2006 September 13 Wednesday
Pope Benedict Criticises Muslim Holy War

The Pope takes a dim view of the Muslim embrace of holy war.

In his speech at Regensburg University, the German-born pontiff explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity and the relationship between violence and faith.

Stressing that they were not his own words, he quoted Emperor Manual II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul.

The emperors words were, he said: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".

Islam is not compatible with Western democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.

Muslims are angered by the Pope's remarks.

VATICAN CITY – Pope Benedict XVI did not intend to offend Muslims with remarks about holy war, the Vatican said Thursday, scrambling to defend the pontiff as anger built in the Islamic world over his comments during a trip to Germany.

“It certainly wasn't the intention of the pope to carry out a deep examination of jihad (holy war) and on Muslim thought on it, much less to offend the sensibility of Muslim believers,” said Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi.

No doubt some Muslims want to wage holy war against the Catholic Church in response to the Popes' comments. Then again, some Muslims want to wage hoy war against the Catholic Church for promoting Christianity instead of Islam.

Benedict's unwillingness to call Islam a religion of peace puts Pontiff Benedict ahead of George W. Bush in public honesty.

Pope Benedict XVI yesterday refused to declare Islam "a religion of peace."

Asked by reporters whether Islam could be considered a religion of peace shortly before entering a meeting with priests and deacons of Valle d'Aosta in northwest Italy where he is spending a brief holiday, the pontiff refused to reply positively.

"I would not like to use big words to apply generic labels," he replied. "It certainly contains elements that can favor peace, it also has other elements: We must always seek the best elements."

Islam was founded by a Military leader and dictator. It was not a religion of peace at conception.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 September 13 04:35 PM  Civilizations Clash Of


Comments
John S Bolton said at September 15, 2006 12:21 AM:

The nonsense on Islam supposedly being a religion of peace is as corruptly dishonest as the Oxford pledge movement of the 1930's which insisted that Hitler was a man of peace.
The wars of religion ended in Europe, allowing the Age of Reason's scholars to try to move towards anti-discrimination as an ideal.
Now the almost completely realized social regime of anti-disrimination, has brought about an openness to the resumption of the wars of religion.
An Islamic society is always an atrocitocracy; whoever commits the most and worst atrocities, is the ruler.
Islamic immigration always brings with it a war of religion, which terms like holy war, jihad and so on, simply obscure.
Islam means devotion to wars of religion.
When the other side wants to fight, you can't just say no I don't feel like it.
The moslems see anti-discrimination as weakness and appeasement, their religion demands quite violent discrimination.
Pacifism and unilateral disarmanent bring on attacks, so much so that the societies which refuse to discriminate against the moslem in sufficient degree will be attacked in ever greater intensity.

Bill Biddle said at September 15, 2006 8:14 AM:

Who cares what the Pope says? He is self-declared infallible (spot the fallacy?)

All religion is just a bunch of superstitious hogwash, created to control primitive people. Think for yourselves, people.

madmatt said at September 15, 2006 8:23 AM:

So a member of the HITLER YOUTH and leader of a church that has literally killed millions of people is talking about religions of peace!

Richard said at September 15, 2006 9:40 AM:

Viva il Papa!

That millions business shows you to be a buffoon. The papists have things to answer for as does any organization, but it has not killed millions.

If Urban had not called for a crusade, Madmatt might today be a mindless fanatic muslim instead of whatever mindless fanaticism he actually professes.

Actually, Bill, it was the first Vatican council that declared infallibility a doctrine. Benny did not self declare.

kc said at September 15, 2006 9:46 AM:

Can we put all the Christians, Muslims and Jews on an Island for the next survivor? Maybe Survivor - Antarctica, and give them all weapons of their choice and let them duke it out to the death?

Hell, maybe we oughta terraform the Moon first and send them there. Crap, nevermind - no matter where you sent those religious loonies they'd eventually come back for the rest of us.

madmatt said at September 15, 2006 10:51 AM:

Hey richard you lying scum....until urban declared a crusade jerusalem was open to all religions...urban decided that jews and muslims shouldn't have those rights and started the crusades. millions died over the ensuing centuries. also the catholics brought you the inquisition...oooohhh scary witches, suppressed science...sorry galileo maybe the earth does resolve around the sun sorry for the torture and imprisonment, allowed for millions of indigenous americans to be killed in the name of expanding the faith and killing anybody who happened to have a nice piece of land in central or south america or the caribbean (estimated at 10-12 million people), remained silent throughout the holocaust and helped nazis escape europe after the war...these are all documented by the church itself. so stick your nazi pope up your hate filled rear!

elemental said at September 15, 2006 11:17 AM:

Salon linked to you, maybe you could fix your punctuation?

Bolton: atrocitocracy? Don't you people ever get tired of making up ridiculous words that embarrass most English speakers?

Dave said at September 15, 2006 12:43 PM:

No madmatt, you are wrong.

Colonialism was not driven by religon, more like plain old racism.

The Witch burning 'tradition' pre-dated Christianity.

Christianity may have suppressed science but it was during the dark ages... a lot has changed since then. Islam still professes that the world is flat.

You can argue a lot of people were killed because of religion, but as Randel pointed out not long ago modern man kills each other at a massively lower frequency that prehistoric man. Who's religion caused that??


I don't personally believe in any religion but I do respect the christian history of my country.

Adam said at September 15, 2006 1:00 PM:

Membership in the Hitler Youth was legally required. It's not as if he willfully joined on his own.

Richard said at September 15, 2006 3:30 PM:

Ah, poor madmatt. Here we see the failure of deinstiutionalization in all its terror. True, the inquisition was a blot, but at the time it was considered relatively humane as torture to induce confessions was universal. I once read a history of it by a Jewish Oxonian professor who dispassionately presented the institution. Despite his obvious distate for it, he at one point praised it. On the subject of witchcraft, he pointed out that the Inquisition investigated accusations and almost always refused to bring the gals in saying at most that they were just poor, deluded old ladies. Contrast this with Calvinist Europe where they were burning the lassies to beat the band and there was usually a sum of money to be had. When the born again fellow in our town, who is always trying to wean me from agnosticism brought up the inquisition, I admitted the point, but asked him about the witch burning practiced by his beloved Puritans, he promised to get back to me. I am still waiting.

As to the Colonial thing, the slander of the black legend lives again. Certainly, the conquistadors were a rapacious and thieving bunch. It was Papist friars who tried to stop them. Maybe you should look up Bartolome de Casas.

As to the church in World War II, I hope my rabid friend will understand why on May 26, 1955 the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra, composed of Jewish refugees from many nations performed a concert at the Vatican. According to the Jerusalem Post (May 29, 1955), "Conductor Paul Klecki had requested that the Orchestra on its first visit to Italy play for the Pope as a gesture of gratitude for the help his Church had given to all those persecuted by Nazi Fascism." The chorus of hate against the church is a denial of history.

Wolf-Dog said at September 15, 2006 5:10 PM:


Dave: "Christianity may have suppressed science but it was during the dark ages... a lot has changed since then. Islam still professes that the world is flat."
-------------------------------

But if Islam still professes that the world is flat, then how exactly did the terrorists of 9/11 manage to fly those hi-jacked planes from Boston to New York? Since the planet is spherical, they would have missed their target if they had used a straight trajectory from Boston? Maybe those terrorists are more modern Muslims...

McCain said at September 15, 2006 6:46 PM:

"Muslims Offended by an Inconvenient Truth"

http://www.rightlinx.com/?p=208

Randall Parker said at September 15, 2006 7:05 PM:

Bill Biddle,

Who cares what the Pope says? Hundreds of millions of people. That he said what he said is significant and important.

Look, the Catholic Church is not your enemy. The Catholics didn't fly airplanes into skyscrapers or blow up trains and buses in London and Madrid. Arguments that treat all religions as equally dumb or equally dangerous are incorrect arguments.

mike said at September 15, 2006 8:02 PM:

As some commentators here have already pointed out to the apologists, if the Crusades had never happened, we would probably all be Muslims today. Since Islamic societies have proven largely stagnant for the past several hundred years, it is unlikely we would be sitting here typing away at our keyboards, communicating over an internet connection and discussing this topic today if the Crusades had never happened.

Islam has been a violent religion since its inception. By contrast, the Crusades didn't occur until nearly a millennium after Christianity's founding. The Crusades were preceded by Muslim encroachment on the Byzantine Empire and by the conquest of Spain. Our left-wing revisionist historians have done their best to downplay these facts. Just as they have attempted to inaccurately portray Muslim Spain as a multicultural paradise and as they have tried to cast Islamic characters, such as Saladin, in a much kinder light than they actually deserve. If you've never read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)" by Robert Spencer, I'd recommend it.

"allowed for millions of indigenous americans to be killed in the name of expanding the faith and killing anybody who happened to have a nice piece of land in central or south america or the caribbean"

This is a historically dubious comment. Spaniards and others certainly killed and enslaved millions of Indians in their lust for gold and other earthly desires, but the Catholic Church itself was about the only institution on the block promoting more humane treatment of Indians. The few early appeals calling for the Indians to be regarded as full-fledged human beings in Latin America, the first to document the atrocities committed against the natives, and the first calling for better treament of the Indians, came from Jesuits and others in the Catholic hierarchy. The Catholic Church was hardly perfect, but the idea that the Spaniards would have treated the Indians any better if not for the Catholic Church are likely untrue. The Catholic Church frequently called for better treatment for the Indians. Unfortunately, these calls mostly went unheeded.

Apologists for Islam make all sorts of questionable comparisons. For instance, how many times have you heard leftists claim that the IRA is an example of Christian terrorism? These leftists don't seem to grasp that the IRA doesn't work to spread Catholicism at the point of a gun, nor does it have the approval or endorsement of the Catholic Church, nor does the IRA rely upon Christianity's holy book for guidance on how to wage war against unbelievers or believe that God demands that such a conflict be waged. Leftists cannot seem to grasp these "subtle" differences. Catholic and Protestant have effectively become something akin to ethnic categories in Northern Ireland and the conflict is waged upon those lines. (Of course, these same leftist apologists never point out the heavy influence of Marxism upon PIRA and its splinter groups.)

For the record, I'm an agnostic.

Randall Parker said at September 15, 2006 9:04 PM:

madmatt,

What about Islam?

Colleen said at September 15, 2006 10:17 PM:

This is why I like Catholicism, they back themselves up. Here's the pope making a statement and he had the historical documentation to back it up. It's not some hysterical reaction, it is an evidence based conclusion.

This one reason the Protestants whine about the Catholics, because they like evidence and such and don't just swing it solo scriptora (sp?) but that's another story.

Rock on Holy Father!

paul said at September 15, 2006 10:21 PM:

Well..., why don't we just ban Islamic immigrants??? It's not like they are all that bright anyway.

Islamic immigrants make Mexicans look good. Fortunately, Mexicans aren't Muslims.

John S Bolton said at September 16, 2006 12:40 AM:

Look at the brilliant moral tone of the mohammed apologists; someone else caused the deaths of large numbers, therefore our moslem brothers can too, or aren't they brown enough?
Civilzation has no apologies to make to the failed societies of unspeakably low achievement.
Moslems fail to contribute to the advancement of civilization for the same reason that depraved leftists and anarchists try to bow down and lick their boots; because they are savages.
Leftists and morally handicapped liberals, you have been caught making common cause with the moslem, than which there is no more despicable act of betrayal of every single principle that the left ever pretended to believe in.
No wonder these people howl in panic when the pope makes some modest statement about the 'good' moslem.

Kenelm Digby said at September 16, 2006 5:35 AM:

Pope Benedict is, I believe, a Bavarian German.
I do not know whether Bavaria was at some point under Turkish occupation, but it only really survived by an act of grace, the defeat of the Turks at the gates of Vienna.
I wonder how far folk-memories have influenced the Pope?

publisher said at September 16, 2006 6:46 AM:

Ironically---the muslim world's violent reaction to the Pope's quoting a 14th century bigot
is exactly the example of those DON"T abide by the Koran.

The massive overreaction by muslims in a hateful and angry manner
is not what being a devoted follower is supposed to behave like.

The hate, anger, violence proves the Pope's point in graphic images alone let alone
what some of the vile statements from "religious" leaders of the muslim community.

Extreme religious beliefs that advocate hatred anbd violence or holy wars or "wars against terrorism" (sic muslims)
by Christian right wing and Muslim right wing fear mongers makes them both equal and both very wrong.

These are the times when we miss the peacemakers:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

EARL said at September 16, 2006 7:27 AM:

Until ISLAM as a whole condems the use of religion as an excuse to kill innocent civilians, that are targeted by Islam groups in the, NAME Of AAHLA ,these people are not collateral damage of a bomb gone astray they are purposely targeted. They can never claim they are a peace loving religion in any way shape or form until they condem and bring to justice. The world these days: have courts, balott boxes, peaceful protests and etc., to address wrongs done, killing each other is not in any religion except ISLAM

EARL said at September 16, 2006 7:35 AM:

Until ISLAM as a whole condems the use of religion as an excuse to kill innocent civilians,these people are not collateral damage of a bomb gone astray they are purposely targeted. They can never claim they are a peace loving religion in any way shape or form until they condem that sort of action. The world these days: have courts, balott boxes, peaceful protests and etc., to address wrongs done, killing each other is not a way.

Randall Parker said at September 16, 2006 8:16 AM:

publisher,

Muslims say all sorts of insulting things about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and other religions on a daily basis. We do not see enormous angry responses as a result.

Liberals say that the reaction of Muslims is not due to the nature of Islam because liberals do not not want to concede that liberal beliefs and values are not universally held. Liberalism's pretence of universalism for liberal beliefs blinds them to obvious truths about major belief systems which are not compatible with liberalism. Liberal belief in liberal manifest destiny for the world is inaccurate in a way that damages Western security.

Devil's Advocate said at September 16, 2006 8:23 AM:

Who cares what that fanatical old coot says? Instead of spewing medieval nonsense, he should work at purging rampant pedophilia from the priesthood.

Devil's Advocate said at September 16, 2006 8:27 AM:

"John S Bolton"? Is that the same ill-kempt, mustachioed, hysterical, twit that masquerades as the U.S. Embassador to the U.N.?

mike said at September 16, 2006 9:52 AM:

"John S Bolton"? Is that the same ill-kempt, mustachioed, hysterical, twit that masquerades as the U.S. Embassador to the U.N.?

