Evangelism to Muslims

[murtad]

Rodrigo Bivar:

And I was wondering how long before you brought up Abu Ghraib. You, of course, don’t want me to tell the Christians about Kinana al-Rabi and the buried treasure, do you?

Please bear in mind Lynndie England is not a prophet but Muhammad claimed he was. There is no equivalence between them and their behavior.

Hasta la vista
Rodrigo

At this link, we can read the full story of Kinana al-Rabi and the buried treasure. Also, included is an excellent conclusion written from a Christian perspective. A must read.

You are right to point out that the actions of Lynndie England and Muhammad should not be compared. The former was a frustrated American soldier, hardly even Christian, and not even a prophet. The latter claimed to be a prophet and so has to be judged by higher standards. Since Muhammad stooped to the level of Lynndie England, we can conclude that he is a false prophet.

 

[Justice2006]

Mr. murtad,

Here are some links for you:

’Doctorer’ Ali Sina Exposed
faithfreedom.com/ali_sina_exposed.html

Islamic Awareness
islamic-awareness.org/
Bismikaallahuma.org
bismikaallahuma.org/
The True Religion
thetruereligion.org/missionary.htm
Investigating Islam
islamic.org.uk/
Muslim Answers
muslim-answers.org/
Sharif.org
sharif.org.uk/
Guided Ones
guidedones.com/
Understanding Islam
understanding-islam.org/
Examine the Truth
ExamineTheTruth.com

Christianity’s Baby God.
[Examine The Truth - Discover The Real Truth Online]](http://www.examinethetruth.com/Who_Is_God/baby_god.htm])

God Bless You.

 

[pro_universal]

What the Nazis did to the Jews is so different from what I am doing with respect to the Muslims. I put it to you what I write about Islam is no different from what the Americans and Brits wrote about the Nazis. Your moral inversion is ‘interesting’.

No, it’s not, on both counts. Americans and Brits alleged no secret world banking plots, no “hidden agenda”, and of course both tolerated Nazi-style parties in their own countries. This has a lot to do with the fact that both America and Britain were extremely anti-semitic and racist, even while they fought the nazis and for a good time after.

You do need a refresher on Nazi propoganda, because you have clearly forgotten its methods if you don’t see them in your own posts regarding Islam. All that I had to do in order to recreate the Nazi pamphlets of the 30’s was take your writing and put the word “Jew” in place of “muslim.”

You practically copied every accusation the Nazis used. Now tell me: What are the odds that all of the same things the Nazis said Jews were doing are true about Muslims?

 

[pro_universal]

You are not the person to judge me or my actions. By saying I am not an ex-Muslim but an Indian anti-Muslim poster, you show us you hate Indians. Now that is typical Muslim racism to discredit their enemies as Jews or Indians. India is a free society but its enemy, Pakistan has a poor human rights record and by means of the Blasphemy Laws sentences to death those who leave Islam.

First off, I’m taking that as an admission that you are in fact an indian christian missionary. You should rethink your tactics when it’s obvious to even people with minimal contact with your kind that you may be spotted right away.

Second, given what you said about the Pope being “politically correct” in his statements, it makes sense that you’d lie about having been muslim. You think the Pope lies or sugarcoats the truth apparently, since that was your reaction to my mentioning LG. Unfortunately, this is an error in your belief. The Pope isn’t afraid to say what his Church teaches, and neither should be afraid to say what you are when evangelizing. If you need a bag of “tricks” to evangelize like claiming to be muslim, your faith is lacking.

LatinCat,

you said:

Lets not call names. We may call things evil but let us refrain from calling people stupid, ignorant, etc. Remember we are not reading our own beliefs into the text. We are engaging in exigesis, the science of determining what the document is saying on its own. So let us take an unbiased approach.

I agree completely. Let’s try to get into what the Church teaches on this subject without the hype.

 

[Shadowcry]

Murtad What sect of Christianity are you?

 

[LatinCat]

pro_universal:

I agree completely. Let’s try to get into what the Church teaches on this subject without the hype.

