Top Menu

JihadWatch Zombie Eric Allen Bell and Glazov Gang Lose Debate with Nadir Ahmed Want Rematch

Eric_Allen_Bell_Jamie_Glazov

The "Glazov gangbangers"

Eric Allen Bell, the weirdo turned JihadWatch zombie was advertising about how he was going to debate a Muslim apologist by the name of Nadir Ahmed. I am unfamiliar with Nadir Ahmed, his past debates, level of debate proficiency or his positions but listened to it nonetheless to see what went down.

Nadir Ahmed accepted the challenge, knowing full well the deck was stacked against him. For one he was going to be on the hate-mongerers home turf, FrontPageMagRag. Second, the moderator was a hostile Islamopohobe; Jamie Glazov. Third, Eric Allen Bell was already slandering him on his facebook calling him a “Taqqiya artist” and “professional pedophile prophet apologist,” i.e. it was clear the debate wasn’t going to be fact-based or logical but one where Bell would try to slander his way to a self-declared victory.

To top it off the Glazov gang brought in Robert Spencer (By the way when will Spencer ever accept Danios’ debate challenge?), ostensibly to help the child-like Eric Allen Bell, because we know Bell is not only a poor debater who regularly reverts to lying but he is also plain…dumb.

As you can see the tactic blew up in the Glazov gangs face and for the most part they looked ridiculous to even their own fans, one commenter named Damon Whitsell noted,

I felt Nadir won a 3 on 1 and I bet he is gloating all over himself today.

Other such comments were magically deleted. The truth is after listening to this I believe an illiterate 12 year old Afghan child memorizing Quran all day in a madrassa could probably defeat Bell in debate.

Here is the debate:

Bell’s initial reaction to losing the debate:

Bell wants a rematch and is sounding like quite the sore loser:

 

, , , , , , , , ,

  • @ llisha and Garibaldi – Thanks for your responses. I certainly agree with what Garibaldi wrote.

    @ Sulayman – The permission to marry 3 year old girls is apparently part of the Talmud; but it is (to my knowledge) nowhere to be found in the Law, Prophets, and Writings of the “Old Testament”, nor in the Gospels, Acts, and Letters of the “New Testament”. I have read a number of statements by Jews who believe Jesus (peace be with him) was probably one of the most ‘Torah observant’ men; but he repeatedly repudiated the “traditions of the elders” (the Talmud) – and many Jews today still reject Jesus based on his rejection of the “traditions of the elders” – among other things. Therefore I can state with confidence that the 3 year old marriage permission was no part of the religion of Jesus.

    Jesus (according to the Gospel accounts at least) was also willing to repudiate (or at least change) parts of the law of Moses. He is reported to have said that Moses permitted men to divorce their wives, “but it was not so in the beginning” when God set up marriage with Adam and Eve. MOSES permitted hard hearted men to divorce their wives, but Jesus called people to return to GOD’S law as established “in the beginning”.

    Regarding Jacob (Yacov) and Rachel: I don’t know what the Talmud has to say about Rachel’s age when Jacob married her, but according to the account in the Biblical book of Genesis (chapter 29) she was old enough to be tending sheep when Jacob first met her. Then he worked for Rachel’s father Laban for 7 years before claiming Rachel as his wife. Therefore I can be fairly confident that Rachel was not a very young girl at the time of her marriage. Actually, according to the Genesis account, Laban tricked Jacob and gave him Rachel’s older sister Leah as wife instead of Rachel; Jacob then had to work another 7 years for Rachel. But the reading of the text seems to indicate that he was allowed to marry Rachel at the same time he married Leah, and then worked the other 7 years. At any rate, both Rachel and Leah had to have been at least in their mid-teens, I would think, according to the Biblical account.

    God ‘permits’ men to do many things which are contrary to what He ‘approves’; so the fact that God ‘permitted’ men to marry extremely young girls (as history and even current practice in some places shows) does not in itself indicate that He ‘approved’ it.

  • Géji

    Michael Elwood Says: “My sentiments exactly.”