No. I don't think the United States has any "Embassadors" to any country or organization, let alone hysterical or ill-kempt Embassadors. We do have something we call "ambassadors."

Randall is right. Liberals don't understand that the reasons Muslims hate the West are not exactly the same as the reasons the Left hates the West. The Muslims hated America even when the United States was a nobody on the international scene:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22314

Publisher needs to watch some MEMRI-TV. I think he will find plenty of important Muslim religious leaders acting the way he claims that true Muslims don't act:

http://www.memritv.org/

Richard said at September 16, 2006 11:35 AM:

"You may say I'm a dreamer"

No, I'd say you were dead and an object lesson for all of us.

Tony said at September 16, 2006 2:33 PM:

I need explanations.

1. Muslims are threatening the pope with violence because he says they're violent. Am i right?

2. Why do liberals and progressives everywhere (i include myslef amongst them - or at least used to) support Islam and Muslims, when they are the polar opposite of everything they profess to believe, and would have them annihilated if they ever get into a position to do so?

John S Bolton said at September 17, 2006 12:51 AM:

My explanation would be that there is that element which wants more freedom for more aggression, and which uses the government schools for what they can be used for, to make propaganda for more power of the kind which aggrandizes their influence.
It is pretended that goodness inheres in just imagining the world in which 'there's no countries' and 'no need for greed'.
Morality is thus cut off from reality and floats out on the imaginable only.
One can just imagine a 'brotherhood of man', including the soviet rulers of that songs' time, and the moslem enemies who want to kill you, and the only evil then will be someone like the Pope, who suggests that this is just childish imagination without moral weight.
None of it is sincere, though, since the faux ideals are used simply as means to fool people into accepting more freedom for aggression.
The bottom line here is power, and any liberal ideals offered are not to be interpreted as meant in good faith.

Mohamed Abdel_megid said at September 17, 2006 9:51 AM:

"Here's the pope making a statement and he had the historical documentation to back it up"

Read History , read Vatican City's History.It's not just Islam who Fighted to let everyone know it.
Christians and Jews did the same thing. but I don't think that you want to remember that.

Saint Bartholomew's Day, 1572

Wars of Religion, 1562-1598
During this period, the Catholics battled the Calvinist Huguenots for control of the monarchy. The fact that France had two weak monarchs: Charles IX (r. 1560-74) and Henry III (r. 1574-89) allowed rival aristocratic factions to align along opposing religious lines. The minority Huguenots, led by Gaspard de Coligny and Louis I de Conde, were supported from 1562 to 1576 by external Protestant armies in their conflict with the Catholic crown.

Ligue, 1575
La Ligue was a Catholic confederation founded in 1576 by the Duc de Guise to defend the catholic religion from the Calvinists, and to unseat Henri III and replace him on the throne with Les Guises, the top men of the party

Carcistes versus Razats, 1576-1579
A group of fanatical Catholics lead by Jean de Pontevés, the Count of Carcès, were attacking Protestants with such brutality that their group, the "Carcistes" were called by others "Marabouts", meaning cruel and savage.

I'm Aganist anyone kills anybody innocent civilians under any religion or any reason .... And I chalenge anybody can get this in Islamic fundementals , Muslim or non-Muslim ,from Quran or anywhere else.... We don't have that in Islam... and here are some verus from our Quran which didn't change from 1500 years , read it.

Fight against those who fight against you in the way of Allah, but do not transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors.Kill them whenever you confront them and drive them out from where they drove you out. (For though killing is sinful) wrongful persecution is even worse than killing. Do not fight against them near the Holy Mosque unless they fight against you; but if they fight against you kill them, for that is the reward of such unbelievers.Then if they desist, know well that Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Compassionate.


- Anyone creats a weapon deserve to be killed by it

- http://www.memritv.org/ is an anti-muslim website , it cannot be a refrence

Richard said at September 17, 2006 11:41 AM:

With all due respect, Mohamed Abdel, the following passage is a bit different.

Q.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.”

I would be grateful for the explanation of the discrepancy.

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at September 17, 2006 2:11 PM:

Richard ,

The verses are coming from Surah 2 verses 190-194. translation taken from, Towards Understanding the Quran
, Where did you get yours?

and Thanks for your fellow up. :)

mike said at September 17, 2006 5:04 PM:

Mohamed Abdel_megid,

"http://www.memritv.org/ is an anti-muslim website , it cannot be a refrence"

Why not? All they show are translated versions of what ordinarily appears in the Arab/Muslim media?

Bob Badour said at September 17, 2006 5:53 PM:

One can find three translations of the relevant passage made by respected muslim scholars from the USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts:

009.029
YUSUFALI: 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.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.


Mohamed Abdel-Megid,

Has it never occured to you that the passage you quoted is a rather violent "an eye for a tooth" sort of thing? It strikes me as barbaric and fits exactly Emperor Manual II Paleologos' description of Muhammad's teachings as evil and inhuman.

Bob Badour said at September 17, 2006 5:56 PM:
- http://www.memritv.org/ is an anti-muslim website , it cannot be a refrence

Then the Qur'an cannot be a reference either. After all, it is unabashedly anti-jew, anti-christian, anti-pagan and anti-atheist.

Richard said at September 17, 2006 6:35 PM:

Mohamed Abdel,

Bob Badour's source (i.e. USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts) is the same source as mine. Still, I am asking you to explain the discrepancy between the spirit of the two verses. Is it that god says one thing one place and contradicts himself in another? Also, therefore, which verse takes precedence?

Also, how can we have dialogue when we consider the following passage:

005.051
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

If this is truly the word of God, what hope is there for dialogue amongst us?

I do not inquire with the attitude of wanting to score points. I truly want to know. When ever someone quotes the Qur'an, they are accused of quoting it out of context. Please correct the context.

Mohamed Abdel_megid said at September 18, 2006 6:11 AM:

About Verses , My Verses is coming from an exact translation from arabic becuase I know arabic very good and I don't believe in all quran translations.
and about the diffrent I can't tell you because I don't know which Surah it's , Tell me which Surah and I will tell you the diffrent ..

Thanks Richard for your attitude . I don't play for scores too. I just want to say the truth and what I know.

Bob Badour
It hasn't occured to me my passage is a violent,because what i said that we have the same history and the age of islam now is almost 1500 years old which was the same age when all the catholic's war occured,can we make a child speak when he is 2 month old because if we did he will not speaek until he is 5 years and he will find problems after that.This is my point of view. and don't take the indvidual cases and try to punish every one .
If my passage was a violent ,"I'm Sorry." :)

I didn't tell you take a quran as refrence "for me it's the best refrence because that's what I'm believe in " but you have the history. read about egypt history or coptic history.. There is charches in Egypt right now more age than islam. Muslims didn't destroy the pyramids or sphenix ,but france tried to in 18th century (I don't know why).

And about the "Jezya" , It was not something bad. It was like a Tax (for not going to any war), and muslims were paying that too or even more in name of "Zakah".

http://www.memritv.org/ it can't be a refrence because you have just videos for one face not the other ...

mike said at September 18, 2006 11:00 AM:

"http://www.memritv.org/ it can't be a refrence because you have just videos for one face not the other ..."

That isn't actually true. MEMRI does host videos of reformers who appear on television in the Arab world. Unfortunately, those reformers are smaller in number than the non-reformers.

Richard said at September 19, 2006 4:29 AM:

Mohamed Abdel,

There is a Sura and verse number with everything I have posted.

"And about the "Jezya" , It was not something bad. It was like a Tax (for not going to any war), and muslims were paying that too or even more in name of "Zakah"."

The Sura I quoted and reposted below implies bringing people to submission and imposing the tax. That does not sound benign.

Q.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.”


Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at September 19, 2006 5:22 AM:

Richard ,

As you know that muslims lived in Mecca and Madina with Jews , Christians and non believers(who don't believe in the last day or who are doing what had been forbidden by allah and his messenger), and they had rules , "Jizya" was one from them. and the verse is saying that Fight anyone ,under your rule and refused to pay Jizya "which I said before it's like Zakah".

In your information Abo Bakr who was the first Khalifa after the Prophit , he fought Muslims who refuesed to pay the Zakah too.

I hope I did make it clear to you.

Richard said at September 19, 2006 6:34 AM:

Mohamed Abdel-Megid ,

The operative word is "subdued." Remember, this is a country where we believe in taxation with the consent of the governed. Now certainly this is all to often observed in the breach, but, that people must be subdued as part of the belief system (whether Moslem or other) does not speak well of that system of belief.

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at September 19, 2006 9:17 AM:

"Subdued" it's meant for anyone who did not pay the Jizya but they had the money to pay . and it's like these days, if I didn't pay the taxes I will go to jail,and I will not have anything to do with it, then I will be "Subdued" to try getting out .

When Islam returned to Mecca with 100,000 soldiers , the prophet asked the non believers - who killed alot of muslims before and they tried to kill him many times - "What do you think I will do with you" , they replied "You are a good brother and son of good brother." then he said "Go you are free" .

Try to read about Mohamed's life and you will find that what's happenning right now it's not from Islam. even some of Muslims understood this reliegon on a wrong way and for that we have verses explanation "Tafaseer" for the Quran to show what the reason for each verse because there are verses were for certian situations .

please visit this website http://mohammad.islamway.com/

Randall Parker said at September 19, 2006 4:38 PM:

Mohamed,

Jizya is persecution. It singles out non-Muslims and lowers their living standards by making them pay money to support Muslims. Yes, they are forced to submit to and serve Muslims.

Obviously that strikes as a perfectly natural and morally defensible state of affairs. But to the rest of the world it is thoroughly unfair and shows Islam's low regard for non-believers.

Back in the pre-industrial era the leading cause of death was hunger. The Jizya caused more non-Muslims to die of hunger and more Muslims to survive. So Muslims increased in number and non-Muslims dwindled in number.

I find your religion to be morally abhorrent.

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at September 19, 2006 7:19 PM:

I will try to show that Jizya is not meant to oppress the Christians or Jews.

For those who don't know, the Jizya is a tax imposed on the Christians and Jews living under the protection of the Islamic state. However, it is not imposed on all Christians and Jews. It is only imposed on the men who have attained puberty. So therefore it is not imposed on the women and children. The tax is also imposed fairly and is not meant to be overburdening.

The Jizya tax guarantees the Christians and Jews complete protection under the Islamic state. If an enemy country attacks the Islamic country, the Islamic country has a duty to defend the Christians and Jews and the Christians and Jews are not even obliged to fight!

Muslims also have to pay a yearly tax called Zakat. Zakat is even binding on property, and jewellery. Zakat should also be paid in the form of food as well. The Jizya is not binding on the property of the Christians and Jews.

In America if someone does not pay their taxes they can go to jail. Does that make America unjust? In China they kill tax evaders (A New York Times article describes the context and details of one businessman who was executed in China for tax evasion (11 Mar. 2001). at http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/research/ndp/ref/?action=view&doc=chn41156e). You have to understand that these are God's laws. It is probably difficult for a non-Muslim to understand this but from the Muslim perspective it is completely justifiable. For God sake people get executed or punished for crimes against man made laws, what do you expect to happen to people that break God's laws?

Zakah is one of the 5 pillars of Islam and it is compulsory on everyone. It is compulsory even on the non-Muslim, this is called Jizya. Jizya does not degrade the non-Muslim people, it actually brings equality. Since the Muslims are obliged to pay Zakah, then why cant non-Muslims pay Jizya? That brings equality between the two.

The Jizya is a tax levied on non-Muslims in lieu of military service which is compulsory for Muslims but not for non-Muslims. The amount of Jizya is much less than the Zakat, which is levied on Muslims only. The non-Muslims paying Jizya were exempt from compulsory military service in a Muslim State but were entitled to full protection. (http://www.netmuslims.com/info/economic.html)


And it's in in Old Testament : Proverbs 12:24 The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute
And new Testament : Romans 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

TRIBUTE
(trib'-ut) (mac, "tribute," really meaning "forced laborers," "labor gang" (1 Kings 4:6; 9:15,21); also "forced service," "serfdom"; possibly "forced payment" is meant in Est 10:1; the idea contained in the modern word is better given by middah (Ezra 6:8; Neh 5:4)): Words used only of the duty levied for Yahweh on acquired spoils are mekhec, "assessment" (Num 31:28,37-41), belo, "excise" (Ezra 4:13,20; Neh 7:24), massa', "burden" (2 Chron 17:11), and `onesh, "fine"

(from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1996 by Biblesoft)


Richard said at September 20, 2006 8:18 AM:

Mohamed Abdel-Megid,

I must say, you are probably the best defender of your faith that I have dealt with. Obviously, you feel it your duty to present Islam in the best light and certainly, if done honestly, there is merit in that. You have done it without hysteria or ad hominems. Still Jizya has not been always as benign as you make it out to be.

"Al-Zamakhshari, a commentator on the Qur'an, said that "the Jizyah shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. The dhimmi shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him, and say "Pay the Jizyah!" and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of the neck."

In the end we disagree, in that I still contend that the tone of the passage from the Qur'an I cited before demands submission(there is no other way of interpreting "and feel themselves subdued.”). No man accepts that willingly.

You still have not answered my other point

Also, how can we have dialogue when we consider the following passage:

005.051
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

If this is truly the word of God, what hope is there for dialogue amongst us?

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at September 20, 2006 10:36 AM:

Richard,
Thank you for your words. I'm trying to do my best to explain what I'm believe in .

I didn't read about "Al-Zamakhshari" and what he said about The Jiziah but I will search about it and tell you, maybe he was wrong.

And about the verse which you mentioned,

You have to understand that Quran is a complete book that occasionally presents a law or commandment over several chapters or several verses in the same chapter and the practical part of this commandment can be achieved by understanding the whole issue as presented over all the verses and chapters and not by upholding only part of the Quran. God specifically warn us against doing just that, upholding part of the Quran while disregarding the rest.

[Q2:85] ?. Do you believe in part of the scripture and disbelieve in part? What should be the retribution for those among you who do this?..

Here is the verse that you asked about with the correct translation from arabic
[Q5:51] O you who believe, do not take [certain] Jews and Christians as allies; these are allies of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them. GOD does not guide the transgressors.

Now, let's look at some other verses about befriending the Jews and the Christians, or anyone not Muslim (Submitter) for that matter. These two verses are regulating relations with any people, regardless of faith;

[Q60:8] GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable.

