Evangelism to Muslims

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

What was undeniable, except to and by Muslims, is that the early Arab Muslim conquests were not examples of high morality. You don’t make war and kill people and force them to convert or else, and still credibly claim the moral high ground.

The muslims did not forcibly convert, by and large. The Christians most certainly did, however, demand conversion without exception in lands that they occupied for any significant length of time.

Does the fact that Christianity has made war on people and forced them to convert mean that it can’t claim any moral high ground?

You’re not comparing apples with applies, bud. The early Church father NEVER converted by the sword – while Muhammad and the early Muslim caliphs ALL did.

Conversion by the sword is against the teachings of Jesus Christ. Christian governments and even popes who did that were in breach of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

In contrast, conversion by the sword, was a favorite indirect Ummayad tactic by and large although they favored non-conversion because it was more profitable to tax their non-Muslim subjects. However, the Abbasids were not averse to conversion by the sword.

Don’t just believe me. This is what your prophet (of Satan) said:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah’s Apostle said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives an property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"

Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0033:
“It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.”

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
“The Verse:–“You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.” means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.”

The verse it is referring to is Sura 3:110 in the Quran

This is what his successors did – following the teachings of the prophet of Satan:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386:
Narrated Jubair bin Haiya: 'Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans… Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.”

I, for one, don’t believe this sort of behavior should come from a true prophet. Only Satan would makes such instructions.

Chau,
Rodrigo

 

[pro_universal]

Rodrigo,

Your misconstruction and biased presentation of muslim theology and history has been discussed exhaustively on other threads. Refer to my other posts there for a response to the same points you’re raising now.

As for new points, I’ll refer to this in your post above:

Oh… and they supposedly practiced female infanticide. Other than that – compare the Quraysh with Muhammad and you’ll see he comes off as an evil person

Other than infanticide? Do you realize how strained this line makes your position look?

Let me give you a comparison: “Hey, those nazis were pretty civilized compared to gypsies…gypsies steal, cheat, lie, and cast evil spells on people they don’t like. Except for genocide, the Nazis were pretty good.”

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

Rodrigo,

Your misconstruction and biased presentation of muslim theology and history has been discussed exhaustively on other threads. Refer to my other posts there for a response to the same points you’re raising now.

I’m not the one who’s lying about my religious affiliations, as an example. You claim I have misconstrued and made biased presentatation of muslim theology and history which has been discussed exhaustively on other threads. What you didn’t say was that I told the truth. I have not been debunked. Instead I have presented the facts as laid out by Muslim sources.

pro_universal:

As for new points, I’ll refer to this in your post above:

Rodrigo:

Oh… and they supposedly practiced female infanticide. Other than that – compare the Quraysh with Muhammad and you’ll see he comes off as an evil person

Other than infanticide? Do you realize how strained this line makes your position look?

Let me give you a comparison: “Hey, those nazis were pretty civilized compared to gypsies…gypsies steal, cheat, lie, and cast evil spells on people they don’t like. Except for genocide, the Nazis were pretty good.”

Nobody here claims the Quraysh were holy prophets of God. Why do you insist on comparing Muhammad, who claimed to be a prophet of God, with ordinary sinners?

Did I claim that the Quraysh were prophets of God? No.

I’m saying that the Quraysh did have their faults, as do everyone else. But that in comparison with Muhammad, they come up smelling like roses.

In case you didn’t know, the Muslim claim that Muhammad’s prohibition against female infanticide was something special is ridiculous for the following reason:

1. This practice is not recorded anywhere else but in Muslim sources out to trumpet Muhammad’s exemplary morality in prohibiting it.
2. It wasn’t even an original doctrine – and merely copied by Muhammad from Zaid ibn Thabit, the Hanif.
3. If this practice was common where did the Qurayshi Arabs get their females to propagate themselves?

So, let’s see the balance sheet between the Quraysh and Muhammad.

