United is the only way to defeat terrorism, extremism and occupation which is creating the spring well of terrorism.
Local Muslims and Christians condemn bloody Baghdad church massacre
According to media reports 58 were killed and 75 more injured after Al-Qaeda extremists in suicide vests raided Our Lady of Salvation Syriac Church in Baghdad, Iraq during evening mass on Sunday.
The deaths and injuries occurred after Iraqi Special Forces backed by U.S. troops entered the church while Al-Qaeda extremists held clerics and worshipers hostage in the central Karada neighborhood of Baghdad. Witnesses say the insurgents began killing guards outside a stock exchange in Baghdad before going to the church. Two young priests and a deacon were killed during the raid.
“I cry for my country that was the best country in the world. They killed these people and for what? Just because they were praying at church. Who killed them? I think who killed them, doesn’t believe in God. If they believed in God they would have never killed these people,” said Pastor Hanna Sullaka of Lutheran Church in Warren and Dearborn during an interfaith gathering at the Islamic House of Wisdom (IHW) in Dearborn Heights on Monday.
According to various sources, the Christian population in Iraq was at 800,000 before the United States invaded in 2003 . As a result of the continuous terrorist attacks against Christians from the resulting destablization of the country, that number has decreased to 550,000. Sullaka says it’s a fact that Christians are on the verge of extinction in Iraq and several have fled to Iraq’s bordering countries to avoid religious attacks.
More than half Iraq’s Christans left the country particularly after the U.S. invasion in 2003. Those who remain are less than three percent of the population which was more than seven percent in the 1980s according to various news sources.
Some Iraqis criticized their government for not having better security at the church, and believe the incident may have been prevented if there was better security available. In response to the series of attacks on Christians, the Iraqi federal police and army have guarded the fronts of churches during mass for two years. But no security was outside the church that Sunday.
To raise awareness of the plight of Iraq’s shrinking Christian population, the St. Toma Syrian Catholic Church of Farmington Hills is holding a demonstration outside the United States Eastern District Court of Michigan, 231 Lafayette Blvd, Detroit Michigan 48226 from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m. on Nov. 8. According to St. Toma priest Father Toma, more than 1, 000 are expected to attend the demonstration.
Father Toma said the future of Iraqi Christians is uncertain and 55 churches have been bombed and more than nine priests killed since the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003. ”Christians are terrified of going to church to pray,” he said.
Syriac church official Monsignor Pius Kasha told McClatchy Newspapers the attack is the deadliest in Baghdad since before the March elections.
Other religious leaders at the interfaith event Monday which was held to honor the victims of the barbaric attack, spoke out against terrorism in Iraq. Imam Mohammad Ali Elahi, the spiritual leader of the IHW, called the church raiders people without faith, dignity or spirit.
“The innocent victims of this tragedy that happened in the church of Our Lady of Salvation in Baghdad was an attack by a terrorist. This aggression is for people who have lost their faith, their dignity, their spirit and they choose to act as anyone but human beings. Obviously we condemn what they did. We condemn terrorism in general. We hate terrorism,” he said. Elahi says those who practice acts of terrorism in the name of Islam in reality are the worst enemies of Islam and add fuel to the fires of Islamophobia.
Sullaka says the Christian Iraqi community in the United States has been effective in helping Iraqi Christians but can become more powerful if they join forces to create effective strategies for peace. Sullaka says to do that American Christian Iraqis must first put their differences aside. ”We can’t say he’s orthodox, he’s Syrian, he’s Chaldean. We have to be one heart. We can become strong, we can get hold of Congress and all parts of the world,” Sullaka said.
During the interfaith event Sullaka also encouraged different faiths to come together.
“We will all pray together, please, raise your right hand all together and pray and say Lord Jesus or the Prophet Moses, Muhammad, together, come on, together, and pray to make peace,” he said.
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)-Michigan Executive Director, Dawud Walid encourages Iraqi Americans to continue praying for their families in Iraq. ”CAIR-Michigan strongly condemns the terrorist attack in the Baghdad church. No faith supports such violence against civilians and we pray for the day that Iraqis can worship in peace and no church can be attacked in that historic land,” Walid, also a speaker at the interfaith event said.
Meanwhile, the Muslim Public Affair Council (MPAC) of Washington D.C., a public service agency working for the civil rights of Muslim Americans, released a statement immediately after the massacre strongly condemning the killing of hostages on Sunday.
“The Quran calls for the protection of human life, all houses of worship and religious minorities and yesterday’s attack is an affront to the teachings of Islam and the rich religious diversity if Iraq,” the statement read.
“This violence is not acceptable,” said MPAC President Salam Al-Marayati. “Violence is continuing to drain valuable resources from Iraq, and it is forcing its people to live in fear and with constant strife and devastation. This is one of two incidences of extremists groups attacking other houses of worship. The Qur’an clearly states that the attack on human life and houses of worship is not acceptable.”
November 8th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
I don’t thing God cares what you call him, as long as you believe.
November 8th, 2010 at 7:10 pm
I doubt this story will get mentioned by Spencer and friends.
November 8th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
I think it is also worth mentioning that the Muslim commander of the forces in the area explicitly stated that 58 Martyrs were made that day and called them brothers, the 58 Christians who died, in other words separating them and placing them far far above the 4 ‘Muslim’ terrorists whom he extended nothing but contempt. His sentiment was echoed by many.
November 8th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
More evidence that the struggle is between violent extremists and the moderate majority, not Islam versus Christianity.
November 9th, 2010 at 6:45 am
It’s a shame it’s come to this, one of the reasons Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere are unfairly targeted by Al Qaeda and other extremists is becuase they share the same religion as American Evangelicals in their minds, however that is not the case.
It’s an outrage they’re considered part of the “occupation” when they have been vocal in their opposition to Evangelical missionising in Iraq, and the war crimes comitted by American forces and Blackwater.
However i’m sure that is just an excuse for hatermongers to look for an excuse to kill anyone who is “different” in this case Christians.
One has to question, how can Al Qaeda claim to fight an occupation, when their strageies are no different to their enemies? If only they didn’t use Islam as a rallying call, then they could be dismissed as mass murdering thugs. Remember they kill Muslims too, indiscriminately. They even have the gall to speak for God and say they are heaven bound as martyrs. Surely the choice to become a martyre is one the individual makes, not one that someone else makes for you.
November 9th, 2010 at 8:06 am
To kill an innocent is unforgivable. To do so in a place of worship only aggravates the seriousness of what occurred.
The people who carried out this attack have absolutely no awareness of the teachings of Islam.
The Prophet (saw), or a great Muslim such as Imam Ali (as), would NEVER justify, even minutely, this cowardly attack.
I agree with the views of the police commander – may Allah (swt) grant the victims martyr status.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:17 am
Two more Christians were targeted and killed in Mosul the other day….
It seems some reflection is in order in the Muslim world to determine if their hatred and constant incitement is in any way directly tied to massacres against non-Muslims or ‘heretical’ Muslims.
At least, I can’t rationally explain why Muslims from all over the Arab world would travel to Iraq and detonate themselves in Shia mosquse and shrines.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:21 am
The Prophet (saw), or a great Muslim such as Imam Ali (as), would NEVER justify, even minutely, this cowardly attack.
Unfortunately, the Prophet gave the green light for his Muslims, Ali and Khalid b. Waleed, to raid and attack Christian tribes to the south of the Hijaz (in modern day Yemen) to force them into accepting the dominance of the emerging Islamic state.
M. Watt says Muslims had ‘carte blanche’ to attack the southern Christian tribes – this would result in great slaughter of the Christian tribes people defending their lands from Muslim attack.
As any student of Islamic history knows, this ‘raiding’ of non-Muslim lands would be a recurring theme in Islam and Islamic supremacists for the next 14 centuries.
As an aside, the 9/11 attacks are referred to ‘raids’ by al-Qaeda’s top leaders. Undoubtedly, they have the raids Muhammad ordered against the defenseless and peace loving Christians of S. Arabia in mind.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:24 am
It’s a shame it’s come to this, one of the reasons Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere are unfairly targeted by Al Qaeda and other extremists is becuase they share the same religion as American Evangelicals in their minds, however that is not the case.
Uh, how predictable. Looking for that external blame because there’s no way the Muslim community can share any responsibility for this attack.
I would actually put the blame of these attacks squarely on conspiracy theories, religious intolerance in the Islamic world and discriminatory laws against Christians and religious minorities in the vast majority of Muslim nations.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:26 am
They even have the gall to speak for God and say they are heaven bound as martyrs.
That’s what the Koran says. Those who die fighting for Allah are martyrs.
Seems like al-Qaeda has the gall to take Allah’s message in the Koran literally.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Actually Bob it appears there are far more muslims saying they (Al Q) Dont speak for God and are deluded. Thats what it says above. You often ask that muslims decry violence ,yet when they do you ignore them . You deaf or what ?
November 9th, 2010 at 11:07 am
@Jihad, stop trying to spread hatred, it is getting old already
and pointless
November 9th, 2010 at 11:56 am
“You deaf or what ?”
No, just stupid. bob, I can’t be bothered to go over your junk, we’ve done it already. I forgot that as well as being a scholar of Islam, you’re also way better at understanding Islam and what Islam teaches than us practicing Muslims who live and breath it. I forgot that Al-Queda are the best example in the world of Muslims and are doing it 100% right, rather than being heretics who have been cut of by the rest of us. I forgot that, even if Al-Queda are doing it all 100% right then they, as a tiny minority at best, are obviously the most important Muslims and thus we should compare them to other Muslims because by doing so, we are obviously not going to piss the other Muslims off and make we will make them our best buddies. Sorry for doubting your prowess in this field bob, I will humbly withdraw.
November 9th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
“Surely the choice to become a martyre is one the individual makes, not one that someone else makes for you.”
BMD surely who becomes a martyr is up to Allah. A human being choosing to be a martyr is committing suicide.
“Unfortunately, the Prophet gave the green light for his Muslims, Ali and Khalid b. Waleed, to raid and attack Christian tribes to the south of the Hijaz (in modern day Yemen) to force them into accepting the dominance of the emerging Islamic state.”
JihadBob, it seems you have joined the ranks of the ‘ulama and fuqaha. Kindly provide us with your sources, methodology and exegesis oh great scholar of Islam.
“M. Watt says Muslims had ‘carte blanche’ to attack the southern Christian tribes – this would result in great slaughter of the Christian tribes people defending their lands from Muslim attack.”
Oh you mean to use Montgomery Watt, the discredited orientalist, as one of your sources.
“As any student of Islamic history knows, this ‘raiding’ of non-Muslim lands would be a recurring theme in Islam and Islamic supremacists for the next 14 centuries.”
The only “students” of Islamic history who come to these conclusions are Islamophobes making tafsir that is wildly divergent from mainstream Muslim scholars.
“As an aside, the 9/11 attacks are referred to ‘raids’ by al-Qaeda’s top leaders. Undoubtedly, they have the raids Muhammad ordered against the defenseless and peace loving Christians of S. Arabia in mind.”
Considering how raiding was a part of pastoral and nomadic lifestyles in East Africa and Arabia millenia before Muhammad(saws)i think we can put your wild speculations aside.
“I would actually put the blame of these attacks squarely on conspiracy theories, religious intolerance in the Islamic world and discriminatory laws against Christians and religious minorities in the vast majority of Muslim nations.”
This might be the only time you have ever made some sense. Except for the “Islamic world” part i think we can agree that blaming outsiders for the problems in the Muslim world, while ignoring our hand in those problems is wildly inappropriate, as Tariq Ramadan, an actual Muslim scholar might say.
“That’s what the Koran says. Those who die fighting for Allah are martyrs.
Seems like al-Qaeda has the gall to take Allah’s message in the Koran literally.”
When you show me the verse in the Qur’an where Allah says “kill yourselves and become martyrs, for those who commit suicide fi sabil Allah will be in Jannah”, i will believe you. Do let a hafiz know when you have found this verse!
“Actually Bob it appears there are far more muslims saying they (Al Q) Dont speak for God and are deluded. Thats what it says above. You often ask that muslims decry violence ,yet when they do you ignore them . You deaf or what ?”
Sir David it’s the other Muslim catch 22, alongside taqiyya.
Muslims who commit violence=evil
Muslims who decry violence and condemn those who engage in it indiscriminately=also evil
Muslims who lie about Islam =taqiyya
Muslims who tell the truth about Islam= taqiyya
As a funny aside: Almost all Islamophobes believe that “taqiyya” is lying to non-Muslims as command from Allah, in order to spread and protect Islam. Yet taqiyya actually means it is only permissible to lie when one’s life is in immediate danger because of his Islamic religion. It is forbidden to lie about Islam. It is only permissible to lie about being a Muslim, under specifccircumstances. Which is why i always say Allahu A’lam after writing or speaking about Islam, in case i have unwittingly uttered a falsehood.
Allahu A’lam
November 9th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
JihadBob, I’m not writing to defame you or attack you or refute you or even disagree with you. I’m not writing to upset you or disrespect you in any way. Rather, I to write you asking a question that I sincerely hope you have asked (and answered) for yourself before.
Somewhere next month, next year, next decade, or next century, when you – like all of us – lay on your death bed, witnessing your entire life flashing before your eyes and quickly processing all of the years you have spent on earth…would you say you lived an examined, meaningful life? Would you say that dedicating your life to rejecting any notion of Islam being a religion of moderation was the best possible use of your time and the noblest execution of your intellectual prowess?
Again, this is not about the facts you cherry-pick or the plethora of (pro-Islam) historical evidence that you conveniently sweep under the rug or even your unforgiving damnation of all Muslims as hopeless criminals-in-disguise until the end of time.
This is about you.
Are you happy? Are you fulfilled? And would you say that you have improved this planet in any way?
November 9th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
The self-righteous and hypocritical victimhood of Bob is typical of Islamophobes. I mean Bob…wasn’t it you who on another thread complained that Loonwatch wasn’t covering this story? It was also on that same thread that you attempted to justify rejoicing at the deaths of Muslim civilians. Don’t you find that even a bit hypocritical?
It’s quite obvious that you’ve decided that Muslims are the enemy, and unfortunately, there’s nothing they can do to convince you otherwise—including preventing and condemning terrorism. Trying to explain to you that not all Muslims are evil would be like trying to explain to Hitler that not all Jews are evil: and I quote a student of Islamic history…
Once you decide that some group is your implacable enemy, your mind gets a little warped.
PS: How bout’ you stop pulling things out of your ass?
Undoubtedly, they have the raids Muhammad ordered against the defenseless and peace loving Christians of S. Arabia in mind.
Maybe the luminaries at Jihadwatch will believe your BS, but not anyone else.
November 9th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Haha! I can’t believe how JihadBob manages to keep trolling this stuff out, simply amazing. His ability to twist and turn, dodging any blow and attacking from another angle would make him the ultimate fighter if he ever went into the UFC or something like that.
As any student of Islamic history knows…
I’m sorry, I just have to say – what? Since when have you shown that you know even the most basic things regarding Islamic history, let alone being a “student” of it? Even when we discussed the sira, you clearly did not know one of the two major transmissions of recorded sira even existed, let alone its standing according to Muslims (Ibn ‘Asakir, for example, who is regarded as one of the major medieval Muslim historians), nor the criticisms raised by important Muslim authorities regarding Ibn Hisham’s work.
You have also shown complete disregard for accepted, peer-reviewed academic sources regarding multiple facets of Islamic studies, especially Islamic law, so how is this “studious” by any means? On top of that, you have also shown your repeated ignorance of one of the major languages all Islamic Studies students learn, at least to a basic level: Arabic.
Now, for someone who was a student, and actually interested in engaging the discipline, that would all be fine and well; people learn and grow through exposure to the discipline and sources, which is natural. But I have yet to see any example of this from your own posts.
Any “student” who does not have access to the primary Arabic sources is at the mercy of the secondary scholarly literature in the field; the irony is that this is what you repeatedly reject, ignore or brush over when evidence is brought forth responding to your trolling.
November 9th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
wasn’t it you who on another thread complained that Loonwatch wasn’t covering this story?
>>>>
Yes, what great timing. Two stories immediately after I raised the issue.
Shia and Ahmadis were being slaughtered in Iraq an Pakistan over the past years, but LW has never raised attention to their plight.
Funny that.
November 9th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Well, Loonwatch covered the story you wanted them to. Now you are just stunned that Muslims have condemned it so you ramble on about another group’s persecution to distract everyone.
There are many more Muslims that have condemned the attacks on Shias and Ahmadis in Iraq and Pakistan. So if you think you’re getting anywhere here — you’re not.
November 9th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Jihad Bob,
“Shia and Ahmadis were being slaughtered in Iraq an Pakistan over the past years, but LW has never raised attention to their plight.”
ain’t it strange that the Shia Muslim members here like Zak, don’t appreciate your “concern” for them? Is it because your concern is soooooooooooo fake and opportunistic?
You know very well Loon Watch’s mission is to fight Islamophobia. That is what they concnetrate on. Regularly including cases of other hatreds, would detract from the mission of the site. That does not mean that they don’t care about the plight of other oppressed minorities.
Why do you post here? I wish you, Halal Pork, Cheryl, Miss Manners and a couple of other odious characters would all go on a long holiday somewhere and leave us alone here.
Go and debate Danios, we’re waiting…
November 9th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
Loonwatch is a site dedicated to discussing manifestations of Islamophobia in the West, so why should they need to discuss this issue in the first place anyway? It is not a news site regarding “jihad” like JW proposes to be, nor simply a police blotter. It has a specific genre of interest and target audience.
As it states on the about page of LW:
————
Loonwatch.com is a blogzine run by a motley group of hate-allergic bloggers to monitor and expose the web’s plethora of anti-Muslim loons, wackos, and conspiracy theorists.
November 9th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Since when does Jihadwatch cover issues of Muslims being oppressed in Iraq, Afghanistan by American soldiers or in the USA by American people without adding that they either deserved it or are faking the whole incident.
November 9th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Oh Bob, there’s more than enough mainstream media that exposes all the negative news on Muslims. I’m sure your hate sites have covered enough of it too so why should LW add to it?? LoonWatch covers what isn’t usually covered by mainstream media and shows the hypocrisy of those insulting Muslims. Why don’t you go to Jihadwatch and talk about how much we condemn terrorism, you know, state the facts for a change.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Loonwatch.com is a blogzine run by a motley group of hate-allergic bloggers to monitor and expose the web’s plethora of anti-Muslim loons, wackos, and conspiracy theorists.
*********
Uh, so why aren’t Islamophobic sentiments, laws and acts in the Muslim world against Shia and Ahmadis addressed here on LW again?
‘loons, wackos, and conspiracy theorists’
Should be covered. A Shia and/or Sufi or Ahmadi is more likely to be attacked by Muslim supremacists than Muslims are likely to be attacked in the West – and LW’s own manifesto you pulled never limits the scope of Islamophobia to only the West in any event.
Islamophobia against Muslim minorities in Muslim majority countries is actually real, unlike fake Islamophobia and exaggerated xenophobia against Muslims in Western nations.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Crappy strawman is crappy. Now that you’re finished arguing semantics, why don’t you listen to Lulu Roman or something.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
How can that be Islamaphobia when the attacker is a muslim? It’s like a black person being charged for a hate crime after attacking another black person. If you’re very concerned about Shia or Ahmadi muslims, perhaps you should start your own site which deals with Shiaphobia or Ahmadiphobia.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Nice how you cut off the “anti-Muslim” adjective qualifying the nouns following it.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Aren’t people who attack Shia Muslims because of their faith anti (Shia) Muslim?
Wouldn’t those be considered Islamophobic attacks?
Do you think the victim’s family care what religion the attacker was when he or she detonated their explosive vest at a Masjid or shrine?
Are laws discriminating Shia or Ahmadi Muslims any better than non-existent laws discriminating against Muslims in the West?
November 9th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
“Now that you’re finished arguing semantics”
The guy just becomes loonier whenever he’s backed into a corner. I mean, were the IRA and protestant paramilitaries anti-christian when they were fighting each other? Rules, logic and reality just aren’t important for your typical islamaphobe.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
How can that be Islamaphobia when the attacker is a muslim? It’s like a black person being charged for a hate crime after attacking another black person.
*********
It could be if the attacker, if we were to say is black, attacked a fellow black, the victim, because he was not ‘black’ enough.
Yes, I would say that would be a racist attack.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
The guy just becomes loonier whenever he’s backed into a corner. I mean, were the IRA and protestant paramilitaries anti-christian when they were fighting each other? Rules, logic and reality just aren’t important for your typical islamaphobe.
********
No, the IRA didn’t attack people because they were insufficiently Christian or because the victims were Christian and the IRA are a secular terrorist group.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Haha! Yet you don’t consider the NY cabbie being stabbed in the neck a racist or Islamophobic attack? Absolutely ridiculous.
