Islam Watch - "Those Oppressed Muslims" by Warner MacKenzie

Islam Under Scrutiny by Ex-Muslims

Those Oppressed Muslims

15 Jul, 2007

op•press

Pronunciation: (u-pres'), —v.t.

1. to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints; subject to a burdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power: a people oppressed by totalitarianism.
2. to put down; subdue or suppress.
3. to press upon or against , crush.

Whilst discussing Islam with an apostate friend, as I often do for his invaluable insight, I raised the subject of the “Muslim as victim” mindset so often heard from people of that faith and his quick reply left me momentarily non-plussed “ it’s because they all consider themselves to be oppressed”…. “what ?,… even those who live freely in Western democracies?” I asked….. “Muslims simply have a different idea of what constitutes oppression” was his response. The conversation that ensued prompted me to try and add some flesh to the bones of his revelation.

It’s difficult to understand how anyone fleeing to the United States or a European welfare state, from any Muslim country, could possibly describe themselves as oppressed. Compared to their undemocratic and invariably corrupt homelands, complete with secret police, hell-hole prisons for dissenters, no welfare safety nets and little chance of a better life for their children, one would think that life in the egalitarian West with its higher living standard, equality for all under the law, better health services and employment opportunities, would seem, to a Muslim émigré, like heaven on earth. After all, they are at liberty to practice their religion, build mosques and go about their lives unhindered, dress as they wish and educate their children to a standard impossible in their native lands. No aspect of the dictionary definition above could possibly seem applicable to them, yet, oppressed they still claim to be. Interviews with, or press-release statements by, any Muslim spokesperson are seldom complete without at least one reference to “oppressed Muslims”.

As I pointed out in a previous article, Islamic definitions of certain terms and concepts are often wildly at odds with how the rest of the non-Muslims world understands them. In the article I examined how Islam defines the word “peace”. A state of peace, in the way that Islam defines it, can only come to fruition when the entire world either converts, or submits as second-class humiliated subjects, to Islamic rule and the entire world thereby becomes dar-al Islam ( the domain of Islam). In the meantime, a state of perpetual war must prevail until that objective is attained. So the non-Muslim world — dar-al harb (the domain of war ) — will continue to be confronted, eroded and weakened, from within and without, by any and every means possible, till submissive acceptance is universal and there is no longer any resistance (fitna). Resistance is therefore synonymous with oppression and conversely, in a somewhat Orwellian paradox, …..“Submission equals freedom” .

“The seeming contradiction stems from the Western notion of “freedom” and “oppression” and radical Islam’s different view of those two terms. For radicals in al Qaeda, the dichotomy between “freedom” and “oppression” is wholly founded on whether sharia law is made supreme in the world; that is, whether every single man, woman, and child — both Muslim and non-Muslim — lives under the mandates of Islamic law. If they do, they are considered “free”; if not, as the case is today, the mass of humanity is considered “oppressed.”

---- Raymond Ibrahim “Seeking Sympathy from the Infidel” National Review Online May 21, 2007

Oppression, as Islam sees it, can be defined as any obstacle or impediment which prevents the implementation of Islamic rule on Earth, which is the only final outcome acceptable to Allah. Any infidel failing to respond positively to the da’wa, ( the call or invitation to Islam) whether by outright rejection, disinclination or indifference, is considered to be not only oppressing Muslims-- by rejecting the mission they are duty-bound to carry out--- but more seriously, insulting Allah by impeding and thwarting his divine plan for humanity.

[the] role and the duty of Islam [is] to fulfill its mandate as revealed by Allah to the Prophet Mohammed. That mandate remains to call all of mankind to Islam, da’wa in the fulfillment of God’s will and importantly to help ensure Islam’s unimpeded triumph throughout the world.

[A] critical theme of Malik’s work is that “just war”, or jihad, in Islam is inherently spiritual warfare, religious warfare, and to the extent that Islamic forces have spiritually prepared themselves, they will “strike terror into the hearts” of Islam’s enemies. This terror as Malik describes in detail, is both physical and metaphysical, because Islamic warfare is intrinsically part of a cosmic struggle for the reign of Allah’s will on earth between the forces of God, dar al-Islam, and that of dar al-Harb, those who dwell in ignorance and darkness of the true knowledge of God.

-----Lieutenant Colonel Joseph C. Myers United States Army, commenting on S.K. Malik’s
“ The Quranic Concept of War”

When a believer sees that someone is trying to obstruct another believer from travelling on the road that leads to God, [the] spirit of Jihad requires that such a man who is imposing obstacles should be prevented from doing so and the obstacles placed by him should also be removed, so that mankind may freely be able to negotiate its own path that leads to Heaven. To omit to do this is a culpable omission, if only because by not striving to clear or straighten the path we become passive spectators of the counter-initiatory forces imposing a blockade in the way of those who mean to keep their faith with God.

--------Brigadier S.K. Malik : “The Quranic Concept of War”

Note how, in the above excerpt, Malik euphemistically refers to the unconverted as “counter-initiatory forces” as even a nonchalant indifference to Islam is deemed to be placing “obstacles” in the path of its progress. Subscribing to the dictum “you’re either with us or against us”, no neutral position is possible for the infidel. Failure to convert and fall in with them and, by doing so, facilitate their mission, is regarded negatively as defiant rejection, an insulting slap in the face for Allah and his “final revelation”, Islam.

"And fight on, until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere." These injunctions laid down the ultimate and absolute divine purpose.”

“Islam views the world as though it were bipolarised in two opposing camps-Dar us-Salm facing Darul-Harb--the first one is submissive to the Lord in co-operating with God's purpose to establish peace, order and such other precon — the same Lord. Such a state of affairs which engages any one in rebellion against God's will is termed as "Fitna”--which word literally means test or trial.

The term "Fitna " refers us to misconduct on the part of a man who establishes his own norms and expects obedience from others, thereby usurping God's authority — who alone is sovereign. In Sura Infa'al Chapter 8, Verse 39, it is said "And fight on until there remains no more tumult or oppression and they remain submissive only to God." To the same effect are the words used in Sura Toba Verse 9, "Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by [the] lord and His Apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth (even if they are) of the people of the book, (i.e. Jews and Christians) until they pay Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued."