Female infanticide – Quraysh maybe; Muhammad no.
Banditry – Quraysh no; Muhammad yes.
Genocide – Quraysh no; Muhammad yes.
Ethnic cleansing – Quraysh no; Muhammad yes.
Torture – Quraysh maybe; Muhammad yes.
Killing of prisoners – Quraysh no; Muhammad yes.
Rape – Quraysh no; Muhammad yes.
Polygamy – Quraysh no; Muhammad yes.
Lechery – Quraysh no; Muhammad yes.
Sex-slavery – Quraysh maybe; Muhammad yes.
Enslavement – Quraysh maybe; Muhammad yes.
Pedophilia – Quraysh no; Muhammad yes.

So, was Muhammad a moral person even by the standards of 7th Arabian desert dwellers? I don’t think so, bud. But obviously you do.

Chau,
Rodrigo

PS: and do tell us again how the Copts view Muslim conquest as a blessing when they’ve been almost completely wiped out during the Muslim period and now claim to be PERSECUTED by the Muslim?

 

[pro_universal]

I’m not the one who’s lying about my religious affiliations, as an example. You claim I have misconstrued and made biased presentatation of muslim theology and history which has been discussed exhaustively on other threads. What you didn’t say was that I told the truth. I have not been debunked.

Well, about the only substantive claim there is that I am a muslim. I am not, but it doesn’t matter anyway, because you don’t like to use “ad hominems” to make your point, do you?

So, was Muhammad a moral person even by the standards of 7th Arabian desert dwellers? I don’t think so, bud. But obviously you do.

What I don’t understand is how you can acknowledge that all the sources we have are muslim from that time period, yet not grasp how ridiculous it is to claim that said sources consider Muhammad immoral. By the standards of everyone who met Muhammad and whose record we have of the encounter, he was a moral person. Your picture of him is based not on complete renditions of what the authors of the various sources thought, but rather on cherry-pickings designed (like many employed against Christianity) to serve your preconceived notions.

PS: and do tell us again how the Copts view Muslim conquest as a blessing when they’ve been almost completely wiped out during the Muslim period and now claim to be PERSECUTED by the Muslim?

I posted a primary source, written by a Copt historian back in the time of the muslim conquest of Egypt. It’s right there for you to read how the Coptic bishops were saved from the “misbelieving Romans.”

Copts have not almost been completely wiped out. They’re a large and notable piece of Egypt’s population, and include such famous personalities as Boutros Boutros Ghali. (You know, the Egyptian representative to the United Nations who was once Secretary General?)

 

[manx]

Booklover:

As long as Islam continues to be a threat, I will continue to oppose it!

Vickie

Now that’s what I call bravery. But what amazes me is that after so many years of struggle to stop the spread of Islam, this religion can not just be defeated. In fact, after 9/11, there were so many people who embraced Islam from America!

 

[manx]

Aside from R. Bivar, let’s read what other non-Muslims say about Muhammad:

“If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls. . . his forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death; all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold, the unity of God and the immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with words.”

“Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?”

Lamartine, HISTOIRE DE LA TURQUIE, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp. 276-277.

“It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved, after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Koran. . . The Mahometans have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith an devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. ‘I believe in One God and Mahomet the Apostle of God’ is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honours of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion.”

Edward Gibbon and Simon Ocklay, HISTORY OF THE SARACEN EMPIRE, London, 1870, p. 54.

“He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope’s pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports.”

Bosworth Smith, MOHAMMAD AND MOHAMMADANISM, London, 1874, p. 92.

to be continued…

 

[manx]

“It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher.”

Annie Besant, THE LIFE AND TEACHINGS OF MUHAMMAD, Madras,1932, p. 4.

“His readiness to undergo persecutions for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.”