    I believe @Micheal, most Muslims have similar sentiments when it comes to this 21st century wave of yet another Western intolerance towards Islam, whom finally we got the correct-(though not perfect) word for it-(i.e., Islamophobia), and I think most Muslims-(at least those that pays attention to it)- sees how it’s just the continuing pattern and repeat of the old saga of Western anti-Islam bigotry that started over 1000 years ago, specially when it comes to the attack on the Prophet’s personal live. — I believe if I’m not mistaking in the order of the pattern, they first accused him of being a “Christian heretic” that brought perverted version of Christianity. — Then he was the “anti-Christ” worshiping and sent by Satan to destroy Christianity, I saw the paintings of him where they’ve decided to boil him in hellfire -(which even today, said paintings are used by some Islamophobic Sites, and maybe that’s where pastor Terry John’s 2010 slogan “Islam is of the devil” comes from)- — Then they accused him of “immoral lustful pervert” for marrying few women-(most of whom where widows) — Then comes the Zayed/Zenab affair, where he was accused of “immoral seductive pervert” for “seducing” his adopted son’s wife, and the list go on. — And now it’s Aisha’s turn, where he’s accused of “immoral pedophile pervert”, so what’s new anyway? the answer is nothing, when it comes to Muhammad and the Islamophobic side of the West, nothing is new, just the same good old trashy pattern, where the Prophet of Islam-( may Allah showers him with peace and blessing)- is still depicted in their sick minds as -[ The anti-Christ, devil worshiper, sexual pervert]- so nothing to see here, all it’s said and done. — But all those accusations came at different stages, and were formulated according to the bigots time and whatever “morality” was in Vogue at that time. They always judged his personal live according to their time, and the “new-fashion” of thinking in town, that’s why until recently in 21st century, Aisha was never touched, simply because the bigots and Muhammad-phobes of past times were marrying youngsters. And we see the pattern continue how now suddenly when they’ve decided less than few decades ago to put “in Vogue” that adulthood starts at “18” and considering anything that’s bellow as “a child”, here comes the descendant bigots and the new Muhammad-phobes deciding it’s “Okey” to judge Muhammad’s private live according to this new-fashion in their time. —

    Now that people are paying more attention to earlier Islamic texts, and more specifically to hadiths, I’ll bet even if those passages concerning Aisha-(ra), which already have been found so contradicting each-other anyway, one hadith saying she was present in the battle of Badr, when it is said the Prophet did not allowed anyone less than 15/16 years of age in battlefields, and where it’s reported she was married for 2 years at the time, already contradicting the “9 year old” found in other hadith, cause that would have made her 11 at the time of the battle, thus not allowed to join, and there’s another saying as Aisha having converted to Islam before Umar ibn al-Khattab, during the first few years of Islam before Hijra in Mecca, which if she converted to Islam at that time, makes it impossible of her being an infant or toddler as the “9yrs old” hadith when calculated suggest, there is another one that says her father Abu Bakr wanted her not to take the journey to Ethiopia because he was trying to bring forward her marriage to Mutam’s son, but then Mutam’s refused because Abu Bakr had converted to Islam. So though many see there are so many contradictions in the passages concerning Aisha, and though lots of scholars are saying after careful study that her age varies, some saying after the study she was 14 to 16 years, others saying she was 15 to 18, others saying 17 to 21, but anyway whatever it is, as I was saying, even if the hadith saying she was 9 is already proved so weak, and not accurate at all, except for the extreme venerators of hadiths in the Muslim community, who thinks hadith = Qur’an anyway, and even if she was proved to be 17 years old during the time of her marriage, nonetheless, I’ll bet it wouldn’t make one iota of a difference for 21st century Muhammad-phobes, he’ll still be one year short of the in Vogue “18 years” required in 21st century fashion, thus still “immoral pedophile pervert”, though such special and delightful treatments are reserved Only for Muhammad-(s.a.w), The Prophet of Islam, and none other. And that for over 1000 years. — Salaam bro

  • Michael Elwood

    @Géji

    My sentiments exactly.