[Q60:9] GOD enjoins you only from befriending those who fight you because of religion, evict you from your homes, and band together with others to banish you. You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend them are the transgressors.

Thus, we learn that we are only enjoined from befriending those who fight us because of religion. Let's go back to the verse immediately after Q5:51 which you mentioned , to see if it now sheds some more light on the issue.

[5:52] You will see those who harbor doubt in their hearts hasten to join them, saying, "We fear lest we may be defeated." May GOD bring victory, or a command from Him, that causes them to regret their secret thoughts.

Thus, it is clear that this is a situation when there is a division and an overhanging conflict between the believers and the others. Otherwise, what would be the logic behind the statement. "We fear lest we may be defeated."

In these situations those with doubts in their hearts will ally themselves with the enemy.

Q5:57 makes it clear again, who are not to be taken as friends;

[5:57] O you who believe, do not befriend those among the recipients of previous scripture who mock and ridicule your religion, nor shall you befriend the disbelievers. You shall reverence GOD, if you are really believers.

God teaches us throughout the Quran that there are righteous Jews and Christians. So, if we think we are righteous, and they are righteous, what could possibly be the problem between us, or obstacle for us to be friends?

[7:159] Among the followers of Moses there are those who guide in accordance with the truth, and the truth renders them righteous.

[5:46] Subsequent to them, we sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the previous scripture, the Torah. We gave him the Gospel, containing guidance and light, and confirming the previous scriptures, the Torah, and augmenting its guidance and light, and to enlighten the righteous.

[5:47] The people of the Gospel shall rule in accordance with GOD's revelations therein. Those who do not rule in accordance with GOD's revelations are the wicked.

[2:62 & 5:69] Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

[3:113-114]. They are not all the same; among the followers of the scripture, there are those who are righteous. They recite GOD's revelations through the night, and they fall prostrate.

They believe in GOD and the Last Day, they advocate righteousness and forbid evil, and they hasten to do righteous works. These are the righteous.

[3:199] Surely, some followers of the previous scriptures do believe in GOD, and in what was revealed to you, and in what was revealed to them. They reverence GOD, and they never trade away GOD's revelations for a cheap price. These will receive their recompense from their Lord. GOD is the most efficient in reckoning.

And may be you will get from these verses that the tone which you talked about it was mess-understood because these verses are coming from the same god.

Bob Badour said at September 20, 2006 4:11 PM:
And about the "Jezya" , It was not something bad. It was like a Tax

It is unjust and wrongful persecution of someone for believing something different from you. If we are to believe your Allah, we should kill you for such wrongful persecution and forcefully drive you from our midst: "wrongful persecution is even worse than killing. Do not fight against them near the Holy Mosque unless they fight against you; but if they fight against you kill them, for that is the reward of such unbelievers."

http://www.memritv.org/ it can't be a refrence because you have just videos for one face not the other ...

We must then exclude all of the Muslim media for presenting one side only and for forcibly preventing free expression. Contrast for example the Danish cartoon controversy with the vile filth the arab media present as political caricatures of jews. While the Qur'an and the hadith are not in video, we must exclude them as references for similar reasons.

"Subdued" it's meant for anyone who did not pay the Jizya but they had the money to pay

We got that. Muslims must violently subjugate people for having different beliefs. Their religious text tells them so. We understand that. Do you understand that moral people equate such an attitude with intolerant evil?

I will try to show that Jizya is not meant to oppress the Christians or Jews.

Only a complete nutjob could pervert reason sufficiently to interpret persecution any other way. What does your religious text tell you about good moral atheists such as myself?

In America if someone does not pay their taxes they can go to jail. Does that make America unjust?

In America, taxation happens with the consent of the people for mutual benefit. We elect our representatives and our representatives are accountable to the electors. If someone in America is unable to pay their taxes, they do not go to jail: they go bankrupt. Only those who evade paying taxes go to jail. After all, tax evasion is an almost identical form of morally abhorrent discrimination as is the jizya: it forces one's own costs onto others.

In China they kill tax evaders

In china, they also beat dogs to death and all sorts of repugnant things. That's why I don't live in china and don't want chinese morals imported here.

You have to understand that these are God's laws.

Why should a good and moral atheist like myself care about the apparitions and figments of your overactive imagination?

Since the Muslims are obliged to pay Zakah, then why cant non-Muslims pay Jizya?

What right do you have to subdue anyone and to force them to pay anything? What gives you a right to demand tribute from anyone else? What justifies such persecution?

You have to understand that Quran is a complete book

I have read the Qur'an. It is fragmented and randomly ordered. It is anything but complete. How about a little honesty?

Otherwise, what would be the logic behind the statement. "We fear lest we may be defeated."

What I find laughable is the idea that a fragmented, random text with passages of complete gibberish has anything to do with logic. The Qur'an is full of constant chest beating about how Allah strikes fear into those of us who don't even believe the silly ghost exists. I suppose that sort of thing makes some people feel more important. It also helps to dehumanize those the text instructs to kill and to persecute for their beliefs, and it reinforces the belief that others should be defeated and that they should fear.

That's certainly how the terrorists will interpret such things.

nor shall you befriend the disbelievers

So, we atheists are out of the question, eh? I guess there is no disincentive to ridiculing your vile superstition then.

So, if we think we are righteous, and they are righteous

But where does that leave good righteous devout atheists like myself?

And may be you will get from these verses that the tone which you talked about it was mess-understood because these verses are coming from the same god.

What is the tone of an entire book of the Qur'an devoted to dividing up the wealth stolen from Islam's murdered victims? What sort of moral instruction does such a religious text teach?

What about the tone of the following verses?

Is the tone not violent?

Al-Anfal Surah 008.012
Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

Al-Maeda Surah 005.038
As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.

Al-Baqara Surah 002.190-191
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

Al-Nisa Surah 004.074-077
Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.
Hast thou not turned Thy vision to those who were told to hold back their hands (from fight) but establish regular prayers and spend in regular charity? When (at length) the order for fighting was issued to them, behold! a section of them feared men as - or even more than - they should have feared Allah: They said: "Our Lord! Why hast Thou ordered us to fight? Wouldst Thou not Grant us respite to our (natural) term, near (enough)?" Say: "Short is the enjoyment of this world: the Hereafter is the best for those who do right: Never will ye be dealt with unjustly in the very least!

Al-Nisa Surah 004.089
YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-

Al-Nisa Surah 004.095
YUSUFALI: Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-

Al-Anfal Surah 008.030
Remember how the Unbelievers plotted against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or slay thee, or get thee out (of thy home). They plot and plan, and Allah too plans; but the best of planners is Allah.


Is the tone not intolerant and divisive?

Al-e-Imran Surah 003.028
Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

Al-e-Imran Surah 003.118
O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom.

Al-Maeda Surah 005.014
From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done.

Al-Maeda Surah 005.017
They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then can do aught against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? Allah's is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He createth what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things.

Al-Maeda Surah 005.041
O Messenger! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. ...

Al-Maeda Surah 005.045
We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers.

Al-Maeda Surah 005.051
O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Al-Maeda Surah 005.073
They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

Al-Maeda Surah 005.082
Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.

Randall Parker said at September 20, 2006 6:43 PM:

Mohamed,

Zakat was less than Jizya. The purpose of the two was to make the non-believers pay for their non-belief. It is as simple as that. Protection? No, burden.

Again, the effect of Jizya was to reduce reproduction of non-believers relative to that of believers and to encourage conversion to Islam to escape the higher tax rate.

Bob Badour said at September 20, 2006 8:41 PM:

In fact, Randall, some of the early Caliphs forbade wouldbe converts from converting so that they would have to continue paying the onerous tribute. When the terrorists talk of creating a world-wide caliphate, this is the sort of abomination they want to return to.

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at September 21, 2006 4:20 AM:

Randall Parker,

Never was the Zakah less than Jezyah.

Jezyah is a fix amount imposed on men. 36/24/12 Silver pieces Rich / Middle / poor
Zakah is even binding on property and how much money do you have .

So if I a muslim and I have 100,000 silver pieces I would pay 500 (2% from what do you have )silver as a Zakah and if there a war I have to go and fight and if I didn't do that , everyone will consider me non-muslim.

and If I non-muslim and you have 100,000 silver pieces so I will pay just 36 ( as Maximam if I'm a rich man) silver peice as Jezyah and I will not goto fight with the muslim army.


Zakah 500 Fight
Jezyah 36 Stay at home

I think that's easy to understand .

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at September 21, 2006 5:32 AM:

Bob,
I'm not your enemy. I'm as a person didn't do anything to you to make you give that tone of attack.

Are you just doing that because I'm a muslim because my believes ? I didn't bomb anything , I didn't kill anyone.

"It is unjust and wrongful persecution of someone for believing something different from you"
America still has this but not in believes , America has it in skin color which is hard to change.

"While the Qur'an and the hadith are not in video, we must exclude them as references for similar reasons"
I don't live a media as refernce because it doesn't have "The pure" which it's like a theory , Can you take my words and make a refernace . I love to use Quran and hadith because they are "The Islam" and I know it will have all the answers.

About America and taxes , "Al-Capone" went to jail because he wasn't paying the taxes "Don't you read or watch movies?" ,if you declare bankrubcy so no credit score , no apartment , health insurance and auto insurance will take you except you pay double (and because maybe you don't have money to pay the tax) you can't have anything from these.Also you can't getting a job , buying a house , buying a car . Did you watch 30-days on FX "Minimum Wages"?

Don't you think it's a common to be an atheist. everyone has this stage in his live .Don't you think that it's very easy to change my beleives to anything cool. but I "beleive" and this the hardest part. I didn't debate with you or anybody else about your believes. I beleieve on one god the same god for the Jews and the Christians. I beleieve on the Quran and I beleive it's a god's words and I understand it well.

I'm here writing to try to make you see the right face of islam. And I have this as duty - I gave it to myslef - in these days because I found most non-muslim see the islam in the wrong way.

If I will be aganist you all the time and you will be aganist me all the time , we will not understand anything from each other . We have to be open minded .

So If you have any question or wonder about anything in Quran , I will try to answer you "After God Willing" .

Bob Badour said at September 21, 2006 12:36 PM:
I'm not your enemy. I'm as a person didn't do anything to you to make you give that tone of attack.

What tone of attack?

I am sure you would find giving honest answers to the questions I raised unpleasant; however, I fail to see how asking you for honesty amounts to any sort of attack. Intellectual honesty is the first requirement of open, respectful dialogue.

What is the tone of the above passages if not violent, intolerant and divisive as I suggest? What do your religious texts say about good moral atheists like myself? As an atheist, what your religious texts say about christians and jews interests me less than what it says about atheists. What does it say?

Do you live here in the west? What do you think of Sharia?

America still has this but not in believes , America has it in skin color which is hard to change.

Are you suggesting we should end the open discrimination against white males in America? Are you saying you want to put an end to affirmative action? White males are kinda like peacocks. They are strong enough and healthy enough to thrive even in the face of such petty nuisances.

Regardless, the separate issues of black racism and hatred of whites don't make the jizya any less odious and are not codified in any text whose alleged purpose is moral instruction. The jizya is persecution as is any forced tribute or violent subjugation, and trying to change the subject won't change that. Or do you want to suggest anything so ridiculous as violently subjugating someone to force tribute doesn't persecute the person?

For example, how would you react if I suggested it would be prudent, given the current risk of terrorism, to exclude muslims from military service, to require muslims fly in muslim-only aircraft when flying, to require muslims pay an extra service fee when flying to pay for building muslim-only terminals? What would you call such a policy?

How would you react if the American judiciary declared muslims not credible as witnesses? How would you react if America changed its tort laws so that the testimony of any two atheists would prevail over the testimony of a muslim in civil court regardless of who is plaintiff and defendant?

I love to use Quran and hadith because they are "The Islam" and I know it will have all the answers.

Perhaps someone else loves to use memritv.org because he or she believes it is the truth and the person knows it will have all the answers. What then? I guess if we cannot exclude the Qur'an and the Sira, we must allow memritv.org as a possible reference. Do you agree?

Why do muslims start every dialogue with the a priori and ad hominem exclusion of any opinion they disagree with? Fallacious arguments and the prohibition of diverse viewpoints do not make for open and respectful dialogue.

About America and taxes , "Al-Capone" went to jail because he wasn't paying the taxes

Al-Capone went to jail because he actively and intentionally forced his financial obligations onto his neighbours by evading taxes just as muslims would force their financial obligations onto christians and jews by demanding the jizya tribute. Folks in the US don't go to jail for poverty or for refusing to pay tribute to thugs.

Don't you think it's a common to be an atheist. everyone has this stage in his live

Why do you focus so much on ad hominem instead of simply providing direct and honest answers to my questions? Should I conclude you have something to hide?

Stage? I am a life-long devout atheist. While it is common to meet apostates who converted to all sorts of religions including some who became muslim, I am not so fickle. My faith is much stronger than that.

Don't you think that it's very easy to change my beleives to anything cool. but I "beleive" and this the hardest part.

Actually, it's a lot easier to go with the flow and believe what the people around you believe than it is to go it alone as I do. It takes much greater strength of faith to believe and to openly state, as I do, that the universe just is without any silly ghost driving things and handing out rewards in the afterlife. While atheists don't go around seeking converts, my faith has withstood the frequent and fervent evangelism from religious bigots of many faiths and cults. My faith withstands such onslaughts without the support of any backing organization to offer encouragement.

I beleieve on the Quran and I beleive it's a god's words and I understand it well.

That's all well and good. I know you believe the Qur'an. I know you believe the arabic Qur'an comprises God's own words in God's language of choice. If you are here to discuss your beliefs, let's discuss your beliefs. Drop the ad hominem directed at me and at my beliefs, and discuss your beliefs.

As a good and moral atheist, I am very interested to know: What does your God say (in his own words) about good and moral atheists like myself? What do you personally believe about good and moral atheists like myself?

What do you believe about the legal system here in the west?

What do you believe about the values westerners hold dear such as freedom of religion, religious tolerance (including tolerance of atheists), freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free association, property rights, etc.

Do you live here in the west? What do you think about us westerners? All of us. Not just christians or jews but the animists, hindus, buddhists, pagans and atheists too.

I'm here writing to try to make you see the right face of islam.