----- Allah Bukhsh K. Brohi : Preface to “The Quranic Concept of War”

So there you have it, if you are not a Muslim, your mere unconverted existence is, in itself, an act of fitna ,“oppressing” Islam and Muslims.

Of great and urgent concern to my friend, and to many other Muslim apostates — all of whom are intimately familiar with the minutiae of Islam — is the inability, or reluctance of Western people to grasp the implications of the hidden, finer details, the “small-print” if you will, contained in Islam’s determined and highly focused millennial mission.

Every human group and culture has subtly nuanced idiosyncrasies which, in order to understand a culture or religion, need to be identified and studied in detail. If we are to have any hope of comprehending what religious and cultural notions motivate the Muslim’s thinking processes and actions — and what impact they are likely to have on a given set of circumstances it is imperative that we develop a deeper insight into the more subtle and esoteric concepts that inspire them. As for our own culture, the Muslims know and understand our proclivities only too well, they know which buttons to press in order to achieve the desired effect. At the mere mention of words such as “racism, Islamophobia, oppression, victimization etc,” the flow of debate is abruptly stanched and criticism silenced, Westerners, as if on cue, collapse, en masse, in a quivering and blushing heap of post-colonial guilt and become effusive in their apologies for anything, and everything, from the crusades to climate change. So, unless and until the West is prepared to stop being mesmerized by the superficialities, the distracting sideshows, of Islam, and starts focusing the microscope deeper into its more conceptual aspects, Islam’s relentless and incremental progress toward its final goal will proceed unhindered with its concomitant rage at our intransigence.

On the same topic, see Abul Kasem's essay: 'When Islam is Oppressed.

If you like this essay:

Stumble it

digg it

r eddit

Name: Matti
Date: Sunday July 15, 2007
Time: 18:59:41 -0700

Comment

It must be awfull living under all that oppression .

Name: EloiVsDiablo
Date: Sunday July 15, 2007
Time: 22:50:15 -0700

Comment

I cannot think of anything worse than growing up as a female in a muslim country...

Name: Voice of Muslim Woman
Date: Monday July 16, 2007
Time: 00:58:43 -0700

Comment

How can anyone justify Islam's treatment of women, when it imprisons Afghans under blue shuttlecock burqas and makes Pakistani girls marry strangers against their will? How can you respect a religion that forces women into polygamous marriages, mutilates their genitals, forbids them to drive cars and subjects them to the humiliation of "instant" divorce? In fact, none of these practices are Islamic at all. Anyone wishing to understand Islam must first separate the religion from the cultural norms and style of a society. Female genital mutilation is still practised in certain pockets of Africa and Egypt, but viewed as an inconceivable horror by the vast majority of Muslims. Forced marriages may still take place in certain Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, but would be anathema to Muslim women from other backgrounds. Indeed, Islam insists on the free consent of both bride and groom, so such marriages could even be deemed illegal under religious law. A woman forbidden from driving a car in Riyadh will cheerfully take the wheel when abroad, confident that her country's bizarre law has nothing to do with Islam. Afghan women educated before the Taliban rule know that banning girls from school is forbidden in Islam, which encourages all Muslims to seek knowledge from cradle to grave, from every source possible. The Koran is addressed to all Muslims, and for the most part it does not differentiate between male and female. Man and woman, it says, "were created of a single soul," and are moral equals in the sight of God. Women have the right to divorce, to inherit property, to conduct business and to have access to knowledge. Since women are under all the same obligations and rules of conduct as the men, differences emerge most strongly when it comes to pregnancy, child-bearing and rearing, menstruation and, to a certain extent, clothing. Some of the commands are alien to Western tradition. Requirements of ritual purity may seem to restrict a woman's access to religious life, but are viewed as concessions. During menstruation or postpartum bleeding, she may not pray the ritual salah or touch the Koran and she does not have to fast; nor does she need to fast while pregnant or nursing. The veiling of Muslim women is a more complex issue. Certainly, the Koran requires them to behave and dress modestly - but these strictures apply equally to men. Only one verse refers to the veiling of women, stating that the Prophet's wives should be behind a hijab when his male guests converse with them. Some modernists, however, claim that this does not apply to women in general, and that the language used does not carry the textual stipulation that makes a verse obligatory. In practice, most modern Muslim women appreciate attractive and graceful clothes, but avoid dressing provocatively. What about polygamy, which the Koran endorses up to the limit of four wives per man? The Prophet, of course, lived at a time when continual warfare produced large numbers of widows, who were left with little or no provision for themselves and their children. In these circumstances, polygamy was encouraged as an act of charity. Needless to say, the widows were not necessarily sexy young women, but usually mothers of up to six children, who came as part of the deal. Polygamy is no longer common, for various good reasons. The Koran states that wives need to be treated fairly and equally - a difficult requirement even for a rich man. Moreover, if a husband wishes to take a second wife, he should not do so if the marriage will be to the detriment of the first. Sexual intimacy outside marriage is forbidden in Islam, including sex before marriage, adultery or homosexual relationships. However, within marriage, sexual intimacy should be raised from the animal level to sadaqah (a form of worship) so that each considers the happiness and satisfaction of the other, rather than mere self-gratification. Contrary to Christianity, Islam does not regard marriages as "made in heaven" or "till death do us part". They are contracts, with conditions. If either side breaks the conditions, divorce is not only allowed, but usually expected. Nevertheless, a hadith makes it clear that: "Of all the things God has allowed, divorce is the most disliked." A Muslim has a genuine reason for divorce only if a spouse's behaviour goes against the sunnah of Islam - in other words, if he or she has become cruel, vindictive, abusive, unfaithful, neglectful, selfish, sexually abusive, tyrannical, perverted - and so on. In good Islamic practice, before divorce can be contemplated, all possible efforts should be made to solve a couple's problems. After an intention to divorce is announced, there is a three-month period during which more attempts are made at reconciliation. If, by the end of each month, the couple have resumed sexual intimacy, the divorce should not proceed. The three-month rule ensures that a woman cannot remarry until three menstrual cycles have passed - so, if she happens to be pregnant, the child will be supported and paternity will not be in dispute. When Muslims die, strict laws govern the shares of property and money they may leave to others; daughters usually inherit less than sons, but this is because the men in a family are supposed to provide for the entire household. Any money or property owned by women is theirs to keep, and they are not obliged to share it. Similarly, in marriage, a woman's salary is hers and cannot be appropriated by her husband unless she consents. A good Muslim woman, for her part, should always be trustworthy and kind. She should strive to be cheerful and encouraging towards her husband and family, and keep their home free from anything harmful (haram covers all aspects of harm, including bad behaviour, abuse and forbidden foods). Regardless of her skills or intelligence, she is expected to accept her man as the head of her household - she must, therefore, take care to marry a man she can respect, and whose wishes she can carry out with a clear conscience. However, when a man expects his wife to do anything contrary to the will of God - in other words, any nasty, selfish, dishonest or cruel action - she has the right to refuse him. Her husband is not her master; a Muslim woman has only one Master, and that is God. If her husband does not represent God's will in the home, the marriage contract is broken. What should one make of the verse in the Koran that allows a man to punish his wife physically? There are important provisos: he may do so only if her ill-will is wrecking the marriage - but then only after he has exhausted all attempts at verbal communication and tried sleeping in a separate bed. However, the Prophet never hit a woman, child or old person, and was emphatic that those who did could hardly regard themselves as the best of Muslims. Moreover, he also stated that a man should never hit "one of God's handmaidens". Nor, it must be said, should wives beat their husbands or become inveterate nags. Finally, there is the issue of giving witness. Although the Koran says nothing explicit, other Islamic sources suggest that a woman's testimony in court is worth only half of that of a man. This ruling, however, should be applied only in circumstances where a woman is uneducated and has led a very restricted life: a woman equally qualified to a man will carry the same weight as a witness. So, does Islam oppress women? While the spirit of Islam is clearly patriarchal, it regards men and women as moral equals. Moreover, although a man is technically the head of the household, Islam encourages matriarchy in the home. Women may not be equal in the manner defined by Western feminists, but their core differences from men are acknowledged, and they have rights of their own that do not apply to men