  • Géji

    Sulayman Says: “Ilisha, marriage is allowed from age 3 in the religion of Jesus. Yacov married Rachel when she was a child, and there are many more examples.”

    First of all, ever since it showed it’s hideous face full-front in less than a decade ago, I’ve found this particular episode of the enduring 1000 years old Hate-Muhammad saga ~ i.e., the 21st century “episode” that uses Aisha-(r.a), the beloved wife of the prophet, to attack once more the prophet’s person-(but what’s new anyway?) by the phobes in today’s western world, who just like their Muhammad-phobic predecessors, opted to never study with a bit decent logic and fairness what he brought to the world, but instead happily chosen before everything else, to view him, and the message he brought, with a kind of meaningless, pure, lazy, and personal hate in utmost beyond comprehension spitefulness and double-standard ~ to be so beyond despicable that only laughter is best to make sense of the garbage 21st century phobes chose to mindlessly spew in this particular “episode”. — Just like when most people of today when they come in contact with the trashy nonsense-(in writings) the Islamophobic forefathers spewed toward Muhammad during their lifetime, ends-up shaking their heads in amazement laughing at those past phobes and their nonsense, so does the descendant phobes and their nonsense deserves such laughing. In that indeed, the mindless Islam/Muhammad/Muslim haters in the today’s West – whom we finally find the perfect word to describe them-(i.e, Islamophobes) – are not different than their predecessors. Although mind-you, the forefather phobes never used Aisha-(r.a) to attack him, BECAUSE the simple reason being they were practicing what we consider by today’s standard, “child marriage”, marrying girls as young as 12 years old, if not less, after menstrual period. But of-course nonetheless, their illogical spitefulness and double standards were applied to the prophet for other things, likes him marrying few women and so on. —- But what saddens me more is the Muslim’s responses, both from the so-called “scholars” and the ordinary Muslims, as they seem as well to have chosen a lazy road to “refute” this 21st century attack on the prophet’s person, most of them caving in-(as usual) to pathetic defensive position and excuses, without even examining and questioning the so-called “hadith”, but in fact seem to have taking it just like the phobes, as if “the hadith” was beyond any doubt, or as if it was stated in the Qur’an itself, once again proving how the extreme veneration of the books of hadith that has befalling on the Muslim community have surpassed way it’s limit of patheticness. Although most Muslims will be the first to jump stating without a hint of doubt that the Bible is corrupt, that the passages containing description of genocidal warfare and sexual immoralities allegedly done by some prophets, to be false and made-up or “beneath” the messengers of Allah’s ect-ect, stating the same with hadiths speaking of the prophet in similar matter, seem to be difficult for them. Hadiths have become so powerful for many in the Muslim community, and in some cases-(and many can state this) even more powerful than the Qur’an, that not only Mr Hadith not need whatsoever consultation from Qur’an anymore, to prove his validity, but in most sermons around the world, his passages hold the first position to that of the Suras of Qur’an, whether in Mosques, or lectures addressing the community. Wanna bet? just listen to any lecture of “Islamic scholar”, and count how many times Mr-Scholar uses the phrase “the prophet said”, as oppose to how many times he’ll use the phrase “Allah’s says”-(meaning in Qur’an context), and with the “the prophet said” phrase-(as if Mr-Scholar just had a face-face conversation with Muhammad an hour before the lecture)- meaning of course in hadith context.