I have read the Qur'an, various histories of Islam, plenty of hadith etc. Are you saying the base texts of Islam do not portray the face of Islam? If not the base texts and the behaviour of muslims, what should we look at?

If I will be aganist you all the time and you will be aganist me all the time , we will not understand anything from each other . We have to be open minded .

I agree, and I ask you to drop the mendacity and the sophistry. Speak openly and honestly without trying to prohibit other points of view (like the point of view expressed at memritv.org,) without trying to denigrate my faith, and without the fallacious ad hominem. Open your mind to my point of view and answer the questions I asked about your point of view.

So If you have any question or wonder about anything in Quran , I will try to answer you "After God Willing" .

I asked several already and you ignored them. What do you think is the tone of the above passages I quoted from the Qur'an? What does the Qur'an tell you about good moral atheists such as myself? What sort of religion includes in its founding text an entire chapter on dividing up the stolen wealth of its murdered victims? Is that supposed to be moral instruction? If the founding document of your religion is moral instruction, what lesson does Al-Anfal teach? Do you think that's the same lesson the terrorists get from the book?

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at September 22, 2006 7:06 AM:

What does the Qur'an tell you about atheists ?

[Q109.1]Say : O ye that reject Faith !
[Q109.2]I worship not that which ye worship
[Q109.3]Nor will ye worship that which I worship
[Q109.4]And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,
[Q109.5]Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
[Q109.6]To you be your Way, and to me mine.

Al-Anfal Surah 008.009 to 008.012 because they are related to the same subject.

8:9 [Remember] when you asked help of your Lord, and He answered you, "Indeed, I will reinforce you with a thousand from the angels, following one another."
8:10 And Allah made it not but good tidings and so that your hearts would be assured thereby. And victory is not but from Allah. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.
8:11 [Remember] when He overwhelmed you with drowsiness [giving] security from Him and sent down upon you from the sky, rain by which to purify you and remove from you the evil [suggestions] of Satan and to make steadfast your hearts and plant firmly thereby your feet.
8:12 [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

These verses are taking about past when Muslims were 3000 man and Korish(the enemy) 10,000 on a war , then Muslim asked help from god so god sent angels to fight with them, then Muslims won .

Word “[Remember]” , God remind us about that to know that “victory is not but from Allah”..

Where is the violence in these verses, it’s a war ….

I will answer the other later today or tomorrow because they are a lot, I will try to answer one by one....

While I’m answering your questions, could you please explain
“good moral atheists such as myself” because in your last post you repeated this many times, how do you know that you are “good atheists“. And don’t understand my question wrong - It's outside everything - , I just know that word “good” used when there are rules then the man is good when he keep himself on these rules, what rules do you have as “atheists” other than good human rules?

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at September 22, 2006 8:35 AM:

Al-Baqara Surah 002.190-194
2:190 Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.

2:191 And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and Tumult or oppression 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.

2:192 And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

2:193 Fight them until there is no [more] Tumult or oppression and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

2:194 [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

"Fight who fight you" Where the violent here ? Do you want The Muslims don't defend themselves?

About cut the thief's hands , it's not violent because if we still doing that till now our world will better because on one will even try to steal anything. Also the thief then he will not have sins so God will not judge him again about that.

And if we looked at the bible "God said “If your hand causes you to offend, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched." And, He said, "If your eye causes you to offend, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire." He said the same thing about foot (Mark 9).

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at September 23, 2006 9:55 AM:

Bob,

What's your problems in other verses? It doesn't sound violent at all!!
About Al-Maeda Surah 005.051 , I did said about it before .Read my comments before to Richard .

You said that you had read Quran before and you didn't like it. Could you please give it another shoot and read it again, and if you didn't like a verse ,try to search about it in detail. or send me an email "mohamdbadawi@hotmail.com" and it will try to explain it to you. This is not just for Bob, it's for anyone wants to understand.

Bob Badour said at September 23, 2006 12:24 PM:
About Al-Maeda Surah 005.051 , I did said about it before .Read my comments before to Richard .

I never suggested Al-Maeda 51 was violent. I observed that it is intolerant and divisive. I not only read your comments to Richard, but I replied to them already ages ago.

I will reply to your earlier answers later when I can give them the time they deserve.

For now, I don't see how my liking or disliking the Qur'an has any relevance to your beliefs. Let me ask you, though, would you like a document that says all muslims are liars who should be mutilated and killed? And even goes so far as to use the word "liar" to mean "muslim" ?

Bob Badour said at September 23, 2006 1:24 PM:

Mohamed,

While I am thinking about my response, can you confirm the following points of dogma or doctrine:

1. Do you believe the Arabic Qur'an is the actual word of God in his language of choice?

2. Do you believe the Arabic Qur'an is the original work of God unaltered by humans?

3. Do you believe the earlier scriptures in the New Testament and the Old Testament were inspired by God?

4. Do you believe later scriptures supercede earlier scriptures? eg. that the Qur'an supercedes the earlier scriptures?

5. Do you believe the Qur'an is the complete and final word of God? eg. Can there ever be another prophet?

6. Regardless of your personal belief, is it fair to say that hundreds of millions of muslims do believe each of the above points of Islamic doctrine?

kontar said at September 23, 2006 2:14 PM:

problem is guys ,you let the main objective slip your hands,maybe jesus followers committed crimes in his name,but we have the book ,we have his sayings ,does he say so? & same should go in handling all beliefs,if you wanna have a logic debate with someone dont attack his acts ,use "his verse" if it says in your book so...then what does it mean?
but there is one thing more .... he who wins souls is wise...so think win win...dont hurt someone ,or mock ...he wont respond to logic ..take it step by step to show him if his book is or isnt callin for violence..

TRUTH DOESNT TAKE SIDES IT ONLY PREVAILS...so debate by the verse...and judge not the identity of the debators just engage in "truth seeking debate"for the truth to come out.,and believe it if you have the truth"ummm with the debate and knowledge skills"it will surely come out....after all aint what you seek is the truth?
once jesus said what means that those who are in the truth"the light"knows the voice of truth :)

i believe criteria for havin a "goin somewhere clear" debate should be first weighed considerably before just attackin and losin the main path.
if you want to convince someone about how wrong it is to steal ,you have to call on him from his background from his beliefs and show him its dead wrong ,you dont tell him "you thief"it wont change him ,he feels just your haterate but cant comprehend your logic.thanks

kontar said at September 23, 2006 3:33 PM:

If your eye causes you to offend, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire." He said the same thing about foot (Mark 9).


oh by the way ,ummm mohamed ...there is a great difference bout you choosin to pluck ur own eye ,and others pluckin it off for u man :D...
thats what jesus meant ... and you can pluck it morally by teachin it to look with purity on all things ,wether its a beautiful woman or another non christian believer u could think that beauty in its essence shows the magnificence of the creator and to wonder wether ur inner beauty "soul"is gorgeous as she looks outside or not and for the second u could admire the determinism and love that a non believer or a misslead one carries for the creator that u think u know him much and wonder" shouldnt i be like them and love my god more?the one that i believe i know him better:D"


Bob Badour said at September 23, 2006 5:57 PM:

Kontar,

I am not sure what you think the main objective is. My objective is to explore Mohamed's beliefs and whether he is capable of candid honesty about those beliefs.

kontar said at September 23, 2006 11:01 PM:

ok maybe its not main objective maybe its the way to do it...you have to show your objective by adhering to just basics"which is verse"and not the actions of a group of people.proove what you say beyond doubt...which is easy when you find A)right verse B)explanation to that verse by some1 judged by the other party as a credible authentic explanator of the verse .

Bob Badour said at September 24, 2006 8:13 AM:

Kontar,

The only credible 'explanator' of the universe is the universe itself. If one thinks, as I do, that religious texts influence the behaviour of those who follow them, then one of the purposes of understanding a religious text is to understand its influence on the actions of its followers.

With all due respect, your suggestions seem more than a little nutty to me.

kontar said at September 25, 2006 4:23 AM:

offcourse you are right bob ,actions are extracted from beliefs which r in the books.
however when you talk to an english man you use his words his english language so you can reach your objective.
by the way let us not forget that the church in the middle ages did horrors to find the antichrist and what they did wasnt biblical in any sense.!(so it wasnt relevant to the script,it was bad men empowered ,wolfs among sheep)
so if you want to explore or to show someones beliefs are "nutty" you have to show it from his books and from his interpretors mouths,that way no one denys what u say as jesus once said that"from ur mouth i judge you"
i am talking about a way of reasonified debate,i am not tryin to stall you ,just givin you a way ...and you will be surprised of the outcome...just need a little work:)

Bob Badour said at September 25, 2006 6:28 AM:
by the way let us not forget that the church in the middle ages did horrors to find the antichrist and what they did wasnt biblical in any sense

Most of the terrible deeds done in the name of Christianity were only possible by keeping an illiterate population ignorant of what the New Testament actually says. With increasing literacy and increasing supply of bibles came a centuries long bloody battle to wrest Christianity back to the core message of its base text.

I would argue that the relatively tolerant periods of Islam were likewise only possible by keeping an illiterate population ignorant of what the Qur'an actually says. With increasing literacy and availability, I expect Islam to move closer to the core message of its base texts. I suggest the acts of the terrorists and of hundreds of millions of other muslims confirms this trend.

Kontar, I find your suggestions nutty because I find them random and disconnected from reality. Since I don't think they have any anchor in reality, I would find nothing in them surprising. Neither would I find anything in them useful.

kontar said at September 26, 2006 5:11 AM:

Kontar, I find your suggestions nutty because I find them random and disconnected from reality. Since I don't think they have any anchor in reality, I would find nothing in them surprising. Neither would I find anything in them useful


well bob ,
my message is simple ...i think we dont need to talk much again about it..so this is my last
violence could mean its script based but it doesnt exclude possibility of it being non script based
so in order to prove its in core of religion u have to use the religion words to confirm ur allegations
it is simple bob.

and that has nothing to do with what u said that christians who did horrors were ignorant of the new testament ,thats what i said too...???it only proves what i said ...that if someone came to me and said look what the christians did ,i will ask him to point out from the bible verses where does it say to do so???same goes for other religions
dont beat around the bush alot please :)

...anchor is "script"and nothin more... ...know the verses ...point them out here....and u wont have to prove more...but dont stumble or be pushed in side chats about if a christian kills then all are so or if a muslim spat then all are alike...cause its the written belief not the acts that prooves beyond doubt the "core of acts" of any religion.
read a little ,to prove your theory thats what i mean....and write it when u do.
ok cya
byebye

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at September 26, 2006 8:24 AM:

Sorry guys, I’m very busy in my work these days and also we are in Ramadan right now ,"Muslims' best month". I will reply your questions soon , but I found an article I thought that you can find it interesting. That article shows you part from Islamic history and how all religions lived in peace under Islamic rule.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain_4.shtml

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at September 26, 2006 8:27 AM:

The correct link is
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain_1.shtml

Bob Badour said at September 28, 2006 5:36 PM:
I found an article I thought that you can find it interesting. That article shows you part from Islamic history and how all religions lived in peace under Islamic rule.

The article you pointed to starts by defining "all religions" as "three great monotheistic religions: Muslims, Christians, and Jews." Where is the article that shows when and how good moral atheists like myself were ever permitted to live at peace and in safety under Sharia? Ever... Anywhere...

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at September 29, 2006 5:36 AM:

when and how good moral atheists like myself were ever permitted to live at peace and in safety under Sharia

I think that atheists weren't exists in that time because the three great religions: Muslims, Christians, and Jews were enough to all the humanity .
In that time , if one doesn't have GOD to workship, he will create one from "Rocks, planets , fire or animals".
But may be i'm wrong , do you have history book for atheists in that period? where they were living?

So do you agreed that in that time that the three great religions lived in peace?

Bob Badour said at October 4, 2006 5:40 PM:

Mohamed,

There have always been people who had the sense not to believe in silly ghosts. (I note that you model the behaviour I have seen that many moslems seem to want to deny inconvenient truths--doesn't that make them 'kafir'?) But what happened to the atheists in Islam is pretty much the same as what happened to the Pagans in Islam and to the animists and to the hindus etc. I have difficulty believing any moslem is sufficiently ignorant of Islamic history to not know, and I have to wonder whether you are simply playing dumb in an effort to deceive others.

Atheists and pagans and animists and hindus etc. (unlike Christians and Jews) were either murdered outright during the conquest or forced to convert at the point of a sword--those allowed to live were generally enslaved.

Granted things were not any better further north in Europe where the Catholic clergy tortured us into false confessions prior to murdering us.

If one follows the link you gave and reads all of the sections, one will see that Christians and Jews lived in a state of oppression and persecution in Moorish Iberia rather than in a state of peace. I find it fascinating that moslems expect us in the west to believe that oppression and persecution are okay if done by moslems but living under non-muslim rule of any kind is worse than murder to a moslem. (Defeat and subjugation are not at all the same as peace.)

One wonders whether Islam has had any period of true peace anywhere in Islam since the first Fitna.

I know you have been busy as have I. Please, no further distractions. Kindly answer my questions:

1. Do you believe the Arabic Qur'an is the actual word of God in his language of choice?

2. Do you believe the Arabic Qur'an is the original work of God unaltered by humans?

3. Do you believe the earlier scriptures in the New Testament and the Old Testament were inspired by God?

4. Do you believe later scriptures supercede earlier scriptures? eg. that the Qur'an supercedes the earlier scriptures?

5. Do you believe the Qur'an is the complete and final word of God? eg. Can there ever be another prophet?

6. Regardless of your personal belief, is it fair to say that hundreds of millions of muslims do believe each of the above points of Islamic doctrine?

A simple yes or no will do for each of the questions. It cannot take you all that long to answer yes or no about your own personal beliefs. It's not like you have to go look anything up--either you believe something or you do not.

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at October 5, 2006 8:13 AM:

I'm not playing dumb in an effort to deceive others, you are deceiving yourself. The silly ghost is in your mind. How can a human write a like The Bible or The Quran? Did you read about Quran’s miracle and the bible’s? Do you want me to show you that the Quran has everything , did you know that the Quran’s telling the future or you just read the Quran to to misunderstand it and getting from it what it’s look like violence..!!! Do you even know the meaning of the word “Muslim”??

In you information Islam will stay forever and no one can change this fact, also the west needed the Muslim world and can’t live without it.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

47:4 So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah – never will He waste their deeds.

