The lies Muslims tell us about Islam

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by stevecanuck

Ok, name just one scholar of either stripe who says the muslims didn't invade the areas they conquered.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to stevecanuck again.

I took care of it for you.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I took care of it for you.

Bravo--.
Truth needs to be applauded... TY..--Tyr

[stevecanuck]

Jafar has yet to provide the name of a historian who says the first muslims did not invade the territories they conquered.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Jafar has yet to provide the name of a historian who says the first muslims did not invade the territories they conquered.

Jahil has not posted since the bombings in Boston. Hmmmmmmmmmmm....................

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Jahil has not posted since the bombings in Boston. Hmmmmmmmmmmm....................

and tailfins went to Mexico.. hmmmmmmmmm

Don't suppose they met there, eh?? ----Tyr

[stevecanuck]

My reply in green.....


Verse 4:92 makes it clear that an infidel's life is worth less than a Muslim's as it tells the faithful, "Never should a Muslim kill another Muslim". The message is reinforced in this hadith:

Again... the full verse for context...

Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family, unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (Is enough). If he belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance, compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed. For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running: by way of repentance to Allah: for Allah hath all knowledge and all wisdom. (4:92)

That verse was revealed after Harith Ibn Shadid, who was an enemy of the Muslims and was very harsh against the Prophet Mohamed (saw) was killed. Unknown to the killer was that Harith Ibn Shadid was actually on his way to secretly embrace Islam at the time. The verse deals with Qisas (The law of equality) and how to deal with the situation where A BELIEVER KILLS A BELIEVER BY ACCIDENT. It has nothing to do with whether an "infidel" is worth less than a Muslim's. If you believe that, your comprehension skills are lacking somewhat.

Then why doesn't it say, "Never should a believer kill another person"? The opening phrase, "Never should a believer kill a believer" is a clear admonition not to kill another muslim, and the rest of it is just an explanation of what to do should that happen by accident. If infidels were to be similarly protected, allah would have said so.

Bukhari, Volume: 1, Book Number: 3, Hadith Number: 111, Narrated Ash-Sha'bi:
.....no Muslim should be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever).

And with that I give you

O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.(2:178)

Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; - and any that does this (not only) meets punishment. (But) the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell therein in ignominy (25:68-69)

Yes, "except for just cause". Bit of a loophole there. The qur'an says if anyone should worship any other than allah, never will it be accepted. Then there's 10:17, "Who does greater evil than he who forges a lie about Allah or belies His verses? Indeed, the evildoers do not prosper." That clearly means there can be no greater evil than not being a Muslim. Does that not sound like "just cause" to you, Jafar?

Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. (60:8)

We all know there are a few verses in the qur'an that actually sound accomodating, and this is one of them. They came earlier in islam's history and are at odds with those written later, such as surah 9. They are also very much in the minority. The vast majority of the qur'an, including many of the earlier verses, is spent denegrating infidels, and you know it.

Allah considers all life to be equally important and sacred. No distinction is made.

"No distinction is made"? You have GOT to be kidding. Countless verses compare "those who believe" with "those who beleive not". It's the main theme of the qur'an.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Allah considers all life to be equally important and sacred. No distinction is made.

"No distinction is made"? You have GOT to be kidding. Countless verses compare "those who believe" with "those who believe not". It's the main theme of the qur'an.

He meant all 'real Muslim' life.

[jafar00]

Then why doesn't it say, "Never should a believer kill another person"? The opening phrase, "Never should a believer kill a believer" is a clear admonition not to kill another muslim, and the rest of it is just an explanation of what to do should that happen by accident. If infidels were to be similarly protected, allah would have said so.



Yes, "except for just cause". Bit of a loophole there. The qur'an says if anyone should worship any other than allah, never will it be accepted. Then there's 10:17, "Who does greater evil than he who forges a lie about Allah or belies His verses? Indeed, the evildoers do not prosper." That clearly means there can be no greater evil than not being a Muslim. Does that not sound like "just cause" to you, Jafar?
We all know there are a few verses in the qur'an that actually sound accomodating, and this is one of them. They came earlier in islam's history and are at odds with those written later, such as surah 9. They are also very much in the minority. The vast majority of the qur'an, including many of the earlier verses, is spent denegrating infidels, and you know it.


"No distinction is made"? You have GOT to be kidding. Countless verses compare "those who believe" with "those who beleive not". It's the main theme of the qur'an.

If your defence is the order of revelation, what about 5:32? Prefaced with the story of Cain and Abel, is "if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people." acceptable for you? Since that was revealed only a few years before the Prophet's (saw) death, it comes well after all of the verses you say are commands to go out killing unbelievers.

There remains no command or even suggestion in the Qur'aan to kill someone for simply not believing. On the contrary, "fire and brimstone" punishments are proscribed for them IN THE AFTERLIFE.

[stevecanuck]

If your defence is the order of revelation, what about 5:32? Prefaced with the story of Cain and Abel, is "if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people." acceptable for you? Since that was revealed only a few years before the Prophet's (saw) death, it comes well after all of the verses you say are commands to go out killing unbelievers.

There remains no command or even suggestion in the Qur'aan to kill someone for simply not believing. On the contrary, "fire and brimstone" punishments are proscribed for them IN THE AFTERLIFE.

Look at the first part of that verse: That was why We wrote for the Children of Israel that who ever killed a soul, except for a soul slain, or for sedition in the earth, it should be considered as though he had killed all mankind; and that who ever saved it should be regarded as though he had saved all mankind.

This is a story that predates mohamed and the muslims. By the time allah got around to them, the command became, "Never should a muslim kill a muslim". Meanwhile, you conveniently failed to respond to the rest of my post.

Btw, what was the name of the historian who said muslims only captured land in self defense? I must have missed that.

[aboutime]

Everyone reading this thread should instantly realize, and understand how the False Prophet...jafar should be ignored. Most importantly. A RED flag from jafar, whenever someone so dedicated to the Death of Non-Muslim/Islamic people, pretends to preach about the Holy Bible.

[jafar00]

Look at the first part of that verse: That was why We wrote for the Children of Israel that who ever killed a soul, except for a soul slain, or for sedition in the earth, it should be considered as though he had killed all mankind; and that who ever saved it should be regarded as though he had saved all mankind.

This is a story that predates mohamed and the muslims. By the time allah got around to them, the command became, "Never should a muslim kill a muslim". Meanwhile, you conveniently failed to respond to the rest of my post.

The story of Cain and Abel is for all time, not just for a specific people or time. This was just first revealed to them way back then. It is as valid now and it was then.

Anyone who tries to twist it any other way is a friend of Al Qaeda. Do you work for them?

Btw, what was the name of the historian who said muslims only captured land in self defense? I must have missed that.

I can't remember that. I have studied Islam and some history offline. I don't have links. I just remember details.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The story of Cain and Abel is for all time, not just for a specific people or time.

You're a complete hypocrite. When you are confronted with passages in the Qur'aan of violence, death, murder and such, YOU claim they were 'only for that specific time or incident'.

You can't have it both ways, Jahil.

[aboutime]

You're a complete hypocrite. When you are confronted with passages in the Qur'aan of violence, death, murder and such, YOU claim they were 'only for that specific time or incident'.

You can't have it both ways, Jahil.

Marcus. But Jahil obviously doesn't care about having it both ways IF...he goes both ways anyhow.