    And I cannot speak as to why, how or when ect, this passage speaking of “intercourse” with 3 year old occurs, but I don’t believe for one second that being anything to do with Moses-(p.b.u.h) message from God. There are many passages in the Bible, both of them, that I strongly believe has nothing to do with either Moses or Jesus original messages, but was made-up in different times than theirs. I view the Bible as I view Hadith, with questioning attitude and skepticism, both of them are proved by scholars that had spend their whole life studying them, to be containing many passages contradicting each-other on the main characters they’re speaking-of, and though I’m not a scholar of neither, I believe those contradictions are even more pronounced and grave in the Bible. My point is that both the Bible’s and Hadith’s passages that speak-of, in one case Moses-(p.b.u.h) “allowing” intercourse with 3yrs olds, or the other case Muhammad-(p.b.u.h) “marrying” with a 9 year old, both need intense scrutinizing, refutation, and the result informed to the general adherents of both faiths, as there two type of psychopaths using this, one being the adherent who used/ing those passages to justify the marriage to very young girls, although I’ll gladly admit, though I cant very honestly speak of ultra-orthodox Jews position, that most Jews pretty much have done away with this-(i.e, marrying young girls), there are Muslims however who haven’t, and that keep on persisting that it’s “okey” to marry young girls as long as the menstrual occurs, which is ridiculous nonsense, because first, “menstruation” can occur as young as 8 years of age, second, I believe the Qur’an explicitly stated that one need to be “sound of judgement” to be able to accept “marriage contract”, I strongly believe that neither 1500 yrs ago, just as today, an 8 or 9 year old was considered to be “sound of judgement”, judging “marriage contracts” of her own, in less of-course someone else makes that “sound of judgment” for her in dealing. And the other type of psychopath using those passages being the hater of the particular religion of the-Other, who while forgetting he/she has as well those difficult passages in their own texts, will gladly use them to attack the religion he/she deem being “inferior” to his, exhibit A – Islamophobes -, but there are also Muslims who will not hesitate to state with mean-spirit to “counter-attack” in some-cases, that Marry was 11/12 when she had Jesus, married to 90 year old Joseph, or this “3 year old” passage in Jewish scripture, although it’s fine to point-out the hypocrisy and double-standard of Islamophobes using Aisha to attack the prophet, in other cases those Muslims will go far as to use them for Christianphobic and Judeophobic purposes.

  • dominicdecocco

    Robert Spencer and Eric Allen got owned

  • Ali

    *Why didn’t he bring up Kony or the Afghan Massacre?

    *He should stop calling Americans terrorists

    *He should choose a more neutral moderator (and debate 1 person at a time)

    *He should stop calling them Christian Terrorists and instead call them Christian Extremists

  • @Stephen, good post. This was a circus more than a debate and it was that way because they were not letting Nadir respond.

    Clearly these individuals have no concept or idea about anthropology, or real definitions of what constitutes pedophilia. The args. from other scriptures while important to prove hypocrisy and double standards are secondary unless used to buttress the point that different societies in different times and places had different cultural norms.

    Bell is using wikislam, (an Islamophobic site) that subjectively attempts to use certain hadith about Aisha’s age and then carry out a clinical diagnosis of Prophet Muhammad as a pedophile. Have you ever heard such nonsense before? Dr. Jalees Rehman or one of his colleagues should take a look into this and do an article, maybe in tandem with an anthropolgist that exposes this very peculiar/ridiculous and in itself revelatory (from a psychological perspective) talking point amongst Islamophobes. I think it says more about the likes of EAB and co. then it does about Islam and Muslims.

  • Heinz Catsup

    Corey said:

    “you know when I heard “indocrinated” I pretty much had the urge to play mass effect 3 after hearing the debate(playing it right now actually), which is making me wonder if islam is somehow part of the reapers plan to destory all organic life in the universe until they come back 50,000 years later.”

    Maybe someone should do a fanfic of that! (that or draw a photo of the Husks dawning turbans/kufi’s/keffiyeh’s/etc.! :p)

    Solid Snake said:

    “Not before you play the first 2, ME3 is only a shell of what it could be if you import your saves.

    I should know I played the first two on XBOX 360 and switched to PS3! Damn you Metal gear Solid for making me switch!”

    So true! It just sucks that PS3 may never get the 1st ME despite the Genesis Comic to compensate even though EA owns the right to the franchise (Damn Microsoft! :-||). Still, I’d rather have a fully functional PS3 over a quick-to-break-down 360 even with the RROD having been fixed to an extent.

    Ibn Mikhael said:

    “…that ending was so horrible…the game itself was awesome, but jeez that ending was ridiculous.”

    Maybe not. If the whole Indoctrination theory proves to be true, then it will only solidify Bioware’s position as the gods of RPGs and gaming as a whole.