And nice try to get me (and others) to say that I/we consider the Shi’a and Ahmadi beyond the pale so you could have another dig once again shifting the goalposts. It’d be kinda hard considering I don’t believe that in the first place.
Good point regarding the IRA Rob.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
I know a certain someone who gets real giddy when Shias and Sunnis die en masse…
But it was, from the viewpoint of Infidels, a good war. It was not as good a war as the eight-year war that took up the attention of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and caused both sides to expend men, money, materiel for eight wonderful years. And if this new war continues, and does not exhaust itself soon, with too decisive a victory over the Houthis, no one in our world, in Dar al-Harb, should worry about this, or think things should be done to stop it. Let it go on. Let it go on, forever.
Cordially: Jihadwatch
November 9th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Haha! Yet you don’t consider the NY cabbie being stabbed in the neck a racist or Islamophobic attack? Absolutely ridiculous.
That’s one attack.
Meanwhile, I could cite hundreds of casualties from anti-Muslim attacks against Shia in Iraq and Pakistan since then.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
Yes JihadBob, we know of your superior ability to swiftly retort with a tu quoque argument…and how “happy” you are to do so. But please don’t. kthnxbai.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
It’s been scientifically shown from numerous polls that Muslim on Muslim terrorism lowers support for Islamic terrorist groups.
Just look at the decline in popular support in Jordan for AQI and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before and after the Amman bombings.
Taking that into consideration, it is worth noting what Fitzgerald *actually* meant by that.
Besides, the Koran tells us to rejoice over the martyrdom of Muslims, source: 9:111
And, of course, I take what the god of the Koran says very seriously, as his words are considered eternal and applicable for all time by his adherents.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
So then, JihadBob, do you believe the attack – even if a lone, single incident – was racist and Islamophobic in nature?
November 9th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
It was Xenophobic.
I don’t believe Islamophobia exists in the West, but I agree with you that it exists in Muslim countries, undoubtedly.
I ask you to join me in petitioning for LW to highlight real stories of Islamopbobia, namely where Ahmadis and/or Shia are discriminated against in Muslim majority nations and attacks against Muslim religious minorities in these states.
Will you join me?
November 9th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
If you think that’s what Fitzgerald meant, then you’re either delusional or a liar.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/fitzgerald-yemen-and-what-to-think-about-it.html
November 9th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
“Aren’t people who attack Shia Muslims because of their faith anti (Shia) Muslim?”
They attack them because they are a Shia sect, not because they are muslim.
“Wouldn’t those be considered Islamophobic attacks?”
No. Perhaps Shiaphobic if you want to humor yourself.
“Do you think the victim’s family care what religion the attacker was when he or she detonated their explosive vest at a Masjid or shrine?”
They might care which sect. See, the religion is Islam. Then Islam breaks up into different sects, some due to political differences. Kind of like Christianity.
“Are laws discriminating Shia or Ahmadi Muslims any better than non-existent laws discriminating against Muslims in the West?”
Which laws would that be?
November 9th, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Wow! that other thread “the Politics Behind Misunderstanding Islam” had it’s comments section closed waaaay to early JihadBob was posting so much nonsense that needed refuting!!
JihadBob, you are world class idiot, and by now even you know it.
“Dawood, thank you for indeed showing that the Koran allows for the killing of apostates if they do not repent, ie., return back to the fold of Islam
That is actually what Islamic law teaches – that apostates have a defined period of time for them to return to Islam before the state has the right to execute or punish them in some manner.
I totally agree with you on this and would join you if you joined me in condemning this verse and the Muslims of today who literally follow the Koran..”
First of all as Cynic Says: “JihadBob, there are no verses in the Qur’an that describe a worldy punishment for apostasy. I thought we went through that during your days as an infant troll.” Let’s briefly analyze those verses that you claim command killing of apostates.
9:73 O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.
This verse talks about disbelievers and hypocrites.
Ya ayyuha alnnabiyyu jahidi alkuffara waalmunafiqeena waoghluth AAalayhim wama/wahum JAHANNAMU wabi/sa almaseer
Find the word murtad(aspostate)in that verse.
9:74 They swear by Allah that they did not say [anything against the Prophet] while they had said the word of disbelief and disbelieved after their [pretense of] Islam and planned that which they were not to attain. And they were not resentful except [for the fact] that Allah and His Messenger had enriched them of His bounty. So if they repent, it is better for them; but if they turn away, Allah will punish them with a painful punishment in this world and the Hereafter. And there will not be for them on earth any protector or helper.
Consequently the following verses are about the kuffar and munafiqun, not murtad.
9:75 And among them are those who made a covenant with Allah , [saying], “If He should give us from His bounty, we will surely spend in charity, and we will surely be among the righteous.”
9:76 But when he gave them from His bounty, they were stingy with it and turned away while they refused.
9:77 So He penalized them with hypocrisy in their hearts until the Day they will meet Him – because they failed Allah in what they promised Him and because they [habitually] used to lie.
9:78 Did they not know that Allah knows their secrets and their private conversations and that Allah is the Knower of the unseen?
9:79 Those who criticize the contributors among the believers concerning [their] charities and [criticize] the ones who find nothing [to spend] except their effort, so they ridicule them – Allah will ridicule them, and they will have a painful punishment.
“Yes, he called for a “3. A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse.””
That was not Spencer’s wording and you know it. As Cynic says, Spencer says “A new Crusade is not only possible, but desirable..”
“It’s actually Jahannam, no idea where he got that term from unless he is comparing it to the Jewish conception of hell? And again, the context is clear:
Tell me, is a mountain lion the same as a cougar? I always get confused on that.”
No but a mountain lion and a lion are different. See the post where you actually acknowledge that gehenna and Jahannum are not the same, but posted a translation that says the word gehenna is in Qur’an when it is not.
“If you want to run interference, you might as well bring up that old translations of the New Testament used hell (a German concept of the afterlife) for verses referring to both gehenna and sheol – even though the two words are not the same nor is hell actually a concept from Christianity/Judaism.”
“You have to understand that Gehenna and Jahannam are words that are not etymologically related nor are they similar in meaning; Gehenna in Christianity is the abode that sinners are sent to as punishment for their actions in this life and Jahannam in Islam is the abode that sinners and unbelievers who rejected the message of Islam are sent to in the after life.”
“As you can see, Gehenna and Jahannam are two separate words.”
Who’s not addressing the message of a passage and being dishonest here and running interference?
Admitting that hell is neither a Jewish or Christian concept does not help your argument Bob. Just admit that the translation is wrong.
Allahu A’lam
November 9th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Besides, the Koran tells us to rejoice over the martyrdom of Muslims, source: 9:111
That isn’t Fitzgerald’s point and you are deliberately lying for what? He’s instructing the gullible parrots of JW to rejoice at Muslim casualties, and the draining of Muslim wealth and economy (I guess the Qur’an also mentions that amirite?)
I ask you to join me in petitioning for LW to highlight real stories of Islamopbobia, namely where Ahmadis and/or Shia are discriminated against in Muslim majority nations and attacks against Muslim religious minorities in these states.
Why don’t you set up your own site, where you can shift the goalposts all the way to Jupiter if you want to. That’s like asking Cannibal Corpse to play country music simply because you think it’s “real” music.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:55 pm
It’s clear what Fitzgerald meant–the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.
Oh, let them impose the buffer zone. Let the Iranians deliver weapons, including missiles to shoot down Saudi planes. Let Saudi planes be shot down. Let Saudi Arabia, with its waddling princes and its unmerited trillions, and its absurd pretensions – a primitive society based entirely on oil revenues, and on the work of foreign, chiefly Infidel, wage-slaves – be occupied with that. The Western world should show no great interest in helping Saudi Arabia. It should be secretly delighted with each day’s news, the news that brings word not of Infidel casualties, but of Muslim casualties, inflicted by other Muslims. And the showdown in Iraq, that is surely coming, between Sunni Arabs (who will never accept their new, inferior status) and the Shi’a Arabs (who will never yield any of the power they have now acquired thanks to the deposing of Saddam Hussein by the Americans) is likely only to exacerbate Shi’a-Sunni tensions and war in the Yemen.
No one was paying much attention, back in the 1960s, to the war in Yemen. I did, because for a short time, in Madrid, I shared living quarters with a most unsavory Belgian who ran guns to the “Royalists” and was as big a crook as you can imagine. But it was, from the viewpoint of Infidels, a good war. It was not as good a war as the eight-year war that took up the attention of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and caused both sides to expend men, money, materiel for eight wonderful years. And if this new war continues, and does not exhaust itself soon, with too decisive a victory over the Houthis, no one in our world, in Dar al-Harb, should worry about this, or think things should be done to stop it. Let it go on. Let it go on, forever.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
I asked if a mountain lion and a cougar were the same, not if a mountain lion and a lion were the same…..
Why not stay on topic and address anti-Muslim attacks against Shia in Iraq and Pakistan?
As for apostasy in the Koran, asking me to find the word ‘apostasy’ is disingenuous when the passage defines what hypocrisy entails – namely leaving Islam.
If an apostate leaves Islam and does not repent, rejoin the fold, then Muslims are to struggle against them, harshly.
November 9th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Nassir, do Palestinians celebrate the deaths of Muslims when they detonate themselves in Israeli pizza parlors and ice cream shops?
Are they ‘Islamophobic’ like Fitz and Sunnis who attack Shia because of their religion?
November 9th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
“No, the IRA didn’t attack people because they were insufficiently Christian or because the victims were Christian and the IRA are a secular terrorist group.”
Haha.. but they just happened to be protestants! It has nothing to do with religion at all.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/24/claudy-bombings-cover-up-report
A Catholic priest directed devastating IRA car bomb attacks in the Northern Irish village of Claudy in 1972 and his role was covered up by senior police officers, government ministers and the Catholic hierarchy, an official investigation has revealed.
The government said today it was “profoundly sorry” about the cover-up, while Northern Ireland’s Catholic church said it accepted the findings, calling them “shocking”.
Nine people were killed and more than 30 were injured when three vehicles exploded on the main street without warning on 31 July. It was one of the worst atrocities of the bloodiest year of the Troubles.
Three of the dead caught up in the mid-morning blast were children. No one was ever charged with the killings, and the IRA at the time denied responsibility.
The long-awaited report by the police ombudsman for Northern Ireland, published today, confirms suspicions that Father James Chesney, a priest in the nearby village of Bellaghy, was directly involved in the IRA operation, and suggests his involvement was even greater than previously assumed.
Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) detectives who investigated the attack, the report says, concluded “that the priest was the IRA’s director of operations in South Derry and was alleged to have been directly involved in the bombings and other terrorist incidents”.
November 9th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Explain JihadBob, why Fitzgerald would follow the Qur’an and rejoice at the martyrdom of Muslims (who were not even taking part in Jihad mind you, but explain nevertheless).
November 9th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Oh, and also explain why you should “secretly” rejoice. Oh what they heck…just admit you’re lying dammit!
November 9th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
And JihadBob let’s get it right, people who attack Muslims because they are Muslims are Islamophobes. People who attack others because they do not believe they are Muslims NOT Islamophobes. Maybe that nuanced understanding is over your head. For more of your idiocy:
Dawood Says:
“So then, JihadBob, do you believe the attack – even if a lone, single incident – was racist and Islamophobic in nature?”
To which you reply:
“It was Xenophobic.”
“I don’t believe Islamophobia exists in the West,”
Islamophobia is the irrational fear/hatred of Muslims/Islam, thus any speech or action displaying such is proof enough. You think opposition to mosques being built anywhere in the US isn’t Islamophobia? You think believing that Keith Ellison isn’t qualified for office because he is Muslim isn’t Islamophobia? You think Juan Williams being able to say on national TV he is afraid of Muslims in “Muslim garb” isn’t Islamophobia. You think the popularity of Pamella Geller and Robert Spencer isn’t indicative of Islamophobia? You think Americans accusing Obama of being a Muslim, thinking that is somehow an insult, isn’t Islamophobia? You think Republicans in the US running and winning seats on an anti-muslim campaign isn’t Islamophobia? You think spitting on and cursing at a woman simply because she is a Muslim isn’t Islamophobia?
” but I agree with you that it exists in Muslim countries, undoubtedly.”
I ask you to join me in petitioning for LW to highlight real stories of Islamopbobia, namely where Ahmadis and/or Shia are discriminated against in Muslim majority nations and attacks against Muslim religious minorities in these states.”
“Will you join me?”
No one will be joining you. You can’t even prove that Islamophobia isn’t rampant, why are you suggesting it’s non existence in the West? How about this, do you think posting incidences of Shiaphobia and Ahmadiyyaphobia in the Muslim World disproves the existence of Islamophobia in the West?
Allahu A’lam
November 9th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
You write: Who’s not addressing the message of a passage and being dishonest here and running interference?
(Quoting me)“You have to understand that Gehenna and Jahannam are words that are not etymologically related nor are they similar in meaning; Gehenna in Christianity is the abode that sinners are sent to as punishment for their actions in this life and Jahannam in Islam is the abode that sinners and unbelievers who rejected the message of Islam are sent to in the after life.”
************
Muhammad, I think I was being facetious when I said that Gehenna and Jahannam are not etymologically related (Hint: they are) and that the words cannot be interchanged when translating a verse in the Koran to a language and people more familiar with Biblical concepts of the afterlife where the Gehenna and Jahannam are both places of punishments for sinners.
I should of made myself clearer that I wasn’t being serious in the above paragraph you quoted but I guess I must have forgotten about you.
November 9th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Bob, don’t forget to secretly rejoice at the death of Marwa El-Sherbini; whose non-Islamophobic murderer called her an “Islamist” and a “whore” before killing her.
November 9th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
It was Xenophobic.
Alright, at least you’re being honest, if deluded. Him asking the cabbie specifically if he was Muslim (instead of say, Hindu, Indian, Korean, Buddhist, Sikh, Chinese… or anything else we can imagine connected to xenophobic attitudes) had absolutely nothing to do with it, of course.
I don’t believe Islamophobia exists in the West, but I agree with you that it exists in Muslim countries, undoubtedly.
Wow. First of all, that first sentence is a real doozie, again, at least you are sharing what you do believe,although we could have guessed it when on another thread you stated that you thought all the major media channels were decidedly pro Islam and Muslims.
And as for the second, I already knew you were an expert word-twister, but as you said in another thread: Please show me where I explicitly stated that I believe Islamophobia exists in Muslim countries?
I ask you to join me in petitioning for LW to highlight real stories of Islamopbobia, namely where Ahmadis and/or Shia are discriminated against in Muslim majority nations and attacks against Muslim religious minorities in these states.
Will you join me?
Loonwatch has a specific object of study and target audience in mind, as stated in its “about” section at the top of the site. People like Juan Cole and others do a much better job than someone like I can in highlighting the plight of those suffering in the contemporary Muslim world, regardless of sectarian views. Other sites are far better suited for such an endeavour.
But I agree, the plight of minorities suffering both in and outside the Muslim world (e.g. the Rohingya) is something important to be highlighted and borne in mind. The difference between you and me though, as far as I can thus far tell, is that I don’t condense such highly complex socio-political situations down to one single facet: Islam, or rather Islamic supremacism.
November 9th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Christianophobe Protestants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Volunteers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4606519.stm
November 9th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Christianophobe Protestants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Volunteers
November 9th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Christianophobe Protestants.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4606519.stm
(Why does my post stay in limbo after posting more than 1 link?)
November 9th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
“Christians are loving people”
History of love, peace and tolerance for others.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
November 9th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
It’s the spam filter Rob, it catches anything that has more than one link automatically.
November 9th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Then why doesn’t the spam filter pickup on JihadBob? :p
November 9th, 2010 at 11:32 pm
That’s not nice, lol! He has complained that some of his posts have been lost in the nether before though. As have mine before I learned the one-link rule.
I just wish there was a way to track comments through RSS or search them or something, because being able to easily find previous comments on old threads would be very useful.
November 9th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
History of Christianophobia:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html
November 9th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Interesting link Rob:
—————-
The religious persecution that drove settlers from Europe to the British North American colonies sprang from the conviction, held by Protestants and Catholics alike, that uniformity of religion must exist in any given society. This conviction rested on the belief that there was one true religion and that it was the duty of the civil authorities to impose it, forcibly if necessary, in the interest of saving the souls of all citizens. Nonconformists could expect no mercy and might be executed as heretics. The dominance of the concept, denounced by Roger Williams as “inforced uniformity of religion,” meant majority religious groups who controlled political power punished dissenters in their midst. In some areas Catholics persecuted Protestants, in others Protestants persecuted Catholics, and in still others Catholics and Protestants persecuted wayward coreligionists. Although England renounced religious persecution in 1689, it persisted on the European continent. Religious persecution, as observers in every century have commented, is often bloody and implacable and is remembered and resented for generations.
November 9th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
JihadBob Says:
“I asked if a mountain lion and a cougar were the same, not if a mountain lion and a lion were the same…..”
See how you shift the goalposts. I called you out on your false analogy and you pretended i asked you a question i didn’t. I highlighted how acknowledging that gehenna and jahanam are different in fact proves that you were comparing “mountain lions to lions”, but disingenuously suggested it was just semantics and “mountain lion versus cougar”.
“Why not stay on topic and address anti-Muslim attacks against Shia in Iraq and Pakistan?”
Suggesting i stay on topic is rich coming from someone who is not only wildly off topic in this thread but was wildly off topic in the thread i mentioned.
“As for apostasy in the Koran, asking me to find the word ‘apostasy’ is disingenuous when the passage defines what hypocrisy entails – namely leaving Islam.”
Here you go shifting the goalposts again! You said the Qur’an commands death for apostasy and used a verse that is speaking about munafiqs and kuffar, not murtads(apostates, to prove your point. Now you are expecting people to believe that the Qur’an defines hypocrisy as “namely leaving Islam”, when in fact the Qur’an defines hypocrisy as pretending to be Muslim. How does one punish someone for something they hold in secret? Nay, my deluded friend, the Qur’an describes someone who leaves Islam OPENLY as murtad:
Yas-aloonaka AAani alshshahri alharami qitalin feehi qul qitalun feehi kabeerun wasaddun AAan sabeeli Allahi wakufrun bihi waalmasjidi alharami wa-ikhraju ahlihi minhu akbaru AAinda Allahi waalfitnatu akbaru mina alqatli wala yazaloona yuqatiloonakum hatta yaruddookum AAan deenikum ini istataAAoo waman YARTADID minkum AAan deenihi fayamut wahuwa kafirun faola-ika habitat aAAmaluhum fee alddunya waal-akhirati waola-ika as-habu alnnari hum feeha khalidoona
Qur’an 2:217
They will ask thee about fighting in the sacred month. Say: “Fighting in it is an awesome thing (grave transgression); but turning men away from the path of God and denying Him, and [turning them away from] the Inviolable House of Worship and expelling its people there from – [all this] is yet more awesome (greater transgression) in the sight of God, since oppression is more awesome (greater transgression) than killing.” [Your enemies] will not cease to fight against you till they have turned you away from your faith, if they can. But if any of you should turn away from his faith and die as a denier of the truth – these it is whose works will go for nought in this world and in the life to come; and these it is who are destined for the fire, therein to abide.
Allahu A’lam
November 9th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Oh and 5:54 does not say to kill apostates either:
Qur’an 5:54
O you who believe, should any one of you turn back from his religion, then Allah will bring a people, whom He loves and who love Him, humble towards believers, mighty against the disbelievers, striving hard in Allah’s way and not fearing the censure of any censurer. This is Allah’s grace — He gives it to whom He pleases. And Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.
Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo man YARTADDA minkum AAan deenihi fasawfa ya/tee Allahu biqawmin yuhibbuhum wayuhibboonahu athillatin AAala almu/mineena aAAizzatin AAala alkafireena yujahidoona fee sabeeli Allahi wala yakhafoona lawmata la-imin thalika fadlu Allahi yu/teehi man yashao waAllahu wasiAAun AAaleemun
Allahu A’lam
November 9th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Yes it has some pretty interesting info. And let’s not forget the “Christianaphobia” in the USA itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_United_States
I will follow the JihadBob rule and not refer to it as something like “Catholic-Phobia”.
You can see the love that Christians had for each other. It’s the same kind of love and respect JihadBob and halalpork show us here.
November 10th, 2010 at 12:08 am
Can you please explain to me what this passage of the Koran means:
9:80 Ask forgiveness for them (O Muhammad), or ask not forgiveness for them; though thou ask forgiveness for them seventy times Allah will not forgive them. That is because *they disbelieved in Allah and His messenger, and Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
* ‘They’ refers to hypocrites – those who were Muslim but gave up praying and almsiving
Isn’t that clear to you, Muhammad?