This verse which you have as prove was when Muslims in a war with unbeliever and god wanted to give them a motivation and to tell them that the winning is from god.

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.

And that verse also talking about a certain event , so don’t try to misunderstand the quran,

Why you didn’t say about bible is a violence by this
Matthew 10
34"Jesus :Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
Do you think this is a violence (Yes/No) ?
You have to know what does “a sword “ mean here first to undertand it well.

Here my answers to your questions and I'm sorry for the late response.

"Do you believe the Arabic Qur'an is the actual word of God in his language of choice?"
Yes I do.
"Do you believe the Arabic Qur'an is the original work of God unaltered by humans?"
Yes ,I do and I’m sure of that.
"Do you believe the earlier scriptures in the New Testament and the Old Testament were inspired by God?"
Yes I do, but the original books which before they had been altered by humans.
"Do you believe later scriptures supercede earlier scriptures? eg. that the Qur'an supercedes the earlier scriptures?"
Yes I do because It’s coming from the same God and because of that we have the New Testament and the Old Testament.
"Do you believe the Qur'an is the complete and final word of God? eg. Can there ever be another prophet?"
Yes I do believe that the Qur'an is the last holy book. We are waiting Jesus to come back.
"Is it fair to say that hundreds of millions of muslims do believe each of the above points of Islamic doctrine?"
If anyone doesn't believe in anything above so he is not a muslim , or he is muslim just by name...

Here are some questions?
1- What rules do you have as atheist ?
2- How do you know the good atheist from the bad one?
3- Where were you (Atheists) in the past (1000BC to 1000AC ) ?
4- Do you have history ?
5- Do you have old books talking about you or you are just reading books from the believers as a refrence ?
6- What is the different between the human and the animal although animals have everything the human has?

Bob Badour said at October 5, 2006 11:15 AM:

Mohamed,

Thank you for answering my questions.

In your answers to questions 3 & 4 above, you say that later scripture supercedes earlier scripture. Does that apply as well within the Qur'an itself? For example, if content of a surah that was revealed later seems to contradict the content of a surah that was revealed earlier, does the later surah supercede the earlier surah? May I assume that it does?

It would seem reasonable for this to apply. Would it not?

I find your sudden interest in my beliefs surprising. When you said, "I didn't debate with you or anybody else about your believes", I thought you professed no interest in my beliefs. Apparently, I was mistaken.

1- What rules do you have as atheist ?

Good and moral rules. Rules that--if followed by everyone--would empirically make the world a much better place. I constantly learn how to be a better person and I try to become one.

2- How do you know the good atheist from the bad one?

The bad ones are easy enough to identify: they do bad things. Marx and Stalin were responsible for acts of genocide. Jeffrey Dalmer was a murderer and a pedophile. While I cannot think of any specific examples, if an atheist were a pirate or bandit, he would be bad.

How do you know a good muslim from a bad muslim?

3- Where were you (Atheists) in the past (1000BC to 1000AC ) ?

Everywhere--just as always.

4- Do you have history ?

Yes, absolutely. Don't we all share the same history? Or is some history reserved for some people and not for others?

5- Do you have old books talking about you or you are just reading books from the believers as a refrence ?

I have not read every book ever written. And since some of my relatively recent ancestry were stone-age primitives, much of the history about my ancestors was never recorded.

6- What is the different between the human and the animal although animals have everything the human has?

Loaded questions are another form of fallacious argument. Are you suggesting we are mineral or vegetable instead of animal?

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at October 5, 2006 1:08 PM:

Bob,

Your assumption about that the Quran is wrong and that's because if you bring a child and told him that ,he would say "You are Wrong" because the Quran is one book and it appeared that you don't understand what the Quran is and how the Quran which we have right now is complete. so I hoped that you listened to kontar when he said "study first".

Why you didn't answer if the bible has violence or not, Didn't you see it Or what....?

I’m not interesting in your beliefs , because you don’t have any , Do you?

"Good and moral rules. "
What are the rules ?

"Don't we all share the same history"
No we don't share the same history , Before Jesus there was no Cherstianity's history , before Mohamed there was no Islamic history ..... So where did Atheists bigan and Do you have a refrence of that ? And please give me a refrence that Atheists were everywhere "just as always" between (1000BC to 1000AC )..

“How do you know a good muslim from a bad muslim?”
We know by his practicing the Islamic rules

"much of the history about my ancestors was never recorded"
So how do you know that it was exist , guessing or what?

Bob Badour said at October 5, 2006 9:53 PM:

Mohamed,

I have studied the Qur'an. Anyone who reads the Qur'an can verify that it is self-contradictory on its face. In fact, I have been accused of being Muslim for pointing out parts that contradict what Muslims like to tell people in the west. And in due time, I will demonstrate the apparent contradictions here, and then you can clarify the apparent contradictions if you so desire.

However, in the meantime, it suffices if you simply answer the question. If you don't think the Qur'an is self-contradictory, treat my question as a hypothetical "what if" question regarding doctrine. There is no need to resort to ad hominem attacks to avoid answering the question. "What if" a surah revealed later contradicted a surah revealed earlier, would the later one supercede the earlier one just as the Qur'an supercedes earlier scriptures? Even if you reject that extrapolation, would it not seem reasonable that many muslims (perhaps millions or even hundreds of millions) would extrapolate from the Qur'an superceding the New Testament that newer scripture supercedes older? If I may not extrapolate from the Qur'an superceding the New Testament that recent surahs supercede earlier surahs, may I assume instead that a larger surah placed more prominently at the start of the Qur'an supercedes a smaller surah tucked away almost as an appendix? If not recency or prominence, by what criteria may one resolve apparent contradiction?

Returning to a question I asked before that you never answered: Is the Qur'an moral instruction? Are parts of it moral instruction and other parts merely historical narrative? If it contains both, how does one determine which is which? If parts of the Qur'an are merely historical narrative, why would a God bother telling people stuff they already know as current events? Doesn't it make more sense that the Qur'an is moral instruction from Allah to all Muslims? If not moral instruction, what is it?

I overlooked your question about Matthew 10, and I apologize. It was an unintentional oversight. While the Old Testament has considerable violence and while one can find one or two passages in the New Testament that are about as violent as a great many of the verses in the Qur'an, Matthew 10 is not violent. For violence in the New Testament, one pretty much has to stick to Revelation.

Al-Anfal, on the other hand, is not only violent but I find it repugnant and evil too. I know you disagree. I will get to my findings in greater detail when I have more time when I respond to your earlier posts and that will give you an opportunity to address my findings in detail if you so choose. You have been very helpful in confirming what I thought were likely your beliefs about Islamic doctrine. Thank you.

I’m not interesting in your beliefs , because you don’t have any , Do you?

Of course, I have beliefs. I believe there is no God--not even one called Allah. That's a belief. It's not knowledge. It's not based on any empirical evidence. It's a belief just as you believe the arabic Qur'an records God's actual words in his language of choice and just as an animist believes trees and rocks embody spirits and just as Christians believe Christ was God. I am as certain there is no God as you are certain there is.

If you are not interested in my beliefs after all, that raises the question: Why did you ask about them? Insincerity and intellectual dishonesty do not make for open respectful dialogue. Instead of assuming wrongly that I have no beliefs, if you were sincere, you would ask specific questions about my beliefs.

After all, I have shown you the respect of learning something about your beliefs so that I can ask very specific questions about them, and I have been very open about answering your questions. I do not try to avoid your questions, and I do not attack you for asking them.

"Good and moral rules. "
What are the rules ?

I am afraid you will have to be more specific. You are asking me for something encyclopedic in a blog comment. That's not a reasonable request.

Genocide is wrong. Robbery is wrong. Rape is wrong. Murder is wrong. For an adult to have sexual intercourse with a nine year old is wrong. Those are all evil acts that only an immoral evil man could do. I would never do any of those things, and I would never accept moral instruction from any man who ever did any of them--let alone all of them. Kindness is good. Generosity is good. Forgiveness is a gift we give ourselves. If I were to list things that are good and bad, the list would go on for far too long for a blog comment.

"Don't we all share the same history"
No we don't share the same history , Before Jesus there was no Cherstianity's history , before Mohamed there was no Islamic history .....

Your idea is absurd. History is history. It belongs to all of us. To say that the future is not yet history is a tautology. History is not history until it is in the past and then it is. Well, duh. Does the observation have any point or use?

So where did Atheists bigan and Do you have a refrence of that ? And please give me a refrence that Atheists were everywhere "just as always" between (1000BC to 1000AC )..

Atheists have been around as long as humans have been around to invent beliefs. How long have some people believed that the universe was not sneezed out of the left nostril of a large black and yellow salamander? Please provide a reference. Do you see the absurdity of your demand? The default belief is a belief in absense of things for which no evidence exists. Since one generally believes in the absense of an infinite number of things for which no evidence exists, one would be hard-pressed to find a reference enumerating them all.

If there were no atheists between 1000 BC and 1000 AC, why would Mohammed have ranted and raved so much about unbelievers?

“How do you know a good muslim from a bad muslim?”
We know by his practicing the Islamic rules

So, if a Muslim robbed, raped, committed acts of genocidal murder and fucked a young child, that Muslim would be good as long as he was practicing the Islamic rules? Which rules are those?

"much of the history about my ancestors was never recorded"
So how do you know that it was exist , guessing or what?

For a start, by the empirical evidence that I am here. While some of my ancestors had no written history until relatively recently, they certainly left ample evidence of their existence as well as having an oral tradition. The Qur'an existed primarily as an oral tradition for quite some time. Are you saying that it is somehow less valid for having been an oral tradition?

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at October 6, 2006 7:51 AM:

Bob,

If you have studied the Qur’an, how you don't know that Surah on Quran is like Chapter in any book, so no way a chapter supercedes another chapter in the same book . I think your assumption and you question were dump from the beginning..
Did you go to a school one day??? Don't you know the different between version and chapter?? Don’t play dump ……


"Atheists have been around as long as humans have been around to invent beliefs"
Give me a reference or something to prove your talk... Or you just have a felling that you are right. Do I have to assume that you don’t have any historical book talking about Atheists between 1000 BC and 1000? May I assume that it’s true?

So I believe you took what you want from the other religion who believe in god and made your own.. Is that what they called stealing history?

How many are you? Who did start that? and when? Do you believe in Adam the father of all the humanity?

Bob , If you don't know the answer about these question, so your believe is broken ..

Again, we don’t share the same history , because you are talking about the existing of Atheists in the past and my history didn’t show that at all between (1000BC to 1000AC )..

Look at this when George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice-president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates, had the following exchange with then-Vice-President Bush.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

So your own country doesn't beleieve on you.. How do you think the other people will do..

Bob Badour said at October 7, 2006 10:05 AM:

Mohamed,

Are the Old Testament, New Testament and Qur'an not all chapters of the same trilogy? When I point out the self-contradictions in the Qur'an, how will you suggest we resolve the contradictions. I suggested two methods and cited an Islamic precedent to support the first of those methods. I also asked if you reject both of those methods to provide a third alternative you will accept. What method do you accept? How will we resolve the self-contradictions of the Qur'an? If there are no self-contradictions, then I don't see why you would reject any method.

Don't try to evade the question by attacking me with ad hominem ad nauseum. That sort of sophistry is weak. If that is all you have to offer, doesn't that mean Islam is weak?

Give me a reference or something to prove your talk

As soon as you provide the reference that proves how long some people have believed that the universe was NOT sneezed out of the left nostril of a large black and yellow salamander. Or are you suggesting that everybody believes and has always believed the universe was sneezed out of the left nostril of a large black and yellow salamander?

How many are you? Who did start that? and when? Do you believe in Adam the father of all the humanity?
Bob , If you don't know the answer about these question, so your believe is broken ..

How many am I? I am one, of course. My parents conceived me in late 1964. If you are asking me whether I believe--as an atheist--that God created a single first human called Adam, I note that the question is silly. There is no God. No ilah. No Allah. No creator to create anything. I find it fascinating that anyone could think such silly questions would stump anyone let alone prove anything.

Why do you continually resort to ad hominem? Is your religion so weak that a single individual can pose such a profound threat to it that Islam has no answer but personal attack?

Again, we don’t share the same history , because you are talking about the existing of Atheists in the past and my history didn’t show that at all between (1000BC to 1000AC )..

I suggest you haven't paid enough attention to the Qur'an. If there were no atheists from 1000BC to 1000AC, why did Mohammed make atheism such a prominent theme in the Qur'an when he composed it during the latter part of that period? It would seem pointless. Rather like devoting much of a religious text to denigrating those who believe the universe was sneezed out of the left nostril of a large black and yellow salamander. Wouldn't it?

So your own country doesn't beleieve on you.. How do you think the other people will do..

Since when did George Bush become my own country? He is a human being. I don't recall plonking a flagpole on his forehead and stepping on his chest to proclaim him a country or to claim him for myself. It would seem absurd, but then again, most of what you post seems absurd. Obviously, I exist regardless what any nutjob believes.

By citing George Bush are you suggesting we should look to George Bush for sound thinking and moral guidance?


Thank you for demonstrating how absurd and weak Islam really is. But enough with the distractions, please answer the questions I posed:

What method will you accept for resolving apparent contradictions within the Qur'an?
If you believe there are no contradictions, simply say that any method will do.

Regardless what method you will accept, do you admit that millions and perhaps hundreds of millions of Muslims will extrapolate from the Qur'an superceding the New Testament that surahs revealed later supercede surahs revealed earlier? (yes or no will do)

Is the Qur'an moral instruction? (yes or no will do)
If it is not moral instruction, what is it?

If a Muslim robbed, raped, committed acts of genocidal murder and fucked a nine year old child, would that Muslim be good as long as he was practicing the Islamic rules? (yes or no will do)
If yes, what are the Islamic rules that make robbery, rape, genocidal murder and child sexual exploitation the acts of a good man? Is it a short list of rules?

Do you believe the Qur'an is less valid due to its origins as an oral tradition? (yes or no will do)

Is Islam too weak to answer the logical arguments of a lone atheist with anything better than personal attack and fallacious sophistry? (yes or no will do) Or is it just that hubris, bigotry and chauvinism delude Muslims into thinking that weak sophistry will do? Or do you have some alternate explanation?

By citing George Bush are you suggesting we should look to George Bush for sound thinking and moral guidance?
If not, why would you cite him?