    Here’s a link to a video which goes in depth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythY_GkEBck

    Besides they say to hold on to our save files and have more to come so who knows…

  • Heinz Catsup

    Corey said:

    “you know when I heard “indocrinated” I pretty much had the urge to play mass effect 3 after hearing the debate(playing it right now actually), which is making me wonder if islam is somehow part of the reapers plan to destory all organic life in the universe until they come back 50,000 years later.”

    Maybe someone should do a fanfic of that! (that or draw a photo of the Husks dawning turbans/kufi’s/keffiyeh’s/etc.! :p)

    Solid Snake said:

    “Not before you play the first 2, ME3 is only a shell of what it could be if you import your saves.

    I should know I played the first two on XBOX 360 and switched to PS3! Damn you Metal gear Solid for making me switch!”

    So true! It just sucks that PS3 may never get the 1st ME despite the Genesis Comic to compensate even though EA owns the right to the franchise (Damn Microsoft! :-||). Still, I’d rather have a fully functional PS3 over a quick-to-break-down 360 even with the RROD having been fixed to an extent.

    Ibn Mikhael said:

    “…that ending was so horrible…the game itself was awesome, but jeez that ending was ridiculous.”

    Maybe not. If the whole Indoctrination theory proves to be true, then it will only solidify Bioware’s position as the gods of RPGs and gaming as a whole.

    Here’s a link to a video which goes in depth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythY_GkEBck

    Besides they say to hold on to our save files and have more to come so who knows…

  • Isa

    Did anyone notice that Eric said at one point that he was not religious, and didn’t like religion, but that he feels compelled to “defend Christianity” against Islam? I have no doubt Robert Spencer has influenced him on that point.

  • Sulayman

    Ilisha, marriage is allowed from age 3 in the religion of Jesus. Yacov married Rachel when she was a child, and there are many more examples.

    It is just plain hypocricy nothing else. Judaism allows child marriage. Just because Christianity did away with the law, doesn’t change the fact their god allowed it.

  • I have never heard Nadir Ahmed before, so I can’t say whether or not I find him ‘annoying’ or ‘irritating’ in general. So far as this charade of a ‘debate’ is concerned, however, it was definitely NOT Nadir whom I found ‘annoying’; it was Eric Bell, Robert Spencer, and Jamie Glazov who were rude and insulting.

    As regards the ‘child rape’ accusation, Nadir was not allowed to give a response; they just basically assumed the correctness of the young age of Aisha (peace be with her) at the time of the consummation of her marriage and were demanding that Nazir ‘acknowledge’ that Muhammad (peace be with him and his family) was therefore immoral and a pedophile. Nadir of course would not for a minute accuse the Prophet of immorality; and if he’d had the opportunity I’m sure he would have given a reasonable explanation of the ‘Aisha affair’ – perhaps even showing that there is very strong evidence that Aisha was around 18 when she was married (not 9). {See Dr. David Liepert’s article for example – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-david-liepert/islamic-pedophelia_b_814332.html ). But the chief thing is, one can’t give a simple ‘yes or no’ answer to the accusation about the Prophet marrying a 9 year old. It requires a much more lengthy response, which they would not allow Nazir to do.

    The main point to understand is that Muhammad (peace be with him and his family) did NOT marry a 9 year old girl. Muslims in the past have not bothered to question the weak evidence in support of that supposed early marriage simply because until relatively recently such early marriages have not been considered immoral. It was not considered immoral in the culture of the Prophet’s time; nor was it considered immoral in later cultures – until recently. But the fact that previous generations did not consider it strange or immoral for the Prophet to marry Aisha at such an early age, and therefore did not question the hadith that claim he did, does not mean that we today can’t reevaluate the evidence and come to the correct conclusion that despite the fact that such marriages were accepted at his time he himself did NOT do so.

    Since Aisha was considerably older than 9 when she was married, Muhammad was not a pedophile. The fact that Muslims in the past have not bothered to question the matter because child marriages were not considered strange to them does not change the fact. Case closed.

  • theg

    Nadir really knows how to annoy people. Just how i got it. He won, but i think hes not a good person to speak with.