Hypocrites are those who are nominally Muslim but do not actually practice or believe in Islam. There’s not much difference from that definition to an apostate, now is there?
November 10th, 2010 at 12:16 am
It’s true that there is a lot of Christianophobia here in the US too.
I’m sad to admit this, just as there is Judeophobia as well.
But, of course, Loonwatch would never disclose this fact since there can only be one victimized community in their narrative.
You know, those wild eyed Americans only go after those peace loving Muslims. The fact that adherents to other faiths (such as the recent killing of a Mormon preacher) are attacked should never be mentioned when contextualizing attacks against Muslims.
November 10th, 2010 at 12:18 am
Not sure why the other post had its comment sections closed. Perhaps JihadBob broke the limit on lying:
“There is none (punishments) in the New Testament because Christians are loving people and the Christian God loves all – including non-believers and sinners.”
Matthew 15:1-9 (King James Version)
Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Leviticus 20:9
For every one that curses his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be on him.
November 10th, 2010 at 12:29 am
* ‘They’ refers to hypocrites – those who were Muslim but gave up praying and almsiving
Really? Is this more of your own tafsir? The Arabic only states “that is because they disbelieved in God and His Messenger” ( ذلك بأنهم كفروا بالله ورسوله). It does not explain what this exactly consisted of, but we can guess from the other verses in the section.
The section explicitly refers to the actions of the hypocrites as being those who asked to stay behind and not contribute to defending the Muslim community, neither with their wealth or other means. And specifically, that when they asked God to enrich them from His bounty, promising to give more in charity, they reneged when receiving such blessings. Furthermore, that they criticise and ridicule those who did contribute accordingly.
There’s absolutely no mention of praying and almsgiving in the entire section [approx 9:71-9:80]
The irony being that in the established tafsir of that verse, it specifically mentions that Muhammad was given the choice to ask for forgiveness or not (as the verse itself states), and he specifically chose to ask for their forgiveness.
November 10th, 2010 at 12:30 am
JihadBob Says:
You write: Who’s not addressing the message of a passage and being dishonest here and running interference?
(Quoting me)“You have to understand that Gehenna and Jahannam are words that are not etymologically related nor are they similar in meaning; Gehenna in Christianity is the abode that sinners are sent to as punishment for their actions in this life and Jahannam in Islam is the abode that sinners and unbelievers who rejected the message of Islam are sent to in the after life.”
************
“Muhammad, I think I was being facetious when I said that Gehenna and Jahannam are not etymologically related (Hint: they are) and that the words cannot be interchanged when translating a verse in the Koran to a language and people more familiar with Biblical concepts of the afterlife where the Gehenna and Jahannam are both places of punishments for sinners.
I should of made myself clearer that I wasn’t being serious in the above paragraph you quoted but I guess I must have forgotten about you.”
Bob that almost sounded like an apology but perhaps you were being facetious again? Lol no you were being fallacious not facetious. Gehenna is not a Christian concept, it is Jewish concept,which was Christianized, which you own up to in an obscure way by later referring to it as a Biblical concept. Leaving the issue of etymology aside for a moment, do you think two different concepts should be described by one word? Gehenna is where sinners are sent to as punishment for their actions in this life in Rabbinical Judaism. Gehenna is the place of punishment or destruction of the wicked occurs frequently. Gehenna is considered a Purgatory-like place where the wicked go to suffer until they have atoned for their sins and the unrepentant who will be destroyed.
But the OT also seems to be confused as to whether the dead go to Sheol or Hades. All are translated as Hell. See what mistranslation can do? In the New Testament,in the synoptic gospels Isa(as) uses the word Gehenna 11 times to describe the opposite to life in the promised, coming Kingdom (Mark 9:43-48).[14] It is a place where both soul and body could be destroyed (Matthew 10:28) in “unquenchable fire” (Mark 9:43). Islam contains elements of all these concepts, and Jahannum is decidedly different from Gehenna, so the translator obviously chose them for etymological and conceptual similarity, not because they are the same place. In Islamic tradition Zamhareer is seen as the coldest and the most freezing Hell of all, its coldness not seen a pleasure or relief. The lowest pit of all existing Hells is the Hawiyah which is meant for the hypocrites and two-faced people who claimed to believe in Allah and His messenger by the tongue but denounced both in their hearts. Hypocrisy is considered to be one of the most dangerous sins . Just admit that the translation is wrong and move on, Bob.
Someone who thinks that the etymological similarity of the the words gehenna and jahannum, merits their interchangeable use in the Qur’an but does not believe that the God of Islam(Allah) is not the same as the God of the Bible(Elohim/Alaha),simply because the adherents of their respective religions describe him differently, is an interesting type of hypocrite.
Allahu A’lam
November 10th, 2010 at 12:34 am
True on that last paragraph Muhammad.
And LoonWatch specified its sights as being “anti-Muslim loons” etc., so why do they need to discuss the tragic death of a Mormon preacher in the first place?
November 10th, 2010 at 12:37 am
“It’s true that there is a lot of Christianophobia here in the US too.”
Yes, and those Christianophobes are almost always atheists. You have made a whole new definition of Islamaphobia and accepted my sarcastic definition of Christianophobia all from to your spiteful persona and reasoning. Do you think Jesus approves of your constant lying and dishonesty?
November 10th, 2010 at 12:43 am
And all because he doesn’t want to accept that Islamophobia exists in the West. It would be quite comical if it wasn’t so disturbing!
November 10th, 2010 at 12:45 am
JihadBob Says:
“Can you please explain to me what this passage of the Koran means:
9:80 Ask forgiveness for them (O Muhammad), or ask not forgiveness for them; though thou ask forgiveness for them seventy times Allah will not forgive them. That is because *they disbelieved in Allah and His messenger, and Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.”
You were pretending that you wanted an answer to that question. Just look at how you provided you own tafsir for that verse below. Dude, it’s not talking about apostates.
“* ‘They’ refers to hypocrites – those who were Muslim but gave up praying and almsiving. Isn’t that clear to you, Muhammad? Hypocrites are those who are nominally Muslim but do not actually practice or believe in Islam. There’s not much difference from that definition to an apostate, now is there?”
As Dawood says: “Really? Is this more of your own tafsir? The Arabic only states “that is because they disbelieved in God and His Messenger” ( ذلك بأنهم كفروا بالله ورسوله). It does not explain what this exactly consisted of, but we can guess from the other verses in the section.
The section explicitly refers to the actions of the hypocrites as being those who asked to stay behind and not contribute to defending the Muslim community, neither with their wealth or other means. And specifically, that when they asked God to enrich them from His bounty, promising to give more in charity, they reneged when receiving such blessings. Furthermore, that they criticise and ridicule those who did contribute accordingly.
There’s absolutely no mention of praying and almsgiving in the entire section [approx 9:71-9:80]” You see “they” refers to munafiqun not murtad(irtidaad). Their is a reason why the Qur’an makes a distinction between hypocrites(munafiqun) and apostates(murtad). And in both instances it never commands that either be killed, which was your original claim(“the Qur’an cmmands the killing of apostates”), so stop moving the goalposts.
Allahu A’lam
November 10th, 2010 at 12:48 am
“There is none (punishments) in the New Testament because Christians are loving people and the Christian God loves all – including non-believers and sinners.”
Romans 13:1-7
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
November 10th, 2010 at 12:52 am
Rob and Dawood, it is quite evident that Bob will go to any length to lie about Islam just to prove that Islamophobia does not exist. In the process he clearly demonstrates that he is at least ONE example that it does exist. And i really fail to see how a site dedicated to exposing anti-Muslim loons should preoccupy itself with tu quoque mention of acts of Christianophobia, Shiaphobia, Ahmadiyyaphobia or any other religion-based phobia.
Allahu A’lam
November 10th, 2010 at 1:20 am
Some more love of non-believers from JihadBob’s New Testament:
Mark:
12 Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13 These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.
14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe
Matheew 12
30He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
31Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
Romans 1
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
November 10th, 2010 at 1:25 am
But the OT also seems to be confused as to whether the dead go to Sheol or Hades.
Hades and Sheol have the same meaning. It depends how the text is translated and what language the text originally was in – Greek would probably use Hades and Hebrew, if the abode for the afterlife is actually mentioned, would use the specifically Jewish term of sheol.
All souls are sent to sheol, it is only later that the wicked will be sent to Gehenna.
Unfortunately, hell has been used in translations for both terms – Gehenna and Sheol.
@ Dawood, the Koran does say that hypocrites are disbelievers (apostates if you wish). The Koran makes this clear:
9:84 – And pray thou never over any one of them when he is dead, nor stand over his grave; they disbelieved in God and His Messenger, and died while they were ungodly.
They in this context clearly refers to hypocrites, not simply to non-Muslims.
And in both instances it never commands that either be killed
9:73 does say to ‘struggle’ and deal ‘harshly’ with ‘hypocrites’. We now know, as proven by what Koran 9:84 says, that hypocrites are outside the fold of Islam.
@ Rob, the passage from Romans is referring to the secular Pagan state, LoL.
A full reading and proper understanding of that passage makes this clear. There are no earthly punishments prescribed to Christians in the NT. In fact, quite the opposite. The Bible tells Christians they can excommunicate a Christian who is leading a sinful lifestyle and does not repent, etc. There is nothing about ‘struggling harshly’ against Christian hypocrites/disbelievers.
November 10th, 2010 at 1:33 am
“A full reading and proper understanding of that passage makes this clear”
If only this were a two way street…
November 10th, 2010 at 1:34 am
That last paragraph of JihadBob’s was simply gold. They really need to reanalyze the definition of irony to somehow include it.
November 10th, 2010 at 1:49 am
“the passage from Romans is referring to the secular Pagan state”
That’s why it keeps referring to God? I see.
November 10th, 2010 at 1:51 am
Dear Loonwatch,
Rather than close a thread, would it not be more appropriate to simply ban JihadBob?
He is a provocateur and is here to mess up the commenting section by riling members. He does not allow the same freedom at his own site (assuming that he is Spencer)
Admittedly, we all go off topic sometimes, and comit a faux pas, but nobody here other than Jihad Bob, Halal Pork, post here specifically for leading the thread off topic.
One of the reasons for this, could be to fob off serious researchers who come here from the mainstream media. When they see comments off topic, they will get bored and not take the site seriously.
I’d like to see Loon Watch go from strength to strength, and for the mainstream media to take it seriously which is happening now.
PLEASE BAN JIHADBOB FOR THE SAKE OF THE WEBSITE.
November 10th, 2010 at 3:09 am
I beg to differ BMD
Seeing Robert Spencer get his butt kicked on a regular basis on this site is very educational for all the readers. The more he insults other religions ,the more he lies, the more he tries to change the topic ,the more he repeats deliberate misunderstandings , the more the regular contributors answer him in a peaceful way ,the more that his true nature is shown to the majority of people who only read and do not contribute to this site.
By his own words he makes the case against himself
November 10th, 2010 at 3:18 am
Sir David
Whilst I agree with the gist of what you said, I feel that what you suggested should be limited to a Robert Spencer thread or at spencerwatch.com which is a site all about Robert Spencer. JihadBob should go there.
Rmemeber, this site is to expose all Islamophobes not just Spencer, and besides someone new coming here for information, may not immediately be aware that JihadBob is Robert Spencer. He doesn’t post under “Robert Spencer” from Jihad Watch, he posts as an anonymous “JihadBob”.
When people come here at Loon Watch to find information on an article somebody has written which is not about Robert Spencer, it will be very irritating for them to find so many comments on other subjects with JihadBob at the centre of them. Comments which are not linked to the subject of the article.
I love to see JihadBob torn to shreds by by the posters here, but we should put personal feelings aside for the cause. Creating an information rich webiste about Islamophobia is more important than our own feelings.
Comments are just as important as the article itself. Many times commentators add info that enhances the article. Jihad Bob just serves to distract and lead off topic. So does Halal Pork.
November 10th, 2010 at 4:27 am
@ Dawood, the Koran does say that hypocrites are disbelievers (apostates if you wish). The Koran makes this clear
I’m sorry but I nowhere stated that hypocrites were not disbelievers; how could they have been considered otherwise when the whole point is that it is in their hearts that they did not belief, even though showing belief in outward manifestations? That is the definition of hypocrite after all…
I simply commented on the fact that you previously said that they were “those who were Muslim but gave up praying and almsiving” as being drawn from your own “tafsir” of the verse and nowhere implied within the actual verse or its surrounding verses themselves. The immediate context of the surrounding verses explains why they were considered hypocrites and the nature of their unbelief. How could I not see the connection between hypocrites and disbelievers when it clearly states “ذلك بأنهم كفروا بالله ورسوله”?
But yet this still does not imply that they are apostates. All you have is again innuendo to go on; the Qur’an nowhere says that such people are “مرتدون” (apostates), the specific verse says says “بأنهم كفروا” (they disbelieved) and “القوم الفاسقين” (rebellious/disobedient people), and then you imply that dealing “harshly” and so forth must mean that they are killed, or any other dastardly punishment you can concoct from inside your own head regarding apostates and so forth. The irony is that even on Muhammad’s deathbed, he would not disclose who the munafiqun (hypocrites) were, and Muslim traditions speculate on some for sure, but the exact details are not entirely known.
So, what does this have to do with the burning of Iraqi churches and the Muslim condemnation of that again?
November 10th, 2010 at 4:49 am
full reading and proper understanding of that passage makes this clear
That’s the ultimate irony for all those here, isn’t it. I really wish you would reflect on your own statements in “defence” of Christianity when others make such grand generalisations regarding your faith, obviously something you hold dear.
Even though others may have here, not once have I attempted to convey my “expert knowledge” of any other religious tradition by cherry-picking verses, or expressing the worst stereotypical concepts or ideas, simply because I know and respect that each religion has its own scholarly tradition and that without deep academic training, an outsider cannot even come close to representing it or conveying it authentically.
November 10th, 2010 at 5:05 am
Dawood kicks Bobs Butt again . Go get him.
BMD are you worried that other loons get off lightly ?
JB would only pop up again with another name and still talk B@@@@@@@
This way we know who he is .As for the other loons they get their share.
November 10th, 2010 at 5:15 am
BMD Actually I am hope Jihab Boob joins me on the “Is Pam Geller the Looniest Blogger Ever? ” thread as its getting very lonely over there.
Even Cheryl and Miss Manners have given up
November 10th, 2010 at 9:05 am
This has seriously gone off-topic enough guys.
Anyways, yeah these horrific attacks is mostly the reason why a lot of Middle Eastern Christians vehemently hate Muslims.
November 10th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Stick a fork in JihadBob, he’s done here until his attack and evade maneuver. He blatantly refuses to listen and understand parts in the Quran that he cherry-picks, but he wants everyone to fully read and understand the New Testament and not change the subject after he’s changed it multiple times. I see why he’s afraid of Islam now. He believes even literal hypocrites such as himself are condemned to death.
November 10th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
It’s a symptom of the thousand-year-old tradition of anti-Islam propaganda that people like Jihadbob can never even imagine an Islamic concept in a positive light. I’m sure he’s no dove, and believes in just warfare, and that his American stormtroopers are fighting God’s war in afghanistan. But the word ‘struggle’, Jihad, exemplifying every positive holy struggle a Muslim can make, is something he thinks we aught to be ashamed of.
The next time someone talks crap about the doctrine of martyrdom for a holy cause, ask them if US troops go straight to hell when they die.
November 10th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
As I said Prof. Juan Cole is doing an excellent job in covering this situation.
November 10th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Delenda Est Mecca
November 10th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
^ Wouldn’t it be “Mecca delenda est”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est
I do believe someone pointed that out to you before–and you kept on using it several times after. LoL
November 10th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
@NassirH
Rewrite the Qoran first !
November 10th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
While you are typing your bullshit, reality is unmercyful
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8120142/Christian-woman-sentenced-to-death-in-Pakistan-for-blasphemy.html
November 10th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
NassirH, “Romanes Eunt Domus”? If you don’t know the significance of that, you haven’t lived
And Eternal, are you *still* dragging up singular instances to paint 1.57 billion Muslims with? Move on please…
November 10th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Haha, whenever Latin is used, Monty Python is the best antidote!
November 10th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
“And Eternal, are you *still* dragging up singular instances to paint 1.57 billion Muslims with? Move on please…”
It is unfair to paint all 1.57 billion Muslims with the same brush, I agree.
But it is not unfair to point it out as representative of Pakistan given the fact that Christians are indeed under siege in that country, given the fact that extremists have whipped up mobs to attack Christians in the past.
But it doesn’t seem to muster much of an outrage amongst Pakistanis though. And I’m from there so I have seen over there for myself how much contempt and hatred many normal Pakistanis hold against Christians as of late. According to the Pew Research Center, “Negative views of Christians were common in Pakistan, where 61% held an unfavorable opinion.” It is not anti-Muslim to point out the fact that intolerance towards Christians and other minorities is widespread in Pakistan and there really is no excuse for it.
I’m not citing this to support Eternal, since this clown is mostly interested in demonizing Muslims hence why he/she feels the need to bring it up for his/her agenda, while ignoring the anti-Christian persecution done by non-Muslims. I am simply citing this because there are plenty of Muslims who are in complete denial about how minorities are treated in Muslim countries, especially the status of Christians in Pakistan and would rather bury their heads in the sand than to do anything about it. And as a practicing Muslim, I feel it is important for us to highlight the status of minorities in the Muslim countries instead of exclusively engaging in a victimization mentality. In spite of the sudden rise of Islamophobic attacks, it still pales in comparison to what Christians in Iraq and Pakistan are going through. At least with Iraq, you won’t see normal Iraqi Muslims engage in furious mobs to attack Christians as you would see often in Pakistan (Google Gojra riots).
November 11th, 2010 at 12:37 am
/\ Minoritys are not the only people treated like poo Its everyone ….Even Pakistan citizens that are muslim … because they are 3rd world nation People are uneducated unemployed and easy to control …
Look at other countrys like Uganda they are Roman Catholicism 42%
Protestantism 42% and they just passed a anti-gay law. We can say that is Christanity or stupid uneducated 3rd world people with no education and money and messed up goverment. Its same as Pakistan
November 11th, 2010 at 5:39 am
@Dan
The problem is islam itself, even if some muslims like you sound quite sensible. Did your parents get you vaccinated against it, or is it a natural immunity ?
No I’m only joking, islam is not a disease, it’s only a bad fairytale if you think about it…
November 11th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Eternut, you can’t blame Islam for some uneducated Muslims just like I can’t blame your religion for your ignorance!
Dan, I blame the corrupt Pakistani gov’t. for not having any control over its people. I still can’t believe peeps voted for Zardari as President. Even Pakistanis are suffering too. It’s a 3rd world country full of tribes and some places which you’ve heard of are taken over by Talibanis unfortunately. My friends who often go to their homeland atleast twice a year have complained about it.
According to CNN, 46% disapprove of Muslims and soon we might get persecuted too if we don’t stand up for our rights and have a strong voice, and this country is suppose to be more sophisticated. We came here to enjoy our freedoms but people like Eternut want to destroy that!
November 11th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Eternal, what about all the dumb Christians I keep bumping into? Or the dumb Jews? And dumb Hindus? And so on. Or are they all secret Muslims? As Khushboo said, you can’t blame faith for someones actions, especially if the faith explicitly prohibits it, nor can you explain stupidity with faith.
November 11th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
“Eternut, you can’t blame Islam for some uneducated Muslims just like I can’t blame your religion for your ignorance!”
Agreed, the actions of people do not represent a religion.
“Dan, I blame the corrupt Pakistani gov’t. for not having any control over its people. I still can’t believe peeps voted for Zardari as President. Even Pakistanis are suffering too. It’s a 3rd world country full of tribes and some places which you’ve heard of are taken over by Talibanis unfortunately. My friends who often go to their homeland atleast twice a year have complained about it.”
We can blame the idiot Zardari over and over, but it doesn’t change the fact that Pakistani society at its core is riddled with intolerance and bigotry. And you have fanatics like Gen. Zia ul-Haq to thank for sowing the seeds to the bigoted religious supremacy that is ripe in the country these days.
“According to CNN, 46% disapprove of Muslims and soon we might get persecuted too if we don’t stand up for our rights and have a strong voice, and this country is suppose to be more sophisticated. We came here to enjoy our freedoms but people like Eternut want to destroy that!”
And unlike Pakistan, law enforcement will always make sure the clowns who want to attack us will be dealt with forcibly. Just look at the swift justice laid upon Michael Knight for stabbing a Muslim cab driver in NYC. Now contrast that to the lack of justice for Pakistani Christians who have been victim to bigoted Muslim mobs in the past. America, even in the face of rising Islamophobia, is still far preferable than living in a sorry excuse of a country like Pakistan.
