There is no hope for Islam.

That wasn't my question. Who is calling me a fool? Where is all the "we" "us" and "everybody" you constantly talk about?

But you did, I know that. How did you not insult Jesus SA?

They observe and report? What makes these two website credible? How can they observe are these people 1400+ years old? If you with to ignore everything in this entire post but one thing, please let it be this: What makes anti-Islamic websites credible sources on Islam?

If you cannot answer or avoid this question, then you cannot answer what makes them credible. And if these sources are not credible, and you base your entire argument on these sources, then you are not credible. And so your claims are not credible. Understand?

سلام

 

Response: Yet the simple fact that none of your posts ever prove anything but how perverted your own ideology is proves otherwise. The laugh is on you.

 

You mean 371, right? #372 is you telling Fatihah to read post 372 (huh?).

Intended to refute, but failed.

Why are you repeating yourself... Sigh... I already addressed this post in 379

Can you come up with something new?

سلام

 

Sura (8:12) - "I will cast TERROR into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads (behead )and strike off every fingertip of them"

Sura (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,"

The verses did not also mention anything about Muslims being attack, it is clear the verse is an instruction on how to deal with DISBELIEVERS it is not about self defence, unless and I believe that part of Muslims concept of self defence are those who refuse to convert thus it gives them the justification to strike back, none Muslims have no right to self defence to defend themselves against Muslims is consider offensive thus giving Muslims that right to self defence.

8:12 Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Again no mention that Muslims were attack first but more of an instruction and motivation on how to kill all unbelievers.

Verse 33:50 mentions nothing of women as war booty, thus your point is pointless, and proves nothing. The qur'an speaks of marriage to women, thus the verse refers to marriage. So reading it any other way is a result of one's perverted ideology, not islam.

O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives] and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet [and] if the Prophet wishes to marry her, [this is] only for you, excluding the [other] believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess, [but this is for you] in order that there will be upon you no discomfort. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.

Not war booty then what is it? please explain. Does it also mean that Mohammed can marry his close relatives? And have as many wives as he wishes? That is so far how I read the text and the reason Mohammed is given such reward because he is the messenger of Allah. It is beginning to sound like the great Pharaohs infallible statures?

That is hardly the right answer for I do not seek Allah's pleasure I seek proper answer to the contrasting characteristics of Gabriel-Mohammed in Quran 96:1 4 and Gabriel of Mary, Quran 3:45-48.

If it is Allah's wish to do what ever he pleases as you have pointed out then this mean it was his wish to send two different Gabriel, Gabriel the evil and Gabriel the good. Is this what you are trying to say?

On the contrary, there are indeed many peaceful verses in the Quran that are found on the first part and at the same time there are many violent verses that are found mostly in the second part especially in Sura. And Muslims like you can't seem to discern one from the other.

Sura 9:5 is just one of the many violent verses but this one stands out. As it so happens Muslims practice the rule of abrogation in order to settle any conflict of verses. The rule of abrogation is that anything that is reveal the latest which are basically the second half of the Quran such as the Sura over rides any early conflicting verses of the first part of the Quran.

The problem is most of the peaceful verses: "Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion," [Quran, 109:6], and, "Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve," [Quran, 18:29], and, "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is distinct from error," [Quran, 2:256]. Are written or reveal before the Sura, Sura 9:5 And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Clearly this verse is not about self defence anymore, this verse basically abrogates all the less than 130 peaceful verses reveal in its early years. The radical Muslims of long ago and up to this date adhere to this abrogation that is why they wave the text of these violent verses as justificdation and divine instruction to relentlessly and continue to wage war against all infidels and apostates.

The peaceful Muslims on the other hand wave the early text of the Quran that include this most famous one "Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion," [Quran, 109:6], and, "Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve," [Quran, 18:29], and, "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is distinct from error," [Quran, 2:256]. The problem is, because of lack of authority most Muslims tends to follow the Sura which is basically the last will and testament of Mohammed.