  • Awesome

    @ Jeremy

    “Nadir refused to condemn the rape of a child. He refused to acknowledge that children are incapable of consenting to sex, and he refused to acknowledge that rape is an act of violence. I know nothing about this man other than the positions he took in that disgrace of a debate. He should be ashamed of himself and anyone who would defend him, or say that those positions are ethical or defensible should be ashamed of themselves too.”

    I’m fairly certain that Nadir would condemn the rape of a child, and acknowledge that children are incapable of consenting to such things. In fact, every culture in the world, past and present, would agree with that. The problem, however, is that there is great deal of variance in what has been defined as a “child”, and what has been defined as an “adult”. ‘Aisha bint Abu Bakr is not generally regarded as a “child” when her marriage to Prophet Muhammad was consummated, whatever actual age that was at. So, for those who hold this view about ‘Aisha, why would they condemn it?

  • Michael Elwood

    @Jeremy

    “I can’t say I really care about what the bible says about anything really, I can’t see what that has to do with Nadir defending the rape of children by implying some ridiculous notion of consent. Anyone with any sense can figure out that the morals of 100 Years ago are different than today’s, much less the morals of 1600 or 2000 years ago.”

    The subject of modern morals versus pre-modern morals has come up in the past on Loon Watch:

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/03/the-suicide-bomber-prophet/#comment-65037

    I agree with you that Nadir’s defense of child marriage was ridiculous. But I disagree with you that modern morals are radically different than pre-modern morals. Many of the things that we see as immoral, they also saw as immoral. And many of the things that we see as moral, they also saw as moral.

    “What is at issue here, is somebody justifying those acts, in a modern context. For example: would you justify the keeping if slaves by Thomas Jefferson, and claim that he is an example of morality to be followed today? Clearly, slaves were kept in those days. Even natives kept slaves. But any idiot can figure out that slavery is wrong, and while Jeffereson is revered as a founding father, he is reviled for his slave ownership. And no one today seriously proposes that we follow his ‘moral’ leadership in the present day.”

    Again, our morals are not radically different than theirs. There were many in Thomas Jefferson’s day that criticized slavery as immoral, like Benjamin Franklin (who wrote a satire of slavery and slave owners titled “Sidi Mehemet on the Slave Trade”). And there are many in our day who condone slavery, like neo-Confederates (both religious and secular).

    By the way, the subject of slavery has also come up in the past on Loon Watch (it’s kinda long):

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/11/the-feminist-mosaic-the-naked-blogger-the-burka-and-the-boys-in-hijab/comment-page-3/#comment-114456

    “Morality is ever evolving and we are lucky to be living in the most peaceful time in the history of our species. But we must accept that it is wrong to keep slaves (as Muhammed and Jefferson did) that it is wrong to rape children, that it is wrong to discriminate along racial lines (as Muhsmmed and Jefferson did)”

    Muhammad didn’t keep slaves (see the link above). And he didn’t discriminate along racial lines. The Quran says:

    49:13 O people, We created you from a male and female, and We made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Surely, the most honorable among you in the sight of God is the most righteous. God is Knowledgeable, Ever-aware

    “Nadir refused to condemn the rape of a child. He refused to acknowledge that children are incapable of consenting to sex, and he refused to acknowledge that rape is an act of violence. I know nothing about this man other than the positions he took in that disgrace of a debate. He should be ashamed of himself and anyone who would defend him, or say that those positions are ethical or defensible should be ashamed of themselves too.”

    I agree.

  • Omar

    Eric is dumb hahaha..
    “we are not talking about whether islam instructs to kill infidels, we are discussing is Islam inherently violent or not”

    Really?