November 11th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Now now Dan, let’s not generalize. Pakistan I used to live in is not the same due to corrupt gov’t. and all the tragic events it went through such as this useless war with India over Kashmir, earthquake, floods, and Talibans taking over NW frontier. Just recently 60 people at a mosque on our holy day Friday died b/c the Imam didn’t approve of the Talibans and as revenge these bastards killed so many. These are not true Muslims. They want to gain power through fear. Pakistanis are suffering too. My relatives and friends there tell me they have to stay away from certain places and stay away at certain times. Also, let’s keep in mind that this country is still very young, uneducated, and underdeveloped. Greg Mortenson (may God bless his heart) has done so much for them by starting schools but that’s just a start. There’s so much more to do but only when we have the right people in power. I feel sorry for them as well as the minority Christians who have been persecuted. I don’t want to give up hope though. With the right gov’t. and good education, Pakistan will inshaAllah get better.
November 12th, 2010 at 2:55 am
@Dan
The loonies on that site seem eager to convince you that Pakistan is a special case and that, of course, islam has nothing to do with the situation. They cannot afford to lose control of their fellow believers.
You seem sensible. Even if you don’t agree with my views, please start thinking about the true nature of islam and the realities it contributed to build.
And if you go all the way, take care and be careful !
November 12th, 2010 at 9:09 am
oh STFU Eternut! You don’t know anything about Pakistan or Islam so you have no idea WTH you’re talking about. Islam has nothing to do with ignorant Pakistanis. Dan never even said that! If you came to this site to convert people, it’s not going to work since YOU’RE the loon!
November 12th, 2010 at 9:24 am
@Khushboo
To convert people to what, I’m not even Christian.
So islam has nothing to do with Pakistanis. Sorry, I thought islam had been there for a few centuries but I am certainly wrong if you say it.
You make me think of a dog that doesn’t want to let out its bone. But you know Dan’s “soul” is not a bone, you devote muslims should understand it.
November 12th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
^ Pakistanis are certainly Muslims but persecuting Christians is certainly not an Islamic thing to do. Islam forbids discrimination and wants us to respect all religions. Only God can judge and God is merciful. Amen!
November 12th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Even if I don’t believe it, let’s say to please you that islam shows a certain amount of respect towards Jews and Christians.
But what about that ?
Koran 9.5 (about polytheists)
“Then, when the sacred months are over, then kill them wherever you may come upon them, and seize them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place. Yet if they repent and establish the Prescribed Prayer, and pay the Prescribed Purifying Alms, let them go their way. Surely God is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate”
November 12th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
^ Again, you didn’t read the whole surah did you?*sigh* You need to read what was written before this unless ofcourse you simply copy/paste it from your favorite hate site. 9:5 is referring to people who committed treason. Even nowadays Americans have death penalty for treason. Here ya go:
9:3 give tidings to those who cover up the truth of a painful punishment
9:4 except those with whom you made a treaty from amongst the idolaters and who neither failed you in anything nor lent support to anyone against you. Fulfill their treaty until their term expires. God loves those who guard themselves for Him.
November 12th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Really “Eternal”? You’re going to try pulling that? Here’s what my Pooya/Ali tafsir has to say about that exact passage:
“The command to fight against the perfidious and treacherous group of infidels who persistently violated the treaties and tried to destroy peace and security, was to restore law and order in the society. The command was not general but only refers to particular groups of the Makkan idolaters who were notorious offenders. They used to harass the Muslims whenever they found them helpless and when overpowered prayed for amnesty by making treaties which they used to break before their ink was dried.
When war becomes inevitable it must be fought with vigour. It may take the form of slaughter, or capture, or siege or ambush, but even then there is room for repentance and amendment, and if that takes place forgiveness is enjoined for the establishment of peace and harmony.”
And that verse refers to the pagans at Makkah. It does not refer to either Christians or Jews (neither of whom could be called polytheists). It also goes out of its way to give the pagans a chance to convert. Perhaps you would be better off reading the entire surah in context rather than copy-pasting from another anti-Muslim blog?
November 12th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
He went and did it didn’t he? He pulled old 9:5 out… how predictable. Eternal just go, you making a fool out of yourself. Again.
November 12th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Can anyone please tell me if this command is general or not:
It is not for the idolaters to inhabit God’s places of worship, witnessing against themselves unbelief; those — their works have failed them, and in the Fire they shall dwell forever.
Only he shall inhabit God’s places of worship who believes in God and the Last Day, and performs the prayer, and pays the alms, and fears none but God alone; it may be that those will be among the guided.
Koran 9:17-18
November 12th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Here’s a good discussion on verse 9:5 from the Koran:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?114459-quot-You-Quoted-Out-Of-Context-quot-debunked
Muslims are commanded to kill non-allied polytheists.
November 12th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
The command is r.e. non-Muslims tending Mosques, not any other places of worship.
Your quoted discussion is, for starters, not by qualified Muslims which doesn’t matter so much but, secondly, it is heavily biased and starts out with the intention of showing Muslims as bad. And of course, they completely ignore the historical context, a point quickly bought up by other posters which leads to general screaming ‘BUT IT DOESN’T SAY THAT IN THE QU’RAN’ from the first poster. That told me everything I needed to know about the person who wrote that first post, if they are unaware that to read the Qu’ran you need to take historical context as well then clearly they are ignorant of a large section of the rules when it comes to reading the Qu’ran. That is why the points made in the fist post are vastly clashing with mainstream Muslim thought and the opinions of Muslim Scholars, not that that would matter to you since it seems your intention is to ignore mainstream Muslims to further your goals, whatever they may be. So sorry it doesn’t strike me as ‘good’, rather it strikes me as more ‘Muslims = evil-look-at-what-I-can-write’ junk.
November 12th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Yes, I found that thread quite amusing I must say, the guy’s ignorance on what the Qu’ran actually is and how it is meant to be read was laughable for someone who was trying to play themselves as an expert. What was sad was his continuing want to be ignorant and his shouting that he was right and no one else was. Rather like you Bob, and the rest, Spenser etc.
November 12th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Sorry, the ‘guy’ is actually a woman, pardon me. Anyway, I suggest you all read this if you have the time, it’s ‘informative’…
November 12th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
Note to Bob: Don’t link to pages that disprove your loony assertions. First it was the Sherman Jackson article, then the Zakir Naik article, and now some random Islamophobe who was obviously refuted quite easily…on what appears to be some Christian apologetics website.
Believe me Bob, it ain’t helping you case.
November 12th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
JihadBob is back with his rhetorical questions? Maybe he’s taking a break from call of duty.
November 12th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
The command is r.e. non-Muslims tending Mosques, not any other places of worship.
***
The ‘mosque’ was the pagan house of worship the Muslims took over after they conquered mecca.
November 12th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Actually, the person who wrote the excellent post was a former Muslim and Muslims do use the argument that the Koran is a clear and complete book when interpreting its passages.
So, the author was right to interpret the Koran based only on what the Koran itself says.
November 12th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Sherman Jackson actually agreed with me in the article you quoted, as did Zakir Naik – the majority of Muslim scholars (consensus) believed in offensive Jihad warfare.
The minority of Muslim scholars who did not subscribe to the belief of spreading Islamic law by the sword did not condemn offensive jihad, rather, they believed it was not obligatory to launch offensive raids into non-Muslim lands.
November 12th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
JB: Here’s a good discussion on verse 9:5 from the Koran:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?114459-quot-You-Quoted-Out-Of-Context-quot-debunked
Ah Narnian! Did you know that after I joined the site and started engaging Narnian, she stopped posting?
JB: Actually, the person who wrote the excellent post was a former Muslim
You mean former nominal Muslim. She said so herself that she only became a Muslim to please her ex-husband who was an Algerian.
November 12th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
Sherman Jackson actually agreed with me in the article you quoted, as did Zakir Naik
So you agree with Sherman Jackson that Islam is a religion of peace? That’s what he argued for in the article.
Anyways…telling from your “analysis” of that “excellent post” from the Christian website (as well as your other exchanges on this thread, in which you were thoroughly trounced btw) it’s safe to say that you’re extremely deluded.
And I mean extremely deluded.
November 12th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
“Actually, the person who wrote the excellent post was a former Muslim and Muslims do use the argument that the Koran is a clear and complete book when interpreting its passages.
So, the author was right to interpret the Koran based only on what the Koran itself says.”
That post was far from excellent, it was, to be quite frank, borderline crap but at least it was legible. Yes, we Muslims use that point, *but* that is just one point of many, one of the other points is that verses should be used in historical context along with a whole slew of other bits and pieces. So no, the poster was incorrect to use that method which is why, and I repeat this with the risk of becoming boring, your ‘interpretations’ are incorrect when compared to what Muslims believe. Again, not that you care, ignorance is bliss is it not?
“The ‘mosque’ was the pagan house of worship the Muslims took over after they conquered mecca.”
But it was originally a Mosque, built as commanded by God. The pagans took it over and it was thus resorted to it’s original aims. I don’t even know why you bought that up, it adds nothing to your discussion. And I can’t be bothered to go through the whole Jihad thing again, you’ve had your answer a lot of times now.
IbnAbuTalib, I am not surprised that she stopped posting to you, she did it in that very thread there. Rather foolish person, like most of them set about her incorrect ways of reading Islam while refusing to listen and then screaming that others are wrong when pointed out. Also, like most of them she squirms and dodges and moves the goal posts. I’m all for discussion and debate but people like that just don’t do it. Do you think they clone them? She also fits quite well into the ‘ex-Muslim’ category, i.e. one who is ‘Muslim’ by name only. *sigh* it get’s boring after a while…
November 12th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
They ask us ‘where are those Muslims who speak against the violence?’.
They ask us ‘Where are your moderate voices?’
I read the article, and it was together Muslims and Christians together denouncing violence, standing together in the hopes to be heard over all of the voices on each side calling for hate anf violence.
Then…I read the comments.
I have to think that no matter how much Muslims speak against the violence, or who calls for peace amonst us, some of those who ask the question dont want to hear us. Never the less, we should still speak and denounce all violence, for any reason, at any time, to any one. If they dont hear us, or dont want to hear us…Allah hears our voices. They may sound weak and feeble, or perhaps strained from just being worn out, but Allah hears them still.
That is why we should keep standing against violence.
November 12th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
I am with all of those who would call for a ban of “JihadBob” from this forum.
I really do not think that ‘JihadBob’ contributes meaningfully to the conversation, and is more of a distraction to civil, rational, and logical commenting about Islam.
Rather than ‘close comments’ to all of us for some of the things posted here in a highly emotional manner, it is only fair to deal with the root cause of the matter appropriatly.
My personal opinion is that people like “JihadBob”, are here to cause conflict, and actually incite anger because they thrive in it.
Lets not have ‘collective punishment’ enforced on this forum. Deal with the root of the problem, and ban Jihad Bob, and those like him if they are contiuous in thier lies, hate, bigotry, and propaganda.
November 12th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
But it was originally a Mosque, built as commanded by God. The pagans took it over and it was thus resorted to it’s original aims. I don’t even know why you bought that up, it adds nothing to your discussion. And I can’t be bothered to go through the whole Jihad thing again, you’ve had your answer a lot of times now.
So your argument is that the Pagan house of worship was originally a Masjid according to your own holy book and that justifies Muslims forcefully taking the holy building from the Pagans who actively worshiped and making it a Muslim house of worship?
Ignoring that no history book supports your fairy tale stories, could Hindus take over Mosques being used by Muslims in India that were built on the ruins of Hindu temples?
November 12th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
I am with all of those who would call for a ban of “JihadBob” from this forum.
You’ll probably get your wish by the Islamists and their ilk who run this site.
Just remember, the truth is to Islamism what the disinfecting rays of sunlight is to bacteria.
November 12th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
So you agree with Sherman Jackson that Islam is a religion of peace? That’s what he argued for in the article.
***
I explained to what you I agreed with Jackson and the other writer on.
They both agreed with me that offensive Jihad warfare was a communal obligation for the Ummah.
Only a minority of Muslim scholars did not hold that view, but none of them cited were said to have opposed offensive warfare against non-Muslims. Rather, they were against the doctrine that offensive Jihad was a communal obligation to be carried out.
November 12th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Let’s start the list of those who should be banned and include it in a petition citing our reasons. i for one don’t think jihadbob should be banned. i think he accurately reflects the misconceptions about Islam from your “moderate” Islamophobic crowd. Now, halalpork, cheryl, missmanners, rocky lore, and eternel, to name the most frequent posters of that ilk, are rabidly, virulently, hatefully anti-Islam. Their posts frequently blatantly and subtly call for genocide, random violence against Muslims and incite hatred regularly. They frequently post, many times verbatim, from anti-Muslim hate sites and contribute nothing to the discussion. i am all for free speech, but they are the ones who should be banned, if anyone.
Allahu A’lam
November 12th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
I don’t think Bob is a “moderate Islamophobe”–he quite openly supports the Bosnian genocide and claims that most Muslims are Islamo-fascists, for example.
I think Bob is a good example of the blinding effects of bigotry, perhaps best illustrated by his bizarre reading of the Sherman Jackson article.
Also, Bob doesn’t seem to know about bacteria: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria
Here you go Bob, add bacteria to the list of things you don’t know (along with Islam, World Politics, and History).
November 12th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
“So your argument is that the Pagan house of worship was originally a Masjid according to your own holy book and that justifies Muslims forcefully taking the holy building from the Pagans who actively worshiped and making it a Muslim house of worship?
Ignoring that no history book supports your fairy tale stories, could Hindus take over Mosques being used by Muslims in India that were built on the ruins of Hindu temples?”
Indeed, that is my argument. It’s not like they didn’t know what they were doing. As for historical records, they are there if you look hard enough.
Regarding India, that is a matter for the authorities to deal with in the law courts, just as many Hindu temples were built on the ruins of Mosques you know, it’s not all one way. Nor is it about religion, it’s all politics over there.
“You’ll probably get your wish by the Islamists and their ilk who run this site.
Just remember, the truth is to Islamism what the disinfecting rays of sunlight is to bacteria.”
Islamists? Which Islamists would that be? Any proof for your empty claims? Don’t let us go through the funding sources of your ‘favorite’ sites… as it stands there is no evidence whatsoever for any organization to be funding this website. And regarding bacteria, well I’m not sure where you went to school but sunlight doesn’t kill most bacteria. Hence why I can still get ill even if I’m outside all day. But yes, the truth is all powerful isn’t it? Hence why you seem to have to keep dropping points you bring up in the various threads once truth is applied to it. Yes, we do notice.
muhammad ‘abd-al haqq, I agree with you, Bob is just a misguide one, the others are nutters. Get rid of them? I don’t see them contributing anything but at the same time, I’ve noticed that a number of them have left, the reason being that the truth hurts them and their house of cards starts to fall down.. For that reason I say don’t ban them.
November 12th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
But yes, the truth is all powerful isn’t it? Hence why you seem to have to keep dropping points you bring up in the various threads once truth is applied to it. Yes, we do notice.
The tuth hurts (your wittle fweewings) Bob.
November 12th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
“Just remember, the truth is to Islamism what the disinfecting rays of sunlight is to bacteria.”
How Christian of you, comparing muslims to bacteria even though there are many bacteria which thrive in sunlight. But we all get your gist. We’ve all seen your version of the “truth” many times.
November 12th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
You should really stop embarrassing yourself.
UV light breaks the covalent bonds that holds most organic molecules together.
I believe the only exception are be C-C and C-O double bonds (of course, that also applies to triple bonds, but there aren’t too many triple bonds except C-N triple bonds typically attached to R groups in peptides)
But that is neither here nor there, the phrase of sunlight acting as a disinfection is common and I was merely mentioning it to bring up the effects that truth has on totalitarian ideologies.
@ Nassir, would you mind citing the post of mine where I ‘openly support the Bosnian Genocide’?
November 12th, 2010 at 11:27 pm
How Christian of you, comparing muslims to bacteria even though there are many bacteria which thrive in sunlight. But we all get your gist. We’ve all seen your version of the “truth” many times.
****
Well, it’s better than what the Koran says of unbelievers being the lowest created creatures – that would be lower than bacteria.
But I get your point, you’re showcasing your poor reading and analytical abilities.
I was making an analogy of bacteria being destroyed by sunlight to a totalitarian ideology – Islamism – being destroyed by the truth.
I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before Nassir uses this post to ‘prove’ that I said Muslims are comparable to bacteria.
Sigh…
November 13th, 2010 at 12:13 am
@JihadBob
“All souls are sent to sheol, it is only later that the wicked will be sent to Gehenna.
Unfortunately, hell has been used in translations for both terms – Gehenna and Sheol.”
So you admit that mistranslation, when it comes to the Bible is unfortunate, but refuse to accept mistranslation of the Qur’an. Just admit that Jahannum and Gehenna are not the same place so we can move on. The translator chose the words because of etymological similarity, plain and simple.
“@ Dawood, the Koran does say that hypocrites are disbelievers (apostates if you wish). The Koran makes this clear:
9:84 – And pray thou never over any one of them when he is dead, nor stand over his grave; they disbelieved in God and His Messenger, and died while they were ungodly.
They in this context clearly refers to hypocrites, not simply to non-Muslims.”
And you will have to deal with why the Qur’an makes a distinction between munafiqun(hypocrites) and irtidaad(apostasy). Both are unbelievers/disbelievers, so you cannot ignore that a distinction is made.
“9:73 does say to ‘struggle’ and deal ‘harshly’ with ‘hypocrites’. We now know, as proven by what Koran 9:84 says, that hypocrites are outside the fold of Islam.”
And, as i said before, in both instances it never commands that either hypocrites or apostates be killed so you will have to come to terms with your creative, speculative tafsir a la David Wood, and explain how “struggle”/jihad/fight and ‘deal harshly” translates NECESSARILY into a command for the killing of apostates. Again, because i know exactly how Al Qaida and Co. twist these verses and their associated hadith and tafsir, i also am aware of how you are twisting them. How’s that for an expose”?
And for those who might think that this it wildly off topic, i am merely exposing jihad bob’s lame attempt to link the attack on Christians in a Baghdad church, to a (non-existent)command in the Qur’an to deal harshly with/kill all non-Muslims. He thinks there is support in “Islamic texts and teachings”, for the terrible incident in Iraq. Hence i expose his reasoning behind the copy paste of his assertions and verses verses in the following order:
1.Unfortunately, the Prophet gave the green light for his Muslims, Ali and Khalid b. Waleed, to raid and attack Christian tribes to the south of the Hijaz (in modern day Yemen) to force them into accepting the dominance of the emerging Islamic state.
2.And, of course, I take what the god of the Koran says very seriously, as his words are considered eternal and applicable for all time by his adherents.
3.(9:80) Ask forgiveness for them (O Muhammad), or ask not forgiveness for them; though thou ask forgiveness for them seventy times Allah will not forgive them. That is because *they disbelieved in Allah and His messenger, and Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
4.Jihad Bob says: “* ‘They’ refers to hypocrites – those who were Muslim but gave up praying and almsiving. Isn’t that clear to you, Muhammad? Hypocrites are those who are nominally Muslim but do not actually practice or believe in Islam. There’s not much difference from that definition to an apostate, now is there?
5.(9:84) – And pray thou never over any one of them when he is dead, nor stand over his grave; they disbelieved in God and His Messenger, and died while they were ungodly.
6.(Again he says)They in this context clearly refers to hypocrites, not simply to non-Muslims. (And denies “in both instances it never commands that either be killed”)
7.(9:73) does say to ‘struggle’ and deal ‘harshly’ with ‘hypocrites’. We now know, as proven by what Koran 9:84 says, that hypocrites are outside the fold of Islam.
along with the facetiously rhetorical question:
8.Can anyone please tell me if this command is general or not:
It is not for the idolaters to inhabit God’s places of worship, witnessing against themselves unbelief; those — their works have failed them, and in the Fire they shall dwell forever.
Only he shall inhabit God’s places of worship who believes in God and the Last Day, and performs the prayer, and pays the alms, and fears none but God alone; it may be that those will be among the guided. Koran 9:17-18
9.Here’s a good discussion on verse 9:5 from the Koran:
———-
“Actually, the person who wrote the excellent post was a former Muslim and Muslims do use the argument that the Koran is a clear and complete book when interpreting its passages.”
It seems almost that every single “former Muslim” was in fact a nominal, non-practicing Muslim. Each of these so-called ex-Muslims who became crusaders against Islam,knew very little about Islam. It is quite easy to prove that their “knowledge” of Islam was provided by Islam’s detractors.
“Sherman Jackson actually agreed with me in the article you quoted, as did Zakir Naik – the majority of Muslim scholars (consensus) believed in offensive Jihad warfare.”
