Jews and Muslims: A Glimpse into the Future

world4kings says:

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

world4kings says:

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

world4kings says:

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

world4kings says:

wafa sultan is terrible like you

world4kings says:

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 

Simple Logic says:

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. 

Simple Logic says:

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. 

Justajoke says:

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."

whysomuchhate says:

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.

whysomuchhate says:

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?

whysomuchhate says:

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.

whysomuchhate says:

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.

Str8wire says:

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.

Prince says:

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

ycleong says:

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.

zitouni says:

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

zitouni says:

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

admin says:

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?

Rosh says:

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

aminthemystic says:

"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.

– – –

aminthemystic says:

"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.

aminthemystic says:

"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!

aminthemystic says:

"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"

Demsci says:

"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.

aminthemystic says:

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.

aminthemystic says:

"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.

Rosh says:

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?

Rosh says:

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

Babs says:

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

Izzy says:

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.

Babs says:

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

Babs says:

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?

Babs says:

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

Babs says:

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?

Izzy says:

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.

Snigger says:

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.

Babs says:

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).

Izzy says:

“..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.

᠌᠌᠌᠌᠌ says:

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

aminthemystic says:

"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.

J_Stillwater says:

@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

Demsci says:

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.

Temo Ozlum says:

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.

aminthemystic says:

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

Who is WE.

Talk about yourself. . . .

– – –

I have ALWAYS defeated you.

Demsci says:

"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?

Demsci says:

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.

Demsci says:

"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!

aminriadh says:

"Tough one to answer. "

Because I am right.

Demsci says:

"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?

Demsci says:

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

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

aminriadh says:

"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.

aminriadh says:

"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!

= = =

aminriadh says:

"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.

Demsci says:

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.

aminriadh says:

"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?

aminriadh says:

"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.

Demsci says:

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.

Demsci says:

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

aminriadh says:

"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!

aminriadh says:

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!

aminriadh says:

"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.

Peaceful_Islam says:

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

aminriadh says:

"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.

Demsci says:

"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?

Demsci says:

"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.

searchfourtruth says:

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.

Demsci says:

"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.

Demsci says:

"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.

searchfourtruth says:

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!

Demsci says:

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

Demsci says:

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.

Demsci says:

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.

Demsci says:

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.

aminriadh says:

"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.

searchfourtruth says:

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!

searchfourtruth says:

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!

aminriadh says:

"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!

– – –

searchfourtruth says:

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?

aminriadh says:

"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!

searchfourtruth says:

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!

aminriadh says:

" 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://…

search4truth says:

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

search4truth says:

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.

aminriadh says:

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.

search4truth says:

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)

search4truth says:

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

aminriadh says:

" 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/20… http://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.

aminriadh says:

"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.

– – –

Ali says:

@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?

Peaceful_Islam says:

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.

search4truth says:

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!

Peaceful_Islam says:

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.

Uzumaki says:

"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.

Demsci says:

"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.

search4truth says:

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.

search4truth says:

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:

search4truth says:

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!

Louis Farrakhan says:

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

Louis Farrakhan says:

ANY ANIMAL IS BETTER THAN A MOHAMMEDAN, EXCEPT A PIG!

BOTH HAVE IDENTICAL CHARACTERISTICS!

search4truth says:

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!

aminriadh says:

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 . . .

aminriadh says:

"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.

– – –

aminriadh says:

"
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.

Peaceful_Islam says:

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…

search4truth says:

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!

search4truth says:

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).

Joe says:

yep avoid the truth is what rainbow is really saying..

Raindow is lucky if he can relate to his pets let alone other people

Joe says:

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?

Demsci says:

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.

Sakat says:

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.

search4truth says:

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!

Demsci says:

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.

Maria_Islamic says:

@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.

DIVINE WIND says:

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.

Peaceful_Islam says:

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]

Loki says:

"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.

Demsci says:

Well, find it yourself, it was the one that YOU recommended to J. Stillwater. And anyway, it works when I push it.

Plain truth says:

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 !.

zitouni says:

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

J_Stillwater says:

@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

J_Stillwater says:

@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

Loki says:

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.

Sanatan Dharma says:

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.

J_Stillwater says:

@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

Demsci says:

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?

Clever man says:

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.

Demsci says:

"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.

denialisnoproof says:

Even hitler was highly respected in nazi germany .

denialisnoproof says:

hey amin . give me a single verse from quran which states that earth rotates around it's own axis or revolves around sun.

aminriadh says:

Sure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_N%C3%B6ldeke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schacht
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_William_Lane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Marie_Schimmel

zitouni says:

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

aminriadh says:

" "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.