Name: Muhamed
Date: Monday July 16, 2007
Time: 01:29:19 -0700

Comment

A lot of attention has been focused on the issue of Muslim women and human rights since September 11, almost all of it by non Muslims. Once again, images of women swathed in black veils or blue burqas are de rigeur, as the media soberly reminds us that Muslim women are not considered equals to men in Islam, and that they are oppressed even by the moderate regimes in the Muslim world. From the Muslims, we have one of two reactions. The first is the reaction of the "liberal, reformist, secular" Muslims. They believe that Shari'a oppresses women, and that we need to completely overhaul it, or toss out sections of the Qur'an that are "uncomfortable," or institute secular forms of government that separate the sacred from the legal all together. These are the same Muslims who equate hijab with oppression, and who support the denial of free speech rights to "Islamists" (all the while, crying for their rights to free speech in countries where it is denied). They take their political thought not from Islamic sources, but from feminism, socialism, and capitalism. Naturally, it is to these Muslims that the Western media turns when it wants a "Muslim" perspective on "Muslim issues." On the other side, we have the organizers of the mainstream conservative Muslims, the leaders of our civic societies, advocacy groups, and associations. When presented with instances of women's oppression in the Islamic world, these Muslims, almost always men, respond defensively. They cart out examples of women's oppression in the Western world, or worse, they address the issue by lecturing the questioner about the virtues of the Ideal Place of Women in Ideal Islam. In other words, they treat the ideal that we are all aspire to as the reality on the ground. Pressed into taking a stand on real life issues, they retreat in anger. "That's culture, not Islam, it has nothing to do with me as a Muslim," they sniff. Meanwhile, real Muslim women suffer at the hands of societies and governments who would harm them in the name of Islam. Who speaks for them? Most often, it is the United Nations, human rights groups, and feminist organizations, led by people who have no foundations of knowledge in Islam, and who often have a real antipathy for Islam. While the Feminist Majority Fund was selling swatches of "burqa" and petitioning the government for action on behalf of Afghan women, the leaders of our Islamic societies stayed silent. Publicly, many Islamic leaders and organizations disassociated themselves from the Taliban, but other than denying them entry into the Organization of Islamic Conferences (OIC), they took no action to petition the Taliban for change from an Islamic view, or form any sort of Islamic opposition. Perhaps this is because when any Islamic organization or individual Muslim attempts to change or speak out about injustices towards Muslim women, the rest of the community circles the wagons. These lone souls are labeled "radical feminists," and accused of attempting to undermine Islam. Strangely, when a Muslim woman's Islamic rights are violated, many organizations are eager to speak out and petition. For example, when Merve Kavacki was denied her seat in the Turkish Parliament because of her headscarf (and later stripped of her citizenship), Muslim groups were quick to condemn the Turkish government, as they should have. In many Western Muslim circles, Merve has been elevated to a symbol of the struggle muhajabat women face in secular societies. Yet there is a resounding silence when the issue being raised is Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), honor killings, forced marriages, the unequal application of hadd punishments on women, or the denial of education to girls and women. All of these wrongs are perpetrated on women in the name of Islam. While it is true that many of these violations occur across cultural and religious boundaries, the only action often taken by conservative Muslims is a condemnation of the action because it is "cultural" and not Islamic. Meanwhile, women continue to be murdered and little girls continue to be mutilated. This is not to say that conservative Muslims are always silent or keep their opposition at the vocal level. In Jordan, conservative Muslims joined with liberals to rally for stricter punishments for men who kill in the name of honor. In Africa, conservative sheikhs teamed up with women's rights advocates to educate people about the harms of Female Genital Mutilation. These people get very little mention in the Western media, which, of course, paints the "Islamists" as the opponents of an enlightened, secular minority of liberal Muslims. When questioned by co-workers and neighbors, the average run of the mill practicing Muslim is quick to condemn such practices, and lament that they occur at all. Yet these same average Muslims are loathe to petition governments, or join groups calling for active change. There is a sense that we don't want to speak too loudly about the horrific wrongs committed by our brothers and sisters in the name of Islam in front of non Muslims. While keeping to the principal of covering your brother's shame is admirable, the fact of the matter is that their wrongs have been exposed, in the international media's spotlight. And when we stay silent in the face of injustices, non Muslims begin to wonder if we really care about our women as much as we claim to. About a year ago, a small band of conservative Muslim women, almost all of us from the West, came up with the idea of starting a Muslim women's human rights group, to petition and advocate for the rights of Muslim women as they are given in the Shari'a of Islam. Although slow to start, we have managed to form a basis from which to work, and have taken up our first case. Right now, a Muslim woman in Nigeria is under a death sentence from the Shari'a court for the crime of adultery. The situation came to the attention of the authorities when the man who impregnated her decided to confess his crime to the police, rather than pay the child support that her father asked of him. There are many glaring errors in the case, from a classical, "Orthodox" fiqh point of view. These errors (which would aid the woman) are not coming from a "reformist reinterpretation" of Shari'a, these errors are so great that any of the qadis of the past would have thrown the case against her out. During a similar case in Nigeria last year, a Muslim lawyer, Asifa Quereshi, documented the legal errors committed by the Shari'a court in the name of Islam. She didn't use modern, secular legal sources, but instead based her arguments on the rulings of the scholars of the four Sunni madhabs. Sadly, her analysis got little, if any attention, from the Shari'a courts of Nigeria, and from the Muslim community as a whole. The response we have received so far, is somewhat encouraging, but it is also discouraging. For example, we have received little support thus far for a petition to the Nigerian government on behalf of this woman. One hesitates to send copies of the petition to masajid, since petitions or issues of women's rights are often shuffled under a paper pile or worse, dismissed with the lame excuse that raising such issues will cause anger and discomfort in the community. Meanwhile, the Muslim American establishment continues to enthusiastically promote voter registrations and petitions to the President against Israel's latest atrocities (and there's nothing wrong with that). Sisters and brothers, it is time to wake up to reality. While we often like to boast about the large size of our Ummah, the fact is that we are losing more hearts and minds everyday, due in large part to our silence about human rights abuses, especially those directed towards women. These people will continue to turn to the secular philosophies promoted by those who do take the time to speak out on their behalf: the feminists, socialists, and secularists. Prophet Mohammed, sallalahu aleyhi wa salaam, was mocked and assaulted because of his strong and courageous stance on the status of women. He came with a message that lifted women up and gave them dignity. Fourteen hundred years later, we have descended back into the dark pit of Jahiliya, and Muslim women around the world find themselves cast into the same slavery that the Prophet, sallalahu aleyhi wa salaam, was sent to liberate them from. It does not make you a "radical feminist" to decry honor killings and volunteer for peaceful campaigns to educate and change laws. Raising your voice against Female Genital Mutilation does not mean you want to "undermine Islam." To the contrary, working against these injustices in the way of Allah is a manifestation of the desire to uplift Islam and the Muslim people. When the Taliban decided to deny education to any girl over a certain age, it is the conservative Muslims, the ones who profess adherence to "Qur'an and Sunnah" that should have spoken the loudest against this. The longer we stay silent, the more people, both Muslim and non Muslim, will begin to equate "Shar'ia" with the oppression of women. We need to stop people who abuse the religion of God and His messenger, Mohammed, sallalahu aleyhi wa salaam. We need to oppose those who would brutalize women in the name of Qur'an and Sunnah. We need have jealousy for our religion, so that those who would abuse and misuse it realize that they will have no success and no headway under our vigilance.