W. Montgomery Watt, MOHAMMAD AT MECCA, Oxford, 1953, p. 52.

"Muhammad, the inspired man who founded Islam, was born about A.D. 570 into an Arabian tribe that worshipped idols. Orphaned at birth, he was always particularly solicitous of the poor and needy, the widow and the orphan, the slave and the downtrodden. At twenty, he was already a successful businessman, and soon became director of camel caravans for a wealthy widow. When he reached twenty-five, his employer, recognizing his merit, proposed marriage. Even though she was fifteen years older, he married her, and as long as she lived, remained a devoted husband.

"Like almost every major prophet before him, Muhammad fought shy of serving as the transmitter of God’s word, sensing his own inadequacy. But the angel commanded “Read.” So far as we know, Muhammad was unable to read or write, but he began to dictate those inspired words which would soon revolutionize a large segment of the earth: “There is one God.”

"In all things Muhammad was profoundly practical. When his beloved son Ibrahim died, an eclipse occurred, and rumours of God’s personal condolence quickly arose. Whereupon Muhammad is said to have announced, “An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to attribute such things to the death or birth of a human being.” "At Muhammad’s own death an attempt was made to deify him, but the man who was to become his administrative successor killed the hysteria with one of the noblest speeches in religious history: “If there are any among you who worshipped Muhammad, he is dead. But if it is God you worshipped, He lives forever.”

James A. Michener, “ISLAM: THE MISUNDERSTOOD RELIGION,” in READER’S DIGEST (American edition), May 1955, pp. 68-70.

“My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level.”

Michael H. Hart, THE 100: A RANKING OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSONS IN HISTORY, New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc., 1978, p. 33.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

I’m not the one who’s lying about my religious affiliations, as an example. You claim I have misconstrued and made biased presentatation of muslim theology and history which has been discussed exhaustively on other threads. What you didn’t say was that I told the truth. I have not been debunked.

Well, about the only substantive claim there is that I am a muslim. I am not, but it doesn’t matter anyway, because you don’t like to use “ad hominems” to make your point, do you?

Well, it is clear to me you’re a Muslim. If not you’re a Islamist apologist which comes to the same thing in my book.

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

So, was Muhammad a moral person even by the standards of 7th Arabian desert dwellers? I don’t think so, bud. But obviously you do.

What I don’t understand is how you can acknowledge that all the sources we have are muslim from that time period, yet not grasp how ridiculous it is to claim that said sources consider Muhammad immoral.

Who said those sources consider Muhammad immoral? I didn’t. In fact, I agree those sources consider Muhammad the best of humanity forever. Those are the same sources that call him al-Insan al-Kamil.

What we get from those sources are not the opinions but the stated facts. Like Muhammad had sex with a child. Muhammad killed people. Muhammad committed genocide. Muhammad enslaved people. Etc. We can see he was not a moral man by ourselves. We don’t need some Muslim to tell he was immoral. Please don’t keep your brain in a drawer some place. How do you expect these ‘Muslims’ to honestly judge Muhammad’s character? If they did they wouldn’t be Muslim, don’t you think?

pro_universal:

By the standards of everyone who met Muhammad and whose record we have of the encounter, he was a moral person. Your picture of him is based not on complete renditions of what the authors of the various sources thought, but rather on cherry-pickings designed (like many employed against Christianity) to serve your preconceived notions.

This is so ‘Muslim’, bud.

Every Nazi also thought the world of Hitler and claimed he was a great person. What does it prove?
My picture of Muhammad is based solely on what he did and what he said. I don’t care about the opinion of his friends. I can make up my own mind.

pro_universal:

PS: and do tell us again how the Copts view Muslim conquest as a blessing when they’ve been almost completely wiped out during the Muslim period and now claim to be PERSECUTED by the Muslim?

I posted a primary source, written by a Copt historian back in the time of the muslim conquest of Egypt. It’s right there for you to read how the Coptic bishops were saved from the “misbelieving Romans.”
So you believe a long dead Copt but won’t believe the Copts today who tell us they are PERSECUTED by the Muslims. Yeah, right.

Did this Copt historian really know how the Muslims would treat his people? No.