 

Response: As you have demonstrated yourself, none of the verses state that the muslims attacked first, or that the non-muslims attacked first. Thus stating that the verses mention either is wrong, as the words are not present. Yet the context of the verses clearly state that the verses refer to self-defense, as we clealrly see that verse 9:13 states that it was the non-muslims who attacked first and verse 8:61 clearly states that muslims are obligated not to fight those who incline to peace. So as demonstrated once again, islam promotes fighting in defense, thus it is a religion of peace.

As for 33:50, it has already been explained. Verse 33:50 mentions nothing of women as war booty, thus your point is pointless, and proves nothing. The qur'an speaks of marriage to women, thus the verse refers to marriage. So reading it any other way is a result of one's perverted ideology, not islam.

As for Gabriel, the answer has been given. Allah reveals a message as He pleases. If you do not like it, that is neither my nor Alah's concern. For it is not for Allah to serve you.

 

For a 53 year old man....you don't have much of a clue do you!

May I be so bold and point out.....two thousand years ago.....yes two thousand years ago.....things were a little different!
And the old testament.....that's the Koran!
Some of us have "grown up".....no need for the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)iness....your a big boy now!

But pray tell....today...the Talmud supporters consider you an animal! A goyem! To be used as they see fit!
They consider your child an object to be used male or female child at their whim!
Animals aren't covered by any jurisdiction or laws!
Why do you not rave up about that?

Mmmmmm.......me things you're a penny short of a shilling!

Regards
Highlander

 

This is not about raving it is about establishing some truth too bad you see it as raving I can understand that radicals use such tactics if they have no answers they get arrogantly mad.

The topic is about Islam once we have establish it properly we can move to Judaism for now I guess the truth is too much for you. You know you have the free will to ignore the truth and move on your own way?

 

This is what I mean by reverse definition, Muslims insist everything is done in self defence which also mean that none Muslims have no right to defend themselves against Muslims.

8:16 And whoever turns his back to them on such a day, unless swerving [as a strategy] for war or joining [another] company, has certainly returned with anger [upon him] from Allah, and his refuge is Hell - and wretched is the destination.

This verse 8:16 has nothing to do with verse 9:5 and 9:13. It is addressing a situation of its own.

9:5 And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

This verse mean, that any none believers who refuse to accept Islam or Islamic rule are to be kill in the name of self defence. In other words we have no right to defend ourselves plus this verse abrogates 2:256 no compulsion, 109:6 For you is your religion, and for me is my religion."

9:13 Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers.

This verse as you interpret it as another form of self defence is separate from 9:5, 9:5 is offensive warfare. This is what we see how Muslims ignore historical facts that Muslims from 625 to 750 were on the offensive not defensive.

Marriage to captives, captives from where? From warfare? Marriage who to who, daughters of uncles, aunts etc. what is your understanding of that?

In other words there were two Gabriel, Gabriel of Mohammed the unenlightened one and Gabriel of Mary the enlighten one.

If only Muslims will do some serious textual research they will discover that indeed there is no hope for Islam.

Muslim in order to resolve the many conflicting verses especially between the peaceful and violent verses resorted to the abrogation rule, that all verses that are written later are to take precedent over the early ones.

The problem is, most of the peaceful verses were written earlier than the violent ones. Sura the last part of the Quran consist many violent verses that radical Muslims of the past and present use as their guiding principle base on the abrogation rule. While the moderate Muslims try to concentrate on the earlier verse but with little success because of the rule of abrogation.

 

Response: To the contrary, the problem is that your desperate attemps to make the qur'an appear to preach offensive war is utterly weak. For in all the verses you quoted, not one says "offense" or any word synonymous to it. Words can not mean something that it doesn't say. Debunked as usual. Yet we can clealry see that verse 9:13 clearly states that the non-muslims attacked.......first, and that muslims are obligated not to fight those who incline to peace. Thus the context clearly proves, self-defense.