Name: How the US Erase Women’s Rights in Iraq
Date: Monday July 16, 2007
Time: 01:46:34 -0700

Comment

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HAS20051007&articleId=1054

Name: leigh
Date: Monday July 16, 2007
Time: 03:43:08 -0700

Comment

I see the selective quotes in the comments praising Mohammad and women in Islam.M used women for his own desires and ordered/ condoned the stoning of numerous women. I note also the killing of a distraught Jewish woman who was laughing (could not M discern her hysterical grief at the massacre occurring before her eyes?!) at the genocide of the Qurayza menfolk. Jesus said you will know them by their fruits. Indeed!

Name: ALLAH VERSUS THE ANTI ALLAH: EVIL IN THE NAME OF GOD
Date: Monday July 16, 2007
Time: 05:04:46 -0700

Comment

Evil In The Name of God Allah's Apostle said, “I have been made victorious with terror." Bukhari 4:52:220 It was Hitler who once said that when you tell a lie tell a big lie. The two biggest lies that have ever been told is that Islam is A religion of Peace and Muhammad as a Prophet of Peace. Muhammad was a self-appointed "prophet" guilty of murder, including by beheadings and crucifixion, rape, torture, kidnapping, extortion, slavery, mutilations, theft, adultery, false witness, abuse of women, physically and sexually, and sexual abuse of at least one child. Mohammad slaughtered unbelievers and masterminded over 60 massacres. At the Massacre of Banu Quraiza he personally beheaded upwards of 600 Jews. In order to ensure that only men were beheaded Muhammad had all the young boys examined for hair around their gentials. Those boys with the slightest trace of hair were taken away and beheaded. The boys and women were sold into slavery. ALLAH VERSUS THE ANTI - ALLAH HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE KORAN IS NOT THE WORD/TEACHINGS OF ALLAH HOW DO WE KNOW THAT MUHAMMAD NEVER RECEIVED ANY REVELATIONS FROM ALLAH HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE TEACHINGS OF THE KORAN ARE THE TEACHINGS OF MUHAMMAD NOT ALLAH HOW DO WE KNOW THAT MUHAMMAD WAS THE ANTI – ALLAH AND THE ANTI – ALLAH WAS MUHAMMAD Go to: www.godofreason.com for detailed analysis. E-mail: intermedusa@yahoo.com

Name: Pat
Date: Monday July 16, 2007
Time: 11:28:58 -0700

Comment

How do we not hear such descriptions of the Islamic philosophy and what the religion requires its adherents to do and not physically create a zone of peace, one country at a time, where not a single Muslim and not a single mosque is permitted? Aren't they effectively telling us there is no hope for peaceful coexistence? Regardless of how many Muslims actually believe in violent jihad, how are non-Muslims supposed to differentiate between those bent on imposing global sharia and those who only want to live in freedom?