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at October 8, 2006 3:42 PM:

Bob,

No you are wrong . Old Testament, New Testament and Qur'an are not chapters , They are different version from the same book.. so the question about if the Quran's Surahs supercedes itself is closed ....

Can you Issue a book chapter by chapter and each chapter supercedes the others?

You are wrong again .I suggest that YOU haven't paid enough attention to the Qur'an.Prophet Mohammed didn't make atheism such a prominent theme in the Qur'an .And It's ok,Bob that you can't get any reference of the existing of atheism in the past.. I will not tell anyone.

When i did asked How many are you , I meant "atheisms" , So how many the people who believe like ? Please give me number "don't say a lot" and tell me where did you get that number.

I didn't attack you ... I just asked you questions as you did before..

My religion is stronger than you think ,I can debate with you till next 10 years and I'm sure i will win, and I did answer to all your question but You didn't answer to my questions about the history which is not a religion , a believe or in doupt..

I'm sorry I did write what is George Bush's believe about atheisms and I felt that you hate him a lot , so don't be angry ..But George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent VICE--PRESIDENT so I still think he was someday represented your country...

What method will you accept for resolving apparent contradictions within the Qur'an?

The only method I will accept for resolving apparent contradictions within the Qur'an is when you study Quran first and don't say that you did because your questions don't show that. Like that one :
"Do you believe the Qur'an is less valid due to its origins as an oral tradition? (yes or no will do)"

And my answer is "NO" Quran is valid more than world's map today and it was never an oral tradition because It is true that the Qur’an was not compiled into a single book in the Prophet’s time; but the verses were scrupulously written down and passages were recited, not only during prayer, but also on other occasions. Muslims were taught that the recitation and the contemplation of the Qur’anic verses were acts of piety, worthy of great reward. For this reason, the companions of the Prophet were eager to learn the verses, which fact was to a great extent responsible for the safeguarding the Qur’an in the hearts of the people.
The story of the conversion of Omar is well-known. In Ibn Hisham’s account we can read how Omar asked his sister to hand over to him a written sheet of the Qur’an, which they have been reading. This points to the fact that the practice of recording the verses on available materials was already happening in the earliest years of the revelation.
It has been clearly recorded, by the Prophet’s biographers, that he had appointed many scribes to write down the Qur’anic revelations. The following hadith proves that the Qur’an was with the companions of the Prophet in written form:
‘From Ibn Omar: ... 'The messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: ‘Do not take the Qur'an on a journey with you, for I am afraid lest it should fall into the hands of the enemy’’. (Sahih Muslim & Sahih Bukhari)


"raped, committed acts of genocidal murder"

In 627, the army of Mecca attacked Medina under the command of Abu Sufyan. Abu Sufyan asked the Banu Qurayza tribe to help them conquer Medina, by attacking the Muslims from behind the lines or letting them into the town.

According to one early historian, Ibn Ishaq, the Banu Qurayza chief, Ka`b, was initially reluctant, but eventually decided to support the Meccans, being so persuaded by Huyayy ibn Akhtab, chief of the Banu al-Nadir.

Thas was the second time Bani Qurayza had broken the peace treaty and allied with Banu Al-Nadir against the Muslims; the first time, Banu Qurayza suffered no loss and were allowed to stay in Medina

So do you called killing a treater " raped, committed acts of genocidal murder"??

The Marriage of Our Prophet to Aisha "9 years old" was common and not exceptions , 100% legal and acceptable

Firstly: It was Allah who ordered the marriage of Aisha to the Prophet.

Secondly: By marrying the Prophet at such a young age Aisha was raised, nurtured and imbibed with knowledge of Islam. It is a fact that she became one of this religions greatest Scholars.

Thirdly: Surely any objection to such a young marriage can only be made if can be shown that some harm was caused because of it. In fact all evidence points to the opposite in the case of this marriage which was so clearly full of love and happiness.

Fourthly: According to ibn Sa’d (The Women of Madina) Aisha was in fact already promised in marriage even before she was married to the Prophet. It shows that arranging marriages at young ages was quite normal.

Child brides as young as 8 (eight) were common among the Byzantine emperors and nobility! http://www.roman-emperors.org/aggiefran.htm
And if you want more references I can send you many examples as you want in bible too about that and how that was common in the past.

I did answer all your questions in this post. If you didn't find an answer to any of them. till me and I will send it in detail and in order.

Bob Badour said at October 8, 2006 7:48 PM:
No you are wrong . Old Testament, New Testament and Qur'an are not chapters

How are they not chapters? Are they not a continuing series from the same source?

They are different version from the same book.. so the question about if the Quran's Surahs supercedes itself is closed ....

It's not closed until you give an honest answer without simply trying to avoid the question. I take your continued ad hominem as a frank admission that Islam is weak.

Can you Issue a book chapter by chapter and each chapter supercedes the others?

Yes, absolutely, one can.

What is your answer to the question? Which method you will accept for resolving contradictions within the Qur'an? If you think the Qur'an does not contradict itself, I don't see why you would object to any method. Just say that any method will do.

You are wrong again .I suggest that YOU haven't paid enough attention to the Qur'an.Prophet Mohammed didn't make atheism such a prominent theme in the Qur'an

According to the Qur'an:

Disbelieve:
002.006 002.026 002.028 002.039 002.041 002.085 002.087 002.089 002.090 002.091 002.099 002.102 002.105 002.161 002.171 002.212 002.217 002.257 003.004 003.010 003.012 003.021 003.055 003.056 003.070 003.072 003.080 003.090 003.091 003.098 003.101 003.106 003.112 003.116 003.127 003.149 003.151 003.156 003.178 003.196 004.042 004.051 004.056 004.076 004.084 004.089 004.101 004.102 004.131 004.137 004.140 004.150 004.161 004.167 004.168 004.170 005.003 005.010 005.017 005.036 005.072 005.073 005.080 005.086 005.103 005.115 006.001 006.007 006.025 006.030 006.089 008.012 008.015 008.030 008.035 008.036 008.038 008.050 008.055 008.059 008.065 008.073 009.003 009.037 009.040 009.054 009.074 009.080 009.084 009.090 010.004 010.070 010.086 011.007 011.068 013.005 013.007 013.027 013.031 013.033 013.043 014.009 014.018 015.002 016.039 016.072 016.084 016.088 016.104 018.029 018.037 018.056 018.102 018.105 019.037 019.073 021.030 021.036 021.039 021.097 022.019 022.025 022.055 022.057 022.072 024.039 024.055 024.057 025.004 025.032 027.067 028.048 029.012 029.023 029.052 029.066 029.067 030.034 030.051 030.058 032.029 034.003 034.007 034.008 034.031 034.033 034.043 035.007 035.036 036.047 037.170 038.002 038.027 039.063 039.071 040.004 040.006 040.010 040.042 041.009 041.026 041.027 041.029 041.041 041.044 041.050 041.052 043.033 045.011 046.003 046.007 046.010 046.011 046.020 046.034 047.001 047.003 047.004 047.008 047.012 047.032 047.034 048.022 048.026 051.060 052.042 053.027 057.019 059.011 059.016 060.001 060.002 060.005 063.003 064.007 064.010 066.007 066.010 067.006 067.027 068.051 070.036 073.017 074.031 084.022 085.019 090.019 098.001 098.006

Disbeliever:
002.034 002.102 002.258 025.055 039.009 064.002 076.024 078.040

Unbelief:
002.088 002.093 002.108 002.217 003.052 003.080 003.090 003.167 003.176 003.177 004.046 004.088 004.137 004.155 004.156 005.041 005.061 005.064 005.068 008.038 009.012 009.017 009.023 009.037 009.074 009.097 009.107 009.125 016.106 035.039 049.007

Unbeliever:
002.102 002.217 002.221 024.003 025.055 064.002 078.040

Disbelief:
002.108 002.217 003.052 003.090 003.091 003.167 003.176 003.177 004.046 004.088 004.137 004.155 004.156 005.041 005.064 005.068 009.012 009.017 009.023 009.037 009.074 009.097 009.107 010.051 016.106 017.089 017.099 018.080 030.044 030.051 031.023 035.039 039.008 044.015 049.007

It sure looks like a prominent theme to me.

So do you called killing a treater " raped, committed acts of genocidal murder"??

I call the murder of every man and the enslavement of every woman and child genocide. Considering they were murdered after surrender "under a white flag" as it were, the murder was particularly despicable and repugnant to good and moral men. Only an evil coward would commit such a nauseating disgrace.

The Marriage of Our Prophet to Aisha "9 years old" was common and not exceptions , 100% legal and acceptable

So, you admit that you believe a middle-aged Mohammed fucked a nine year old girl whom he married when she was six. The sexual exploitation of a child might be acceptable to a sick pervert like you, but it is not at all acceptable to good and moral men. Such an act disgusts and outrages any decent human being.

Secondly: By marrying the Prophet at such a young age Aisha was raised, nurtured and imbibed with knowledge of Islam. It is a fact that she became one of this religions greatest Scholars.

Um, so, you are saying it was a good thing she had Islam fucked into her at the tender age of nine years old? That's the sort of delusional thinking I would expect from any pedophile. Are you a pedophile?

Thirdly: Surely any objection to such a young marriage can only be made if can be shown that some harm was caused because of it. In fact all evidence points to the opposite in the case of this marriage which was so clearly full of love and happiness.

So, what you are saying is it is possible to fuck a nine year old child without harming her, and that fucking pre-pubescent children is good and moral?

Fourthly: According to ibn Sa’d (The Women of Madina) Aisha was in fact already promised in marriage even before she was married to the Prophet. It shows that arranging marriages at young ages was quite normal.

Arranging the marriage of a six year old is common enough in some cultures. Fucking a nine year old--even within the confines of marriage--is an evil, perverted act.

Child brides as young as 8 (eight) were common among the Byzantine emperors and nobility!

So, what you are saying is other pedophiles fucked children so that makes it good and moral. Was your mother stupid enough to fall for "all the other kids are doing it" when you were growing up?

I did answer all your questions in this post. If you didn't find an answer to any of them. till me and I will send it in detail and in order.

The questions you failed to answer:

1. Is the Qur'an moral instruction? (yes or no will do)

2. Are you suggesting that everybody believes and has always believed the universe was sneezed out of the left nostril of a large black and yellow salamander? (yes or no will do)

3. Why do you continually resort to ad hominem?

4. Is your religion so weak that a single individual can pose such a profound threat to it that Islam has no answer but personal attack? (If "no", please demonstrate by providing logically sound arguments.)

5. Why did Mohammed make atheism such a prominent theme in the Qur'an? (See above for empirical evidence of the prominence.)

6. By citing George Bush are you suggesting we should look to George Bush for sound thinking and moral guidance? (yes or no will do)

7. What method will you accept for resolving apparent contradictions within the Qur'an? (If you believe there are no contradictions, simply say that any method will do.)

8. Do you admit that millions and perhaps hundreds of millions of Muslims will extrapolate from the Qur'an superceding the New Testament that surahs revealed later supercede surahs revealed earlier? (yes or no will do)

9. If a Muslim robbed, raped, committed acts of genocidal murder and fucked a nine year old child, would that Muslim be good as long as he was practicing the Islamic rules? (yes or no will do)

10. If yes, what are the Islamic rules that make robbery, rape, genocidal murder and child sexual exploitation the acts of a good man? Is it a short list of rules?

The questions you did answer:

11. Do you believe the Qur'an is less valid due to its origins as an oral tradition? (You answered no.)

12. Is Islam too weak to answer the logical arguments of a lone atheist with anything better than personal attack and fallacious sophistry? (You answered that yes Islam is too weak--actions speak louder than words.)

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at October 9, 2006 9:27 AM:

Bob,

How are they not chapters? Are they not a continuing series from the same source?
They are not a continuing series , because people altered the Turah , so God sent the bible which had the original Turah's rules and extra rules but people altered it again , still changing in it, So god sent the Quran.

if one Issued a book chapter by chapter and each chapter supercedes the others , so he is stupid.

Is the Qur'an moral instruction?
Yes

Are you suggesting that everybody believes and has always believed the universe was sneezed out of the left nostril of a large black and yellow
salamander?
If you are asking about the world creation. No, Just smart people...

Why do you continually resort to ad hominem?
I don't , it's just in your mind....

Is your religion so weak that a single individual can pose such a profound threat to it that Islam has no answer but personal attack?
No , i said my religion is stronger than you think , and I didn't attack you ... if you have a prove , show the attack..

Why did Mohammed make atheism such a prominent theme in the Qur'an?
I said you are wrong , Mohammed didn't make atheism such a prominent theme in the Qur'an
Disbelieve , unbeliever Disbelief , unbelief in quran was talking about very big group people who worship Rocks , animal , stars , fire , human ,.....
so this can't be approve of your existing in the past... Sorry..

By citing George Bush are you suggesting we should look to George Bush for sound thinking and moral guidance?
No , because he doesn't represent me from any way , but he represented big part from the west.

What method will you accept for resolving apparent contradictions within the Qur'an?
I said , go first study Quran and then we can resolve that... It's like I want to resolve a problem in spelling a word with one who can't write.

Do you admit that millions and perhaps hundreds of millions of Muslims will extrapolate from the Qur'an superceding the New Testament that
surahs revealed later supercede surahs revealed earlier? (yes or no will do)
This is a stupid question ..... any Muslim will say Qur'an superceding the New Testament and Surahs can't superced each other ..
And please if anyone else is seeing this ,Could you please explain the different between Book versions and Chapters to Bob...

Do you believe the Qur'an is less valid due to its origins as an oral tradition?
Quran Is valid because it was never an oral tradition.... And this question showed you as you don't know what is Quran..
It's true the Qur’an was not compiled into a single book in the Prophet’s time; but the verses were scrupulously written down and passages were recited, not only during prayer, but also on other occasions. Muslims were taught that the recitation and the contemplation of the Qur’anic verses were acts of piety, worthy of great reward. For this reason, the companions of the Prophet were eager to learn the verses, which fact was to a great extent responsible for the safeguarding the Qur’an in the hearts of the people.
The story of the conversion of Omar is well-known. In Ibn Hisham’s account we can read how Omar asked his sister to hand over to him a written sheet of the Qur’an, which they have been reading. This points to the fact that the practice of recording the verses on available materials was already happening in the earliest years of the revelation.
It has been clearly recorded, by the Prophet’s biographers, that he had appointed many scribes to write down the Qur’anic revelations. The following hadith proves that the Qur’an was with the companions of the Prophet in written form:
‘From Ibn Omar: ... 'The messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: ‘Do not take the Qur'an on a journey with you, for I am afraid lest it should fall into the hands of the enemy’’. (Sahih Muslim & Sahih Bukhari)

Is Islam too weak to answer the logical arguments of a lone atheist with anything better than personal attack and fallacious sophistry?
No,i said my religion is stronger than you think and what action you are talking about?