As for there being two Gabriels, let's quote the verse where it says that there is two Gabriels. Exactly. It's not mentioned either. So the problem is clear. It's that there is no problem in islam. It is the rather desperate and weak attempts by non-muslims to make it appear so in an effort to draw more appeal to their ideology.

 

It is more of lack of textual research and understanding by Muslims they tend to stubbornly stick to traditional contextual reading when there is clear conflict and questionable verses and they reasons is it that it is what it is a divine revelation that should not be question because they have been indoctrinated that the Quran is infallible they will however accept Christian acknowledgement of the presence of peaceful verses in the Quran such as Quran 2:256 no compulsion, 109:6 For you is your religion, and for me is my religion." Verses that I have acknowledge but they will not accept any pointing out of contradictory verses such as:
Quran 3:45-48 “When the angels said: ‘O Mary! Indeed God gives you glad tidings of a word (His saying, ‘Be’) from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and in the Hereafter, and of those nearest to God. He shall speak to people while still in the cradle, and in manhood, and he shall be from the righteous.’ She said, ‘My Lord, how can I have a son when no man has touched me?’ He said, ‘Even so, God creates what He pleases. When He decrees, He merely says to it, ‘Be,’

The differences between Gabriel of Mary and Gabriel of Mohammed are very evident by these verses no misinterpretation by the reader but read as it is written in the Quran and yet the reader is not allowed to ask why the difference and is ridicule for asking. Instead of admitting that there exist discrepancies and do some research as to why that is so they chose not to instead blame the reader be it a Muslim or none Muslim reader as an appeal to discredit or draw Muslims away from Islam. Such hostile reaction only add more negativeness to Islam and Muslims. That is why Muslim apologetics such as Dr. Zuhdi Jasser are not welcome to speak in Muslim lands and tends to attract few Muslim audiences while Muslim apolegetics such as Zakir Naik, Shabir Ally tends to attract thousands of Muslims.

Quran 96:1 4
The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, "I do not know how to read. The Prophet added, "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, 'I do not know how to read.' Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read but again I replied, 'I do not know how to read (or what shall I read)?' Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said, 'Read in the name of your Lord.

Yes verse 9:13 is about self defence but not verse 9:5 the failure of Muslims to distinguish which is which is what is what is making giving Islam and Muslims a bad rep, I can respect your explanation but I can not accept it because it contradicts practical reasons.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwsIwZN6Af4"]FUNNIEST Muslim Christian Debate Ever!!!.flv - YouTube[/ame]

​

 

Response: Now after being exposed of your deluded ogic, we still see that you claim that verse 9:5 of the Qur'an does not refer self-defense. Yet if asked to quote from the verse itself the words "muslims are to start a fight" or anything synonymous to it, we see you utterly fail again and again to do so. Thus you own words once again demonstrate that the verse does not refer to offense war, therefore demonstrating that the concept of violence derives from your own perverted ideology, not islam.

Yet we see clearly that verse 9:13 states that the non-muslims attacked first. Yet in verse 9:5, it does not state who attacked first. Therefore, verse 9:5 clearly proves self-defense, proven by the very context of the verse in 9:13, which states that the non-muslims attacked first. Debunked as usual.

Then you make the complaint that you are being ridiculed because you were given the actual answer, and not the wrong answer concerning Gabriel. Yet Allah does what He pleases, and reveals revelation as He pleases. So the only one who is doing any ridiculing is you, for being upset because God does not serve as you please. That is a reflection of your absurd ideology, not islam.

 

The only thing that was exposed is your one sided view and total failure to distinguish the conflict in the Quran. I have posted the entire verse the only perverted context is from the Quran itself and Muslims such as you that is why there are more radicals than there are peaceful Muslims 9:5

When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.


When the sacred months are over = no more wars or Muslim holy days are over, Muslims are to proceed to make arrest, seek out and BESIEGE, the word besiege = take offensive actions.

Any scholars even Muslim scholars agree that this is an offensive violent verse nothing to do with self defence. That is why Muslim scholars have adapted the rule of abrogation the problem is there is no new verses to abrogate this verse.