Name: Jonathon
Date: Monday July 16, 2007
Time: 12:02:58 -0700

Comment

I think that the most important lesson for the West to draw from this is that words don't mean the same to us as they do to others. During the Cold War, it was said that the Soviets' definition of "peace" was "when there is no longer resistance to Communist revolution". But even the Soviets understood the concept of "MAD" (i.e., mutually assured destruction) and so were willing to work towards detente with the United States and find a place for "peaceful" coexistence. Sadly, I don't believe that this is possible with Islam. The very concepts of Dar-al-Islam ("land(s) of Islam") and Dar-al-Harb ("land(s) of war") leave no room for compromise, no room for accomodation. Muslims are commanded by Mohammed to spread Islam and to fight jihad until there is no longer any resistance to Islam, i.e., when there is no longer any Dar-al-Harb. "Peace" in the Mohammadean tradition is not the same as the concept of "peace" known to the Western world.

Name: allat
Date: Monday July 16, 2007
Time: 12:07:14 -0700

Comment

but basically- isn't it true that no matter what islamic country "they" come from, one sect or another, is really oppressing the other? The sunnis oppress the shits, the shits oppress the sunnis. THAT is really oppression! To consider themselves oppressed in other countries, is them a BAD HABIT! Of sheep!

Name: allat
Date: Monday July 16, 2007
Time: 12:12:36 -0700

Comment

"--- but more seriously, insulting Allah by impeding and thwarting his divine plan for humanity." And I ask, you islamics, if God is THE God, why does He need it's poor, liddle, itty bitty creation, Humankind, to defend Him? After all the Lord of Creation, All Powerful, etc., etc., DOESN'T need anyone! Or anything! He exists - very well, by Himself. Why - would He need islamics to defend Him? Answer: HE DOESN"T NEED YOU! OR ANYBODY!

Name: Death to Islam
Date: Monday July 16, 2007
Time: 13:57:31 -0700

Comment

You want to know what Islam means? It means sticking a rod in people's rear ends and saying hee-haw. It is about urinating on civil liberties. http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSBLA66590320070716

Name: JC
Date: Thursday July 19, 2007
Time: 13:43:32 -0700

Comment

I've said this many times, but they refuse to listen.... Islam was started when Muhammad said that the "angel Gabriel" visted him, in a cave. His wife, then convinced him that he must indeed be the last and final prophet. The Bible is very specific on this, read the following from Galatians 1, versus 6 through 9... 6. I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel 7. which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! Verse 8 says it all, but just to be sure, it is repeated in 9. Or, you can put it this way, in verse 8, if a spirit, in verse 9, if a man.... Either way, this is a religion that was born from the evil one, and must be addressed as so. To do anything else, is to fall in the clutches of Political Correctness, and to deny the Son. Like it or not Islam, one day you will see Jesus as who he is. If you accept him now, you and I will exalt him forever. However, if you reject him, when you do see him for the first time, it will be your last. And you don't want to be in the other place. 10For am I now (T)seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a (U)bond-servant of Christ.

Name:
Date: Friday July 20, 2007
Time: 02:52:42 -0700

Comment

Long time after Abraham, God’s promise to send the long-awaited Messenger was repeated this time in Moses’ words. In Deuteronomy 18:18, Moses spoke of the prophet to be sent by God who is: 1) From among the Israelite’s “brethren” a reference to their Ishmaelite cousins as Ishmael was the other son of Abraham who was explicitly promised to become a “great nation”. 2) A prophet like unto Moses. There were hardly any two prophets who were so much alike as Moses and Muhammad. Both were given comprehensive law code of life, both encountered their enemies and were victors in miraculous ways, both were accepted as prophets/statesmen and both migrated following conspiracies to assassinate them. Analogies between Moses and Jesus overlooks not only the above similarities but other crucial ones as well (e.g. the natural birth, family life and death of Moses and Muhammad but not Jesus, was regarded by His followers as the Son of God and not exclusively a messenger of God, as Moses and Muhammad were and as Muslims belief Jesus was).

Name: Muhamed Peace be on him in the Bible
Date: Friday July 20, 2007
Time: 02:53:59 -0700

Comment

THE AWAITED PROPHET WAS TO COME FROM ARABIA Deuteronomy 33:1-2 combines references to Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. It speaks of God (i.e. God’s revelation) coming from Sinai, rising from Seir (probably the village of Sa’ir near Jerusalem) and shining forth from Paran. According to Genesis 21:21, the wilderness of Paran was the place where Ishmael settled (i.e. Arabia, specifically Mecca). Indeed the King James version of the Bible mentions the pilgrims passing through the valley of Ba’ca (another name of Mecca) in Psalms 84:4-6. Isaiah 42:1-13 speaks of the beloved of God. His elect and messenger who will bring down a law to be awaited in the isles and who “shall not fail not be discouraged till he have set judgment on earth.” Verse 11, connects that awaited one with the descendants of Ke’dar. Who is Ke’dar? According to Genesis 25:13, Ke’dar was the second son of Ishmael, the ancestor of prophet Muhammad.

Name: Muhamed Peace be on him in the Bible
Date: Friday July 20, 2007
Time: 02:54:59 -0700

Comment

MUHAMMAD’S MIGRATION FROM MECCA TO MEDINA: PROPHECIED IN THE BIBLE? Habakkuk 3:3 speaks of God (God’s help) coming from Te’man (an Oasis North of Medina according to J. Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible), and the holy one (coming) from Paran. That holy one who under persecution migrated from Paran (Mecca) to be received enthusiastically in Medina was none but prophet Muhammad. Indeed the incident of the migration of the prophet and his persecuted followers is vividly described in Isaiah 21:13-17. That section foretold as well abut the battle of Badr in which the few ill-armed faithful miraculously defeated the “mighty” men of Ke’dar, who sought to destroy Islam and intimidate their own folks who turned to Islam.

Name: A Christian
Date: Friday July 20, 2007
Time: 06:12:49 -0700

Comment

Even the Devil can quote scripture. With a little manipulating, the Bible and I suppose the Koran, can be made to support any argument.