All right. Then let us begin. The Fourth Latern Council declared as a de fide statement, “The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved” (extra quam nullus omnino salvatur). Since this is a de fide statement from an infallible dogmatic council, it is necessary that all the faithful hold to this position with divine faith. The teaching was affirmed over and over again at the Council of Floence, and by Popes Innocent II and Boniface the VIII in the Bull “Unam Sanctam”. Furthermore, Clement VI, Benedict IV, Pius IX, and Leo XIII all affirmed this same teaching. Pius XII also affrimed it in his encyclical “Mystici Corporis”, in which he declared, “By Faith it is to be frimly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord.”
Thus we see that it is the constant teaching of the Church, and thus of Christ himself that it is necessary for one to be incorporated into the Church, which is Christ’s body, in oreder to be saved. The only exception is that of invincible ignorance of the truth of the Catholic faith.

 

[pro_universal]

Thus we see that it is the constant teaching of the Church, and thus of Christ himself that it is necessary for one to be incorporated into the Church, which is Christ’s body, in oreder to be saved. The only exception is that of invincible ignorance of the truth of the Catholic faith.

This is no contradiction to mine or anyone else’s interpretation of the thrust of Lumen Gentium. You have the teaching right, but the question we’re asking here is: What good does it do to repeat over and over that there’s no salvation outside the church when our method of repeating that does zero good.

This is a question of alternatives: You can tell every muslim you meet “Muhammad is deceived by satan and your religion is irrational and wrong.” The clear result of this practice will be that Muslims will perceive you to be totally intolerant, they will feel attacked (rightly so), and they will not listen to anything more you have to say, nor will they see any reason to cooperate in other ways with you. After all, would you join hands with someone who could not, no matter what his beliefs, refrain from insulting the church every chance he got? It is the same with muslims.

The alternative, and the one which we have grounds for choosing based on Lumen Gentium and the ecumenical commitment of Vatican II, is to focus on the good in Islam, and to let the disagreements sit for the time being. In this climate, we can achieve some good by recognizing and respecting Islam, and instead of demanding to be heard saying “Muhammad is evil”, we can say “We respect that Islam teaches family values and helping the poor-now let’s join our charitable organizations to help the poor in every part of the world to be fed and clothed.”

The issue is really this: Would you rather have muslim friends who, because you refrain from insulting their faith, are willing to work together with you on a project like feeding the poor, or would you foresake that opportunity in order to repeat (to a virtually guaranteed lack of effect) your belief that Islam is misguided?

As for the Fourth Lateran Council, the medieval councils certainly required measures of reform by the modern Church. That was also a council that required Jews and “saracens,” confined to their homes on certain holidays, and punished severely for any perceived insult to Christianity. We should be wary of invoking all the old Councils without understanding that modern values of religious tolerance and acceptance have in fact changed the relationship of the Church to the world.

 

[pro_universal]

The other element to this teaching is the fact that so many would-be evangelists get the basic teachings of Islam totally wrong. In order to have a meanginful discussion about the merits of the Church compared to the merits of Islam, you absolutely must have a good understanding of what Islam teaches. That is the definition of dialogue…two sides communicating to each other, not us repeating “Jesus is God” in such a frenzy that we forget to listen to why other people might not accept our beliefs.

Murtad’s post have been a good example of the classic litany of incorrect, misleading, and ill-researched claims about muslims. When muslims see you claiming on the one hand “you cannot be saved without joining my Church”, and then on the other claiming something that is clearly false, like “Muslims celebrate killing christians,” how credible can you expect to be? Would you believe that someone had the truth about God if that person had an easily verifiable fact like the content of muslim teaching wrong?

I like to think of the comparison to Jack Chick’s attacks on Catholicism. On the one hand, Jack Chick claims that there is only salvation through his form of faith in Jesus. But how on earth can any Catholic begin to wonder whether or not Jack Chick has the right idea about God when he doesn’t even have the Church’s teaching on Mary right? When so-called evangelists repeat falsehood about muslims that could be dispelled by taking one hour to look up a muslim source, all of their other claims become suspect. So even if your primary religious claim is true, you do nothing but make it suspect by adding to the debate claims that are clearly false, such as “muhammad was genocidal” or “muhammad was a pedophile.”