Bob, were we reading the same thread? i don’t recall you proving that Sherman Jackson and Zakir Naik believe in offensive jihad warfare; that the majority of Islamic scholars believed in offensive Jihad warfare; that offensive jihad warfare is part of “Islamic texts and teachings”.You do realize the difference between Muslim/Islamic scholars and scholars who study Islam but aren’t Muslim. They are the only ones, along with the extremists, who believe that offensive jihad warfare is part of Islam. You also must be aware of the differences between the context of the opinions of early Muslims scholars, medieval Muslim Scholars, and Modern Muslim scholars?
“The minority of Muslim scholars who did not subscribe to the belief of spreading Islamic law by the sword did not condemn offensive jihad, rather, they believed it was not obligatory to launch offensive raids into non-Muslim lands.”
i really would like proof of this assertion, and how how you came to deduce that these scholars are in the minority.
“Ignoring that no history book supports your fairy tale stories, could Hindus take over Mosques being used by Muslims in India that were built on the ruins of Hindu temples?”
History is written by the winners. i will leave you to contemplate the meaning of that statement. In the same political climate, i would definitely expect Hindus to takeover Masjids in India that were built on the ruins of Hindu temples, if they gained political control.
“Just remember, the truth is to Islamism what the disinfecting rays of sunlight is to bacteria.”
You have no clue about the meaning of Islamism. You are part of the imitators parroting a bogus twisted version of it’s meaning. The original meaning of Islamism was the “utilization of Islamic principles to inform political action”; something Muslims would be engaged in anyway. Now, like jihad, it has some sinister meaning in western circles, since the more educated among you(Islamophobes)can say all Muslims are Islamists, and by extension, there are no moderate Muslims, a term whose meaning Islamophobes have twisted as well.
While we’re at it, will you admit that you originally thought that Christian Copts were being killed in Egypt by Muslims and not an attack on Christians in Iraq? It seems you jump hungrily on any story about Christians being killed/attacked/persecuted, hoping it’s Muslims involved, before fully investigating.
“http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?114459-quot-You-Quoted-Out-Of-Context-quot-debunked”
That link you posted only highlights the unscholarly, Islamophobic assertion that context is important, EXCEPT when reading Qur’an!! People who assert that they can debunk the idea that “Islamophobes quote Qur’an out of context” are merely displaying their stupidity, and desire to remove all obstacles to accepting their wild tafsir of Qur’an.
Allahu A’lam
November 13th, 2010 at 12:22 am
You should really stop embarrassing yourself.
That’s an ironic thing to say—especially considering that you just embarrassed yourself with your bacteria metaphor.
I believe the only exception are be C-C and C-O double bonds (of course, that also applies to triple bonds, but there aren’t too many triple bonds except C-N triple bonds typically attached to R groups in peptides)
Why are you talking about organic molecules? You do realize that we humans have many of the organic molecules present in bacteria? Also, there’s a whole group of photosynthetic bacteria called phototrophs that need sunlight to live. Apart from that, bacteria have cell walls—which enable them to withstand environmental conditions that (many, if not most of) our eukaryotic cells couldn’t.
You have a serious issue when it comes to dealing with facts. A serious issue.
@ Nassir, would you mind citing the post of mine where I ‘openly support the Bosnian Genocide’?
Sure. When I pointed out that Spencer was a useful idiot for supporting oppressive governments (including Karadzic’s) simply because they oppress or murder Muslims, you replied…
“Noam Chomsky made a similar comment denying there was a ‘Holocaust’ in Yugoslavia.”
You link to a YouTube video attempting to put the blame of the genocide on the victims (Muslims), you forgot (or more likely, didn’t know or purposely tried to mislead) however, that there’s a difference between Albanians and Bonsians. Anyways, it was a lame attempt to justify genocide.
No genocide in Kosovo. Chomsky and Spencer are in agreement.
Apart from obviously denying the Bosnian genocide, you attempted to move goalposts to something completely different—Albanians and Kosovo. When commentators pointed that out, you seem to have completely forgotten about the subject (hmm…I wonder why?).
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/09/islam-and-the-media-in-the-age-of-islamophobiapalooza/
Oh, and there are more examples, such as when someone pointed out Pamela is a genocide denier you mustered up this magnificent response…
Fess up, you can’t handle an outspoken lady.
Anyways, we can see that your attempts to deny the Bosnian genocide are pretty pathetic and half-assed (you obviously have no problem with it). In the same way Anti-Semites deny the Holocaust in order to justify their hatred, you deny the Bosnian genocide in order to justify your hatred.
I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before Nassir uses this post to ‘prove’ that I said Muslims are comparable to bacteria.
Don’t worry Bob. We know that you hate Muslims. We got your point.
November 13th, 2010 at 12:27 am
@ NassirH
“I don’t think Bob is a “moderate Islamophobe”–he quite openly supports the Bosnian genocide and claims that most Muslims are Islamo-fascists, for example.
I think Bob is a good example of the blinding effects of bigotry, perhaps best illustrated by his bizarre reading of the Sherman Jackson article.”
Maybe i should have attempted to qualify my statement. i believe jihad bob and spencer are both “moderate Islamophobes” because they attempt to couch their bigotry and hatred in intellectualism. They fail, but that is not the point. debating his ilk is beneficial in that it highlights both the misconceptions surrounding Islam/Muslims, and their refutations. By no means was i implying that they are moderate. Halal pork and Co, on the other hand, make no pretense about their hatred of Muslims, as evidenced by their foul language and subtle incitement to murder and genocide. For them a moderate Muslim is either an ex-muslim(murtad/apostate) or one who rejects essential aspects of Islamic(munafiq/hypocrite). Just turning the table on their blatant relativistic use of definitions.
Allahu A’lam
November 13th, 2010 at 1:03 am
“I was making an analogy of bacteria being destroyed by sunlight to a totalitarian ideology – Islamism – being destroyed by the truth.”
Ahh…..like the Islamists here. No, I think it goes beyond “analytical abilities” and more of a psychological profile of your motives. Since much of your dishonesty is directed at Islam and muslims at large, it’s fair to say Islamism is more of a general term here for you.
November 13th, 2010 at 2:43 am
“UV light breaks the covalent bonds that holds most organic molecules together.
I believe the only exception are be C-C and C-O double bonds (of course, that also applies to triple bonds, but there aren’t too many triple bonds except C-N triple bonds typically attached to R groups in peptides)”
Professor Wiki and Dr Google’s College of the Internet again? Please don’t make me embarrass you. You realize that you are made of organic molecules right? I don’t think you dissolve in sunlight. Unless you’re a vampire……….. ohhhhh! Folks, solved the problem, he’s a vampire, that explains *everything*!!
Anyway Bob, I notice you’ve dropped all the other points including the one where you accused the writers of this website of being Islamist etc. Can we now take this thread as done and you won’t bring up your silly topics again? It’s just I get bored of going over and over the same things.
November 13th, 2010 at 3:03 am
It looks like Sponge bob is as good at science as at Islamic studies.
As someone with a degree in science Chemistry in fact I can speak with more than my usual authority
November 13th, 2010 at 3:33 am
Shall I split hairs with you dear loonies ?
Not this time !
Delenda Est Mecca
November 13th, 2010 at 3:45 am
Sir David, is it possible for you to speak with any more authority?!
No thanks Eternal, not unless you want to make a bigger fool of yourself. And drop the tag line, it’s kinda sad in a pathetic ‘look at me trying to piss people off’ way.
November 13th, 2010 at 6:29 am
Eternal, if you can’t even write your catch phrase properly, then I think you’re in dire need of help. That is all.
November 13th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Why are you talking about organic molecules? You do realize that we humans have many of the organic molecules present in bacteria? Also, there’s a whole group of photosynthetic bacteria called phototrophs that need sunlight to live. Apart from that, bacteria have cell walls—which enable them to withstand environmental conditions that (many, if not most of) our eukaryotic cells couldn’t.
Look at the wavelength of UV light and compare it to the covalent bond strength between organic molecules (C, N, O) and then get back to me.
You link to a YouTube video attempting to put the blame of the genocide on the victims (Muslims), you forgot (or more likely, didn’t know or purposely tried to mislead) however, that there’s a difference between Albanians and Bonsians. Anyways, it was a lame attempt to justify genocide.
Just admit you can’t find an article where I defend genocide.
i don’t recall you proving that Sherman Jackson and Zakir Naik believe in offensive jihad warfare; that the majority of Islamic scholars believed in offensive Jihad warfare; that offensive jihad warfare is part of “Islamic texts and teachings”.
They both acknowledged that a consensus of classical Muslim scholars adhered to the teachings of offensive Jihad warfare. The minority of scholars who did not advocate offensive Jihad warfare did not teach that offensive Jihad warfare need be a communal obligation, but no classical Muslim scholar wrote against offensive Jihad warfare.
November 13th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Just admit you can’t find an article where I defend genocide
Oh no, because the Inquisition, and the Crusades are not examples of genocide.
November 13th, 2010 at 10:27 am
Look at the wavelength of UV light and compare it to the covalent bond strength between organic molecules (C, N, O) and then get back to me.
Please stop embarrassing yourself. Carbon, Oxygen, and Nitrogen are present in every living thing, as are covalent bonds. However, I don’t find it shocking that you can’t admit you’re wrong on a topic as obvious as this–it’s rather funny if you ask me.
Anyway, at least you’re open about attempting to justify genocide. Also, I can mention your defense of Hugh Fitzgerald genocidal rants if you want more examples of such.
November 13th, 2010 at 10:29 am
PS: Attempting to justify genocide is defending genocide.
November 13th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Also, I can mention your defense of Hugh Fitzgerald genocidal rants if you want more examples of such.
Yeah, apparently there’s some hidden “context”, that only JihadBob (he who can magically tap into the “collective Muslim psyche”) can see.
Give me a break Bob. Just because your words aren’t explicit, does not mean that you weren’t defending genocide. It seems that you chose your words carefully, so that you can argue semantics when you are called out. Well played Bob…well, not quite.
November 13th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Also, Einstein, UV light can sometimes form covalent bonds.
November 13th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Also, Einstein, UV light can sometimes form covalent bonds.
LOL!
November 13th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Also, Einstein, UV light can sometimes form covalent bonds.
So do elimination reactions.
But take a wild guess from the name for what must happen first.
November 13th, 2010 at 10:56 am
Sorry Professor Bob of the University of Google, but we aren’t talking about elimination reactions—changing goalposts, eh?
Anyways, feel free to make yourself look stupid.
November 13th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Islamophobia is like a segmented virus. No matter how well you fight it and try to prevent it, it will keep changing and mutating to survive.
November 13th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Okay…let’s see what Islamophobes can’t do: Islamic studies, Biology, Chemistry, and Latin(for examples see Bob, Eternal)
November 13th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
muhammad ‘abd-al haqq
Asalamu ‘alaykum.
Brother, I have a real problem with the notion you presented with the term ‘moderate Islamophobe’. To me, either you are a hatemonger, or you are peace loving, and will express what you are in defining terms. If you express hate, you tend to disquise it in words and phrases that hide your true intentions and ultimate agendas.
We have seen it in the objection to the Park 51 Project, and the burkah bans, people hiding behind free expression and human rights issues to promote thier dehumanization of us.
We…unfortunatly see it in people using our religion, hiding behind deliberate out of context passages to justify hatred, bigotry, and murder of innocent people, the thing we should be talking about amonst ourselves. However, taking the time to argue against hate, whether it is using Islam as an excuse to offend, or using Islam as an excuse to hate Muslims and promote Christianity is wrong…and, it is distracting.
Muslims should not let others control the conversation about Islam. We dont let them lead us into false tangents, and blind corners. We simply tell them the truth, address thier concerns, point them in the right direction. This is ALL WE ARE OBLIGATED TO DO.
Allah leads who he chooses. Allah blinds who he chooses as well. So, please brother, let this forum be where we can have civil, peaceful, meaningful, honest and frank conversation. This can include people like JihadBob, but he must be willing to join us. If he isnt willing to contribute to a peaceful dialouge without supporting those who are evil, hateful, bigoted, or would kill Muslims, then time to ignore him, and others like him.
Let us move on with our business, and let him move on with his…somewhere else if this is what he chooses to do.
I still support banning JihadBob, and others like him.
November 13th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Nur Alia,
walaikum as-salaam
Relax just a little bit. While i understand all of your other points and agree with you, i want you to realize that there is a reason why i put “moderate Islamophobe” in quotations. It was just a play on words. Just like “moderate Muslim”, means “Muslim” to Muslims, but “ex-Muslim/non-practicing, nominal Muslim to Islamophobes, “Moderate Islamophobe”, should mean “cowardly hate-mongerer who couches his hate in intellectualism” to Muslims, but “sensible critic of Islam” to Islamophobes.
When Islamophobes deceptively say things like “i am a moderate critic of Islam” or ” i hate Islam, not Muslims” we see through their lies. I have chosen to make fun of them by referring to them as “moderate Islamophobes. By no means do intend to say they are actual moderates. The reason why i think it is good to engage them in debate, and also why i don’t believe jihadbob should be banned, is because their “reasonable and rational” attempt at debate looks convincing to the uninformed and uneducated. It is better to devote time exposing their particular brand of lunacy, as it clears away any misconceptions about Islam non Muslims may have. The halal porks and eternels, however, have no compunction about displaying their hatred, so non Muslims steer clear of associating themselves with their idiocy, and we need not worry about them. i only engage them for the laughs. i engage the jihad bob’s because i think its beneficial for all.
Allahu A’lam
November 13th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Just for you to know, my catch phrase may be written both ways Delenda est Mecca or Mecca delenda est.
But can one book men understand and accept that ?
Start thinking, for mankind’s sake !
November 13th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Nur Alia
After re-reading your points i realizes that i don’t agree with you as much i originally thought.
“However, taking the time to argue against hate, whether it is using Islam as an excuse to offend, or using Islam as an excuse to hate Muslims and promote Christianity is wrong…and, it is distracting.”
Arguing against hate is a noble endeavor, i believe, As long as it exists we cannot let arguing against it” distracting” and must consider it deserving of our attention.
“Muslims should not let others control the conversation about Islam. We dont let them lead us into false tangents, and blind corners. We simply tell them the truth, address thier concerns, point them in the right direction. This is ALL WE ARE OBLIGATED TO DO.”
As true as that may be, winning the war against extremism amongnst Muslims can only be won by Muslims. We actually let others control the conversation about Islam when we stand idly by and let them spread misconceptions about Islam.
“Allah leads who he chooses. Allah blinds who he chooses as well. So, please brother, let this forum be where we can have civil, peaceful, meaningful, honest and frank conversation.”
i think we are already doing that.
Alahu A’lam
November 13th, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Okay…let’s see what Islamophobes can’t do: Islamic studies, Biology, Chemistry, and Latin(for examples see Bob, Eternal)
****
That’s pretty funny. Do you want to run that by me again?
How does UV light form covalent bonds again?
How is Ozone (O3), which is unstable, formed from O2?
November 13th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
“Start thinking, for mankind’s sake”
Only when you do Eternal, the lights are on but no one is home in your house.
Bob, please stop making an arse of yourself, it’s embarrassing me as well.
November 13th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
So funny, Jihadbob.
O2 molecules in the stratosphere are broken down by the UV from the Sun into two individual Oxygen atoms. Then one of Oxygen atoms bonds with another O2 molecule. You do the math — O2 + O = O3.
If you want the equation:
O2 + UV => O + O
O + O2 => O3
Aren’t we all glad I took Chemistry…
November 13th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Now I see why muslims are good with explosives
November 13th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
http://freethinker.co.uk/2010/11/12/woman-faces-death-for-blasphemy/
November 13th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
O2 molecules in the stratosphere are broken down by the UV from the Sun into two individual
***
Now go tell David (a chemistry major) and Nassir that covalently bonded stable molecules, such as O2, are indeed broken by UV radiation into less stable molecules.
November 13th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
^ Eh genius, bacteria are able to survive in sunlight–despite the fact that you initially claimed they weren’t. You started a rant about organic molecules for whatever bizarre reason, most likely to move goalposts and cover you ass.
November 13th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
* your
November 13th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
What does any of this have to do with Islam…
Although the “Father of Chemistry” was Jabir ibn Hayyan. Just thought I might throw that in…
November 14th, 2010 at 8:42 am
“What does any of this have to do with Islam…”
Nothing, you see bob lost his argument on *all* the stuff related to Islam, you’ll notice he dropped all his points, and so thus is trying to ‘win’ on the ‘science’ front. So grab some refreshments and watch if you want, though I’m telling you, I’m far more interested in watching the paint dry on my wall. It has a higher entertainment value and I don’t keep feeling embarrassed for bob all the time… you can join me, it’s green paint, Nippon Vinilex Fresh Anti-Bacterial Emulsion in case you’re interested in technical details. I’ve got some blue Q-Matt Classic on the go too in case we get a little bored.
November 14th, 2010 at 8:59 am
Strange that Bob is talking about the production of Ozone in the atmosphere.This involves Free radicals. Free radicals everywhere must be very happy they have his support. Islamic radicals are obviously not so lucky.
Any bets that Bob is a climate change denier?
Any way back to the usual rants
November 14th, 2010 at 9:59 am
LMAO! @ Sir David
November 14th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Brother…
You quoted from my comment this part…
“…“However, taking the time to argue against hate, whether it is using Islam as an excuse to offend, or using Islam as an excuse to hate Muslims and promote Christianity is wrong…and, it is distracting…”
I can see where you might misunderstand my point here.
What I should have said was ‘…to argue hate from thier point of view, whether it is using Islam to as an excuse to offend, or using Islam as an excuse to hate Muslims…’
This was a mistake on my part. Please excuse my mistake
My personal point of view is, we dont let non Muslims control the conversation about the teaching of Islam. We tell them, we point them correctly, and we answer thier legitimate concerns, including those that concern evil doers using Islam as an excuse for violence.
However…we have no need to personally apologize or ‘own’ the violence caused in ‘the name of Islam’. I (personally) speak out against terorism, regardless of the offender’s race, religion, motive, or hidden agenda. This is how we need to address.
November 14th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
JihadBob…
I have a question for you. I would like you to answer only yes, or no.
The question is.
Can you, without caveat, denounce threats, intimidation, violence including murder, with the intention of displacing, disinfranchising, dehumanizing, humiliating, deprivation, or other inhumane acts, to any one (regardless of who they are or what they believe) at any time, and for any reason?
I would like your answer to this question, to see how serious you are when you say you are against violence against innocents.
November 14th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Ok Nur Alia i understand you better and can say that i agree with you fully now
Barak Allah fi kum
W’Allahu A’lam
November 14th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Nur Alia Says:
November 14th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
“JihadBob…
I have a question for you. I would like you to answer only yes, or no.”
i have asked him this question in various forms numerous times and he avoids it. other poster have even taken to rephrasing my questions and demanding he answer it, and he has avoided the question. Don’t hold your breath. His insistence on relying solely on the logical fallacy of tu quoque is indication enough that he is only interested in displacement, disenfranchisement, dehumanization, humiliation, deprivation, or other inhumane acts when Christians are affected. When Muslims are effected by this he justifies it. When those who are neither Christian or Muslim are affected he is silent.
Allahu A’lam
November 14th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
muhammad ‘abd-al haqq
brother…
You have asked him this question various times, in various forms I am sure, because you are an advocate of peace. I am sure you (personally) have no problem answering the question, nor any peace loving person.
To me, if JihadBob cant answer the question without caveat, ‘Yes, I denounce…”, then to him you or I or any Muslim, or anyone Christianity opposes are not human. Thier hatred of Islam is simply the excuse they need to elimiate us, just as you would do vermon in your house.
He has an ‘enemy’ who can be defined broadly. It can be the likes of al Quid’a, or you who speak against him…or me who can have children…or my children who he belives I will teach to hate his Christiandom. He belives in his mind that his right to pre emtive self defence, to preserve his ideology gives him permission and duty to destroy Islam…and anyone who stands in his way, by any means.
He has made someone his enemy, whether they have raised a sword to him or not. He has defined his enemy by association, and his proof is ancedotal. He ignores his own partisan pattern of the same thing, and even condones it because…to him we are not human.
So…it is a waste of time reasoning with a blind follower of hate. A person whose tounge simply repeats the packdog barks of bigots, and marches to the drum of unity being uniformity.
Leave JihadBob alone…let him go somewhere else to spread the things he does.
November 14th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Nur Alia
you really would like to see crusader bob banned wouldn’t you?
Allahu A’lam
November 14th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Brother…
Really, I want JihadBob’s rhetoric to be banned. If he cant seperate himself from the lies, hate, bigotry, and personal attacks on our religion and it’s messangers…then yes, I want him to go with it.