You know, many people in history welcomed conquerors as ‘liberators’ and romanticize about them until they see for themselves just how their new conquerors treat them.

pro_universal:

Copts have not almost been completely wiped out. They’re a large and notable piece of Egypt’s population, and include such famous personalities as Boutros Boutros Ghali. (You know, the Egyptian representative to the United Nations who was once Secretary General?)

Sure – it is a blessing that the Muslims didn’t completely wipe out the Copts. Do you even realize how ridiculously callous that sounds?

Chau,
Rodrigo

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Manx,
First of all what you did was commit the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam.

Secondly, none of these people converted to Islam – which shows just how strong their convictions are and where they lie. You mistake people just being nice for somehow endorsing your religion.

Thirdly, some of these people are kooks – like Annie Besant. Read up her history and how she thought her adopted son was some kind of Messiah.

So… how many of these people you cite as endorsements actually converted to Islam?

Adios,
Cid

 

[pro_universal]

Every Nazi also thought the world of Hitler and claimed he was a great person. What does it prove?

We got to interview lots of Nazis after the war, and hitler’s own generals tried to kill him. In addition, we have mountains of sources contemporary to the locale that let us know what kind of perosn he was. So no, this isn’t an accurate comparison.

So you believe a long dead Copt but won’t believe the Copts today who tell us they are PERSECUTED by the Muslims. Yeah, right.

Did this Copt historian really know how the Muslims would treat his people? No.

Yes, he did, considering that he didn’t write the day the muslims conquered, but rather long after.

Even your coptic website points to the problems of the Copts as beginning in earnest near the turn of the 20th century. That’s a whole lot of good time since 642 for the religion to be one that “exterminates christians.” The idea that the muslims couldn’t have wiped out the copts if they had wanted to over that period of time is preposterous.

Sure – it is a blessing that the Muslims didn’t completely wipe out the Copts. Do you even realize how ridiculously callous that sounds?

Not only did they not wipe them out, but Egyptian muslim leadership has made a Copt the most internationally known person from Egypt.

Does that sound like blind hatred to you?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

Every Nazi also thought the world of Hitler and claimed he was a great person. What does it prove?

We got to interview lots of Nazis after the war, and hitler’s own generals tried to kill him. In addition, we have mountains of sources contemporary to the locale that let us know what kind of perosn he was. So no, this isn’t an accurate comparison.

First of all, only a few generals tried to kill him because he was losing the war.

Secondly, I also have mountains of sources that tell me what kind of person he was. I don’t need opinions. I can make up my mind from the stated facts.

Just like we don’t go to Nazi opinions to find out what sort of person Hitler was, we also don’t go to Muslim opinions to find out what sort of person Muhammad was. But we sure do rely on Nazi records just like we rely on Muslim records.

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

So you believe a long dead Copt but won’t believe the Copts today who tell us they are PERSECUTED by the Muslims. Yeah, right.

Did this Copt historian really know how the Muslims would treat his people? No.

Yes, he did, considering that he didn’t write the day the muslims conquered, but rather long after.

Really? So you still believe a Muslim apologist like yourself while you don’t believe living Copts? That is not credible, bud.

Even in Communist Europe there were collaborators with the Communists. If you took their views you’d come to the conclusion the Communists were the greatest.

Even in Nazi Europe there were collaborators. If you took their views you’d come to the conclusion that the Nazis were the greatest.

Why don’t you look at the facts instead of arrogating your thinking to others? Look at the evidence and see if they make sense. But then again, arrogating the thought processes is a very ‘Muslim’ thing, isn’t it?

pro_universal:

Even your coptic website points to the problems of the Copts as beginning in earnest near the turn of the 20th century. That’s a whole lot of good time since 642 for the religion to be one that “exterminates christians.” The idea that the muslims couldn’t have wiped out the copts if they had wanted to over that period of time is preposterous.

This is so totally wrong. At the beginning of the Muslim period there were 9 million Copts. Now there are 700,000. Is that a blessing?

What is the change in the population of Arabs in that time? From almost zero to over 50 million.