If you want to be believed, you must be credible, and that takes learning. Otherwise, you will all be dismissed (and not unreasonably) by the muslims you speak to as propagandists who are not interested in the truth.

 

[Athanasius18]

pro, i think all this comes down to the classic liberal view of things. your main aim of religion is “feeding the poor” and other social issues. while these are certainly important, these are not the Gospel. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is that Christ died to save sinners. Thats the Good News. You can talk tolerance all you want, but there is no sense of immediacy in your views. For me, the thought of even one muslim (or any other faith) dying without knowing Christ and being eternally separated from God is sad indeed. with this thought in mind, my focus is on saving souls. that is the aim of the life of every single Christian: to preach the Gospel and help save sinners. You have yet to refute what i said earlier: how was it that all the great missionary saints made MILLIONS of converts preaching the Gospel in an unapologetic way? yet i have yet to see the flock of people entering the Church through “peaceful discusssion”. if you think that people not coming to faith in Christ is ok, then how can you call yourself a Christian? Part of being a Christian is saying that “under no other name can man be saved”, as St. Paul said. Of course, St. Paul was intolerant too i suppose.

 

[pro_universal]

For me, the thought of even one muslim (or any other faith) dying without knowing Christ and being eternally separated from God is sad indeed. with this thought in mind, my focus is on saving souls.

And that’s my point. How many souls will you save by saying things that only make cooperation and participation with muslim charities and with muslim people impossible?

I think it would be interesting to have you address the issue of effectiveness. What result do you expect when you tell a muslim “Muhammad was deceived by satan”?

. You have yet to refute what i said earlier: how was it that all the great missionary saints made MILLIONS of converts preaching the Gospel in an unapologetic way?

They didn’t, for the most part. Certainly, their work was admirable and they did indeed convert some communities, but invariably unless there was a Christian army (and consequently, the force of law to forbid other religions), there were no huge conversions. I don’t find this shameful, as the Christian world has improved many locales of savagery from what they were…but let’s be honest. Most Christian populations today fell under the sword of a powerful christian army at some point in the past. Places that were never touched and held by large Christian armies are by and large not Christian at all.

yet i have yet to see the flock of people entering the Church through “peaceful discusssion”.

I do. How do you think Mother Theresa’s missions have worked? How about the large numbers of protestants who have joined our Church?

Conversely, can you cite any example at all of large numbers of muslims joining the Church because someone told them Muhammad was bad?

 

[Shadowcry]

Athanasius18:

pro, i think all this comes down to the classic liberal view of things. your main aim of religion is “feeding the poor” and other social issues. while these are certainly important, these are not the Gospel. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is that Christ died to save sinners. Thats the Good News. You can talk tolerance all you want, but there is no sense of immediacy in your views. For me, the thought of even one muslim (or any other faith) dying without knowing Christ and being eternally separated from God is sad indeed. with this thought in mind, my focus is on saving souls. that is the aim of the life of every single Christian: to preach the Gospel and help save sinners. You have yet to refute what i said earlier: how was it that all the great missionary saints made MILLIONS of converts preaching the Gospel in an unapologetic way? yet i have yet to see the flock of people entering the Church through “peaceful discusssion”. if you think that people not coming to faith in Christ is ok, then how can you call yourself a Christian? Part of being a Christian is saying that “under no other name can man be saved”, as St. Paul said. Of course, St. Paul was intolerant too i suppose.

Your outlook on religion is very disturbing. Isn’t more a matter of personal faith.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

What the Nazis did to the Jews is so different from what I am doing with respect to the Muslims. I put it to you what I write about Islam is no different from what the Americans and Brits wrote about the Nazis. Your moral inversion is ‘interesting’.

No, it’s not, on both counts. Americans and Brits alleged no secret world banking plots, no “hidden agenda”, and of course both tolerated Nazi-style parties in their own countries. This has a lot to do with the fact that both America and Britain were extremely anti-semitic and racist, even while they fought the nazis and for a good time after.

And do you think there’s a secret world banking plot?