Name: allat
Date: Saturday July 21, 2007
Time: 11:39:50 -0700

Comment

"Muhamed Peace be on him in the Bilble" Where in the bible does it even mention mad mo? The bible consists of the "official" Old Testament (i.e. Jewish Texts) and the New Testament. It never goes beyond the 1st century! BTW, the minute I see a long posting, esp. from an islamic, ranting and raving, I pass it by. It's a waste of my energy and time. IT includes apologists for ANY fundamentalist madness. Allat- a Pagan Amazon :) P.S. Where are a "few good women Amazons" willing to fight for their freedom of oppression, in islamic countries? All I see are insane, slavewomen, eager to fight and die for their masters?

Name: Lesley
Date: Saturday July 21, 2007
Time: 13:23:52 -0700

Comment

On July 15, 2007, EloiVsDiablo said: "I cannot think of anything worse than growing up as a female in a muslim country..." Nor can I. I don't even want to think about it. And I think Banaz Mahmod would agree with you. Oh no - she can't now, can she? But thank goodness the honour of the family ( = all her male relatives) is saved. That's a great weight off our minds, knowing that the men raped and garrotted her and stamped on her throat to save the family's honour.

Name: goodness
Date: Saturday July 21, 2007
Time: 14:07:09 -0700

Comment

I think this blog could be better if the fanatic mohameddans posting are restrained from their copy and paste they probably don't even understand. To the woman or man posting all the useless idiocy on why this is not islam and similar bullshits, I say we do not care about your "anal" differences. And stop putting piss on your fake prophet, he was a child molester, a caravan robber, an illiterate demented maggot and had to rely on stupid muslim women or sex slaves because he was too ugly and putrid to attract normal women. God bless the jewish woman that poisoned him, she should be made a saint!

Name: Lesley
Date: Saturday July 21, 2007
Time: 14:19:15 -0700

Comment

Here's an interesting (I think) slant on the "truth" of anything posted here by any Muslims. The word takeyya means "prevention" and the principle of "Al Takeyya" in Islam permits Muslims to lie at their discretion to protect themselves or their religion. This is the verse they use as justification: "Let not the believers take the disbelievers for friends rather than believers. And whoever does this has no connection with Allah unless it is done to guard (Takeyya) yourselves against them, guarding carefully. And Allah cautions you against His retribution. And to Allah is the eventual coming."(Koran 3:27) And here is elucidation from Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali, a respected (apparently) Muslim theologian: "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible." (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745) In a nutshell, this means that Muslims are not only permitted to lie and break their word, but actively encouraged to do so, to preserve the good reputation of Islam or Mohammed, to save their own skins ... and whenever else they deem it expedient. They can even deny their religion and break Ramadan - if they deem it expedient to do so. Apparently it's "what's in your heart" that counts. Bit like crossing your fingers behind your back to make a lie not count. And a bit like the old joke: "How can you tell when a politician is lying?" Time for the joke to be updated?

Name: Phantom 85
Date: Saturday July 21, 2007
Time: 19:39:34 -0700

Comment

Dear Voice of a Muslim Woman... You left out the part were the Prophet (May Peace Be Upon His VICTIMS) told his warriors it was okay to ejaculate into their female booty (battle captured slaves) during rape because Allah already knew of every person to be born.

Name: Don the Infidel
Date: Saturday July 21, 2007
Time: 20:22:52 -0700

Comment

"OPPRESSION" USED AS A POLITICAL TOOL The incessant use of the term "Islamophobia" is meant to portray certain Muslims and certain Muslim organizations (CAIR) as victims. Attaining victim status shields them, in their eyes, from having to answer embarrassing questions. Such as: If the report in the Washington Times regarding the drastic reduction in the number of members and the amount of income from dues is accurate, (29,000 members and $732,765 in 2000 to 1,700 members and $58,750 in 2006), who do you represent? and who funds your lobbying and litigation projects? Also, how do you respond to the Justice Dept. decision to name you (CAIR) as "un-indicted co-conspiritors" in a terror funding case? I know . . . . . . Islamophobia.

Name: Little Jack
Date: Sunday July 22, 2007
Time: 13:18:04 -0700

Comment

You are correct

Name: INFIDEL -- REPEATED FOR BETTER FORMATTING (i hope)
Date: Sunday July 22, 2007
Time: 14:08:26 -0700

Comment

To the Muslims trying to show Mo was prophesied in the bible. I had to laugh. You are correct in one aspect, though. Ishmael WAS promised his descendants would "number as the stars in the sky" and would have many princes. Although, it also states of Ishamael (and his descendants) that his "hand would be against his brother" - that they would be always fighting/warring. Wow! G-d sure pegged that one, huh!! Sorry to say, Abraham, as directed by G-d, gave the birthright to Isaac. So get over it and join him at the table of humanity.

This next part is long - but doesn't even have to be read - you'll get the idea and see about the "glory of Islam"(sic):: Even the alleged "golden age" of Islam really was nothing more then barbarians conquering more advanced civilizations. Those scholars subdued and forced into Islam still continued their studies, etc. for the most part -- until Sharia gets fully implemented in its idiocy and then they slide into the cesspool of ignorance like all the Muslim nations out there.

After the below interesting statistics is two links to two important websights - Muslims, do yourselves a favor (truly) and go visit them - debate with them - if you dare.