  • Jeremy

    @JD
    I can’t say I really care about what the bible says about anything really, I can’t see what that has to do with Nadir defending the rape of children by implying some ridiculous notion of consent. Anyone with any sense can figure out that the morals of 100 Years ago are different than today’s, much less the morals of 1600 or 2000 years ago.
    What is at issue here, is somebody justifying those acts, in a modern context. For example: would you justify the keeping if slaves by Thomas Jefferson, and claim that he is an example of morality to be followed today? Clearly, slaves were kept in those days. Even natives kept slaves. But any idiot can figure out that slavery is wrong, and while Jeffereson is revered as a founding father, he is reviled for his slave ownership. And no one today seriously proposes that we follow his ‘moral’ leadership in the present day.
    Morality is ever evolving and we are lucky to be living in the most peaceful time in the history of our species. But we must accept that it is wrong to keep slaves (as Muhammed and Jefferson did) that it is wrong to rape children, that it is wrong to discriminate along racial lines (as Muhsmmed and Jefferson did)
    We can appreciate the bold and forward thinking acts and policies of men of different times, while condemning their immorality by today’s standards. I take issue when people refuse to condemn immoral actions. I understand that these men were men of their times, when men kept slaves and abused children, and that’s just what people knew.

    Nadir refused to condemn the rape of a child. He refused to acknowledge that children are incapable of consenting to sex, and he refused to acknowledge that rape is an act of violence. I know nothing about this man other than the positions he took in that disgrace of a debate. He should be ashamed of himself and anyone who would defend him, or say that those positions are ethical or defensible should be ashamed of themselves too.

  • Elmo

    The difference between Islam and Biblical Christianity breaks down to its WAR DOCTRINE:

    Narrated By ‘Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah’s Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children. Bukhari Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257.

    “I advise you ten things| Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly.”

    Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that a son of Kab ibn Malik (Malik believed that ibn Shihab said it was Abd ar-Rahman ibn Kab) said, “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, forbade those who fought ibn Abi Huqayq (a treacherous jew from Madina) to kill women and children. He said that one of the men fighting had said, ‘The wife of ibn Abi Huqayq began screaming and I repeatedly raised my sword against her. Then I would remember the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, so I would stop. Had it not been for that, we would have been rid of her.’”

    Ibn `Abbas says: The Messenger of Allah, when dispatching his troops, would tell them, ” ..Do not behave treacherously, nor misappropriate war-booty, nor mutilate [those whom you kill], nor kill children, nor the people in cloisters.” (Musnad Ahmad, Sunan At-Tirmidhî)

    Another narration records that he said, “…Do not kill a woman, nor a child, nor an old-aged man’ (Sharh as-Sunnah Al-Baghawî)

    Narrated Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet said: Go in Allah’s name, trusting in Allah, and adhering to the religion of Allah’s Apostle. Do not kill a decrepit old man, a young infant, or a child, or a woman; do not be dishonest about booty, but collect your spoils, do right and act well, for Allah loves those who do well. (Sunan Abî Dawûd)

    And again, “Do not kill a child, nor a woman, nor an old man, nor obliterate a stream, nor cut a tree…” (Sunan Al-Bayhaqî)

    IN contrast, the Bible allows the KILLING of women and children (Genocidal Laws of Herem):

    And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. 32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. 33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. 36 From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us (Deut. 2:32-27)

    However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them . . . as the LORD your God has commanded you. (Deuteronomy 20:16-17, NIV)

    Numbers 31:17,18
    17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

    1 Samuel 15:2,3
    2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ “

    The Islamic Law forbids the killing of women and children. A stark contrast!

    What is MOST disturbing is that Christians follow the Bible’s war-doctrine.

    We’ve heard ENOUGH of how Muslims are trying to “impose Shariah Law” upon America by the Islamophobes, yet the Christians are dangerously close to politically establishing BIBLICAL LAW (harsher than Islamic Law) if the Dominist Rick Santorum (who opposes Separation of Church and State!) gets elected as the American President! That’s right! A Christian warmonger who seeks to establish Christian Shariah wants to become President! Where are the Islamophobes? These filthy hypocrites support him! Santorum is a Christian theocrat and WARMONGER; so far Ricky hasn’t made CLEAR which “form” of Christian Dominism he supports, whether it’s Christian Theonomy, Christian Reconstructionism, or Kingdom Now Theology. ALL of these “movements” are dangerous and conspire to cause World War Three to “hasten” the Second Coming of Christ!

Powered by Loon Watchers