allah see everything, dont forget angel will write about your good bad deed, one day you wil die then meet allah you will say i am fool then maybe go hell fire or not , only allah know it

  5. dome of rock mosque is belong for muslim , jewish should know that al asqa is belong for a muslim 

  6. you are correct, i dont understand why ali sina wrote lots of bad thing against islam than any religion, i sure any religion will say ali sina is illness mental

  7. wafa sultan is terrible like you

  8. islam is dying? wow, you say nothing about zionism or any religion turn mad kill muslim people? you shit?

  9. ex muslim are stupid , ex muslim are problem life than muslim , ali sina is really idiot crazy mental illness, i sure ali sina will died for someday 

  10. No wonder, Mahatma Gandhi's favourite faith (Islam) is dying.

  11. This is a most interesting article ever written…
     Abdulateef Al Mulhim retired from the Royal Saudi Navy with the rank of Commodore and writes regularly for Arab News. 
    He poses interesting questions and a challenge for the Arab world. 
    Unfortunately, one smart Saudi is unlikely to change the Muslim world. If only there are more sensible Arabs like him.  Unfortunately the Arabs are not united and slowly self destruct by destroying each other.
    Arab Spring and the Israeli enemy
     
    ABDULATEEF AL-MULHIM
     Thirty-nine years ago, on Oct. 6, 1973, the third major war between the Arabs and Israel broke out. The war lasted only 20 days. The two sides were engaged in two other major wars, in 1948 and 1967.
    The 1967 War lasted only six days. But, these three wars were not the only Arab-Israel confrontations. From the period of 1948 and to this day many confrontations have taken place. Some of them were small clashes and many of them were full-scale battles, but there were no major wars apart from the ones mentioned above. The Arab-Israeli conflict is the most complicated conflict the world ever experienced. On the anniversary of the 1973 War between the Arab and the Israelis, many people in the Arab world are beginning to ask many questions about the past, present and the future with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
    The questions now are: What was the real cost of these wars to the Arab world and its people. And the harder question that no Arab national wants to ask is: What was the real cost for not recognizing Israel in 1948 and why didn’t the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars? But, the hardest question that no Arab national wants to hear is whether Israel is the real enemy of the Arab world and the Arab people.
    I decided to write this article after I saw photos and reports about a starving child in Yemen, a burned ancient Aleppo souk in Syria, the under developed Sinai in Egypt, car bombs in Iraq and the destroyed buildings in Libya. The photos and the reports were shown on the Al-Arabiya network, which is the most watched and respected news outlet in the Middle East. 
     The common thing among all what I saw is that the destruction and the atrocities are not done by an outside enemy. The starvation, the killings and the destruction in these Arab countries are done by the same hands that are supposed to protect and build the unity of these countries and safeguard the people of these countries. So, the question now is that who is the real enemy of the Arab world?
     The Arab world wasted hundreds of billions of dollars and lost tens of thousands of innocent lives fighting Israel, which they considered is their sworn enemy, an enemy whose existence they never recognized. The Arab world has many enemies and Israel should have been at the bottom of the list. The real enemies of the Arab world are corruption, lack of good education, lack of good health care, lack of freedom, lack of respect for the human lives and finally, the Arab world had many dictators who used the Arab-Israeli conflict to suppress their own people. These dictators’ atrocities against their own people are far worse than all the full-scale Arab-Israeli wars. 

     

  12. Simple Logic,
    Quite brilliant. I hope the muhammadans will heed the instruction of their buffoon of an ayatollah. The sooner they start doing that the better.

  13. Jewish Boycott ……..Brilliant !
    Well done: This may end the Muslim problems……..
    A short time ago, Iran 's Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged the Muslim World to BOYCOTT anything and everything that originates with the Jewish people.
    In response, Meyer M. Treinkman, a pharmacist, out of the kindness of his heart, offered to assist them in their boycott as follows:
    "Any Muslim who has Syphilis must not be cured by Salvarsan discovered by a Jew, Dr. Ehrlich. He should not even try to find out whether he has Syphilis, because the Wasserman Test is the discovery of a Jew. If a Muslim suspects that he has Gonorrhea, he must not seek diagnosis, because he will be using the method of a Jew named Neissner.
    "A Muslim who has heart disease must not use Digitalis, a discovery by a Jew, Ludwig Traube.
    Should he suffer with a toothache, he must not use Novocaine, a discovery of the Jews, Widal and Weil.
    If a Muslim has Diabetes, he must not use Insulin, the result of research by Minkowsky, a Jew. If one has a headache, he must shun Pyramidon and Antypyrin, due to the Jews, Spiro and Ellege.
    Muslims with convulsions must put up with them because it was a Jew, Oscar Leibreich, who proposed the use of Chloral Hydrate.
    Arabs must do likewise with their psychic ailments because Freud, father of psychoanalysis, was a Jew.
    Should a Muslim child get Diphtheria, he must refrain from the "Schick" reaction which was invented by the Jew, Bella Schick."Muslims should be ready to die in great numbers and must not permit treatment of ear and brain damage, work of Nobel Prize winner, Robert Baram.
    They should continue to die or remain crippled by Infantile Paralysis because the discoverer of the anti-polio vaccine is a Jew, Jonas Salk.
    "Muslims must refuse to use Streptomycin and continue to die of Tuberculosis because a Jew, Zalman Waxman, invented the wonder drug against this killing disease.
    Muslim doctors must discard all discoveries and improvements by dermatologist Judas Sehn Benedict, or the lung specialist, Frawnkel, and of many other world renowned Jewish scientists and medical experts.
    "In short, good and loyal Muslims properly and fittingly should remain afflicted with Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Heart Disease, Headaches, Typhus, Diabetes, Mental Disorders, Polio Convulsions and Tuberculosis and be proud to obey the Islamic boycott."

    Meanwhile, we ask, what medical contributions to the world have Muslims made??
    None that we can think of. 

     

  14. What is the name if the Egyptian child? Someone should kidnap the child and send the child to a boarding school in Chia so the mind can be erased and made fresh and clean.

  15. Two men go into a bakery (BF) 04-05-2013
    The Arab steals 3 cup cakes and puts them in his pocket.
    He says to the Jew, "See how good I am? The owner didn't see anything!"
    The Jew says to the Arab, "I am going to show you there is nobody better
    than a Jew at performing magic trick."
    He goes to the owner and says, "Give me 3 cup cakes and I will show you a magic
    trick."
    Intrigued, the owner accepts and gave him 3 cup cakes. The Jew eats all of them.
    The owner is starting to wonder where the magic trick is and says: "What trick ? Are you trying to fool me?"
    The Jew answers, "Look in the Arab's pocket."

  16. Look at aminriadh-the-hatemonger-practicing-taqiyya inspired by his prophet mo and a true believer of alla-who-barbaric… look at your dholim Quran first, and see who is the hatemonger…

    are you nuts? ("anta majnoon?") we do not need to learn any arabic only to learn intolerance and killings from quran…

  17. The very moment you watch this video so many muslim comments on why this does not depict muslims, why there are other options, pointing fingers at other religions and bad mouthing come out.

    NOT ONE of you guys worry that this particular muslim child has been corrupted and feel bad for her. I DO.

    This is exactly why Islam is so inhumane. Islam cares about islam. Not about muslims.

  18. Oi Oi.. Sina's speech isnt counted as BAD speech just coz you dont like what it says. And countering bad speech is also a waste of time. Use good speech to counter if you have the truth on your side. DOH

  19. Youve written a hundred posts and not one of them say WHY he is wrong. Just that he is wrong. Cut us some slack and just prove him wrong would you?

  20. When people criticiize you you have no other way but to resort to violence and rebel? :)

    Thank you for defining islam in one sentence.

  21. These KIND verses where written when your prophet did not have an army to use, when he was in Medina, hiding from his opposers. When he amassed an army, he chaged tactics and started giving violent verses. It is dishonest to use these verses and ignore violent ones. True muslims weigh both and choose the violent ones. You are just fooling yourself into thinking its peaceful, you are in denial.

    Oh by the way, Islamic definition of peace is not the HUMAN definition. As long as a man gets to do his prayers and duties, it doesnt matter who he kills, he is still in peace state.

  22. Why should you feel any bloody pain if someone criticizes your prophet. If your doing research under a teacher, and another teacher criticizes your teacher's views, do you feel pained? NO! You look at the other point of view and use logic. Islam has brainwashed you into feeling bad when you face criticizm and so you shut any opposing comment out of your heads. How can you realize that it is false then?

  23. Islam cannot compare itself to others. The very fact that you guys see other religions as COMPETITORS and not as something coexistable is what proves this point. Lets face it. You cant use the above excuse for nazism and dictatorship can you? The same applies for Islam. Its inhuman. You cant compare inhumane ideas with others. Its got to go.

  24. Just one question for you to ponder: How can you make up with your God for all the sins you have done and thought? It's not something as adding up good deeds and subtracting evil deeds and when you end up positive you go to heaven (that's human reasoning). God is infinetly righteous and 1 sin is enough to send you rightously to hell even if you would add only good things to it.

    God is no human, He is a consuming fire for any sinner that is not in the Lord Jesus Christ.

  25. Amin, I read something else in my Bible (KJV): A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

    A congregation is not heaven. A congregation is a church/tempel/tabernacle. None is excluded from heaven, but you have to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Who was infinitely rightous and died on the cross for sinners who find no right in themselves to go to heaven, but can only depend on His work on the cross.

    God has the the right to forbid people to enter in his congregation. For He is God.

    He also had the right to destroy the whole earth with the great Deluge in Noah's time because the human race was utterly sinful.

    We humans have no right to excuse God, for His ways are not our ways. God hates sin and punishes it whether you like it or not.

  26. The famous quote " Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all the terrorist acts were/are done by Muslims."
    How can you tell the infidels not to hate this 7th century religion.

  27. This is a site entertaining haters of Islam. you should rename it my friend. Only a stupid person will follow you. In every community their is good people and bad people but what you want to show here is that only Muslim people are bad. well good luck! you are a laughing stock and a pervert for all these lies about Islam

  28. Where are people like you bred?

    One gets tired of reading the same mundane rhetoric over and over . . . .

    - – -

    One day you MIGHT be able to form an original argument.

    In the meantime . . . read someone decent!

  29. Whatever the arguments todate, it is so inconcievable that a world in this 21st. century stlii harbours so many people with such an archaic religion as Islam. It seems half the world is still in the "stone age "of social and religious developement. My guess is that, in reality, the divide is a struggle between "haves'" and "have-nots", spurred on by hunger and envy and disenfranchisement. The rich oil nations get richer by providing arms and guns to protect their status guo.

  30. I hate people who betray me whether that person is my brother , Muslim , Jew or anybody for that matter . so if jew did not bother me then I would hate him as for zionists who think that Palestine belong to Jews and indigenous got to go out I think he is wrong and I will stop his madness if I have chance

  31. I never claimed to be a scholar of Islam . All I can say that I know Islam , koran and Arabic much better than anybody here in forum

  32. Stop spiting zionist propaganda I am not white dumb sptupid American whom you can fool . Hamas or Hizbullah would not have hated you had you not ocupied their land and drove them from their homes . You have lived with hamas and Hizbullah grand parents for 1000 of years in peace. How many jews joined Muslims to help them against white men who is killing them like flies ? ZERO and How many Muslims joined allies to fight Hitler ? 600K Muslims

  33. Go back and read your Talmud then we can discuss which book encourage hate

  34. Izzy said : Tell me, zitouni, is this person "ignorant" because he is not a Muslim?

    Because he has no crendiels on Islamic studies

    Izzy said : (Actually, that's quite funny, given the distinct lack of first-class contribution to science, etc from the Muslim world generally)

    What this has to do with being expert on Islamic studies . There are many Muslims scientists who have phd degrees on all fields of science , but I have not heard once single kafir who can be called
    scholar of koran

    Izzy said : Can you read Arabic? Have you memorised all the koran and can you recite it by heart?

    Yes I can read arabic , no I have not memorised all koran or recite it by heart

    Izzy said : If not, then your opinion about it is as worthless, isn't it, and you too are ignorant.

    You see you are so dumb about koran and Islam . For you dummy if somebody can read arabic , or memorise the eintire koran therefore he is koranic expert . Just roll back and see what I have said about being an expert on Koran because I am tired with repeating myself

  35. Lol! This is all you could find? After 1400 years of extreme hatred and constant effort to try and commit genocide of these people, never leaving them in peace from Arab aggression, one would be surprised if they don't harbor hate against Muslims. Fact is Jews don't go after anyone if you don't attack them. Even then, they rarely go after anyone. How many Jews have blown themselves up in German cafes, buildings and trains after the horrors done to them by Hitler – who got his inspiration from the Muslim arm of the nazi party?

  36. Do your own research aminriadh.

    Why should others do it for you?

  37. The atheist, being more questioning and less gullible also has access to a wider history than the religious who, particularly if he is a slave of the prophet, has a "mind" which is curtailed along tram lines.

    I know many deeply sensitive and spiritual atheists who, unlike Muslim religious, are good people and live and let live. That concept is completely alien to Muslims

  38. "- On many points of Islamic doctrine there is variety of interpretation among Muslims. And MEMRI TV often shows Islamic clerics inside Islamic countries, presenting interpretations of some of Islam's most important guiding texts, that contradict interpretations presented by Islam-apologists to western audiences. "

    This is simple meaningless.

    If you bring up EXAMPLES . . . of what you are talking about then – it is worth discussing.

    You cannot ask to talk in general terms. Basis of one disagreement over something doesn't mean ALL disagreements will have the same logic.

    - – -

    "Without them presenting the division among Muslims concerning interpretation of key Islamic doctrine-points. You don't hear Islam-apologists explaining; well, at least that is MY or OUR interpretation of this or that particular verse or point of doctrine. "

    Again . . one cannot comment . . .as I don't what are you talking about. Bring up examples . . . we will talk about it.

    - – -

    "This is what Hans Jansen, a Dutch Islamologist (that is what he is often called) wrote. "

    Where?

  39. "And I happily agree that the opinion with the best evidence and reason and EXAMPLES should win. "

    I am sorry – but your position was simply absurd.

    - – -

    "I just insist on having the perfect right to give opinions without evidence and reason and on the truthseeker doing research and choosing him/ herself. "

    Wrong and absurd.

    You can lie and do whatever . . . no one is taking that right away.

    It is SIMPLY that the rest of us will NOT entertain such comments as serious.

    - – -

    "From a person who is willing to go with you from London to Tokyo with all the evidence and counterevidence both of you can find, like Search for Truth. "

    Rather than BEING impressed at lists of copy and paste from anti-Islam sites . ..

    You should have read the argument.

    ANYONE can copy and past whatever jibberish and claim . . . oh look evidence.

    As pointed out . . . .THAT IS NOT WHAT EVIDENCE IS ABOUT.

    Serach4trtuh was about copying things anti-Islam propaganda sites.

    The stupidity of that?

    When his claims were refuted. . . he did not know what to do. . .

    BECAUSE – they weren't his arguments.

    He had NOT gone out and done the leg work.

    When that got exposed .. . . he was exposed.

    - – -

    If you notice – this is what Julia did over Salah claims.

    he had read them on anti-Islam sites and simply pasted material

    With out actually having knowledge or EVEN bothering to read he material.

    When little lies were exposed.

    All Julia could was paste even more – and different things.

    When he ran out . .

    THAT WAS IT!

    - – -

    "And THEN WHAT? You STILL DEBUNK!"

    OBVIOUSLY . . . AND READ WHAT IS GOING ON . . .RATHER THAN SIMPLY MAKING THINGS UP.

    DID YOU BOTHER TO READ WHAT THE ARGUMENTS BETWEEN USE WERE?

    DID YOU SEE SOMEONE ELSE YOU COULD CHAMPION AGAINST ME?

    ONE CAN SIT THERE ALL DAY PASTING FROM A SCIENCE SITES. . . .

    HOWEVER DOES THAT MEAN HE HAS UNDERSTANDING OF A SUBJECT . . .NO!

    - –

    Then you get all assy . . . BUT that is dishonest.

    If you have NOT even read the comment exchange . . .how can you talk about them.

    - –

    "You never give approval to, often not even acknowledgement to, evidence and reason presented to you. "

    What are you talking about.

    Why should I give "approval" to thing I disagree about?

    What an absurd thing to ask.

    - – -

    "Just as you do not differentiate between Sina and Pipes you do not differentiate between levels of arguments from opponents in some scale of 1 to 10. "

    100% wrong . . .and lie.

    Like I said . . . it NOTHING to you making up lies! It is it.

    I don't think you consider lying wrong!

    I do see the difference between Sina and Pipes.

    - – -

  40. "Else – you will bombard me with examples."

    I do wish to extend to you an olive branch, and respect you and leave your honour intact and engage in more positive discussion. And I do have a Pipes-like long-term goal and hope of finding common ground between counterjihadists and islam-apologists and by extension Muslims, and I do take the long view for this, say 20 years.

    And I happily agree that the opinion with the best evidence and reason and EXAMPLES should win.

    I just insist on having the perfect right to give opinions without evidence and reason and on the truthseeker doing research and choosing him/ herself.

    And at times you really do get BOMBARDED. If not with examples, then with arguments, replete with references out of Islamic texts with as many context as you demand.

    From a person who is willing to go with you from London to Tokyo with all the evidence and counterevidence both of you can find, like Search for Truth.

    And THEN WHAT? You STILL DEBUNK! You never give approval to, often not even acknowledgement to, evidence and reason presented to you.

    Just as you do not differentiate between Sina and Pipes you do not differentiate between levels of arguments from opponents in some scale of 1 to 10.

    You cannot show one example of you giving approval of evidence. You are going to DEBUNK IT ALL, no matter what. So there is no use in BOMBARDING you with examples.

    But to be fair to you, perhaps it's in large part the same with me and other counterjihadists. But I will say this:
    when you put up genuine evidence, that is often very hard to refute, and that makes me genuinely think very hard for days and yes, that has changed me.

  41. "Hah! half the time (or at least many times) you present us with claims that are without evidence and reason."

    Then it is YOU job to demand evidence/proof.

    Show me ONE Example . . . where i have made a claim . . . I was ASKED for evidence. . . and I refused to give it?

    Second – do you have trouble reading?

    Read this again:

    "I am smart enough to make water-tight accusations and judgements – that stand to scrutiny.
    You don't have such morality!"

    What does this say to you? And look at your response. . .
    this merely say. I can BACKUP my claims.
    I have NEVER refused or made excuses

    YOU do not do the same. . . Example.

    Your "Jizyah" claim . . . When I asked for evidence. You had none. . . . one of your excuses? Such evidence is available on such sites.

    So if it is THAT easy . . . why could you NOT point it out when asked.

    - – -

    "But later on I definitely can. "

    Nope YOU tend to make excuses . . . for example it is JOB of the claimant to give evidence for his claims.

    Yet you find excuses . . . that are NOT accepted on rational principles.

    - – –

    "You denying that is only an expression of your desire and pattern; To be destructive, to debunk, to deny, dismiss, "

    NOPE – look above – I have GIVEN evidence.
    Hence another false accusation . . which is manifest LIE!

    - – -

    "denigrate opponents (and by extension average humans and by extension mankind) deflect "

    Where – more lies against me – nothing more.

    Else – you will bombard me with examples.

    - – -

    "That is a perfecly legal opinion of me, under freedom of speech, nothing to be ashamed of. And allowed to you too, I promise. "

    See how you make ABSURD excuses . . .

    As I have pointed out.

    No one is STOPPING you from making up lies.

    However – LYING will be considered wrong in general and immoral.

    See the difference.

    - – -

    YOU use "freedom of speech" to excuse immoral behaviour.

    Hence WHY you over-stepped the mark – with Julia and supporting her.

    NO ONE questioned that Julia had the RIGHT to verbally abuse and insult in general – without anyone stopping her.

    But condoning such abuse is wrong and immoral.

    YOU actively condoned Julia. . .

    Hence – You use this "Freedom" thing as an excuse.

  42. "Look, I am an average person in intelligence, knowledge and experience."

    I can show you a contradiction to this . . . where you were begging me for respect – then you were NOT claiming to be "average".

    - – -

    "So I do not accept your attempt to discourage me in judging primarily your "arguments". Let the reader decide. "

    This is NOT how it works. . . just because you have "freedom of speech"

    That doesn't make it morally OK for you to lie. Does it.

    And lying is something you do.

    Just see the top comment.

    No one is saying you DO NOT have the freedom to lie. But at the same time – LYING will be condemned.

    Hence:

    "Let the reader decide. "

    Is simply absurd.

    Those who are against me will condemn – despite the truth of the situation.

    Hence – the "let the reader decide" is simply meaningless in this case.

    This is why – this is Sina's lie against me:

    ""Yes of course! That is because they have seen the evidence many times, even in your own writings. Show me one Muslim who does not try to highlight the evil things happening in the non-Muslim world to justify the evil of the Quran. Show me one Muslim who does not bring up the crusades, the inquisition, George Bush, 1st and 2nd world wars, rapes and domestic abuses happening the the west to justify jihad, terrorism and Muhammad's rapes and pedophilia. Examples? Your own writings!" "

    This kind of lying works.

    Sina knows FULL WELL it is a lie.

    So will his supporters.

    Hence throwing lies this work.

    And YOU rpovde the perefect excuses.

    - – -

    This is why I showed you your hypocrisy . . . to this date you do NOT have an adequate answer for your stance . . . that makes sense.

    Regarding YOUR support for Julia.

    And before making fresh excuses and repeats . . . I refer you to your old posts . . . where you have already said – it is "difficult" to answer.

    - – -

    "arrogant when you do it"

    Another baseless lie. Which you are VERY good at making up.

    - – -

    "Debunking-denying-dismissing-denigrating-deflecting. "

    Where that is the WHOLE point.

    If you answer with "examples" this will EXPOSE your lying.

    - – -

    "That whole destructive part of your posts should be answered with contempt and routine answers; perhaps; "Ah, yes, that! Aminriadh in DEBUNKING MODE again." "

    See you prove you are LYING by saying this . . .

    "Leaving us to concentrate on your often very good, hard to refute constructive contributions, which improve us by letting us think hard. "

    Because whenever you will give examples – you will know FULL WELL your above lie will be exposed.

    As such comments are conclusions.

    For example – calling someone a "liar" for nothing – without giving the lie . . . . is insult.

    But one calls "liar" to someone who lies. Key difference son! Learn it well. Repeat this lie again . . . I will repeat this.

    - –

    That is why – you always ACCUSE but NEVER give examples!

    - – -

    Hence your lying is exposed.

  43. "That you did on a continuing basis, and we now know that you were poisoning the well, deflecting from topics and his message. You were attacking the arguER instead of only the arguMENT. Incessantly, shockingly, endlessly. "

    These are YOUR claims only.

    And as we know . . . you are someone who supported extreme verbal abuse of Julia especially against me.

    Hence on which objectivity are you you claiming this.

    The above is SIMPLY your lying claims and NOTHING more.

    As I have pointed out . . . in case of "me" you are EXTREMELY unreliable to tell the truth.

    Especially when your past behaviour is brought into question.

    To prosecute me as it were . . .

    You do NOT present a single shred of evidence. Hence EVEN if you are biased . . . you could have given merit to your claims.

    But you have none. Hence the above is NOTHING more than bogus allegations.

    - – -

    "And the reader can see your posts and judge for him/ herself."

    Actually this is NOT good enough.

    For example – a reader that is anti-Islam will simply condemn me on the basis of being a Muslim.

    This is why LYING and FALSE ALLEGATIONS work.

    This is DEVIOUS and DISHONEST

    - – -

    "But I will say that you endlessly keep saying that his main motivation is that he wants hate-monger. That refers to him personal and his character. "

    Yes – I back that up to the hilt!

  44. "I am smart enough to make water-tight accusations and judgements – that stand to scrutiny.
    You don't have such morality!"'''''''

    Hah! half the time (or at least many times) you present us with claims that are without evidence and reason. The reader can check for him/ herself if I am right or wrong about this by looking at your extensive correspondence here. we both should have the attitude: I don;t mind if you don;t mind.

    And scrutiny, that can be done in a meaningfull dialoque, in time, progressively, by the reader, and for the reader. I can put up very good cases too, concerning my motivation, goals, my strong points. Just not on all issues. And just not initially in the first post about issues. But later on I definitely can.

    You denying that is only an expression of your desire and pattern; To be destructive, to debunk, to deny, dismiss,

    denigrate opponents (and by extension average humans and by extension mankind) deflect

    and use every argument you can find to arrive at this preconceived debunking goal, of any anti-Islam-opinions, claims. Motivated by the desire to defend Islam.

    And this debunking goal, I say, trumps any desire you might have to let me or the readers find the highest and broadest truth that we can find.

    That is a perfecly legal opinion of me, under freedom of speech, nothing to be ashamed of. And allowed to you too, I promise.

    And not in need of evidence, because the reader can easily check

  45. "Indeed it can be argued that an atheist is more developed intellectually since he relies more on his internal locus on evaluation rather than contaminating it by external rubbish from a sky pixie "

    Yet on the same token it can be argued that Religious people are the better developed intellectually. As they have access to a greater history and quantity of scholarship and better depth.

    Self-assurance and confidence are greater as the "big questions" are taken care of. Hence one can get on. . . and develop and add to the collective human knowledge and experience rather than figuring out the same moral quandaries by themselves.

    Religious people would have a ready base and history to go to . . . . hence why even atheist, agnostics and secularist still AT LEAST follow religious celebrations and rituals rather than coming up with their own. Which tend to be spiritless affairs.

    Human Creativity . . . again the passion and fervor that religious can create are not so easily replicated. Their isn't the equivalent base and depth that is Secular. It just deosn't exist.

    Music, Paintings and other fine arts, Architecture, Literature . . . . it is a religious base. Whether Eastern or Western.

    These are DEEP emotions . . . . and they make us. Religion has a far deeper history of "playing" with them

    Western Pop Music . . . and its relation to the Church is extremely deep. . . and the finest practitioners of Pop and its many genre actually grew from gospel Music.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_and_roll

    One can make an argument – many major genres of Western Music grew out of Gospel/Church Music

    - – -

    Even development of Science owes it thanks to religion . . . after all most people in the dark days . . . believed in:

    "external rubbish from a sky pixie"

  46. "By falsely accusing me over and over."

    Response; Look, I am an average person in intelligence, knowledge and experience. And I have freedom of speech. I know what slander is and what constitute illegal false accusations, which are about accusing someone of illegal acts, punishable by law.

    Of course I have never accused you falsely of breaking any laws. So I am perfectly within my right to give my judgement of you and your words, positions as my opinion. This is not in any way reprehensible, but perfectly fine under freedom of speech.

    I give you the same latitude and I try not to blame you for doing the same that I do.

    So I do not accept your attempt to discourage me in judging primarily your "arguments". Let the reader decide.

    You deciding it is useless, and you are prejudiced and arrogant when you do it, because clearly we are opponents.
    And I can point out your apparent desire and pattern, for the vast majority of your words, of:
    Debunking-denying-dismissing-denigrating-deflecting.
    And your questions are in vast majority also meant for debunking-denying-dismissin.g

    That whole destructive part of your posts should be answered with contempt and routine answers; perhaps; "Ah, yes, that! Aminriadh in DEBUNKING MODE again."

    Leaving us to concentrate on your often very good, hard to refute constructive contributions, which improve us by letting us think hard.

  47. "I have NEVER insulted Sina personally. "

    That you did on a continuing basis, and we now know that you were poisoning the well, deflecting from topics and his message. You were attacking the arguER instead of only the arguMENT. Incessantly, shockingly, endlessly.

    And the reader can see your posts and judge for him/ herself. But I will say that you endlessly keep saying that his main motivation is that he wants hate-monger. That refers to him personal and his character.

  48. "Islam talks itself into "justifying" violence even in the cause is in its collective imagination. It routinely behaves emotionally. "

    Your opinion only – please don't insult our intelligence.

    - – -

    One notices this pretense to be a common problem.

    Many non-Muslims that are anti-Islam to greater than average degree automatically assume that they have some sort of superior claim to knowledge, logic, rationality and can easily out-do Muslims.

    There is a perception – which Sina readily condones – that Muslims cannot reason and really are uneducated. . .

    That is until one gets rude awakening.

    - – -

    I found many atheists to be similar – they automatically assume that they know more science than you. . . just because they are "Atheists" and

    - – -

    Religious people are same – many Muslims for example assume that they will defeat anyone in their merely with power of belief, self-assurance and some help from higher power.

    - – -

    Hence you often read comment such as the one above . . . which does NOT defeat the argument – but merely claims to do so . . . and seeks credence from the illusion of being smart and the opponent being dumb.

    This is why some people accuse you of logical fallacies by rote. . .

    Merit is in the quality of argument and counter-argument. Not in merely claiming something.

  49. Actually in this case . . . Rosh is NOT being purely hypothetical.

    As . . .

    "I attacked mafia regime in SA in particular and Gulf states in general because they are the main reason why Muslim are backward and why Zionist are still in Palestine . They have allowed themselves to be client state of US on expenses of all Arabs "

    This was the comment Rosh was replying to.

    And said:

    "Easy. Your arguments smack of delusion. That being the case, it would not be at all difficult for you to attack the mafia in one country and support the mafia equivalents in Arab countries just because you haven't the intelligence to realise that you are arguing for two opposing positions."

    If you are going to be 100% hypothetical and NOT leave lingering implications. . . then using the same examples to hypothesize is not a good idea.

    Hence one could say the ambiguity started with Rosh.

  50. Read the absurdity above. I think this person is ACTUALLY serious – and not being Ironic.

  51. "Each time Muslims have had to be coerced into peace talks and each time they have sabotaged them. They are masters of cutting off their noses to spite their faces "

    Actually this is a VICIOUS and NASTY lie.

    With no back up . . . evidence proof – other than work of a dark spiteful heart.

    WikiLeaks leaks – of discussions revealed Abbas was prepared EVEN to give Jerusalem away.

    Who rejected it?

    Israel.

    - – -

    Why?

    It has NO intention of giving WestBank up.

  52. You really are a fool aren't you?

    Arab armies attacked Israel and lost and she captured land.

    And you can bet that the soldiers who did that (if they did it) would be court martialled. Anyone who killed a pregnant Jewish woman (and Yusuf al-Qaradaiw said they were fair game – would be celebrated as heroes in Gaza and the West Bank.

    Each time Muslims have had to be coerced into peace talks and each time they have sabotaged them. They are masters of cutting off their noses to spite their faces

  53. Well, you ignoramus, he certainly doesn't have to worry what other idiotic people think, as you do, he is not terrified of hell fire, he probably much more capable of forming true friendships because he is probably not as paranoid as you are likely to be because Islam teaches paranoia to its slaves, and, most importantly so far as I am concerned he is allowed to have his own opinions about everything and anything and to discuss them with others without fear of being harmed if others disagree with him.

    I would imagine that he could prove those factors of his life.

    How many of those things can be applied to you?

  54. This is your opinion only. It is not fact so please don't insult us here by claiming it as fact.

    Islam talks itself into "justifying" violence even in the cause is in its collective imagination. It routinely behaves emotionally.
    Again, please don't insult our intelligence.

  55. Agreed, Joe.

    Indeed it can be argued that an atheist is more developed intellectually since he relies more on his internal locus on evaluation rather than contaminating it by external rubbish from a sky pixie

  56. You have "proved" no such thing and I doubt that you would recognise proof. You should be very careful of your language usage here.

    Surely Islamists like the Hamas are animals, except animals take much better care of their young and would not deliberately put them in danger. But Hamas is led by the nose by your koran

  57. No they aren't. The principle difference between them is that Judaism is governed by the Golden Rule whereas Islam is not.

    And don't believe everything you hear about alleged land theft

  58. Neither do you.

    Look at Palestinian Media Watch and then ask yourself who exactly is projecting.

    Islamic "edcuation" predisposes towards literal thinking, narcissism, borderline personality disorder and paranoid splitting which in turn predisposes towards projection.

  59. Do you know what "hypothetically" means, zitouni?

    Look it up

    I believe that Rosh was speaking hypothetically, his/her using of "would" is a giveaway pointer towards hypothetical statements for a person of adequate intelligence.

  60. We have a saying in my country – "Tell the truth and shame the devil"

    So do that, zitouni.

    You hate Jews as well as Zionists, don't you?

  61. Thanks, Ali.

    I note that the Muslim projects the shame and, as always blames someone else for it and obliterates his shame literally.

    The dots may well be there but they are not joined up are they? There has to be massive psychological dissociation and splitting for such a one of be an "honourable man" again

  62. Actually zitouni, you are a "scholar" of Islam, who knows the koran and presumably the ahadith. Why should anyone else do research for you? If you were really as clever as you imply then you would be able to answer JStillwater out of your own wealth of knowledge, wouldn't you?

    But instead you waffle on above emotionally and without sense.

    You really have shamed yourself.

    How does that feel?

  63. Aw, c'mon…

    Remember that I wrote above that I said that I was a walking lie detector?

    Well, my lie detector is in overdrive now that I've read your miserable contribution above.

    Tell the truth for once. It's not "worth your while" because you are too afraid to engage in real debate with a scholarly man who argues reasonably and reasoningly. We would find you out and you couldn't stand the shame, could you?

  64. Your sources are suspect.

    And see my reply to your chum, zitouni, above.

    You may even learn something.

  65. When a lunatic in an Islamist government proudly announces that the elderly, women and children make the best human shields, and that his people love death more than the Jews love life (but I doubt that he ever consulted his people), this is evidence of almost a sociopathic objectification of the young. Also, when he said that "we" loved death, he didn't mean himself. He scuttled away to hide while his people were deliberately put in danger.

    Also, as I wrote above, children in Palestinian schools are taught to want to be "martyrs" and to become desensitised to the very natural fear of death, all of this courtesy of Hamas, which hates Jews as much as it (allegedly) loves death.

    I doubt that any Jew would give over the education of his children to the same sort of thugs as Hamas and Fatah. It's unnatural to want one's children to die, and not even the lowest animal deliberately puts its young in such danger. How do you account for Hamas wanting children in Gaza to die?

    And, you fool, if nothing had been done against Germans in WWII, there would not BE any Jews left! They'd all have been murdered in much the same way as Hamas and Hezbollah wants to kill the Jews, first in Israel and then around the world in these times

  66. See my post above, Demsci, and particularly the part about the holding onto grudges and inability to let them go as evidence of borderline personality disorder en masse

  67. Would you like me to translate it into simpler language for you, zitouni?

    It's evident from your reply that you haven't understood a word I wrote, so why on earth did you reply and make such a fool of yourself?

  68. I am a proud Jew, zitouni. And I am a walking lie detector.

    And, if you really want to know about Muslim Jew-hatred, read the Hamas Charter, look at Palestinian Media Watch and the poisonous child abuse it perpetrates so as to ensure that mindless Jew-hatred is carried on down the generations. Perhaps you can tell me why Muslim parents allow this?

    And better still, go somewhere quiet with a copy of Bat Ye'or's very scholarly "Islam and Dhimmitude" and when you have read it come back here, and we can discuss it and how it makes you feel if you want.

    The Jews taught the Golden Rule to the rest of mankind, but Islam foreswore it because its prophet was a hate-filled malignant narcissist who prized violence and murder. Hatred is not taught in Jewish schools as part of the curriculum in the same way as it is in Arab/Muslim schools around the world.

    And yes, by comparison with what is taught in Islam, Jews ARE on the whole nice and loving. Judaism does not prize violence and the spreading of its faith by the sword.

  69. Tell me, zitouni, is this person "ignorant" because he is not a Muslim?
    (Actually, that's quite funny, given the distinct lack of first-class contribution to science, etc from the Muslim world generally)

    Can you read Arabic? Have you memorised all the koran and can you recite it by heart?

    If not, then your opinion about it is as worthless, isn't it, and you too are ignorant.

  70. What rubbish! Which dictionary did you get that from?

    You haven't convinced me.

  71. Are you seriously trying to argue, in the light of the content of your posts here, that you are some sort of scholar who can understand all about Islam?

    I'll bet you learned it by rote rather than thought about it.

    Yes?

    Well, the earth is flat, the moon is made of green cheese and all pigs are fuelled and ready to fly.

  72. "logic" again! From a person who wouldn't know how to apply it systematically if you paid him.

    Do you wish you were logical aminriadh? Is that why you are so obsessed with the word?

  73. I have read your other posts. You have considerable difficulty in thinking logically (logic and Islam are oxymoronic) and, as a Muslim you are forbidden from developing critical thought.

    Your reply was hot air, so I won't waste time on it, but

    When was the last time you were found out to have been wrong?

    How did you feel about it? Were you phobic of the shame and did you react angrily? I would bet money I don't have that you overreacted and threw a strop.

    (It's actually quite plain that my mini-analysis of your and amiaridh's being-in-the-word wobbled you somewhat, and you resort to the classic Muslim default of wailing victimhood and trying to deflect, because you haven't the courage to answer my points or try to disprove them. Instead you dish out more of the same – lots of burble and no substance).

  74. Very true, Demsci. It is known, for example, that Haj Amin al-Husaini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was an ally of Hitler, that Hitler admired Islam's attitude to Jews, and that al-Husaini promised him that he would carry Hitler's final solution through and make the whole of the Middle East judenrein.

  75. “..Take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus does He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.” (al-An’am 6:151)

    Please explain how this squares, LOGICALLY, with the koranic injunction to hate and kill Jews.

  76. Maria_Islamic, I wonder what you make of the systematic indoctrination into hatred of Jews and Israelis of Muslim children and Palestinian children in particular.

    Dr Neil Kressel in his excellent book, "The Sons of Pigs and Apes" describes this in nauseating detail and we can call see the sort of filth fed to these children on Palestinian Media Watch.

    But please post some links here of Palestinian/Muslim children singing and dancing about peaceful matters and out of sheer joy rather than because some Muslim lunatic succeeded in killing himself among Jews.

    Can you deny that Imams and other clerics appear regularly on Arab/Muslim television urging the slaves of your allah to hate, and in particular to hate Jews?

    Go ahead if you think you can. I can prove you wrong.

  77. Literate means you are educated in university ,illiterate means who are not educated in university.

    What you call when someone who is educated in universe but not in university. illiterate again? lol

    Seems so wise , educated , developed ???? Why don't you try your hand in making alternative to Islam so people will automatically come to you and you don't have to complain about them.

    Please don't behave like bubble on surface take dive in deep sea ! You will know what is in it ! lol

  78. It is no surprise that an illiterate Muhammad could 'educate' all you Muslims & transform your minds into believing something that is totally unbelievable!
    What is even more surprising is, how you Muslims hang onto that rubbish & filth that came out of that seditious book called Quran; in our present times!
    Good luck Muslims…keep drinking that camel piss!

  79. "If you truly despise racism then the Quran is one of the most blatant racist and hateful books al par with Mein Kamph."

    It clearly isn't – else he would have come up with choice examples . . .

    See the lying and the deceit?

    - – -

    "Wahhabis are the true and real Muslims who take the message of Muhammad seriously."

    Says it all!

    - – -

    "Please don not continue hiding your head in the sand. The evil does not come just from Hadith. It is all over the Quran. "

    it is in your mind . . . as noted . . . . hate has made you irrational.

  80. @zitouni… is it possible for a non-arabic speaking person to be an "expert on the experts?" In other words, is it possible for a non-arabic speaker to be so well-versed in what the arabic-speaking experts say, that they are indeed an "expert on the experts," and by extension, an expert on the qur'an?

    For example, let's say a person spends 50 years studying all there is to study from the Tafsirs and other expositions, biographies, commentaries, etc. Even though they don't speak arabic (although, after 50 years studying the experts, they'd know a bit), even though they don't speak arabic, they could still be experts on the qur'an, because they have internalized and absorbed all there is to absorb from the "experts." If someone asks them a question regarding the qur'an, they will give the exact same answer as one of the experts because they are an expert on what the experts have said regarding every topic.

    Isn't this true?

    Also, they would be expert at the inconsistencies in the qur'an, because they would have researched and cross-referenced everything any expositor has ever said regarding the qur'an, and they would be completely correct, because their opinions would be based solely on the experts.

    So, a non-arabic speaking person could indeed become an expert on the qur'an, since the qur'an doesn't change, and since the expositors have already rendered their commentaries… the rest is simply a task of becoming completely familiar with what these contain.

    J Stillwater

  81. @zitouni… directly from the qur'an… the qur'an says the earlier revelations were perfectly preserved… and so accurate that they are muhammad's witness…

    Indeed, if the jewish and christian scriptures had been corrupted… it would have been foolish for the qur'an to state the following:

    He has laid down for you as religion that with which he charged Noah and that which we have revealed to thee, and that with which we charged Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Perform the religion and scatter not regarding it" (Sura al-Shura 42:14)

    Say you, we believe in God and in that which has been sent down on us, and sent down on Abraham, Ishmael, Ishaq, and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was given to Moses and Jesus and the prophets of their Lord; we make no division between any of them and to him we surrender" (Sura al-Baqara 2:136)

    God desires to make clear to you and to guide you in the institutions of those before you and to turn you towards God who is all knowing all wise" (Sura al-Nisa' 4:26)

    So, how could god "guide" the people in the "institutions" of "those before" if there was no reliable scripture?

    J Stillwater

  82. You don't know one thing ,though the body is sold to any Arabian or middle eastern boggy man ,the heart is remain with Jews ,and they knew at what time heart beat be reduced and stopped in given circumstances.So don't shoot in the blue, it is harm full to you ,as it will fell upon you.

  83. Well, Aminriadh, what I can do is to compare you to Ali Sina and Julia and try to use the same standards to all of your attitude/ behavior on this website.

    Perhaps you were right that I supported Ali Sina and Julia while I criticized when you did the same as they did; namely VERBALLY abusing, insulting, belittling, vilifying opponents. Yes, you do that a lot too. But I may have been guilty of hypocrisy when I supported the one but exhorted the other side for the same attitude-behavior.

    Well, Ali Sina + Julia did/ do it with the specific proviso that they only target the adherence to Islam in Muslims. And it is clear that they are against Islam, not Muslims. And THAT makes them OK by me. And acting legal as was shown in the process against Geert Wilders, where in the verdict it was said that is was legal to insult ideologies.

    But you may do the same also with a specific reason. You keep saying that they are hatemongers. But that is too vaque, as hate-mongering against something bad in favor of something good can be OK.

    But perhaps you too are against some ideology like Ali Sina and Julia; some ideology that counterjihadists cling to; Counterjihad.

    Perhaps you want to do to COUNTER-JIHAD the same as Ali + Julia want to do against Islam. And while they have positive goals and good alternatives for Islam, you of course think Islam is better than COUNTERJIHAD, so you too have a positive goal; defending Islam. And for that YOU belittle-vilify opponents.

    And that I shall have to respect in all; Ali Sina, Julia but in you too.

    But what Ali Sina and Julia did NOT do with their insulting was deflecting from topics and discrediting opponents with the purpose of discrediting messages. No, their insulting was always combined with full focus on their messages.

    And I think that that IS what you do regularly. In my opinion.

  84. If you truly despise racism then the Quran is one of the most blatant racist and hateful books al par with Mein Kamph. Please do not blame Wahhabism. Wahhabis are the true and real Muslims who take the message of Muhammad seriously. You make it sound as if Wahhabis are a different sect of Islam. Not so. They are the only truthful and authentic Muslims. They are the only Muslims who are not hypocrite.

    Please don not continue hiding your head in the sand. The evil does not come just from Hadith. It is all over the Quran.

  85. Loved the pianist recital, choked over the anti-Jewish, death-to-Israel type mantra (the wahab announcer is so condescending). As a Western submitter this type of propaganda reiterates yet again the cultural divide between our Islam and this warped tragedy. I don't agree with Israel's internal police-state but I despise racism in any size, shape or form. Just pathetic.

  86. "Ha, that's just your robotic reflex of denial-dismissal."

    Son – this is YOU being a hypocrite.

    What is denial-dismiss?

    Nothing.

    You invented this BS – and pretend it is something fallacious.

    This is hiding behind terms. . .

    Here . . . see how I have dismissed you!

    - – -

    "I give it the fallacy-contempt and ask you for your constructive contribution to this conversation. Which I will respect, but not this. "

    Doh!

    Dishonest!

    And your USUAL – flinging of false accusations.

    Which are LIES!

  87. " You deny us, but we deny you too."

    Who is WE.

    Talk about yourself. . . .

    - – -

    I have ALWAYS defeated you.

  88. "Asking your opponent for respect is NOT an olive branch."

    Maybe not asking, but advising and proposing mutual respect IS.

    Look, isn't it obvious that I respect you, just not your Islam-defending? (And not your pretending that you are in it for truthfinding or for promoting peace and harmony?). I actually look forward to your posts, you make me think hard!

    And I think you respect me too, because you many times answer me in depth. And why should you not admit differences in opponents, why should you brush them all with the same paint? Why belittle them all?

  89. "Hate mongering is good."

    Correction; Hate mongering CAN BE GOOD. Or evil. More specific reasoning is needed for conclusions, judgement.

  90. Look; I think it IS stalemate, because both sides DENY that the other one has won. You deny us, but we deny you too. And there is no independent jury. And I can live with stalemate between counterjihadists and Islam-apologists.

  91. Ha, that's just your robotic reflex of denial-dismissal. I give it the fallacy-contempt and ask you for your constructive contribution to this conversation. Which I will respect, but not this.

  92. "If you can justify Julia!

    You can justify anything.

    Even killing Muslims indiscriminately and call it good."

    Again; I see slippery slope-fallacy in this!

  93. "Obviously – you CANNOT advise your opponent respect!:

    Hahah, of course you can, in history it was done many times!

  94. "Tough one to answer. "

    Because I am right.

  95. ""I see here the "slippery slope"-fallacy. "

    No you don't – this is SIMPLY your dishonesty.

    Else the above is perfectly valid.

    - – -

    I have proven repeatedly – you do NOT understand what fallacies are.

    You just like accusing me of them – in order to sound big.

  96. "Look how keen you were to claim this:
    "And you are constantly BELITTLING many opponents. DESTRUCTIVE. "
    But for yourself . . . you have excuse handy.

    Tough one to answer. So what should be common criteria between us, to avoid hypocrisy from both sides? And to use single standards, not double standards by both sides?

    We criticize/ insult the part of you that is Islam-defending, but we take care to not criticize/ insult the rest of your complex personality and behavior.

    what do you require from us in return?

  97. When you have RUN out of steam . . . saying this doesn't really help.

  98. "Asking your opponent for respect is NOT an olive branch."

    Stalemate, I think; I like us to agree to disagree on this.

  99. "So just because someone comes here to defend Islam by EXPOSING Sina, You think they deserve abuse?"

    A resounding YES to that! But I too, and I do know how it feels! But NO ONE's feelings are to be protected at all costs!

    "If you can justify ABUSE towards me . . . . you can justify anything. The possibility is there!"

    I see here the "slippery slope"-fallacy.

  100. "but I still disagree with him on it. "

    In other words . . . you JUSTIFY abuse.

    - – -

    "this is stalemate, a matter of "he says this, and he says that". Let the reader decide, OK? "

    It is NOT stalemate.

    As I given EVIDENCE for Sina's lies and deception.

    They are well noted.

    He has NOT once managed to stood and argue against me.

    NOT EVEN ONCE!

    - – -

    "You do have evidence of hatemongering, I admit it. But at the same time I say hate mongering can be good! "

    See your dishonesty. . .

    When you know – I can prove hate mongering . . .

    Then you change tack.

    Suddenly – from objecting that Sina isn't a hatemonger . .. and whatnot to . . . .

    Hate mongering is good.

    - – -

    If you can justify Julia!

    You can justify anything.

    Even killing Muslims indiscriminately and call it good.

    Sina already calls for bombing Muslims.

    - – - –

    "even of Quran-Hadith-Sira or you PROVE difference OR you specify that the hatemongering of Ali Sina is against something GOOD/ INNOCENT."

    Where is hatemongering of Quran?

    - – -

    "He comes with plenty of positive goals and reasons why Islam is not good/ innocent in relation to his positive goals. "

    And they ALL get roundly beaten!

    - – -

    Sum of iIna is that he is consumed with HATE. Which is dangerous.

    And takes away his rationality.

    - – -

    Hence why I defeat his reasoning so easily.

  101. "More by opening my own sites and COMPREHENSIVELY putting nails into his coffin!"

    I will say that that can be something great!!

    The real big question, to me, is if you will allow opponents of you as much of the HUGE latitude that Ali Sina gives to you here!

    Because initially, when I first saw how you treated Ali Sina on his own website I was …. shocked, highly amazed that he allowed himself to be "verbally butchered" by you endlessly and in depth. And I admired him greatly for that. Will you do the same when you open your website?

    Will you ban the "julia's" from your side? I mean Muslims who are as abusive as you claim she was? What ARE your criteria?

  102. "I was not begging, I have plenty of substance and ammunition and am not powerless. No, I extended an olive branch, and it was from a position of strength, confidence, not desperation. "

    Your view. NOT mine.

    Asking your opponent for respect is NOT an olive branch.

    - – -

    "This is strawman fallacy, at best from ignorance, prejudice, poor reading abilities or poor intention to seek truth, or at worst from intention to discredit messengers to deflect from messages. "

    Nope – this is YOU lying.

    By false accusations.

    = = =

    "OK, OK, OK. Julia was disrespecting. But it was not to you as a human, it was only to you defending Islam!!! "

    huh?

    How absurd!

    Julia was NOT disrespecting.

    But a troll

    Hence why Sina banned him.

    - – -

    So just because someone comes here to defend Islam by EXPOSING Sina

    You think they deserve abuse?

    And you were BEGGING me for respect.

    = = =

    If you can justify ABUSE towards me . . . . you can justify anything.

    The possibility is there!

    = = =

  103. If Julia was SO against Islam and NOT Muslims – WHY abuse people personally to that extent. . . that EVEN Sina ends up banning her?"""

    OK, OK, Ok, I was puzzled by that too, to this day. Ali Sina said something about it being ineffective, since it triggered Muslims to insult back and lowering the level of this site. And he is boss and knows much more than I, but I still disagree with him on it.

    "Sina is in favor of freedom and many positive goals, better alternatives to parts of Islam." No he isn't – this is JUST your claim. No evidence given.

    this is stalemate, a matter of "he says this, and he says that". Let the reader decide, OK?

    You do have evidence of hatemongering, I admit it. But at the same time I say hatemongering can be good!

    So either you condemn all hatemongering, even of Quran-Hadith-Sira or you PROVE difference OR you specify that the hatemongering of Ali Sina is against something GOOD/ INNOCENT. He comes with plenty of positive goals and reasons why Islam is not good/ innocent in relation to his positive goals.

    And I dispense with your negative judgements by saying that these are only deflecting from the topic at hand.

  104. "I do see your point, but ….. it was not your whole personality that Julia and I were belittling and insulting, it was specificly mentioned by us both that it was only about your defense of Islam. "

    Which is in itself false and erroneous. Which I proved to be the case.

    = = =

    " it was specificly mentioned by us both that it was only about your defense of Islam."

    This is absurd.

    Tomorrow you if you butcher a Muslim in the street – and what will you claim?

    You were only killing his Muslimness?

    - – -

    This is why you DO NOT know what ad-hominem is . . .

    WHY you repeatedly use it wrongly.

    - – -

    = = =

    "And mankind choosing Islam or it's alternatives was our main concern. And that in THAT we are competitors to you. But overall I can still respect you; as intelligent, as making me think hard, as a fine human being. "

    - – –

    You justified abusing others . . . .

    then make an absurd excuse:

    " it was specificly mentioned by us both that it was only about your defense of Islam. "

    - – -

    Look how keen you were to claim this:

    "And you are constantly BELITTLING many opponents. DESTRUCTIVE. "

    But for yourself . . . you have excuse handy.

    Yet I have NEVER abused people.

    - – -

    Hence I am actually VERY respectful compared to you.

  105. "If fact . . . . YOU are the one who has er . . . attempted to BELITTLE me. By justifying Julia and her level of abuse. . . . "

    I do see your point, but ….. it was not your whole personality that Julia and I were belittling and insulting, it was specificly mentioned by us both that it was only about your defense of Islam.

    And mankind choosing Islam or it's alternatives was our main concern. And that in THAT we are competitors to you. But overall I can still respect you; as intelligent, as making me think hard, as a fine human being.

  106. Oh, losing from you is no humiliation.

    I was not begging, I have plenty of substance and ammunition and am not powerless. No, I extended an olive branch, and it was from a position of strength, confidence, not desperation.

    """Says you – YOU who advocates . . .ABUSE and HATE
    towards opponents! YOU wanted respect for that! """""

    Definite statements by yout that are disadadvantageous to you. In a remotely independent study at best you would get points for the POSSIBILITY of that. But it is clearly NOT LIKELY to have been my "advocation".

    This is strawman fallacy, at best from ignorance, prejudice, poor reading abilities or poor intention to seek truth, or at worst from intention to discredit messengers to deflect from messages.

    If both of us would be doing what you do, we never get anywhere!!!

    """YOU justified JULIA . . . . and all that abuse.
    Then you have the stupidity to say to me:
    "with your disrespectful destructive attitude."
    So which respect were you giving by siding with Julia?""""

    OK, OK, OK. Julia was disrespecting. But it was not to you as a human, it was only to you defending Islam!!!
    And I acknowledged quite a few times your qualities, and I still do.
    People can give the mixed messages; overall I give you respect, I acknowledge your good qualities, but also I respectfully criticize your faults and I support, in a much larger context than only concering you (just one human) those who criticize you on a specific point, and thus NOT on your whole character.

  107. "without GIVING or HAVING proof. Empty claims. Chest-thumping. And any way, it's just not for you to decide, but for readers, doubting Muslims. "

    Actually – YOU begging me is er. . . . EVIDENCE of your loss.

    - – -

    "You say I BEGGED for respect, while in reality I ADVISED you to show respect to opponents in order to try to find at least some compromis, middle ground, at least some resolutions between counterjihadists and Islam-apologists. "

    Nope – YOU BEGGED.

    Doh!

    Obviously – you CANNOT advise your opponent respect!

    Doh!

    That is earned. Not advised.

    I see this as BEGGING!

    - – -

    "It was an advice in the interest of more peace and harmony, it was CONstructive of me. Because you are here constantly being DEstructive, denying, dismissing. "

    Says you – YOU who advocates . . .ABUSE and HATE

    towards opponents!

    YOU wanted respect for that!

    I'll give you respect for it:

    "Kiss my arse"

    - – –

    You who Justified – JULIA!

    You want respect!

    - – -

    = = =

    "And in these debates here at best you can reach stalemate, but never victory with your disrespectful destructive attitude. So that is why I advised you to try to respect your opponents more. "

    Look how devious and dishonest you are . . .

    YOU justified JULIA . . . .

    and all that abuse.

    Then you have the stupidity to say to me:

    "with your disrespectful destructive attitude."

    - – -

    So which respect were you giving by siding with Julia?

    Where is Julia?

    left you alone. . . . is that why you were BEGGING!

    - – -

    I won over you long ago.

    Get over it.

  108. "And you are constantly BELITTLING many opponents. DESTRUCTIVE. "

    Merely a false accusation . . . . no merit whatsoever.

    If by pointing out their dishonesty, false thinking, poor thinking, lies and etc is "belittling" then yes.

    Else – I am NOT guilty.

    - – -

    If fact . . . . YOU are the one who has er . . . attempted to BELITTLE me.

    By justifying Julia and her level of abuse. . . .

    So why are you advocating something you do NOT believe in.

    - – -

    It is YOU belief that I should be sworn at and abused here.

    - – -

    = = =

    "And when you do that indeed means you have LOST. Because it is used by you as DEFLECTION from topics, which SHOWS people you most of the time can't even debate without using logical fallacies. "

    I have NOT committed any logical fallacy that I am aware of. . .

    If i have do point it out – with evidence of course.

    You don't propose to declare me guilty – WITHOUT evidence . . . do you?

  109. "Julia had exactly the same attitude; Being against Islam and not against Muslims. She said so many times. You are just denying-dismissing and judging and misrepresenting opponents here. "

    Nope SONNY – you are lying.

    Even SIna is against you on this.

    Hence Julia was banned.

    If Julia was SO against Islam and NOT Muslims – WHY abuse people personally to that extent. . . that EVEN Sina ends up banning her?

    - – -

    "Being against Islam and not against Muslims. She said so many times. "

    Just because someone says so – DOES NOT MAKE SOMETHING true.

    One has to repeatedly point such obvious notions out to you.

    - – -

    "You are just denying-dismissing and judging and misrepresenting opponents here. "

    No I am NOT.

    If someone says one thing BUT does another . . . then?

    Like you . . . and your hypocrisy.

    On one hand you claimed to support non-violence yet you support Sina and Spencer.

    Those who call for violence against Muslims.

    - – -

    "And my support for Julia thus confirms my assertion, it does not prove any lie whatsoever. "

    Yes it does.

    Julia was an abuser – what is known as a troll.

    Yet YOU openly chose to support hate.

    Despicable hate! And abuse of your opponents.

    - – -

    "Declaring Sina and posters HATE-MONGERS is such a GENERALITY. Easily refutable because of it's weakness. "

    This is MERELY an assertion.

    I, on the other hand have collected – many many evidences.

    Hence – you have NOT been able to refute it. . . ONLY CLAIM IT!

    - – -

    "Sina is in favor of freedom and many positive goals, better alternatives to parts of Islam."

    No he isn't – this is JUST your claim. No evidence given.

    - – -

    ". Islam is in part in opposition to freedom and his positive goals. Islam is described by him as "bad" in many ways. "

    So what? It isn't PROVED by him to be er "bad" – just claimed.

    - – -

    "In general it can be considered good and logical to "hate" "bad" things. "

    Doh!

    See how poor you understanding is. . . .

    He isn't a hatemonger for hating Islam – no.

    But for HATING Muslims.

    2 are different things.

    - – -

    "So being a hatemonger against bad things is not necessarily bad itself and it can be considered logical and good. "

    ho ho ho!

    YOU have made it so . . . by your earlier deception. By attempting to divert away from the notion that he is NOT being called a hate monger for – indiscriminate hate . . . . against ALL Muslims.

    - – -

    "so just calling someone a hatemonger does not work; he can be hate-mongering against something bad. "

    More dishonesty.

    I don't JUST call him hatemonger for nothing.

    I have reasons . . . . and PLENTY of evidence.

  110. "On this website, counterjihadist-territory, you can debate and be for 99 % DESTRUCTIVE in your tactics, but the best you can achieve is STALEMATE after years of debating. You may indeed not lose, but you can never win. "

    How do you know? Doesn't this show – that you are nothing more than CLOSED MINDED BIGOT.

    As nothing will effect you? That all your "theories" can be proven flase – YET you will still hold on to them?

    Winning has many aspects.

    I have successfully er . . . "won" – ESPECIALLY by repeatedly defeating Sina.

    - – -

    "And since A. Doubting Muslims almost certainly visit here. And B. Your opponents can never be shut up here; "

    How do you know?

    - – -

    "Islam may lose some Muslims, influenced by these debates, who may join alternative ways of life. "

    And gain . . . many perhaps – in an opposite scenario. What does that matter to me?

    - – -

    "Who may decide that you, and you being the best Islam has, so Islam too, can only reach stalemate here, and that that is just not good enough. "

    See the dishonesty.

    I am NOT the best Islam has . . . . NOT by far.

    It ONLY you saying "stalemate"

    It actually isn't true.

    As WINNING has many facets.

    - – -

    From my perspective.

    I have already won.

    That is BY defeating Sina.

    - – -

    More by opening my own sites and COMPREHENSIVELY putting nails into his coffin!

    Watch this space.

  111. On this website, counterjihadist-territory, you can debate and be for 99 % DESTRUCTIVE in your tactics, but the best you can achieve is STALEMATE after years of debating. You may indeed not lose, but you can never win.

    And since A. Doubting Muslims almost certainly visit here. And B. Your opponents can never be shut up here;

    Islam may lose some Muslims, influenced by these debates, who may join alternative ways of life.

    Who may decide that you, and you being the best Islam has, so Islam too, can only reach stalemate here, and that that is just not good enough.

  112. I can see the humour in this response. I am "BIGGING" someone. Constructive.

    And you are constantly BELITTLING many opponents. DESTRUCTIVE.

    And when you do that indeed means you have LOST. Because it is used by you as DEFLECTION from topics, which SHOWS people you most of the time can't even debate without using logical fallacies.

  113. You are claiming "victories", as you are saying I was "losing argument after argument" and "not good enough compared to me"

    without GIVING or HAVING proof. Empty claims. Chest-thumping. And any way, it's just not for you to decide, but for readers, doubting Muslims.

    You say I BEGGED for respect, while in reality I ADVISED you to show respect to opponents in order to try to find at least some compromis, middle ground, at least some resolutions between counterjihadists and Islam-apologists.

    It was an advice in the interest of more peace and harmony, it was CONstructive of me. Because you are here constantly being DEstructive, denying, dismissing.

    Doing so in an unnecessary DISRESPECTFUL way, deliberately DENIGRATING opponents. By which you clearly commit the Ad hominem-fallacy which is attacking opponents with the purpose of DEFLECTING from their message. And anyone can check what I say by looking at your posts here.

    Yes, people should work for/ be good for EARNING respect. Then they might DESERVE respect.

    But when you would get the power of giving/ withholding respect your behavior and highest desire seems WITHHOLDING RESPECT IN ALL CASES. You misuse such power in order to MANIPULATE.

    By either ignoring things to respect in an opponent or DENIGRATING his/ her intelligence and integrity wherever you can after your "quotes from the opponent".

    And with your myriad DESTRUCTIVE, DISRESPECTING, denials-dismissals, deflecting from topics, proofless counterclaims.

    Failing to see that your tactics are only WEAPONS, and all weapons can be used by all humans, not just you,

    and so also against you, and also against Mohammed, your fellow-Muslims.

    And in these debates here at best you can reach stalemate, but never victory with your disrespectful destructive attitude. So that is why I advised you to try to respect your opponents more.

  114. Correction; presented as prescribed to all muslims, or at least not to only a part of them.

  115. "Muslim are ONLY commanded to fight – until someone makes peace. If someone DOES make peace – then live in peace."

    This is a general statement of interpretation of Islamic doctrinepoint. Presented here as prescribed to all Muslims (or at least to a part of them only).

    But we now know that:
    - On many points of Islamic doctrine there is variety of interpretation among Muslims. And MEMRI TV often shows Islamic clerics inside Islamic countries, presenting interpretations of some of Islam's most important guiding texts, that contradict interpretations presented by Islam-apologists to western audiences.

    Without them presenting the division among Muslims concerning interpretation of key Islamic doctrine-points. You don't hear Islam-apologists explaining; well, at least that is MY or OUR interpretation of this or that particular verse or point of doctrine.

    - This is the reason why on Jihad Watch Robert Spencer endless jokes about the many "misunderstanders of Islam", who apparantly understand and practice different from how the Islam-apologists SAY it should be understood and practiced. When he presents news concerning declarations or actions by Muslims around the world.

    - And it is also the reason for the strange fact that often seemingly "radical" Muslims and counterjihadists are in agreement on Islamic doctrine points while both disagree with (a part of the) Islam-apologists.

    - and we also know that membership of Islam is taken for granted when a human is born in Islam. And that to leave Islam is forbidden. But that means that no Muslim can ultimately be thrown out of Islam for contradicting official Islamic doctrine.

    So that makes Muslims who present Islam according to their interpretation, but ostensibly as what all Muslims should believe, a lot less trustworthy. Than an organisation that strictly guards it's main doctrinepoints among members.

    This is what Hans Jansen, a Dutch Islamologist (that is what he is often called) wrote.

  116. "Against Islam, which is a collection of ideas, not against Muslims, who are complete complex humans, whom we wish well, whose children we wish well. "

    This is an UTTER lie . . . and I will tell you EXACTLY Why . . . .

    Your support of Julia.

    If this was remotely TRUE – then you would NOT have supported the troll.

    Who Sina banned – for being a troll!

    - – -

    "But I understand you saying that, from your standpoint, I don't blame you. It seems to you that Ali Sina + posters here are only NEGATIVE, hating, hurting, cruel, trying to bring down your beloved religion, prophet. "

    Similar to YOU Sina is a hate-monger.

    By what HE says and does!

  117. Against Islam, which is a collection of ideas, not against Muslims, who are complete complex humans, whom we wish well, whose children we wish well.

    But I understand you saying that, from your standpoint, I don't blame you. It seems to you that Ali Sina + posters here are only NEGATIVE, hating, hurting, cruel, trying to bring down your beloved religion, prophet.

    But I take the broad, long view. I think about the future of the whole mankind. And it's religions/ way of life, both for personal use and for organising society? There are more than just Islam. And I think that there are better alternatives to Islam (at least parts of it) available for future mankind. And I want future mankind to exchange parts of Islam for those better alternatives.
    Just as you want Islam to expand to the minds of non-Muslims, no doubt.

    So I want doubting Muslims to not just consider pro-Islam-arguments but also anti-Islam-arguments. I want them to hear and consider both sides of the argument pro and contra Islam. Then I want them to choose. For something better than Islam, for their own lives but also for the lives of their children.

    You are here on a counterjihadist-website where hopefully doubting Muslims come. With all due respect for you, I think it not just and fair that you begrudge, deny rights to people with other religions/ ways of life to talk about their viewpoints and for that reason against yours. In a fair competition between us. And after that let doubting Muslims decide for themselves.

    Not only you have the right to influence minds of Muslims and the minds of their children, we have that right too. We exercise it only in non-violent, legal and fair ways.

  118. Ha ha ha ha . . . . . ha ha ha ha ha ha ha . . . .

    Demsci bigging anyone MEANS I have won!

    - – -

    He had done so in the past . . . and look what happened to them

    Look what has happened to him!

    – - –

    "read how I just refuted him once again with the use of HIS scholars! "

    Where? DO actually point it out . . .why don't paste links of any such comments!

    - – -

    I was being kind to you – when I said read previous posts!

  119. Ha ha ha ha . . . . . This Demsci hos said that to everyone . . . . who come up against me.

    So where have they all gone Demsci?

    Where have all your awesome people gone?

    - – -

    Julia – who OPENLY swore at me?

    Where is Julia?

    Where?

    - – -

    Whom you lied about winning debates?

    Then couldn't answer . . .

    You the one who BEGGED ME for respect!

    After I defeated your "excuses"

    . . . .

    Everyone you see . . . you do bit of arse-licking . . . but it ALL goes awry.

    - – -

    After this . . . are you going to continue this?

  120. "You NEVEr contextualized anything. You cherry picked verses that you thought would support your fallacious view of Islam! I am the only one here substantiating and contextualizing! "

    I don't think this lie rings true to youron self.

    As it is kind of obvious – you copy and paste material and that is about it.

    It is one sided.

    Look at the comments above.

    When challenged- you have NO resposnse other than to paste more!

    A simple question – which you have FAILED to answer.

    If you were SO truthful . . . what happened to you over Surah 9.

    1st you were holding up as evidence.

    - – -

    Then you go away . . . come back and drop it.

    Excuse?

    Oh no its "Abrogation". . . . so where was abrogation before?

    - – -

    "How did I run away from the debate when I responded to your fallacious assertions? LOL! "

    That day . . . by your own reckoning.

    You started being NASTY when I wasn't there.

    You do NOT do that . . . and you DID.

    Hence why I term such people as hatemongers and nothing more.

    This is a SITE of a hatemonger – he attracts you like vultures to a dead corpse.

    - – -

    "I responded to them! Man you are just like your pervert serial killer false Prophet NO INTEGRITY! "

    Suddenly all this BS of Ad Homninem is OUT! It is all over again . . . the same stroy.

    When the BS ends . . . . . this starts . . . . getting personal.

    - – -

    "You used 8:61 and I showed you that YOUR scholars say it is abrogated! Not my scholars, YOURS! "

    - – –

    "You are unquestionably refuted and exposed!

    you can make all the claims of victory you want. Anyone with the most minute ability of critical thinking and intellectual integrity will see that! "

    No dear . . . YOU allege the claim of victory to me. Which shows YOUR mindset.

    Even you know – you're beaten!

    – - –

    "And if they incline to peace (read silm or salm, meaning, ‘settlement’), then incline to it, and conclude a pact with them: Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘This has been abrogated by the “sword verse” [Q. 9:5]’; Mujāhid said, ‘This [stipulation] applies exclusively in the context of the People of the Scripture, for it was revealed regarding the Banū Qurayza; and rely on God, put your trust in Him; truly He is the Hearer, of words, the Knower, of actions. "

    Stupidity of quoting this is you should have looked at . . . .9:6

    "And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know."

    - – -

    Now go and have bit of a think!

    - – –

    "I never ran from any debate LIAR! Why would I run when I am so handily refuting and exposing your lies and logical fallacies. "

    In your mind . . . so why DID you run away that day . . . did the copy paste ran out?

    This is what Stilwater did . . . .

    - – -

    "Once again you cannot answer to the factual evidence presented but choose to attack, misrepresent and lie! "

    Where? You lob such accusations – but actual argument and staying on it is beyond you.

    Hence why people resort this kind schtick! –

    I told you to read previous comments.

    This kind of thing ain't clever.

  121. He is awesome for you, just because he is talking against Islam ,he is talking against Muslim.No any other reason.

  122. Search4truth;
    You are doing nothing but just repeating yourself. You are continuously denying the facts.

  123. You NEVEr contextualized anything. You cherry picked verses that you thought would support your fallacious view of Islam! I am the only one here substantiating and contextualizing!

    How did I run away from the debate when I responded to your fallacious assertions? LOL!

    I responded to them! Man you are just like your pervert serial killer false Prophet NO INTEGRITY!

    You used 8:61 and I showed you that YOUR scholars say it is abrogated! Not my scholars, YOURS!

    * تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
    { وَإِن جَنَحُواْ لِلسَّلْمِ فَٱجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ ٱلسَّمِيعُ ٱلْعَلِيمُ }

    And if they incline to peace (read silm or salm, meaning, ‘settlement’), then incline to it, and conclude a pact with them: Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘This has been abrogated by the “sword verse” [Q. 9:5]’; Mujāhid said, ‘This [stipulation] applies exclusively in the context of the People of the Scripture, for it was revealed regarding the Banū Qurayza; and rely on God, put your trust in Him; truly He is the Hearer, of words, the Knower, of actions.
    http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&amp

    And this is from http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&amp

    2:192

    * تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
    { فَإِنِ ٱنتَهَوْاْ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ }

    But if they desist, from unbelief and become Muslims, surely God is Forgiving, Merciful, to them.

    You are unquestionably refuted and exposed!

    you can make all the claims of victory you want. Anyone with the most minute ability of critical thinking and intellectual integrity will see that!

    Denial and delusions are not a rebuttal!

    I never ran from any debate LIAR! Why would I run when I am so handily refuting and exposing your lies and logical fallacies.

    Once again you cannot answer to the factual evidence presented but choose to attack, misrepresent and lie!

  124. "What opposing evidence. You are using confirmation bias. I am bringing the context and you are referencing irrelevant and out of context suras in which I contextualize! "

    Oh dear . . . .so what happened to contextualizing before!

    Why is it ME that did it for you?

    – - –

    You were making big thing of "running away"

    Yet when we were arguing . . . it is YOU who ran away . . .

    How clever!

    - – –

    What was you reaction?

    Simply make unjustified accusation after another . . . .

    Well – when you could NOT sustain it . . . you actually "ran away"

    - – -

    Doh! – When I am NOT here then you find more material to post

    Oh – how cowardly – by your own standards!

    - – -

    "Your assertion that 8:61 discounts the second from last sura. That is not how Islam works! Sura 9 was the second from last revealed. And abroagtes many of the earlier suras. "

    That is NOT how abrogation works! Deary . . . something your brethren condemn – when it comes it it – YOU rely on it. Oh quaint – iditoic and ridiculous.

    – - –

    "ABROGATED! You dont know Islam! You make it up as you go along!

    See i am the one who is contextualizing the Quran by the use of YOUR scholars. "

    Where – no sonny . . . . you are making things up . . .what scholars where?

    - – –

    "You are cherry picking in order to either lie, or you are ignorant of Islam! I am the one who is revelaing true Islam and the order in which Mohamed fabricated it and meant for it to be practice! "

    Doh! – when your limit is shown . . . . look what you claim!

    So you are NOT cherry picking!

    So why is it that you failed to mention other verses that DO NOT support you position?

    Why?

    - – -

    You beat your own argument . . . . when it suited you . . . Surah 9 was relevant.

    As soon as I showed you the verse before and after . . .

    Now Surah 9 is irrelevant . . .

    Now the word "Abrogation" has come to you mind.

    So why didn't that happened before?

    - – -

    "You are refuted and exposed!

    You live a lie and you spew lies! "

    By a runaway merchant . . . . doh!

    No son – you are . . . .

    As I guessed correctly – you have brainwashed your self on anti Islam sites . . .

    And you simply paste from there . . . .

    I EVEN warned you . . . . to read previous comments . . . BEFORE engagement.,

    Then you would have PICKED up – how I have dealt with people lciaming similar things . . .

    But you didn't!

    - – -

    Hence this person "ran away" from the debate . . . and chose to post this poor thin afterwards.

  125. "Even when I referred and deferred to anti-Islam-websites, easily found on JihadWatch, saying truthseekers could find tons of evidence there, in detail, much better explained than I could, "

    Doh! If it is THAT easy then why do you fail to bring any . . . . why make excuses?

    - – -

    "And now someone does exactly that. And how do you react? "

    My dearest where?

    Posting long list claiming as evidence

    Haven't you sucked up to EVERYONE . . . . against me – but to what advantage?

    You became a HYPOCRITE for supporting Julia . . . claiming to hold to these high standards – yet YOU alone justified his abuse.

    What has happened to her now!

    – - –

    THe thing is – YOU KNOW – you ain't good enough compared to me. . . .

    Hence after losing argument after argument . . . .

    What do you do?

    BEG BEG BEG ME FOR RESPECT!

    Not earn it . . . YOU begged for it.

    - – -

    "By saying it is "copy-paste", saying it is "repetition of old arguments", saying it is from one-sided anti-Islam-sites and all sorts of denigrating reactions. "

    Why don't you try and read the argument for once . . . . and try being honest!

    In this argument – it is CLEAR this copy and paste merchant cannot cope with counter-argument.

    - – -

    You have been this dishonest before . . . . when it was Julia.

    Look how that turned out . . .

    You were BEGGING me for respect!

  126. "Same type of tired old arguments – one gets weary of batting them away."

    Yet you never get weary of ASKING, NO, DEMANDING evidence from opponents, on pain of declaring their opinions-claims without it false or meaningless.

    Even when I referred and deferred to anti-Islam-websites, easily found on JihadWatch, saying truthseekers could find tons of evidence there, in detail, much better explained than I could,

    then it was you who exhorted me that I should not refer and defer, but that I should present the evidence myself!

    And now someone does exactly that. And how do you react?

    By saying it is "copy-paste", saying it is "repetition of old arguments", saying it is from one-sided anti-Islam-sites and all sorts of denigrating reactions.

    When can one ever do the right thing with you?

  127. "If Muslims in majority DID NOT support/fought for Hitler – then this becomes false. "

    Of course not, only a part, and yes, a minority of Muslims did support/ fought for Hitler. But they WERE Muslims and they DID support/ fight for Hitler. True, not false.

  128. "See how meaningless you comments and thinking are . . . countering bad speech IS good."

    You did not even comprehend what I wrote. I am against all forms of censorship, efforts to stop "bad speech", so against trying to discourage, delete, dismiss, deny, denounce, deplore "bad speech". I am in favor of countering "bad speech."

    Apparently you were so eager to justify to say your beloved "meaningless" again. But what are your conclusions, your credibility, worth if you keep making such rash judgements?

    You did not just target my ONE COMMENT, you generalized (commentS AND THINKING), so I can generalize about your conclusions too.

    But the difference is that I did not deflect from the topic, which was good speech in response to bad speech, with my generalizing remarks,

    But you did deflect from the topic when you targeted the arguER and not the arguMENT, when you generalized. You should refrain from that bad habit; it can be pointed out to you and it shows low integrity.

  129. "Demonizing comes before violence."

    Many people say that. When in 2002 Pim Fortuyn was murdered his followers accused the political-correct, leftist politicians of demonizing him, and hence in a way guilty of his death, his followers were saying "the bullet came from the left". Fortuyn had sad shocking things about Islam and the leftist politicians had painted him as extreme right, nazi-like.

    I see the argument, but when the objective is to reduce violence, which is better; Censorship or high level of freedom of speech, for all? If demonizing leads to violence, then censorship saves lives, OK.

    But I argue that censorship also can make victims (or those who feel themselves victims) and their sympathizers feel UNHEARD, POWERLESS, and with no options to free and help themselves left, but submission, lethargy OR VIOLENT REBELLION. Which so often happened in history with in societies with censorship in effect.

  130. Tu quoque ( /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/),[1] (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented,[2] whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit their position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument.

  131. You lack any integrity at all.

    Argumentum ad lapidem (Latin: "to the stone") is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity.[1] The form of argument employed by such dismissals is the argumentum ad lapidem, or appeal to the stone.[2][3]
    Ad lapidem statements are fallacious because they fail to address the merits of the claim in dispute. Ad hominem arguments, which dispute the merits of a claim's advocate rather than the merits of the claim itself, are fallacious for the same reason. The same applies to proof by assertion, where an unproved or disproved claim is asserted as true on no ground other than that of its truth having been asserted.

    It is not a grocery list. Minimizing the factual data and dates in my response by calling it merely a list is not a rebuttal. It is a timeline of Muslim invasions of sovereign nations that Muslims took by the sword!

    Your attempt to minimize the information is not a rebuttal. Again, attacking me and the source instead of the information. You cannot dispute the facts in the timeline so you minimize the facts by calling them a mere list!

    no integrity and another fallacy! You just play games when the information refutes your lies and logical fallacies!

    So you want me to reference historians? Like when I referenced the historian the Famous Belgian historian Koenraad Elst whom you dismissed as an Islamaphobe with no evidence to substantiate your slander?

    The Historic timeline of Islamic invasions is common knowledge! Anyone can look it up or search it and see that it is factual. Since you dismiss the factual evidence the onus is on you to produce evidence that it is not factual! I can bring you multiple sources to substantiate them!

    Begin your rebuttal. Not dismissal with no evidence for your assertion that they are faulty!

  132. "Ego problems! Pipes has FAR bigger profile. He has at least studied Islam and some Arabic. He has veneer of Academia about him."

    Oh, please, what does that difference matter when 99 % of Muslims reject and resist both all Pipes his views and all his overtures and pleas to change, reform.

    And them doing that really proves Ali Sina right, in his position that Muslims are hopeless in changing, reforming because the root problem for the non-Muslims is Islam.

  133. And when you use that tactic to DEFLECT away from topics again!

    Thank you Search4truth!

  134. "you are ridiculous! "
    "Is attacking me – and NOT my argument!""

    I think Search4truth is right, but be that as it may, Aminriadh, we will be watching YOU like a hawk, and never again allow YOU to attack arguERS, instead of arguMENTS, without holding you accountable for it.

    As the border between you belittling, vilifying, attacking
    arguments and arguers seems blurred. And it arguable in past arguments YOU YOURSELF were indeed OFTEN attacking arguERS, instead of only arguMENTS.

  135. Thanks demsci.

    read how I just refuted him once again with the use of HIS scholars!

  136. What opposing evidence. You are using confirmation bias. I am bringing the context and you are referencing irrelevant and out of context suras in which I contextualize!

    Your assertion that 8:61 discounts the second from last sura. That is not how Islam works! Sura 9 was the second from last revealed. And abroagtes many of the earlier suras.

    The Quran is NOT in order of revelation!

    * تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
    { وَإِن جَنَحُواْ لِلسَّلْمِ فَٱجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ ٱلسَّمِيعُ ٱلْعَلِيمُ }

    And if they incline to peace (read silm or salm, meaning, ‘settlement’), then incline to it, and conclude a pact with them: Ibn ‘Abbās said, ‘This has been abrogated by the “sword verse” [Q. 9:5]’; Mujāhid said, ‘This [stipulation] applies exclusively in the context of the People of the Scripture, for it was revealed regarding the Banū Qurayza; and rely on God, put your trust in Him; truly He is the Hearer, of words, the Knower, of actions.

    Refuted once again!

    And 4:90

    * تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
    { إِلاَّ ٱلَّذِينَ يَصِلُونَ إِلَىٰ قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ مِّيثَٰقٌ أَوْ جَآءُوكُمْ حَصِرَتْ صُدُورُهُمْ أَن يُقَٰتِلُوكُمْ أَوْ يُقَٰتِلُواْ قَوْمَهُمْ وَلَوْ شَآءَ ٱللَّهُ لَسَلَّطَهُمْ عَلَيْكُمْ فَلَقَٰتَلُوكُمْ فَإِنِ ٱعْتَزَلُوكُمْ فَلَمْ يُقَٰتِلُوكُمْ وَأَلْقَوْاْ إِلَيْكُمُ ٱلسَّلَمَ فَمَا جَعَلَ ٱللَّهُ لَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ سَبِيلاً }

    Except those who attach themselves to, [who] seek refuge with, a people between whom and you there is a covenant, a pledge of security for them and for whoever attaches himself to them, in the manner of the Prophet’s (s) covenant with Hilāl b. ‘Uwaymir al-Aslamī; or, those who, come to you with their breasts constricted, dejected, about the prospect of fighting you, [being] on the side of their people, or fighting their people, siding with you, in other words, [those who come to you] refraining from fighting either you or them, then do not interfere with them, neither taking them as captives nor slaying them: this statement and what follows was abrogated by the ‘sword’ verse. Had God willed, to give them sway over you, He would have given them sway over you, by strengthening their hearts, so that assuredly they would have fought you: but God did not will it and so He cast terror into their hearts. And so if they stay away from you and do not fight you, and offer you peace, reconciliation, that is, [if] they submit, then God does not allow you any way against them, [He does not allow you] a means to take them captive or to slay them.

    ABROGATED! You dont know Islam! You make it up as you go along!

    See i am the one who is contextualizing the Quran by the use of YOUR scholars.

    You are cherry picking in order to either lie, or you are ignorant of Islam! I am the one who is revelaing true Islam and the order in which Mohamed fabricated it and meant for it to be practice!

    You are refuted and exposed!

    You live a lie and you spew lies!

  137. Hello Searchfourtruth; I think you are AWESOME. Thank you very much for your great posts!!!

  138. Why, you denying that you deny actually CONFIRMS that denial-habit or yours!

  139. "All you do is copy and paste verses – that allegedly conform to your argument."

    First you say to opponents and third parties that your challenges are not being AAAAAAANNNNNNWWWWEEEEEEREEEED, ad nauseam.

    Now that they are, big surprise, you (yet again) find something wrong with them. A reason to …… dismiss, deny!

    But I do appreciate it when in debates you finally do come up with your own evidence about the Islamic texts and reason. In that part you remain a very strong opponent (but not unbeatable).

  140. Well, I think we will eventually reach some kind of "stalemate".

    Even, when there are readers, in "the mind of the average reader."

    Which is OK by me. Because the important thing to me is that Islam and alternatives to parts of it are discussed well.

    And while we may not be able to convince doubting Muslims, these debates may at least start them to think and compare and they may at least expel the false and more illogical arguments that both sides use. It seems to me.

  141. "Doh! What is it that I have denied!" In this case or in general?

    You have denied hundreds of things here.
    We better ask: What is it that you have not denied? and not in the sense that you did not deny because you ignored it. Because you do that plenty of times too, but that is what all of us do, and we won;t mind if you don't mind.

    No, in the sense, that you ADMITTED or RECOGNIZED something that your opponent said.

    So, in that sense, what is it that you do NOT DENY-DISMISS, from opponents?

  142. NOT big NOR clever, it does NOT work, meaningLESS.

    Any more denials-dismissals, denigrations, A? Didn't you forget some, or did you agree with you did not dismiss-deny?

    These are merely a FEW generalities.

  143. "You undoubtedly too define that as lying. "
    "Which goes to show stupidity of your earlier claim."

    I will point out that I clearly said that you ALSO defined lying as making statements-claims without giving (enough) evidence, reason. Not that you limited yourself to that part.

    You are so eager to belittle and vilify your opponents, with your ad hominems.

    What does that tell about you?

    - That you want to deflect from messages?
    - That you want to look "high(er)" than your opponents by taking them down?
    - That to discredit opponents and their messages is your desire, more than finding the highest truth that you (and me and readers) can find, which you claimed was your motivation?
    - That this is your way to defend your beloved Islam?
    And so you do that much more in a negative way,

    by emphasizing demerits of opponents, denying demerits of Islam,

    than you do that in a positive way by emphasizing merits of Islam? Against worthy opponents with merits you acknowledge whom you still can impress? against whom you still can convince the average reader?

  144. Look at what you are REDUCED to here, just to get your usual denials-dismissals in, mixed with ad hominems.

    You give an answer that does not relate to the quotes you make; comments on the messenger, me, with the ad hominems, repetitions, said by now by you dozens if not hundreds of times, like a broken record. Talk of someone fond of repetition!!!

    I said "You don't seem to get it etc" and you responded with that I was incapable,

    but I referred in the statement you responded to to your methods being used also and as or more capable by opponents (not just I), on THIS website, their home-territory. A clearly illogical answer.

    And what I said means that the very best you can achieve here is some kind of stalemate, but you can never "win",

    never conclusively convince the average reader (maybe you can convince some readers, but opponents can also convince some, and you can never convince the average reader, and you could well lose more than win in convincing doubting Muslims). All because it is to be expected that sooner or later you meet here someone who is as good as or better than you in logic, it's just a matter of time.

    "Yet he keeps losing" That is not for you to decide. It is unbelievably arrogant to brag about. It is chest-thumping, a bit like gorilla's do. You have not done what you claimed!

    "the thing is this person hasn't done what he claims. " I on the other hand never claim to do or have done anything and I had no obligations, or agreements with or commitments to you or anyone. I merely debated with you.

  145. "No I have not defined ad hominems! LOL! That is a lie! dismissing a fact because of the source is a type of ad hominem! "

    No it isn't – else who is saying this!

    See – invention from you part! You are making more and more bizare things up.

    - – -

    "You dont like where I copy and pasted the information from, so you dismiss it with no evidence to prove that the information is not correct. "

    Where – you repeat the lie!

    And which information were you answering about?

    I point out – pasting lists – is NOT answering – if you don't say it.

    So go back and read – what you wrong . . .
    what were you answering.

    It is OBVIOUS – that it is bunch of facts.

    What does it mean.

    - – -

    "Yes you questioned the historicity by claiming that i copy and pasted it from American thinker! Implying that it was unreliable! "

    Where! I have NOT done so . . .

    How does this imply what you claim:

    "Copying and pasting and then NOT declaring your sources can lead to claims by one's opponent of plagiarism. "

    Implication of Cheating you ignore . . . and invent NEW implications .. . .

    Which are NOT there.

    - – -

    "So when you quote from the Quran i should assume you think your Allah? LOL! "

    Adding "lols" doesn't give you credence or make you funny.

    I tend to reference my sources. And this stupidity – as Quran is a recognized source.

    It is YOUR job to declare your source – or the implication is – I wrote this.

    Hence why quotation marks exist! For differentiation!

    - – -

    "When i quote from the Quran and hadith and tafsirs do you believe that I think I am Allah, Bukhari, and Jalalayn? "

    Doh! Because then you reference! And one can easily recognize and tell from the format.

    – - –

    His "lies" were clear – when I pointed them out . . . but what does he do?

    Rather than answering his hasty and false judgment – he lobbed more false claims!

    - – -

    YOU – could not answer:

    = = =

    " You are denying the historocity because of the source that it came from!"

    Where? Where have I denied history? Which saying of mine denied this which lead you to say the above?

    - – -

    "Prove the evidence wrong! This is another type of ad hominem! DUH! "

    See what I meant – this person simply want to make false accusations of fallacies!

    He has even given "Ad Hominem" new meanings.

    - – -

    "You are attacking the source with no evidence that the source is incorrect. Because it is an accurate statement of fact! "

    Where – I have does NO SUCH THING!

    I ahve simpy pointed out . . .

    1. You have just listed random facts – without saying what are you answering.

    2. You did NOT quote your source – hence you may be intending thse as your own words. . . plagiarism!

    - – -

    "So you attempt to discredit the source instead of disproving the source! "

    Where?

    = = =

    I did NO such tihng – yet he built whole host of drama around it.

    = = =

    then more false accusation:

    "LOL! No integrity whatsoever! "

    See repetition! – wait or it . . .

    "Again! Another ad hominem! Attacking me instead of the evidence that i provided! "

    Ah . . . why am I not surprised. Another false and lying attack!

  146. "Your denial of reality is not a rebuttal! "

    So this DENIAL is of reality!

    Which only exists in your mind.

    Doh! Hence what denial?

    - – -

    "Now either Mohamed was sinning and unclear. Or you must accept the fact that Islam commands Muslims to subjugate, convert, or slaughter all non Muslims! "

    Yet one can only fight those fighting – those who seek peace. Peace.

  147. "No it is NOT an ad hominem! Because it is not in an attempt to deflect from the topic. I am making a statement of fact! You were doing so to deflect from the topic. I am answering the topic and pointing out the ridiculousness of your argument. "

    Another excuse! I have pointed you lie out – yet you proceed to repeat it.

    You were NOT:

    "pointing out the ridiculousness of your argument."

    You called ME – personally ME ridiculous.

    An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    - – -

    See when pointed this out . . . . now you are clearly making excuses.

    = = =

    "Mohamed said it, he is your final Prophet! He knew what Allah commanded him to do! You are arguing against Allah and Your false Prophet! "

    How and where?

    By pointing out Verses from the Quran!

    Jeez.

    - – -

    It is apparent you cannot counter-argue.

    Hence you repeat the same things.

    - – -

    "Denial is not a rebuttal "

    Doh! What is it that I have denied!

    - – -

    You quote 9:5

    Yet 9:6 says . . .

    "And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know."

    ANd 9:4 says. . .

    Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

    Doh!

    Which CLEAR says – fight those who fighting are against you. And peace to those seeking it.

    - – -

    "Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them" (4: 90).

    - – -

    Like I said . . . one sided verse – learned from anti- Islam propaganda sites – and that is it.

    When contradicted . . . no answer.

    This person – has answer – he repeats the same argument!

  148. No I have not defined ad hominems! LOL! That is a lie! dismissing a fact because of the source is a type of ad hominem!

    You dont like where I copy and pasted the information from, so you dismiss it with no evidence to prove that the information is not correct.

    Yes you questioned the historicity by claiming that i copy and pasted it from American thinker! Implying that it was unreliable!

    DUH!

    So when you quote from the Quran i should assume you think your Allah? LOL!

    When i quote from the Quran and hadith and tafsirs do you believe that I think I am Allah, Bukhari, and Jalalayn?

    LOL! No integrity whatsoever!

    Again! Another ad hominem! Attacking me instead of the evidence that i provided!

    You just cant seem to get it right!

  149. Now was Mohamed committing a sin against these people?

    Ali didnt even know why he was attacking them! And what does Mohamed say? Fight them until they accept Allah and him as the final fascist false Prophet!

    Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)

    Your denial of reality is not a rebuttal!

    Now either Mohamed was sinning and unclear. Or you must accept the fact that Islam commands Muslims to subjugate, convert, or slaughter all non Muslims!

    Which is it?

  150. No it is NOT an ad hominem! Because it is not in an attempt to deflect from the topic. I am making a statement of fact! You were doing so to deflect from the topic. I am answering the topic and pointing out the ridiculousness of your argument.

    No it was not answered! because they did not know Allah! But they were forced to know Allah!

    What is the reason they are set free! Because they had two choices, death or Islam!

    * تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
    { فَإِذَا ٱنسَلَخَ ٱلأَشْهُرُ ٱلْحُرُمُ فَٱقْتُلُواْ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَٱحْصُرُوهُمْ وَٱقْعُدُواْ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ ٱلصَّلَٰوةَ وَءَاتَوُاْ ٱلزَّكَٰوةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ }

    Then, when the sacred months have passed — that is, [at] the end of the period of deferment — slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful [period] or a sacred [one], and take them, captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except [being put to] death or [acceptance of] Islam; and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush, [at every] route that they use (kulla, ‘every’, is in the accusative because a [preceding] genitive-taking preposition has been removed). But if they repent, of unbelief, and establish prayer and pay the alms, then leave their way free, and do not interfere with them. God is Forgiving, Merciful, to those who repent.

    READ!

    confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except [being put to] death or [acceptance of] Islam

    They have two choices! Accept Islam or death! Its clear as a bell!

    And this is what Mohamed said that your pimp Allah told him!

    Why do you keep ignoring what Allah commanded your pervert false Prophet from doing?

    Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

    Bukhari (8:387) – Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."

    Muslim (1:30) – "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

    Fight against people untill they declare that there is NO God but your Pimp Allah!

    Denial is not a rebuttal

    Mohamed said it, he is your final Prophet! He knew what Allah commanded him to do! You are arguing against Allah and Your false Prophet!

  151. "No Muslims are commanded to fight all non Muslims until there is a universal caliphate and all the worlds religion is for Allah! "

    Which is simply YOUR claim . . .

    Hence you post list of "evidence" in favour.

    - –

    When opposing "evidence" is posted – you cannot counter argue – BUT to repeat!

    This is why I said. . . . don't end up like others! Same type of tired old arguments – one gets weary of batting them away.

    But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in God. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower. S. 8:61

    "Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them" (4: 90).

    - – -

    This again shows mentality of such people.

    They go to anti-Islam sites – soak up the propaganda – and post it up. Some poor things clearly think – that a "Muslim" obviously haven't read this – so I will outsmart them!

    Then when "handled" – they don't have an argument left!

    Oh the number of times . . . . this has happened.

    When rebutted – then you see dizzy reaction – like the one above!

    Some repeat, some swear at you . . . . . some make other accusation or start of in a tangent.

  152. "Those are historical facts. You are denying the historocity because of the source that it came from! Even though the evidence can be found in multiple sources! And guess what? I didnt get it from the American thinker! LOL! "

    No you probably didn't!!!!

    Copy and paste merchant aren't you – oh this isn't attacking you – I am using adjectives – that accurately describe you.

    - – -

    " You are denying the historocity because of the source that it came from!"

    Where? Where have I denied history? Which saying of mine denied this which lead you to say the above?

    - – -

    "Prove the evidence wrong! This is another type of ad hominem! DUH! "

    See what I meant – this person simply want to make false accusations of fallacies!

    He has even given "Ad Hominem" new meanings.

    - – -

    "You are attacking the source with no evidence that the source is incorrect. Because it is an accurate statement of fact! "

    Where – I have does NO SUCH THING!

    I ahve simpy pointed out . . .

    1. You have just listed random facts – without saying what are you answering.

    2. You did NOT quote your source – hence you may be intending thse as your own words. . . plagiarism!

    - – -

    "So you attempt to discredit the source instead of disproving the source! "

    Where?

    - – -

    "LOL! Man you are funny! I have not used any logical fallacies. but you continue to, because you dont even comprehend there definitions! LOL! "

    Sure . . . as it is ABUNDANTLY clear . . . it is YOU who lobs these fallacies by rote. And not me.

    Hence lots of false claims.

    All I have challenged – not one answer.

    - – -

    If you understood them and were NOT lying then you would be able to provide explanations . . .

    Which you cannot. I have asked repeatedly.

    = = = = =

    The number of times you have falsely claimed something – I have NOT said. . . shows . . . I am right – that you are eager to throw accusation of fallacies at me.

    Lying false accusations!

    You yourself prove it!

    - – -

  153. "You dont even understand what an ad hominem is! Yes this is ridiculous! And me pointing out your preposterous and innacurate depiction of my actions is ridiculous and NOT and ad hominem! "

    Hang on – now the above is a lie!

    Because:

    "you are ridiculous! "

    Is attacking me – and NOT my argument!

    Doh!

    As I said from start – - – it is you who accuses me of fallacies and without understanding.

    Hence why you do a list at the end.

    Without either being specific or explaing why my argument conforms to such fallacy!

    - – -

    "You were using ad hominems to deflect from the topic! "

    Where – this is a LIE! As anyone can see – I was NOT attacking you – or have attacked you.

    My god . . . this an open and ridiculous lie.

    Just read the strand.

    Where have I attacked you? Point it out!

    - – -

    "9:6 is only saying that if they accept Islam then they are to be set free! SO WHAT? "

    huh?

    No it isn't. . .

    "And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know."

    Quran 9:6

    - – -

    It appears this person did NOT even bother to read the response.

    Just answered!

    - – -

    All you do is copy and paste verses – that allegedly conform to your argument.

    Without bother to address that don't. . .

    Not this again!

  154. No Muslims are commanded to fight all non Muslims untill there is a universal caliphate and all the worlds religion is for Allah!

    Nice try!

    Sahih Muslim HadithHadith 1062 Narrated byAbuHurayrah The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: I have been given superiority over the other prophets in six respects: I have been given words which are concise but comprehensive in meaning; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies): spoils have been made lawful to me; the earth has been made for me clean and a place of worship; I have been sent to all mankind; and the line of prophets is closed with me.

    Allah has bestowed upon me six favors which the former Prophets did not enjoy:
    1 I have been endowed with the gift of pithy and perfect speech.
    2 I was granted victory owing to my awe [terror]
    3 The spoils of war were made lawful unto me.
    4 The whole earth has been made the place of worship for me and it has become the means of purification for me also. In other words, in my religion, offering of prayers is not confined to certain specified places of worship. Prayers can be offered at any place over the earth. And in case water is not available, it is lawful for my people to perform ablutions with earth (Tayammum) and to cleanse themselves with the soil, if water for bathing is scarce.

    5 I have been sent by Allah to carry His Divine message to the whole world.
    6 And the line of prophets has come to its final end in me. (Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah)

    Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 1.331 Narrated byJabir bin Abdullah
    The Prophet said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.

    1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.

    2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.

    3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.

    4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).

    5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.

    And how did Mohamed view and understand his command from your Pimp Allah? He says it quite clearly!

    Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

    Bukhari (8:387) – Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."

    Muslim (1:30) – "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

    Anything else?

  155. Those are historical facts. You are denying the historocity because of the source that it came from! Even though the evidence can be found in multiple sources! And guess what? I didnt get it from the American thinker! LOL!

    Prove the evidence wrong! This is another type of ad hominem! DUH!

    Appeal to motive – where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer

    You are attacking the source with no evidence that the source is incorrect. Because it is an accurate statement of fact!

    So you attempt to discredit the source instead of disproving the source!

    LOL! Man you are funny! I have not used any logical fallacies. but you continue to, because you dont even comprehend there definitions! LOL!

  156. "But Muslims are! As I have so clearly proven! "

    To yourself – you were OBVIOUSLY already convinced of it. But – you haven't.

    Hence why I advised you to read older comments – before trotting out the same stuff.

    - – -

    "
    That is a logical fallacy! Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument. "

    What is . . . see how round about and unspecific and vague you are – when accusing me of fallacies!

    All you want to do is accuse me of fallacies – the thing is EVEN you don't know as to what you are claiming this against. . . .and why!

    You repeatedly do this – And I repeatedly point it out!

    - –

    Again – you copy and paste Fallacies – to sound important!

    But answer . . . that you could not do!

  157. How can it be both?

    * تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
    { فَإِذَا ٱنسَلَخَ ٱلأَشْهُرُ ٱلْحُرُمُ فَٱقْتُلُواْ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَٱحْصُرُوهُمْ وَٱقْعُدُواْ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ ٱلصَّلَٰوةَ وَءَاتَوُاْ ٱلزَّكَٰوةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ }

    (Then, when the sacred months have passed) then after the day of immolation when the month of Muharram passes, (slay the idolaters) whose treaty is for fifty days (wherever ye find them) whether in the Sacred Precinct or outside it, during the sacred months or at any other time, (and take them (captive)) imprison them, (and besiege them) in their homes, (and prepare for them each ambush) on every road they tread for trade. (But if they repent) from idolatry and believe in Allah (and establish worship) and acknowledge the five daily prayers (and pay the poor-due) acknowledge the payment of the poor-due, (then leave their way free) if they wish to go to the House of Allah. (Lo! Allah is Forgiving) He forgives whoever repents, (Merciful) towards whosoever dies in a state of repentance.

    * تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
    { فَإِذَا ٱنسَلَخَ ٱلأَشْهُرُ ٱلْحُرُمُ فَٱقْتُلُواْ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَٱحْصُرُوهُمْ وَٱقْعُدُواْ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ ٱلصَّلَٰوةَ وَءَاتَوُاْ ٱلزَّكَٰوةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ }

    Then, when the sacred months have passed — that is, [at] the end of the period of deferment — slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful [period] or a sacred [one], and take them, captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except [being put to] death or [acceptance of] Islam; and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush, [at every] route that they use (kulla, ‘every’, is in the accusative because a [preceding] genitive-taking preposition has been removed). But if they repent, of unbelief, and establish prayer and pay the alms, then leave their way free, and do not interfere with them. God is Forgiving, Merciful, to those who repent.

    I know that Islam is political! But what does a political Movement by a government have to do with doctrine?

    All Hindus are not commanded to subjugate or slaughter all non Hindus!

    But Muslims are! As I have so clearly proven!

    That is a logical fallacy! Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument.
    False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.[41]
    Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident) – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.[42]
    Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.

  158. Quote "
    Oh dear . . . fall from your own logic! So calling someone ridiculous in an argument – and that isn't out and out ad hominem? "

    You dont even understand what an ad hominem is! Yes this is ridiculous! And me pointing out your preposterous and innacurate depiction of my actions is ridiculous and NOT and ad hominem!

    Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
    Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says

    You were using ad hominems to deflect from the topic!

    That is what it means! I was using an adjective to depict your attempt at a rebuttal!

    Do you understand the differnce? LOL!

    No I lobbed an accurate depiction and term at the fallacy that you were using to deflect from the topic at hand!

    9:6 is only saying that if they accept Islam then they are to be set free! SO WHAT?

    * تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
    { وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِّنَ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ ٱسْتَجَارَكَ فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّىٰ يَسْمَعَ كَلاَمَ ٱللَّهِ ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُ ذٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لاَّ يَعْلَمُونَ }

    And if any one of the idolaters (ahadun, ‘one’, is in the nominative because of the [following] verb [istajāraka, ‘seeks your protection’] that validates it) seeks your protection, requests security from you against being killed, then grant him protection, provide security for him, so that he might hear the words of God — the Qur’ān — and afterward convey him to his place of security, that is, the dwelling-places of his folk, if he does not believe, so that he might reflect upon his situation — that, which is mentioned, is because they are a people who do not know, the religion of God, and so they must [be made to] hear the Qur’ān in order to [come to] know [religion].

    1.Fight them
    2. Lie in wait for them and ambush them
    3. imprison them
    4. if they choose Islam let them go
    5. if they dont slaughter them!

    WOW ! Thats wonderful! LOL!
    it is not against my argument! It affirms my argument!

  159. Quran (9:29) – "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

    Deficiency and DISHONEST of this is already pointed out . . .

    "And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know."

    Quran 9:6

    Indeed, the number of months with Allah is twelve [lunar] months in the register of Allah [from] the day He created the heavens and the earth; of these, four are sacred. That is the correct religion, so do not wrong yourselves during them. And fight against the disbelievers collectively as they fight against you collectively. And know that Allah is with the righteous [who fear Him].

    Quran 9:36

    - – -

    Deliberately pointing out one sided quotes from Quran and Hadith – simply renders your own argument meaningless.

    When quotes in opposition to your quotes are pointed out.

    - – -

    So why is it you fail to see the fallacy of this?

    - – -

    Pasting quotes aplenty does NOT equal to a good argument – unless they are counter argue – your opponent.

  160. " Famous Belgian historian Koenraad Elst "

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koenraad_Elst

    Who pro Hindu – to the extent of sacrificing his academic credentials.

    - – -

    The above passage is a summary – opinion and nothing more.
    This TOO requires evidence.

    - – -
    http://web.archive.org/web/20091027120159/http://

  161. "Is this what you call a rebuttal? Provide the evidence that there was a systematic genocide against Muslims by the Hindus! And that Hindus are commanded by their religion to commit such atrocities! you are ridiculous! "

    Oh dear . . . fall from your own logic! So calling someone ridiculous in an argument – and that isn't out and out ad hominem?

    - – -

    Once again people like this just lob fallacies at you by rote – to sound impressive.

    As in the above case . . . not true.

    - – -

    He quotes 9:5

    Yet he misses out the next verse!

    "And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know."

    9:6

    - – -

    Which shows the limit of the above verse – and the dishonesty of my opponent.

    Do I have to name the fallacy this is . . . .where he hid the next verse! Which was AGAINST his argument?

    - – -

    "Is this what you call a rebuttal? Provide the evidence that there was a systematic genocide against Muslims by the Hindus! And that Hindus are commanded by their religion to commit such atrocities! you are ridiculous! "

    This also shows – he did NOT give out any evidence for his claim! . . .

    But he has asked me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violenc

    The nature of these events remains politically controversial in India. Some commentators have characterised the deaths of Muslims as a genocide in which the state was complicit,[9] while others have countered that the hundreds of Muslim and Hindu dead were all victims of riots or "violent disturbances".[10]

    Dogra RUle in Kashmir

    Hindu Dogra Rule

    After acquiring Jammu and Kashmir through the Treaty of Kashmir, Dogra rulers continued the anti-Muslim policies of their Sikh allies. The worst atrocities perpetrated against Muslims in the state came in 1863 when the Dogra ruler Maharaja Ranbir Singh ordered a major invasion of the frontier areas of Yasin and Hunza to punish Muslim rebels. 3,000 troops were commanded by General Hooshiara Singh who invaded the frontier. The Dogras took all men as prisoner, and many Dogra soldiers entered the back portion of the Mandoori Hill which was full of Yasini and Hunza women and their children. Dogra soldiers drew their swords and cut the women and children into pieces. Those women who were injured but not dead were burnt alive and approximately 2000 Yasin villagers were killed overall. About 5,000 Yasinis were taken back to Srinagar for forced labor and all their women were included into the harems of Dogra Soldiers.
    http://jcsl.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/2/339.abhttp://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/aa032503http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/27525http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/rs/war/

  162. Quote
    " You are commanded to subjugate or slaughter all non Muslims for all eternity until there is a universal caliphate!"

    Your claim."

    No not my claim! Mohameds and YOUR pimp Allahs claim!

    Quran (9:29) – "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

    Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

    Bukhari (8:387) – Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."

    Muslim (1:30) – "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

    Hudaifat Al Yaman said to his companions: “You people call this chapter Sura Tauba which means chapter of repentance, but in fact this is the chapter punishment. This chapter hasn’t left a single hypocrite unmentioned."
    Tafsir Al Kashaf 2:241

    “When it was asked to Ali, (one of the rightly guided caliphs of Islam) about the lack of Bismi in this chapter, Ali replied: “Bismi’s implication is trustworthiness. But this Chapter was revealed with a sword”
    Tafsir Qurtubi. 8

    Narrated Said bin Jubair: I asked Ibn Abbas about Surat Al-tauba, and he said, "Surat Al-tauba? It is exposure (of all the evils of the infidels and the hypocrites). And it continued revealing (that the oft-repeated expression): '…and of them …and of them.'till they started thinking that none would be left unmentioned therein."
    Sahih Bukhari 6:60:404

  163. In his book "Negation in India" Famous Belgian historian Koenraad Elst wrote:

    The Blitzkrieg of the Muslim armies in the first decades after the birth of their religion had such enduring results precisely because the Pagan populations in West- and Central-Asia had no choice (except death) but to convert. Whatever the converts' own resentment, their children grew up as Muslims and gradually identified with this religion. Within a few generations the initial resistance against these forcible converions was forgotten, and these areas became heidenfrei (free from Pagans, cfr. judenfrei).

    The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.

    According to some calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate).

    But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully surrendered. Against these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible.

    Alone among the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones) living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya (toleration tax) from them.

    Normally the zimmi status was only open to Jews and Christians (and even that concession was condemned by jurists of the Hanbalite school like lbn Taymiya), which explains why these communities have survived in Muslim countries while most other religions have not. Akbar (whom orthodox Muslims consider an apostate) cancelled these humiliating conditions and the jizya tax.

    It is because of Hanifite law that many Muslim rulers in India considered themselves exempted from the duty to continue the genocide on the Hindus (self-exemption for which they were persistently reprimanded by their mullahs). Moreover, the Turkish and Afghan invaders also fought each other, so they often had to ally themselves with accursed unbelievers against fellow Muslims. After the conquests, Islamic occupation gradually lost its character of a total campaign to destroy the Pagans.

    Many Muslim rulers preferred to enjoy the revenue from stable and prosperous kingdoms, and were content to extract the jizya tax, and to limit their conversion effort to material incentives and support to the missionary campaigns of sufis and mullahs (in fact, for less zealous rulers, the jizya was an incentive to discourage conversions, as these would mean a loss of revenue).

  164. Quote " Evidence. . . Muslims HAVE committed atrocities against Hindus – but reverse is also true. "

    Is this what you call a rebuttal? Provide the evidence that there was a systematic genocide against Muslims by the Hindus! And that Hindus are commanded by their religion to commit such atrocities! you are ridiculous!

    Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.

    False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited
    Appeal to equality – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretense of equality.
    Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same

    Quran (9:5) – "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

    * تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
    { فَإِذَا ٱنسَلَخَ ٱلأَشْهُرُ ٱلْحُرُمُ فَٱقْتُلُواْ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَٱحْصُرُوهُمْ وَٱقْعُدُواْ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ ٱلصَّلَٰوةَ وَءَاتَوُاْ ٱلزَّكَٰوةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ }

    Then, when the sacred months have passed — that is, [at] the end of the period of deferment — slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful [period] or a sacred [one], and take them, captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except [being put to] death or [acceptance of] Islam; and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush, [at every] route that they use (kulla, ‘every’, is in the accusative because a [preceding] genitive-taking preposition has been removed). But if they repent, of unbelief, and establish prayer and pay the alms, then leave their way free, and do not interfere with them. God is Forgiving, Merciful, to those who repent.

  165. "Who said it was a large number? Straw man argument. The fact is that they did. And the Grand Mufti was an Allie of Hitlers! FACT! "

    Your quote:

    ""But Muslims fought FOR Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was an allie of Hitlers. " "

    If Muslims in majority DID NOT support/fought for Hitler – then this becomes false.

    Another FALSE accusation of a fallacy. As I pointed out – people like you do. Without explanation. They just like to get one in there! In pretense to be "logical"

    - – -

    Again – note . . . the question YOU set out to answer and provide evidence . . . you gave none

    -

    Then you went off on a tangent. To divert attention!

    - – -

    See no one asked about slaver. He set out to answer for this:

    "But Muslims fought FOR Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was an allie of Hitlers. "

    I challenged the assertion of Muslims fighting for Hitler. As more actually fought against him.

    Although Ottoman Empire was against Allies in WW1 – even then many Muslims fought and died for their Colonial Masters.

    Then rambles on Slavery are useless in answer to that.

  166. Right and this is answering what?

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

    !!!

    - –
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_truth_

    Copying and pasting and then NOT declaring your sources can lead to claims by one's opponent of plagiarism.

    - – -

    Pasting loads of "evidence" that doesn't answer anything – and is allegedly meant to – is a logically fallacy.

    - – -

    See you don't list fallacies – you explain why and how your opponent is committing one.

  167. "Thats what you call a rebuttal? And you are deflecting from the topic! Saying that i didnt provide evidence? You obviously didnt read the comments! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA! "

    This greatly exposes search4truth's mentality . . . "And you are deflecting from the topic!" – he has to keep repeating this lie.

    Providing evidence for claims IS your job. So why protest?

    - – -

    "You obviously didn't read the comments"

    Obviously NOT – hence I responded to the 1st one.

    - – -

    Such things do not work – Muslim are ONLY commanded to fight – until someone makes peace. If someone DOES make peace – then live in peace.

  168. Quote "False claim. Which Muslims in their huge number fought for Hitler and where? "

    Who said it was a large number? Straw man argument. The fact is that they did. And the Grand Mufti was an Allie of Hitlers! FACT!

    they were not enslaved. They fought just as any citizen would fight. Unlike how slaves were used for Islamic sultans and caliphates who forced their slaves to fight their battles!

    The most favored of all Islamic slaves seems to have been the military slave — although performers were the most privileged. By the ninth century slave armies were in use across the whole of the Islamic Empire. The early slave armies tended to be white, taken from Russia and eastern Europe. However, the first independent Muslim ruler of Egypt relied on black slaves and at his death is said to have left 24,000 (white) Mamaluks and 45,000 Nubian military slaves. In north Africa the source of black slaves from Nubia and Sudan were too convenient to ignore. At the time of the Fatimid defeat, in the twelfth century, black troops formed the majority of the army. By the fifteenth century black military slaves were being favored with the use in battle of firearms (the Mamaluks refused to use such dishonorable weapons). Slave troops in Tunisia in the seventeenth century even included cavalry, and the Sultan of Morocco is recorded as having an army of 250,000 black slaves.

    Even as late as the mid-nineteenth century, Egyptian rulers actively recruited black slaves into their army — for example, they were included in the Egyptian expeditionary force sent by Sa'id Pasha to Mexico in support of the French in 1863.

    Slavery had been abolished by France and Britains for hundreds of years! Also Unlike Islamic nations who were forced to abolish slavery by the West!

    1948: UN Article 4 of the Declaration of Human Rights bans slavery globally.[63]
    1952: Qatar abolishes slavery.
    1960: Niger abolishes slavery (though it was not made illegal until 2003).[64]
    1962: Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery.
    1962: Yemen abolishes slavery.
    1963: United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery.
    1970: Oman abolishes slavery.
    1981: Mauritania abolishes slavery.[65][66][67]
    2007: Mauritania makes it illegal to own slaves.
    2012: A CNN report describes Mauritania as "Slavery's Last Stronghold" (report has same title)

  169. It appears to me that (P)Islam gets a check mark on EVERY ONE of those statments!

  170. 632-634 Under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr the Muslim Crusaders reconquer and sometimes conquer for the first time the polytheists of Arabia. These Arab polytheists had to convert to Islam or die. They did not have the choice of remaining in their faith and paying a tax. Islam does not allow for religious freedom.

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

    634 At the Battle of Yarmuk in Syria the Muslim Crusaders defeat the Byzantines.

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

    635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus.

    636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.

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

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

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

    639-642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.

    641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.

    643-707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    673-678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire

  171. Thats what you call a rebuttal? And you are deflecting from the topic! Saying that i didnt provide evidence? You obviously didnt read the comments! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

    Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)

    "The Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives" (Bukhari 46:717)

    Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

    Bukhari (8:387) – Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."

    Muslim (1:30) – "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

  172. " First of all Muslims have been oppressing, persecuting and slaughtering all non Muslims and Muslims of other sects since Mohamed fabricated his death cult. "

    Claim – no evidence. A mere opinion.

    - – -

    "But Muslims fought FOR Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was an allie of Hitlers. "

    False claim. Which Muslims in their huge number fought for Hitler and where?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/20http://www.emel.com/article?a_id=1699&id=65 http://www.britainsmuslimsoldiers.com/#/ww-ii/455

    In general many Muslims from the colonies died and fought in WW2 and WW1.

    For example French and the British were theri colonial masters – India at the time was in struggle to Britain for independence.

    Look at the above comment . . . and then reply how true is its generality?

    - – -

    "Thirdly go look up Hindu genocide. Muslims slaughtered an estimated 50 to 80 million Hindus."

    Evidence. . . Muslims HAVE committed atrocities against Hindus – but reverse is also true.

    - – -

    " You are commanded to subjugate or slaughter all non Muslims for all eternity until there is a universal caliphate!"

    Your claim.

  173. Like said . . . such people quote fallacies by rote. WHich is pretty meaningless.

    He has done that few times.

    It is NOT big NOR clever.

    And it doesn't work.

  174. "But the 'majority' of those I named above are not scholars at all and that's worth pondering"

    No – that is based on your personal opinions – which doesn't really count.

    - – -

    " That you gave the Chomsky example suggests to me that maybe you overlooked the words 'in general' and 'typically' in my comment. "

    The stereotype does NOT work. I don't think you thought through what you meant to say.

    As a linguist – Chomsky is subject to Academic methodologies.

    Personal opinion and in life? Then it is NOT a such a black/white thing.

    - – -

  175. "You don;t seem to GET IT; your own words and weapons can be used against you, and Islam, your fellow Muslims. And you are on the territory of your opponents!"

    Pity you are so incapable – the thing is this person hasn't done what he claims.

    Yet he keeps losing – when he feels small – he come out with such ridiculousness.

    He begged me to respect him!

    How stupid was that!

  176. @Sakat

    Instead of butt kissing your Prophet Ali Sina, send him the money. That is all he wants. Not the praises and titles. The Money.

    Send him the Benjamins.

    And then you guys complain why everyone, everywhere walks all over your subservient backsides throughout history. What's next? Amitabh Bacchan a prophet?

  177. LOL! You couldnt be further from the truth. What could I agree with? I am the one that is presenting all of the factual evidence and substantiating my claims.

    Your Pimp Allah and false prophet and all fo your scholars and greatest and classical commentators agree with me! And refute you.

    So are you a greater scholar that Sahih Muslim, Imam Bulhari, Ibn Abbass, Ibn Kathir, Jalalayn etc…?

    Because they all agree with me and say you are an innovator of lies.

    How did you clarify anything. Name one single topic that you clarified and I will refute you again with YOUR Islamic doctrine!

    Once again your delusions and denial are not a rebuttal.

    And yes I hate Islam! I dont hate Muslims! you are victims of lies and indoctrination. You live in a nation that you were indoctrinated since birth with no free press or speech!

    It is just and moral to hate hate! So it is just and moral to hate Islam which is an evil, fascist, bigoted, backward, misogynistic intolerant, violent ideology!

    So I pride myself on hating hate! Just as I hate Fascist Nazism i hate fascist Islam!

    And if you were capable of objective reasoning, critical thinking and intellectual integrity you would hate Islam as well.

    But you better not tell the truth about Islam or Mohameds evil sunna! Or you would lose your head!

    I dont agree with anything you have said! And neither does Allah, Mohamed, or your scholars!

  178. I am sure you agree with all my answer,
    but you are giving replies to show the world that you don't agree with my answer.

    But I am happy I have clarified many of your doubts.
    Are you really searching for truth? I don't think. I'm seeing ONLY your hatred for Islam.

  179. I dont care about your Pimp Allahs whore house. So you think that taking a life will be all fettered out in the after life!

    SO WHAT! That is a preposterous statement! I dont believe in your Pimp ALLAHS whore house. What relevance does this have in the conversation?

    And you didnt provide any evidence for your assertion! I did! I am using YOUR greatest hadith collections! What is wrong with you?

    "The legal regulations of Diya (Blood-money) and the (ransom for) releasing of the captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever)."
    Sahih Bukhari 9:83:50, See also: Sahih Bukhari 1:3:111, and Sahih Bukhari 4:52:283

    If any modern day lying apologist brings a commentary that goes against this he is contradicting Mohameds sunna! And he is committing herecy!@ Just like you are doing looking for anybody who might lie like yourself! These are weak!

    I am bring Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Jallayn, Ibn Abbass, Ibn Kathir etc…

    You can try and find anyone you want! They are either ignorant or liars like yourself!

    Sheikh Manna` K. Al-Qubtan, professor of Higher studies at the School of Islamic Law in Riyadh, indicates that:

    Basically, the command of non-Muslims over Muslims in not admissible, because God Almighty said: 'Allah will not give access to the infidels (i.e. Christians) to have authority over believers (Muslims) {Qur'an 4:141}. For God – Glory be to Him – has elevated Muslims to the highest rank (over all men) and foreordained to them the might, by virtue of the Qurtanic text in which God the Almighty said: 'Might and strength be to Allah, the Prophet (Muhammad) and the believers (Muslims) {Qur'an 63:8}.

    Dr. Salih Al-Sadlan, professor of Shari`a at the School of Islamic Law, Riyadh, cites the same verses and asserts that it is not permissible for a infidel (in this case is a Christian) to be in charge over Muslims whether in the private or public sector. Such an act:

    "entails the humiliaton of the Muslim and the exaltation of the infidel (Christian). This infidel may exploit his position to humiliate and insult the Muslims who work under his administration. It is advisable to the company owner to fear God Almighty and to authorize only a Muslim over the Muslims. Also, the injunctions issued by the ruler, provides that an infidel should not be in charge when there is a Muslim available to assume the command. Our advice to the company owner is to remove this infidel and to replace him with a Muslim."

    These are your judges! Do you think a kaffre would get any equitable treatment under Islamic rule!

    You sir are delusional, and incapable of objective reasoning, critical thinking and intellectual integrity!

  180. And an example of how they are not equitable is their punishment form murder. A Muslim man should not be killed for murdering a non Muslim!

    DUH! What in the world is wrong with your mind? Oh yeah! Islam!

    "The legal regulations of Diya (Blood-money) and the (ransom for) releasing of the captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever)."
    Sahih Bukhari 9:83:50, See also: Sahih Bukhari 1:3:111, and Sahih Bukhari 4:52:283

    EQUALITY IN PUNISHMENT! IT IS NOT EQUAL! DUH!

    And how did Mohamed view his commands from Your Allah!

    The comments are clear! Your excuses are pathetic!

    Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

    Bukhari (8:387) – Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."

    Muslim (1:30) – "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

    Now if what you were saying is true. Then Mohamed contradicted your fallacious interpretations! Here is an example!

    Allah's Messenger called Ali [and said]: “Proceed on and do not look about until Allah grants you victory,” and Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: “Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?” Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ”Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger…” (Sahih Muslim 5917)

    You are in complete and total denial of reality!

    Quran (9:5) – "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

    * تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
    { فَإِذَا ٱنسَلَخَ ٱلأَشْهُرُ ٱلْحُرُمُ فَٱقْتُلُواْ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَٱحْصُرُوهُمْ وَٱقْعُدُواْ لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ فَإِن تَابُواْ وَأَقَامُواْ ٱلصَّلَٰوةَ وَءَاتَوُاْ ٱلزَّكَٰوةَ فَخَلُّواْ سَبِيلَهُمْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ }

    Then, when the sacred months have passed — that is, [at] the end of the period of deferment — slay the idolaters wherever you find them, be it during a lawful [period] or a sacred [one], and take them, captive, and confine them, to castles and forts, until they have no choice except [being put to] death or [acceptance of] Islam; and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush, [at every] route that they use (kulla, ‘every’, is in the accusative because a [preceding] genitive-taking preposition has been removed). But if they repent, of unbelief, and establish prayer and pay the alms, then leave their way free, and do not interfere with them. God is Forgiving, Merciful, to those who repent.

    So take them captive and IF they accept Islam set them free. They have no choice but to accept your fascist, bigoted, misogynistic death cult, or DIE!

    WAKE UP!

  181. Yours and your modern day apologists are willfully ignorant. I already destroyed this argument earlier.

    You are practicing flawed tactics repeating the same arguments that have already been discussed and refuted by YOUR Quran, hadith and scholars!

    Circular reasoning – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with.
    Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.
    Suppressed correlative – where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.
    False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
    Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning.

    Tha hadith is clear and concise! It states that =, and I will quote!

    ""O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."
    Sahih Bukhari 1:8:387, See also: Sahih Bukhari 1:2:24

    It says nothing of a specific tribe. It says the life of a person is sacred only if these things occur!

    You are a liar and willfully ignorant! Continued:

  182. You wrote;
    //Furthermore, Muhammad also gave the verdict (fatwa) that a Muslim can not be killed for killing a non-Muslim.
    Narrated Abu Juhaifa:
    I asked 'Ali "Do you have anything Divine literature besides what is in the Qur'an?" Or, as Uyaina once said, "Apart from what the people have?" 'Ali said, "By Him Who made the grain split (germinate) and created the soul, we have nothing except what is in the Quran and the ability (gift) of understanding Allah's Book which He may endow a man, with and what is written in this sheet of paper." I asked, "What is on this paper?" He replied, "The legal regulations of Diya (Blood-money) and the (ransom for) releasing of the captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever)."
    Sahih Bukhari 9:83:50, See also: Sahih Bukhari 1:3:111, and Sahih Bukhari 4:52:283//

    Reply:
    According to Abu Hanifa, the Muslim should be killed for killing a non-Muslim. This is based on Hadiths from Baihaqi and Musnad Shaaf'i . However, 3 of the 4 madhabs have stated that they should not be killed for killing a non-Muslim. Assuming that this is the correct ruling, this in no way contradicts Surah Maidah 5:32, as we have to remember there is punishment of the afterlife. Punishing the Muslim in the afterlife would cause justice to prevail. Secondly, it would be up to the judge what worldly punishment the Muslim would get. But, justice will finally be served on the day of Judgment.

  183. search4truth
    you wrote;
    //what of the non-believers? What is the worth of their lives? According to sahih hadith, Muhammad said the life of a non-Muslim is not sacred:
    Narrated Anas bin Malik:
    Allah's Apostle said,……………
    " Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik,
    "O Abu Hamza!…………..
    Sahih Bukhari 1:8:387, See also: Sahih Bukhari 1:2:24 //

    Reply:
    The Hadith has been taken out of it's historical background. Firstly, the fighting here refers to fighting in self defense. This should be taken in context with Surah Anfal 8:39.

    "It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant." (Ibn Taymiyyah – Majmu' al-Fatawa 19/20).

    "This hadith has been made the target of criticism by the hostile critics of Islam. They wrongly assert that it is by sheer force that people are converted to Islam. But there is not an iota of truth in it. They do not look into the words used by the Holy Prophet. Here the verb قات is highly meaningful. A person who is conversant even with the rudiments of Arabic grammar knows fully well that it is from the bab مفا علم which implies that it is not a one-sided action but a participation of both sides. Thus according to the bab of the verb used, it becomes clear that the Holy Prophet exhorted to fight against those who had raised arms against the Muslims. This command is not directed against every non-Muslim." (Commentary Of: Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 30 – Abdul Hamid Siddiqi's Commentary – Dar Al Arabia – Volume 1 – Chapter IX – Footnote 54 – Pages 16-17).

    "This hadith in all likelihood refers to the pagan Arabs who persecuted Muslims, murdered them, and broke their treaties with them. As such, they deserved capital punishment, yet they are given the opportunity to repent in which case they are to be forgiven, and their property will be protected. This shows, like other instances in the Qur'an and in hadith, that the purpose of Islam is punitive, but rehabilitative. To interpret this hadith in a generalized way is to violate the text of the Qur'an and basic rules of interpretation." (Jamal Badawi – Source).

    "Sheikh Al-Qaradawi discussed it, quoting the sayings of the jurists and the traditionalist and modern scholars of Hadith. He came to the conclusion that this hadith is categorized as one of the general hadiths, which target dealing with private issues. He then quoted the comment of Sheikh Al-Ghazali on this hadith, who said,

    The main goal of fighting people, then, is not to make them testify that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah. If the People of the Book are excluded from the above mentioned hadith, then does the hadith deal with all polytheists and idolaters? The answer is definitely "no"! In another authentic hadith, the Magians are included with the People of the Book, as the hadith states, "Treat them as you treat the People of the Book" (reported by Malik, Al-Bayhaqi, and others.
    Hence, the fact is that this hadith is pertinent to the Arab polytheists who were reluctant to respect Islam and its followers, seeking to destroy them completely, and who also failed to respect any concluded treaty or given covenant. Those people were granted four months to reconsider their situation and rectify their stance. If they insisted upon obliterating Islam, then it would be necessary to fight them.
    Secondly, becoming Muslim wasn't the only option those who fought against Islam had. They could either become Muslims, pay jizya or leave the Islamic state. This is all taught in Islam, and for more detail you should know about the historical background of surah 9 , I would try to explain it In shaa Allah!

  184. "Which of these "great" civilization did Muslims attack and destroy . . . do give a mention. "

    Hello Amin.

    Shall we discuss the attack by Islam on India? I can prove: 1) it was a great civilisation, and
    2) that the holocaust of the Jews is not even comparable to the plunder,rape and murder by the invading muslims.

  185. "Reducing Islam & Muslim world to just Sina Vs Pipes is simply ridiculous.
    As both Sina and Pipes can be wrong. And probably are."

    I think dismissing comparing the standpoints of Sina and Pipes is ridiculous.

    When we witness debates between Islam-defenders and Islam-critics themes the Islam-defenders harp on incessantly is: "do not paint all Muslims with the same brush" and "do not judge Islam by the attitudes and acts of Muslims".

    So the Islam-defenders always admit that there are SOME Muslims who think and do the bad things that Islam-critics seem to attribute to ALL Muslims because of Islam. But the admittedly bad-thinking and -acting Muslims, these are a "fringe", a "tiny minority among Muslims".

    And Robert Spencer keeps joking about how the behavior and acts of Muslims around the world contradicts the explanation of well-known Islam-apologists, like Imam Rauf, Reza Aslan, Ibrahim Hooper and CAIR, etc. He keeps stressing that apparently AGAIN a Muslims MISUNDERSTOOD ISLAM, according to the Islam-explanation by the apologists. he does this endlessly, week in, week out.

    In view of the admittance of Islam-apologists themselves, that there are indeed SOME "bad, radical" people among Muslims (and they do not say that there are NO BAD-behaving Muslims); Muslims can endeavour to move in the direction that Daniel Pipes hopes that they will. On pain of being regarded as "hopeless" in that regard and thereby vindicating Ali Sina's view, among aware and critical non-Muslims.

    But Pipes so far can't report that. And if Pipes cannot report that significant parts of Muslims act in the way he hopes, that then vindicates Ali Sina, who says that ISLAM and adhering to ISLAM, and so ALL Muslims, are the problem, and not that the problem is only a part of the Muslims, the radical ones.

    With stubbornness, steadfast denial-dismissal of criticism across the board, by the vast majority of Muslims, it is ALI SINA who gets vindicated, proven true and effective, and that Daniel Pipes is only or largely advocating the hopeless wishful thinking that Muslims in vast numbers can change beneficially and still be Muslims.

  186. "So you think . . . Julia and her swearing was OK – and in this process – All Muslims are "bad" people."

    I meant that criticizing, exposing evil people, or the evil acts they do, is necessary and good.

    But then the criticized-exposed evil people can attempt to convince onlookers, judges and juries that the criticism-exposure is INSULTING, therefore bad, therefore inadmissable, therefore to be censored.

    If Insulting is to be forbidden and censored, WHO decides what constitutes insulting and what not?

    The solution to this is to give people wide scope, in all directions, with insults included. And to give NO protection to people for their hurt feelings, the ideas they cherish. But to give full protection to their bodies.

    As for "all Muslims are bad people";
    1st answer; NO, that is just it; AMONG the Muslims are bad people, criticism-exposure of whom is logical, necessary, beneficial. And THESE bad people I want not be protected, simply because they claim they and Islam are insulted.
    2nd Answer: NO, their personalities are mostly positive, good. But the one aspect being Muslim, that is indeed under attack and called "bad" , in parts at least.

    And the important question to answer is: Is being Muslim a CHOICE or isn't it? (And Aminriadh confirmed that it was a choice). And for choices people can be held accountable.

    Just as Aminriadh thinks Ali Sina, Julia and I made some choices concerning hatemongering and he holds us accountable for that.

  187. Sahih Muslim HadithHadith 1062 Narrated byAbuHurayrah The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: I have been given superiority over the other prophets in six respects: I have been given words which are concise but comprehensive in meaning; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies): spoils have been made lawful to me; the earth has been made for me clean and a place of worship; I have been sent to all mankind; and the line of prophets is closed with me.

    Allah has bestowed upon me six favors which the former Prophets did not enjoy:
    1 I have been endowed with the gift of pithy and perfect speech.
    2 I was granted victory owing to my awe [terror]
    3 The spoils of war were made lawful unto me.
    4 The whole earth has been made the place of worship for me and it has become the means of purification for me also. In other words, in my religion, offering of prayers is not confined to certain specified places of worship. Prayers can be offered at any place over the earth. And in case water is not available, it is lawful for my people to perform ablutions with earth (Tayammum) and to cleanse themselves with the soil, if water for bathing is scarce.

    5 I have been sent by Allah to carry His Divine message to the whole world.
    6 And the line of prophets has come to its final end in me. (Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah)

    Sahih Al-Bukhari HadithHadith 1.331 Narrated byJabir bin Abdullah
    The Prophet said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.

    1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.

    2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.

    3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.

    4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).

    5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.

    Qur'an (4:59) – "O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you…"

    * تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
    { يَا أَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ أَطِيعُواْ ٱللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُواْ ٱلرَّسُولَ وَأُوْلِي ٱلأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ وَٱلرَّسُولِ إِن كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلآخِرِ ذٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلاً }

    O you who believe, obey God, and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you, that is, rulers, when they command you to obey God and His Messenger. If you should quarrel, disagree, about anything, refer it to God, that is, to His Book, and the Messenger, while he lives, and thereafter [refer] to his Sunna: in other words examine these [disputes] with reference to these two [sources], if you believe in God and the Last Day; that, reference to the two [sources], is better, for you than quarrelling or [adhering to] personal opinions, and more excellent in interpretation, in the end.

    You continue to live a lie and spew lies!

  188. Now what constitutes mischief? One of the things that constitutes mischief is unbelief! Nobody said that Muslims cannot commit mischief! Thats a straw man argument that i never made! Of course Muslims will kill each other. they always have and always will. But a non Muslims life is not sacred and not equal!

    commentary on 5:32

    Because of that, which Cain did, We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever slays a soul for other than a soul, slain, or for, other than, corruption, committed, in the land, in the way of UNBELIEF, fornication or waylaying and the like, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoever saves the life of one, by refraining from slaying, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind — Ibn ‘Abbās said [that the above is meant] in the sense of violating and protecting its [a soul’s] sanctity [respectively]. Our messengers have already come to them, that is, to the Children of Israel, with clear proofs, miracles, but after that many of them still commit excesses in the land, overstepping the bounds through disbelief, killing and the like.
    Surah al-Ma'idah, ayah 32
    Tafsir al-Jalalayn

    (And when it is said to them: "Do not make mischief on the earth,"), means, "Do not commit acts of disobedience on the earth. Their mischief is disobeying Allah, because whoever disobeys Allah on the earth, or commands that Allah be disobeyed, he has committed mischief on the earth.
    Meaning of Mischief
    Tafsir Ibn Kathir

    Quote "Verse 33-34 doesn't only refer to non-Muslims,Furthermore this law obviously is only implemented in a theocratic state. Muslims today can't go to secular countries and start implementing the punishment, as the law is out of it's jurisdiction."

    That sir is an outright LIE!

    Provie your source liar. You admitted you were not a scholar. Why do you continue to put your commentary in responses?
    Preposterous!

    Quran (9:29) – "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

    Quran (9:123) – "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

    * تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
    { يٰأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ قَاتِلُواْ ٱلَّذِينَ يَلُونَكُمْ مِّنَ ٱلْكُفَّارِ وَلْيَجِدُواْ فِيكُمْ غِلْظَةً وَٱعْلَمُوۤاْ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ مَعَ ٱلْمُتَّقِينَ }

    O you who believe, fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, that is, the nearest, followed by the next nearest of them, and let them find harshness in you, that is, severity, in other words, be harsh with them, and know that God is with the pious, helping and granting [them] victory.

  189. Commentary on the sura

    …..Sa`id bin Jubayr said, "He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding the blood of one Muslim, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people." In addition, Ibn Jurayj said that Al-A`raj said that Mujahid commented on the Ayah,

    Tafsir Ibn Kathir

    He who kills a believing soul intentionally, Allah makes the Fire of Hell his abode, He will become angry with him, and curse him, and has prepared a tremendous punishment for him, equal to if he had killed all people, his punishment will still be the same.

    Tafsir Ibn Kath

    Furthermore Islam makes the distinction between Muslims and non Muslims!

    The Believers are but a single Brotherhood (49:10)

    Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe. (8:55)

    * تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
    { إِنَّ شَرَّ ٱلدَّوَابِّ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ فَهُمْ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ }

    (Lo! the worst of beasts) of created beings (in Allah's sight are the ungrateful) Banu Qurayzah and others (who will not believe) in Muhammad (pbuh) and in the Qur'an;

    46.032 "If any does not hearken to the one who invites (us) to Allah, he cannot frustrate (Allah's Plan) on earth, and no protectors can he have besides Allah: such men (wander) in manifest error."

    * تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
    { وَمَن لاَّ يُجِبْ دَاعِيَ ٱللَّهِ فَلَيْسَ بِمُعْجِزٍ فِي ٱلأَرْضِ وَلَيْسَ لَهُ مِن دُونِهِ أَوْلِيَآءُ أُوْلَـٰئِكَ فِي ضَلاَلٍ مُّبِينٍ }

    (And whoso respondeth not to Allah's summoner) Muhammad (pbuh) (he can nowise escape) Allah's punishment (in the earth, and he hath no protecting friends) relatives to benefit him (instead of Him) beside Allah. (Such are in error manifest) such are in manifest disbelief.

  190. Delusions and denial are not a rebuttal.

    I already presented the evidence for you. All you are doing is arguing against Mohamed and your Allah.

    what of the non-believers? What is the worth of their lives? According to sahih hadith, Muhammad said the life of a non-Muslim is not sacred:
    Narrated Anas bin Malik:
    Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik,
    "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."
    Sahih Bukhari 1:8:387, See also: Sahih Bukhari 1:2:24

    Furthermore, Muhammad also gave the verdict (fatwa) that a Muslim can not be killed for killing a non-Muslim.
    Narrated Abu Juhaifa:
    I asked 'Ali "Do you have anything Divine literature besides what is in the Qur'an?" Or, as Uyaina once said, "Apart from what the people have?" 'Ali said, "By Him Who made the grain split (germinate) and created the soul, we have nothing except what is in the Quran and the ability (gift) of understanding Allah's Book which He may endow a man, with and what is written in this sheet of paper." I asked, "What is on this paper?" He replied, "The legal regulations of Diya (Blood-money) and the (ransom for) releasing of the captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever)."
    Sahih Bukhari 9:83:50, See also: Sahih Bukhari 1:3:111, and Sahih Bukhari 4:52:283

    So a non Muslims life is not sacred and not equal to that of a Mohamadan.

    Obviously if a non Muslim kills a Muslims he is purdered, or crucified, or has his hands and feet cut off from opposite sides according to the very next ayats.

    But if a Muslim kills a non Muslim the Muslim man is NOt sentenced to death!

    Do you comprehend that? We are not sacred and the punishment is not equitable! FACT! You cannot deny reality!

    Continued:

  191. search4truth;

    you wrote;
    //And you are lying again about sura 5:32. That is not what it says!

    On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person – unless it be in retaliation for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity.
    Qur'an 5:32

    Firstly, this verse is written in past tense (Ordained, not Ordain) and clearly does not apply to Muslims but to "the Children of Israel" i.e. the Jews who, according to Islam,…..//

    Yes, It is in the past tense, but it doesn't mean this teaching cannot be applied to Islam today.

    Commenting on this verse:
    "It should be clarified here that this rule applies to people in the land of Islam, whether Muslim or not, as long as they are living under the rule and protection of the Islamic authority."(Sayyid Qutb – In The Shade Of The Qur'an – The Islamic Foundation – Volume 4 – Page 74).

    you wrote;
    //Secondly, when the clause which allows killing is reinserted and we read it in context with the following two verses directed at Muslims (notice the reference to Allah's messenger and the switch to present tense), what first appeared on the surface to be a peaceful message, is in actual fact a chilling warning to non-believers:
    The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
    Qur'an 5:33-34
    Tafsir Ibn Kathir…….Tafsir Ibn Abbas…….//

    First of all show me where the term non-Muslims or "kafirs" is mentioned in the verse? No-where mentioned. This doesn't specifically refer to only non-Muslims. It refers to both Muslims & non-Muslims.

    Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani – Ma'ariful Quran – Volume 3 – Page 129:
    "In the verses cited above, and in verses which follow, there is a description of the legal punishments for killing, plundering, robbery and theft."

    Ibn Kathir's tafsir – Surah Maidah 5:34:
    "This Ayah does not save a Muslim from punishment if he kills, causes mischief in the land or wages war against Allah and His Messenger and then joins rank with the disbelievers, before the Muslims are able to catch him. He will still be liable for punishment for the crimes he committed."

    Verse 33-34 doesn't only refer to non-Muslims,Furthermore this law obviously is only implemented in a theocratic state. Muslims today can't go to secular countries and start implementing the punishment, as the law is out of it's jurisdiction.

  192. See even from the start – he throws in this.

    People like this do this . . . . and will claim credence from such things. Meaningless.

    ……

    Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous

    Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning

    Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
    Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says[45]
    Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into name-calling rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.

    My argument is quite clear.

    Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.

    Provide the evidence that any of my argument is given against argument. Making an assertion or claim without substantiation is not an argument. prove your assertion. My claims are made clear. Do not attempt to undermine me or my assertions. they are clear for all to say. You are deflecting because you have no argument against said factual conclusions. I am still waiting!

  193. This is so horrible Mr.Sina, the Muslim child is innocent, he's been brainwashed by his parents.

  194. Yeshua Ha'Mashiach

    He is AL HAQ, John 14:6

    He is AL BAETH, John11:25-26.

    He is AL AWAL & AL AKHER, Isaiah 41:4; Revelation 22:13, 16.

    He is AL MALEK, Revelation 17:14.

    He is AL NUR, John 8:12

    He is the SON OF GOD.

    He is your LORD & SAVIOR.

    BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD, WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD! John 1:19

  195. THOUSANDS OF PEDOPHILES ARE CONVERTING TO MOHAMMEDANISM.

    NOW THEY CAN HAVE SEX WITH CHILDREN AND IF CAUGHT, THEY REPLY,

    "I AM FOLLOWING THE GREAT EXAMPLE OF THE WORLDS PERFECT MAN, MUHAMMAD, WHO ENJOYED HAVING SEX WITH CHILDREN AND ALLAH OUR GOD SANCTIONED IT FOR ALL MOHAMMEDANS. I AM A GOOD MOHAMMEDAN, PRACTICING MY RELIGION".

  196. ANY ANIMAL IS BETTER THAN A MOHAMMEDAN, EXCEPT A PIG!

    BOTH HAVE IDENTICAL CHARACTERISTICS!

  197. "Are you attempting to create a red herring. "

    See even from the start – he throws in this.

    People like this do this . . . . and will claim credence from such things. Meaningless.

    - – -

    "Go ahead and present your argument to any and all of my factual statements."

    Read you line again. Arguments are given against arguments.

    - – -

    "Well you see what i said. Now refute it! I will be waiting! "

    State your argument to me clearly – anything I don't agree with I will refute it.

  198. Any time you are ready I would be glad to educate you. Let;s do it. I am hear. Stick to the topic. I am deaf to your chest thumping. I have heard it from hundreds of Mohamedans. And they have never lived up to it.

    Go ahead and present your argument to any and all of my factual statements. Are you attempting to create a red herring.

    Well you see what i said. Now refute it! I will be waiting!

  199. " I like to add: If you regard what Ali Sina does as "bad speech", can't you respond POSITIVELY simply with "good speech" of your own to counter it? And let the bad speech and good speech compete? "

    See how meaningless you comments and thinking are . . . countering bad speech IS good.

    Doh!

  200. Reducing Islam & Muslim world to just Sina Vs Pipes is simply ridiculous.

    As both Sina and Pipes can be wrong. And probably are.

    - – -

    "Look, I think you admitted that there are "bad" Muslims, or that there is "bad" behavior by Muslims, just not by all, not by the majority. And you may agree that these can be called the followers of "radical Islam". "

    This is why I find you dishonest . . .

  201. "Insulting bad and stupid people has great effects and benefits, even if you don't believe it. While it is still better than VIOLENCE. When bad and stupid people succeed in censoring people criticizing them, the VICTIMS and their helpers have no resort BUT TO REBEL VIOLENTLY or to submit lethargic. "

    This reveals your inner hatred and illogical thinking.

    Where is Julia now . . . . ?

    Where was this effectiveness?

    Why has it gone silent?

    The position was DISGUSTING one to take. And hypocritical. Something you COULD not defend.

    Demonizing comes before violence. Hence when you say:

    "While it is still better than VIOLENCE."

    It is meaningless.

    - – -

    So you think – stupid people deserve abuse! Wow!

    - – -

    "Bad people often succeed in letting bystanders believe that they are INSULTED and that because of that the criticizer is bad and must be stopped. "

    So you think . . . Julia and her swearing was OK – and in this process – All Muslims are "bad" people.

    That is why you justified HIS torrent of vile abuse. . . .

    See hate monger – then you were BEGGING me for respect.

    What respect such views!

    - – -

  202. "And that is with no thanks to him. I have to take some credit for being among the first on the Internet warning people of Islam."

    Ego problems! Pipes has FAR bigger profile. He has at least studied Islam and some Arabic. He has veneer of Academia about him.

    What does Sina have?

    - – -

    "Would you rather see your enemy standing in front of you or disguised, mingling with you? There is no doubt about Islam’s agenda. Isn’t it better to know this rather than listen to the lullabies of people like Zuhdi and Manji? "

    Hate mongering . . . All Muslims to Sina are "enemy".

    Hence if he had ANY power – he would kill Muslims.

    Hence why he never actually denounces Muslim deaths at hand of West.

    These general lines that allegedly condemn Violence at just that . . . . general and vague.

    Just get into specifics . . . see how much Hate gushes out.

    - – -

    "Zudhi Jasser can sign any pledge he likes. He is an individual that in the eyes of Muslims is a heretic. His views and signatures have no validity, as far as Muslims are concerned. He is nobody in Islam and has not followers. But he can deceive the non-Muslims who look at him and say, Islam cannot be that bad. I think this deception is more dangerous. "

    Here is the thing . . . every single person on Earth of any merit is a heretic. Show me one person upon whom everyone agrees?

    Hence these claims of

    I have previously show Sina's "contradiction" over this . . . when it suited him Rumi and Ghazali were the greatest of Islamic scholars.

    When it suited him – all Sufis are heretic. And have no value in Islam.

    - – -

    Hence mentioning Muslims that do not fit his profile of a Muslim . . . he will come out with such things . . . .

    Yet one can give example after example . . . his hate works on stereotyping.

    Else the drama falls down.

    He is NOT a Muslim. . . . nor an expert of Islam – yet he will advocate to you what a Muslim is.

    Anything contradicting . . . . of course isn't a proper Muslim, is heretic, delusional, secular, doing taqiyyah and whatnot – he will bring countless excuses.

    - – -

    "But he can deceive the non-Muslims who look at him and say, Islam cannot be that bad. I think this deception is more dangerous. "

    In other words . . . he wants this certain image of Islam at all cost. His stupidity beggars belief at times. Here – isn't Sina the one clearly the manipulator?

    - – -

    "Zuhdi Jasser is not any more Muslim than I am"

    Doh!

    - – -

    "I invited Jasser and others like him to debate. I even invited Daniel Pipes. None of them replied. Pipes went as far as to say he never heard my name."

    Ha ha ha . . . see ego problems.

    Not even likes of Pipes wants to associate with him! Because Sina is a hate monger . . . recognised and classified as such.

    - – -

    "These people know the truth. Why someone stands for something that he does not believe to be true? Your answer to that is good as mine. "

    See – the many confusions of Sina! Which name did you use? Harrell, Aqil Ariz . . . or some other?

    - – -

    Pipes does the same thing . . . . he has views of what an "acceptable" Muslim is.

    One who isn't . . . he is automatically an extremist.

    - – -

  203. Sahih Muslim HadithHadith 1062 Narrated byAbuHurayrah The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: I have been given superiority over the other prophets in six respects: I have been given words which are concise but comprehensive in meaning; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies): spoils have been made lawful to me; the earth has been made for me clean and a place of worship; I have been sent to all mankind; and the line of prophets is closed with me.

    Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith – 1.331

    Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah
    The Prophet said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.

    Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
    The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.
    The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.
    I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).
    Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.
    http://alim.org/library/hadith/SHB/331/1

    Now try and tell me that is an anti Islamic site liar. You may lie and fool some. But those who are educated see through the lies and propaganda! You are a tool for evil. And that evil is Mohamed and Islam!

  204. "
    Well i know the truth! Islam is an evil, fascist, bigoted, intolerant, violent, misogynistic death cult bent on the subjugation or death of all non Muslims!

    And I challenge any Muslim to debate me! "

    Not another one!

    Look what happened to all others that made this claim . . . even Sina hides!

    - – -

    I accept – but try reading up what happened to people like J Stilwater, Demsci, Julia, Sina, knowTheEnemy . . . .

    Then if you think you are up to it . . . . come along.

  205. And now for the slandering and undermining me and the evidence. What do you suppose I do instead of copying and pasting the facts? Make it up like you do?

    See I present the facts. Thats why I copy and paste the facts to substantiate my claims.

    You on the other hand fabricate, misrepresent, cherry pick and make straw man arguments and logical fallacies.

    What truth is that? I am the only one in this interaction that has presented the truth and provided the evidence in support.

    Anti Islamic sites you say? So the Sahih hadith from Bukhari and Muslim and the tafsirs of the two Jalalayns and Ibn Kathir are from anti Islamic sites? Those are YOUR scholars and hiostorians! You can deny reality and lie all you want. That will not change the factual evidence that I presented! The Tafsirs I used are from © 2012 Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Amman, Jordan
    http://www.altafsir.com/Testimonies.asp?LanguageI

    Go and read some of the testimonies!

    "AlTafsir.com is arguably the best and most reliable website on the Qur'an and Tafsir"
    Sheikh Faraz Rabbani from http://www.SunniPath.com

    "The Altafsir website provides an immensely valuable access to many of the sciences of the Quran … any student of the Quranic sciences would find the website indispensable …"
    Jubril Alao, http://www.salaam.co.uk

    And you and that site are the liars! You can point me to any site you want. And bring your best debater! And i will refute and educate them as well.

    You live a lie, ad you spew lies! You cant refute me so you try to slander me! You have no rebuttal so you give me another fallacious site so you can try and save face and tell me this is the truth!

    Well i know the truth! Islam is an evil, fascist, bigoted, intolerant, violent, misogynistic death cult bent on the subjugation or death of all non Muslims!

    And I challenge any Muslim to debate me!

    Keep deflecting., Because thats all you can do. You have been lied to and indoctrinated and you are incapable of objective reasoning, critical thinking, and intellectual integrity! Now i challenge you to refute any of the factual evidence I presented. Dont point me to another propaganda site. Refute me! It shouldn't be hard if you know the truth. You ignore what you dont like. But I am agreement with Mohamed about what Islam teaches about jihad! And he said this!

    Bukhari (8:387) – Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'.

    That isnt me saying it and my name isnt Bukhari! So stop with your logical fallacies!

  206. Considering copy, pasting and typing is your hobby :)

    I didn't say I'm scholar. If I'm not a scholar It doesn't mean I can't preach Islam. It is my obligation to help you in finding the truth. After all you are searching for the truth, search4truth :) But I know about the real Islam, and I also know you have quoted the quranic verses from anti Islamic sites and you yourself know nothing about the real Islam.
    Here is the truth, http://www.aboutjihad.com/terrorism/quran_misquot

  207. @Maria,

    " Islam says to kill in the name of God.. THAT IS WRONG. "

    WHY oh WHY do we always hear the words Islomafacists "Allah AKBAR" before a peron is killed or murders or blown up? If you allah was so great why are you shirk .. killing people that god created.. Islam tells you you are better than God.. ISALM IS A LIE

  208. Now what are you really commanded to do? Its clear. Subjugate or slaughter all non Muslims for all eternity!

    Quran (9:29) – "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

    And how did Mohamed view his commands from your Allah? He says it as clear as can be!

    Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

    Bukhari (8:387) – Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."

    Muslim (1:30) – "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

    Abu Ishaq said that he heard al-Bara' b 'Azib (Allah be pleased with him) say: The last complete sura revealed (in the Holy Qur'an) is Sura tauba (i e. al-Bara'at, ix.), and the last verse revealed is that pertaining to Kalala.
    Sahih Muslim 11:3941

    “When it was asked to Ali, (one of the rightly guided caliphs of Islam) about the lack of Bismi in this chapter, Ali replied: “Bismi’s implication is trustworthiness. But this Chapter was revealed with a sword”
    Tafsir Qurtubi. 8

    Narrated Said bin Jubair: I asked Ibn Abbas about Surat Al-tauba, and he said, "Surat Al-tauba? It is exposure (of all the evils of the infidels and the hypocrites). And it continued revealing (that the oft-repeated expression): '…and of them …and of them.'till they started thinking that none would be left unmentioned therein."
    Sahih Bukhari 6:60:404

    Now go and learn about true Islam and stop spreading your lies and misrepresentations!

  209. Sura 17:33 is speaking about Muslims and muslims alone! A non Muslim life is NOt equal to a Muslim life!

    Narrated Anas bin Malik:
    Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik,
    "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."
    Sahih Bukhari 1:8:387, See also: Sahih Bukhari 1:2:24

    "The legal regulations of Diya (Blood-money) and the (ransom for) releasing of the captives, and the judgment that no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for killing a Kafir (disbeliever)."
    Sahih Bukhari 9:83:50, See also: Sahih Bukhari 1:3:111, and Sahih Bukhari 4:52:283

    And you are lying again about sura 5:32. That is not what it says!

    On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person – unless it be in retaliation for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity.
    Qur'an 5:32

    Firstly, this verse is written in past tense (Ordained, not Ordain) and clearly does not apply to Muslims but to "the Children of Israel" i.e. the Jews who, according to Islam, recieved an earlier set of scriptures. In fact, it's mistakingly referencing a rabbinical commentary found in the Talmud as if it were the words of God.
    Secondly, when the clause which allows killing is reinserted and we read it in context with the following two verses directed at Muslims (notice the reference to Allah's messenger and the switch to present tense), what first appeared on the surface to be a peaceful message, is in actual fact a chilling warning to non-believers:
    The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
    Qur'an 5:33-34

    …..Sa`id bin Jubayr said, "He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding the blood of one Muslim, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people." In addition, Ibn Jurayj said that Al-A`raj said that Mujahid commented on the Ayah,
    Tafsir Ibn Kathir

    (For that) because Cain wrongfully killed Abel (cause We decreed for the Children of Israel) in the Torah (that whosoever killeth a human being for other than man slaughter) i.e. premeditatedly (or corruption in the earth) or because of idolatry, (it shall be as if be had killed all mankind)
    Surah al-Ma'idah, ayah 32
    Tafsir Ibn Abbas

  210. Hindu genocide! you are a liar and completely ignorant of history! Why do Muslims rewrite history and avoid taking responsibility? Because you have to and you have been lied to and indoctrinated since birth! Thats why you will never progress. You cannot take constructive criticism and accept history and doctrine!

    In his book "Negation in India" Famous Belgian historian Koenraad Elst wrote:

    The Blitzkrieg of the Muslim armies in the first decades after the birth of their religion had such enduring results precisely because the Pagan populations in West- and Central-Asia had no choice (except death) but to convert. Whatever the converts' own resentment, their children grew up as Muslims and gradually identified with this religion. Within a few generations the initial resistance against these forcible converions was forgotten, and these areas became heidenfrei (free from Pagans, cfr. judenfrei).

    The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.

    According to some calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate).

    But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully surrendered. Against these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible.

    Alone among the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones) living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya (toleration tax) from them.

    Normally the zimmi status was only open to Jews and Christians (and even that concession was condemned by jurists of the Hanbalite school like lbn Taymiya), which explains why these communities have survived in Muslim countries while most other religions have not. Akbar (whom orthodox Muslims consider an apostate) cancelled these humiliating conditions and the jizya tax.

    It is because of Hanifite law that many Muslim rulers in India considered themselves exempted from the duty to continue the genocide on the Hindus (self-exemption for which they were persistently reprimanded by their mullahs). Moreover, the Turkish and Afghan invaders also fought each other, so they often had to ally themselves with accursed unbelievers against fellow Muslims. After the conquests, Islamic occupation gradually lost its character of a total campaign to destroy the Pagans.

    Many Muslim rulers preferred to enjoy the revenue from stable and prosperous kingdoms, and were content to extract the jizya tax, and to limit their conversion effort to material incentives and support to the missionary campaigns of sufis and mullahs (in fact, for less zealous rulers, the jizya was an incentive to discourage conversions, as these would mean a loss of revenue).

  211. Yes 22:39 grants you the permission to fight oppressors. But it in know way limits the rest of the Quran and especially sura 9 which was the second from last revealed and abrogates many of the earlier suras. 22:39 in NO way limits who, how, and when you can fight. it is just one aspect of jihad. Please refrain from putting your interpretation and commentary on ayats. You are in NO way a scholar.

    you are adding your interpretation, or lying. Either way jihad is not limited to fighting oppressors. In fact Islam ad Muslims believe that anyone who hinders their propagation of Islam is oppressing Allahs fascist, bigoted,. misogynistic, backward ideology. And i will prove that after I refute your lies and misrepresentations.

    22:39 does not limit it is only one aspect!

    * تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
    { أُذِنَ لِلَّذِينَ يُقَاتَلُونَ بِأَنَّهُمْ ظُلِمُواْ وَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلَىٰ نَصْرِهِمْ لَقَدِيرٌ }

    Permission is granted to those who fight, namely, to the believers, to fight back — this was the first verse to be revealed regarding the struggle [in the way of God] (jihād), because they have been wronged, as a result of the wrong done to them by the disbelievers. And God is truly able to help them;

    Tafsir al-Jalalayn, trans. Feras Hamza
    © 2012 Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Amman, Jordan (http://www.aalalbayt.org) ® All Rights Reserved

    Now as for sura 60:8 that was abrogated.

    * تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
    { لاَّ يَنْهَاكُمُ ٱللَّهُ عَنِ ٱلَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِي ٱلدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُمْ مِّن دِيَارِكُمْ أَن تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوۤاْ إِلَيْهِمْ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُحِبُّ ٱلْمُقْسِطِينَ }

    God does not forbid you in regard to those who did not wage war against you, from among the disbelievers, on account of religion and did not expel you from your homes, that you should treat them kindly (an tabarrūhum is an inclusive substitution for alladhīna, ‘those who’) and deal with them justly: this was [revealed] before the command to struggle against them. Assuredly God loves the just.

    REVEALED BEFORE THE COMMAND TO STRUGGLE AGAINST THEM!

    And yes I understand that Mohamed plagerized from the Bible and Islam believes that all the previous Prophets were Muslim! Jews and Christians reject that lie and propaganda!

    Now as for saying that those countries were not of other faiths and it is just my assumption. All I can do is LAUGH! It is a historical FACT and in NO way an assumption. Do you know what an assumption is ?! LOL!

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

    639-642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.
    641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.

    643-707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.

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

  212. yep avoid the truth is what rainbow is really saying..

    Raindow is lucky if he can relate to his pets let alone other people

  213. "I believe that the Muslim allah was a construct of the distinctly mentally disturbed Muslim prophet, which he made in HIS image, "

    the proof for this statement can be seen everywhere.. like a 14 yo shot in the head because she want education for women.. seriously this is Islamofication the wanting to turn people into zombies.

    the killing of apostates.. the estimated 200 million people who have died as slaves in pislam.. the esitmated 230 million butchered in unholy islamic war on everyone..

    and yet we find muslims that try to predent this is the word of God.. so scared are they of facing the truth or the barbaric horror of confronting the beast called pislam

  214. Maria

    as far as i can tell Allah = Mohammad.. and for every reasonable passage you offer there are another 4 that hostile.. you know that but you choose to ignore them and try to pretend they do not exist..

    No matter what you say, it is actions that speak much louder than words.. the symbol for Islam is the cross swords,, it is the symbol that all muslim see and you want people to ignore that.. you want us to forget the 1400 years of wars that started in Mecca and contniue today? has there no been enough blood shed, but you want more bloodshed.. you deny that there is any problem when clearly there are..

    what is wrong with you?

  215. Your words,
    Also A recent comprehensive compilation of the history of human warfare, Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod documents 1763 wars, of which 123 have been classified to involve a religious conflict.It is interesting to note that 66 of these wars (more than 50%) involved Islam,

    Reply;

    The Holy Quran says;
    Permission [to fight] has been granted to those against whom war is waged, because they are oppressed.Surely, Allah is well capable of assisting them [to victory]. (22.39)

    Verse 22.39 elaborate about the nature of the persecution, citing the oppression that the believers had come under.The permission to go to war was given to allow the Muslims to defend their basic human right to choose their own faith. The verse then goes on to make the critical point that the use of violence can be unavoidable in defending this right.

    The permission to fight was granted because this is a case of self-defense.These verse also make it clear that Muslims have the right to resort to force only to defend their rights and way or life:

    Allah does not forbid you [O you who believe!] from being kind and just to those who have not waged war against you because of your religion and have not driven you out of your homes. Surely, Allah loves those who are just. (60.8) He only forbids you from taking guardians those who have waged war against you because of your religion, have driven you out of your homes, and have supported others in driving you out. As to those who take them as guardians, these are the wrongdoers. (60.9)

    The Muslims are commanded to live in peace with people of other faiths. The permission to use force is strictly given to defend their rights.,

    In simple words In the past majority of Muslims were oppressed, killed and persecuted, so they used force for the self defense.

    Your words
    ………. Islam, which did not even exist as a religion for the first 3,000
    Reply,
    Oh! you don't know Islam is not a new religion all the prophet of God were Muslim,
    Look at the following vers of Quran ,
    “Who would forsake the religion of Abraham (Islam), except one who fools his own soul? We have chosen him in this world, and in the Hereafter he will be with the righteous. When his Lord said to him, “Submit,” he said, “I submit to the Lord of the universe.” Moreover, Abraham exhorted his children to do the same, and so did Jacob: “O my children, Allah has pointed out the religion (Islam) for you; do not die except as submitters (Muslims).” Had you witnessed Jacob on his death bed; he said to his children, “What will you worship after I die?” They said, “We will worship your god; the god of your fathers Abraham, Ismail, and Isaac; the one god. To Him we are submitters.” [Qur'an 2:130-133]

    Your words,
    And dont forget that the Muslims countries that you live in were once Christian, Hindu, Zoroastrian and pagan. Untill you took them by the sword.

    Reply;
    That's only your assumption and not the truth.

    Your words,
    " Thirdly go look up Hindu genocide. Muslims slaughtered an estimated 50 to 80 million Hindus."
    Reply;
    Only false charges on innocent Muslims, I can't understand why do people want to find the worst things about Muslims and make false statements.
    I want to assure you that we Muslims do not hate non-Muslims without any reason, be they Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhist or followers of any religion. Our religions does not allow killing any innocent person regardless of his/her religion. The life of all human beings is sacrosanct according to the teachings of the Qur’an and the guidance of our blessed Prophet Muhammad -peace be upon him and upon all the Prophets and Messengers of Allah.

    The Holy Qur’an says about the prohibition of murder:

    “..Take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus does He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.” (al-An’am 6:151)
    and Allah says in the Qur’an:
    “Nor take life – which Allah has made sacred – except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, We have given his heir authority (to demand Qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the law)” (al-Isra’ 17:33)

    According to the Qur'an, killing any person without a just cause is as big a sin as killing the whole humanity and saving the life of one person is as good deed as saving the whole humanity.
    (See al-Ma’idah 5:32)

  216. Maria-Islamic, hopefully, you and your friends (who give you likes and me dislikes, maybe?),
    have read Ali Sina's responses to my responses to you.

    Look, I think you admitted that there are "bad" Muslims, or that there is "bad" behavior by Muslims, just not by all, not by the majority. And you may agree that these can be called the followers of "radical Islam".

    And then you may not be far from Daniel Pipes' position; that the enemy of our beloved freedom and democracy, the force that blockades that in Islamic countries, that that is "Radical Islam". By contrast Ali Sina says; No, the enemy, or the problem, or the threat/ danger is in ISLAM, just like that.

    And it seems to me that nowadays it is really up to many, many Muslims to decide whether Daniel Pipes or Ali Sina is right about this issue. Obviously Zuhdi Jasser is in agreement with Pipes, but ….he get's no support and overwhelming condemnation, rejection. No other important Muslims support the freedom pledge which he signed.

    I wonder what the future will bring; a change in the attitude of Muslims what Pipes and Zuhdi are hoping for.

    Or a stubborn resistance among most Muslims, against moderation, less literalism&more symbolism, more democratic trends? And even rejection of those 3 moderate writers and a confirmation of Ali Sina's views seen in the attitude of Muslims? And in which proportion the division among Muslims falls to Zuhdi's Islam-interpretation or other Islam-interpretations.

  217. Thanks for your reply, I am honoured.

    I think you argue from a strong position. But the whole thing is sooooooo complex for me. For instance in Rotterdam where I live # 100.000 of 600.000 are Muslims and the headscarves are ubiquitous. The mayor is a Moroccan Muslim, much respected and thoroughly Socialist Democratic. Bizarrely it is reported that he is NOT popular with most or many Moroccons in Rotterdam

    I have quite a few Islamic colleagues and I have good, nice or at least cordial relations with all of them. My other colleagues and I add, family, friends, do not think or talk much about Islam at all, and are overwhelmingly thinking like Daniel Pipes when they do.

    But now, in an interesting turn of events I picked up the following debate between Pipes and Zudhi in opposition to Foundation of Defense of Democracy in person of Marc Reuel Gerecht. And I remember well your debate with Pete Rottier, years ago, and that debate was about much of this debate;

    Which is worse; Islamists or Dictators?

    It is a complicated discussion, but I distinctly remember that Rottier spoke like Foundation of Defense of Democracies, while Pipes and Zuhdi echo more YOUR position then! What do you make of THAT?

    Here is the link.
    http://www.danielpipes.org/12298/dictators-electe

  218. “Among the Muslims you refer to as allied with him, may be Zuhdi Jasser and Irshad Manji. And THEY,at least outwardly, do favor democracy and freedom of speech and more importantly a much more symbolic interpretation of Islam. “

    Would you rather see your enemy standing in front of you or disguised, mingling with you? There is no doubt about Islam’s agenda. Isn’t it better to know this rather than listen to the lullabies of people like Zuhdi and Manji?
    —-
    “But unfortunately so far these 2 have attracted precious little following among Muslims and rather universal condemnation from them.”

    Thank you for making my case so easy. So if these guys are not fooling the Muslims, who are they fooling? Us?
    —-
    “Zuhdi Jasser did sign, as the only well-known Muslim, I heard, the FREEDOM PLEDGE. That pledge is about absolute freedom of religion, and about rejecting any penalty for apostasy from Islam whatsoever.”

    Zudhi Jasser can sign any pledge he likes. He is an individual that in the eyes of Muslims is a heretic. His views and signatures have no validity, as far as Muslims are concerned. He is nobody in Islam and has not followers. But he can deceive the non-Muslims who look at him and say, Islam cannot be that bad. I think this deception is more dangerous.

    “ And one day I hope Muslima\’s like Maria-Islamic will also sign that Freedom-pledge.”

    That is, I am afraid, a wishful thinking. It is not going to happen unless one renounces Islam. Zuhdi Jasser is not any more Muslim than I am, but he still tries to present Islam as a great religion of peace. He and I cannot be both right. One of us is ether misguided or is misleading others. I invited Jasser and others like him to debate. I even invited Daniel Pipes. None of them replied. Pipes went as far as to say he never heard my name. These people know the truth. Why someone stands for something that he does not believe to be true? Your answer to that is good as mine.

    —-
    “Later Pipes expressed hope for a Europe remaining free and democratic as he said that anti-Islamist organisations and support seemed to grow faster than Muslim presence in Europe.”

    And that is with no thanks to him. I have to take some credit for being among the first on the Internet warning people of Islam.

  219. I read your post and am thinking about it.

    I am sorry that in your estimation Daniel Pipes does more harm than good. I hope he does more good than harm. As he undoubtedly has the same positive goals as you and me (which is about what he DOES want, as opposed what he does NOT want and hence what he wants to avoid and defend against), even if you and he disagree on the identity of the enemy and on strategy.

    Among the Muslims you refer to as allied with him, may be Zuhdi Jasser and Irshad Manji. And THEY,at least outwardly, do favor democracy and freedom of speech and more importantly a much more symbolic interpretation of Islam. But unfortunately so far these 2 have attracted precious little following among Muslims and rather universal condemnation from them.

    Zuhdi Jasser did sign, as the only well-known Muslim, I heard, the FREEDOM PLEDGE. That pledge is about absolute freedom of religion, and about rejecting any penalty for apostasy from Islam whatsoever.

    And one day I hope Muslima's like Maria-Islamic will also sign that Freedom-pledge. Because it is easy for her to say that Muslims should be kind and just to non-Muslims. But that should extend to letting Muslims absolutely free to become Non-Muslims, in my opinion.

    In the past Pipes expressed fears of "Eurabia", a thoroughly Islamized Europe. or at least some kind of civil war in Europe.

    Later Pipes expressed hope for a Europe remaining free and democratic as he said that anti-Islamist organisations and support seemed to grow faster than Muslim presence in Europe.

    He is much on TV and this year was on ABN together with Robert Spencer, arguing with 2 Islam-apologists. JihadWatch has still a link towards his website.

  220. Mr.Sina ,lot of Muslim here says that you are the prophet of Hindu’s .I do not hesitate to concede this title to you ,because I knew that whatever you are doing is a yeoman service to the humanity .Generation ,generation yet to come ,who will remember you and will bestow you a right place in future History. Though I am bothered about Islam ,I do not hate Muslims either .They are good people ,in fact all Asians are emotional people .We think from our heart ,we give utmost regard to family concept .This is unlikely so with westerner’s. They think from their mind and uphold individuality above family thread. Why I am saying all these things to you here is, recently two events occurred, which had disturbed not only India, but also the world at large. The one is, a beautiful Indian doc tresses death in Ireland and a suicide of a Nurse of Indian origin working at King Edward VII th Hospital in U.K .The death of the former lady caused due to the fanaticism of Catholics in Ireland, though the doctor’s knew the fetus is dead and keeping it remain in the womb of the mother jeopardize the life of mother, yet they were abide by the dictum of their faith. The lady herself being a doctor, had repeatedly requested the doctor’s for abortion ,but the doctor gave the reason that the fetus's heart is still beating ,so their religion forbid them from doing abortion and for their blind belief ,a young life was sacrificed .Now tell me in what way Christianity is better than Islam. The mother of that lady gave a heartening statement,”to protect a three weak life, they killed my 30 year old daughter”. The cause of the death of that young lady is not negligence of doctors but the dictates of religion. Even after this incident Christian world is not ready to modify or amend to their scriptures; to prevent such loss of life in future .Second incident is the suicide of a nurse working in king Edward VII th Hospital in Marylebone, central London in U.K ,where princess Kate’s pregnancy is being currently treated .Some mischief was played by two Australian radio attendant ,consequently the lady had committed suicide ,the whole Christian world is in grief not because she was Indian but because she was Christian ,the aids are pouring from all corner ,no doubt her family will become million ear in short. Here in this cite ,many ex-Muslims confess that, they have embraced Christianity to Islam, it is like jumping from one dearth to another. I request ,your some time be spared to strip the dogmas prevailed in other religions. The Christian world forgot the lady doctor, but the nurse had become martyr for them, what a dilemma.

  221. @Maria,

    yes people everywhere have done and continue to do bad things.. But muslims do it in the name of allah the moon god.. Hitler and stalin and pol pot kill people because they were cruel self men.. Islam says to kill in the name of God.. THAT IS WRONG

    muslims judge others in the name of god with self proclaimed authority.. islam is shirk

  222. I thought you said it was a logical response? First of all Muslims have been oppressing, persecuting and slaughtering all non Muslims and Muslims of other sects since Mohamed fabricated his death cult. Secondly the vast majority of the so called Christian world fought against Hitler and imperialist Japan. But Muslims fought FOR Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was an allie of Hitlers. Thirdly go look up Hindu genocide. Muslims slaughtered an estimated 50 to 80 million Hindus. And dont forget that the Muslims countries that you live in were once Christian, Hindu, Zoroastrian and pagan. Untill you took them by the sword. Egypt, Iraw, iran, Syria, Afghanistan etc… Search Islamic crusades. And it is just and moral to fight against Hitler and imperialist Japan and fascist Italy. Either you are for Hitler or against him. Oh you would have been for him. You have to choose a side. Either fight evil or succumb to it. And I kow what Islam teaches so dont be a hypocrite! Also A recent comprehensive compilation of the history of human warfare, Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod documents 1763 wars, of which 123 have been classified to involve a religious conflict.It is interesting to note that 66 of these wars (more than 50%) involved Islam, which did not even exist as a religion for the first 3,000 years of recorded human warfare. Every single thing you said in this video is a distortiion and manipulation of reality! I refuted you before on youtube thats why you blocked me! And by the way! You are commanded to subjugate or slaughter all non Muslims for all eternity until there is a universal caliphate! I would be glad to continue your education!

  223. \”Although I know that Ali Sina does not like him, I am sort of a follower of Daniel Pipes.\”

    This is not the right way to put it. I disagree with Pipes when he tries to make Islamo-critics look like a bunch of crazy people and gives lip service to Islam. Pipes is doing more harm than good by misleading the public. This is not a question of like or dislike. I have nothing against Dr. Pipes. I know the enemy and the enemy is not the \”radical Islam,\” as Pipes claims. It is Islam itself. If you don\’t know the enemy you will be only shadow boxing while he will defeat you. Know your enemy. This is the first law of war. My disagreement with Pipes is merely on our positions. I have not met him and there is no reason for me to dislike someone I don\’t know. But I am waging a war. This is a war of ideas. It is my job and my duty to oppose ideas that I consider are dangerous to our cause.

    Daniel Pipes has done a great work in exposing the radical Islam and at the same time he has been a negative force for systematically claiming that the \”real Islam\” is moderate and peaceful. He has even allied himself with a bunch of Muslims who use him to advance Islam and deceive the public. I have nothing against Pipes. I oppose his views on Islam.

  224. Actually Maria-Islamic, I abhorred what the Nazi's did the most. And organized crime. I still do.

    And I can see the HEAVY pain of Muslims when they and their beloved prophet and most important guiding texts get criticized, and it should only be done on internet, tv, in media, where they can avoid it, but …

    I take the long view; I understand that Muslims are going to perpetuate Islam, with fair means and foul. And by doing that in a way they block the alternative "ways" I described. So the present generation of Muslims does suffer from Ali Sina, but our hope is that the future generations will in big part have made the transition to another "way" or perhaps a much different free Islam, and they will not suffer.

    Although I know that Ali Sina does not like him, I am sort of a follower of Daniel Pipes who holds that Islam can change into a much more tolerand and democratic form. But that could be wishful thinking.

  225. Thanks, Maria-Islamic, wonderful sensible reply, it made me glad and think.

    To much, but not all, I concede. About what bad deeds people of other religions or no religion are doing. I never said that Muslims were the worst, oh, no. Many humans were in the past and are worse than Muslims. But remember how powerful and dominating Muslims are in so many countries. Remember the element of fear for domination by Muslims in the world. With that you have to deal.

    But you and yours may well be well-intentioned persons towards mankind. You want to treat people of other faiths kindly & justly and you may want to only coexist peacefully. Indeed I know Muslims who state they are definitely in favor of the full Democratic system. It is because you interpret the Quran-Hadiths-Sira-Tafseer in a certain way.

    But are all Muslims like that? No, I think, there are so many different interpretations of Islam. Muslim Anjem Choudary openly admits that Democracy should be abolished. And Ali Sina just the other day said that according to him Islam could not coexist (well) with all the other religions, ways of life, with rules for personal life or ways to organise society. All these other "ways", they are competitors of Islam, aren't they? With the same rights on the dedication of mankind, haven't they? But do they get these equal everywhere in the world from Muslims? we think not. That is why Ali Sina most of the time only protests against what Muslims do. But on occasion we see him also heavily criticize others by the way.

    Ali Sina claims Islam dominates, oppresses, suffocates it's competitors too much. And that Islam intends to rule the world. It is clear that he wants mankind in future to be FREE FROM Islam. But also he wants this so that mankind all over the world can be FREE TO dedicate itself to what he considers to be better alternatives to Islam, or to the bad parts of it at least.

    I disagree about the percentages about terrorism you gave, or at least your argument was countered by those who said that in those numbers was counted also all sorts of petty crimes, which should not be counted as terrorism. But I certainly agree that of bad violent behavior there is much among non-Muslims and of very good behavior there is among Muslims.

    The key question to me; What are the competitors to Islam, or at least to it's bad parts? Are they Atheism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and divers? Then, in the next stage we should compare all the merits and demerits of Islam and competitors in regard to what influence they all have.

    And then we should want mankind in majority to find and follow the best "way" to live, to organise society in the 21st century. And also the best way to explain life.

    And what I object to very much in Islam is that it has the death-penalty for apostasy, which is something it's (main) competitors do not have. I wish many Muslims, like you too, would declare that the (death- or any) penalty for apostasy should be abandoned. And that you distance yourself from those Muslims that keep being in favor of it and according to surveys there are a lot of them, even among Western Muslims.

  226. @Demsci:

    Your words: You say that Ali Sina only exposes and defames Muslims, while not only Muslims, but also non-Muslims are guilty, reproachable for the same bad acts and attitudes. You say that therefore Ali Sina uses double standards.
    Re:
    Yes. That's true, Isn't it? Have you seen him anywhere defaming non-Muslims. I have never seen. While he himself says he wanna remove all the evils. Do you know all terrorist are ''not'' Muslims & all Muslims are ''not'' terrorist. We can give a long existing list of non-Muslim terrorists & also non-Muslim terrorist organizations. e.g The results are stark, and prove decisively that not all terrorists are Muslims. In fact, a whopping 99.6% of terrorist attacks in Europe were by non-Muslim groups; a good 84.8% of attacks were from separatist groups completely unrelated to Islam. Leftist groups accounted for over sixteen times as much terrorism as radical Islamic groups. Only a measly 0.4% of terrorist attacks from 2006 to 2008 could be attributed to Muslims. Then why only ''Muslims''.

    Your words: But Ali Sina is against your beloved Islam, not Muslims, the people.
    Re:
    Brother you're not against Muslims. So you think everyone is not against Muslims. But the truth is that many are against Muslims, the people.

    Your words: If they became ex-Muslims Ali Sina would NOT defame them, just as Muslims would not defame HIM if he became Muslim any more.
    Re:
    If a Muslim turns to ex-Muslim he'd ''not'' defame him ''definitely'', I know. And we are talking about defaming of ''Muslims'', if you remember.

    Your words:
    He compares and contrasts the acts and attitudes of people in regard to their religious motivation and practice', in this case he compares Jews and Muslims for that purpose.
    Re:
    Oh really? Do you know there are such ''non-Muslim'' terrorist organizations who conduct children to terrorist activity? And e.g What about Hindus & Buddhist terrorism in china on religinal basis?

    Your words:
    He thinks about how in the future large portions of mankind can do something better than adhere to and practice Islam.
    Re:
    You have read the Bible definitely. You know well there are such verses seem to be inhuman, violent. But why do you choose verses ''only'' from Qur'an. If you see there are many practicing Muslims who are peace loving. They're spreading peace, they're loving, kind-hearted, they're doing great great work to serve humanity. So don't say you wanna save mankind by removing "Islam" to make Muslims good human being. How do you ignore all other factors who bring disasters to mankind choose ''only'' Islam. There're many good Muslims. We consider non-Muslims are human being whether they're Jew or Christian or Hindu or etc. We consider they should be treated kindly & justly. Now don't say what Qur'an say about "Jihad" if you can't understand. We Muslims know very well what Qur'anic verses say about Jihad & how to deal with non-Muslims, you'll pick verses out of context & without correct translation. Again I say don't tell me what Quran teaches about Jihad & dealing of non-Muslims look how "majority" of Muslims behave. You can find terrorist , I'm not denying this fact. But what I'm telling you is that ''all'' Muslims are ''not'' terrorist rather they're good human.

    Your words:
    Instead of always trying ONLY OR PRIMARILY NEGATIVELY, to deplore denounce, vilify, censor, diminish, delete, deny, dismiss the "bad speech"?
    Re:
    We try to defend. One has the right to defend oneself, hasn't one? However, brother I should try to avoid bad speech.

  227. "they spreading their hate religion,by some immoral activities like supporting burning quran,says bad word against respectable prophets,making cartoon, film,etc……………i don't understand how can it being free speech,freedom of thought like that……….."

    Oh, Shabeer, YOU REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND FREE SPEECH. And how burning Qurans (or any other holy book, like bibles, bhagavad Gita, constitution of united states, or burning of American and Israeli flags, or effigies of American presidents) is perfectly LAWFUL under democratic law. It is just that you have shariah law, a different law. But it is disgusting or disappointing (when you fail to grasp this) that you ask respect for your law, but never show understanding and respect for our law.

    Bad words against prophets, making cartoons against religions, are also perfectly LAWFUL. And you under democratic law HAVE NO RIGHT to be protected from these, provided that it is stated somewhere where you do not have to go. YOU CAN AVOID IT.

    Disagree all you want, but please try to understand and respect the laws, most important guiding texts of other people than Muslims.

    And I want to add that your complete lack of understanding, and you represent many Muslims, justifies the concern that Free People have that Muslims do not respect their laws/ customs and intend to squash them and help those who want to squash them!

  228. Peaceful ? Why can't the Arabs co-exist with the Israelis who squatted on a tiny parcel of land given by Allah as he had said in Koran 10 : 93 and 17 : 104. Finally, they n the Iranians will force Israel to use nuke weapons n a great chunk of land around Iran will become a huge parking lot in the words of spirit medium, Joseph Tittel ( see you tube ). I doubt if anyone there can survive and they all will REST IN PEACE. Then It will become really PEACEFUL and R.I.P.

  229. Peacefu what?

    why is it that of the 1900 attacks since 9/11, why is it that 90% of victims are muslim

    why is it that you make no mention of the esitmated 270 million that have died in wars because of Islam over the last 1400 years..

    what is it that makes you want to make your own family suffer? are you cursed by the devil?

    watch this video and learn the true stastics.. every single muslim is a victim of mohammad's crimes and you minds are in shock not wanting to face the truth because of the horror of the truth
    http://youtu.be/t_Qpy0mXg8Y

    why do you hate your fellow man and yourself

  230. To Ali sina and to all such non-Muslims present in this forum!
    Must watch my intellectual video response,

    [youtube GaUpzmr5dy8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaUpzmr5dy8 youtube]

  231. fearing the truth hue?

  232. "since nobody can live with that level of dissonance in their mind, they have to come up with absurdities are are less painful than the admission that they believe a lie"

    I think that's a wonderful explanation of the psychology of the Muhammad-defenders.

    "if they apostatize, they can be killed… they can be falsely accused and convicted with the scantest evidence"

    That's not true for muslims in democratic countries,although they might face social neglect.There's something in Islam that severely clouds rationality and natural human judgement towards right and wrong.If you are taught right from infancy that cutting off a thief's hand is better than correcting him,every non-believer will go to hell as they're cursed by someone,uncovered women have loose morals etc. that's the morality you'll grow up with.
    Sina raises a point often – Islamists are quick to allocate responsibility of any ill-fortune or inadequacy to an external agent.Because that's a knee-jerk reaction to something that violates what they've believed to be true from infancy.I think that is an accurate analysis.

  233. Bullsheet !

  234. Well, find it yourself, it was the one that YOU recommended to J. Stillwater. And anyway, it works when I push it.

  235. But thanks to the God's given chaos in Egypt, the MB cannot concentrate its effort to attack Israel with Hamas. Look like Egypt may have a civil war, just like Syria.

  236. From Jihad Watch…………………..The Obama government awarded Lockheed Martin Corp. a contract in March 2010 for 20 F-16s, the last to be delivered next year. That would increase Egypt’s total fleet to 240, according to a company press release at the time.
    “Egypt has far and away the largest army in Africa,” said Egypt analyst Robert Springborg, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif.
    The billions of dollars in U.S. military aid — in annual $1.3 billion stipends — have made the Egyptian air force the fourth-largest F-16 operator among 25 countries. Egypt’s 4,000 tanks, including the 1,000 or so M1A1s, make it the world’s seventh-largest tank army.

    The above report, if true, will force Israel to the brink to start WW3 with nuke bombs when face with this overwhelming forces. Obama ! Oh ! Obama, you are the real terrorist !.

  237. actually, we don't need the word limits in there… because the word transgressioni is in there…

    Now you want to denouce the word limit because it put you in trouble LOL

    and then, it is used a couple of other times… the context is clear… it is speaking of "transgressing" those thing which were prohibited,

    Yeah Mrs new Ibn Katir LOL . You are arrogant person instead of admitting that you were wrong you want to change the interpretation and the meaning of the verse to make it fit your argument . No Sir the verse 2 190 clearly states that you should not commit agression on any time of the day and persion

    and the allowances for transgressing those prohibited things in the event of certain circumstances…

    where does it say that or you just made it up

  238. thank you… what is your opinion of Tafsir ibn Kathir?

    Ibn Katir is considered to be Mafasir , koranic scholar ( an Interpreter by profesion )

    Ibn abbas who was the father and the pioner of science of Tafsir said in / century there are 3 types of Arabic in koran

    first one is Arabic known to all Arabs ( he was talking aboitarabs in 7 cent )

    second Arabic is known only to well versed and expert of Arabic

    the third Arabic is known only by God

    Also, can you translate this word for me?: مُّبِينٌ

    Mubin means clear and clear in english is not syno of the word easy

    The reason I ask is, I'm looking for an explanation as to why top translators have rendered that word to mean "clear," plain, or in one case, Yusuf Ali renders it to mean "perspicuous" which means: "clearly expressed and easily

    translators are not Mafasirs . they only know two things Arabic and English while Mufasir knows science of Tafsir . There are translators who translated book of biology or medicine , but they hold any degree in those fields just like in Koran

    why would Yusuf Ali use a narrowly defined english word in the translation of 005.015 if he wasn't trying to convey the notion that the quran is "clearly

    Yusuf Ali is just translators . He was not known as Mufasir of koran , but rather as somebody who has made an effoert to translate koran into English and his works are not used by students of Koranic studies some of them have never heard of him

    I the qur'an itself appears keeps calling itself plain, clear, and easy.

    clear yes easy no

    I contend that scholars are needed to make it less clear so as to obscure some of that painful stuff it states so clearly…

    which scholars are you talking about
    There are no scholars of koran among those who translated koran into english . The problem with you is you do not even know what is a scholar of Koran

  239. Perfect analogy,yes we don't have exact concept of God ,a blind believer is one kind , the investigative intelligent is another kind.People don't need the help of God during tender age but why they go after God during old age,here operates the Law of Karma!!, it is so beautiful one has to understand it from core and it is pure science.

  240. @zitouni… thank you… what is your opinion of Tafsir ibn Kathir?

    Also, can you translate this word for me?: مُّبِينٌ

    The reason I ask is, I'm looking for an explanation as to why top translators have rendered that word to mean "clear," plain, or in one case, Yusuf Ali renders it to mean "perspicuous" which means: "clearly expressed and easily understood; lucid"… This word is VERY specific in english… it only has one very narrow meaning… why would Yusuf Ali use a narrowly defined english word in the translation of 005.015 if he wasn't trying to convey the notion that the quran is "clearly expressed, and easily understood, lucid?"

    It appears more and more, these verses I've posted are indeed stating the qur'an is clear n the sense of being unclouded… how can I believing your assertions to the contrary… regardless of what you assert regarding scholars… the qur'an itself appears keeps calling itself plain, clear, and easy.

    I contend that scholars are needed to make it less clear so as to obscure some of that painful stuff it states so clearly…

    YUSUFALI: O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary): There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book, -

    J Stillwater

  241. Can one refuse to believe in God and still be follower of Vedic religion?

    Most people when they refuse to believe in God are actually refusing to accept superstitions in name of God as propagated in name of religion. The anathema against God is only for the God of Bible/Quran/Puran etc..
    Thus atheism is a natural and rightly-directed aversion of a truth-seeker from what his mind considers as unfounded notions. So in being atheist, he or she is STILL acting as a loyal follower of Vedic religion.
    But someone intellectual who was nurtured in a society that had completely different notions of a Supreme entity – an anthropomorphic entity, or a moody emperor, or a magician etc – may find such a God hard to digest.
    In other words, a truth-seeking atheist or agnostic or even a superstitious believer in some other notion of God is STILL a Vedic person, if he or she believes in these notions honestly after whatever experience, expertise, intellect that they possess at a given moment in time.

  242. @Loki… what's fascinating about the human mind, is that it won't ever let us live a lie knowingly. It's like there is an innate control center that cannot comfortably say: "Yes, muhammad was a fraud, so what, I like him anyway and I'm going to go blow myself up in service to him and allah, who I also know was just a figment of muhammad's imagination…"

    So, since nobody can live with that level of dissonance in their mind, they have to come up with absurdities are are less painful than the admission that they believe a lie… I don't blame them either… they live within an absolutely frightening web of crap… if they question in their heart, they are in unbelief and can go to hell… if they questions their spiritual leaders, they are "crossing that line" and are in danger of reprimand or being termed an unbeliever, which could cost them everything, including their life… if they apostatize, they can be killed… they can be falsely accused and convicted with the scantest evidence… they are watched for the slightest sign of unbelief… their spiritual leaders are overlords who guilt them into doing the most unspeakable things against their neighbors… usually on friday afternoons after prayers… They have a VERY hard road to freedom from islam… I certainly do not envy them in any way. And I will do everything I can to try and free them from that nightmare…. short of meeting them for coffee of course.

    J Stillwater

  243. one is taking bath in the river but denying existence of water. But river does not get affected if one deny or accept. It will clean if one is in the river. From Vedic point of view "worship does not mean some mechanical recitations or blankness of mind. It is a proactive approach to imbibe wisdom through actions, knowledge and contemplation."
    This is path of God/salvation believing in God or not does not matter.

  244. It's so easy to refute your claim.

    If I know where you live, I'll attack you physically.
    If I don't, I'll call you names and just say it's a weak hadith :)
    If you show me a verse from the Quran I'll say you got it from an anti-Islamic website. :)
    If you demonstrate that you've read the Quran, I'll just say your context is wrong. :)
    If you refute my context claim successfully, I'll say you need to read it in Arabic(even if I haven't read it).. :)

    If you know Arabic, I'll say you are not a scholar. :)
    And so on, and so on…

    You see, becoming an apologist hardly requires knowledge. It's no surprise then that 'most' of them are pretty dumb.

  245. Thank you for the compliment but since I don\’t believe in gods does it mean I am fatherless? Well the truth is that I I look a lot like my father and he is a fallible guy like his son.

  246. I am not afraid to say Ali Sina is one of the great son of God. Although we are all son & daughter of God. But Ali Sina is on divine path. Path of God. Path of salvation. Selflessness Service of humanity is the service of God. God does not require anything from us. As we do, we will get the same. Who do not use their intellect & believe blindly are not deserve to be human.

  247. Just as an aside, even if muhammad is claiming that just the ground these people are living on belongs to allah and his apostle… wouldn't that by extension mean all land belongs to allah and his apostle? Or is there some land that only belongs to allah, without the SHIRK of having it also owned by muhammad? I thought the "people of the book" believed that the "earth is the lord's and the fullness thereof." Is muhammad now a partner with allah in the ownership of the world? Wow… I thought partnership with allah was shirk…. are there some "special" mini shirk type things that are such small shirk that they don't show up on the shirkometer?

    Wow… did any other prophets claim to be owners of the world along with god? That little girl in the video above, will grow up learning this stuff… people who let this type of thing just slide by, are certainly people who can be expected to do just about anything… the jews have good reason to be defensive against someone who would believe that a man… can claim to be the owner of the earth along with god… unbelievable!

    J Stillwater

  248. @Everyone…. am I reading this right? Did muhammad actually claim that the whole earth was his? Check this out. This is BEYOND unbelievable… but it should definitely give muslims a renewed reason to want to conquer the world… since muhammad seems to be the owner of the entire world!

    Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 392:

    Narrated Abu Huraira:

    While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."

    Muslims who read this… do you believe that the earth belongs to muhammad?

    Wow… it's one amazing thing after another with this guy…

    J Stillwater

  249. I like to add: If you regard what Ali Sina does as "bad speech", can't you respond POSITIVELY simply with "good speech" of your own to counter it? And let the bad speech and good speech compete?

    Instead of always trying ONLY OR PRIMARILY NEGATIVELY, to deplore denounce, vilify, censor, diminish, delete, deny, dismiss the "bad speech"?

  250. You say that Ali Sina only exposes and defames Muslims, while not only Muslims, but also non-Muslims are guilty, reproachable for the same bad acts and attitudes. You say that therefore Ali Sina uses double standards.

    But Ali Sina is against your beloved Islam, not Muslims, the people. If they became ex-Muslims Ali Sina would NOT defame them, just as Muslims would not defame HIM if he became Muslim any more. He compares and contrasts the acts and attitudes of people in regard to their religious motivation and practice', in this case he compares Jews and Muslims for that purpose.

    He thinks about how in the future large portions of mankind can do something better than adhere to and practice Islam.

    In the past it was Mohammed and Muslims who caused people to change their minds about religion, from something else to Islam, why should it be wrong for other people to cause people to change their minds about religion, from Islam to something else?

    And Muhammad and Muslims used much much force, whereas nowadays counterjihadists like Ali Sina desire only to change people by verbal, non-violent, non-coercive means, with free speech for all.

    Can't you Muslims agree with: "let the best religion/ way of life win?"

    Is it even honourable to try let your favorite religion/ way of life win, as Muslims do, with:

    violence, indoctrination since birth, (death)penalty for apostasy, love-blackmail by loved ones & community, demanding loyalty to a religion instead of loved ones whatever their religion/ way of life, issuing threats of hell etc? instead of trying to win only in Ali Sina's non-violent, violent, free-thinking way?

  251. "This is why one wonders . . . what is your motivation then?"

    If it isn't HATE – what is it?"

    Stillwater, like Sina, Julia, me, clearly expressed motivation, TO Aminriadh, when pressed earlier by him and others. These motivations are long since on record.

    Aminriadh already has his own "hate-motivation-of-opponents-explanation" which he desires to bestow on opponents. He only wonders how he can somehow make a credible logical case

    But it claims that he only wonders about it because of "mistakes" and "not-thorough-enough-thinking" as a reason why he wonders about opponent-motivation. But this is a non-sequitur. Mistakes or superficial thinking are no good reason for wondering about people's motivation. By what people? All people? There is no mention why these opponents more than other people.

    Aminriadh starts out with conclusions, then backs them up with every clue he finds useful to confirm them.

    Aminriadh's constant negative conclusions, judgements, denigration of opponents are becoming nearly worthless, deserve less and less credibility.

  252. Muslim are fool by nature. The can be provoked easily. You just need to abuse Mohammed they will start fighting like cat & dog with other community.

  253. Denial-denial, and, surprise, more denial!

    Why should SIMPLE errors boggle the mind? Why would a certainly above average poster like Stillwater have "an EXTREME perversion to SIMPLE logic?"

    Why couldn't Khadijah together with the Christian have convinced Mohammad of prophethood? Aminriadh here again only wanted to arrive at the conclusion of INVALID CLAIM by opponent, as per usual.

  254. "No – Khadijah earned her wealth working alongside her Father. Not from her husband. "

    Now this is in response to a QUESTION by Stillwater, not a claim. But still Aminriadh (in short A), as per usual, tries to dismiss-deny every possibility of partial truth and hence meaning in favor of an opponent.

    This is not motivated by love for finding the truth, but by love for dismissal-denial of anti-Islam-opinions-claims-even questions, love for winning and for denigration of character and credibility of opponents, of A.

    And what does it say in the article that A linked to? That Khadija INHERITED her wealth from her father!!! And with this Zitouni is still very much contradicted and Stillwater right on principle about the main issue! How dishonest or careless of A to focus on a side-issue in order to divert from the main point of his opponent. And how naive or careless to think that opponents would not notice what he did.

    Once more he squanders more of HIS credibility with this.

  255. those are callled orientalists and not scholars of Koarn and Islam

  256. Even hitler was highly respected in nazi germany .

  257. For some reason – this person is posting this under my comments!

    Ha ha ha . . . .

  258. hey amin . give me a single verse from quran which states that earth rotates around it's own axis or revolves around sun.

  259. "become rational start using your brain. "

    As often pointed out – something you clearly don't do!

    For example – once you plagiarized someone's words as your own.

    Why would someone using his brain – and rational do that?

    - – -

    Do answer!

  260. I mean there is lot of Western scholarship out there.

    name just one

  261. And please.. don't use the copout that andrem choudry always uses that there are no countries under islamic rule…

    He is right , If you think that I am wrong prove it

  262. alif lam meem
    how can you make laws from something as absurd as above?
    become rational start using your brain.

  263. " "I never asked for such thing. . . " well, maybe not this thing specifically, but you ask for proof or evidence almost every second sentence, endlessly, and by now you have asked for it countless times. "

    See how fallacious your reasoning is . . . .

    Whilst you admit – that I did not ask for something . . . .

    But then you say:

    "but you ask for proof or evidence almost every second sentence, endlessly, and by now you have asked for it countless times. "

    So just because I ask for proof – which I have EVERY right of asking . . . . what does giving wrong proof of thing have to do with it.

    Isn't this hiding and being dishonest . . . . because when asked for proof – you cannot give proof.

    Hence – you are claiming – just because someone has given proof for unasked thing – that makes it okay!

    One truly wonders at such intelligence.

    - – -

    "It seems to me that here you commit, for the thousandth time perhaps, the "fallacy-fallacy" found in http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical….
    You yourself were kind enough to recommend, "

    See – above you asked for you lying . . . here is my proof.

    Where are these thousands time I have committed a fallacy!

    Evidence . .. . else YOU ARE LYING – and that is a lie!

    it is NOT an error – but deliberate lie.

    Your page did not open . . . . so which fallacy – that i have committed thousands of times.

    Ah – none . . . yet you accuse me of it.

    Now – you have justified "abusing"

    You have justified to some extent – lying.

    Else – falsely accusing someone IS lying.

    - – - –

    "Related to this, and common in the comments sections of blogs, is the position that because some random person on the internet is unable to defend a position well, that the position is therefore false. All that has really been demonstrated is that the one person in question cannot adequately defend their position. "

    Ha ha ha ha . . . . but you made up – that Zakah does not equal Jiziyah.

    As was proven beyond doubt.

    This isn't simple error . . . . but a deliberate opinion which you know isn't true.

    I will give you another example:

    You friend Julia claimed – that Salah does NOT mean to bless – and look into Arabic dictionaries.

    When i did – and posted the result – this exposed Julia's clear lie.

    Now to you this isn't lying!

    Or is it?

    - – -

    " A non-expert likely does not have the knowledge at their fingertips to counter an elaborate, but unscientific, argument against an accepted science. “If you (a lay person) cannot explain to me,” the argument frequently goes, “exactly how this science works, then it is false.” "

    es . . . if that person claims that they DO know how the science works – then when it becomes apparent – this person doesn't

    Then it is lying.

    - – -

    "Let us discuss this fallacy-fallacy and how we apply it here on Alisina.org, shall we? "

    First sort out what are you talking about . . .

    Your link doesn't work.

  264. "You Aminriadh has defined as lying: the expressing of opinions, statements, claims without them being backed by any or enough proof and/ or logic. And sometimes you have defined as lying some errors people made. "

    Where? I have never once said . . . this is my definition of lying.

    This is simply your claim. A lying claim – once again.

    - – -

    When have I called an error lying?

    Although:
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie?s=t

    lie
    1 [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
    noun
    1.
    a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
    2.
    something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
    3.
    an inaccurate or false statement.
    4.
    the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

    Try reading this.

    - – -

    "Never have you demonstrated that I knowingly wrote something I knew not to be true. Which Ali Sina and I define as lying. "

    "You undoubtedly too define that as lying. "

    Which goes to show stupidity of your earlier claim.

    - – -

    "So there are several sorts of statements, claims by people that you define as lying. But never do you distinquish between the differents sorts of lying. You write as if there is only one sort of lying. "

    Lying is lying. Now you want sorting!

    How bloody ridiculous.

    - – -

    "And you go around accusing people of lying and hence being dishonest while the only sort of lying you point out is the lying of omission of evidence and/ or reason and never the sort of lying that a person does if (s)he consciously deliberately tells something untrue. "

    Hang on . . . . you are a liar . . . for accusing me of all sorts of things.

    false accusations are lies.

    Else bring me one instance of WHERE I have accused you of lying – that was wrong.

    - – -

    "Well this "omission-lying" and "error-lying" I and many others do not consider lying at all. And certainly not dishonest. "

    Wow!

    How bizarre and and ridiculous . . . . actually – you can only speak for your own self.

    Not for Sina.

    His thinking is even more fallacious – I have dealt with it. Separately.

    Actually – as i have pointed out – the dictioanry disagrees with you

    - – -

    But – genuine error and deliberate error . . . . there is HUGE difference.

    - – -

    = == =

    "What this means is that really your conclusions, your accusations of opponents lying here and being dishonest on this website should be considered worthless, misleading, manipulating, made in error or in downright dishonesty, or inspired by hate, by you. "

    Not they shouldn't – as you have CONVENIENTLY – not given a single instance – where I have falsely accused anyone . . . .

    Hence you have found and idiotic excuse.

    - – -

    I have shown you clearly the types of lies you come up with.

    And this is a NONSENSICAL attempt.

    - – -

    "considered worthless, misleading, manipulating, made in error or in downright dishonesty, or inspired by hate, by you. "

    Evidence?

    Oh – once again lacking . . . .

    you will claim to hold on to these high ideals . . . . but go against them at every chance you get.

    - – -

    Lying – isn't it!

    One is lying and other isn't.

  265. "I never asked for such thing. . . " well, maybe not this thing specifically, but you ask for proof or evidence almost every second sentence, endlessly, and by now you have asked for it countless times.

    You wrote:
    "This is absolute nonsense – created fairly recently and meaningless. "

    It seems to me that here you commit, for the thousandth time perhaps, the "fallacy-fallacy" found in http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logical….
    You yourself were kind enough to recommend,

    """The Fallacy Fallacy
    As I mentioned near the beginning of this article, just because someone invokes an unsound argument for a conclusion, that does not necessarily mean the conclusion is false. A conclusion may happen to be true even if an argument used to support is is not sound. I may argue, for example, Obama is a Democrat because the sky is blue – an obvious non-sequitur. But the conclusion, Obama is a Democrat, is still true.

    Related to this, and common in the comments sections of blogs, is the position that because some random person on the internet is unable to defend a position well, that the position is therefore false. All that has really been demonstrated is that the one person in question cannot adequately defend their position.

    This is especially relevant when the question is highly scientific, technical, or requires specialized knowledge. A non-expert likely does not have the knowledge at their fingertips to counter an elaborate, but unscientific, argument against an accepted science. “If you (a lay person) cannot explain to me,” the argument frequently goes, “exactly how this science works, then it is false.”

    Rather, such questions are better handled by actual experts. And, in fact, intellectual honesty requires that at least an attempt should be made to find the best evidence and arguments for a position, articulated by those with recognized expertise, and then account for those arguments before a claim is dismissed."""

    Let us discuss this fallacy-fallacy and how we apply it here on Alisina.org, shall we?

  266. You keep accusing opponents of lying Aminriadh.

    But this is what Ali Sina just said to Rainbow. (And what I find useful in answer to your accusations of lying):

    "A lie is telling something that one knows it is not true. In this case I could be wrong but since it is impossible to know that God exists or not, what I say cannot be defined as a lie but as an error."

    "People hold many erroneous beliefs. This does not make them liars."

    " If I tell you today is Saturday but don’t tell you it is December, does it mean I am a liar or speaking half-truth?"

    You Aminriadh has defined as lying: the expressing of opinions, statements, claims without them being backed by any or enough proof and/ or logic. And sometimes you have defined as lying some errors people made.

    Never have you demonstrated that I knowingly wrote something I knew not to be true. Which Ali Sina and I define as lying.

    You undoubtedly too define that as lying. So there are several sorts of statements, claims by people that you define as lying. But never do you distinquish between the differents sorts of lying. You write as if there is only one sort of lying.

    And you go around accusing people of lying and hence being dishonest while the only sort of lying you point out is the lying of omission of evidence and/ or reason and never the sort of lying that a person does if (s)he consciously deliberately tells something untrue.

    Well this "omission-lying" and "error-lying" I and many others do not consider lying at all. And certainly not dishonest.

    What this means is that really your conclusions, your accusations of opponents lying here and being dishonest on this website should be considered worthless, misleading, manipulating, made in error or in downright dishonesty, or inspired by hate, by you.

  267. Here is why you are NOT good at either logical thinking.

    1st of all – no one accused Sina of dishonesty. . .

    "What is dishonest about him posting those qur'anic verses? "

    Hence this becomes meaningless.

    - – -

    "Ali Sina's posts are clearly relevant to the current discussion. "

    No it isn't – he was answering to me:

    As I pointed out:

    "Oh but no one asked you to reference where Quran asks to be a clear book! "

    - – -

    "As for Sina . . . . do point his "hammering" out. "

    This did NOT refer to him spouting now – but his previous instances of . . .

    "hammering"

    Which should have been links showing his past post.

    - – -

    Even then as I later pointed out – he was in some cases – factually incorrect.

  268. Quran.com – probably – no it is

    Sahih International.

  269. "don't you think it is strange that all the other accounts we have of people being called to be prophets actually knew they were supposed to be a prophet?"

    How do you know this? Do elaborate. . .

    - – -

    "I mean… read all the biblical accounts of prophets, from samual to isaiah and you'll see god actually speaking to these people and calling them directly… in fact… by name… why is muhammad's regime so different from the clearly outlined method that god had always used to communicate with his prophets in the past?"

    Actually you don't know this either . . . . just because it doesn't mention the form a communication took place . . . .

    It doesn't automatically mean God spoke to them directly.

    - – -

    Which isn't the case with Jesus Christ. It seems he was not spoken to directly either:

    en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(American_Standard)/

    - – -
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Baptist#Old

    John the Baptist – too seems to have missed direct communication.

    – – -

    It repeatedly becomes clear – the mistakes you make. . . . yet you tell others to "think about it"

    Even on mistakes. . . .

    It seems you do NOT follow your own advice.

    You haven't either thought about things . . . . or read much.

    - – -

    This is why one wonders . . . what is your motivation then?

    If it isn't HATE – what is it?

    - – –

    You asked earlier about "hate" . . . and why I say this . . . .

    Now do you have an answer?

  270. "As Ali Sina would say… it boggles the mind… "

    What really boggles the mind are your simple errors – and your extreme perversion to simple logic and bit o' thinking.

    - – -

    " Then… it is a CHRISTIAN who convinces him he is to be a prophet!!! Wow! Thank allah for christians! Without christians… and Waraqah ibn Nawfal in particular… there would be no islam… "

    If you claim it was Khadijah – then it automatically invalidates this claim.

    - – -

    Try thinking things through . .. .

  271. "Didn't khadijah inherit her husbands estate when he died?"

    No – Khadijah earned her wealth working alongside her Father. Not from her husband.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khadija_bint_Khuwayl

    - – -

    Your factual and logical errors are getting rather common.

    It is tiresome to point out basics.

  272. side of Quraysh for a revengeful war on Muhammad. In order to placate these tribes, the Jews commended and praised their pagan practices and prophesied that victory would certainly belong to paganism. All these parties which the Jews had rallied against Muhammad marched against Madinah. The Quraysh sent an expeditionary force of four thousand infantrymen, a cavalry of three hundred, and a camel corps of one thousand five hundred. This huge army was led by Abu Sufyan in person. The flag of Makkah and, hence, the leadership of battle was assigned to `Uthman ibn
    Talhah, whose father had been killed carrying that same flag in the Battle of Uhud. The Banu Fazarah tribe sent a large number of infantrymen and a camel corps of one thousand under the leadership of `Uyaynah ibn Hisn ibn Hudhayfah. The tribes of
    Ashja` and Murrah supplied four hundred soldiers each, under the leadership of al Harith ibn `Awf and Mis'ar ibn Rukhaylah respectively. Sulaym, the tribe which engages; the Muslims at the battle of the well of Ma'unah, sent seven hundred soldiers. To this tremendous number, the tribes of Banu Sa'd and Banu Asad added
    more soldiers and more cavalry until the total number reached ten thousand or more. This whole army moved in the direction of Madinah under the general leadership of Abu Sufyan. After they had reached the outskirts of Madinah and encamped, the leadership of the army as a whole really revolved among the leaders
    of the various tribes.

    continue

  273. The Jews' Rallying of the Arab Tribes

    This brazen self-contradiction, this favoring of paganism over monotheism and the encouragement of pagan forces to rise against the monotheistic forces-all this was not enough for Huyayy ibn Akhtab and the Jewish leaders who accompanied him on his trip to Makkah. After securing a definite date from the Makkans for the attack against Muhammad, the same leaders went to the Ghatafan clan of Qays Ghaylan, to the tribes of Banu Murrah, Banu Fazarah, Ashja`, Sulaym, Banu Sa'd, Asad, and all those who had fought with the Muslims to instigate a general mobilization on the

    continue

  274. And whosoever God curses, will never prevail. Nor will anyone ever come to his rescue." [Qur'an, 4:51-52] This attitude of the Jews toward Quraysh and their favoring of the latter's
    paganism over the monotheism of Muhammad was the subject of a severe rebuke by Dr. Israel Wolfenson, who wrote in his The Jews in Arabia: "It was the duty of the Jews not to allow themselves to get involved in such a scandalous mistake. They should have never declared to the leaders of Quraysh that the worship of idols was
    better than Islamic monotheism even if this were to imply frustration of their requests. The Jews, who have for centuries raised the banner of monotheism in the world among the pagan nations, who have remained true to the monotheistic traditions of the fathers, and who have suffered throughout history the greatest misfortunes, murders, and persecutions for the sake of their faith in the One God
    should, in loyalty to this tradition, have sacrificed every interest-nay their very livesto bring about the downfall of paganism. Furthermore, by allying themselves with the pagans they were in fact fighting themselves and contradicting the teachings of the Torah which commands them to avoid, repudiate-indeed to fight-the pagans."

    continue

  275. Jewish Preference of Paganism to Islam
    I
    t was the latter idea that finally gripped Banu al Nadir. In pursuit of it, their leaders Huyayy ibn Akhtab, Sallam ibn Abu al Huqayq, Kinanah ibn al Huqayq, together with Hawdhah ibn Qays and Abu `Ammar, both of the tribe of Banu Wail, went to Makkah for consultation with the Quraysh leaders. When Huyayy was asked about his tribe,
    he told the Quraysh that he had left them between Khaybar and Madinah awaiting the arrival of the Makkans that they might join them in battle against Muhammad and his companions. When the Makkans inquired about Banu Qurayzah, he answered that they had remained within Madinah in order to plot against Muhammad and to
    spring against his men from behind once the Makkans launched their attack. The Quraysh hesitated. They knew only too well that in the last analysis, there was no difference between them and Muhammad except in this matter of his new faith; and even in it, they were not quite certain that Muhammad was entirely wrong since his
    worldly power had been on the increase every day. The Quraysh therefore asked the Jews to tell them, since they were the first People of the Book and held the keys of knowledge in the matters in which the Quraysh disagreed with Muhammad, whether or not Muhammad's religion was better than Makkan religion. The Jews answered by giving preference to Makkan religion over Islam and to Makkan rights over Muhammad's. It was to this that the Qur'an referred when it said, "Would you consider those who were given part of the scripture, that they believe in evil and injustice and commend to the unbelievers their own unbelief as guidance superior to the true faith of those who believed? Such men are accursed of God.

    continue

  276. I have ALREADY answered this. Hence it is meaningless to ask this again.

    All Muslim countries would be worse off – without Islam. Bar none.

    - – -

    I made this abundantly clear.

  277. I never asked for such thing. . .

    And as Stillwater – himself ppoints out:

    " the site that contains this information is open source, and can be edited by anybody"

    - – -

    This is absolute nonsense – created fairly recently and meaningless.

    - – -

    Oh dear . . . . this becomes repeatedly obvious those claiming NOT to lie – end up lying the most.

    Likes of Sina, knowtheEnemy, Demsci, Julia and what not . . . .

    It is repeatedly pointed out the lies you make up.

    Yet not one ounce of shame!

    - – -

    A bit ridiculous isn't it.

  278. Warning to Banu al Nadir

    Commanding Muhammad ibn Maslamah, the Prophet said: "Go to the Jews of Banu al Nadir and tell them that I have sent you to them with the command that they should leave this country. Tell them that by plotting to kill me, they have violated the covenant which I gave them. Tell them also that I give them ten days to evacuate
    after which any Jew seen in this area will be killed." When they heard of this command, Banu al Nadir lost hope. In vain they looked for means to change the verdict. Seeking to sway the Prophet', messenger to their own side, they said: "0 Muhammad ibn Maslamah, we did not expect that such command be conveyed by an old ally of ours like you, a man from al. Aws tribe which is our ally against the Khazraj." Ibn Maslamah replied, "The times have changed and so have the affiliations.

    continue

  279. Jewish Plots against Muhammad
    When Muhammad submitted his request to them, they pretended acquiescence to his demand. But it was also noticeable that while some of them were showing signs of reconciliation, others were plotting at a safe distance. They whispered to one another
    in presence of the Muslims, and the Prophet overheard them mentioning the murder by the Muslims of Ka'b ibn al Ashraf. When one of them, `Amr ibn Jahsh ibn Ka'b, entered the house on whose wall Muhammad was leaning, in a suspicious and stealthy manner, Muhammad could no more contain his doubts which their talk and
    hush-hush conversation made gradually more certain. He rose and withdrew from their midst, leaving behind his companions and giving, the impression that he was soon to return. The Jews knew that he was leaving for good and addressed his companions incoherently and hesitantly. They realized that if they were to kill his
    men, Muhammad would surely take a bitter revenge. But if they let them go, the Jewish plot against Muhammad would not be betrayed, and at any rate they could count on the Muslims to continue to honor their part of the covenant. They therefore tried to convince their Muslim guests of their good intentions and to counteract any
    suspicions that their guests may have entertained. Soon, the companions began to complain that the Prophet had not returned and that they had better leave and look for him. They met a man on the way who assured them that Muhammad had safely returned to the mosque. When they joined him, the Prophet told them of his
    suspicions and of the Jewish plot to kill him. They then realized the meaning of Jewish behavior and understood their moves at the recent interview. They became convinced of the Prophet's penetrating insight, which seemed all the more convincing
    when joined to the evidence of their own observations.

  280. Jewish Fears and Aggression
    The murder of Ka'b increased the fears of the Jews to the point that not one of them felt secure. Nonetheless, they continued to attack Muhammad and the Muslims and incite the people to war. A desert woman came one day to the Jews' market in the quarter of Banu Qaynuqa` seeking to remodel some jewelry at one of their shops.
    They persistently asked her to remove her veil, but the woman refused. Passing behind her without her knowledge, one of them tacked her robe with a pin to the wall. When the woman got up to leave, the robe was pulled down and her nakedness exposed. The Jews laughed and the woman cried. Seeing what happened, a Muslim passerby jumped upon the shopkeeper and killed him on the spot. The Jews gathered around the Muslim and likewise killed him. The Muslims' relatives called for help against the Jews and a general fight between them and the Banu Qaynuqa` erupted. Muhammad first asked the Jews to stop their attacks and keep the covenant of mutual peace and security or suffer the kind of treatment meted out to the Quraysh. They ridiculed his request saying: "O Muhammad! Fall not under the illusion that you are invincible. The people with whom you have fought were inexperienced. By God, if you were to turn your arm against us, you will find us

    continue

  281. actually the jews didn't live in medina… they lived outside medina… in a nearby oasis… muhammad actually had to leave medina to engage them… in fact… he had to leave medina to engage all the surrounding jewish tribes…

    Why cant you admit that you are ignorant about Sira instead you trying to fool me and anytime you do you dig yourself hole , Why Muhamed had to go back this will only make sense if Muhamed came from where the Jews came from. You can only say that about Mecca because Mohamed was from there . Plus Jews were living in Medina and not outside the only Jews who were living outsite were
    Jews of Khaibar . As Jews who were living in Medina Muhamed had included them in his convenat
    when he said : Any Jew who follows us is entitled to our assistance and the same rights as any one of us, without injustice or partisanship.

    As the Jews fight on the side of the believers, they shall spend of their wealth on equal par with the believers. The Jews of Banu Aws are an Ummah alongside the believers. The Jews have their
    religion and the Muslims theirs. Both enjoy the security of their own populace and clients except the unjust and the criminal among them. The unjust or the criminal destroys only himself and his family. The Jews of Banu al Najjar, Banu al Harith, Banu Sa'idah, Banu Jusham, Banu al Aws, Banu Tha'labah, Jafnah, and Banu al Shutaybah-to all the same rights and privileges apply as to the Jews of Banu Aws. The clients of the tribe of Tha'labah enjoy the same rights and duties as the members of the tribe themselves. Likewise, the clients of the Jews, as the Jews themselves

    The Jews shall bear their public expenses and so will the Muslims. Each shall assist the other against any violator of this covenant. Their relationship shall be one of mutual advice and consultation, and mutual assistance and charity rather than harm and aggression.
    However, no man is liable to a crime committed by his ally. Assistance is due to the party suffering an injustice, not to one perpetrating it.Since the Jews fight on the side of the believers they shall spend their wealth on a par with them. The town of Yathrib shall constitute a sanctuary for the parties of this covenant.

    Does this sound to you that prophet hated Jews NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    When you say that the jews were involved in wars against the muslims… can you give me some instances, with references, of when the jews attacked or made war against the muslims… because your assertion suggests that the muslims were justified in slaughtering all the jews that surrounded medina… it suggests that the justification was that the jews were waging war against muhammad… can you give us some historical references… ???

    Ibn

    I said the jews of that area were a peaceful people… and I have references if you want them… but I'd like to get the opposing viewpoint, with clear historical references… and please, I would really like it if they weren't islamic references… we know how free of bias they can be….

    The Muslims realized what the Jews were about, for the latter were neither gentle nor discrete. Their instigation was always overdone. The Muslims accused those who entered into the Covenant of Madinah of hypocrisy, and classified them with the munafiqun.[Munafiqun, literally, the pretenders; applied to the insincere
    idolaters who joined the ranks of Islam for ulterior motives. -Tr.]. Some Jews were once violently expelled from the mosque, and were later isolated and boycotted. After failing to convince them of the truth of Islam, the Prophet, may God's blessing be upon him, let them alone. But to let them alone religiously did not mean that they should be allowed to instigate the Muslims to a civil internecine war.
    Politically speaking, it was not enough to warn them and to warn the Muslims of their instigation. It was necessary to impress them with the fact that the Muslims were sufficiently strong to stamp out any such war as the Jews were instigating as well as to uproot its causes. A good way for pressing this realization upon them was the
    sending out of Muslim forces on military expeditions in all directions on condition that such sorties entail no actual fighting and no military setback

    It is sufficient to add to these two examples the murder of Ka?b ibn al Ashraf. When learning of the fall of the noblemen of Makkah, he exclaimed, ?Those were the nobles of Arabia, the kings of mankind. By God, if Muhammad has vanquished these people, the interior of the earth is a better dwelling than the top of it." Having assured himself of the news of defeat, he traveled to Makkah to incite its people against Muhammad, to recite war poetry, and to mourn the victims.

    continue

  282. so, is there ANY translation of the qur'an on the entire planet… no… the entire universe that has your approval as a good translation?

    There is no translation that has no error in it . There is one thing that you must know that only recetly that Muslims started to translate Koran into other language . The purpose of translation is just to give you an idea anout koran and IS NOT USED TO DO SCHOLARLY WORK ON KORAN. do you know why ? because translation is not considered to be koran . Koran is the one is Arabic language thats why if you make Salat reading koran in english your salat is not valid or if you read koran in english contriarly to Arabic you do not get any reward

    I only use the translations I read islamic scholars using… if I notice an islamic scholar using a certain reference from a certain qur'an translation… I make a note of it…

    Muslims scholars do not use English koran to interpret koran . I do not know any Muslim scholar who speaks English

    Now… if islamic scholars can use these translations… why is it now not okay for me to quote from the same translations?

    I think you are talking about Muslim aplogists

    Three of the most respected translators, men who have, as you've suggested, have enrolled in university and become expert at the arabic language.. have rendered that verse to read "easy to understand and memorize." Are these translators all incorrect? In fact,

    You are confusing translators with Koranic exopert . They are not the same .

    Koranic expert got to be scholars on so many fields which a translators do not even study

    First to got pass entrance exam which about memorization of the entire koran then ou enroll to become schoalar of these fields

    Scholar in Arabic grammar

    Scholar in archaic Arabic

    Scholar in Arabic litterature

    Scholars in balagha ( eleguency )

    Scholar in science of Tafsir

    I didn't find any of the translators who render the word "clear," and I think that is because it doesn't fit the context… I have already shown what the context is… if that's not right, please explain to me why it is not right. Until you do, I have to take the qur'an at face value… it is saying that the qur'an is as clear and easy to understand as watching the moon split or seeing a global flood… Don't agree? Tell me why.

    the problem with you is you think the translators are mufasirs of koran no they are not
    if you want to know the meaning to any verse you turn to men such as Tabari , Ibn katir , Kortobi and so on

    The verse goes as

    "And We made the Quran easy for rememberance, Does any of you wish to remember?

    There is no verb understand in Arabic koran and period

    Here is what Al Tabri said regarding those verses:

    أَيْ سَهَّلْنَاهُ لِلْحِفْظِ وَأَعَنَّا عَلَيْهِ مَنْ أَرَادَ حِفْظه ; فَهَلْ مِنْ طَالِب لِحِفْظِهِ فَيُعَان عَلَيْهِ

    Al Tabri said:

    The verse means that Allah made the Quran easy to be remembered to anyone who wants to memorise it, does any one who wants to memorise and Allah will help him/her?[//i]

    *Edit*

    Sorry the above is by Al Qurtuby, but Al Tabro and Ibn Kathir said the EXACT SAME, please check it on
    http://quran.muslim-web.com/sura.htm?aya=054

  283. "Sure – but where and when"

    1.2000 Camp David Summit.
    Israel gave a proposal to Arafat.The proposal was rejected.But when they were asked for a counter-proposal they didn't give any!(Wikipedia).Clinton blamed Arafat for the failure of the Camp David Summit(Wikipedia).

    2.Oslo(1993) US proposals for solution were 'unanswered' by Arafat!
    "the Palestinians’ principal failing is that from the beginning of the Camp David summit onward they were unable either to say yes to the American ideas or to present a cogent and specific counterproposal of their own" – Malley, Robert and Hussein Agha. "Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors."

    I can give you more,dating back to 1940's,but will it create more objectivity in your position about the issue?
    Palestinians were offered upto 70% of the land in exchange for a portion of Jerusalem,but they rejected and the four countries attacked Israel at once only to face humiliating reverses.

    "Where do you think they are?"
    Umm, Gaza strip?Palestinian refugee camps?

    "Evidence? Europe gives – evidence for rest?"
    So you agree Europe gives.
    US – http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22967.pdf
    Canada – http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/stor
    Japan – http://www.ps.emb-japan.go.jp/GGP/ODA_Rolling_Pla

    I can give you references,but my point is even YOU can get them if you just bothered to search!!
    ========================================
    Does Jordan/Egypt/Iran give anything except weapons?How about more well-to-do Saudis,Emirates,Quwait?
    http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/palestinians

    The above is an Egyptian source.US has given $466 million of its $1.2 billion pledge.Saudi pledges $95 million and is yet to give!!

    "Finance Minister Nabil Qassis said Wednesday that Arab countries have not kept promises"
    That's FinMin of Palestine speaking to an Egyptian news source!!

  284. "Why have you NOT given any references?"

    Because I haven't saved them? And if someone 'wants' to check the facts,they can do so easily. If someone doesn't 'want' to learn, like the audience of apologists, it's not my responsibility to educate them.

  285. "It seems – anyone here who is anti-Islam – you are mighty quick to support them. "

    You are even quicker and much much more proliferate in not only refuting but disparage, belittle, insult them!!!

  286. @aminriadh… I wasn't asking you for a theoretical scenario where islam was the dominant force (in some future ideal). I was actually asking you to give me an example of one country that currently exists under islamic rule that is better off under islamic rule? And please.. don't use the copout that andrem choudry always uses that there are no countries under islamic rule…

    J Stillwater

  287. Very interesting, Zitouni, thanks.

    I see that in your view knowledge of Arabic is essential for being an Islam-expert. Islam's holy texts are of course Quran-Hadiths-Sira (ibn Ishag, around 760 AD) and they are all in Arabic.

    The race of being Arab is of no consequence, but the language is.

    But for salvation a Muslim does not need the Arab language.

    I am pondering on what you, Aminriadh AND Ali Sina, J. Stillwater all are saying.

    But I appreciate your kind tone and patient message to me.

  288. @aminriadh… here's that info about civilization jihad you asked about… :-)

    Also keep in mind… the site that contains this information is open source, and can be edited by anybody… oh.. and also… pay attention to the fact that the documents that were recovered in that traffic stop lead to a HUGE investigation which landed several guys in prison for the rest of their lives.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_Jihad

    J Stillwater

  289. Well, Ali, this is a positive argument that you are making and I appreciate it and find it initially hard to refute. And I noticed that you came up with interesting challenges like this before. And THAT part of your comments I respect.

  290. @zitouni… don't you think it is strange that all the other accounts we have of people being called to be prophets actually knew they were supposed to be a prophet? I mean… read all the biblical accounts of prophets, from samual to isaiah and you'll see god actually speaking to these people and calling them directly… in fact… by name… why is muhammad's regime so different from the clearly outlined method that god had always used to communicate with his prophets in the past? Think about it… muhammad's encounter was COMPLETELY different than ANY OTHER encounter we know of with regards to people being called to the prophet hood. Doesn't that make you at least wonder what was going on there? Every other prophet that was called before muhammad was called in the exact same way… go appeared to them… they freaked out with fear… god said… "fear not" and then he goes on and does stuff… like make them take a burning coal… or make them climb a mountain… or whatever… and the NEVER have to ask if they are a prophet… they ALWAYS know from the beginning because it is GOD who ALWAYS communicates it clearly to them immediately…. so… who was it that muhammad encountered in that cave? Think about it…

    J Stillwater

  291. @Zitouni… you said no to my question: "Wasn't it khadijah and Abu Bakr who actually convinced muhammad he was a prophet?" You are right. It was Khadijah and Waraqah ibn Nawfal who convinced him he was supposed to be a prophet of allah… because according to the biographical account… muhammad had no clue…

    muhammad had the episode in the cave and it freaked him out… he didn't know what to think of it… in fact… he was afraid he was going mad… (which he may have been)… anyway… he told his closest confidants… which was khadijah and she took him to see Waraqah ibn Nawfal about it… and it was Waraqah ibn Nawfal who convinced him he had been called to be a prophet… Don't you think it is strange, that muhammad goes into a cave… has an encounter with an "angel" and leaves the cave without even a CLUE that he was to be a prophet? Then… it is a CHRISTIAN who convinces him he is to be a prophet!!! Wow! Thank allah for christians! Without christians… and Waraqah ibn Nawfal in particular… there would be no islam…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad's_firs

    As Ali Sina would say… it boggles the mind…

    J Stillwater

  292. @zitouni… huh? Women before islam inherit nothing? Didn't khadijah inherit her husbands estate when he died? Wasn't that before islam? If there was no inheritance before islam… how did khadijah inherit her husbands wealth?

    J Stillwater

  293. @zitouni… do you happen to have that second reference you were commenting about… I'd like to have a look at it…

    J Stillwater

  294. @zitouni…. actually, we don't need the word limits in there… because the word transgressioni is in there… and then, it is used a couple of other times… the context is clear… it is speaking of "transgressing" those thing which were prohibited, and the allowances for transgressing those prohibited things in the event of certain circumstances…

    J Stillwater

  295. @zitouni… that's okay… give me some references of some real islamic scholars… because there are other people who read this site who are from arab speaking countries who may be interested…

    J Stillwater

  296. @zitouni… and also… in your answer above… you still don't deal with the fact that muhammad killed all the men, and then… instead of taking the captives "to protect them from hardship," he and his men had a sex fest with them… don't you think that is an atrocity? If not, why not.

    J Stillwater

  297. @zitouni… actually the jews didn't live in medina… they lived outside medina… in a nearby oasis… muhammad actually had to leave medina to engage them… in fact… he had to leave medina to engage all the surrounding jewish tribes…

    When you say that the jews were involved in wars against the muslims… can you give me some instances, with references, of when the jews attacked or made war against the muslims… because your assertion suggests that the muslims were justified in slaughtering all the jews that surrounded medina… it suggests that the justification was that the jews were waging war against muhammad… can you give us some historical references… ???

    I said the jews of that area were a peaceful people… and I have references if you want them… but I'd like to get the opposing viewpoint, with clear historical references… and please, I would really like it if they weren't islamic references… we know how free of bias they can be….

    J Stillwater

  298. Oh, and thank you for the link you gave to J. Stillwater, the Skepticsguide.

    It seems you are guilty of the "fallacy fallacy". If not, please explain what the following part of that website's text means:

    "The Fallacy Fallacy
    As I mentioned near the beginning of this article, just because someone invokes an unsound argument for a conclusion, that does not necessarily mean the conclusion is false. A conclusion may happen to be true even if an argument used to support is is not sound. I may argue, for example, Obama is a Democrat because the sky is blue – an obvious non-sequitur. But the conclusion, Obama is a Democrat, is still true.

    Related to this, and common in the comments sections of blogs, is the position that because some random person on the internet is unable to defend a position well, that the position is therefore FALSE (my emphasi). All that has really been demonstrated is that the one person in question cannot adequately defend their position."

    Now I am prepared to admit that at times I indeed did not adequately defend my position. But is is amply demonstrable that you then committed this "fallacy fallacy" when you explicitly and implicitly concluded, many times, that my statements, claims, opinions were because of that particular reason:

    FALSE, Invalid, Bullshit, Nonsens, Meaningless, irrelevant and what not.

    Look, I don't mind making mistakes and conceding points, and learning from you, but you are so very and unjustifiably negative and yes, illogical, much the time!

  299. @aminriadh… please give us the translation you are citing…

    J Stillwater

  300. @zitouni… yes… you keep saying that the word is not in there… but the MEANING is in there… you even said yourself that the word in arabic is more like "clear." The translators have rendered it "easy" because of its context, which is set in comparison to a moon splitting and a global flood… both "easy to understand" or "clear" proofs… that's the context… how can we lift that verse out of its context?

    J Stillwater

  301. "Actually – if you go back and read what i have said – reasoning is given."

    I gave reasoning too; I said something absolutely necessary", according to your own standards etc.

    You repeat a lot, like you keep repeating my motivation being that of hatred, hatemongering. A claim you frequently fail to augment with the "necessary evidence and reason" especially in the presence of an alternative explanation of my motivation, of which you must be aware.

    When you do that, I can and will REPEAT too, my true motivation.

  302. @aminriadh… huh? the above conversation is speaking directly about what the qur'an claims for itself in terms of being clear and easy to understand and remember… Ali Sina's posts are clearly relevant to the current discussion. What is dishonest about him posting those qur'anic verses?

    J Stillwater

  303. @zitouni… so, is there ANY translation of the qur'an on the entire planet… no… the entire universe that has your approval as a good translation? I only use the translations I read islamic scholars using… if I notice an islamic scholar using a certain reference from a certain qur'an translation… I make a note of it…

    Now… if islamic scholars can use these translations… why is it now not okay for me to quote from the same translations? Three of the most respected translators, men who have, as you've suggested, have enrolled in university and become expert at the arabic language.. have rendered that verse to read "easy to understand and memorize." Are these translators all incorrect? In fact, I didn't find any of the translators who render the word "clear," and I think that is because it doesn't fit the context… I have already shown what the context is… if that's not right, please explain to me why it is not right. Until you do, I have to take the qur'an at face value… it is saying that the qur'an is as clear and easy to understand as watching the moon split or seeing a global flood… Don't agree? Tell me why.

    J Stillwater

  304. Hi Ali Sina,

    The last post of Julia is now 5 days ago. And around 5 days ago someone identifying as Ali Sina, which I though was a fake, because the heading was different from your usual one, announced that "he, Ali Sina", very casually, speaking about derogatively of Julia as being a guy, banned her/ him from this site and removed her/ his IP-address.

    I did not take it serious then, but now I suspect that it might really have been you, and that that is the reason that Julia, ever so eager, has not shown up here the last 5 days.

    So: Did you indeed ban her?

  305. " "Julia" was never into hammering anything other than "petty insults" "

    This would have to refer to all Julia wrote in Alisina.org and FFI. And her posts are a matter of record on this very site and FFI. As are Aminriadhs responses to her. At anybody's fingertips to check, beginning with the most recent ones.

    It is so preposterous to claim that Julia was NEVER into hammering anything other than insults.

    Her posts were riddled with references to Quran and all sorts of links and clues and also with many arguments.

    Much of which Aminriadh did answer to extensively. He often referred to her arguments and how he had refuted them and how at the end of them she resorted to those insults.

    There was so many posts written about the arguments and texts she presented on Alif Lam Meem and Salah alone. Which Aminriadh called "Drama's.

    It will be soon apparent that in the Alif Lam Meem-case she many times repeated with great emphasis how Alif Lam Meem, those words without known meaning, contradicted the claim that the Quran was claiming itself that is was easy to understand.

    And hence I was not being dishonest in claiming that she hammered on that issue. And Aminriadh was almost certainly lying saying that, or incredibly careless in his communication.

    And this sentence above too is such a careless, generalising, manifestly untrue communication of Aminriadh, or an outrageous, but then all too obvious, lie for all those who read Julia (and "liked" her) and Aminriadh's altercations and those who check them out, hence pretty stupid.

    In any case it should cost him much credibility.

  306. Although besides the points from what I have said earlier:

    "“easy to understand” (44:58 , 54:22 , 54:32, 54:40) "

    This is factually incorrect.

    - – -

    44:58

    And indeed, We have eased the Qur'an in your tongue that they might be reminded.

    54:22

    And We have certainly made the Qur'an easy for remembrance, so is there any who will remember?

    54:32

    And We have certainly made the Qur'an easy for remembrance, so is there any who will remember?

    54:40

    And We have certainly made the Qur'an easy for remembrance, so is there any who will remember?

    - – -

  307. @zitouni… Hold on a second… you're kidding, right? Arabs were barbaric before islam? Wasn't muhammad born before islam?

    as whole yes

    Didn't he go to work for the rich khadijah before islam?

    so

    Wasn't it khadijah and Abu Bakr who actually convinced muhammad he was a prophet?

    no they did not

    Were the arabs who cared for the ka'ba not civilized and very good business people?
    if they were civilized people then they had civilization , right ? so I want you to talk to me little bit about Quaraich civilaztion maybe I missed it

    So khadijah was a barbarian? muhammad's uncle was a barbarian? they were arabs before islam… and they were just fine…

    I am talking in general

    in fact… khadijah would have been so repressed under islam, she would have NEVER been able to accomplish what she did..

    Women before Islam inherit nothing

    . islam turned the persians into barbarians… it turned the babylonians into barbarians… it turned half of india in to barbarians… it turned indonesians into barbarians… it turned muhammad into a barbarian… and abu bakr… and on and on…

    You have alot hate in your heart thats why you will never see the truth

    I am so surprised something by the things I read in these comments… how can you say something so blatantly untrue?

    Proof me wrong

  308. Why listen to Ali Sina? Read the Quran and you'll see it claims to be a “clear book” (5:15) “easy to understand” (44:58 , 54:22 , 54:32, 54:40) “explained in detail” (6:114), “conveyed clearly”, (5:16, 10:15) and with “no doubt” in it (2:1)

    I swear you need sychological evaluation, believe me. We have already showed you with proof that those verses do not have the phrase easy to understand , but you keep repeating the same lie here

  309. Why people that leave Christianity have no problem when someone say bad things about christianity? Why people that leave buddhism have no problem when someone say bad things about buddhism?
    It should be the same for ex muslims.

  310. According to Islamic logic only people who agree with Muhammad's claim can be expert of Islam. Anyone who rejects that claim cannot possibly be an expert. This may sound ridiculous to sane people, but to Muslims it is a fact.

    This is your logic . when non Muslims say something postive and Islam and Muhamed you cry out who care they are not scholars you require scholarship , but they say something negative about Islam you do not care if they finish high school or not . show me where I or any Muslim say such a thing if you cannot then you have lied as usual . But I show you made that remark here is

    Quoting the opinions of famous people as the evidence of the truth of a religion is a logical fallacy. Even famous people can be wrong, but the fact that none of these people were scholars of Islam or had read its holy book or its history

    makes their opinion about Islam worthless.

    Just like yours LOL beacsue you are like them LOL

  311. Zitouni – the thing is he is NOT very well read.

    I mean there is lot of Western scholarship out there.

    The reason he almost never mentions it . . . . he has never read it either.

    - – -

    He claims to be Persian. A language with abundant materials of Islam.

    Yet – look how scant his articles are of any such references.

    - – -

    He is NOT an expert of Islam. And that is the point. Wider non-Muslims have got nothing to do with it.

  312. Ha ha ha ha . . . . one laughs at such stupidity and ignorance.

    Oh but no one asked you to reference where Quran asks to be a clear book!

    Why don't you read the above convo – to see what is going on . . . .

    Rather than being in haste to condemn a Muslim . . . .

  313. There is no idea that can be expressed in one language and cannot be expressed in another language. When translating one may lose it style and if you translate a poetry, you will lose its rhythm. However, to say a concept cannot be thoroughly interpreted in another language is ludicrous.

    Ask biblical scholars and they will tell you that reading NT in Greek is not as read it in English . famous Bart Ehrman said when he learn Greek and read NT in Greek he had completely different pciture of NT and and thats why all texual critics got to learn Greek . What you guy do not get in your dumb stupid Head is Koran is the one in Arabic . IWhat you are interpreting or reading in English thats not koran . did you get it now

    These are excuses and re herrings Muslims use because they cannot respond to logical charges made against the Quran.

    Ignorant got no logical charges especially somebody like you who cannot even Understand koran in English let alone Arabic . Do we have to go through that again and put your stupid mistakes on Koarn here .

    Furthermore there are many Arabs, whether non-Muslim or ex-Muslim who have refuted the Quran in Arabic.

    Name one , but it got to be an expert not some stupid amateurs like you

  314. "When translating one may lose it style and if you translate a poetry, you will lose its rhythm. "

    Actually you lose a bit more than that. Shakespeare's works for example are in English. In translation . . . . a lot is lost.

    It is hardly that difficult to learn Classical Arabic. That language is pretty straight forward.

    - – -

    "These are excuses and re herrings Muslims use because they cannot respond to logical charges made against the Quran."

    Such as . . . you can make these claims – repeatedly as shown – you cannot actually argue the case.

    - – -

  315. Yet:

    "There is staggering amount of Western Scholarship available on Islam. "

    Notice on Sina gets thing wrong . . . notice the level of dishonesty.

    I never claimed any such thing. .v . so why such feeble and lying answer?

    - – -

    His lack of expertise of Islam is staggering . . .

    The thing is he COULD NOT answer the charge.

    I pointed 3 stages – he fails on all level.

    - – -

    What does he reference his posts with?

    Often it is amateur material found on internet.

    That is his level.

    - – -

    As for his intelligence . . .

    See above!

  316. Why listen to Ali Sina? Read the Quran and you\’ll see it claims to be a “clear book” (5:15) “easy to understand” (44:58 , 54:22 , 54:32, 54:40) “explained in detail” (6:114), “conveyed clearly”, (5:16, 10:15) and with “no doubt” in it (2:1)

  317. There is no idea that can be expressed in one language and cannot be expressed in another language. When translating one may lose it style and if you translate a poetry, you will lose its rhythm. However, to say a concept cannot be thoroughly interpreted in another language is ludicrous. These are excuses and re herrings Muslims use because they cannot respond to logical charges made against the Quran. Furthermore there are many Arabs, whether non-Muslim or ex-Muslim who have refuted the Quran in Arabic.

  318. According to Islamic logic only people who agree with Muhammad\’s claim can be expert of Islam. Anyone who rejects that claim cannot possibly be an expert. This may sound ridiculous to sane people, but to Muslims it is a fact.

  319. @Ali Sina:

    What do you want to show by putting two videos here?
    You want to show the Muslim children (all Muslim children?) are the terrorist of future & the Jewish children (all Jewish children?) are peace claimer of the future, right!

    We can put a number of videos of singing & dancing of the Muslim children ; so if we do so, would it also mean Muslims are peace loving? Just answer!

    And above you can see the video regarding Israeli children. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embed… ) . So does it prove Jewish children are the terrorist of future? Just answer!

    Now tell us one thing: Are you peace claimer?
    I pasted your words here: –> "[ I\'d love to be a superman and grab all the evil doers and send them to another planet. ]"
    BTW Do you really wanna grab ''all'' the evil doers? I think that's a white lie – because I don't see any evidence. But sorry your words doesn't fit into your actions. How? Look:
    All you are doing nothing but spreading hate against "only Muslims". If you say there are terrorist among Muslims, therefore, you're exposing them then for you kind info there are also terrorist among non-Muslims. So stick to your words –>''[I\'d love to be a superman and grab "all(???)" the evil doers and send them to another planet.]" and also go expose the crimes of non-Muslims. As you yourself claim you wanna grab ''ALL" the evil doers.

    But No! You can just create pages & make articles, against Muslims only.
    Do you remember Malala Yusufzae (a school going girl)? She was a "Muslimah". And I wonder how you non-Muslims use one against Muslims! When you saw Malala issue can expose "Taliban'' you made an article on her in order to defame Muslims. But I remind you of that she (Malala) was a "Mislimah", her aim was spreading knowledge & even peace, So is not she the future? Isn't she doing a good work? Just answer! She is doing good work definitely according to "you". So once you make article on a Muslimah girl to support her & once you create page on a Muslim boy to show Muslim children are the terrorist of future. Here your hypocrisy do expose! Because you just wanna defame "only Muslims". Very sorry!

  320. Surgical Equipment

    Many modern surgical instruments are of exactly the same design as those devised in the 10th century by a Muslim surgeon called al-Zahrawi. His scalpels, bone saws, forceps, fine scissors for eye surgery and many of the 200 instruments he devised are recognisable to a modern surgeon. It was he who discovered that catgut used for internal stitches dissolves away naturally (a discovery he made when his monkey ate his lute strings) and that it can be also used to make medicine capsules.

    Windmill

    The windmill was invented in 634 for a Persian caliph and was used to grind corn and draw up water for irrigation. In the vast deserts of Arabia, when the seasonal streams ran dry, the only source of power was the wind which blew steadily from one direction for months.

    Inoculation

    The technique of inoculation was not invented by Jenner and Pasteur but was devised in the Muslim world and brought to Europe from Turkey by the wife of the English ambassador to Istanbul in 1724. Children in Turkey were vaccinated with cowpox to fight the deadly smallpox at least 50 years before the West discovered it.

    Fountain pen

    The fountain pen was invented for the Sultan of Egypt in 953 after he demanded a pen which would not stain his hands or clothes. It held ink in a reservoir and, as with modern pens, fed ink to the nib by a combination of gravity and capillary action.

    Three Course Meal

    Ali ibn Nafi, known by his nickname of Ziryab (Blackbird) came from Iraq to Cordoba in the 9th century and brought with him the concept of the three-course meal – soup, followed by fish or meat, then fruit and nuts. He also introduced crystal glasses (which had been invented after experiments with rock crystal by Abbas ibn Firnas

    Cheques

    The modern cheque comes from the Arabic saqq, a written vow to pay for goods when they were delivered, to avoid money having to be transported across dangerous terrain.

    Gunpowder

    Though the Chinese invented saltpetre gunpowder, and used it in their fireworks, it was the Arabs who worked out that it could be purified using potassium nitrate for military use.

    This should suffice for now hey, J_Stillwater. And the irony is you only asked for one!

  321. @J_Stillwater.

    How about:

    Trigonometry, Sine, Tangent, Co-Tangent –

    Ibn Moosaa's work Hisaab-Al Jab-Wal Muqaabala (The Calculation of Integration and Equation) presented 800 examples in the 8th century CE.

    Algebra and Geometry

    Muhammad bin Moosaa Al-Khawaarizmi is considered to be one of the founders of Algebra. The word ‘Algorithm’ or 'Algorizm' is a corruption of his name or the name of the town Khwaarizm (Kheva), in what is now Uzbekistan, where he was born.

    Physics and Chemistry

    Kamaaluddeen examined the refraction of sunlight in raindrops and offered an explanation of the genesis of primary and secondary rainbows. The story of the invention of the pendulum and the presentation of a water clock to Emperor Charlemagne by Haaroon Ar-Rasheed is well known.

    Science of Mechanics

    The development of the science of mechanics in Islam is an act of genius. Moosaa bin Shaakir described one hundred pieces of mechanical equipment in his book of artifices.

    Camera Obscura

    In the field of optics, Camera Obscura was invented by Ibn Haytham in 1038 CE. The Muslim mathematician, astronomer and physicist invented the first pin-hole camera after noticing the way light came through a hole in window shutters.

    Theory of Relativity

    Qaadhi Abu Bakr had developed the theory of relativity in the 8th century CE in terms of time and space by means of mathematical equations and astrophysics. Imagine, Einstein was not even born in the Western world, who propounded the same theory of relativity much later in the 20th century CE.

    Geography

    As far as geography was concerned, Muslim scientists established that the world was round in the 9th century CE, and the first map of the globe was made during the Caliphate of Ma’moon.

    Paper Making

    This was one of the earliest skills attained by the Muslims. As early as the 8th century CE, high quality paper was being manufactured in Samarqand.

    Advances in Industry

    Under Islamic rule, Spain was an industrial center. It was one of the wealthiest and most thickly populated of the European countries. Muslims were leading in weaving wool, producing silk, pottery, jewelry, leather and perfume industry.

    Chess

    A form of chess was played in ancient India but the game was developed into the form we know it today in Persia. From there it spread westward to Europe – where it was introduced by the Moors in Spain in the 10th century – and eastward as far as Japan.

    Flying

    A thousand years before the Wright brothers a Muslim poet, astronomer, musician and engineer named Abbas ibn Firnas made several attempts to construct a flying machine. In 852 he jumped from the minaret of the Grand Mosque in Cordoba using a loose cloak stiffened with wooden struts.

    Soap

    It was the Arabs who combined vegetable oils with sodium hydroxide and aromatics such as thyme oil to perfect the recipe for soap as we know it today. One of the Crusaders' most striking characteristics, to Arab nostrils, was that they did not wash. Shampoo was introduced to England by a Muslim who opened Mahomed's Indian Vapour Baths on Brighton seafront in 1759 and was appointed Shampooing Surgeon to Kings George IV and William IV.

    Distillation

    Distillation, the means of separating liquids through differences in their boiling points, was invented around the year 800 by Islam's foremost scientist, Jabir ibn Hayyan, who transformed alchemy into chemistry, inventing many of the basic processes and apparatus still in use today. Liquefaction, crystallisation, distillation, purification, oxidisation, evaporation and filtration.

    Crank Shaft

    The crank-shaft is a device which translates rotary into linear motion and is central to much of the machinery in the modern world, not least the internal combustion engine. One of the most important mechanical inventions in the history of humankind, it was created by an ingenious Muslim engineer called al-Jazari to raise water for irrigation. His 1206 Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices shows he also invented or refined the use of valves and pistons, devised some of the first mechanical clocks driven by water and weights, and was the father of robotics. Among his 50 other inventions was the combination lock.

    Do you want more?

  322. Claim after claim dearest . . . it is YOUR job to add sufficient proof/evidence.

    For example:

    " islam turned the persians into barbarians… it turned the babylonians into barbarians… it turned half of india in to barbarians… it turned indonesians into barbarians… it turned muhammad into a barbarian… and abu bakr… and on and on…
    "

    As none is given.

    I will simply add my views – and say all the above is wrong.

    - – -

    "I am so surprised something by the things I read in these comments… how can you say something so blatantly untrue? "

    If pressed . . . . it would become apparent – the amount "truth" you are on . . . . try it.

    - – -

    Maybe no one has ever said this to you . . . .

    Your views do NOT equal the truth.

    - – -

    I mean the above is rather obvious – but sometimes the obvious needs pointing out.

  323. "he "forgot" to say something absolutely necessary to augment some statements of his,

    in order for these statements not to be considered meaningless or baseless, according to his own standards, "

    Actually – if you go back and read what i have said – reasoning is given.

    Hence more dishonesty.

    - – -

    "if he would not keep REPEATING, ad nauseam, that same "mild" reproach to me, often in the form of "Demsci, you do not AAAAAAANSWERRRRRRR (enough, well enough). "

    See – just because you add in a name of fallacy randomly – it will give you no more credence.

    The skill is in giving reasoning for claiming fallacies. Anyone can claims names of fallacy . . . .

    - – -

    "And so I now repeat MY position: I think Islam is a religion, political ideology, with rules for a way of life and organising society. For parts of Islam I think there are better alternatives available and I desire that mankind in big numbers replaces Islam, or parts of it, with those better alternatives in the 21st century. So naturally I support those better alternatives and for that I support writings/ posts against parts of Islam. "

    Which does NOT answer your dishonesty – as pointed out.

    No one actually asked you to repeat your position.

    - – -

    Hence – you make up things to answer – rather than answering what is given.

  324. Just because some crackpots who identify themselves as Jews are against Zionism cannot mean that there is no merit in Zionism.

    Those are your people and not mine

    Jews are far more advanced socially, psychologically and cognitively than are the slaves of allah and, rather than try to eradicate dissent of this sort, laugh at it and/or treat it with the contempt it deserves.

    and what this has to do with historical fact , are you saying if Jews are adavanced therefore we have to bellieve their lies

    And unlike the slaves of allah they certainly don't threaten to kill the lunatics who espouse such views.

    Ask Mosad about how nany they killed because they disagree with them

  325. Let the Israeli occupy a bigger chunk of the Land Allah had given them as he had said in Quran 10:93 n 17:104. No wonder, no matter how hard the Arabs fight, they never be able to get this land as Allah had given full "protection" to the Israelites. So you are the real hypocrite when you had ignored the above verses from your holy book.

  326. Not so.

    You are putting your own opinions onto history rather than accepting what can be proven as fact.

    That is sick and immature.

    Sick person is you and you are the one who is putting your opinion on history . Jews themselves are saying what I said to you if you ahve proobel with that then blame them and not

  327. No it wouldn't. Claims like this tend not to make much sense.

  328. Again short of logic.

    Such things as:

    " Ali Sina says muhammad was a rapist for example"

    Are simply false claims. And no one has termed them as hate mongering.

    I haven't.

    - – -

    Hate mongering is when Sina says:

    "All Muslims are dirty" or incapable of reasoning for simply being Muslims – and other such indiscriminate, fallacious and ridiculous claims ARE hate mongering.

    - – -

    Why did I say once again . . . .sadly you are short on logic. . .

    False Comparison . . . which you made up and invented. And not supportable/inferrable from what I have said.

    - – - –

    "So… this is not hate… muhammad raped people… that's a fact… he had sex with them against their will… there's no hate in that statement… it is either true or not… if it's not… prove it… Ali Sina already have proven that it is true… so… disprove just that one claim… can you? Let's see… "

    Once again – another example of fallacious logic.

    Try asking Sina!

    Burden of Proof is upon YOU – for your claims.

    Shifting that is fallacious logic.

    "it is either true or not… if it's not… prove it… "

    You cannot claim this . . .

    - – -

    "Ali Sina already have proven that it is true… so… disprove just that one claim… can you? Let's see… "

    Where?

  329. Jew-hatred is mandated (ordered by religious decree) in your koran, and therefore you slaves of your prophet do what you do best, hate unquestioningly.

    quote the verses here then I will reply . You must be Jew because I do not see you talking Jewish hatred to all mankind as stated in talmud

    You hated your Jewish neighbours and attacked them long before the state of Israel existed,

    where is that

    and ethnically cleansed them in their hundreds of thousands from Arab/Muslim countries once Israel came into existence, and made their lives hell before that.

    Some left some stayed . there are Arab countries which did not allow their Jewsih popualtion to leave to Israel so to talk about cleansing does not make sense

    I note that you write "allow" which mirrors the muslim agenda towards Jews – because they had the good sense to reject the mad muslim prophet (who later came to hate them for bursting his narcissistic bubble),

    Jews are known to reject prophets so it does not surprise me when they rejected our prophet . The fact of matter the most learned jew i and the chief Rabbi in Medina converted in Islam is good enough for me

    and you are ordered to emulate said mad prophet's behaviour to the letter – Jews were "allowed" to remain in muslim countries as second-class citizens, at the mercy of their "civilised" masters.

    Second class citizen are not allow to know properties , businesses or participate in politics

    They were taxed punitively because they refused to convert to islam.
    Tax was used to pay for defense . If you live in country you have to pay taxes

    The Jews of Arab countries did not occupy those countries. Why were they hated, injured and killed?

    This kind of proplems exist even among Arabs and arabs , Kurd and Arabs , Berbers and Arabs and the list goes on

    And hatred is not natural and neither is telling lies zitouni. However when it is encultured so deeply into a people that they do not realise that they are lying or why they hate, it is very difficult to put a stop to.

    You keep saying Muslims hate Jews as if Jews do not hate anybody they are poor and nice loving people .

  330. "J_Stillwater, this particular Muslim CANNOT (ie is incapable) of doing so. "

    huh? how do you know?

    Even before I have answered.

    hence – you are incapable of reasoning. In other words – either not very intelligent – or uneducated – or both.

    - – -

    "Because of the phobic induction against criticism of Islam or its mad leaders or prophet, he is afraid of being consigned hell fire if he does do. "

    Yet I read – criticism of Islam – academic and non-Academic.

    I have sufficient ability as a Linguist and student of History. I could list all the academic criticism I have read . . . . If you so wish.

    But given the above – I doubt you are interested – in anything other than airing your own views.

    - – -

    "Much more disturbingly, this failure to think critically, to stand outside one's argument and concede whenever the other may have a reasonable point, is so much a part of Muslim mentality that when faced with the discomfort of being bested in argument so publcly, they get furious and, instead of wondering why they dig in still further and make themselves look even more foolish. "

    Actually – so far all evidence points to this not being true at all. And it also intimates – that you are the one unable to reason . . . and er . . . think "critically"

    - – -

    "amiaridh is ignorant and psychologically under-developed and typical of the muslim mentality. Islam breeds zombies without insight into the impression they make on others, which is why he cannot understand why we should disagree with him and is so irate if he is disagreed with. He literally cannot make sense of why anyone should think differently from him – all he experiences is an uncomfortable feeling that he cannot put words to, and this makes him furious. "

    Abusing the person – never leads to credence.

    Fallacious logic. . . . you do not need this pointing out do you?

    - – -

    Blah Blah Blah . . . . these are just views – they are NOT original or uncommon.

    Net is full of them.

    I can turn around and write the inverse.

    But how futile.

    I hope you realize the stupidity of saying such things. It isn't very fruitful. Is it.

  331. correction

    can you see that it was NOT an error when you thought that Jews lived in Mecca

  332. "show me one country where muslim domination has lead to peace… and the fact that you CANNOT, should make you stop and take a minute and think about things deeply and with objectivity… ask yourself…"

    Idiotic use of logic . .. . you already presume that I cannot answer – hence you are NOT asking a question.

    A peaceful Muslim country?

    Qatar is pretty peaceful. UAE – not bad. Bangladesh – pretty peaceful so far. Although poor.

    - – -

    " Most deaths among muslims are caused by other muslims… and yet, muslims are always blaming the west… instead of seeing that it is the confused and self-serving cult ideology of a bully that is at the heart of the problem… "

    Your claims – and nothing more. Evidence?

    - – -

    "Just one country, aminriadh… give me one country that is better off under islam… "

    Sure . .. . All Muslim countries would be worse off. As I have said all . . . hence I have not listed their names. But I can – if you so wish.

  333. @zitouni… yes… you are correct… muhammad killed jews in medina… I mistakenly typed mekkah…

    who are you trying to fool ??? you did in fact believe that people who lived in Mecca were jews the proof is when you said this

    If not, why did muhammad go back and slaughter them?

    go back where ? if Jews lived in Medina where prophet lived why he has to go back it just does not make sense . Prophet came from Mecca so went back means he went back to Mecca and killed Jews there . can you see that it was an error when you thought that Jews lived in Mecca

    now, does this make the claim any less valid? Remember, I wasn't arguing about "where" the atrocities took place… I was arguing the fact that they TOOK place. The fact that we've corrected the location of the mass murders actually strengthens the case against muhammad.

    All story about prophet wars with Jews came to us through Ibn Ishaq who claimed to hear it from guy who lived in Medina the problem is historians are saying that Ibn Ishaq was born just few year after that guy who he left Medina to live in Syria stayed there until he died and never returned to Medina so how did Ibn Ishaq get the story from him

    The jews of that area were a peaceful people,

    I do not think so . they were involved in war against Muslims

  334. "I go on to explain civilization jihad… muslims have many ways of spreading islam… not just by violent jihad or "the greater jihad." They also spread islam through the "lesser" jihad of slow, takkiah laden infiltration of the host country… this is what we saw in iran… and what we see in egypt right now… it also happened in india… and is happening in belgium… and the netherlands… and france… and the uk… and all over the world… "

    Blah blah blah . . . your views – and nothing more. Mere claims

    - – -

    "It wouldn't be so bad if we didn't have proof from the muslims themselves that they are unable and incapable of ruling themselves… they must kill and destroy, "

    Where?

    - – -

    "Please, give me one example, right here and right now, that shows that a country is better off once the muslims gain control… show me one country… just one… this should be easy for you… "

    Sure – Islam would greatly improve – USA or UK. And all Muslim countries – would be worse off.

  335. "@aminriadh… you ask: "what was so great about these" civilisations… I've excluded your word "mysterious" because it's a question begging addition to my comment… which omits that word… the addition of the word assumes that they are mysterious civilizations, an assertion that you must first prove before you can use the term in your (or my) conclusion…

    The list of what these great civilizations brought to the world is far too vast to past or even discuss here… but here are a few of those things: "

    You seem to have misunderstood the question . . . .

    "
    Which of these "great" civilization did Muslims attack and destroy . . . do give a mention.

    Which backward ideology?

    And what was so great about these mysterious civilisations . . . . ? "

    -

    First define these Civs that Muslims have destroyed and then what was great that way destroyed.

    And not re-interpret what was asked to suit your liking. If I was unclear . . . my apologies.

    = = =

    "Genetics
    Astronomy
    Geology
    Sculpture
    The written word
    Music
    Poetry
    Scientific method "

    All you do is name a few generalities. yet Muslims too have contributed to about all of the above. Genetics? Perhaps not as much.

    - – -

    "What has islam brought us in 1400 years? Feel free to jump in at any time with your list of things islam has brought to mankind other than their allah-approved servings of pain and terror and fear and oppression, and mistrust, and hatred and killing and disfiguring… feel free to enlighten us here as to what islam has brought us other than the things I've mentioned… "

    Why other than? And you commit more logical fallacy . . . . you over emotional pleading is fallacious. And you are NOTY really asking the question when you – yourself give the answer.

    Then you proceed to say:

    "feel free to enlighten us here as to what islam has brought us other than the things I've mentioned… "

    OKAY . . .

    "Astronomy
    Geology
    The written word
    Music
    Poetry
    Scientific method "

    Oh the list is too great . . . . here are somethings

    - – -

    "It is clear from history and from modern observations, that islam brings nothing but bondage and anguish and agony for all those who are unfortunate enough to have been either born into it, or kept in the dark of arabic translations.."

    Again fallacious logic . . . .

    Why is it clear from history? Which history – who exactly says it. . . .

    it is nonsensical to claim this.

    - – -

    "people who read what the qur'an really says… begin to see that muhammad cannot be a man who received his information from allah… even he said he got some from satan… absolutely rediculous!! "

    Again fallacious logic.

    You are saying that those who agree with you – are the only one's who have read the Quran.

    Others have misunderstood it.

    Huh?

    it doesn't work like that sonny.

  336. Notice also that the verse says "easy to understand and memorize." So the idea of "clear" that zitouni suggests doesn't fit the context. Clear in this context, means "unclouded” or “unobscured."

    This is why I keep saying that you need to read koran in Arabic in order to be able to understand it better . You are curious about what koran says you want to know everything fine with me , but you get to follow the rules. Somebody like you get to enrol in university and persue Islamic theolgy and koranic studies because you do not want just to accept thing just like that in koran you want to have superior knowledge . Let me say it again THERE IS NO PHRASE EASY TO UNDERSTAND IN THAT BOOK IN ORIGINAL ARABIC

  337. @zitouni… Hold on a second… you're kidding, right? Arabs were barbaric before islam? Wasn't muhammad born before islam? Didn't he go to work for the rich khadijah before islam? Wasn't it khadijah and Abu Bakr who actually convinced muhammad he was a prophet? Were the arabs who cared for the ka'ba not civilized and very good business people?

    So khadijah was a barbarian? muhammad's uncle was a barbarian? they were arabs before islam… and they were just fine… in fact… khadijah would have been so repressed under islam, she would have NEVER been able to accomplish what she did… islam turned the persians into barbarians… it turned the babylonians into barbarians… it turned half of india in to barbarians… it turned indonesians into barbarians… it turned muhammad into a barbarian… and abu bakr… and on and on…

    I am so surprised something by the things I read in these comments… how can you say something so blatantly untrue?

    J Stillwater

  338. Well, maybe you did not say that EXACTLY, but you did say:

    "Ali sina is not an expert on islam in fact he is Arabic ignorant ."

    let me give you an analogy so you can get my point . If Ali Sina goes around and claim to be an engineer and I know that he is math ignorant so what does it tell me ??? . I am going to put this way

    Ali sina is not an engineer in fact he is math ignorant ."

    beacuse there is such thing as engineer and math ignorant likewise there is no expert on Islam Arabic ignorant . Did you get it now

    Islam is a worldwide religion, meant for all mankind, isn't it? Yet in order to understand it's message completely, as it was meant, do you say it is absolutely impossible to do so for all those humans that do not speak Arabic, in 1400 years?

    You do not need to understand everything about islam to earn salvation just as I do not have to understand anything about law to stay away in trouble with the law. The things in Islam which your salvation depend are easy to understand you do not need an expert. You can read those guildeline any language . To be an expert on Islam thats completely different story

    So the people who do not speak Arabic are totally dependent for Islam-explanation on those who do?

    Read above

    And in all that time these experts on Quran could not provide a translation together with explanation that would enable non-Arabic-speakers to become rock-solid Islam-experts if they so wished?

    All translation got errors on them so if you want to read the word of God as it is in koran you got to read it in its original form .Koran on other languages is not the speech of God only the one in Arabic is

  339. "What you asked about the Quran being "easy to understand" was hammered on by, among others, Ali Sina and Julia. "

    Nice tidy bit of dishonesty. . . . "Julia" was never into hammering anything other than "petty insults"

    Which you supported to the hilt.

    It seems – anyone here who is anti-Islam – you are mighty quick to support them.

    - – - –

    As for Sina . . . . do point his "hammering" out.

  340. @zitouni… is what you've suggested REALLY the "best" solution? Let's be realistic. You state: "The best solution of this if for the west to stay in their backward" and I assume you meant to type "back yard." Is so, where is the backyard of the west? Can you tell us? Where exactly is the "back yard" of the west?

    Very easy just look at the world map . Americans get to stay in USA , EU nations get to stay in Europr

    muhammad and his muslims for 1400 years have been invading from the arabian peninsula outward toward the west…

    Forget about Muslims and take look at political known world map in 7 century or 5 century long before any Islam . You will see that most of Eastern Arabia and Yemen was ocupied by Persia uhmm did you know that ignorant ???? . you think that Persians have the right to ocupy that part of the world ???? and All great Syria and N Africa was ocupied by Romans or Byzantine who are both from Europe ehh Do you think that Europeans belong to M East and N Africa ???? what are they doing there . The problem you guys you just read propaganda the Muslims invaded the Muslim did this and that , but you do not bother to read history

    and the muslims have spread their backward ideology into once-great civilizations such as India, Iraq, Iran, and others.

    Islam is not the best ideology which has contributed many good things that we see today in our world

    It is muslims who have invaded from the start. It is muslims who are the aggressors from the start. What the "world" needs to do, before muslims utterly destroy the world, is to keep the pressure on islam, attacking it from both an intellectual and a military perspective until this murderous house of death is wiped from the face of the earth forever.

    I think after you ahve read what I wrote above you know now who was the first to attack

    So now, please… who is the west you speak of? Please define it here for us.

    N America , EU nations

  341. "And in all that time these experts on Quran could not provide a translation together with explanation that would enable non-Arabic-speakers to become rock-solid Islam-experts if they so wished? "

    Actually that is an impossible task – hence the ask is ridiculous and logically fallacious.

    Unlike the Bible – Quran maintains itself in Arabic rather than rely wild translations.

    Hence translators do not sway into providing Bible like translations.

    Where the translation becomes the book.

    - – -

    Also . .. one does NOT become rock solid expert of Islam – by simply reading the Quran.

  342. ""Ali sina is not an expert on islam in fact he is Arabic ignorant ." "

    Yet this is NOT the same thing as saying:

    "Nobody is saying only Arab can understand Islam . I do not know from where you got that ."

    - – -

    There are experts of Islam and Arabic that are NOT Muslims.

    - – -

    The point is valid.

    What fantastical claims Sina makes – he is expected to know a lot about Islam.

    Yet as I have pointed out previously. He even lacks sufficient knowledge of the Basics.

    It is expected he has sufficient command of Arabic. As primary materials of Islam are in that language.

    - – -

    He is EXPECTED to have sufficient command of Farsi . . . . which he claims to have

    After Arabic – Persian is the probably/arguably the most important language of Islam.

    Yet look how empty his "articles" are of mentioning any references/sources

    - – -

    There is staggering amount of Western Scholarship available on Islam.

    Just look at how empty he is from that . . . .

    Why?

    So what expertise DOES he have about Islam?

    - – -

    Not much. His book is another damning evidence against him.

  343. "Well I tell you that I can understand Islam and Muhammad better than all the Muslims. You may disagree but then my challenge stands and is not met yet."

    Actually this isn't true . . . is it!

    - – -

    Also –

    As pointed out – at least one of Sina's alleged debate is likely to be completely bogus.

  344. Meaningless.

    - – -

    It has been pointed out to you before.

    When abuse does happen – as long as it is directed at Muslims.

    You are willing to turn a blind eye.

    - – -

    For example – someone re-posted/quoted abuse of "Julia" – you threatened him with a ban.

    Yet when our mistake was pointed out – you made a petty excuse. And let the troll be on its merry way.

    - – -

    Look at some one comment – "denialisnoproof" posts up. Any "Muslim" did that – ban.

  345. Thank you Damsci you save me time

  346. " You can check the stats. "

    "Yes they have.Again,you don't have to believe me."

    - – –

    You say all this . . . . one can ask.

    Why have you NOT given any references?

    I mean presumably – you have read the material.

    So it should be easy to point out.

  347. Wow! what a truly enlightening post!

  348. "The Israeli politicians have handed the olive branch more than once to Arabs."

    Sure – but where and when . . . . this too is too generic a statement. And not even backed by any facts.

    Actually – according to Wikileak – leaks . . . . this is NOT true.

    Abbas was prepared to give it all. For a 2 state solution.

    Who refused? Israel.

    - – -

    "If Egypt/Iran cared so much about Palestinian refugees why don't they take them in or give aid to improve their condition?"

    Where do you think they are? Yes – at Jordan or Syria. And some in Egypt and Iran too.

    - – -

    "The majority of aid to Palestine still comes from US/Canada/Europe and Japan – all non-Arab states!! "

    Evidence? Europe gives – evidence for rest?

  349. This is one of the worst cases of arse licking you could find going.

    - – -

    Compare this:

    "People who have empathy and conscience tend to do good in the world. Mother Theressa is an iconic example of someone with empathy, Florence Nightingale is another famous name. "

    With:

    "Obama is a narcissist, so is Putin."

    - – -

    The post is BS . . . it is just to suck to up these new acquired friends . . . .

    The American Right Wing.

    - – -

    See the BS – where has this "rationality" gone now?

    It is all pack of nonsense. . . . he has seen Hirsi sell herself – and he wants slice of action.

    - – -

    Hence anyone Right Wing neo-cons don't like – he will slag them off.

    There are no other stands for this outburst.

    - – -

    Does he he know about Narcissism . . . . ? Hell no.

    Just look at his book.

    It will say it all.

  350. Just because some crackpots who identify themselves as Jews are against Zionism cannot mean that there is no merit in Zionism.

    Jews are far more advanced socially, psychologically and cognitively than are the slaves of allah and, rather than try to eradicate dissent of this sort, laugh at it and/or treat it with the contempt it deserves.

    And unlike the slaves of allah they certainly don't threaten to kill the lunatics who espouse such views.

  351. Not so.

    You are putting your own opinions onto history rather than accepting what can be proven as fact.

    That is sick and immature.

  352. It's evident that you know even less than Julia about your very oiwn koran or about how it mandates that muslims treat Jews:

    Jew-hatred is mandated (ordered by religious decree) in your koran, and therefore you slaves of your prophet do what you do best, hate unquestioningly. You hated your Jewish neighbours and attacked them long before the state of Israel existed, and ethnically cleansed them in their hundreds of thousands from Arab/Muslim countries once Israel came into existence, and made their lives hell before that.

    I note that you write "allow" which mirrors the muslim agenda towards Jews – because they had the good sense to reject the mad muslim prophet (who later came to hate them for bursting his narcissistic bubble), and you are ordered to emulate said mad prophet's behaviour to the letter – Jews were "allowed" to remain in muslim countries as second-class citizens, at the mercy of their "civilised" masters. They were taxed punitively because they refused to convert to islam.

    The Jews of Arab countries did not occupy those countries. Why were they hated, injured and killed?

    And hatred is not natural and neither is telling lies zitouni. However when it is encultured so deeply into a people that they do not realise that they are lying or why they hate, it is very difficult to put a stop to.

  353. J_Stillwater, this particular Muslim CANNOT (ie is incapable) of doing so. Because of the phobic induction against criticism of Islam or its mad leaders or prophet, he is afraid of being consigned hell fire if he does do.

    Much more disturbingly, this failure to think critically, to stand outside one's argument and concede whenever the other may have a reasonable point, is so much a part of Muslim mentality that when faced with the discomfort of being bested in argument so publcly, they get furious and, instead of wondering why they dig in still further and make themselves look even more foolish.

    amiaridh is ignorant and psychologically under-developed and typical of the muslim mentality. Islam breeds zombies without insight into the impression they make on others, which is why he cannot understand why we should disagree with him and is so irate if he is disagreed with. He literally cannot make sense of why anyone should think differently from him – all he experiences is an uncomfortable feeling that he cannot put words to, and this makes him furious.

    That behaviour is the staple of Islam and why it is doomed to remain mired in the Dark Ages. If it were clever rather than manipulative, we would really have something to worry about but as it is, if he is the best they can do….

  354. Again, is this because you cannot argue, ie you are incapable of doing so or lack the knowledge?

    And you are splitting and projecting again!

  355. Do you post this because you don't understand Joe's post? Would you like him to put it in simple English?

  356. Look up cult behaviour rainbow.
    http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm

    You will find that Mohammedanism ticks almost all the boxes for cult-like behaviour and demands, including phobic induction and death threats if a muslim should want to leave it.

    Judaism and Christianity and almost every other religion does not.

  357. Of course there are a bunch of,and if I may say so,stupider apologists on the Christian/Evangelical side.
    Ray Comfort.Oh my God!The Hovinds-father and son duo.Creationists!They're hilarious.
    William Lane Craig is a little more composed.Hamza T. is a Islamic version of him with more pathos and less logos and ethos.

    But this is a site on Islam.Let's stick to that.

  358. That you gave the Chomsky example suggests to me that maybe you overlooked the words 'in general' and 'typically' in my comment.

    Let's look at Chomsky, shall we? Firstly,I'll state outright that Chomsky is a far greater linguist and academic than any of those I mentioned above,or any prominent 'Internet' Islamic theologian that I know.He has redefined the understanding about Grammar and Languages; his models have been adapted in disciplines as wide as Computer Science, Medicine,Psychology and Mathematics!What is the Social or Academic contribution of those I named above?(except Hamza Y. whom I praised).The comparison is between Elephants and Ants.

    But still let's proceed.There is a difference between a "balanced approach" and "balanced opinion".If you have attended/watched any of Chomsky's debates,you can easily identify that his approach is scholarly and is in stark contrast to any of the above(except Hamza Y.).He is extremely factual,and builds his arguments based on those facts.Although he is not a politician,his political opinions are grounded on a solid understanding of socio-economic history.He doesn't need to resort to cheap tricks,emotional appeals or dishonesty to make his case.

    Coming to balance of opinion.Chomsky has,on various occasions,notably on the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories,criticized the left-winged thought,to which he's supposed to be aligned.Thus he has demonstrated the intellectual flexibility to criticize the same labels that have been assigned to him.Can any of the above dare to criticize even one aspect of Islam?How can you even make this comparison?

    In all,my point was generic.The more you learn,you tend to learn the arguments on both sides of a contentious issue.Education tends to create a balance in your outlook.This is obviously not an absolute truth(nor did I claim it to be such) since you find extremists among the academic elite as well.But such are a minority,to most the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

    But the 'majority' of those I named above are not scholars at all and that's worth pondering.They try to draw from diverse subjects like Theoretical Physics,Quantum Mechanics,Cosmology,Evolutionary Biology,Embryology etc. and from the hilarious commentaries and conclusions they draw from those subjects,it's obvious that their understanding of those subjects are not comparable to even schoolchildren/early college goers.Consequently they have to twist/invent facts,add dollops of rosy imagination,manipulate the audience to put their point.

  359. You can check the stats.
    The highest aid to Palestine in that order are from :-
    1. US
    2. Japan
    3. European Union
    4. Canada

    These are facts,which are verifiable.You don't have to believe me.

    Yes they have.Again,you don't have to believe me.You can check historical documentation,terms of failed/violated treaties etc.There were multiple treaties throughout history,that offered up to 70% of present (Israel+Palestine) to Arabs/Palestinians.None of them were accepted.
    I'm not saying Israel is free from any crime-although nowadays they try to minimize civilian deaths when they try eliminate Hamas.But Palestinians' condition is not helped by Jordan/Egypt/Iran/Iraq.They sell arms to them,not food.It's in their political interest to keep Palestinians in their present plight.Same for Hamas.

  360. Joe you got problem you are not into discussion. Your conclusions are ready before discussion and its making you stupid that you always leading discussion unsuccessfully and at last make your pre-prepared hate mongering statements. Do you ever know whats in the thread of discussion ?

    Qur'an is 360 degree life ! Its not 2-D portrait ! There are justified situation where violence is required !

    According to you did American army follow " love thy enemy? " If they took such hypocritical guidance they will be looser ! So no body is Christians among them ! Even fighting with Taliban which doesn't have match in any case with them . Sargent said " Slay them (Taliban) wherever you find them " There is no other option to win and deal with enemies in war like situation. So did they take inspiration from Qur'an but not from bible? Answer is yes ! Qur'an is not shy coz it holds truth. Problem is your hate mongering see only other side.

    Life rotate in 360 degrees again there are situations like unto you your religion unto me mine to end confliction and waste time over it . Again life rotates and there is situation care them they are people of book to make peace process. So who actually know how stuff works really in life Qur'an is very simple to understand it . And who with 2 dimensional vision like they use to read in novels and fictional stories, Qur'an seems contradiction.

    Sorry dumbhead !

  361. "Copy pasting is not free speech. It is spam"

    Right on the money.
    It is plagiarism as well, if the source is not mentioned.

  362. @zitouni… yes… you are correct… muhammad killed jews in medina… I mistakenly typed mekkah… now, does this make the claim any less valid? Remember, I wasn't arguing about "where" the atrocities took place… I was arguing the fact that they TOOK place. The fact that we've corrected the location of the mass murders actually strengthens the case against muhammad.

    The jews of that area were a peaceful people, and muhammad slaughtered them for no reason other than the fact that they didn't believe he was a prophet, and said as much… and also as punishment for not helping him slaughter their other jewish neighbors when muhammad decided it was time for them to have their possessions, their loves, and their lives taken away…

    Now, was all the brutality and hostility toward his neighbors justified for any other reason than they were "infidels?" No… not one…

    More on the history here: http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/52750 http://www.exmoslim.org/kinana%20en%20safiya.html

    J Stillwater

  363. in other words… these unlearned people should have been able to see "clearly" what’s in the qur'an, because, according to muhammad, the message came to them before, and they refused it…

    Notice also that the verse says "easy to understand and memorize." So the idea of "clear" that zitouni suggests doesn't fit the context. Clear in this context, means "unclouded” or “unobscured."