Interesting Statistics... Interesting comparison of the middle east - The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000, or 20% of the worlds population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature: >1988 - Najib Mahfooz > >Peace: >1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat >1994 - Yaser Arafat: >1990 - Elias James Corey >1999 - Ahmed Zewa > >Economics: > >(none) > >Medicine: > >1960 - Peter Brian Medawar >1998 - Ferid Mourad >

The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000, or about 0.02% of the world population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes: > >Literature: >1910 - Paul Heyse >1927 - Henri Bergson >1958 - Boris Pasternak >1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon >1966 - Nelly Sachs >1976 - Saul Bellow >1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer >1981 - Elias Canetti >1987 - Joseph Brodsky >1991 - Nadine Gordimer World > >Peace: >1911 - Alfred Fried >1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser >1968 - Rene Cassin >1973 - Henry Kissinger >1978 - Menachem Begin >1986 - Elie Wiesel >1994 - Shimon Peres >1994 - Yitzhak Rabin > >Physics: >1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer >1906 - Henri Moissan >1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson >1908 - Gabriel Lippmann >1910 - Otto Wallach >1915 - Richard Willstaetter >1918 - Fritz Haber >1921 - Albert Einstein >1922 - Niels Bohr >1925 - James Franck >1925 - Gustav Hertz >1943 - Gustav Stern >1943 - George Charles de Hevesy >1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi >1952 - Felix Bloch >1954 - Max Born >1958 - Igor Tamm >1959 - Emilio Segre >1960 - Donald A. Glaser >1961 - Robert Hofstadter >1961 - Melvin Calvin >1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau >1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz >1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman >1965 - Julian Schwinger >1969 - Murray Gell-Mann >1971 - Dennis Gabor >1972 - William Howard Stein >1973 - Brian David Josephson >1975 - Benjamin Mottleson >1976 - Burton Richter >1977 - Ilya Prigogine >1978 - Arno Allan Penzias >1978 - Peter L. Kapitza >1979 - Stephen Weinberg >1979 - Sheldon Glashow >1979 - Herbert Charles Brown >1980 - Paul Berg >1980 - Walter Gilbert >1981 - Roald Hoffmann >1982 - Aaron Klug >1985 - Albert A. Hauptman >1985 - Jerome Karle >1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach >1988 - Robert Huber >1988 - Leon Lederman >1988 - Melvin Schwartz >1988 - Jack Steinberger >1989 - Sidney Altman >1990 - Jerome Friedman >1992 - Rudolph Marcus >1995 - Martin Perl >2000 - Alan J. Heeger > >Economics: >1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson >1971 - Simon Kuznets >1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow >1975 - Leonid Kantorovich >1976 - Milton Friedman >1978 - Herbert A. Simon >1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein >1985 - Franco Modigliani >1987 - Robert M. Solow >1990 - Harry Markowitz >1990 - Merton Miller >1992 - Gary Becker >1993 - Robert Fogel > >Medicine: > >1908 - Elie Metchnikoff >1908 - Paul Erlich >1914 - Robert Barany >1922 - Otto Meyerhof >1930 - Karl Landsteiner >1931 - Otto Warburg >1936 - Otto Loewi >1944 - Joseph Erlanger >1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser >1945 - Ernst Boris Chain >1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller >1950 - Tadeus Reichstein >1952 - Selman Abra ham Waksman >1953 - Hans Krebs >1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann >1958 - Joshua Lederberg >1959 - Arthur Kornberg >1964 - Konrad Bloch >1965 - Francois Jacob >1965 - Andre Lwoff >1967 - George Wald >1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg >1969 - Salvador Luria >1970 - Julius Axelrod >1970 - Sir Bernard Katz >1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman >1975 - Howard Martin Temin >1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg >1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow >1978 - Daniel Nathans >1980 - Baruj Benacerraf >1984 - Cesar Milstein >1985 - Michael Stuart Brown >1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein >1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini] >1988 - Gertrude Elion >1989 - Harold Varmus >1991 - Erwin Neher >1991 - Bert Sakmann >1993 - Richard J. Roberts >1993 - Phillip Sharp >1994 - Alfred Gilman >1995 - Edward B. Lewis The Jews are not promoting brain washing the children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non-Muslims. The Jews don't hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics. The Jews don't traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.

Perhaps the world's Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.

Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel's part, the following two sentences really say it all: If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.

Two sites to visit - and learn. http://www.faithfreedom.org http://annaqed.com/ (in Arabic - choose the "english" button to view it in English) Both are by EX-Muslims - and leaving Islam is punishable by death, unlike any other religion -- even though Muslims love to quote the "there is no compunction in religion" b.s. **snicker** ~ Yepper you have choices!! Convert, submit, or die!! it's really that simple! no compuction!! **snort** lol To see what this "amazing" religion does DAILY thoughout the entire world to bring their perversions, visit this site. It's eye-opening. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Take care, and may the one TRUE G-d (not "allah") guide you all.

Name: OK -- this site SUCKS for commentary formatting!
Date: Sunday July 22, 2007
Time: 14:11:53 -0700

Comment

My name on this one says it all -- sorry for the double post on that last one - I was hoping some semblance of html formatting might make the second post look better - proper formatting would allow you to see with more impact the contributions of "islam" compared to the contributions of Judaism to the world around us. I won't rant any more and probably won't be back - this commentary formatting is NOT conducive to properly writing a response in a formatted way.

Name: Arthas
Date: Monday July 23, 2007
Time: 10:48:59 -0700

Comment

The Term non-muslem bothers me like no other. even western media use this term. I am not a Non. I am not a muslem, I am a person, I am not a non. For muslems to be allowed to say every one not a muslem is a non-muslem gives licence to believe they are entitled to full world ownership. What will it take to hold the line against the horde or islam? Will islam be the first quasi religion to be outright banned in the west? that may sound farfetched but as time grinds on and the number of attacks mounts, western lawmakers will find it much easier to impose restrictions on religous zealots who reguard us as non.

Name: Marie
Date: Tuesday July 24, 2007
Time: 11:34:01 -0700

Comment

To Peace be upon him in the Bible, first of all Genesis 21:11-13 that the matter of sending his son Ishmeal away distressed Abraham greatly. But God said to him, do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned, meaning that through the line of Isaac who will carry on the blood line of the Jews, Salvation will come through Jews. God said I will make the son of the maidsevant into a nation also, because he is your son, meaning that God made a special designation for Ishmeal. God' covenant and promise was for the Jews. In Genesis 17:19-21 God says your wife will bear you a son and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him, as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. And as for Ishmeal I have heard you: I will make him into a great nation. I will make into a great nation and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers and I will make him into a great nation.But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this tiem next year. As for Deuteronomy 21:15-17, to do with the Covenant that God made with Abraham. That is a rule to keep men from showing favoritism, by giving the rights of the first to the son of the wife he loves, not to the son of the wife he does not love, but who bore him his first born son. Deutoronomy 18:18 stat That God will raise up for them a prophet among their brothers. This does not mean the Arabs in the near by countries. Among means from, meaning someone from their tribe. This did not mean Muhammed. This refers to Jesus the son of God, mentioned numerous times in the Bible. The Habakkuk does not mention Muhammed'migration, infact it is Habakkuk prayer to God. It is not a prophesy. Oncw again Deutorommy 18:18-21 does not refer to Muhammed. john 16:13 is not aprophesy about Muhammed. Isaiah 28:11 says very well then with foreign lips and strange tonues God will speak to his people. To Peace be upon him in the Bible stop distorting the Bible and also stop lying, because I know that your prophet Muhammed said that the Jews and the Christians corrupted the Bible, so therefore Muslims do not believe what the Bible says.