You can insist that verse 9:5 is self defence unfortunately the only people that will agree with you are the radicals.

That is why base on all the information that are now available I agree 100% There is no hope for Islam, especially now that I have got your view it clearly support the title of this post.

Unlike Christianity, we have the Old Testament that has many violent verses that are identical to Islam but we have the New Testament that are full of true tolerance, peace that abrogated the Old Testament violent verses and revelation that the Kingdom of Allah is not of this world and the way to that kingdom is by following Jesus Christ for He is the Light, the Way and the Truth.

Islam is the other way around the peaceful Islam came first only to be abrogated by the second Islam of violence and hate.

 

Response: Once again, the deluded non-muslim tries another desperate attempt to show unjust violence in the Qur'an, only to have himself utterly debunked and exposed. You state that the phrase, "when the sacred months have passed" means, "offensive war". O.K. And which word means offensive word from the statement? Exactly. Not one. Thus you've done nothing but expose the fact that you fail to comprehend simple basic english. The phrases clearly do no mean the same, because the words are not synonymous. This is simple basic english. Stating that two phrases mean the same when the words are not synonymous is like saying that "The Dog is fast" means "The Dog is fat". Surely, any reasonable person can see the delusion in such logic. Debunked as usual.

Verse 9:5 clearly means self defense, proven by verse 9:13 which states that the non-muslims atacked first. Furthermore, the verse directly before it also states that war is not permitted on disbelievers who have entered into a treaty and have not aided anyone against the muslims. Thus the context clearly shows, self-defense. Debunked, as usual.

So since it is clear that islam is proven as a religion of peace, then that means that the violence in which you advocate clearly comes from your own perverted ideology, not islam.

Lastly, your own bible states "Think not that I came to send peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Mathew 10:34) Thus we see from the alleged words of Jesus in your own bible that it is your scripture and religion that is clearly against peace, but in favor of ruthless nad unjust violence.

 

No, I don't think the bible is the main source of Christianity. The bible was written by men, not by God. As for the words of Jesus, they have been notated in quite a number of different places, books, manuscripts, etc. They are good words and everyone would be well off to study them and remember them. But we're getting off the topic > Islam.

I have read the Koran long ago, and recently too. One doesn't even need to read the Koran to know of its many faults. The numerous books written about it, and websites are quite accurate in their assessments. This isn't rocket science.

I do recall that the Arabic versions of the Koran were slightly different than the English versions, but this was primarily to make the Koran seem milder to Western (English-speaking) readers. This still is the case as in the Ali version (English translation) which adds the words (lightly) to the words "beat them" in sura 4:34. The Arabic version distributed in the Middle East does not contain the word "lightly", nor does it make any difference that the Ali translation version does have it. Either way, lightly or harshly, beating someone (anyone) is a crime (battery) throughout the United States, and an immoral act everywhere.

 

UTTER NONSENSE. In no way, does the verse of the sword (9:5) even slightly imply self-defense. And, as I've repeatedly corrected you, sura 9:123 tells Muslims to make war (ie. kill) non-Muslims who simply live near you, or dwell around you, depending on the translation. Clearly, there is no self-defense even implied, and the fact that you continue to push this lie, is a continuance of your demonstration of your total absence of credibility. Par for the course for an Islamist.

 

FALSE ! I asked you to please cite the passages in the Christian books that are very violent, not books like Deuteronomy that was written 700 years before Christ was born. Exodus also is Old Testament, as is Leviticus, the third book of the Hebrew Bible, and the third of five books of the Torah. That is the Jewish bible, not the Christian. Everything you've written here is from long before the time of Christ, and not "Christian". So I assume (like the others) you could not find the violence you spoke of in the Christian bible - the New Testament - or you wouldn't have resorted to post all this non-Christian stuff.