We cant defend hate desiquised as free expression. We cant allow him or others to misuse the privilage.
JihadBob should understand that we are not limiting his ‘free expression’, but we are limiting his ability to divert from logical, rational, peaceful and civil conversation even if we disagree.
I would say brother, to warn him with the strongest of terms first. Make it clear to him the difference between peaceful disagreement and inciteful language. Make him understand that this is a MUSLIM forum, and him or anyone else slandering Islam, or Prophet Muhammad (saw) or any of the people Allah sent messages to us through, will not be tolarated, just as if I were to go into his church and slander Jesus (saw), or thier beliefs.
Of course, all of our words should be kind, and constructive, but also frank and truthful, even though they may not be diplomatic. Make JihadBob and those like him understand that HE, and HE alone is responsible for what happens to him in this forum…just as I am, or you are, or anyone else is.
November 14th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
I just have to say: Lol! I go away for a few days and JihadBob has now moved from discussing anything remotely connected to Islam to discussing chemistry and biology?
Sherman Jackson actually agreed with me in the article you quoted, as did Zakir Naik. It’s actually Zaid Shakir who wrote the article you attempted to use as support… conveniently called “Jihad is Not Perpetual Warfare“. That you can’t even get the author’s name right shows how meticulous your use of sources is.
Nevermind that Jackson’s central thesis was, quoting the famed Mamluk jurist Shihab al-Din al-Qarafi (d. 1285) that: “Holding to rulings that have been deduced on the basis of custom, even after this custom has changed, is a violation of Unanimous Consensus and an open display of ignorance of the religion.” His point was that the pre-modern norm was a state of war – unless mitigated by treaty, whereas the modern world now has a state of peace as the default. Thus, even if there was consensus in the past, it has no relevance to the state of affairs in the modern world because of its basis, which has changed.
This modern consensus does, however. And nowhere does it support what you claim.
November 14th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Yep. These threads sure can go haywire. As for Nur, I say that Loonwatch is clearly designated for everyone, not just Muslims.
November 14th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Sherman Jackson actually agreed with me in the article you quoted, as did Zakir Naik. It’s actually Zaid Shakir who wrote the article you attempted to use as support… conveniently called “Jihad is Not Perpetual Warfare“. That you can’t even get the author’s name right shows how meticulous your use of sources is.
Both Zaid Shakir and Sherman Jackson agree with me that there was a consensus amongst medieval Islamic scholars who were in favor of offensive Jihad warfare.
This modern consensus does, however. And nowhere does it support what you claim.
Offensive Jihad warfare and terrorism are as different from each other as a police officer and a vigilante. One has the authority of the state, the other doesn’t.
In any event, Islamic terrorism is part of defensive Jihad in the minds of Muslims who justify terrorism in the name of Islam. Are you saying that scholars now believe that defensive Jihad is not allowed in Islam?
His point was that the pre-modern norm was a state of war – unless mitigated by treaty, whereas the modern world now has a state of peace as the default.
Sure, when you have an Islamic empire, you better believe the region will be embroiled in war. But in actuality, the Romans and Persians had little ambitions to conquer their regions and would rather create a buffer made up of allies between themselves and their potential enemies rather than directly share borders with hostile nations. In reality, the Roman East had no intention of taking lands that the old Roman empire did not conquer.
Moreover, Christianity, a religion of peace, never developed a doctrine, in either the east or west, of spreading Christianity by the sword (ie., offensive holy war). True there were crusades into the Baltic, but these were (wrongly, to some extent) viewed by Christian rulers as ‘defensive’ in nature to keep Pagan barbarians in check.
Needless to say, no other religion but Islam held such a doctrine of spreading their religion by the sword. That was the consensus Muslim scholars agreed upon and even the minority of Muslims who did not adhere to the teachings of an offensive holy war to spread the boundaries of their faith disagreed over whether offensive Jihad was a communal obligation or an individual choice for the Kalifa to decide on.
November 14th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Strange that Bob is talking about the production of Ozone in the atmosphere.This involves Free radicals. Free radicals everywhere must be very happy they have his support. Islamic radicals are obviously not so lucky.
Any bets that Bob is a climate change denier?
Any way back to the usual rants
***********
Still stinging after you embarrassed yourself after announcing that your major was chemistry but incorrectly disagreeing with me that UV radiation is not capable of breaking most covalent bonds between O, C and N molecules?
I hope you want to school at a time where students like you could slide right through without paying tuition. Otherwise I would say you should ask for your money back.
Seriously David, I’ll give you a chance to save some face; does UV radiation break single bonds between C, O and N? Yes or no.
November 14th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
By “spreading Islam by the sword”, does that by any chance include forcefully converting non-Muslims? If so, then I’m afraid you’re lying…as that would defy the Quranic principle of freedom of religion.
November 14th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Can you, without caveat, denounce threats, intimidation, violence including murder, with the intention of displacing, disinfranchising, dehumanizing, humiliating, deprivation, or other inhumane acts, to any one (regardless of who they are or what they believe) at any time, and for any reason?
********
I’m against threats, yes.
The reader of Loonwatch will remember that the only threats on this website are against myself and other similar thinking members.
And yes, those were death threats.
So, I ask you to condemn the death threats and other threats directed against me, other peace loving posters here and freedom fighters throughout the internet, especially Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch.com, Pamela Geller and especially those who voice their concern against surpemacism and acts of violence.
Will you also join me in condemning the recent arrest of a West Bank Atheist blogger by the authorities and request Loonwatch to cover his situation?
November 14th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Seriously David, I’ll give you a chance to save some face; does UV radiation break single bonds between C, O and N? Yes or no.
Fair is fair.
Seriously Bob, I’ll give you a chance to save some face, can bacteria survive in sunlight? Yes or no?
November 14th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
I’m sorry JihadBob, but how does:
“In sum, by revealing those verses in which the believers are commanded to wage jihad, the Qur’an was not introducing the obligation to fight ab initio. On the contrary, the Qur’an was simply responding to a pre-existing state of affairs by effectively redirecting energies that were already being expended. Moreover, peace, i.e., the repelling of aggression, rather than conversion to Islam was the ultimate aim of this fighting. This is clearly indicated by several verses, scattered throughout the Qur’an, that clearly envision a terminus ad quem other than conversion or annihilation…”
translate in to Jackson supporting your assertion?
Oh, you mean the part where Jackson states that: “Turning to the post-Prophetic era, classical jurists unanimously divided jihad into two main modalities. The first we may refer to as “aggressive jihad,” which is pro-active, and according to the majority, constituted a communal requirement to be carried out at least once every year.” Is that your evidence of a claimed consensus?
Did you also not read the part where Jackson qualified this and stated:
“On this understanding, it comes as no surprise that Ibn Rushd [the grandfather, and a major authoritative source for the Medieval Maliki school] endorsed the traditional doctrine on aggressive jihad as a communal obligation. During the course of his discussion, however, it becomes clear that his ultimate consideration was the security of the Muslims rather than either conquest or conversion. After exhausting the point that jihad is a communal obligation, Ibn Rushd comes to the following conclusion:
So, whenever we are placed beyond the reach of the enemy and the outlying districts of the Muslim lands are secured and the gaps in their fortifications are filled, the obligation to wage jihad falls from all the rest of the Muslims ….
The purpose of jihad, in other words, is to provide for the security and freedom of the Muslims in a world that kept them under constant threat.”
In other words, even if a medieval consensus did exist, what relevance does it have today? Specifically, when state boundaries are considered defined and safe according to international convention.
November 14th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Can you, without caveat, denounce threats, intimidation, violence including murder, with the intention of displacing, disinfranchising, dehumanizing, humiliating, deprivation, or other inhumane acts, to any one (regardless of who they are or what they believe) at any time, and for any reason?
********
I’m against threats, yes.
Oh? That’s it? So you’re for intimidation, violence, displacement, dehumanization, etc on the basis of religion? Clearly, you have shown that in the past, i.e. your defense of Hugh Fitzgerald who advocates celebrating the deaths of Muslims along with deporting them en masse (among other things).
The reader of Loonwatch will remember that the only threats on this website are against myself and other similar thinking members.
Really? I would like what death threats you’re talking about—and a challenge, for all the death threats (if any) that have appeared on Loonwath, I can find far more (if not hundreds more) made by the “freedom fighters” over at Jihadwatch.
And yes, those were death threats.
Ironically, as we’ve shown on this thread, you’ll go to any lengths to justify the deaths of people simply because they’re Muslim. In fact, there hasn’t been one time where you’ve condemned the murder of a Muslim—as mentioned, you’ve always attempted to justify their deaths.
Will you also join me in condemning the recent arrest of a West Bank Atheist blogger by the authorities and request Loonwatch to cover his situation?
*roll eyes* We’ve already been through this about a billion times.
“Loonwatch.com is a blogzine run by a motley group of hate-allergic bloggers to monitor and expose the web’s plethora of anti-Muslim loons, wackos, and conspiracy theorists.”
November 14th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
* I would like to see…
November 14th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
As for Spencer and Geller being “freedom fighters”, labeling them such is entirely false. Spencer views the Enlightenment as negative and supports neo-fascist European politicians, etc, while Geller…well there’s no argument that Geller is a nut of the highest degree.
Anyways, we’ve already discussed Spencer’s hypocrisy on another thread: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/11/glenn-greenwald-terrorism-and-civil-liberties-speech-video/
And I leave you with an epic quote by MP11 (who was banned from Jihadwatch by the hypocritical Spencer)…
Seriously Jbob, I think you know that what is written by Hugh is indefensible. I think the fact that you are defending him (and particularly the filth that he wrote above) means your hatred for Muslims has reached a point of no-return where rational discussion is impossible.
Its understandable, if you believe that what Hugh and Robert are saying is the truth, then all kinds of things start to become acceptable, including rejoicing at the sight of dead Muslim men, women and children.
November 14th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Oh, and I forgot to mention this doozie.
In any event, Islamic terrorism is part of defensive Jihad in the minds of Muslims who justify terrorism in the name of Islam…
LOL. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe you argued the exact opposite not too long ago. Nonetheless, your statement is still mostly wrong—Islam is against terrorism (see Bernard Lewis, Juan Cole, etc).
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/10/its-the-occupation-stupid/
November 14th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
I was busy watching my paint dry (do join me, I just put a new coat on) then someone said that bob has been saying he’s had death threats… erm, sorry, am I the only one never to have seen these? Though I must say, I do like the death threats I get, I’m contemplating putting together an album or displaying them on the wall. Once the paint is dry of course, have fun everyone.
November 15th, 2010 at 2:10 am
Ah Bob you need to go back to school.
UV radiation will in certain circumstanses break Covalent bonds to produce free radicals But it does not do it in all circumstances as not all covalent bonds are of the same strength nor is all the UV light in sunlight of uniform wave length or ampitude.
If it was then all plastics and other organic molocules ( the things us humans are made from ) would instantly fall apart in sunlight just like vampires .( Warning Vampires are not real )
Yet another example where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing , bit like your views on Islam really.
November 15th, 2010 at 3:53 am
@ Nassir
Geller is a nut of the highest degree
Fess up dude, you just can’t handle an outspoken lady. Yes, that is really my argument as to why Geller isn’t a nut. That is all.
November 15th, 2010 at 8:05 am
In other words, even if a medieval consensus did exist, what relevance does it have today? Specifically, when state boundaries are considered defined and safe according to international convention.
It has absolute relevance for the Muslims who cite these past rulings today to justify everything from aspects of Islamic law to waging war against non-Muslims – both Muslims who engage in terrorism and your everyday cleric on the Arabic satellite channels cite these past rulings on various issues.
After all, isn’t what Muslim scholars have agreed upon in the past an aspect of Islamic law?
November 15th, 2010 at 8:19 am
Stop with the tango Bob and answer the question. What relatives does it have to mainstream Muslms and mainstream Islam, and not the fringe minority that you have just mentioned.
November 15th, 2010 at 9:25 am
What relevance **
November 15th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Stop with the tango Bob and answer the question. What relatives does it have to mainstream Muslms and mainstream Islam, and not the fringe minority that you have just mentioned.
‘Mainstream’ Muslim clerics cite the past rulings of Muslim scholars all the time.
The only group of Muslims who reject the teachings of Islam out of hand, typically, are Ahmadis. But even then, I think they accept certain rulings that Muslim scholars do make. They just find it convenient to ignore inconvenient rulings that make it hard to propagate Islam to non-Muslims who would be turned off by those rulings.
November 15th, 2010 at 11:11 am
I’m sorry Bob, but those scholars are few and far in between.
Why is it that you chose only to nitpick a single sentence from Dawood’s post? Is it because you would rather conveniently ignore the classical consensus that jihad is for the security, protection and freedom of Muslims during a time where war was the standard state of affairs, unless mitigated by a treaty (which is not the case anymore in our current, modern world)…rather than forceful conversion?
November 15th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Oh, and we’re still waiting for you to provide quotes of the death threats that have apparently made against you, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and a plethora of other so-called freedom fighters. Don’t be shy now.
And for the last time, LoonWatch does not need to cover the stories you have mentioned. Would it be fair to ask Sports Illustrated to cover make-up tips for women? Genres and niches were made for a reason.
November 15th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Is it because you would rather conveniently ignore the classical consensus that jihad is for the security, protection and freedom of Muslims during a time where war was the standard state of affairs, unless mitigated by a treaty (which is not the case anymore in our current, modern world)…rather than forceful conversion?
LoL.
Who told you that?
The quote from Sherman Jackson never says that the consensus pertaining to offensive Jihad had the caveat that Muslims needed to be oppressed in non-Muslim lands or were faced with possible danger from invasion before Islam could raid non-Muslim lands.
Sherman Jackson quoted one medieval scholar and provided his own spin to the scholar’s comments, but never does Sherman Jackson imply other Muslim scholars who subscribed to offensive Jihad, let alone the majority opinion of Muslim scholars who wrote in favor of offensive Jihad, believed offensive Jihad was only permissible in the instance of a preemptive strike.
Oh, and we’re still waiting for you to provide quotes of the death threats that have apparently made against you, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and a plethora of other so-called freedom fighters. Don’t be shy now.
No need. You’ve exposed yourself as a liar if you want to claim that Abdul, the one who went on long block paragraph rants on Spain and Yugoslavia and said he wished for Serbia’s Christian population ‘punished’ and their churches destroyed, never posted death threats against me and other members.
I won’t bother to look through old threads as if I bookmark them as NassirH apparently does to prove my point. That’s also ignoring that some of his comments were subsequently deleted after I highlighted his death threats against Spencer, myself and others.
November 15th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Okay JihadBob, let’s play your game. You don’t accept Jackson quoting “one” source regarding the nature of consensus, nor regarding the nature and qualification of “offensive jihad”.
So, please show me your source that a consensus even exists. What is it? I would like an accurate citation please.
I would honestly like to see your sources for this. Don’t avoid answering the question, even if you choose to ignore all of my post below, which I have conveniently divied for your comfort.
————————-
Just to continue sharing information for JihadBon and other readers who might be interested:
It has absolute relevance for the Muslims who cite these past rulings today to justify everything from aspects of Islamic law to waging war against non-Muslims – both Muslims who engage in terrorism and your everyday cleric on the Arabic satellite channels cite these past rulings on various issues.
After all, isn’t what Muslim scholars have agreed upon in the past an aspect of Islamic law?
First of all, you stated earlier In any event, Islamic terrorism is part of defensive Jihad in the minds of Muslims who justify terrorism in the name of Islam… as NassirH rightly pointed out. So which is it? If it’s defensive jihad that’s the issue, then why does it matter if there is a consensus regarding offensive jihad in the first place? You can’t have it both ways.
Second, you have obviously chosen to ignore the part where Jackson quotes al-Qarafi as stating:
“Holding to rulings that have been deduced on the basis of custom, even after this custom has changed, is a violation of Unanimous Consensus and an open display of ignorance of the religion”
And furthermore, when he even quotes a contemporary Saudi scholar, writing on the use of custom in the Hanbali school (i.e. that generally seen as the most ‘literalist’ school, which modern Wahhabi and Salafi scholars derive their positions from) as stating:
“It is obvious that any leader (Imam) of any school of law, nay, any independent jurist (mujtahid), period, can only devise rulings for his particular time and place. It is impossible for him to extract rulings for all times and places. Rather, the most that he can do is lay down general precepts, universal rules and basic principles on the basis of which his followers and descendants can proceed (to extract rulings).”
These quotations and Jackson’s surrounding writing qualify the nature of what consensus is, and how it functions in Islamic juristic thought. Of course, you can now just say “it’s only two sources, therefore not representative.” Am I right? What about this consensus then? It’s a lot more than two sources and you still keep skirting around the issue and not dealing with it, nor what it contains.
Once again, you show your complete ignorance of how Islamic jurisprudence works, and of the major figures in its formation and history. First of all, the Maliki school in Andalusia is known for taking a harsher role towards dealing with non-Muslims due to the historical experience faced by the Muslims there in the Reconquesta, amongst other things. Thus, when Jackson is quoting Ibn Rushd the Elder – who, if you actually knew anything about Islamic law, you would know is a major source for the medieval Maliki school, considered perhaps the major commentator on Malik’s Mudawwana, called al-Muqaddimat al-Mumahhidat and is also known for his fatwa that Muslims were not allowed to live in non-Muslim lands, with it being obligatory to emigrate, due to his reasoning process which Jackson highlights – you would understand this choice of source.
Also, when you understand that Ibn Rushd the Elder’s writings and fatwas formed a major part of the medieval Maliki school doctrine in the Muslim West across the board, you would also see that his work framed the discourse in the immediate centuries after his life and even until today. I would recommend you read the Encyclopaedia of Islam regarding this important jurist (due to only being allowed one link per post), and see for example, the numerous times he is cited in such a major fatwa collection as al-Wansharisi’s Al-Mi’yar (13 volumes) [The index of persons cited in the text simply states "cited across the board in every volume" (كثير في جميع الأجزاء)!]. There are also plenty of journal articles which discuss the works of this important scholar, so I recommend using JSTOR and other facilities if you are sincerely interested.
You also make the same mistake regarding al-Qarafi. He was the head of the Maliki school in Mamluk Cairo – i.e., in the capital of the Mamluk empire in his time, so was perhaps the most senior Maliki scholar of his generation. His position within the Maliki school, and also without it is without question, and cemented due to his penetrating insights in legal theory. Again, I recommend you check the Encyclopaedia of Islam regarding this great juristic mind, in order to understand Jackson’s choice of source. Heck, even Wikipedia – which seems to be one of your usual sources – sings his praises: “He is considered by many to be the greatest Maliki legal theoretician of the 13th century; his writings and influence on Islamic legal theory (usu al-fiqh) spread throughout the Muslim world.”
Al-Qarafi’s works deal almost exclusively with legal theory, and are major sources across school boundaries. One of the other important reasons Jackson cites him, besides Jackson being the foremost expert on this medieval jurist writing in English, is that he is widely cited and studied across the board today in the Muslim world. Almost every single “revivalist” movement, and the “traditionalists” to boot, refer to this great legal theorist. Thus, although Jackson deals with only “two” sources (actually plenty more if you check his citations and footnotes), his choice remains important and is reflective of major trends in pre-modern scholarship.
Of course, you can now retort that I am simply blowing hot air, and haven’t actually said a single thing. That’s why I divided the post and asked you a simple question at the beginning, so you can deal with that and not this. It’s also why I recommend that you – and any other sincerely interested reader of my comments – check the sources I have mentioned themselves using Google Scholar, JSTOR and any other facilities they have access to which will help them see that my case is strongly supported. The ban on having more than one URL per post is definitely problematic, or else much more could be linked. You, on the other hand, have simply taken a few choice words from numerous articles actually arguing completely against your point and not provided any citations to support your assertions.
And this is completely ignoring the numerous important modern and contemporary scholars Jackson cites in his article in order to prove that a previous consensus is not binding on future generations if the conditions the consensus rests upon have actually changed.
November 15th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
* divided
* JihadBob
Sorry for the typos above.
November 15th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Hey Bob! What’s up?! Still trying to salvage some face (after you were ripped on this thread numerous times)? I was surprised that didn’t attempt to justify the murder of innocent people (oh wait…never mind). Anyways, if you want to stay away from the sun (you know, those darned covalent bonds) and listen to every word of a chubby, hairy (yet balding) bigot, then be my guest.
Oh, and those (nonexistent) death threats…we’re still waiting…
You know…people might start thinking that you’re a schizophrenic if you start blabbering about nonexistent death threats.
November 15th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
So, please show me your source that a consensus even exists. What is it? I would like an accurate citation please.