Demsci says:

"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?

aminriadh says:

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.

aminriadh says:

"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?

aminriadh says:

"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.

zitouni says:

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

zitouni says:

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

aminriadh says:

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.

zitouni says:

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.

zitouni says:

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

Loki says:

"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!!

Demsci says:

"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!!!

Demsci says:

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.

Demsci says:

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.

J_Stillwater says:

@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

J_Stillwater says:

@zitouni… do you happen to have that second reference you were commenting about… I'd like to have a look at it…

J Stillwater

J_Stillwater says:

@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

J_Stillwater says:

@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

J_Stillwater says:

@aminriadh… please give us the translation you are citing…

J Stillwater

Demsci says:

"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.

J_Stillwater says:

@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

Demsci says:

" "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.

zitouni says:

@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

Sol Landet says:

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.

aminriadh says:

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.

zitouni says:

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

aminriadh says:

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!

Maria_Islamic says:

@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!

Ali says:

@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?

aminriadh says:

"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.

Plain truth says:

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.

aminriadh says:

No it wouldn't. Claims like this tend not to make much sense.

zitouni says:

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 .

ZITOUNI says:

correction

can you see that it was NOT an error when you thought that Jews lived in Mecca

zitouni says:

@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

aminriadh says:

"@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.

J_Stillwater says:

@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

aminriadh says:

"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.

aminriadh says:

"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.

aminriadh says:

"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.

zitouni says:

Thank you Damsci you save me time

aminriadh says:

Wow! what a truly enlightening post!

aminriadh says:

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.

Babs says:

Not so.

You are putting your own opinions onto history rather than accepting what can be proven as fact.

That is sick and immature.

Babs says:

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….

Izzy says:

Do you post this because you don't understand Joe's post? Would you like him to put it in simple English?

Loki says:

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.

Loki says:

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.

Loki says:

"Copy pasting is not free speech. It is spam"

Right on the money.
It is plagiarism as well, if the source is not mentioned.

J_Stillwater says:

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

fakeman says:

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

Rainbow says:

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.

Demsci says:

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.

Loki says:

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…

Demsci says:

"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.

J_Stillwater says:

@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

Rainbow says:

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.

᠌᠌᠌᠌᠌ says:

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 !

J_Stillwater says:

@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

J_Stillwater says:

@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

Ali says:

@Plain truth.

Charlie Wilson's War!

J_Stillwater says:

@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

J_Stillwater says:

@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

Rainbow says:

You forgot Ted Haggard

Rainbow says:

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.

aminriadh says:

"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 . . . .

᠌᠌᠌᠌᠌ says:

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

[youtube YR0fuX8w4XY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YR0fuX8w4XY youtube]

aminriadh says:

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.

aminriadh says:

"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.

– – –

J_Stillwater says:

@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

fakeman says:

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

denialisnoproof says:

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

Loki says:

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.

Loki says:

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.

Loki says:

"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!

Plain truth says:

Could you please tell us why FFI has been closed for some time.

Joe says:

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

Joe says:

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.

Joe says:

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..

Rainbow says:

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.

Rainbow says:

Since God created MO and you say that MO is evil, then God is evil.

Demsci says:

"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.

Demsci says:

"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?

Joe says:

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..

᠌᠌᠌᠌᠌ says:

Very good Krishna proved Google is god ! Ok which of pagan god will prove Facebook and Twitter god considering their networking benefits ?

John says:

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.

zitouni says:

There were never Jewish civilization in the history . Arabs only advance when they accepted Islam before Islam there were barbaric

zitouni says:

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 .

zitouni says:

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

Babs says:

I believe that Ali is right to ban shabeer who plagiarises shamelessly and is proud of it.

Shabeer's cut and pasted "opinions" do not reflect those of shabeer either, Ali. The real shabeer can barely string a setence together, but shabeer's puppet master thinks he can fool people here, as well as spread the Muslim da'wa of Jew-hatred without let or hindrance.

I am very glad that Ali Sina has warned him. Do try to concentrate.

Babs says:

Do you usually have problems with powerful assertive women, Rainbow?

You seem very obsessed with Dr Sultan.

Smile says:

Read the Old Testament, many of the findings in which are borne out by archaeological findings. There was a Jewish civilisation when your people were living in caves and communicating by grunting.

Arabs could advance if they would only once and for all kick out Islam and insh'allahfrom their lives! It is a very unattractive personality trait always to blame others for your own blatant and persistent failures.

Even a little child could see that. Why can't you?

Babs says:

Do you ever feel shame, zitouni?

I ask merely because you use the word.

When are you ashamed and what do you do when you are ashamed?