 

I didn't say they don't also have political/nationalistic reasons as you describe, but that doesn't mean they have a basis for their hatred and jihadism from the Koran. Here's one example of a counterterrorism official who has stated this (as has Osama bin Laden and many terrorists) :

"According to the U.S. Army Colonel Dale C. Eikmeier, “ideology”, rather than any individual or group, is the "center of gravity" of al-Qaeda and related groups, and the ideology is a "collection of violent Islamic thought called Qutbism."[23] He summarizes the tenets of Qutbism as being:
A belief that Muslims have deviated from true Islam and must return to “pure Islam” as originally practiced during the time of the Prophet.
The path to “pure Islam” is only through a literal and strict interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith, along with implementation of the Prophet’s commands.
Muslims should interpret the original sources individually without being bound to follow the interpretations of Islamic scholars.
That any interpretation of the Quran from a historical, contextual perspective is a corruption, and that the majority of Islamic history and the classical jurisprudential tradition is mere sophistry.[23]
The historic rivalry between Hindus and Muslims in the Indian subcontinent has also often been the primary motive behind some of the most deadly terrorist attacks in India. According to a U.S. State Department report, India topped the list of countries worst affected by Islamic terrorism.
In addition, Islamist militants, scholars, and leaders opposed Western society for what they see as immoral secularism. Islamists have claimed that such unrestricted free speech has led to the proliferation of pornography, immorality, secularism, homosexuality, feminism, and many other ideas that Islamists often oppose. Although bin Laden almost always emphasized the alleged oppression of Muslims by America and Jews when talking about them in his messages, in his "Letter to America" he answered the question, "What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?," with
We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest (...) You separate religion from your policies, (...) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions (...) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants (...) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality (...) You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. (...) You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.[24]" (Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

Also, the 2006 Pentagon study entitled Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers, concluded that most Muslim suicide bombers are in fact students of the Koran, who are motivated by its violent commands.

http://www.google.com/#q=Pentagon-M...imvns&ei=36v_TubjM8qWtwfZoICYDw&start=0&sa=N&

http://gnosis474.angelfire.com/blackeyed.html

 

Response: More of the same delusion. Once again, the deluded non-muslim states that verse 9:5 means to start a war "first" because the verse uses the word "make". Sheer idiocy, as one can clearly see that the word "make" and "first" are not synonyous. Debunked as usual. The verse refers to self-defense, as proven by the context. For verse 13 says that hthe non-muslims attacked first, while verse 9:4 and 8:61 say that muslims are not to fight those who incline to peace.

Thus the qur'an is proven to be a religion of peace, while the need to promote violence clearly stems from your own perverted ideology.

 

HA HA. Sura 9:123 says that Muslims should make war on those infidels who dwell around them. So YES, it IS saying the Muslims should strike FIRST. It is saying they should simply attack people who dwell around them who are infidels. Clearly, that is an aggressive, inexcusable, offensive, FIRST attack, and nothing else. You can try to muddy this all up by citing OTHER unconnected versed that might talk about self-defense, but that doesn't excuse 8:12, 9:5, or 9:123, all talking about Muslims attacking infidels FIRST, when no one was attacking those Muslims.

It really is ludicrous for us to even debate this, since 1400 years of Muslim aggression and offensive attacking of non-Muslim societies, has killed 270 million non-Muslims around the world. Anyone who doesn't know that for 1400 years, it is the Muslim imperialist jihadists who are the aggressors, the attackers, the BAD GUYS, is as dumb as a box of rocks.

 

FALSE ! LIES ! LIES ! LIES !

When an Islamist talks, all you get is lies (and in this case they're not even very good ones - LOL)

 

What makes anti-Islamic websites credible sources on Islam? Very simple. They tell the TRUTH.

 

People reading your posts are not even laughing at you any more. They regard you as just another irrelevant taqiyya, lying Islamist. As relevant as a rock in the bottom of a pond.

 

No need to. You guys are just lying Islamists (and not even very good at it), and your posts are to be ignored, which I'm sure is what intelligent people are doing. I'm just slapping you around a little bit because I kind of enjoy it.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/images/protest.jpg

 

Be quiet silly boy. Muslims have been attacking first for 1400 years, and you know it.