I’m not rejecting Sherman Jackson’s argument, but to me, Jackson never argued that most of the proponents of offensive Jihad believed in offensive warfare in the historical context that nations were always under threat.
Rather, he says that even while most Muslim scholars were in support of annual raids into non-Muslim territories, this was in a time when people were more ‘primitive’ and therefore likely to attack each other – there was nothing holding them back. I think Cynic took the one quote from one Muslim scholar and applied Sherman Jackson’s interpretation of the quote to all Muslim scholars of the medieval period, something that Sherman Jackson himself does not do.
So, it could be argued that some Muslim proponents of offensive Jihad did so in the unstated belief that offensive Jihad was actually a preemptive strike. However, the main point of Jackson’s argument was not of medieval jurists seeing Jihad in the form of a preemptive action, but where invading your neighbor was acceptable because there were no laws back in those times between nations, such as international law, to say that unprovoked invasions are breach of civilized behavior.
Yes, Jackson did claim that nations saw each other as being in perpetual conflict with each other, but where other nations – the Romans, Persians, Ethiopians, Western Europe – never developed a deeply developed theology pertaining to offensive holy war with the aim of spreading religion, Islam did. More, I think Jackson misleads when he brings up the state of conflict between nations and the theological belief that Muslims are allowed to attack their neighbors in exceptional circumstances – that is what defensive Jihad warfare is, where Muslims are required to attack a nation if that nation is oppressing Muslims or to prevent an attack against Muslims. Offensive Jihad, however, has one primary purpose and that is to spread the religion of Islam. I can’t believe that the medieval jurists were this myopic that they couldn’t differentiate for themselves the already delineated tenets of offensive and defensive Jihad warfare.
November 15th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
First of all, you still didn’t give me a source.
And wait, let me get this straight JihadBob. You are saying that “I’m not rejecting Sherman Jackson’s argument, but to me, Jackson never argued that most of the proponents of offensive Jihad believed in offensive warfare in the historical context that nations were always under threat.”
This, even though Jackson clearly states that:
“While the imperial quest for empire invariably informed the policies of every Muslim state, Muslim juristic writings continued to reflect the logic of the “state of war” and the assumption that only Muslims would permit Muslims to remain Muslims. They continued to see jihad not only as a means of guaranteeing the security and freedom of the Muslims but as virtually the only means of doing so. For even peace-treaties were usually the result of one’s surrender to demands that had been imposed by a real or anticipated defeat by the sword.
…
The purpose of jihad, in other words, is to provide for the security and freedom of the Muslims in a world that kept them under constant threat.”
I don’t understand how you can infer what you have said when Jackson is quite clear. It simply beggars belief! My quote above is one of many which inform his discussion.
“Offensive Jihad, however, has one primary purpose and that is to spread the religion of Islam.”
Again, I don’t believe you have read his article at all.
Still, the Muslim conquests were neither for the sole purpose of conversion nor annihilating the infidel. In addition to the fact that non-Muslims paid higher taxes — and thus non-conversion operated to the financial advantage of the state — the rules of jihad stipulated that non-Muslims remained free to practice their religion upon payment of the so-called jizya, or income tax, in exchange for which the Muslim state incurred the responsibility to protect them from outside attack.
I can’t believe that the medieval jurists were this myopic that they couldn’t differentiate for themselves the already delineated tenets of offensive and defensive Jihad warfare.
Haha, I’m sorry, I just have to laugh when we now have JihadBob telling medieval Muslim scholars what they should and should not believe regarding their own religious tradition…
November 15th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
@ Dawood
“Haha, I’m sorry, I just have to laugh when we now have JihadBob telling medieval Muslim scholars what they should and should not believe regarding their own religious tradition…”
…simply because what they actually believe does not agree with his creative, speculative tafsir, which is not rooted in the Islamic tradition at all.
i think that makes a nice end/addition to your sentence
Allahu A’lam
November 15th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Indeed! The irony that JihadBob is now insulting the intelligence of those scholars who in essence defined the medieval Islamic juristic tradition is not lost on me. Especially when he is also stating that a claimed medieval consensus has actual import for Muslims today.
November 15th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
i have asked jihad bob to prove that a medieval consensus exists and he just moves the goal posts by going in tangents(presumably in an effort to arrive at his point and actually engage the subject at hand). We definitely agree that the consensus of medieval jurists has limited import for Muslims of today, but jihad bob has yet to prove this medieval consensus even existed.
Allahu A’lam
November 15th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Uh Bob, a proper analyzation of the writings of classical scholars does show that they believed that jihad was not about forceful conversion; but rather to ensure the security of the Muslims. I think Sherman Jackson put it aptly enough even for you to understand as quoted by Dawood above.
And in case you haven’t noticed, I haven’t said anything about Abdul. Is it too much to ask of you to provide quotes of your fantastic assertion without you trying to dance around it with lame excuses?
November 15th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
And btw, I have seen you quote comments from old threads…so I’m afraid you’re the liar and not I.
November 15th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
“While the imperial quest for empire invariably informed the policies of every Muslim state, Muslim juristic writings continued to reflect the logic of the “state of war” and the assumption that only Muslims would permit Muslims to remain Muslims. They continued to see jihad not only as a means of guaranteeing the security and freedom of the Muslims but as virtually the only means of doing so. For even peace-treaties were usually the result of one’s surrender to demands that had been imposed by a real or anticipated defeat by the sword.
Except that Jackson misleads by conflating what is defensive Jihad for what is offensive.
Defensive Jihad encompasses invading non-Muslim territories if Muslims are being oppressed. It would also seem that Jackson is selectively quoting certain Muslim scholars whose personal experiences with non-Muslim powers were limited to Western Europe.
I am not aware of persecution against Muslims in regions re-conquered by the Romans nor of Muslims living in non-Muslim regions at the time when offensive Jihad was first being formulated in the eighth century. But perhaps you could help me out on that?
The purpose of jihad, in other words, is to provide for the security and freedom of the Muslims in a world that kept them under constant threat.”
So that was the purpose of Jihad when the doctrines of offensive Jihad were first formulated by scholars in the eighth century? Which Muslims in non-Muslim lands needed security? Why is Sherman Jackson left with quoting a single scholar from the 13th century whose experience with the non-Muslim world is rather unique?
With few exceptions, such as Spain, Sicily and Anatolia, how often did non-Muslims conquer Muslim lands and when did these reconquests take place in relation to when offensive Jihad was developed in the eighth century?
Again, with the exception of Spain and finally in Sicily (where Muslims for decades actually took part and held positions of power in Christian government, for example) did Muslims face persecution?
I don’t dispute the quote Jackson provides, but I see it as rather late in the development of offensive Jihad doctrine and a unique experience as opposed to mostly uneventful re-conquests by other foreign powers, namely the Romans.
And btw, I have seen you quote comments from old threads…so I’m afraid you’re the liar and not I.
Oh Jeez, here we go again:
I HATE!!!! Fascists of your ilk from the bottom of my heart and to my last breath! You do not deserve to walk this Earth, anybody who sent you to Hell would do mankind a favor, but even Satan himself would refuse yu admittane in Hell!
May God open your eyes, and if not, may HE have mercy on your soul.
and
but your talk is potentially murderous so I hope for your own good that we never meet in person but should you feel the need to come to Bosnia as a volunteer in the next round of genocidal anti-Bosniak crusade then I hope you will meet a very sticky end.
and
The way you* talk you could very well be the intellectual author of the execrable hate crime committed by that moron Enright and if it can be traced back to you I hope somebody will pay you back for it. As for that idiot Enright I hope they lock him up for 300 years and somebody will stab him in jail, with one of their homemade blades which is much more painful.
* You could either refer to myself or Robert Spencer, not sure.
and
Awesome, you got it right. This guy jihadbob, like the rest of them, is nothing but a charlatan and a mischief-maker. I can see right through him. For me that guy is none better than Hitler or Karadzic or Geert Wilders. The world woudl be better off if such unspeakable jerks had never been born. Unfortunately his words are conductive to hate crimes.
Nevertheless if someone killed him (and mad dogs must be killed) he would be undeservedly made into a martyr like that idiot Theo Van Gogh was. At least we would be rid of his disgusting and preposterous babble.
I actually think that was the thread where his other explicit death threats were deleted after I quoted them.
I think this is my all time favorite death threat, though:
Come and say that to Bosniaks, jihadbooby, [b]I hope you will be ripped to bits[/b], you disgusting fascist xenophobic half-witted half-idiotic MORON! But killing you would be too good for you, there must be no undeserved martyrdom for the cause of half-witted xenophobic bastards, and it is a pity that the unwitting, uneducated and willfully ignorant masses of simpletons follow them so readily. I read their venomous half-witted ignorant comments every day. And I feel disgusted and threatened by such people. Jihadbooby, if God has chosen to harden your heart as he did with Pharaoh, then may He have mercy on your soul, I for one would like to give you a foretaste of what awaits you in the hereafter: I would love to dunk you in cat shit. My oh my, if I had the misfortune of knowing someone who shares your stupid evil views in person – you know how to get a mule to pay attention? By hitting his head with a two-by-four, and then I’d do that until my arms fall off.
You, fellow, do not deserve to walk this earth. But even Satan himself would not admit you in HEll. May your name cease to exist. May your hands perish! May you be cursed with impotence, and if you already have descendants I hope they will repudiate your views or else may God curse them for the next coming thousand generations. The only person more disgusting than you are all those who thought up and participated in the anti-Bosniaks genocidal crusade starting form the first movement for Serb independence in 1804, and of whom Radovan Karadzic and his willing executioners are but the last exponents in a long, long line.
Boy, do I miss Abdul’s posts, even his deleted ones.
What’s really interesting is to go back to his old comments and read the members of this site support his rants and express sympathy for what he would write.
Now, Cynic, since *you* posted on both of those threads I linked to, who is the liar?
November 15th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
I’m still waiting on my source regarding the consensus you keep talking about JihadBob. It’s the one thing I asked you not to avoid in my last post, and thus far you have. Anyway, here we go again.
Except that Jackson misleads by conflating what is defensive Jihad for what is offensive.
How does he when his article explicitly states he will be discussing offensive jihad?
“For our purposes of trying to determine the credibility of the claim that Islam is a religion of peace, we may ignore the defensive jihad. For no one would accuse Islam, or any other religion for that matter, of not being a peaceful religion simply because it insisted on defending itself. We shall thus restrict the remainder of our discussion to the aggressive jihad.”
Defensive Jihad encompasses invading non-Muslim territories if Muslims are being oppressed.
Source? You keep making statements without providing citations to support your position. Where are Muslims being oppressed in non-Muslim territories anyway? Except perhaps in Burma (the Rohingya people), I can’t think of anywhere else. And we don’t see “mujahidin” heading there in flocks to execute “defensive jihad”, do we?
It would also seem that Jackson is selectively quoting certain Muslim scholars whose personal experiences with non-Muslim powers were limited to Western Europe.
Haha! Watch the goalposts move. He has gone from only quoting “one” source, to now only quoting one with limited personal experiences, now the background of Ibn Rushd al-Jadd and his seniority amongst Maliki scholars has been explained to you. Expert in Islamic thought indeed.
I am not aware of persecution against Muslims in regions re-conquered by the Romans nor of Muslims living in non-Muslim regions at the time when offensive Jihad was first being formulated in the eighth century.
Again, source regarding the formulation of this “doctrine”. If you want to discuss this issue truthfully, bring your sources and let us research it together.
So that was the purpose of Jihad when the doctrines of offensive Jihad were first formulated by scholars in the eighth century?
By who? Again, source.
Why is Sherman Jackson left with quoting a single scholar from the 13th century whose experience with the non-Muslim world is rather unique?
And again, why does what someone said in the eighth century have any more relevance than what someone said in the thirteenth century?
Many of Ibn Taymiyya’s positions and that of his student Ibn Qayyim were based on their “rather unique” experience of the Mongol invasion, yet their positions are held up as “doctrine” by both Muslim terrorists/extremists and Islamophobes alike. The reality is neither of these things.
I don’t dispute the quote Jackson provides, but I see it as rather late in the development of offensive Jihad doctrine…
Who are you to decide what is “rather late” or not in regards to a doctrine? Again, what is your source for this assertion? What is your source that the doctrine was already fully formulated and did not go through any developments or changes until the time of Jackson’s sources?
And as for the threats you’ve quoted, they are as disgusting to me as your opinions are regarding the Islamic juristic tradition and your frequent inability to decry any violence perpetrated upon Muslims due to them believing in Islam. In other words, I refudiate them just as I refudiate your opinions.
November 15th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Dawood is right—those quotes are disgusting. However, they don’t justify your own disgusting beliefs, nor do they justify your support for the vitriolic hate speech of Jihadwatch, Atlas Shrugs, and other Islamophobic websites.
What is most disturbing is the fact that you, Bob, openly support rhetoric equally as (and oftentimes more) repugnant as that represented by the quotes you posted. One can also mention the numerous death threats designated towards Muslims on Loonwatch by your fellow Islamophobes, namely @Halal pork, @cheryl, and @Eternal. Curiously, you have never condemned those threats, nor have you condemned any other act of violence perpetrated against Muslims by non-Muslims—particularly when the perpetrators are Christians.
Here is but a miniscule sample of the hate accepted by Islamophobes–one of these quotes is from the “freedom fighter” Pamela Geller, can you guess which one?
And I pray dearly that in the ungodly event that Tehran or its jihadi proxies (Hez’ballah, Hamas etc) target Israel with a nuke, that she retaliate with everything she has at Tehran, Mecca, and Medina……………
There’s absolutely nothing that can demoralise a Muslim or cause him/her/it to lose hope except the destruction of Mecca. That unfortunately, is the ONLY thing that would ultimately convince them that ALLAH has abandoned them because of their evil. They lost the Ottoman Empire and it didn’t do the trick. They lost Palestine and they never got the message. Mecca could very well be what drives home to them that their God is angry with them.
All that is required is to remove/save the good ppl to a safe distance and crash/nuke the city with all the ayatollahs/mullahs in it. Remember, ayatollah assawholah.
The bombing of Mecca, however, should never be, as GW likes to refer to things: “taken off of the table” but it should be touted to those who wish us harm. Let them know that, in no uncertain terms, should something terrible happen to America due to their spreading of their anti-Semitic propaganda and their West-hating bile, we reserve the right to ‘end it’ once and for all. Let them know that the West will prove to them the power of their Allah by nuking their entire existence into oblivion and, should it happen, their Allah is therefore a joke, a lie, and they’ve been misled for centuries. Conquering the place will never work -does anyone think that they’d ever leave us alone?
Time to pull a little trigger (in reference to President Barrack Obama in India)
As for Jihad, it should be noted that Islam has put strict limits on the code of conduct during war. For example, it’s a commonly known fact that killing civilians is strictly forbidden—that alone is enough to debunk you constant postulating that Islam supports terrorism.
Ibn Abbas said: “Do not kill women, children, old men, or anyone who meets you with peace restraining his hand from fighting. If you did that, then indeed you would have committed transgression.”
(Tafsir al-Tabari, verse 2:190)
Al-Hasan Al-Basri said that transgression, “includes mutilating the dead, theft, killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit.”
(Tafsir Ibn Kathir, verse 2:190)
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar: “During some of the battles of Allah’s Messenger a woman was found killed, so Allah’s Messenger forbade the killing of women and children.”
(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4 Book 52 Number 258)
November 15th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
See Bob, that wasn’t so hard to do now was it? You had it bookmarked all along didn’t you lol?
Those threats are rather sick tbh. And you haven’t linked to their source btw (a problem Dawood is also having with you atm).
And what would I be lying about Bob? All I did was ask for quotes, and got pathetic excuses mixed with your trademark tu quoque in return. Please explain how I have lied as I am extremely curious. kthnxbai.
November 15th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
The fact that JihadBob would respond to a story about Muslim condemning terrorism against Christians by attempting to demonize Muslims is telling…
November 15th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Yay let’s nuke Mecca! As if that will stop terrorism…more like breed an entire generation of them.
November 16th, 2010 at 12:15 am
Bloody heck, you call them death threats? Sorry, I was expecting something better than that. Plus there are what, 5 there and none of them saying I will hunt you down and kill you which to be frank I’d put as a low level death threat. What you have is hardly worth bothering with, stop whining, I get worse than that, in fact there have been worse things on this site, you don’t seem me or anyone else complaining just because we’re loosing the debate. Peace.
November 16th, 2010 at 12:23 am
jihad bob,
You have yet to prove:
1. Islam promotes offensive jihad warfare by bringing quotes from the Qur’an
2. Offensive jihad is for the purpose of spreading Islam, gaining converts through forceful conversion.
3. That a majority of medieval scholars(consensus) propagated a doctrine of offensive jihad warfare using evidence from the Qur’an, or put another way,
4. that those scholars who deny offensive jihad warfare are in the minority.
5. That sherman jackson, Zakir Naik, and Zaid Shakir agree with your views on jihad as offensive jihad warfare and as a means for spreading Islam(daw’ah)forcefully.
6.The Prophet(as) “gave the green light for his Muslims, Ali and Khalid b. Waleed, to raid and attack Christian tribes to the south of the Hijaz(in modern day Yemen) to force them into accepting the dominance of the emerging Islamic state.”
7. “As any student of Islamic history knows, this ‘raiding’ of non-Muslim lands would be a recurring theme in Islam and Islamic supremacists for the next 14 centuries.”
8.”Islamophobia against Muslim minorities in Muslim majority countries is actually real, unlike fake Islamophobia and exaggerated xenophobia against Muslims in Western nations.” To wit, you have neither proven,
a)Islamophobia does not exist in the West, or
b) that it exists in Muslim countries as Muslim on Muslim violence.
Your bogus line of reasoning relies on the premise that when Muslims attack other Muslims, because they don’t believe that those attacked are Muslims, that is Islamophobia. But when Muslims are attacked by non Muslims, because of their religion, then that is xenophobia, not Islamophobia.
Here’s a clue for you: xenophobia is the general term, Islamophobia is the specifier. Islamophobia is the xenophobic response to Islam/Muslims. Admitting xenophobia is also admitting Islamophobia. Xenophobia is defined as “an irrational, deep-rooted fear of or antipathy towards foreigners”. What do you think makes Muslims seem foreign to Westerners? Can’t be exclusively ethnicity, as Muslims belong to all ethnic groups, including the one’s considered “western”. Can’t be exclusivley their nationality, since Muslims belong to almost every nationality, including those nationalities considered “western”. And i’m taking about natives, not immigrants/emigrants. It must be our religion that has given us the label “foreign”. Good luck squirming your way out of that one oh master of equivocation.
9.The Qur’an allows for the killing of apostates if they do not repent, return back to the fold of Islam.
10.The Qur’an commands all Muslims to kill all non-allied polytheists.
11. That Sherman Jackson misleads by conflating what is defensive Jihad for what is offensive.
12.Defensive Jihad encompasses invading non-Muslim territories if Muslims are being oppressed.
13.Muslims are not being oppressed in non-Muslim territories.
14.That Sherman Jackson is selectively quoting certain Muslim scholars whose personal experiences with non-Muslim powers were limited to Western Europe.
15.There is no persecution against Muslims in regions re-conquered by the Romans nor of Muslims living in non-Muslim regions in the eighth century.
The list is quite long already, but i am sure you will make it longer. All this to prove that the attacks on Christians in Baghdad by Muslims, negates the existence of Islamophobia elsewhere?
Allahu A’lam
November 16th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Bloody heck, you call them death threats? Sorry, I was expecting something better than that. Plus there are what, 5 there and none of them saying I will hunt you down and kill you which to be frank I’d put as a low level death threat. What you have is hardly worth bothering with, stop whining, I get worse than that, in fact there have been worse things on this site, you don’t seem me or anyone else complaining just because we’re loosing the debate. Peace.
Perhaps you didn’t catch where I said Abdul’s other posts where he is very explicit in his threats were deleted?
I only went through two threads I found off of google and I barely managed to summon the will power to read the block paragraph rant-’n-rave messages Abdul posted in those threads that other members on this forum cheered him on for and supported his comments.
I’ll address what the other comments another time.
November 16th, 2010 at 10:15 am
1. Islam promotes offensive jihad warfare by bringing quotes from the Qur’an
Then read the article by Zaid Shakir.
2. Offensive jihad is for the purpose of spreading Islam, gaining converts through forceful conversion.
You want me to quote a historian or scholar that this was the purpose of offensive jihad?
3. That a majority of medieval scholars(consensus) propagated a doctrine of offensive jihad warfare using evidence from the Qur’an, or put another way,
Refer back to the Zaid Shakir article.
4. that those scholars who deny offensive jihad warfare are in the minority.