Considering they were murdered after surrender "under a white flag" as it were
It was n't the first time they they did that.. The first time, Banu Qurayza suffered no loss and were allowed to stay in Medina..


Your way right now is saying that you are too weak and It's all right... to debate about something you have to study it first..
Not just it . You have to study the time which it were in . You have to study how the people were behaving in the time . You have to study what was legal and what was not..

Who makes that married to young girl is bad , and when ? Do you know that?
In the past , people were to married to any age .. There was not a problem in that. can you right now married to 14 years old ?? No , isn't . But in 1900 in usa it was legal .. even these days in canda , you can married to 12 years old.http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm. So married to young ages is not evil thing .


In the future I will answer your questions in order because I did answer them in the last post and i didn't fail to answer them.. You just want to feel that... ;)

I just remind you that you failed to get any reference for the existing of the atheists...

Bob Badour said at October 9, 2006 11:17 AM:
Is the Qur'an moral instruction?
Yes

Good, I am glad we finally cleared that up.

What sort of morality or moral instruction devotes a chapter to the topic of dividing the stolen wealth of one's murdered victims?

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at October 9, 2006 1:06 PM:

What are you talking about? You are On Earth , Bob...


Good, I am glad too that finally you accepted my other answers...


I just remind you that you failed to get any reference for the existing of the atheists...

Bob Badour said at October 9, 2006 2:19 PM:

Accepted? I haven't even read most of them yet.

Surah 8 of the Qur'an called Al-Anfal, which is Arabic for "booty, is devoted to the division of loot stolen from Islam's murdered victims. You can deny that fact all you want, but you know you are lying when you do so. When you lie about it, you are a kafir who tries to conceal the truth. Anyone can verify the fact for himself by clicking on the link I gave to three separate translations of the surah by three respected muslim translators.

What sort of morality or moral instruction devotes a chapter to the topic of dividing the stolen wealth of one's murdered victims?

You admit that the Qur'an is moral instruction. What lesson does Al-Anfal teach when it is a surah about dividing stolen wealth after murdering the proper owners?

Casting aspersions at me with comments like "What are you talking about? You are On Earth , Bob..." does not affect the validity of my question. All your ad hominem proves is the weakness of Islam that comes from its wickedness. My question is not even a loaded question because none of its premises are in doubt. You acknowledged that the Qur'an is moral instruction, and I provided a direct link to Al-Anfal, the surah devoted to the topic of dividing the wealth stolen from Islam's murdered victims.

kontar said at October 15, 2006 10:20 AM:

i would like to ask mohamed a question
what does muslims think of a muslim who self explodes himself amongest his enemy civilians?like for example a palestinian making himself a live bomb and exploding in an israelian restaurant in israel?

does that make him a martyr?or a terrorist? and there is only 1 choice
and is your answer going to be an official answer for all muslims?"i.e. substantiated from quran or ahadeeth?

and if your answer is a terrorist then why all arab newspapers say otherwise?

how is 9/11 fully regarded?
if there was war between the U.S. and afghanistan prior to 9/11 how would that incident be regarded as?
and what if your enemy is vicious and he will kill your women and children?do you think you should do the same?

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at October 16, 2006 10:30 AM:

kontar ,

No, there is nothing in the teachings of Islam to justify the killing of any innocent civilians under any circumstances. In fact, the Prophet instructed his companions saying: "Don't kill any non-combatant," who happens to be in the battlefield. "Don't kill a woman, a child, an elderly person, or a monk in his monastery, etc." Furthermore, he said: "Don't kill an animal except for food, don't destroy a building." The essence of his teachings is that there must be life after war, and a room for future potential reconciliation, even between warring parties. These instructions were given to people heading toward the battlefield.

And let us also remember this was 1,400 years ago, before international human rights law, the Geneva conventions, etc. We are talking about a group of Arabs in the desert, but look at how Islam lifted them and made them the most civilized of people, imbued with a sense of such moral clarity. It is this moral clarity that we as Muslims must rediscover in our rich, but unfortunately neglected tradition

So my answer to you Is any one kills his enemy civilians he is a terrorist . and this for any one and any country. So Muslims look at these mulsim as a terrorist and they look at Israel as a terrorist too.

if there any arab newspaper said another thing , so ask them . but I will tell you my point of view .
Muslims are not all living under similar circumstances to give them all one prescription fits all. If you consider the Palestinians, for example, many people would tell you they have waited for decades before using all of these violent tactics, as a response to home demolition, expulsion from their homeland, arbitrary arrests and unlawful detentions for long times, killing their children and women, unemployment, barring them from seeing their families, etc. This situation, unfortunately defies common sense and common wisdom.

In the end, those (arab newspapers) who excuse such acts are not using religious justifications (because there are none). Rather, they are using political justifications.

I'm Against 9/11 attacks and let me tell you my point of view and I don't know if other muslims think the same or not, because as I said before this is a political justifications.. What do you think about a man killed your son... and you can not put him in jail and he is free and killing others and then he killed your wife in front of you and then he put you in jail....Think in one like Saddam Hussin , I think he did more than that..
What will be your felling and your action after getting out from jail?Will you try to kill him?

kontar said at October 25, 2006 4:10 PM:

I'm Against 9/11 attacks and let me tell you my point of view and I don't know if other muslims think the same or not, because as I said before this is a political justifications.. What do you think about a man killed your son... and you can not put him in jail and he is free and killing others and then he killed your wife in front of you and then he put you in jail....Think in one like Saddam Hussin , I think he did more than that..
What will be your felling and your action after getting out from jail?Will you try to kill him?

i am sorry thats kinda leading...dont confuse human emotions under stress with rights and believes!
i dont think i will kill him but exploring the possibility i would say that wont make me justified by killin him or a martyr in case of a war and i kill civilians even if the enemy state kills my family...it is wrong...dead wrong
and you dont go to his family and tell them your son is a martyr ,no he has lost his cause,he gave in for haterate and for anger ,he leashed terror unto those who leashed on him terror..he might not be the starter but he did the same at the end.

"So my answer to you Is any one kills his enemy civilians he is a terrorist . and this for any one and any country. So Muslims look at these mulsim as a terrorist and they look at Israel as a terrorist too. "

I agree mohamed but then again u say:-

"If you consider the Palestinians, for example, many people would tell you they have waited for decades before using all of these violent tactics, as a response to home demolition, expulsion from their homeland, arbitrary arrests and unlawful detentions for long times, killing their children and women, unemployment, barring them from seeing their families, etc. This situation, unfortunately defies common sense and common wisdom. "

which means that in face of terror one is allowed to be a terrorist himself,in other words you mean if a man kills my children and family i am not to be blamed if i did the same to his...

its alright to say ur mind mohamed ,i wont say that such a situation "havin ur family killed"is no big deal ,its not easy!,but nevertheless we all know whats right and wrong,,,,its wrong to kill his child even if he killed mine!...it is simple ...his child is innocent...

it is said that blood brings more blood ,thats the truth
so even by logic, retaliating by the same logic as a terrorist makes us enter a closed loop of blood ,a saga where no one wins,and i am afraid its much worse for the souls salvation!

About the muslims public majority view of WTC 9/11 plane crashes
read those articles

first i'd like to warn you about a common mistake in discussions,sometimes people leave the object and change the subject and talk about the identity of the sources or their affiliations ,i have one word to tell you...

"it doesnt change a thing about the facts in the articles and the truth..."
so regardless a zionist a muslim a christian the identity of the article writer ,what he relies on are mere facts that were observed in all the world immediately after 9/11 wtc
here is the article and in it you will find links to why it is known that most muslims favored the attacks...thank you
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/62

Bob Badour said at October 27, 2006 10:20 AM:

Mohamed,

It's good to see you returned. I am not surprised you evaded the pointed question I asked you.

No, there is nothing in the teachings of Islam to justify the killing of any innocent civilians under any circumstances.

That just moves the question to one of deciding whether someone is innocent or a civilian. Apparently, some muslims do not believe catholic schoolgirls are innocent civilians. Some muslims do not believe jewish journalists are innocent civilians. Certainly, one can read the Qur'an as stating that adult male atheists are never considered innocent or civilan. Your answer to Kontar reeks of evasion.


I saw a muslim woman on T.V. today. I noticed she repeatedly stated what people are not allowed to discuss, which I have learned to expect from muslims. Does someone teach that to muslims at the mosque? Part of living in a pluralist society means having the courage and honesty to discuss all things.

During the interview, she said that Islam is a religion of reason and logic. What is the reason for devoting an entire chapter of moral instruction to dividing the wealth stolen from Islam's murdered victims? What is the logic of Al-Anfal?

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at November 8, 2006 10:00 AM:

Bob,

In your last post you said you didn't read all of my answers So I just gave you time to read them.

So please take your time and tell me first "What you didn't accept from them?? and why?" before going to other questions.

What's your problem with Al-Anfal?? What's wrong with it?
Is Al-Anfal the only Sora that you don't like?

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at November 8, 2006 11:01 AM:

Video: Israeli tanks shell Gaza town*

http://www.cnn.com/video/partners/clickability/index.html?url=/video/world/2006/11/08/wedeman.gaza.tragedy.ap

Bob Badour said at November 9, 2006 11:23 AM:
In your last post you said you didn't read all of my answers So I just gave you time to read them.

I see no reason to move on to the remainder of your answers until we address a singularly important issue regarding your beliefs and Islam: What sort of morality instructs people to kill innocent strangers and steal their wealth? If not the clear and literal lesson, what moral lesson does Al-Anfal teach?

What's your problem with Al-Anfal?? What's wrong with it?

Muslims claim to receive moral instruction from Al-Anfal. You, yourself, claimed to receive moral instruction from the Qur'an, which includes Al-Anfal. I find Al-Anfal vile hate propaganda. If I suggested doing to muslims what the Qur'an suggests doing to me, here in Canada, I could be arrested under hate speech laws.

Are you so immoral that you have to ask what's wrong with instructing people to murder and to steal under the guise of moral instruction? Moral men do not demand a cut of the stolen wealth of murder victims. Murderous thugs do.

What part of "Thou shalt not murder" and "Thou shalt not steal" eludes your grasp?

Is Al-Anfal the only Sora that you don't like?

Search the comments above for: "Is the tone not violent" and "Is the tone not intolerant". Asking a question that has already been answered strikes me as pointless rhetoric. You can find samples of Qur'anic verses I find objectionable enumerated in the comments of other posts here. Also less conveniently here, here, here, and here.


You claimed you post here to teach us the truth about Islam. What moral lesson does Al-Anfal teach?

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at November 10, 2006 7:36 AM:

Bob,

If I gave you moral lessons from al-Anfal , Would you love The Quran???

If Yes , I can give you more than Ten moral lessons..

"What sort of morality instructs people to kill innocent strangers and steal their wealth"
I did answer that by "They were not innocent strangers and I gave you the story"..
If you do have another history , tell me...

Right now in USA if They THINK that there is a guy MAY BE trying to make a bomb they will put him in jail with no evidence or they will kill him in the secret prisons. and the same is with other western counties...

"here in Canada, I could be arrested under hate speech laws."
When does this law appear?
Do not judge the past with present laws. It's wrong....

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at November 10, 2006 8:58 AM:

Bob,


"Search the comments above for: "Is the tone not violent" and "Is the tone not intolerant". Asking a question that has already been answered strikes me as pointless rhetoric"

No,You search the comments above for:
"I will reply to your earlier answers later when I can give them the time they deserve."

and if you looked before that you will find three posted comments had my answers..


Bob Badour said at November 10, 2006 4:41 PM:
"What sort of morality instructs people to kill innocent strangers and steal their wealth"
I did answer that by "They were not innocent strangers and I gave you the story"..
If you do have another history , tell me...

And you later admitted that Al-Anfal is not an historical story but moral instruction.

Your apparent response is to simply deny the very nature of your religious text. That strategy falls apart when hundreds of millions of your co-religionists accept the nature of your religius text at its face value. Some muslims will deny the nature of the Qur'an when speaking to non-muslims while fully accepting its nature when speaking among themselves. Perhaps, you even fall into this group.

Early Islamic history as recorded in the Qur'an and the Sira very clearly states that Mohammed repeatedly sent out bands of his men to hunt down caravans passing through the area, to kill the men travelling in those caravans, to enslave the women and to steal the wealth of the murdered men. Verse 7 of Al-Anfal makes clear that Mohammed's raiding party sought to slaughter a relatively defenseless trading party without realising the traders were protected by nearby soldiers.

Al-Anfal makes clear that Mohammed claims all of the loot for himself, but that Mohammed allows the murderous pigs to keep 80% of the stolen wealth to compensate them for their trouble. (And no doubt to motivate them to future murder.)

The terrorists take Al-Anfal as moral instruction to kill innocents. If not Al-Anfal 12, how else does one explain the Islamic horniness for beheadings?

"here in Canada, I could be arrested under hate speech laws."
When does this law appear?

We have had the hate speech laws here for 10 or 15 years now. I forget exactly when they were passed.

Do not judge the past with present laws. It's wrong....

Horseshit! I will judge a thieving, murderous, genocidal pedophile by what I consider universal, eternal standards of morality, and I fully expect every other truly moral person will too. The base text of your religion--that you claim as moral instruction--instructs muslims to kill unbelievers, to steal their wealth and to hand over a fifth to the murderous thug who made up your sick, deluded cult. While you may deny that aspect of your religion, the terrorists embrace it. Your denials reek of evasion.

No,You search the comments above for:
"I will reply to your earlier answers later when I can give them the time they deserve."

And if you search for "Is the tone not violent" as I suggested previously, you will see that we are currently exploring three questions posed on September 20 immediately preceding that heading that you evaded in your earlier answers on September 22 and 23. Thus, by exploring the nature of Al-Anfal as moral instruction to divide up the loot stolen from Islam's murdered victims, we are giving your earlier answers the time they deserve. We are paying particularly close attention to the questions you answered with silence.