Name: Ian
Date: Thursday July 26, 2007
Time: 09:48:58 -0700

Comment

Muslims love to say the bible has been corrupted but those who study textual criticim know the bible is very accurate and there is no evidence of the corruption. Moreover think what you are saying about God if you claim He allowed his word to be corrupted. This would beg the question how do we know we can trust the Koran?

Name: Marie
Date: Thursday July 26, 2007
Time: 09:54:28 -0700

Comment

As to Muhammed peace be upon the Bible, your references to the Paraclet in John 16:13, that early Christians believed that this word meant a person, not the spirit of truth, is completely wrong. The Paraclete is the Spirit of Truth, which is the Holy Spirit and the word Holy in Biblical terms refers to someone special sent by God to do his works. Hence the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of a person, and that would be Jesus. The Paraclete in the original Greek is Parakletos, which means Comferter, Counselor, and advocate, which is the Holy Spirit, who gives comfert and Counsel to his followers in times of need. This in no way refers to Muhammed, who the Muslims believe was a prophet. The word Prophet means God's messenger, speaker, and foreteller, not a comferter, nor a Counselor and a advocate, which is something different from being a messenger. Also neither John 14, 15, and 16 refer to Muhammed. In John 14:15-20, Jesus says if you love me, you will obey what I command and I will ask the Father and will give you another Counselor ( Paraclete ) to be with you forever, the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him for he lives with you and will be with you. This is not a prophesy. This is a parable and Jesus often spoke in parables to convey his message that he was sent to redeem the world from sin, by his sacrifice. He also spoke many things about the Kingdom of Heaven and by salvation through him, a person can go to heaven after their physical body dies. The parable he uses here says that Jesus will always be with us spiritually and that Christians are a part of his body. I will not leave you as orphens, I will come to you. Before long the world will not see me anymore, nor will you see me. Because I live you will also live. When Jesus said this, he meant his death and resurrection, that his sacrifice is a sacrifice for our sins, will bring new life to those who follow him. On that day you will realize that Iam in my father and you are in me and I am in you. Meaning that he is with us and we are with him. John 16:7-9, Jesus says But I tell you the truth: it is good for that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor ( Holy Spirit ) will not come to you, but if I go I will send him to you. When he comes he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin, righteousnous, and judgement: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me, in regard to righteousnous, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer, and in regard to Judgement because the prince of this world now stands condemned. These verses in no way refer to Muhammed. The Holy Spirit and the Paraclet are the same person, since the comferter and the counselor is what the Holy Spirit is. But Muslims do not have a concept of this, because they deny Jesus's divinity. John 14,15, and 16, talk about sin , and Jesus's sacrifices will set free those who follow him from sin. In the Old and the New, sin is a terrible crime that man commits and to free us from it, God ( not Allah ) who is might and merciful, sent his son Jesus to die on the cross to redeem humanity from sin's hold on us. Isaiah 9:6-7 explains this, For us a Child is born, to us a son is given and the government will be on his shoulders and he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace, there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his Kingdom, establishing it and holding it with justice and righteousnous from that time on and forever. the zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this. Since Muhammed has never been called the Prince of Peace, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father and nor is he from the line of David, there is no mentioned of him as a future prophet in the Bible. Therefore the claims that you Muslims are making are false. Not only are your claims false, you have distorted many things about Jesus, just to prove your point. Mat 21:19-21 has nothing to do with Muhammed, for these verses talk about faith and what will happen when the believer asks for something in prayer. Mat 21:42-44 does not refer to Muhammed, it tell what will happen to people who do not have faith in Jesus and because of this they are doomed to eternal damnation. Isaiah 8:14 and 2:34-35 also support this. Isaiah 8:14 says And he shall be a sanctuary, but he shall be a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both the Houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Dan 2:34-35 says while you were watching a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and the clay smashed them. Then the iron, the clay the bronze, the silver, and the gold were broken to pieces at the same time and became like the chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth. Deutoronomy in no way refers to Muhammed's flight from Mecca to Medina, in fact it is Moses blessing to the Jews after they had fled from Egypt. Deutoronomy 18:19 does tell what will happen who does not listen to God's prophet. But it also says in verse 20, but a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods must be put to death. This verse is the only verse that does apply to Muhammed because Allah is actually a pagan moon god and verses in the Quran support this in surah 53:19-20, which says that Allah had 3 daughters, Lat Uzza, and Manat. Archeological and anthropoligical evidence also supports this, because Mesopotamian artifacts and statues of pagan gods with the crescent shaped moon on them have been found and that the crescent moon with a starrepresents Al-ilat and his daughters. Also Surah 3:78 explains that the Christians and the Jews have corrupted the Bible and that it is unreliable. Therefore Muhammed peace be upon him in the Bible, you are practicing taqiya, lying when it is convenient to do so.

Name: Wave your boss goodbye, pack your bags and sell your Title Deeds - get on a plane and GO!
Date: Sunday August 19, 2007
Time: 10:42:33 -0700

Comment

'encourages all Muslims to seek knowledge from cradle to grave, from every source possible'... What a great idea, start here >> 'It is humiliating to the human intellect to think that this mediocre literature has been the subject of innumerable commentaries, and that millions of men are still wasting time absorbing it.' http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/The_Origins_of_the_Koran

Comment

Name:
Comment: