Thursday, January 5, 2012

All-American Muslim’s Very Special Tribute to 9/11


By Daniel Greenfield

All-American Muslim: The Day the World Changed, an episode of the reality series that has the cast interacting emotionally with the attacks of September 11, is less about those who were murdered on that day than about the cast’s feelings and exploitation of that day.

When cast members insist that the terrorists were not Muslims, or not truly Muslims, their denial echoes the collective denial of Muslim communities and leaders in America who have never come to terms with the problem because they are too busy misrepresenting themselves as the victims. They are too busy feeling sorry for themselves to understand the pain of so many Americans on the anniversary of that awful day.

But All-American Muslim’s denial that the September 11 hijackers were Muslims acting in the name of Islam, because Muslims are incapable of terrorism is blatantly dishonest. Especially when the series featured two Imams who support terrorists, Imam Abdul Latif Berry, who is quite a fan of the Ayatollah Khomeini, and Husham Al-Husainy, who supports Hezbollah. The appearance of these two men on a series which pretends to show us the peaceful nature of the real All-American Muslim demonstrates how difficult it is to detach the religious violence in Islam from the Muslim community.


Before anyone asks, no I have not personally seen this show, nor will I subject myself to such bile. I have heard enough about it that I don't care to ever watch it and with it's plummeting ratings it won't be around long enough to make any bit of difference.

Why would anyone embrace a religion that clearly oppresses its followers? Read below:

Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies:


10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped. The Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:90—91; they do not prescribe the punishment of flogging, but the hadith does. A poor 'criminal' was brought to Muhammad who became angry:

The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad's presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774—6775)

9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
The Quran says:
4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004)
This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl—bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr: Muslim no.2127:     'He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.'
8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.          The Quran says:
5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and  wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)
7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.

The Quran says:
5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.

The Quran says:
5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:33—34. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:
Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away . . . The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)
5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.

Ibn Abbas, Muhammad's cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad's punishment of homosexuals: . . .
'If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done' (Abu Dawud no. 4447).
This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:
Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying, 'Accursed is he who does what Lot's people did.' In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law] had two peopleburned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)
4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.


The Quran says:
24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law]. (Hilali and Khan).
3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.

Here are the classical legal rulings.
First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597—98, o8.7):
(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about 'Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat'; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or 'anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it'; (4) holding that 'any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent'; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended 'the Prophet's message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.'
2. Islam orders apostates to be killed.

This Muslim website has an overview of Islam on apostates. They should be given time to repent, but if they refuse, they must be killed.


And the number one reason why sharia is bad for all societies . . .
1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.

Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he set the genetic code for Islam, waging war. In the ten years that he lived in Medina from his Hijrah (Emigration) from Mecca in AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventy—four raids, expeditions, or full—scale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him.


79 comments:

jez said...

You realise that there's significant overlap with xianity, don't you? (corporal punishment in general, eye-for-an-eye obviously, kill the gays etc.)
Don't get me wrong, I prefer hardline fundamentalist xianity to hardline fundamentalist islam, but keep in mind it's a close thing. A state founded on or dedicated to either would be / is disastrous. Xianity's saving grace is that it that hardline fundamentalism is rarer. If Christians were as fanatical as Muslims, it would be a much closer contest.

Karen K said...

Leticia, I refuse to watch TLC period, not only for "All American Muslim" but also for "Toddlers And Tiaras" (sick child beauty pageants and the hapless contestants' obnoxious parents) and "Sister Wives" (normalizing polygamy).

Let's see a show called All American Christian

Yeah, it'll be a cold day in hell when that happens.

Silverfiddle said...

Jez. You're confusing Old Testament Judaism with New Testament Christianity. There are only two stonings in the new testament (I think off the top of my head) and both are condemned: The Stoning of St Stephen and the almost stoning of the woman caught in adultery that Jesus personally stopped.

And where in the Bible does it say "kill the gays?"

C'mon Jez. I admire you for being an honest liberal, but you missed the mark on this one completely.

jez said...

"You're confusing Old Testament Judaism with New Testament Christianity."

I know, but the confusion is invited by Jesus' claim that he came to fulfill the old Law, rather than supersede it.

1) Can you demonstrate that Leticia isn't making an equivalent error with Islam?
2) Are you willing to repudiate any verse of the Old Testament with equivalent vigor as you do these similar ones from the Qur'an / Hadith?

"And where in the Bible does it say "kill the gays?""
Leviticus 20:13. That's an easy one. I admire you too, so I assume you're playing dumb for some reason.

Silverfiddle said...

Jez: That chapter doesn't just single out homosexuals for the death sentence, and it is telling that no Christian or Jewish society today hands out death sentences based upon this chapter.

You can still find numerous Muslim societies that carry out barbarities in the name of their holy books. That is the difference.

And Jesus clearly stated in word and deed, that stonings are wrong. This leads people who know much more about the law than me to conclude that Leviticus was God's instruction to Moses for his people at that time, and not meant to be a universal command for all eternity (I'm now out of my depth.)

So yes, our holy books and theirs both prescribe barbaric punishments. The difference is Christians and Jews no longer do these things, while Muslims routinely do.

Anonymous said...

Jez, Leviticus 20:13 does not say kill gays. You just choose to deliberately misinterpret it. That they will be put to death means they will not go to heaven. Not going to heaven is death. This is an example why the bible should not be read in a vacuum. You should seek out someone who is educated in these matters. And you are not Moses either so you don’t really need to worry about it. And Moses never killed anybody for being a gay or told anybody to kill someone for being gay, by the way.
If you are without sin, cast the first stone follows Jewish law to a tee and no one is killed. You are not confused. You don’t want to know G_d. You are hiding behind a rock.

jez said...

SF: "That chapter doesn't just single out homosexuals for the death sentence,"

I know, it gets even worse.

"And Jesus clearly stated in word and deed, that stonings are wrong."

To say flat-out that "stonings are wrong" would be to repudiate the old Law, which he refused to do.
If they are wrong, why keep the dangerous Leviticus in the canon. Wouldn't it be better to eject it on account of its obsolescence?

"Leviticus [is obsolete]"
Alright, but we're having to read this bible pretty charitably to get this far. Is it possible that similar nuance could be brought to the Qur'an?

"The difference is Christians and Jews no longer do these things, while Muslims routinely do."

I acknowledged that up-front: imo, one reason is that hardline fundamentalism is rarer in xianity (judeo-xianity if you insist).

Anonymous:
"Leviticus 20:13 does not say kill gays."
Well, it does say they will be put to the death.

"That they will be put to death means they will not go to heaven."
Silly me?
Even if you're right, it's hardly a deliberate act of subterfuge for me to have taken the obvious surface meaning instead.
Anyway, I don't believe you: Leviticus uses the same form of words again and again elsewhere, clearly intended as capital punishment. Do you claim that Lev. 24:16 doesn't instruct the reader to kill blasphemers?

"Moses never killed anybody for being a gay or told anybody to kill someone for being gay, by the way."
Evidence? (to be fair to moses, he didn't write the pentateuch either, so maybe we're putting too much pressure on him).

"If you are without sin, cast the first stone follows Jewish law to a tee"
Please, show how the old testament requires that executioners be sinless.

"You are not confused."
Agreed. The confusion is not mine, it arises from the shotgun marriage between the old and new testaments.

Anonymous said...

Jez: ‘Do you claim that Lev. 24:16 doesn't instruct the reader to kill blasphemers?’
Only someone who is insane would read Lev. 24:16 as an order for them to go out and kill. I’m not a bible scholar or a linguist but it probably has more to do with someone who is the enemy, rebel or otherwise, but you see what you want to see. If you want to find evil, you will find it.
Jez: ‘it's hardly a deliberate act of subterfuge for me to have taken the obvious surface meaning instead’
Yes, you are in fact making it out to something it is not. Not hard to do with the bible.

Jez: ‘to be fair to moses, he didn't write the pentateuch either, so maybe we're putting too much pressure on him)’
G-d is talking to Moses. He is not talking to you. This is a time and place far removed from your circumstance.

Jez: ‘Please, show how the old testament requires that executioners be sinless.’

No, you are just being ridiculous now, as if there was a point. Blathering and dizzy.

Jez: ‘The confusion is not mine, it arises from the shotgun marriage between the old and new testaments.’
You are all in a dither. There is no point, more blathering on.

Silverfiddle said...

Jez: You engage us Biblical non-scholars in a useless debate in order to obscure the main point:

Christians and Jews have left barbarous practices behind. Enough Muslims have not, as evidenced by the lack of surprise at each fresh barbarity.

This is the last I'll say on your off-topic NT vs OT comment since I don't know enough about it...

To say flat-out that "stonings are wrong" would be to repudiate the old Law, which he refused to do.

From the standpoint of pure logic, If Jesus is God and God does not contradict himself, and if Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and not destroy it, then his telling those men to drop the rocks obviously does not contradict The Law as laid down in the Old Testament.

So either the stoners (haha) were not following The Law, or those passages in Leviticus are not part of The Law. I don't know, it's beyond me.

So there may be some overlap among the books (some scholars believe Muhammad cribbed it from the Bible), but there is very little overlap in modern-day practice.

jez said...

"Only someone who is insane would read Lev. 24:16 as an order for them to go out and kill."

Lev. 24:16 says
"And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death." (emphasis mine)

I fear you are as disinguous as you are anonymous.

"you see what you want to see. If you want to find evil, you will find it."
True. On the other hand, Leticia's excerpts are wholly sufficient to demonstrate Islam's depravity, right?

SF: I must be obscuring this "main point" in plain sight: it was featured up front in my first and subsequent remarks, and I'm pleased that you've joined me in reinforcing it.

"So either the stoners (haha) were not following The Law, or those passages in Leviticus are not part of The Law. I don't know, it's beyond me."
I don't think anyone aside from our anonymous companion would claim that the stonings as understood by the surface reading were NEVER legal. Pretty much every xian scholar claims that parts of levitican law no longer apply under the new covenant, but there is disagreement over which parts are obselete, and why.

Anonymous said...

No Jez, the accurate translation for 24:16 is more along the lines of:
And warn the others that everyone else who curses me will die in the same way, whether they are Israelites by birth or foreigners living among you.
Wow, is it talking about the likes of you? Not at all ironic.
Jez, you are just spewing krap because when you a full of krap, everything you see is krap and every word that comes out of you is krap so you will always just read krap into the bible. Seek out someone educated in the bible for you interpretations. Don’t read it in a vacuum because you are not qualified. And especially do not attempt to teach others the bible.

Leticia said...

Jez, thank goodness that "Christians" are not fanatical and our Lord have always told us to turn the other cheek. Can you imagine if Christians were like the radical Muslims? Millions of people, including Hollywood actors would have been murdered. There is no where in our bible that condones murder. Vengeance belongs to God. I see that Silver and Anon are giving you what I would have done myself.

Karen, I quit watching that channel eons ago as well, It's all garbage. Don't get me started on pageants, it's downright disgusting how they dress up those little girls.

Silver, how right you are. Jesus came to the world to save not to condemn, and that includes murder.
And thank you for helping out Jez.

Anon, God bless you and thank you for your input.

jez said...

Anonymous recites from the contemporary english version, which in fuller context reads

"Finally, the LORD said to Moses: 14This man has cursed me! Take him outside the camp and tell the witnesses to lay their hands on his head. Then command the whole community of Israel to stone him to death. 15-16And warn the others that everyone else who curses me will die in the same way, whether they are Israelites by birth or foreigners living among you. 17 Death is also the penalty for murder, ..." (emphasis mine)

Even in your preferred translation, this is explicitly instructing the Israelites to execute blasphemers.

"Wow, is it talking about the likes of you? Not at all ironic."
Well no, it isn't ironic. Twisted and deplorable, yes. I invite anyone who's uncomfortable with Leticia's Qur'an extracts to repudiate this piece of Levitican code. Join me in loudly declaring that no state should ever punish blasphemy by death.

jez said...

If you want to compare contemporary xianity with contemporary Islam (worth doing), IMO we're better off sticking to recent examples of each groups' works (more than enough material to make Leticia's point, I'm sure). Unfortunately Leticia invited a comparison with the Bible when she turned to the Qur'an and Hadith for her examples.

Anonymous has refused to explain how the OT Law requires its executioners to be sinless. Does anybody else agree with this? It's not a claim I've heard before.

Leticia said...

Jez, I agree, no one should be put to death for blaspheme. You must remember that the Old Testament had the old Laws, but when Jesus came to earth, his sacrifice took all that away. They only unforgivable sin is blaspheme of the Holy Ghost, in other, words rejecting Him. You must remember our Heavenly Father is a forgiving and merciful God.

Anonymous said...

Nice Christian. Keep hatred and bigotry alive at all costs to validate your paranoia and lack of compassion.

Liberalmann

Lone Ranger said...

Amazing how whenever liberal bigots want to smear Christians, they dive straight into the Old Testament -- the Hebrew Bible. Ah, but do they use the Koran's teachings against Muslims? Nope.

A religion should be judged by its teachings, not by those who refuse to follow them. Therefore, Muslims who do NOT hate infidels and want them killed, tortured or enslaved, are bad Muslims. And Christians who do NOT love their enemies are bad Christians.

And, oddly enough, those who ignore the evils of Islam and smear the virtues of Christianity, have usually never read the scriptures of either.

jez said...

Lone Ranger: try thinking of it the other way round:
"When you conservative bigots want to smear muslims you go straight to the Qur'an, but do you use the old testament's teachings against xians or jews? Nope." (fixed that for you)

If you hate Islam because of Leticia's exerpts, why is it that you don't hate Judaism?

There is no substantial reason, it's a remarkably close race. That's why silver fiddle and I recommend looking at contemporary acts instead.

And if you don't like the OT, why have it in your canon of inspired and inerrant scripture? It's not my fault your God-ideal has (or had! -- apparently since [some of] this stuff has been obsolete for >2000 years, that makes it all fine) so many moral faults.

"Therefore, Muslims who do NOT hate infidels and want them killed, tortured or enslaved, are bad Muslims. And Christians who do NOT love their enemies are bad Christians."
I'm less interested in a religion's impossible demands than I am on its political and psychological effect on its followers -- these are the things that may affect me. That's why I'm less well inclined towards Islam than I am to judeo-xianity; it's certainly not because the of any textual analysis of their respective holy books.

dmarks said...

"Imam Abdul Latif Berry, who is quite a fan of the Ayatollah Khomeini, and Husham Al-Husainy, who supports Hezbollah"

From this description, the man is a genocidal maniac. Should be deported or sent to Gitmo, in an ideal world

D Charles QC said...

Daniel Greenfield is a paid professional dedicated to the annexation of the West Bank.

His postings have almost exclusively been devoted to such a cause and thus his work is tainted from the word go.

The one word that never enters Greenfield's vocabulary is context.

Anonymous said...

Jez, you left out the key part with your excerpt. The accused’s father was an Egyptian. You might remember the Egyptians followed the tribes so that they could slaughter those Jews right where they stood. A war for survival, no less. It was more about the execution of the traitors and rebels in a military campaign than just ravings of a malevolent god, which you are try to imply with your krap interpretation. Yes, kill those who would have you killed before they kill you. This is nothing like a call to kill all Jews just because they are Jews. You are not really qualified to explain the bible to Christians are you?

You said ‘Anonymous has refused to explain how the OT Law requires its executioners to be sinless.’

I didn’t say anything about unicorns or rainbows either. Why? It has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. Nobody ever made the claim that Jesus’ job was quoting verbatim every rule in the OT. You are just blathering again with your liberal, self centered rage that is just for the sake of rage.
In any case, not all Christians accept the OT. And maybe most do not take it literally. So you can’t really use reading the OT literally to describe what Christian believe anyways.

Anonymous said...

Damien C, QC is an Islamic scholar so his opinion cannot be credible. It is slanted wholly towards Islam.

dmarks said...

"6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated."

I'm just not seeing this one as that outrageous. Robbery, an act of violence against another person in order to serve one's personal greed, is a very horrible thing to do. Anyone who knows right and wrong knows not to do this. No one forces anyone to be a robber.

Is the punishment extreme? Of course. But anyone who commits such a horrible crime in a country with this in their legal system is doing this knowingly. Knowingly choosing this punishment. All by choice.

D Charles QC said...

Coming from someone who always posts as "Anonymous" is telling.

Greenfield follows the Spencer style of agenda-based hate. The rather questionable manner of supporting the radicals and ultra-conservatives as being the only true Islam and, of course, ignoring the reality on the ground. We must ask why?

Mention context and point out in Greenfield's blogs that context is ignored and why does he in fact support only radical interpretations and your posts dissapear quickly. The fact remains that Greenfield is clearly pro-Settler and Spencer is paid by Horowitz says it all.

What is also missing, like in the arguments here is that Muslims, like many of us Christians do not take all their religious texts as verbutum and puritanically.

dmarks points out that there is a text regarding "mutilating" thieves and yet how many of the 56 Muslim countries do so, are they all thus "bad Muslims".

Do not get me wrong, clerics in the Muslim world have way to much power and with the level of literacy, communal violence and lack of confidence in corrupt systems - they get way to much influence and control over the masses - but the reality is also there that life is not like what Greenfield or Spencer are paid to portrait and again, we must ask why they do so?

Anonymous said...

“Coming from someone who always posts as "Anonymous" is telling.”

Do kill the messenger when you don’t like the message.

Anonymous said...

“I invite anyone who's uncomfortable with Leticia's Qur'an extracts to repudiate this piece of Levitican code. Join me in loudly declaring that no state should ever punish blasphemy by death.”
Not really what’s being taught here, just your deliberately bad interpretation. Not really a problem because Christians know better, despite your obfuscation. Killing in a war to survive is not murder.

D Charles QC said...

I wonder if discussing with an Anonymous is of value - the concept is itself a farce.

Most certainly I condemn the killing of anyone under the term blasphemy but I would also point out that it is not done universally which is what I was attempting to show people.

When wide-sweeping remarks, condemnations and especially when written by someone with an alterior motive (Greenfield is in fact sponsored and makes no bones that he does so for the benefit of the Settler Movement hell-bent (pun intendended) on elimenating the existance of Palestine.

Also the comment about Leticia chosing the item has nothing to do with the Levitican code but the questionable trash that it is based on Greenfield's game-plan for hate-mongering and I repudiate his rubbish based on the fact that it also has no relevance to the totality on the ground or the context of which it attempts to represent.

Anonymous said...

I wonder what the point would be of engaging someone who can’t see fault with a genocidal, satanic, belief system trying to bring back the fourth century.

dmarks said...

Actually, in regards to this: ""6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated."

the last time I remember crucifixion practiced on a large scale was during Serbia's wars against Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo. By Serbia on Muslim civilian victims. Serbia invaded these countries and worked to eliminate the indigenous Muslim populations of these nations at the urging of the supposedly Christian orthodox church in Serbia.

jez said...

Anonymous:
"Jez, you left out the key part with your excerpt. The accused’s father was an Egyptian. You might remember the Egyptians followed the tribes so that they could slaughter those Jews right where they stood. A war for survival, no less. It was more about the execution of the traitors and rebels in a military campaign than just ravings of a malevolent god,"

The above starts to make sense only if read it out in the voice of Peter Falk as Columbo.

Really, this was strained to begin with, now it's getting silly. Just admit it: your god is a jealous God, who wants (or wanted) to punish blasphemers with death by stoning.
The crime punished in Lev 26 is blasphemy. Not fighting, not being an Egyptian hit man, nor anything else you might invent for your elaborate back-story.

Anonymous, in another life, claimed:
"If you are without sin, cast the first stone follows Jewish law to a tee"

So please, tell us what the OT has to say on the about the executioner's blamelessness.

dmarks said...

Anon: Islam was created in the 7th century, not the "fourth century". Being accurate on these historic points is important in such discussions.

Leticia said...

liberalmann, if it's the truth, why would it be construed as "hate" and "bigotry?" Grow up.

Lone Ranger, and of course, they will never use the Qu'ron against a Muslim, because, unlike Christians, there would be some kind of retaliation that would not be pretty. So, their only option is to spew their hate on us and revile us with their nonsense.

Jez, we read the Old Testament because it is part of the Torah, the Word of God. And as I said earlier, Jesus Christ changed the old laws. He was the final blood sacrifice and commanded us to love one another.

dmarks, not with Obama in office. That won't happen on his watch.

D Charles QC said...

Let us add that the entire statement is illogical and inacurate and one wanders if the consistantly nameless individual concerned is either missing the point out of lack of education or doing so on purpose.

"genocidal, satanic, belief system trying to bring back the fourth century"

There is no claim in their Koran that demands genocide, their faith is in fact considered an Abrahamic faith thus calling it Satanic also by default demands that Judaism and Christianity be as such and of course as dmarks correctly pointed out, he/she/it got it wrong by 3 centuries...

Fred said...

Dmarks, thanks for pointing that out but whether they want to go back thirteen hundred years or sixteen hundred years doesn’t really change the sentiment.
Damien, you may call me Fred, since you are obsessed with names.
Jez, really, you still harping on the price of tea in China? I don’t know anything about OT executioners and don’t see how it means anything except you like to rage on about it like you have found some contradiction. It does not contradict anything if it was never spelt out. Maybe the modern day executioners in Saudi Arabia learn that in executioner school. Ask them. But they might execute you just from the sound of you so beware.

D Charles QC said...

Fred, having an identification is important at the least for not knowing you from a jar of jam (ie other people who would post as Anonymous).

Apart from the name issue, when you get some context and relative logic in your outbursts please do express them.

Are you aware of how many countries executive like Saudi or are your basing your comments on professional hate-mongers?

Personally I prefer comments to be based on actual reality and context, how about you?

D Charles QC said...

typo error, please amend as:

Are you aware of how many countries EXECUTE like in Saudi or are your basing your .....

(my fingers do not like the iPad very well)

dmarks said...

DCC said: "their faith is in fact considered an Abrahamic faith thus calling it Satanic also by default demands that Judaism and Christianity be as such ..."

Uh, no. These, as mentioned before, are very different faiths. "Abrahamic" does not mean they are the same thing. It's just an adjective, like "monotheistic".

Different religions.

D Charles QC said...

dmarks,

we have had this discussion before. Most certainly they are different religions but they stem from the same origins and believe in the same God. You will dispute it and your minority view is, of course, a human right and respected.

dmarks said...

DCC said: "we have had this discussion before. Most certainly they are different religions but they stem from the same origins and believe in the same God."

Most certainly they do not believe in the same God. You will dispute this, but my view is the view of the vast majority of worshipers in these three faiths, of these three Gods, and I defer to them. Who am I to define their faiths. I am merely reporting what they believe.

It is sloppy sloppy and slipshod to mush these three very different deities together.

You will be very hard pressed to find any devout Jew who believes that his or her God sent Jesus as the Messiah. You will be very hard pressed to find a Christian who believes that his or her God has Muhammad as any sort of prophet. You will be hard pressed to find a Muslim that believes that Jesus is the Son of God who has always been and always will be.

D Charles QC said...

dmarks, you have said that "my view is the view of the vast majority of worshipers in these three faiths".

Reality is different. For a start the bulk of the established churches accept that it is the very same God and the established churches (Catholic, Prostestant varieties, Methodist) make up the bulk of the Christian world. Judaism via the World Jewish Congress and the Rabbinical Assembly also agree to that. Even the most ultra-orthodox Jew will state, for example, that as an Abrahamic or Messinic faith, Islam accepts the One True God, the concept of God-Creator, Angels and Judgement day and thus Muslims are righteous in the eyes of God. The issue of Jesus (His oneness with The Creator) and Mohammed is in this case secondary as it is God is the one and the same.

Muslims all down to the most hard-line puritanical Wahhabist or Salafist will state that Christianity and Judaism are Abrahamic and worship the same one true God and it is stated in their Koran that all good Christians and Jews will stand shoulder to should with good Muslims at the Gates of Heaven on Judgement Day. Thus I can safely say that the great bulk of Christianity, most if not all Jews and certainly all Muslims agree with what I have said and I think that is also about half of humanity on our little planet.

Most certainly, your view is a minority, though of course respected. Alternatively, you could provide some evidence.

Leticia said...

Charles, how misinformed you are about our God Jehovah. You are fooling yourself if you truly believe that Allah and Jehovah God are one deity. I am surprised that you call yourself or claim to be a "Catholic." Because they also believe in the one true Living God, not some deity that is merciless and cruel and continues to demand the blood of the innocent. And his prophet, Mohammad a known pedophile and blood thirsty man that thrived on brutality and hate.

If you truly read the Word of God you would never have dared to give that comparison. They are not the same and regardless of how many times you want to argue the point the truth cannot be changed.

Liberalmann said...

Ah, taking the old 'holier than thou' routine when facts elude you? Typical.

Jersey McJones said...

The differences between the West and the Middle East right now have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. They basically believe the same nonsense all religious people do.

They have different cultural, economic, politic issues. They are like us in the sense they believe the same religious things, but they are not like us in their national development.

Their lives are very different.

Their religion is very similar.

In the end, "God" only manifests himself. And people can do or say anything in the name of some religion, but that doesn't mean it is true to that religion. They can do that because religion is in and of itself irrational, and so open to frivolity and man-ipulation.

JMJ

Leticia said...

Liberalmann, you seem to be delusional. I am not sure where you get your ideas about "holier than thou" nonsense.

Jersey, there is no manipulation involved, it is faith that keeps us strong and it is through faith we trust and believe in Jesus Christ. I cannot make you believe or coerce you to believe. That has to be something you must do on your own. No one else can do it for you.

dmarks said...

DCC said: "Reality is different. For a start the bulk of the established churches accept that it is the very same God"

Reality is indeed different from what you claim. Every worshipper I've asked within Christianity, and those who worship a different God (Muslims, etc) side with me.

At best, your claims are something that a few top level clergy believe or signed on to, but it never filtered down below.

-------------

Jersey said: "They can do that because religion is in and of itself irrational"

Since you yourself assert religious faith, I know that what you are meaning to say is that religions other than your own are irrational. Even then, that's a preposterous claim.

D Charles QC said...

Leticia and others,

I stand by comments and consider your views to be the minority. What is said in individual non-mainstream churches is one thing. Who dmarks associates and ask is basically just that.

It should also be pointed out the quality of knowledge in many western countries about what anything outside their sphere is often very lacking. We can add politics, local media and the reality of two wars certainly makes a huge impact of what people "want to believe".

As I pointed out, in Judaism even the most ultra-orthodox believes that Muslims (of whom we can all agree they have serious problems socially and politically with) accepts the argument that they are talking about the One True God. That Muslims reject the Lord Jesus as being a oneness with God is in fact not a part of the argument.

dmarks, the average person on the street is not very theological, and it is no suprising that in many environments that if you ask a Christian that Muslims worship the same God, their answer will either be, "aah, I don't know" or if they are politicized " hell no!" but really have not a clue. That is why I repeat, the vast majority of Christendom (ie the clergy) agrees with me as also does Judaism and Islam.

What you believe, is of course your right, just make the statements correct.

D Charles QC said...

Leticia,

I follow what my Church believes, so it is in fact very Catholic and public policy.

Anonymous said...

2: The Cow AL-BAQARA

Don't take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do, then Allah will consider you to be one of them. 5:51

Jews and Christians are losers. 5:53

Don't choose Jews, Christians, or disbelievers as guardians. 5:57

Fight against Christians and Jews who disbelieve in Allah. 9:29

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 2:191

Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89

If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant. 4:91

Anonymous said...

Koran 9:5 ‚"Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

Koran 9:112 ‚"The Believers fight in Allah‚'s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."

Koran 8:39 ‚"Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah."

Koran 8:39 ‚"So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone"

Bukhari:V5B59N512 ‚"The Prophet had their men killed, their children and woman taken captive."

Koran 8:12 ‚"I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle."

Koran 8:57 ‚"If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned."

Koran 7:3 ‚"Little do you remember My warning. How many towns have We destroyed as a raid by night? Our punishment took them suddenly while they slept for their afternoon rest. Our terror came to them; Our punishment overtook them."

Bukhari:V9B87N127 ‚"The Prophet said, I have been given the keys of eloquent speech and given victory with terror."

D Charles QC said...

I just love mindless anonymous cut & paste postings.

No point, no context, no message and thus no value.

Stupid is as stupid does eh?

dmarks said...

DCQC: An honest question, to which I do not know the answer. Is there any sort of reformist thought, or such within Islam to dismiss these bad statements? So adherants are not feeling they need to go out and act on them if they read them?

Anonymous said...

Islam is what Islam does.

Anonymous said...

And abasement and humiliation were brought down upon them [The Jews], and they became deserving of Allah's wrath; this was so because they disbelieved in the communications of Allah and killed the prophets unjustly; this was so because they disobeyed and exceeded the limits (Sura 2:61)
Ignominy shall be their portion [the Jews'] wheresoever they are found... They have incurred anger from their Lord, and wretchedness is laid upon them... because they disbelieve the revelations of Allah and slew the Prophets wrongfully... because they were rebellious and used to transgress. [Surah 111, v. 112]
They [the Jews] are the heirs of Hell.... They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is clear from what they say ... When evil befalls you they rejoice." Ibid. [Surah 111, v. 117-120]
And thou wilt find them [the Jews] the greediest of mankind....[Surah 11, v. 96]
Allah hath cursed them [the Jews] for their disbelief.[Surah 4, v. 46]
They [the Jews] spread evil in the land .... [Surah 5, v. 62-66]
[The Jews] knowingly perverted [the word of Allah], know of nothing except lies ... commit evil and become engrossed in sin. [Surah 2, v. 71-85]
the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews (Qur'an 5:82).
And He made you heirs to their (the Jews) land and their dwellings and their property, (Qur'an 33:27)

D Charles QC said...

dmarks,

yes and no and everything between. That is the answer because that is also the variety and the reality out there. We hear about Afghanistan, Saudi, Iraq and the Arab Spring. We see what the media find exciting and they ignore the sheer bulk of what life is like for the average person in the street.

Having said that most certainly the clerics have a power over their populations and they battle the governments which are mostly secular and trying to run life as best as possible.

We can say that the clerics claim, shout, demand and pontificate and people either believe them or not but as they leave the mosques on Fridays life goes on for the bulk of Muslims.

As for in a totality and theocratical sense, reform is slow but most certainly happening. Since 1912 there was a debate about what power really should Haddiths have since they are followed differently depending on the location, school of jurispudence and how they are frankly ignored by states etc. One issue that is a problem is that their are five schools of fiqh, various muftis supposively controlling them and then divided by the politics and relations between the nations that house them. Morocco is Maleki with a Mufti in Fez but there are Malekis in other countries that either have a link or not - depending on the relationship with Morocco. That is also the main problem with Muslims whom follow clerical leadership - they cross fronteirs and that leadership, if enganging in politics - is thus influencing them. That raises the other barrier to reform - clerics are involved in politics because traditionally, the Mosque is a social and community centre and that also means politics.

If we can use the word maturity, it is that we in the West were able to remove the power of politics out of the hands of theocrats. Mind you, are we not seeing a resurgence in some countries of the return of religion?

Hope that gives some perspective...

Do not get me wrong - there is a great many problems facing the Islamic world, almost all of it to do with the same problem humanity has faced over millenia - power & control by man using religion as an excuse.

D Charles QC said...

I smell more cut and paste from Spencer coming - all without context and smelling of nonesense.

Probably a comment about "all muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslim" cr*p - which of course is incorrect and totally disrespecting victims from all terrorists.

Either way gutless/mindless anonymous postings like that only shows the deep sinister morals of the low-life who posts them.

I have an idea, why not post something of your own and try and justify it? ....... silence ...... eh? ......... I hear another control C coming up.

MK said...

Stealth Jihad is how they can advance their cause far more easily. 9/11 and the wrath of the America showed muslims that they cannot get into the ring for a toe-to-toe with the infidel. They have neither the balls nor the brains to meet us like real men on the battle field.

So they resort to cowering behind women and children, slaughtering their own and telling lies about their cult.

D Charles QC said...

MK, my question is a really simple one?

Who are "they" and "the Muslims".

You would think in this day and age, on a blog with pretty educated people that we can be a bit more discriminating and clear.

Personally, "stealth jihad" is a created term usually used by agenda-based interest groups who wish to profit from the fear produced by war, conflict and jihad. Professionals whom deal with the terror and planning of jihadist groups absolutely hate the word and consider it part of the fringe-hate community.

The importance, which is avoided by certain groups, is clarity and context. We know which parts of the Muslim world are dominated by hard-liners, we know about the various Salafist and Wahhabists who try and dominate life in the West and sell their brand, but we also know about their lack of success in many actual Muslim countries and that the bulk of Muslims in the west simply do not support them but for some reason (which I do not defend) remain silent and thus create a void to counter these radicals. This void, again being filled by interest groups.

So, would you be so kind as to clarify the "they and them" so that we can work out both what you mean and just in case your "one of them" (pun intended).

D Charles QC said...

I should add that when one uses the word "cult" it usually means they are one of them.....

Anonymous said...

A Muslim may not be killed if he kills a non-Muslim (Al Bukhari Vol 9:50)

Allah has cursed them (the Jews) on account of their unbelief; so little it is that they believe. (Koran 2:88)

Mohammed said, “The last hour will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill them.” (Mishkat Al Masabih Sh.M. Ashraf pp.147, 721, 810-11, 1130)

dmarks said...

DCQC said: "I should add that when one uses the word "cult" it usually means they are one of them.."

I don't follow. When someone accurately describes, say, the Moonie cult or David Koresh's movement as a cult, does this mean they are moonies or Koreshites?

jez said...

Anonymous:
"I don’t know anything about OT executioners and don’t see how it means anything..."

So, for the same reason that
"If you are without sin, cast the first stone follows Jewish law to a tee"
you could say that I am currently following the off-side rule to a tee since I am not playing soccer.

Following something "to a tee" implies more than that. ie you must be doing the activity in question and following the rules precisely. If I'm mixing a Tom Collins, you couldn't say I was "following the highway code to a tee", even if I'd mixed a really good one.

Add this to your obvious eisegesis in your breakdown of Leviticus, and your credibility is truly shot. Your only wise move so far has been to post anonymously.

Leticia said...

Charles, Fred or rather anonymous is giving the proof you so demand, he is cutting and pasting excerpts from the Qu'ron. He did the research and work by posting it here.

MK, absolutely correct, they are cowards. They have no qualms about using human shields, because they are inhuman.

Charles, you know exactly who the Jihadists are, radical Muslims what's with the cat and mouse game with MK?

Jez, when the Pharisees were going to stone the woman for committing adultery they tested Jesus to see what his response to be. They were testing to see if he was going to follow Levitical Law. And much to their chagrin, Jesus told them that whomever was without sin should cast the first stone. When he looked up it was just him and the woman who was be accused. It's mercy.

Anonymous said...

Jez, you will have a change to argue Hebraic law with him soon, very soon.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Leticia. You would think that if it was a good enough argument that even Pharisees walked away, it would be good enough for Jez. Hard to image anyone could be that arrogant.
DC, the fact that you, a scholar of Islam, with such high regard for yourself, are reduced to just name calling means my work is done.

D Charles QC said...

dmarks, the reference is to those that incorrectly label Islam as a cult.

D Charles QC said...

Leticia,

I will disagree with you completely.

Posting "portions" of any religious text with no context is simply the oldest game in the book. If it was done in the business world it would be contempteous, slanderous and fraudulent in a cort of law and personally I dispize people who try that ploy.

There is no cat and moust game with MK, I want to know if he is talking about Jihadists or is he puting a wide-sweeping generalised reference to all Muslims. That he through in the word "cult" tells me that it may be the latter - in that case then I take issue with it. People should be a bit more mature than that, or should we say "better than that".

D Charles QC said...

Anon,

When one sees childishness does not one point it out?

My question is the logic behind the posts and the motive....

Leticia said...

Charles, what would you have us do? Copy the entire Qu'ran for you and highlight the points we are trying to make? I don't think so.

At least we agree to disagree. And that's okay, too.

D Charles QC said...

Leticia,

My point comes back to my first comment, which honestly your posting it in the first place I found dissapointing.

Daniel Greenfield puts these context-less paragraphs because he is paid to (he represents the Settler Movement that simply wishes to deny the existance and rights of Palestinians and have the entire West Bank declared as Israel.

Additionally the game of quoting other faiths' scriptures is for my part a sad and ugly discourse. That dislike also goes to various Churches doing the same thing.

The subject comes down to interpretations and what we do about it. As we all know, puritancial ultra-conservative Islamists do so in one way, but we all should be smart enough to know that the sheer bulk of all Muslims do not, nor do almost all 56 countries.

It begs the question, why post scripture quotes from their Koran in the first place? To prove what point? It only shows that you are siding with the worst form of interpretation, which is in fact supporting the actual radicals that their faith is the real one.

Also, in my Church, we discourage and consider it both mean spirited and unChristian to mock the faith of others, particularly those of a faith that worship the same One True God.

You yourself have put an item on the front of your blog that says you do not tolerate any attack directed on Christianity, thus why do you accept such on another? Because that is what it is, this is not an Islamic theology class.

In actuality, for those of us who have both studied Islamics and have regular contact and travels in Muslim countries knows that their Koran is divided into three styles of work. Those that are a historical reference to what events took place, examples to learn by and then their Message. That is why the context is important and Greenfield will avoid the fact that the example of "kill them all" were those of the commands during a war. Comments often tauted by radicals and hate-mongers like Greenfield and Spencer such as about Jews burning in Hell is in regards to the afterlife - that when faced with the reality that they have twice disregarded God's Message (Jesus and Mohammed) that if they do so again they will suffer the worst of fates.

When the context is added, the story changes - not that Greenfield would ever mention that.

I say this will all respect, of course, opinions are just that and it is most certainly your blog and I respect your giving me the freedom to express my own views.

jez said...

"Jesus told them that whomever was without sin should cast the first stone. When he looked up it was just him and the woman who was be accused. It's mercy."

Leticia, I know it and I like it.
(Are there any episodes from the Qu'ran that we'd both like too?)

Anon: "You would think that if it was a good enough argument that even Pharisees walked away, it would be good enough for Jez."

Well, Jesus is hardly likely to loose an argument in the Bible, is he? Remember this is John, the last gospel to be written, AND the most theologically "convenient" AND the least historically reliable. In addition the stoning incident is an interpolation, ie suspected to be a later addition to the original gospel.

I'm not a Christian, but plenty of devout Christians do doubt the historical accuracy here, although I'm sure they're all be ecstatically pleased with its theological impact since it gets them off the old testament hook. I don't blame them.

The fact that Christians still disagree about which parts of the Old Law remains applicable should worry you. I'm not normally this harsh a reviewer, but a divine and perfect book should be clearer than this, shouldn't it?

Please let's not loose track of some of the bonkers things anonymous has said.

1) "Leviticus 20:13 does not say kill gays... That they will be put to death means they will not go to heaven." [eisegesis]

2) "Moses never killed anybody for being a gay or told anybody to kill someone for being gay" [quite plausible, but no evidence]

3) "If you are without sin, cast the first stone follows Jewish law to a tee" [equivocates "following to a tee" with mere compliance]

4) "Only someone who is insane would read Lev. 24:16 as an order for them to go out and kill." [eisegesis]

5) "the accurate translation for 24:16 is more along the lines of:" [follows a misleading extract from a translation which, even if it wasn't misquoted, is still frequently criticised for being too watered down]

6) "It [the death penalty for blasphemy] was more about the execution of the traitors and rebels in a military campaign" [eisegesis, but more desperate this time]

7) "In any case, not all Christians accept the OT." [special pleading: not all muslims accept the Hadith, and many are liberal]

8) "You are not really qualified to explain the bible" [hypocritical, as he then proceeds to "explain the qu'ran" despite his own lack of qualification -- I bet I've read more bible than he has the Qu'ran, plausibly more than he has the bible].

In conclusion, it can only be politeness that prevents everyone from constantly reminding him how full of shit he is.

Anonymous said...

Jez,
1) Just you opinion, not any fact.
2) Just you opinion, not any fact.
3) Just you opinion, not any fact.
4) Just you opinion, not any fact.
5) Just you opinion, not any fact.
6) Just you opinion, not any fact.
7) No one said otherwise. Nice job Captain Obvious.
8) ..he then proceeds to "explain the qu'ran" – a boldfaced fook’n lie here.
“I've read more bible than he has the Qu'ran… “
-impossible for you to know. Just proves you have no problem making up krap. So you probably make krap up in a heartbeat without even thinking about it. People lacking a conscience do that well. Seems you are the one full of sh...
“it can only be politeness that prevents everyone from constantly reminding him how full of shit he is.”
– a crybaby loser resorts to this dialog. Grow up lad. You are being such a punk. This is the krap that spews forth from ugly, godless human beings.

Anonymous said...

DC, you are a crybaby jackass too. If you can’t stand seeing koranic verse, then move along. You don’t need to dictate how people should post in a blog. You are the one acting like an immature brat. Go be an Islamic thug somewhere it’s appreciated.

jez said...

9) "[I've read more bible than he has the Qu'ran…] -impossible for you to know. Just proves you have no problem making up krap." [another dishonest quote, I actually said "I bet I've read move bible...", ie this is clearly offered as opinion.]

In response to my observation that you're demonstrably full of shit, you interrupt your heaving sobs and dry your moistened eyes just long enough to wail:
"a crybaby loser resorts to this dialog."
I don't resort to it. I clearly have an embarrassment of evidence against you, I don't need to use profanity, I simply want to so I do. As do you. The only difference is I spell my swears correctly.

Really, do you think that the difference between you, saved, blessed, righteous and all that good stuff vs being fallen and depraved like me, is as trivial as using a 'k' instead of a 'c'? That's an instantly recognisable sign of the holy spirit moving in you, is it?

You're the one baring false witness, pal. About the bible, no less. The stench of your hypocrisy is enough to make an honest man wretch. Repent.

Notice that nobody agrees with you that Leviticus isn't genuinely talking about literally stoning people to death for crimes such as homosexuality and blasphemy. You are wrong. Particularly foolish was your choice to present your unorthodox and obviously corrupted reading as if it were obvious, and I (in agreement with everyone else who's ever read the thing) am stupid and obstinate for reading it the right way. I don't mind you being wrong, but being a dick about it is gonna get you into trouble. Not with me, I'm not really here and anyway I'm almost a pacifist; but in real life you're gonna meet people with a range of attitudes towards violence, and some of them are bound to deliver a beating when they cop your attitude. Be warned.

Leticia said...

Jez, I haven't actually found anything from my studies of the Qu'ran but I am sure if I looked harder, I might possibly find something. I am very pleased you liked the verse about casting stones. That should be a lesson to all of us, I myself have done that very thing. Who hasn't?

Charles, I welcome all comments, because I do believe in the freedom of speech, and I know I will always find a difference of opinion and it is makes for great debates. However, I will always disagree that that Allah and Jehovah are the same, because they are not. There is only one Messiah, and that is Jesus Christ. But you are most welcome, everyone is to comment as they feel.

Anonymous said...

I think there is way too much drama in your life, jez; you are major league spaz. It's a good thing you are not here because I would kick the KRAP out of you and your boyfriend or anybody else that has an issue with my attitude.

jez said...

anonymous:
"you are major league spaz. ... I would kick the KRAP out of you..."

This, I suppose, is the krap[sic] that spews forth from ugly, godfearing human beings. A disablist slur, a threat of violence, and a refusal to confess to the grave sin of blasphemy (by misrepresenting God as revealed through the bible) even though the evidence is by now considerably stacked up.

You loose. Not only are you wrong (excusable), you're a major league dick.

Anonymous said...

I might be a dick but I have a soul. You don’t decide anything and won’t be my judge. You are just a pinhead without a soul. Kiss my ass, twerp.

jez said...

Not only do I have soul, I am furthermore superbad. I suggest you kiss my bad self.

Anonymous said...

You are more like a piss ant.