To keep things on track, I repeat:

The terrorists take Al-Anfal as moral instruction to kill innocents. If not Al-Anfal 12, how else does one explain the Islamic horniness for beheadings?

Randall Parker said at November 10, 2006 5:46 PM:

Mohamed Abdel-Megid,

You say:

Do not judge the past with present laws. It's wrong....

Yet you view Mohammed as a teacher of morality. Then do you think that marrying 6 year olds should be legal and having sex with 9 year old should be legal?

In other words, should we judge the present with the religious teachings of the past?

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at November 10, 2006 7:14 PM:

Randall ,

Because humans are different ,Every age has his laws and every place has his laws. So for example In USA itself there are different laws in each state. and every year there is changes in the laws.

And about "marrying 6 year olds" before 1900 , you could see a girl 10 years old, you would find her like 25 years woman today.
I don't think that marrying 6 year olds should be legal and having sex with 9 year old should be legal but as I said before In 1900 in usa it was legal to marry young kids ..
even these days in canda , having sex with 12 years old is legal.
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm.


"should we judge the present with the religious teachings of the past?"
This is the reason to have something called Shariaa so there is no “the religious teachings of the past”. It's up-to-date .

Mohamed Abdel-Megid said at November 10, 2006 7:20 PM:

Bob

I like you ,Bob. So don't "Horseshit" again, I think you are bigger than that.. :)

"And you later admitted that Al-Anfal is not an historical story but moral instruction"
No I didn't .
Quran has many parts (Events,moral instruction , Ways to worship ,,,,,,) . each Sora maybe contains one of them , some of them or all of them So we returned to "Bob,Please go study..."

"Verse 7 of Al-Anfal makes clear that Mohammed's raiding party sought to slaughter a relatively defenseless trading party without realising the traders were protected by nearby soldiers"

8:7 [Remember, O believers], when Allah promised you one of the two groups – that it would be yours – and you wished that the unarmed one would be yours. But Allah intended to establish the truth by His words and to eliminate the disbelievers

Could you please tell me how you got that from this verse??????????????????????????????

"The terrorists take Al-Anfal as moral instruction to kill innocents. If not Al-Anfal 12, how else does one explain the Islamic horniness for beheadings?"

8:12 [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

Where is the innocents here????? This was in the battle field...

Please answer these two questions first...

Then Let's start another way to discuss the issue...
Can we get the discuss to be more modern which is like.
1 - Question One by One
2 - Answer One be One
3 - accept or not (Why)
To finish point by point..

And as you see I'm not good in English(My third language) but I'm doing my best.

Bob Badour said at November 11, 2006 8:03 AM:
even these days in canda , having sex with 12 years old is legal.
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm.

If the 12 year old's partner is a similarly immature 12 or 15 year old, Canada doesn't waste money trying to jail children for precocious sexual exploration. Even still, I find it inappropriate to allow a mature 15 year old to prey on immature 12 year olds. I disagree with that part of the law just as I disagree with Canada's hate speech laws and various other legacies of Canadian legislative stupidity. I prefer common law to statutory law for the very reason that statutes must pick arbitrary boundaries whereas under common law a judge places all of the facts into their proper context while weighing them.

That said: Canada absolutely prohibits men in their 50's from having sex with 12 year olds. The sick pervert Mohammed was in his 50's when Mohammed fucked a 9 year old Aisha.

And about "marrying 6 year olds" before 1900 , you could see a girl 10 years old, you would find her like 25 years woman today.

Horseshit! Are you really as lunatic insane as you sound? And what about today? Are you suggesting we would find Iranian 10 year olds like western 25 year olds? One of the first things the Islamists did after seizing power was drop the marriage age to 9 for girls.

This is the reason to have something called Shariaa so there is no “the religious teachings of the past”. It's up-to-date

Horseshit! Shariah embodies the sick perversions of a 7th century murderous thieving pedophile. Apparently you assume the rest of the world is incredibly stupid if you think we will ignore the abject barbarity of Shariah everywhere it has ever been practiced:

The civilised world goes to sporting arenas to play sports not to murder women accused of adultery.

In places of high morals, the state uses its monopoly on violence to prevent or to punish dangerous felons who would attack women. Under Shariah, the state uses its monopoly on violence to club or to immolate women for showing a little too much eyebrow.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Actions and outcomes count more than words and fantasies. To any good and moral person with intact reasoning, empirically shariah is perverse and evil.

I like you ,Bob. So don't "Horseshit" again, I think you are bigger than that.. :)

Stop trying to forcefeed me horseshit, and I won't have to call it for what it is.

"And you later admitted that Al-Anfal is not an historical story but moral instruction"
No I didn't .

Bob: Is the Qur'an moral instruction?
Mohamed: Yes

Quran has many parts (Events,moral instruction , Ways to worship ,,,,,,) . each Sora maybe contains one of them , some of them or all of them So we returned to "Bob,Please go study..."

So, now you are saying the Qur'an is not moral instruction or is only sometimes moral instruction. Please forgive me for noting that your answers seem arbitrary, random and self-contradictory.

How exactly does the Qur'an unequivocally identify that Al-Anfal is merely historical narrative and not moral instruction? Because if the Qur'an in any way allows one to decide for himself whether Al-Anfal is moral instruction, the door is open for hundreds of millions of muslims to interpret Al-Anfal as a moral instruction to kill innocents to steal their wealth. The door would be open for hundreds of millions of muslims to take Al-Anfal 12 as moral instruction to cut the heads off innocent non-muslims.

Given the prevalence of Islamic terrorism and the terrorists' bloodlust for the horrific gore of beheadings, is it reasonable to infer the Islamic terrorists see Al-Anfal as moral instruction and Al-Anfal 12 as instruction to cut off heads?

Verse 7 of Al-Anfal makes clear that Mohammed's raiding party sought to slaughter a relatively defenseless trading party without realising the traders were protected by nearby soldiers"
Could you please tell me how you got that from this verse??????????????????????????????

I put the verse into its proper context. According to the Sira, the verse responded to the events of the Battle of Badr: "Muhammad was leading a raiding party against a Quraish caravan when he was surprised by a much larger Quraishi army."

You described parts of the battle earlier without naming it and without fully revealing what sparked the battle.

Considering that (at the time the Surah was revealed) any historical narrative would have related to current events, if one believes the words are Allah's chosen words, one must assume Allah had some desire to communicate to people 1400 years later. (Islamic terrorists certainly would assume that.) Is it not reasonable that Allah wanted to instruct modern people on the proper way to murder and steal? After all, that's what the Surah does on its face. Allah's cut of the stolen loot is 20%.

Where is the innocents here????? This was in the battle field...

It was only a battle field because Mohammed and his men were hunting caravans of traders to murder and to rob. Innocents are allowed to try to defend themselves when attacked by vicious pirates.

In your last post you said you didn't read all of my answers So I just gave you time to read them.
1 - Question One by One

Do you see how self-contradictory you are? One moment you demand I address a variety of questions and the next you want to deal with a single question at a time, which is what I have been trying to do for some time now.

Let's focus on one question:
How exactly does the Qur'an decisively and uneqivocally identify Al-Anfal as mere historical narrative about a battle and not moral instruction on how to properly murder non-muslims and divide their stolen wealth?

Randall Parker said at November 11, 2006 8:51 AM:

Mohamed Abdel-Megid,

You are incorrect when you claim:

And about "marrying 6 year olds" before 1900 , you could see a girl 10 years old, you would find her like 25 years woman today.

Puberty happened much later in the past than it does today. A 9 year old girl of the 7th century could expect to not start menstruation till mid to late teens. The trend in the modern era of greater abundance of food and perhaps pollutants that act like estrogen is for earlier first menstruation. The 9 year old your prophet had sex with was smaller and less developed than a 9 year old from an industrialized country today.

You say that every age is different and requires different laws. Yet Muslims make much of what Mohammed said and did as an example to emulate and follow. Also, Muslim countries which practice Shariah law do so in order to follow ancient and (at least in their minds) unchanging laws. Sharia means less adaptation to modernity, not more.

kontar said at November 17, 2006 2:31 PM:

And about "marrying 6 year olds" before 1900 , you could see a girl 10 years old, you would find her like 25 years woman today.

thats the most absurd i have ever heared !,do u really believe what u saying????
now tell me,
it was once said that during war muslims would spare the old ,the women and the children....
well in view of what u just said i think if there is a 10 year old girl(who actually was 6 when she was betrothed.) who mystically made it to look like a 25 woman
then by the same prespective i expect the boys who were just 10 years and above looked like fine grown young men who should be considered as enemy warriors and were put to death?right?is my sick imagination right?
dont make urself look like a fool ....
get a logic please!

kontar said at November 22, 2006 12:36 AM:

i would like to discuss the idea of"sovernities,or traditions"...do u think that god when he sends messengers to people who have ungodly measures in life"i.e. like eatin their old,drinkin blood"he doesnt change them??...he just lets it be???cause its their tradition...i thought the wiser lifts the unwise higher???...if u find ur son unable to solve his math prob. dont u give him hints to reach a higher solution??or u just let him bang his head in the dark and u watch??...if god is great,he should be greater than a teacher ,than a father,he should teach man to find the "better ways of living!!"not simply make him indulge more in his ignorance!...what do u think of these lines in general?all?

Bob Badour said at November 25, 2006 6:44 AM:

Kontar,

I am an atheist. There is no God.

Why do you suddenly want to ignore the empirical evidence to chase day flies?

You observed yourself that Mohamed Abdel-Megid will believe any absurd fantasy that masks the absurdity and immorality of Islam. It is an empirical fact that hundreds of millions of muslims absolutely believe at the same time that Mohammed is the perfect paradigm of morality and that Mohammed fucked a nine year old child -- among any number of other heinous acts.

In Aisha's own words, she was plucked from her swing at the ripe old age of nine by the other women in Mohammed's household to consummate her marriage to the sick old pervert. Apparently, Mohamed Abdel-Megid believes 25 year old women play on swings if he believes a 10 year old of yesteryear was like a 25 year old today. Absurd.

Hundreds of millions of muslims believe that the Arabic Qur'an comprises God's own words in God's language of choice, that God revealed the Qur'an for the moral instruction of muslims and that Al-Anfal instructs muslims on how to dispose of unbelievers and their wealth. What kind of morality instructs its followers to murder and steal?

A billion muslims believe one can defensively attack people who have done nothing just as Mohammed attacked the Banu Qurayza for doing nothing at all. A billion muslims believe that genocide of the people the muslims aggressively attacked in so-called self-defense can be justifiable. It is all absurd, and it is evil.

kontar said at December 12, 2006 6:07 AM:

ty bob ,
it just slipped my mind that you dont belive in god.
but if u choose to open a new blog about the existence of god ,i would be more than happy to participate
i value and respect your logic and truth seeking words.
nowadays we dont see logic debates alot ,and everydays politics is a distinct proof.
i would be happy to talk about "existence of god"
:) never chase a fly for what do you gain when u die?
is it the momental thought of tranquility after death?
is it the purposing of a useless existence or wealth?
but what if a god is true ,can be seen by only you?
like oxygen in stone ages his presence is logically inhaled
what is diff between sight and seeing?
a cat sees things in grey for us its our dismay
for the same things are revealed to us in colorful wings:)
wings i say for we have a mind that can fly
and reach high touch the sky
why dont we ask the only "who wants to be a friend?"
in a believing tone in a prayer
to reveal himself to me and you
touch us with his love and more.
think of it otherwise ,
i say just that god isnot visible to eyes,
and same applies to u
u have to prove otherwise:)
for god is in the sight and not in the seeing .
sorry i got carried away :) i like sometimes to rhyme my words
i pray for you :)

Bob Badour said at March 10, 2007 8:32 AM:

Kontar,

Empiricism and the scientific method are the wings that give our minds flight. While one cannot see oxygen, one can see oxygen's effects on a flame, for instance, and one can measure oxygen's refraction of light.

Thus, something with the chemical and physical properties of oxygen empirically exists. Your belief says God exists; my belief says no gods exist. Absent any empirical evidence, neither belief improves our understanding of our universe.

I don't see how any of this has any relevance to Mohamed Abdel-Megid's behavior above or to any of the lessons we can draw from his behavior as an example of a muslim.

Mohamed Abdel-Megid--like many other muslims--denies reality in favor of any fantasy that masks the absurdity and immorality of Islam. It is an empirical fact that hundreds of millions of muslims absolutely believe at the same time that Mohammed is the perfect paradigm of morality and that Mohammed fucked a nine year old child -- among any number of other heinous acts.

In Aisha's own words, she was plucked from her swing at the ripe old age of nine by the other women in Mohammed's household to consummate her marriage to the sick old pervert. Apparently, Mohamed Abdel-Megid believes 25 year old women play on swings if he believes a 10 year old of yesteryear was like a 25 year old today. Absurd.

Hundreds of millions of muslims believe that the Arabic Qur'an comprises God's own words in God's language of choice, that God revealed the Qur'an for the moral instruction of muslims and that Al-Anfal instructs muslims on how to dispose of unbelievers and their wealth. What kind of morality instructs its followers to murder and steal?

A billion muslims believe one can defensively attack people who have done nothing just as Mohammed attacked the Banu Qurayza for doing nothing at all. A billion muslims believe in the justifiability of aggressive genocide of an entire people just by labeling the aggressive attack defensive. It is all absurd, and it is evil.

Islam said at May 9, 2008 2:21 AM:

I respect what Pope Benedict stated on his speech I think he did not really intend to offend Muslims but I do also respect the feelings of Muslims. I'm saying this not because I'm Christian, definitely a big "NO". I'm a true Christian but i do also have lots of Muslim friend. What happened was just a little bit misunderstanding between Pope Benedict and Muslims. I think there is no big difference between Christians and Muslims. Maybe the only difference would be We Christians call our God as "Jesus" and Muslims call their God as "Allah" and that's it. Perhaps we have a little bit difference in terms of religious belief but for me we are all just the same or equal. We laugh, we cry,we love, we hurt for just the same reason, because we are all human. Living in a peaceful world will always be depends on individual. Just learn to respect each other and together with honesty living, I assured you that all of us we're going to experience a lifetime peace.

Jaime Saldarriaga said at June 3, 2008 6:17 AM:

Religion made apart there are universal human rights which must be respected by all human beings, included atheists. I would invite everybody to respect all those human rights.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©