Zaid Shakir never really shows (with one possible exception) any scholar who ‘denies’ offensive warfare. Rather, he quotes scholars who do not believe that offensive jihad warfare is a communal obligation.
5. That sherman jackson, Zakir Naik, and Zaid Shakir agree with your views on jihad as offensive jihad warfare and as a means for spreading Islam(daw’ah)forcefully.
The jury is still out on Sherman Jackson. He seems to mislead a bit, but Shakir acknowledges that there was a consensus amongst Muslim scholars regarding offensive Jihad.
6.The Prophet(as) “gave the green light for his Muslims, Ali and Khalid b. Waleed, to raid and attack Christian tribes to the south of the Hijaz(in modern day Yemen) to force them into accepting the dominance of the emerging Islamic state.”
Yes, Montgomery Watt says Muslims were given ‘carte blanche’ by prophet to attack Christian/Pagan tribes to the south – ‘Muhammad at Medina’
Here’s the exact quote (p. 120):
Sometimes Muhammad encouraged energetic men to use force against their neighbours. One was Surad b. ‘Abdallah of the tribe of Azd Shanu’ah, who came to Muhammad with a dozen or so men; Muhammad put him in charge of these men and of any others of his tribe whom he could persuade to become Muslims, and gave them carte blanche to fight in the name of Islam against any non-Muslims in the region. Surad chose to attack a fortified place called Jurash; after a month’s siege he pretended to retire; the besiegers sallied out, hoping to take the withdrawing force at a disadvantage, but instead they found Surad prepared for them and with some loss. Eventually the men of Jurash came to make their peace with Muhammad and to accept Islam.
Your bogus line of reasoning relies on the premise that when Muslims attack other Muslims, because they don’t believe that those attacked are Muslims, that is Islamophobia. But when Muslims are attacked by non Muslims, because of their religion, then that is xenophobia, not Islamophobia.
So the attacker’s state of mind needs to be analyzed to determine if an attack is ‘Islamophobic’ or not?
Ok, you do that. I would say that attacking Shia because they ‘proselytize’ in your Sunni community is an Islamophobic attack.
9.The Qur’an allows for the killing of apostates if they do not repent, return back to the fold of Islam.
The Koran legitimizes the killing of apostates. I’m undecided on whether hypocrites are to be ‘punished’ and if so, for what reasons? Perhaps not all hypocrites are equal?
10.The Qur’an commands all Muslims to kill all non-allied polytheists.
In that particular passage it certainly does. See Narnian’s thread about taking passages from the Koran out of context.
11. That Sherman Jackson misleads by conflating what is defensive Jihad for what is offensive.
Yes, I did say that Jackson misleads.
12.Defensive Jihad encompasses invading non-Muslim territories if Muslims are being oppressed.
That’s my argument based off of what Muslims themselves have said – only ‘defensive’ Jihad exists in Islam and Jihad can only be carried out for protecting religious freedoms and in case of invasion.
13.Muslims are not being oppressed in non-Muslim territories.
Muslims weren’t oppressed in non-Muslim territories during the eighth century when the doctrines of Offensive Jihad were first being laid out.
Of course, there are writers before that time, Iban Abbas, for instance, who wrote of Koranic abrogation on how certain passages are abrogated by others that command warfare against non-believers. But technically, the distinction of Offensive and Defensive Jihad probably had not been developed as early as the seventh century.
14.That Sherman Jackson is selectively quoting certain Muslim scholars whose personal experiences with non-Muslim powers were limited to Western Europe.
Right, that’ what I said.
15.There is no persecution against Muslims in regions re-conquered by the Romans nor of Muslims living in non-Muslim regions in the eighth century.
That has yet to be shown, but I know the Byzantines had a good track record when dealing with Muslim populations in territories they reconquered.
November 16th, 2010 at 11:20 am
JihadBob, Muhammad didn’t ask you to confirm your assertions…but rather to provide evidence and some semblance of an argumemt (no, tu quoque doesn’t count) for them. And you accuse others of lack of reading comprehension eh?
November 16th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Cynic Says:
“JihadBob, Muhammad didn’t ask you to confirm your assertions…but rather to provide evidence and some semblance of an argumemt (no, tu quoque doesn’t count) for them. And you accuse others of lack of reading comprehension eh?”
LOL!!, i’m sure he can’t provide actually evidence for any of his assertions, but perhaps i was unfair to ask him to do something i know he can’t
By the way Bob, Montgomery Watt is not a primary source, since, unless he made up his book wholesale, he obviously got his information from sira, hadith and tabaqat and rijal works. Kindly quote the relevant sources and passages so that we can see them. No hiding behind internet copy/paste scholarship on this one. Thank you.
Allahu A’lam
November 16th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Offensive jihad is for the purpose of spreading Islam, gaining converts through forceful conversion.
Nope. I can also cite Bernard Lewis and many other scholars—both Muslim and non-Muslim. It was Christian governments, not Muslims governments who had a penchant for enforcing forced conversions—perhaps most notably in “post-Islamic” Spain.
that those scholars who deny offensive jihad warfare are in the minority.
Modern scholars (those that are relevant) limit Jihad only for self-defense. I’ll quote a few (if only just to anger Bob).
Rashid Rida (d. 1935), the author of the most renowned work of Qur’anic exegesis in the twentieth century, wrote “everything that is mentioned in the Koran with regard to the rules of fighting, is intended as defence against enemies that fight the Moslems because of their religion” [37]. Mahmud Shaltut (d. 1963), who was the grand shaykh of al-Azhar in Egypt, showed in his tract al-Qur’an wa l-Qital (The Qur’an and Fighting) [38] that by taking an inter-textual and contextual approach to the Qur’an as opposed the classical “evolution theory”, jihad becomes primarily defensive, and the fundamental relationship between Muslim and non-Muslim nations is established as one of peace.
In his extensive thesis on Jihad, the modern academic Muhammad Khayr Haykal quotes many modern authorities (ulama) on the subject of jihad and he discovers most of them believe it to be primarily defensive and one that envisages peaceful coexistence [39]. I will quote a few examples here (all references are taken from Haykal’s work).
Abd al-Wahhab Khallaf (d. 1956), who was a teacher at Azhar and supervisor of Shari’ah courts in Egypt, wrote: “Islam establishes relations between Muslims and others as peace and security, not as war and fighting, except when they are targeted with harmful (intentions) to reek havoc in their religion, or quell their call (to Islam), for then jihad would be made obligatory in order to deter the harm and protect the call…and if non-Muslims withhold from their persecution and leave them free to call (to Islam), Muslims should not display a sword or initiate war” [40]
Abd al-Hafiz Abd Rabbih wrote, quoting and approving another authority, Dr. Muhammad Abd Allah al-Darraz: “We agree expressly that the war legislated in Islam is a defensive war only, and none besides, and it behooves us to point out that defence includes within it two types, both of which the Qur’an alludes to: 1. defending lives and 2. the necessary aid for the Muslim subjects…we see from this, war in Islam is an evil, and there is no recourse to it except in (cases of) necessity” [41] In his foreword to this work Dr Muhammad Muhammad al-Fahham (d. 1975?), the grand shaykh of Azhar from 1969-1973, commends the author and approves of the book.
Dr Mustafa al-Siba‘i (d. 1964), who was Professor of Law at the University of Damascus and established the Faculty of Shariah there in 1955, wrote: “Jihad in Islam is legislated for two purposes: 1. repelling the enemy to free the (Muslim) community in its land and its religion, and 2. rescuing oppressed people from tyrant rulers” [42]
Sayyid Sabiq (d. 2000), a jurist from the Muslim Brotherhood, a teacher at Azhar as well as Umm al-Qura in Mecca and author of the renowned work Fiqh al-Sunna (Understanding Tradition), wrote: “Since the fundamental principle is peace and war is the exception, there is nothing permitting war in Islam whatever the situation except in two instances: 1. when defending life, honour and property, and land when it is occupied; 2. when defending the call to God if one is hampered along his path, by torturing the one who believes it or by preventing one who intends to engage in it or by stopping the caller from his call” [43]
The Egyptian judge Ali Ali Mansur wrote: “Islam does not approve of offensive warfare with the intention of conquest (fath) or expansion (tawassu)…the war that is legislated in Islam is defensive war, to repel the hostility which an enemy initiated, or to defend an established clause in a treaty or an agreement broken by the opposition, or to protect the call (to Islam)” [44]
Wahba al-Zuhayli (b. 1933), Professor of Islamic jurisprudence at Damascus University, wrote “The jurists of both Sunni and Shiite orientation believed, in the age of juristic innovation of the second century, that the fundamental relationship between Muslims and others is war … on the premise of what they understood from the verses of the Qur’an upon its apparent (meaning) and absolute (rendering), without efforts to reconcile and combine between them…perhaps their pretext for this ruling is their condition of being affected by the state of the Muslims at that time of the necessity of firmness before the enemies who surrounded them from every side” [45]. Based on Qur’anic verse 8:61 and others and the Prophet’s biography, Zuhayli goes on to argue the fundamental relationship between Muslim and non-Muslim nations according to the Muslim scriptures is in fact one of peace. The opinions described here have been adopted by ulama throughout the world e.g. the world renowned Indian scholar Abu l-Hasan Ali Nadwi (d. 1999) and Wahiduddin Khan (b. 1925) of Delhi; and from the West, such scholars as Mustafa Ceric, Zaid Shakir and Abd al-Hakim Murad
In his book, al-Jihad fi l-Islam, Ramadan al-Buti (b. 1933) conclusively proves that military jihad has been legislated for the purpose of averting aggression (hiraba) not disbelief (kufr) based on the opinions of the majority of the ulama and texts of the Qur’an and hadiths. He writes “The majority, that is the Hanafis, Malikis and Hanbalis, have adopted (the view) that the ratio legis for military jihad is averting aggression, and al-Shafi‘i adopted (the view) in the most prominent of his two pronouncements that the ratio legis is disbelief, and this is also the madhhab of Ibn Hazm” [46] [references he cites: Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1:369-372, al-Mughni 9:301, Fath al-Qadir 5:452, al-Sharh al-Saghir ‘ala Aqrab al-Masalik 2:275, Mughni al-Muhtaj 4:234, al-Tuhfa 9:231]. He elaborates on this point in terms of evidence from the Qur’an and hadith and finds the minority Shafiite view is based on a weak interpretation of the evidence [47].
Rudolph Peters suggests the idea of the “exclusively defensive character of jihad” may have been a popular understanding even before the modern period: “Although the exclusively defensive character of jihad was only recently put forward by the modernists, there are indications that this concept is much older…The collection of Thousand and One Nights contains the didactic story of Tawaddud, a slave girl that astonishes the ulama by her extensive knowledge of Islam. With regard to jihad, we read: ‘He said: “What is the jihad and what are its essential elements (arkan)?” She answered: “As for its essential elements, they are: an attack on us by the unbelievers, the presence of an Imam, preparedness and constance when one meets the enemy”’(Alf layla wa layla Vol. 2, p. 309)” [48].
The jury is still out on Sherman Jackson. He seems to mislead a bit, but Shakir acknowledges that there was a consensus amongst Muslim scholars regarding offensive Jihad.
I doubt Sherman Jackson is misleading anyone. It would be hypocritical of you to say so…I mean…you have been constantly fumbling around and contradicting yourself; you have claimed that Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups are waging both “offensive” and defensive Jihad.
So the attacker’s state of mind needs to be analyzed to determine if an attack is ‘Islamophobic’ or not?
*roll eyes* We’ve already been through this. It’s especially ironic considering that you, Bob, are a bigoted Islamophobe yourself.
The Koran legitimizes the killing of apostates. I’m undecided on whether hypocrites are to be ‘punished’ and if so, for what reasons? Perhaps not all hypocrites are equal?
Been through this. (Writing your own Tafsir again?)
In that particular passage it certainly does. See Narnian’s thread about taking passages from the Koran out of context.
Wow. You’re delusional. We’ve already been through. Didn’t you read the debate on the thread? She was undoubtedly crushed (just like you). And I quote a Loonwatchers…
Ah Narnian! Did you know that after I joined the site and started engaging Narnian, she stopped posting?
JB: Actually, the person who wrote the excellent post was a former Muslim
You mean former nominal Muslim. She said so herself that she only became a Muslim to please her ex-husband who was an Algerian
LOL. Someone needs to tell her to get over it.
November 16th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Nope. I can also cite Bernard Lewis and many other scholars—both Muslim and non-Muslim. It was Christian governments, not Muslims governments who had a penchant for enforcing forced conversions—perhaps most notably in “post-Islamic” Spain.
********
I misread the post but that’s besides the point, why not mention the rule of the Muslim Almohad regime where Jews and Christians were no longer ‘protected’ and required to convert to Islam or leave Muslim occupied Spain?
November 16th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
So bob, you’ve now dropped all the other points and are having to rely on a single occurrence that is pretty much non related to the debate to progress? This happens a lot doesn’t it? Eid Murbark BTW.
November 17th, 2010 at 12:21 am
Hi JihadBob, I’m still waiting on your sources regarding consensus, and also for your sources regarding defensive jihad including invading and terrorising non-Muslim nations.
I checked Montgomery Watt’s text Muhammad at Medina that you cited, and noticed that he gives little citation for the events, and definitely nothing to state where he got the term “carte blanche” from. Once again he relies on Ibn Ishaq for a number of parts, whose unreliability in dating and the exact nature of events we have discussed before.
I did find a relevant passage in the History of al-Tabari though:
———————————
“Surad b. ‘Abdallah al-Azdi came to the Messenger of God with the deputation from al-Azd, embraced Islam, and became a good Muslim. The Messenger of God invested him with authority over those of his people who had embraced Islam and ordered him to fight the polytheists from the tribes of the Yemen with them. Surad b. ‘Abdallah then left with an army by the Messenger of God’s command and alighted at Jurash, which at that time was a closed city inhabited by Yemeni tribes. Khath’am had sought refuge with them, and when they heard that the Muslims were marching they shut themselves in it. The Muslims besieged them for about a month but the tribes refrained from coming out of the city. Surad withdrew from them, appearing to return. While he was near a mountain called Kashar, the inhabitants of Jurash, thinking that he had fled from them, came out in pursuit of him. When they overtook him he turned on them and inflicted a heavy loss on them.” (9:88)
———————-
In other words, it was definitely a tribal war situation, as when we look up more information from places such as the Encyclopaedia of Islam, we find that the al-Azd and the al-Kath’am tribes, amongst others, were major rivals; this strengthens Jackson’s initial position on the nature of tribal feuds, associations and warfare in the Arabian Peninsula. It was not simply about religion either. The reason I say the latter, is because when we look at al-Baladhuri’s Futuh al-Baldan, which is the source you cited from previously regarding the “massacares” in Khurasan, amongst other places (which I then checked in Arabic for us), we find the following statements only regarding the incident:
——————————
“Tabalah and Jurash: I heard from Bakr ibn Haytham, …. from al-Zuhri, who said: ‘The people of al-Tabalah and Jurash converted to Islam without conflict.
The Prophet (God’s blessings and peace be upon him) endorsed their conversion, and took from every adult male from the People of the Book one dinar, stipulating the condition on them that they provide hospitality to Muslims. The governon of Jurash was Abu Sufyan ibn Harb. ”
[تبالة وجرش حدثني بكر بن الهيثم عن عبد الرزاق عن معمر عن الزهري قال: أسلم أهل تبالة وجرش عن غير قتال.
فأقرهم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم على ما أسلموا عليه وجعل على كل حالم ممن بهما من أهل الكتاب دينارًا واشترط عليهم ضيافة المسلمين وولى أبا سفيان بن حرب جرش.]
—————————
Now, that is interesting, besides the fact that the early historical sources conflict regarding key details. It’s also interesting because it strengthens the case that the fighting was only in regards to Arabian polytheists, and not simply a “carte blanche” statement over all non-Muslims as Watt suggested. When we do some digging on the al-Azd and al-Kath’am tribes, we find out that they worshipped the various Arabian dieties, and were important shrine-keepers etc. in many cases. The Encyclopaedia of Islam also notes that “Their first relations with Muhammad were certainly hostile, but they ultimately sent him an embassy and recognised him, and accepted a letter from him which declared all the blood-feuds previous to Islam abolished.”
This ties in with another major part of Jackson’s article, where he said:
“In sum, even before the Prophet Muhammad, Arabia was characterized by an overall “state of war.” The advent of the Prophet’s mission only altered this by altering the categories with which the various groups and individuals identified. From this point on, in the absence of a peace-treaty (which the Qur’an both sanctioned and sanctified) there would exist only the blurriest of distinctions between “non-Muslims” and “hostile forces.” This is the back-drop and raison d’etre against which all the Qur’anic material on jihad must be read.”
We can see this if we look to other sources, such as Berkey’s The Formation of Islam: “A particularly rich and suggestive example is that of Dhu Nuwas, a king of Himyar in South Arabia who converted to Judaism in the early sixth century and then led an attack on and persecution of Christians, particularly at Najran, reportedly in retaliation for the burning of a synagogue there.”(47) Thus, the Peninsula was a volatile place to be living in, regardless of which religion one followed.
The thing that I find most interesting, however, is when one page later than your quote, Watt discusses the consolidation of “Pax Islamica” essentially as a way of ending tribal wars and inter-tribal blood feuds; simply put, the combined might of the Muslim state would be enough of a deterrant for any one tribe to dare attack those under its protection. (Watt, 121). Jackson likens it to the ‘Cold War’. Donner in some sense concurs with this, if you have actually read his book chapter in Just War and Jihad: Perspectives on War and Peace in Western and Islamic Traditions, when he describes the perilous state of Arabian tribes pre-Islam. It definitely brought stability to the region, I don’t think anyone can doubt that. I simply don’t understand how the Muslim Empire is viewed so differently than, say, the Romans, who conquered vast tracts of land, brought stability to the inhabitants of their empire [not without much shed blood on all sides, of course], and also religion for that matter. Or even today, those attempting to bring “stability” to regions seen as troubled. What is the difference?
November 17th, 2010 at 12:31 am
I doubt Sherman Jackson is misleading anyone. It would be hypocritical of you to say so…I mean…you have been constantly fumbling around and contradicting yourself; you have claimed that Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups are waging both “offensive” and defensive Jihad.
Oh but NassirH, he’s a Moozlim so is committing taqiyya so misleads and misdirects by default! Peer review obviously doesn’t work against this ultimate Moozlim weapon.
November 17th, 2010 at 12:55 am
LOL Dawood
If I’m not mistaken, isn’t Bob attempting to reject Ibn Rushd’s statement about the perceived “state of war” on the pretext that it is from only one scholar? Well, while I taking another look at the Jackson article, I found some interesting info. One should read the context of Sherman Jackson’s citing of Ibn Rushd.
To take one example, the juridical writings of the Spanish jurist, Ibn Rushd the Elder (d. 520/1122), a major legal authority and grandfather of the celebrated Averroes of Western fame, clearly reflect the influence of the perceived “state of war.” Because Ibn Rushd perceived it to be impossible for Muslims to live as Muslims outside of Muslim lands…
The fact that Sherman Jackson says “one example” means that there are obviously more examples of medieval scholars reflecting a belief in a perceived “state of war”. Unless…of course…taqiyya!
Anyways, I also found this interesting quote (though, it’s not from the Jackson article):
The second prominent position was that of the Hanafis as represented by Abu Hanifa’s student, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani’s remarkable work on international relations, al-Siyar, in which a “state of hostility” is assumed although not expressly mentioned, but aggression is identified specifically as the trigger for war, and toleration, peace and mutual cooperation are emphasised. Majid Khadduri, an American scholar on jihad quoted extremely selectively by Spencer, wrote in the introduction to his translation of al-Siyar “We have seen how Abu Hanifa and his disciples, especially Shaybani, laid down general rules and principles governing Islam’s external relations, based on the assumption that a normal state of war existed between Islamic and non-Islamic territories; but they made no explicit statements that the jihad was a war to be waged against unbelievers solely on account of their disbelief (kufr). On the contrary, the early Hanafi jurists seem to have stressed that tolerance should be shown unbelievers, especially scriptuaries, and advised the Imam to prosecute war only when the inhabitants of the dar al-harb came into conflict with Islam” [10]. In other words, this position does not explicitly profess that there should be a total warfare against unbelievers in order to subjugate or convert them, but assumes that such a warfare already exists and seeks to amend relations beginning from this premise. It is perhaps for this reason, that Abu Hanifa and the Hanafis explicitly said that a peace treaty between Muslim nations and non-Muslim nations may be permanent and unlimited, making peaceful coexistence a legal possibility.
November 17th, 2010 at 1:02 am
Oh, and nice tu quoque Bob.
November 17th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Hmmm…interesting what happened to Bob after it was made clear to him that he would need to actually back up his assertions.