Babs says:

OK, zitouni

Why not tell us what happened to those Jews both before the state of Israel existed and after? In Iraq, for example the number of Jews has shrunk to single figures because of Muslim Jew-hatred. There was mass ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab countries before and after Israel came into being:

From a renowned source http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.co.uk/

"In just 50 years, almost a million Jews, whose communities stretch back up to 3,000 years, have been 'ethnically cleansed' from 10 Arab countries. These refugees outnumber the Palestinian refugees two to one, but their narrative has all but been ignored. Unlike Palestinian refugees, they fled not war, but systematic persecution. Seen in this light, Israel, where some 50 percent of the Jewish population descend from these refugees and are now full citizens, is the legitimate expression of the self-determination of an oppressed indigenous, Middle Eastern people.

"(Iran: once an ally of Israel, the Islamic Republic of Iran is now an implacable enemy and numbers of Iranian Jews have fallen drastically from 80,000 to 20,000 since the 1979 Islamic revolution. Their plight – and that of all other communities threatened by Islamism – does therefore fall within the scope of this blog.) "

And your last point – it is not a secret for intelligent people that the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al Hussaini, was a devotee of Hitler and that Hitler admired the Muslims' barbarbic and hate-filled attitude to the Jews. The Mufti and Hitler entered into a pact in which al Hussaini promised to make the whole of the Middle East judenrein ("Jew-free") if Hitler won the war. When Hitler lost, the Mufti fled because he was wanted as a war criminal.

Would you have any objection if I used your posts here as an example of a certain sort of Muslim thinking in respect of Israel and Jews for a paper I am writing?

Rosh says:

Do you know what cutting off one's nose to spite one's face means?

Do yourself a favour and look it up.

The Palestinians and Muslims are experts at it.

denialisnoproof says:

Why not google gives knowledge . It has helped so many people come out of religious dogma .
So why can't the google be god.
Remember what krshna said,
nahi jnanena sadrushan pavitra miha vidyathe.
meaning knowledge is the ultimate purifier.
Any thing that takes you away from darkness is god.

᠌᠌᠌᠌᠌ says:

Its good you didn't ask Why did you born to mother ? Why didn't you come from cuckoo's nest !

Fair enough you can respire here on blog there are more like you lol

᠌᠌᠌᠌᠌ says:

You don't understand what is a projection. Do you have any evidence that above two videos represent respective society ? Tell me evidence there is no denial about anything !

Ok if you are hate monger as usual and think with one eye closed , tell me something about this video. And also tell who represent Jews ( This is called projection dumbhead )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_fwOsrpn0o

zitouni says:

Every sane person knows that Muslims don’t hate the Jews because of Israel. They hate Israel because of the Jews.

how do you explain the exisitence of 1 M Jews in Arab world before the establishemnet of ilegal stae of Israel . Ask Nazist and Spanish about the meaning of hating Jews they will tell you about holocuast and inquisition and find me one similar to them in the Arab world

zitouni says:

Find exoert on Islam if you want to impress me not some nobody guy who has no credentiels on Islam . This guy is on youtube he is ignorant about koran .There is no proof that he was former Muslim . He said Sura Tawba , fight those ……. . This verse was revealed to fight Byzantinians because they joined Arab christians in war and killed prophet cousin , former adopted son and many more Muslims so God order Muslims to fight them . this ignorant ignore historical conext

zitouni says:

And why he failed to protect his previous revelations?

God did not promised to protect them as he did for the koran where it says that we have revealed dikr ( koran ) and we will protected it so you have no point here unless you can show me where God say that about other revealation

zitouni says:

So, we see here, zitouni, muslims are "limited" to the "times" and "places" they are allowed to wage war… muslims have clear guidelines or "limits" they must observe… there are "limits" to the lengths to which muslims are to go… but they are all related to "sacred" places and "sacred" times when it is prohibited to wage war.

You are interpreting verses based on word limits which does not exist in my translation noo in the original koran so your interpretation failed LOL . In verse 2 190 it says wala taa tadu aatada in Arabic means to harm somebody who did not do anything to you a innocent man or people or country and so on in English will be do not commit agression.

2 191 And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

The following verse talk about people who are the one who started the war against Muslims because it says they have expelled you,
then verse continue and if the fighting get to sacrad mosque then do not fight them unless they attack you

zitouni says:

What you left out, in addition to other things, is you left out: "and do not transgress the limits…" This "limits" is an important word in this context.

There is no word limits in original koran

zitouni says:

Let me put it another way… imagine that in mekkah, muhammad was given a revelation from allah which said that it is best to wear a gold ring on the little finger of his left hand, and he said that this was what allah commanded all his followers to do… Then, when he arrived in madina, he gets a new and "better" revelation that says, instead of wearing the ring on your little finger of your left hand, you are now to throw away the ring from your left hand, and instead, you are now to wear brass-knuckles on your right hand, so you can smash the skulls of your enemies.