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

Sure – it is a blessing that the Muslims didn’t completely wipe out the Copts. Do you even realize how ridiculously callous that sounds?

Not only did they not wipe them out, but Egyptian muslim leadership has made a Copt the most internationally known person from Egypt.

Does that sound like blind hatred to you?

Do you mean Butros Butros Gali or Hosni Mubarak who denied his Coptic heritage and called himself an Arab?

There are collaborators everywhere, but that doesn’t change the facts that the Copts have suffered greatly under the ‘Muslim blessing’. What happened to all the Copts? Why have they almost disappeared? Why are they persecuted? Why aren’t they allowed to practise their religion freely in their homeland? Why are they a persecuted second-class minority in their homeland? Your apologetics knows no bounds.

Hasta luego,
Cid

 

[pro_universal]

Why don’t you look at the facts instead of arrogating your thinking to others? Look at the evidence and see if they make sense. But then again, arrogating the thought processes is a very ‘Muslim’ thing, isn’t it?

The evidence does make sense, but you wish to cherry pick it to fit your point of view and misconstrue it as you please. There’s no real debate possible when you are so committed to your interpretation that you find any reason to confirm it.

This is so totally wrong. At the beginning of the Muslim period there were 9 million Copts. Now there are 700,000. Is that a blessing?

I think you need to reread your own site. It says copts are 10-15 percent of Egypt’s total population.

Do you mean Butros Butros Gali or Hosni Mubarak who denied his Coptic heritage and called himself an Arab?

Boutros Boutros Ghali, the Copt. Mubarak is the “president”, and is indeed an arab. You are really cracking up if you’re resorting to the argument that Egypt is not even run by Arab muslims, but that it persecutes copts anyway.

What happened to all the Copts? Why have they almost disappeared? Why are they persecuted? Why aren’t they allowed to practise their religion freely in their homeland? Why are they a persecuted second-class minority in their homeland? Your apologetics knows no bounds.

Again, read your own source. There are millions and millions of Copts. They are not free because no one in Egypt is free; it’s a dictatorship.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

Why don’t you look at the facts instead of arrogating your thinking to others? Look at the evidence and see if they make sense. But then again, arrogating the thought processes is a very ‘Muslim’ thing, isn’t it?

The evidence does make sense, but you wish to cherry pick it to fit your point of view and misconstrue it as you please. There’s no real debate possible when you are so committed to your interpretation that you find any reason to confirm it.

So what evidence do you have? Just an opinion from some Copt historian. I can get more opinions from living Copts.

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

This is so totally wrong. At the beginning of the Muslim period there were 9 million Copts. Now there are 700,000. Is that a blessing?

I think you need to reread your own site. It says copts are 10-15 percent of Egypt’s total population.

Does that even make it better for you? So instead of 100% Coptic, Egypt is now only 10-15% Coptic. Right.

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

Do you mean Butros Butros Gali or Hosni Mubarak who denied his Coptic heritage and called himself an Arab?

Boutros Boutros Ghali, the Copt. Mubarak is the “president”, and is indeed an arab. You are really cracking up if you’re resorting to the argument that Egypt is not even run by Arab muslims, but that it persecutes copts anyway.

I didn’t know Boutros Boutros Ghali ran Egypt but you obviously know better. So what’s your point?

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

What happened to all the Copts? Why have they almost disappeared? Why are they persecuted? Why aren’t they allowed to practise their religion freely in their homeland? Why are they a persecuted second-class minority in their homeland? Your apologetics knows no bounds.

Again, read your own source. There are millions and millions of Copts. They are not free because no one in Egypt is free; it’s a dictatorship.

As for numbers they are about 9 to 13 million Copts in Egypt today. But hang on, there were 9 million Copts in 632AD. You mean in 1400 years the population hasn’t changed much? What happened?

Look at the Arab population – growing from zero in 632AD to almost 50 million today?

And you think you’re being credible talking about the numbers?