    Finally… when zitouni refers to “clear” as regards the law, the law "becomes" clear through its use. Law does not start out clear, it starts out clouded, and must be matured in the arena of “legal practice” to become clear. On the other hand, muhammad is stating this qur'an is clear by its very nature, as a warning, in the same way the moon splitting in two was a clear proof. (Wow… did he really say that?)

    muhammad is saying the qur'an is “clear”… so clear that it is easy to remember… speaking of its "lack of complication”

    So… if the qur'an is so "easy" (all major translators use “easy”), then WHY need scholars? muhammad is essentially saying MORE clarity is not needed… so easy is it to understand that they didn't need any other proofs…

    If muhammad had said: "see… I have sent you scholars to make this complicated book clear to you, so you could remember it without a problem… and you still didn't heed my message!!!" If he'd said that, it would fit what zitouni is trying to claim about this passage. But that meaning is just not there.

    J Stillwater

  364. yes Islam is the religion of peace , all u have to admit it is true , my misconception has been cleared so what is peace

    P=PERSECUTION

    E=ETHNIC CLEANISING

    A=ATROCITY

    C=CONQUEST

    E=ENSLAVEMENT

    AND ISLAM MEANS PEACE THIS THE CONCEPT

    I=INTOLERANCE

    S=SLAUGHTER

    L=LIES , LOOT

    A=ARSONING

    M=MOLESTATION

    RELIGION OF PEACE

  365. islam,s contribution in blobal peace

    2012.12.05 (Leego, Somalia) – al-Shabaab Islamists attack and kill three cattle herders.
    2012.12.05 (Karachi, Pakistan) – A prayer leader is shot to death inside a seminary by sectarian rivals.
    2012.12.05 (Wana, Pakistan) – Two Fedayeen suicide car bombers take out three Pakistanis.
    2012.12.04 (Zayouna, Iraq) – al-Qaeda gunmen force their way into a home and shoot four children to death along with their mother and father.
    2012.12.04 (Larkana, Pakistan) – A Shiite cleric and his 4-year-old daughter are shot to death by Wahhabi terrorists.
    2012.12.03 (Pattani, Thailand) – A 59-year-old female Buddhist plantation worker is stabbed to death by suspected 'insurgents'.

    islam has crossed milestones for 20,000 attacks , allah and muhammad bles jihadis in peace

  366. @Demsci… thank you for the clarification… let's say that Zitouni is correct… and let's say that the word is actually "clear" instead of "easy." What we then have to do is look at the following and preceding verses to see what the writer was trying to convey. In other words, in the context of this sura, allah is asking a question, over and over again… and that question is: IN THE PAST… and up to the present (his time), did not allah give clear signs?

    muhammad here mentions great geological and cosmological events and calls them clear proofs… so, are we speaking of the category of "laws" or are we speaking of the category of "proofs that anybody can see clearly as proofs?" It is the latter… we also know this because muhammad is asking about people in the past, and people in his present time… before there were scholars or islamic schools…

    in other words, he's saying that the qur'an is SO CLEAR and EASY to memorize, that there should be NO ONE who disbelieves… and yet there are… so those unbelievers are in BIG trouble… because even with proofs as clear as the moon splitting, and the earth flooding… they refused to believe according to muhammad… and then, he groups his qur'an in with these other great miracles and calls it "clear" as well…

    continued below…

  367. I don't know from where the Palistenians get aid.
    But the Israeli politicians have handed the olive
    branch ?! I am sure that is all what you know.

  368. @shabeer… in case you are here to read this… I want to just give you my thoughts on copying and pasting on discussion forums. For me, unless the information is directly related to the topic being replied to, it's like a person came into a holy place with a boom box turned all the way up and they're singing along with the really annoyingly dissonant sounds coming out of it.

    Can you see what I mean? When people are joined in logical debate, they are trying to work through things. None of us came into this world knowing anything. Most of us were born into the ideologies we now hold, and for many of us, life is a constant search for the bits of truth that our ideologies may hold, and it's also a constant process of pruning away the things which just cannot stand up to the systems of reasoning that have developed in our minds as a part of our millions of years of trial and error. Our discussions are holy things… because they move our civilization along… for our children, and their children…

    There is nothing more lovely than having an "ah ha!" moment. The only way to reach these moments is by following paths of clear reasoning… and if you come into the middle of a thread, in which the writers are trying their best to provide a logical and liberating flow, and you dump a bunch of unrelated information right in the middle of that flow… it becomes a distraction… especially your posts, which are many times 600-700 words long.

    Anyway… that's my take on it…

    J Stillwater

  369. J-Stillwater, great posts you write, keep it up!! You are "Still Better", than …..others.

    What you asked about the Quran being "easy to understand" was hammered on by, among others, Ali Sina and Julia.

    And I remember Zitouni answering that, and he said something about that "easy" is not a right translation in Quran 54:17, that the real word used has a meaning more like "clear" than "easy".

    Zitouni and I then compared the Quran with the study of Law in Western countries. And the Law should be very clear, but that does not mean that it is easy to "master" it. And we took it from there.

    Of course Zitouni can explain Quran 54:17 to you better than I can.

  370. Jews hate Arabs or vice versa is too generic a statement.

    The Israeli politicians have handed the olive branch more than once to Arabs.They've spit and stamped on it,only to regret later.If Egypt/Iran cared so much about Palestinian refugees why don't they take them in or give aid to improve their condition?The majority of aid to Palestine still comes from US/Canada/Europe and Japan – all non-Arab states!!

  371. How Islam spreads?By death threats:-
    http://persian2english.com/?p=23969

    No rape in Islam(The villainy of ayatollah khomeni):-
    http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/irani

  372. Nothing should justify violence and Hate.

    what is especially bad is when people justify the hatred because of God.. This mean that there is no resolution becuase "God said so".. the quran is suppost to be forever which means that quran hatred would be forever.

  373. "as Demsci often has done so in the past."

    This is a repetition. By just saying this (for the umptieth time) and no more, Aminriadh is "forgetting" very much.

    I would not reproach him that

    he "forgot" to say something absolutely necessary to augment some statements of his,

    in order for these statements not to be considered meaningless or baseless, according to his own standards,

    if he would not keep REPEATING, ad nauseam, that same "mild" reproach to me, often in the form of "Demsci, you do not AAAAAAANSWERRRRRRR (enough, well enough).

    What you forgot to say is my motivation, the conditions and borders of my support, saying just that I support hate is distorting my position.

    And so I now repeat MY position: I think Islam is a religion, political ideology, with rules for a way of life and organising society. For parts of Islam I think there are better alternatives available and I desire that mankind in big numbers replaces Islam, or parts of it, with those better alternatives in the 21st century. So naturally I support those better alternatives and for that I support writings/ posts against parts of Islam.

  374. i find it interesting that Live = evil spelt backwards

    and that Lived = devil spelt backward

    it is like evil is the opposite of life and true evil is that which destroys Life.. like Mohammad

  375. @Ali Sina… Ali, you're doing a great job… keep up the great work. I think we can all say how much we appreciate you providing this forum for all of us to work through these critical issues that face the world today. I think even the non-muslims must agree that your policy of allowing people from all sides of the debate to interact and battle here, is highly commendable, and I think it is a testament to the depth of your sincerity and your care for people. I think it's great you are working on a new, larger server. Whatever and however long it takes…

    J Stillwater

  376. "Demscism". Very interesting. meant derogatory, connected to BS. A clear provocation to me.

    But we also could agree to disagree respectfully and move on. Which is what I want.

    But you want to pick a fight with me. Perhaps it is your attempt of revenge for me calling you "Mr. Denial."

    I could respond in diverse ways; I could coin "Aminriadhism" and explain that. And, as I am provoked, I could ask the provoking question whether or not there is "Demscism" in the Quran-Hadith-Sira.

    Anyway; "Demscism" would have to refer to what Demsci wrote on Alisina.org, perhaps FFI. And we could argue if you want to about it. and you would have to argue for the uniqueness or specificity of that writing in order to make sense, where I would argue that my writings almost exclusively contained very common thoughts and positions. Which I have experienced countless times, in contact with people, in Books, articles, on TV and Internet.

    I wonder why you did not coin the term "Alisinism" too.

    And I remembered other "name-giving" to specific behavior, like "Lynching" that was named after Mr. Lynch, or even Marxism-Leninism, of course named after Mr. Marx and Mr. Lenin.

    I don't want to fight over this, I think we should argue about issues, not persons. I think you are prone or tempted to use Ad Hominem-arguments. But I can think of quite a few nice responses if you provoke me in this way.

  377. As long as people don\’t abuse and insult others, everyone is welcomed.

  378. Brother Shabeer,

    I explained this before but I do it again. This forum is for discussion and not for copy paste of long articles. No one reads your copy pastes and they make the site large without adding any value to the discussions.

    Free speech does not mean free abuse. It means you are free to speak your mind and discuss your views with others. Copy pasting is not free speech. It is spam.

  379. I said this so many times to so many people who emailed me. We purchased a new more powerful server with the same hosting company. Since we don\’t have a system administrator we paid the technicians of the company to migrate the data from the old server to the new server. They moved a few minor sites including alisina but neglected to move faithfreedom site. For few days we tried to figure out why that site was not working and they gave us instructions to follow. At the end it became clear that they had not migrated all the data. But by then the old server was cancelled and they would not restore it unless we paid again. Now this is utterly unethical but being in no position to bargain we agreed and this month we are paying for two servers. It still took them sometime to move the data. Finally they said the migration is complete. But as Wayne found out it is not. They have not moved the php files and as the result most of the sites on faihtfreedom domain don\’t work.

    We really need a system administrator and we don\’t have one. I used technicians from odesk to do some work by I\’ve spent thousands so for and as everyone can see we still don\’t have a satisfactory template. odesk is a fastest way to lose your money and get nothing in exchange. Few people over there know their trade.

    Sorry for all this. We are doing our best. Please be patient. A few months ago we had a similar problem with this hosting company. Their servers are great and powerful but their clients are mostly hosting companies who have their own sysadmins. In our case we are at their mercy.

  380. @aminriadh… you keep saying Ali Sina has not provided any good arguments against islam, only nonsense, lies and fabrications… in fact… lots of people keep saying that… here's what I wish someone would start doing…

    I wish someone would start posting their proofs after making these statements like the one you've made above… you MUST have proof that Ali Sina's arguments are nonsense right? All people keep saying is things like: "all you have to do is read the qur'an" or "you need to be able to read the qur'an in arabic," or "aisha was an adult at 9 years old." If what Ali Sina is claiming about muhammad are lies, they should be easily to debunk in just a few sentences. For example, if you say muhammad was not a murderer, I just grab a couple of verses from the qur'an where he killed people for not following him and I've disproved your statement… because killing someone for not following you, is killing an innocent person, and that is murder. Nothing gives muhammad or anybody else the right to deprive another human being of the right to life, freedom and the pursuit of what makes that person happy in their life. Those people died under muhammad's hand for one reason, and one reason only… because muhammad wanted them to admit to his delusion or else face death… that's not only murder, it is mass murder and it is sadistic, because he then had sex with the wives of those murdered souls… Prove what I've just said wrong… in just a few sentences.. why is muhammad not a murderer in the above historical scenario?

    J Stillwater

  381. I guess Sina has one eye only, because he can see how
    the Arabs hate Jews, but he cannot see how much the Jews
    hate Arabs.

    I think the Muslims always talk about the one-eyed villain,
    who will come to our world and deceive everybody.

  382. I think you born to chicken than your mother coz eggs need to be warmed before life !

    Aren't we are talking about children and future ?! Tell me if you know size of Israel occupied land since 1948 ! Is this defense to occupy more ? Do you think promoting killing of pregnant muslim women with slogan " 1 shot two kiils " by Israelites is act of defense?! Muslims have nukes officially and unofficially too ! So threatening Muslims with nukes is what you want people to consider as peace process?

    You are a hypocrite and this is a plain truth !

  383. Do you have any shame left? I have proved your projection about Jews and Muslims wrong and manipulative in this article. Your glimpse of future is narrow headed like you. And you still keep deceiving readers shamelessly and with no conscience about reality.

    Tell me your hopeless atheist version of psychology can prove anything beyond subconscious !

  384. I think they are in defensive mode after endless attacks by the Arabs since 1948. I hope Israel will not be pressured to use nuke bombs in the final showdown to WW3, in which a big chunk of ME will be devastated, as predicted by spirit medium, Joseph T. So, nameless, can you love your enemies when they constantly attack you ?

  385. Ignorance is only one source of evil. Also psychological problems can make one do evil. Narcissists are the embodiment of evil. They are not ignorant people. They are often very smart, but they are conniving and manipulative. They plot and back stab. They have no empathy and use others for their own gain. They deceive people shamelessly and with no conscience. Muhammad was a narcissist. Other famous narcissists are Hitler, Genghis Khan, Stalin, Napoleon, Mao. Most religious figures are also narcissist. It is difficult to detect them. You only can see them without their mask once the damage is done. Obama is a narcissist, so is Putin.

    Narcissists are not ignorant. They are evil. Yes evil exists, just as goodness exists. Both are conscious acts. People with lack of empathy and lack of conscience do evil things. People who have empathy and conscience tend to do good in the world. Mother Theressa is an iconic example of someone with empathy, Florence Nightingale is another famous name.

  386. Oh… and I forgot to add to the list… LOGIC…

    J Stillwater

  387. @aminriadh… you ask: "what was so great about these" civilisations… I've excluded your word "mysterious" because it's a question begging addition to my comment… which omits that word… the addition of the word assumes that they are mysterious civilizations, an assertion that you must first prove before you can use the term in your (or my) conclusion…

    The list of what these great civilizations brought to the world is far too vast to past or even discuss here… but here are a few of those things:

    Genetics
    Astronomy
    Geology
    Sculpture
    The written word
    Music
    Poetry
    Scientific method

    What has islam brought us in 1400 years? Feel free to jump in at any time with your list of things islam has brought to mankind other than their allah-approved servings of pain and terror and fear and oppression, and mistrust, and hatred and killing and disfiguring… feel free to enlighten us here as to what islam has brought us other than the things I've mentioned…

    It is clear from history and from modern observations, that islam brings nothing but bondage and anguish and agony for all those who are unfortunate enough to have been either born into it, or kept in the dark of arabic translations… people who read what the qur'an really says… begin to see that muhammad cannot be a man who received his information from allah… even he said he got some from satan… absolutely rediculous!!

    J Stillwater

  388. @zitouni or ANYONE for that matter… can someone help with with this? I keep hearing muslims say that it takes an exper in the field of qur'an to understand the qur'an, hadith and sira of muhammad.

    From where do muslims get this rule? Does it say somewhere in the qur'an that only scholars can understand the qur'an? I thought the qur'an actually states that it is a clear and easy to understand book… am I incorrect here? Doesn't qur'an 54:17 say: "And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?" That's Yusuf Ali's translation, but the others are pretty much the same. So… if the qur'an itself, no, sorry… if ALLAH says the qur'an is easy to understand AND remember, then why do muslims keep saying that one needs to rely on scholars in order to be able to understand this easy to understand book? Anyone?

    J Stillwater

  389. @zitouni… you're kidding right? You must be the only taliban without a television…

    Prisoners are exchanged all the time… just go to al jazeera and start reading… I read about this there all the time… prisoners are still taken, they are still exchanged for other prisoners or for ransom, just like muhammad did… these are prisoners of jihad… and are therefore booty of war according to the qur'an..

    Now… with regard to your question about how is taking slaves these days… here are some things you may want to read… it's YOUR people… committing unspeakable and inhumane acts… NOW… TODAY… in our time… in the name of allah! If this doesn't sicken you, you need to ask yourself why… what is the matter with you… has satan taken hold of your heart and conscience?
    http://slavestoday.tripod.com/
    http://www.crethiplethi.com/the-persistence-of-is
    http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/

    The last link is the United States State Department Traficking in Persons Report, showing the countries that still actively engage in slave trade. You'll notice that most of them are islamic countries…

    J Stillwater

  390. The idiot will never understand you, no matter how hard you try.
    He is born an idiot and will die idiot….so, save your time and breath.
    Also, never take him as a friend, because he might want to benifit
    you, but ends up harming you.

    The hypocrite, will pretend that he agrees with you, but once you
    turn your back, he will go to your enemy and agrees with him.

    The liar will beat about the bush and creates hundreds of lies
    to prove that he is right…….and that is Sina.

  391. @Plain truth.

    Charlie Wilson's War!

  392. No, but yours will denialisnoproof!
    ;)

  393. @zitouni… since we are not speaking about alchohol or fornication… I have a question for you… Yes or no… when a later verse appears to be a contradiction of an earlier verse, is the later verse to be followed or is the earlier verse to be followed?

    For example… if the earlier verse says be tolerant… and the later verse says DON'T be tolerant… does the later verse cancel the earlier verse? According to your understanding of the qur'an… and if not, why not…

    Also, what do you think about the verses in the qur'an that clearly speak of the cancellation of earlier verses?

    J Stillwater

  394. @aminriadh… please see the movie "the invention of lying." It will probably make what we're trying to show you much more clear.

    J Stillwater

  395. @aminriadh… you keep calling this hate… which I cannot understand. Here's why…

    Ali Sina has made some claims about muhammad. Ali Sina says muhammad was a rapist for example… so… what is rape? Rape, is what we call it when one person, has intimate physical contact with another person against that person's will. Now… even if the second time they do it, the other person agrees… if at ANY time, one person forces these relations upon another it is rape. So… in the case of a captive in a war (whether the war was justified or not is another story), but… in the case of a captive… say a woman captive… who would really rather not be enslaved at the moment… if she, is taken into someone's tent on the same day her husband was killed… or while her husband is forced to watch, she's laid out on the rug… and the man uses her for his pleasure… that is rape… because she was captured… she's compliant because if she's not, she will be killed…

    So… this is not hate… muhammad raped people… that's a fact… he had sex with them against their will… there's no hate in that statement… it is either true or not… if it's not… prove it… Ali Sina already have proven that it is true… so… disprove just that one claim… can you? Let's see…

    If even just that claim about muhammad is true… then he is not a prophet of almighty god, because god is morally perfect, and would never allow imorality, which rape certainly is… a moral god would never condone such behavior…

    J Stillwater

  396. continued from above….

    show me one country where muslim domination has lead to peace… and the fact that you CANNOT, should make you stop and take a minute and think about things deeply and with objectivity… ask yourself… "why can't allah stop all this muslim against muslim killing, and why isn't islam peaceful?" Most deaths among muslims are caused by other muslims… and yet, muslims are always blaming the west… instead of seeing that it is the confused and self-serving cult ideology of a bully that is at the heart of the problem…

    Just one country, aminriadh… give me one country that is better off under islam…

    J Stillwater

  397. You forgot Ted Haggard

  398. @aminriadh… I never used the word "attack" when I said muslims have been invading other nations… I just said invading…

    I go on to explain civilization jihad… muslims have many ways of spreading islam… not just by violent jihad or "the greater jihad." They also spread islam through the "lesser" jihad of slow, takkiah laden infiltration of the host country… this is what we saw in iran… and what we see in egypt right now… it also happened in india… and is happening in belgium… and the netherlands… and france… and the uk… and all over the world…

    It wouldn't be so bad if we didn't have proof from the muslims themselves that they are unable and incapable of ruling themselves… they must kill and destroy, both each other and everything and everyone else… they are forever locked in neverending sectarian power struggles and filled with hate and conspiracy theories about western domination, and satan, and jinns, and angels, and demons… and allah… and ka'ba, and kafir and kufar… and on and on…

    Please, give me one example, right here and right now, that shows that a country is better off once the muslims gain control… show me one country… just one… this should be easy for you…

    continued below…

  399. Yes, that is right. Evil is a result of ignorance.
    But there is also something strange you said and that is:
    "When scientist worked hard God revealed them scientific truth that earth rotate around the sun, earth is not flat etc. etc. They did hard work to search the truth and by blessing of God they succeed."
    First: which god are you talking about? the Abrahamic god? but most
    of his surmises were wrong, and he never said that the earth rotates
    around the sun, he said some other funny things.
    Second: 99% of the scienctists are athiests, and they became
    athiests because they discovered that this "god", if ever existed
    was a deceiver, then he is not worthy to worship. Or this god
    never existed.

  400. Look, as we know there are many issue all around the world and the israel is certainly no saint.. the recent UN resolution for palistine is an example that the world wants justice for all.

    we should learn from the past and make new mistakes rather than live in the past and keep making the same mistakes

  401. "muhammad and his muslims for 1400 years have been invading from the arabian peninsula outward toward the west… and the muslims have spread their backward ideology into once-great civilizations such as India, Iraq, Iran, and others. It is muslims who have invaded from the start. It is muslims who are the aggressors from the start. "

    Which of these "great" civilization did Muslims attack and destroy . . . do give a mention.

    Which backward ideology?

    And what was so great about these mysterious civilisations . . . . ?

    - – -

    "What the "world" needs to do, before muslims utterly destroy the world, is to keep the pressure on islam, attacking it from both an intellectual and a military perspective until this murderous house of death is wiped from the face of the earth forever. "

    So why is it – that more killing in number is done by West rather than Muslims.

    WW1+2 and other come to mind . . . .

  402. "When you make a comment like this, it is always useful to actually explain what the "fallacy" is."

    Sure – of course it is. I agree.

    - – -

    "So, can you show us exactly what this "fallacy" is of which you speak? "

    Yes . . .

    False analogy.

    I think hasty generalisation is implied – often it is explicit in Sina's argument.

    One can make a case for misuse of emotions, faulty comparison.

    - – -

    In layman's terms. . .

    Sina attempts to show a comparison between use of secular music one side versus religious extremism on one.

    Where as one can hold this up to be false. . . . by showing Muslim Palestinian children involved with secular music and Jewish Israeli children under extremism.

    Which would go somewhere to infer the fallacy of the implied argument – without the use of informal/formal logical fallacies.

    I don't think in this case one has to point name of set fallacy. It can be easily inferrable. Or have I just committed a fallacy myself in saying that . . . . :~(
    - – -

  403. If Children are the future, here is a glimpse into the future.

    [youtube YR0fuX8w4XY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR0fuX8w4XY youtube]

  404. "The proof is in the quran and hadiths as our friend Ali Sina has provided hard proof. "

    No he hasn't – all he has provided is load of nonsense – mixed with fair few lies and fabrications.

    - – -

    The above BS is all you seems capable of producing.

    I have a name for it now.

    "Demscism"

  405. Oh dear . . . . one name you have heard – and one name you keep banging on about.

    This more alludes to the power TV/media than anything else.

  406. "A scholarly person is typically more balanced in his approach towards a subject and life in general."

    No one doubts Chomsky's ability and scholarship in the filed of Linguistics. His politics?. . .I doubt there will be many who would refer to him as "balanced"

    So what is this balance – you speak of? And to whom does it apply?

    Or is it – your personal list of like/dislike. And that is all?

  407. "But you are very right to say that it is up to the reader to decide which side has the stronger points. "

    Which is totally meaningless – because if more Muslims visit then side will be Muslims – and vice versa.

    It is slightly apparent on this site who outweighs whom.

    Especially when there are trolls like Julia and Denial about.

    - – - –

    Especially when the site author is UNABLE to protect his views . . . . that above all is measure of Muslim success here.

    - – - –

    " But aside from the Islam-apologists wouldn't there be a group of DOUBTING Muslims, who indeed wanted to hear BOTH sides of the arguments about Islam?"

    Which Demsci as per usual – clean forgets to mention – there might be ordinary non Muslims – who reviled by all the hate of Sina.

    Hence this is one reason why he hides himself – yet supports this hate . . . . as Demsci often has done so in the past.

    - – -

  408. Julia – Denial . . . 2 people you have warned and banned!

    Oh and your bad self on occasion!?

  409. @zitouni… is what you've suggested REALLY the "best" solution? Let's be realistic. You state: "The best solution of this if for the west to stay in their backward" and I assume you meant to type "back yard." Is so, where is the backyard of the west? Can you tell us? Where exactly is the "back yard" of the west?

    muhammad and his muslims for 1400 years have been invading from the arabian peninsula outward toward the west… and the muslims have spread their backward ideology into once-great civilizations such as India, Iraq, Iran, and others. It is muslims who have invaded from the start. It is muslims who are the aggressors from the start. What the "world" needs to do, before muslims utterly destroy the world, is to keep the pressure on islam, attacking it from both an intellectual and a military perspective until this murderous house of death is wiped from the face of the earth forever.

    So now, please… who is the west you speak of? Please define it here for us.

    J Stillwater

  410. @aminriadh… you state in your above comment: "Where was his logic? What is really funny – he has categorised this post as "Logical Thinking" – whilst committing a fallacy!"

    When you make a comment like this, it is always useful to actually explain what the "fallacy" is. If you don't, it makes you seem like you have no logical response, and are just trying to evade the issue.

    Think of it this way: "accusation + proof = good assumption," however, "accusation – proof = empty insult." In the world of logic and reasoning, "empty insult = 'I concede, I have absolutely no logical response to this.'"

    So, can you show us exactly what this "fallacy" is of which you speak?

    J Stillwater

  411. dear ali sina
    it is better to ban this copy paste parrot forever , only will make copy paste garbage , and other muslim retards will pat him , as we have seen him in ffi forum , when ever there is news in ffi on hindu/christian persecution then this idiot will copy paste against those religions ,
    do u think he will understand u r warning as habbit never dies

  412. Cool you want to teach Jesus to Jews !
    Here is more you will like
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA6vRC1xW_c

  413. We should ban islam because it uses human helplessness and fear .
    Will your mother become virgin in heaven and f@ck 72 studs in allah's eternal brothel

  414. No, Every thing comes from the divine . and every thing is divine.
    Which god asks to bend over in front of him for the sake of big boobed bbw in eternal brothel?

  415. Who is a true scholar who's preaching Islam? Among those that are popular on the net?
    Zakir Naik? No.
    Yusuf Estes? No.
    Hamza Tzortzis? God! Save yourself!!
    Shabir Ally? Better, but compulsively dishonest.
    Hamza Yusuf? This guy is pretty close to a scholar.
    Nouman Ali? Scholar? And this guy? Hell, no!

    You'll see the number of real scholars who preach Islam via electronic media are really very less. A scholarly person is typically more balanced in his approach towards a subject and life in general. It's very difficult for a true scholar to harbor fanatic or extremist views. Also a true scholar doesn't make claims on subjects he has insufficient knowledge on. Zakir, Yusuf, Hamza T are guilty of this. Shabeer Ally is knowledgeable on the Judeo-Christian and Abrahamic religions, but is visibly dishonest in his debates. Nouman is just a novice.
    Hamza Y. is a rare guy among these. He presents his knowledge honestly and doesn't draw on subjects beyond his grasp.

  416. " There are three people you should
    never argue or discuss an issue with: the idiot, the hypocrite
    and the liar"

    Words of wisdom.
    An idiot isn't smart enough to know he/she's an idiot.
    A hypocrites will also be hypocritical about her own position, i.e. she can be a hypocrite, but others can't!
    And a liar will also lie about him/her being a liar.

    But there is a problem.
    If you don't debate them,they'll continue belching what they want and unassuming people will fall prey.But you can't debate with them. It's a dilemma really unless you're apathetic towards the world.

  417. Exactly!

    If someone is plagiarizing from another site, he/she might as well provide the links instead of writing novels in the comments section. I pointed this out in a discussion long back. Good to see that was implemented.

  418. I think there is nothing like Evil, if someone thinks evil has a form like man/jinn/satan etc. Evil is result of ignorance. Ignorance can be removed through hard work/knowledge. Darkness can be removed through light. And God is the provider of light/knowledge. When scientist worked hard God revealed them scientific truth that earth rotate around the sun, earth is not flat etc. etc. They did hard work to search the truth and by blessing of God they succeed.

  419. "Now, what I'm saying is either true or not true… whatever my intentions or motivations are is not relevant… whether I am the atheist version of a christian…. is not relevant… these are side issues that have no bearing on the discussion… what is relevant is the truth, or falsehood of my argument… period… I argue, that based on the life of muhammad… which has been preserved in stories from his biographies and from the qur'an itself, translated by brilliant arabic scholars… based on these things… we have a picture of the man I describe… and that picture is disgusting… not because I am non-muslim, but because I am honest… "

    Nicely put!

  420. allah is busy in heaven brothel with virgins and non-stop sex is going on there so pimp allah cannot give time on earth for solving muslim problems.

  421. Could you please tell us why FFI has been closed for some time.

  422. So nameless, let us talk about current affairs. Here is one question for you : why are there violent protests against the new Islamic governments of Tunisia n Egypt, where Muslims are killed and injured in their own countries?

  423. We are here in this amazing time in the history of man to see all the facts and given the rare oportunity to build a better world and life.

    It is important for us all to know the truth so we are not chained as slaves to a lie that is 1400 years old.. look at the death and destruction.. surely that is karma that proves something is wrong..

    the choice is our.. to give glory to God or to just destroy ourselves

  424. I also have no clue why he deleted your comment…..but he left the replies for it
    which makes absolutely no sense.

  425. If God is the creator or the creative source then everything comes from God

    God also created google, the spagetti monster and Allah.. Allah is just Mohamad's imaginary friend.. without the poor soul's that go around beating, killing and blowing people up here would be no Allah..

    Once people wake up the the facts that Mohammad was a criminal that lied, stole and killed. The proof is in the quran and hadiths as our friend Ali Sina has provided hard proof.

  426. Are you sure that other gods of other theologies are good?
    Is the god of the bible ( the OT and even the NT) good?
    My father used to tell me: There are three people you should
    never argue or discuss an issue with: the idiot, the hypocrite
    and the liar.

  427. free speech is free for you to communicate..

    all you do is copy long extracts and fill the space with what?

    i would be interested in what you think.. not what you copy and paste…

    if you have a document you want people to read provide a link and the reasons why people should reaad the article.. .. this is my guess..

  428. three question to brother mr.ali sinna:

    1) what r the reason for deleting my last post?

    3) what r the reason for banning my three system id [based on ip address] from faithfreedom.org? i can't access site from my system from last 2 weeks.warning message: " If you feel you have reached this page in error, please contact the web site owner: "

    webmaster@faithfreedom.org

    3) what u'r stand for free speech?

    one advice too : don't ban/delete my comment/id here before the answering the three question:

    shabeer.H

  429. If only the haters of Islam are allowed on this site, then after awhile they will stop
    visiting it because it will become boring. Imagine this: they are all of the same idea,
    they come here and lend each other bad words about Islam, then what ?
    same words, same ideas repeated over and over.

    There are few intellectuals,from both opposite sides, Muslims and anti-Islam. Those
    only are making the site a bit worthy……the rest are tramps, who emerged from the ,
    gutters, ignorants, grouchy, and slow, who learned nothing other than swearing and
    and cursing, echoing each other, and repeating the words of Sina.

    Sina, if I were you, I will allow only the intelligent, educated people, whether muslims
    or anti-muslims and ban the idiots; they are only making your site looks cheap.

  430. I think that is a good idea. We can close the comments in this blog and send people to the forum of ffi to comment. That is how it was in the beginning.

  431. Why? I don\’t seer much abusers here. The discussion is heated and that is a good thing. That is not abuse.

  432. "Since God created MO and you say that MO is evil, then God is evil."

    That is called a Zakir Naik (ZK) argument! This argument can be taken further as follows- Since Allah is God, so Allah is evil :D

  433. I don\’t believe God created anyone, but this logic is false. If God creates people with free will then what people do cannot be blamed on God.

    Your logic however makes sence from Islamic point of view. According to Muhammad nothing happens without the will of Allah. Even kafirs and believers have no choice because it is Allah who guides someone and misleads others. Also Allah is the creator of harm and evil. So it make sense to say Allah is evil. But this logic cannot be applied to other gods because in other theologies, God is only the creator of Good.

  434. Banning abusers ???? then you need to close this site.

  435. Since God created MO and you say that MO is evil, then God is evil.

  436. Ali, Ali Sina does tolerate you and Aminriadh who are amongst his fiercest critics, I mean I can't imagine much fiercer opponents. So he does allow the opinions of both sides. He does not ban on contents, but only on the grounds of rules applied to all, pro- or anti-Islam.

    But you are very right to say that it is up to the reader to decide which side has the stronger points.

    But I was wondering just who these readers might be? Among them certainly are many Muslims. But aside from the Islam-apologists wouldn't there be a group of DOUBTING Muslims, who indeed wanted to hear BOTH sides of the arguments about Islam? And thus not ONLY THE PRO-ISLAMIC side? Which they are used to in their community, from birth?

    Now the Islam-apologists can quit if they feel they are not properly allowed to express themselves, but the DOUBTING Muslims can then still decide to come. And if the Islam-apologists somehow sense this, then is it not their (primary) motivation to counter this, as much as they can, in the Lion's den itself?

  437. "It was not his last and final revealtion to mankind he knew it does not matter if people lost it because he is going to send the final which will never be lost"

    Yet this last and final revelation happened in the 7th century. Now, the first time Allah intervened with prophets that wrote in a book, with the help of the alfabet, was perhaps in the 6th century BC. Allah supposedly then intervened with prophets/ writers, sent to the Jews.

    Later came another supposed intervention, in the first century AD, through Jesus.

    Between 6th century BC and 7th century AD there was a time-lapse of at most 1300 years. But since the 7th century there was an even longer timelapse; almost 1400 years, in wich Allah, supposedly again, did NOT intervene. At all.

    And arguably Allah's intervention, what with all the different interpretations of Islam among Muslims and Islam-apologists and counterjihadists going on, is now necessary as much as or more than it was in the 7th century.

    How long are Muslims planning to wait until either judgement day (that has been postponed for a very long time now) or perhaps new updates from Allah?!

    I wish that many Muslims would put Allah an ultimatum and if Allah does not comply that many of them finally decide Islam in all probability was simply not true.

  438. "Do you have any evidence that above two videos represent respective society ?"

    look i am not precious or blind to the barbaric behaviour of the state of Israel.. I am on record as having said that:
    1/ with all the moeny that Israle has spend on arms they could have purchased the land a hundred time over from the local people.
    2/ The best answer to this conflict is to embracxe the teachings of Jesus. To love their fellow brother sister in the eyes of God.. Violence will only create more violence and only Love will break the chains that are dragging everyone down into hell.

    Having said that.. If Israel were to put down their weapons tomorrow, they would be attacked and would cease to exist.. whereas the same will not happen to palistine..

    so are the two videos a fair representation? do not know.. but we do know that there are many videos of muslims that want to kill Jews.. and you know it.. ugly truth about your islam.. Islam also hates every other religion.. Hindus, Budhist, Christians, Sharmans, Pagans..

    face it is YOU THAT PRoJECTS

  439. "Nobody is saying only Arab can understand Islam . I do not know from where you got that ."

    Well, maybe you did not say that EXACTLY, but you did say:

    "Ali sina is not an expert on islam in fact he is Arabic ignorant ."

    Islam is a worldwide religion, meant for all mankind, isn't it? Yet in order to understand it's message completely, as it was meant, do you say it is absolutely impossible to do so for all those humans that do not speak Arabic, in 1400 years?

    So the people who do not speak Arabic are totally dependent for Islam-explanation on those who do?

    And in all that time these experts on Quran could not provide a translation together with explanation that would enable non-Arabic-speakers to become rock-solid Islam-experts if they so wished?

  440. let the child shit on the carpet.. it just proves how shitty and petty the child is..

    Reason will speak for itself.. Truth will shine.. poor shitty child can turn off the computer, but he is stuck with His shitty mind.. Other thinking muslims should be afraid because that is what happens when you fill your mind full of the shitty teachings of Mo

  441. tell me or show me something that is not from God? everything comes from the creator even your MO..

    what we earn as children of god will depend on how we treasure what we are given..

    Are you the child that is a joy and is a blessing to his parent OR are you the child that destroys all that is given to Him?

    the reward is ours to earn..

  442. It is important to clarify what Muslims mean with "Occupation". That Muslims finally dump the nonsens that Israel is occupying the land that is now called Israel. Because the inhabitants there are overwhelmingly Jewish Israeli's.

    But it is true, albeit limited, that Israel occupies the West Bank, in which Palestinians live. And one may ask what Palestinians are to do about it.

    But I say that Palestinians could and should have accepted the peace-plans offered by the Israeli's in 2000 and 2007, offering them almost all the Westbank, if we count the compensations, something the Germans certainly never offered.

    The Palestinians refused to end the occupation of the West Bank through a peace deal because of their stupid insistence that the land of Israel, inhabited mostly by Jews, was also occupied.

  443. Very good Krishna proved Google is god ! Ok which of pagan god will prove Facebook and Twitter god considering their networking benefits ?

  444. Hospitality and abuse ha ha ha. Low lives this is bitching about Islam, abusing about Islam and Muslims are here for that reason. Stop bitching about Islam you won't see any Muslim here !

    So respect Muslim and Islam which is a reason for bread for blogger and you lol

  445. Maybe there should be a link to the FFI forum and that's where discussions can be held like they used to, where moderators were there. In this situation Ali has to do this himself. FFI has been down for a few days though. Blog comments also cant handle it like a Forum can.

  446. Are you a donkey?
    I said above that I scorn her, and I posted that
    comment and video just because Sina admires her.

  447. There were never Jewish civilization in the history . Arabs only advance when they accepted Islam before Islam there were barbaric

  448. Those Jews migrated to Palestine because thats what Zionists wanted in order to fill in the land with Jews then they cried out ethnic cleansing , They even send terrorists to blow Jews to make them flee the country where they were living . I saw video of Moroccan Jews telling story how zionists deceived his parents and made them flee Morocco and when they got there they confiscated their passport . Find stupid white American and tell him stupid zionist lies . we live in age of internet information are easy to get now no more dominace of zionst on inforamtion . Mufti was with Hitler yes I understand that becasue he knew Jews were planing to establish state in his country , but the thing that I do not understand why Jew man by the name of Ishaq Shamir asked to joined Nazist but they turned dow his cowad ass LOL . Mufti was war criminal then why they spared his life

    From the horse mouth http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/ho

  449. When a Muslim is ashamed he will honor kill his daughter or sister and the same will go away. He will be an honorable man again.

  450. You already said that no kafir can be an expert in Islam. So only Muslims can be expert. The conclusion is therefor forgone. This is a circular reasoning

    do not put words in my mouth you are proven to be liar .

    there is no kafir around the world who can be called expert in Islam .

    if you do not know the difference between the two sentences then you should start taking basic English classes

  451. Well I tell you that I can understand Islam and Muhammad better than all the Muslims. You may disagree but then my challenge stands and is not met yet.

    Yeah I proved it countles time in deabes with you that you do not even understand basic verse in koran and you still believe that your chalange is not ey met . this shows that you delusional and arrogant person .

  452. @fool… actually… Israelite is by birth… jew is a religion… the israelites didn't become "jews" until the circumcision done to the israelites by moses. There are many non-israelite jews, just like there are many non-arab muslims…

    The "jews" are the people of the covenant.

    The "Israelites" are the descendents of Jacob (Israel)…

    The "Israelites" didn't become "Jews" until after they left Egypt under the leadership of moses and became a "peculiar people" at Mt. Sinai.

    J Stillwater

  453. And why did he send revelations that he was not going to protect? Didn't he know this will cause more trouble? Isn't that stupid of Allah to send a revelation and not protect it?

    It was not his last and final revealtion to mankind he knew it does not matter if people lost it because he is going to send the final which will never be lost

    Furthermore Matthew 5:18 says "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

    That sounds to me like a promise.

    Who told you that Muslims believe that Jesus is God . We do not even believe that Jesus said such thing let alone mighty Allah

    <