Now, let's say one of his followers doesn't heed this command… either back then in his time… or now… in our time… let's say someone says, "I like wearing a ring on the little finger of my left hand, and I don't like wearing brass knuckles because they are bulky and they hurt my right hand… so I chose not to follow the teaching nor example of muhammad on this one issue…" You have now become apostate… you have now become an unbeliever, because you have chosen NOT to follow the sunna of your prophet… and by extension, you have chosen to disregard the clear commandments of allah… and you know the punishment for this is death.

LOL ladies and gentelmen this is world renown koranic expert speaking listen to him LOL. Let me teach you ignorant . Disobeying the prophet or God command does not make you necessary Kafirs . People are drinking alcohol , comitting fornication and yet they are not considered to be kafirs sinner yes , but not kafirs nor any disobey Gods or prophet command merit death sentence.

Ali says:

The pot calling the kettle black, is it Ali Sina.

How many articles have you recycled, rejigged, rehashed and then claimed as some unique works of literary art? Close to about 110% I'd say.

As a matter of fact, you even claimed that the psycho analysis you have completed on Mohammed which is revealed in your BOOK, has never been accomplished before and you are the only person to have ever done it.

As far as banning is concerned, you have every right and power to do so as this is a website that you own and operate. This is your prerogative. But then do not claim to be a website dedicated to balanced, non-partisan discussion of important societal issues relating to Islam.

You cannot try to provide reasoned, critical, non-partisan analysis of both sides of the issue and then start banning people because you do not like the contents of their speech or the techniques they use.

The opinions on this website do not necessarily reflect the opinions of you Ali Sina. The arguments of both sides are simply presented regardless of strength or weakness. It is up to the reader to decide which side (if any) has the stronger points. If after giving a thorough analysis to both sides of an issue, one can't decide which is better, they are not alone.

If you want to start banning pro Islamics, then by all means do so and keep this website open only to the Islamophobes such as yourself and your fans. Put up a Disclaimer on your home page. No Muslims allowed.

John says:

These copy pastes should be deleted, he's wrecking the discussion.

Joe says:

very good point

Joe says:

lack of evidence? or just plain denial?

#4 .. how many children have been used as suicide bombers? maybe you believe inf you stick your head in sand that nobody can see you!

#5 .. simple pyscholoy.. when you practice taquiya and your know other arroubd your practice the same lies and you can never be sure if people are lying to you or not.. tell me how you can have peace of mind?

#6 when was the last time you and your friends went for a holiday to enjoy life? tell me what are the chances of those children ever even dreaming of going on a holiday and enjoying life? they are dreaming of killing jews..

ali sina is fool says:

Ali sina. you can become muslim and can change your status but you can't become jew. jew is by birth. it is the main difference but you have to spread hate so you will never accept.

zitouni says:

@zitouni… and with regard to women… and sex slavery… here are some fatwa from the islamic scholar who runs the site: http://www.islam-qa.com (shaykh muhammad s al-munajjid)… You asked for authorities… here's what he says about the treatment of women and slaves… and PLEASE keep in mind… these rulings DIRECTLY from shariah law, the qur'an and are for OUR time… not muhammad's

NOTE: women are going to want to read these, too… especially moderate muslim women. http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/10382/slave http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/13202/slave http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/13737/slave http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/20802/slave

where are you going to find slave girl tody . in those day they got them from wars and today things has changed there is UN , human right organozation which take care of war victims armies do not have to do that any more . So scholars are saying since there is exchange of prisoners you are no longer have the righ to engage in that practise even is not forbiden by koran because koran says slave girls and today we do not call women war victims slaves

Question says:

Why not Allah revealed Quran directly to Mohammed. Why angle came in the middle? Whom from angle received Quran? Was angle come with a book to teach Mohammed?Had he not memorized entire Quran?

zitouni says:

When you make the statement that "jews lived for 1400 years with muslims in peace," it makes you look silly… here's why: Islam has only been around for 1400 years… so… unless the muslims have NEVER mistreated the jews EVER in all that time, your statement would be impossilble…

there was wars even among Muslim themselves . what i am saying there was never genocide of Jews in any Muslim country like in Europe such as Spanish inquisition and holocaust

since you are saying in essence that the muslims have, for the entire time of the existence of islam, been at peace with the jews… which you know to be a false statement…

read above

Muhammad's favorite target to raid were jews..

You are talking nonsense

. his favorite slave girls to have forced sex with were jews, in fact… he married one (how kind of him)… and put another one up in her own appartment in medina (so he could still make her have sex with him and his wife wouldn't find out)… (where in the world did he get those slave girls? Did they just peacefully jump into some chains and say: "hey muha-daddy… I'm yours!"?) Peace out!!!