Secondly, talking of freedom and dictatorship, some are freer than others. The Copts themselves claim they are PERSECUTED. Who are you to call them liars?

Why don’t you google Coptic sites to see for yourself how persecuted they are? Try this one for starters: copts.net/index.asp?offset=590

Adios,
Rodrigo

 

[cleobanzj]

[This is exactly the kind of bias and discrimination that LG warns against in my opinion. First of all, **no, muslims are not taught that killing jews and christians is good. I don’t think you can find a single muslim teacher who says that.

Have you ever read their quran? It specifically says to “kill the unbelievers, slay them wherever you find them…” Do not take christians for friend…etc.

How did you think Egypt, Turkey and most of the middle east became islamized? either convert, pay jizya and be a dhimmi or die by the sword.

 

[onesimplemind]

[This is exactly the kind of bias and discrimination that LG warns against in my opinion. First of all, **no, muslims are not taught that killing jews and christians is good

. I don’t think you can find a single muslim teacher who says that.

Have you ever read their quran? It specifically says to “kill the unbelievers, slay them wherever you find them…” Do not take christians for friend…etc.

How did you think Egypt, Turkey and most of the middle east became islamized? either convert, pay jizya and be a dhimmi or die by the sword.

People like you and Rodrigo get fatwahs issued against them for such statements.

 

[Cyber_Knight]

onesimplemind:

People like you and Rodrigo get fatwahs issued against them for such statements.

LOL death fatwah you mean?

 

[Booklover]

manx:

Now that’s what I call bravery. But what amazes me is that after so many years of struggle to stop the spread of Islam, this religion can not just be defeated. In fact, after 9/11, there were so many people who embraced Islam from America!

Where are the reports stating that many people in this country became Muslim after 9/11?

Islam has been stopped before and it will be stopped again, because Islam is not from God! You’re just making the usual Muslim triumphalistic remarks. Jesus told us that even the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church!

 

[inJESUS]

Booklover:

Where are the reports stating that many people in this country became Muslim after 9/11?

Islam has been stopped before and it will be stopped again, because Islam is not from God! You’re just making the usual Muslim triumphalistic remarks. Jesus told us that even the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church!

numbers are insignificant…in fact, those who do not believe in God exceed those who do, does it mean there is no God? no. Only when Jesus comes back again will all people know who He is.

 

[brotherhrolf]

manx:

Now that’s what I call bravery. But what amazes me is that after so many years of struggle to stop the spread of Islam, this religion can not just be defeated. In fact, after 9/11, there were so many people who embraced Islam from America!

I’m having several disconnects here. How old is Islam vis-a-vis Christianity? Which religion has not been defeated after 2,000 years in spite of fire, dungeon and sword? And please, pray tell why would ANY self-respecting American embrace Islam after 9/11? How many Americans converted to emperor worship after December 7, 1941, hmm? Methinks I remember a certain Japanese admiral who said “We have awoken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve”. Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it.

Second, manx. Manx is an adjective used to describe those things regarding the Isle of Man in the Irish Sea - one of the Celtic nations. Celtic nations are not fertile grounds for Islamic conversion the last time I looked. If a Celt were to reject Christianity, it would be to adopt the gods of our ancestors not Islam. Unfortunately, I know far too many people of Celtic ancestry who have embraced paganism. I know of none who have embraced Islam.

Three, there is a maxim in American English which states, “If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck”. I feel that there are several posters here who are “sailing under a false flag”. In the Age of Sail, “sailing under a false flag” declared one as a pirate. So, hoist the jolly roger, matey! We know ye for what ye are! Aargh!

 

[Cyber_Knight]

brotherhrolf:

Three, there is a maxim in American English which states, “If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck”. I feel that there are several posters here who are “sailing under a false flag”. In the Age of Sail, “sailing under a false flag” declared one as a pirate. So, hoist the jolly roger, matey! We know ye for what ye are! Aargh!

LOL stright to the core! good poin, brotherhrolf. They wont admit it. It such a shame… they wont admit it.