The fact is that during the Nazi era, the Nazis were the bad guys and the Jews were the innocent scapegoats. Don’t tell me the Muslims are the innocent scapegoats and we’re the bad guys. My grandfather died fighting the Nazis and I find your total misconstruction of the struggle against Nazism very strange to say the least.

May I remind you yet again that the Muslims fought on Hitler’s side during WWII? Don’t tell me now they’re the persecuted minority today.

My people spoke out against Nazism during WWII, just like I am speaking out against the new Nazis – the Muslims. Your moral inversion seems ‘strange’ to me.

I look at Muslims with their anti-semitism, their hatred and ready violence against anyone who disagrees with them and I see Nazis. You, by some different logic, turn it 180 degrees. Instead of Muslims being the bad guys they’re the poor little good misunderstood persecuted minority.

pro_universal:

You do need a refresher on Nazi propoganda, because you have clearly forgotten its methods if you don’t see them in your own posts regarding Islam. All that I had to do in order to recreate the Nazi pamphlets of the 30’s was take your writing and put the word “Jew” in place of “muslim.”

My grandfather died fighting Nazis. Look at my last posts. The Jews in Germany never did the things the Muslims are doing today:

1. Inciting hatred against the Jews every day.
2. Inciting hatred against the West every day, even as they receive billions of dollars in aid from the West.
3. Conducting terrorism activities – have you forgotten 9/11, 7/1, Madrid, Bali etc?
4. Rioting and burning churches and killing innocent Christians for some Danish cartoons.
5. Inciting warfare wherever they are: including in Indonesia, Thailand, Sudan, Paris. Where Muslims are, there’s sure to be bloodshed by Muslims against their neighbors.

Now tell me how this equates to the Jews in Germany in the 1930’s? Like I said, your moral inversion is ‘interesting’ to say the least.

I have watched the Nazi propaganda against the Jews and I tell you it reminds me of the Quran. So do I need a refresher on Nazi propaganda? I think not. This demonizing of the Jews and the kafirs is similar to the demonizing of the Jews by the Nazis – all without foundation.

On the other hand, I can point to Muhammad’s sublime morality, the hadiths, sira and the Quran to show how hateful and violent Islam is.

You keep on mistaking hatred of evil as hatred of Muslims. I don’t hate Muslims. I hate Islam – the religion. I hate its founder for creating this great blot on humanity. But I don’t hate Muslims. Thus, I find your insinuations off the mark.

pro_universal:

You practically copied every accusation the Nazis used.

The Nazis told lies about the Jews – calling them subhumans and making up lies about them like they controlled the economy and the Zionist plots.

Now, who does that remind you of? Me or you?

Who does that remind you of? Muslims or me?

If you have any evidence the Jews ruined national economies please supply? I think not.

cont

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

Now tell me: What are the odds that all of the same things the Nazis said Jews were doing are true about Muslims?

They are different charges. I charge the Muslims for crimes against humanity. For inciting hatred for the non-Muslims. For trying to turn my country into an Islamic country. For bombing skyscrapers full of innocent people. For discriminating against non-Muslims in their country. For being total asses.

I have read the Quran. Have you? Try and tell us what 9:29 means?

Sheikh al-O’Taibi, chief of al-Qaida operations in the Arabian Peninsula: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, or hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His messenger, Nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the people of the book until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

I don’t believe the Jews of Germany circa 1930s ever fought anybody. In contrast, the Muslims are behaving exactly the same as the Nazis. Bully and rioting and behaving like criminals.

I will leave it up to the readers to make sense of how you equated ‘murder and mayhem’ by the Muslims with ‘debt refining’ by the Jews. There really is no moral equivalence between the Muslims and the Jews, is there? Or do you think debt refining is morally equivalent to the burning churches and killing 50+ Christians?

Chau,
Rodrigo.

PS:

pro_universal:

can you cite any example at all of large numbers of muslims joining the Church because someone told them Muhammad was bad?

So you think Christians should lie and say Muhammad was the best of human beings like Muslims claim? How many Muslims would be swayed by white-washing Muhammad’s ‘sublime morality’?

No thank you. I would prefer if Christians tell the truth.

 

[pro_universal]

I have read the Quran. Have you? Try and tell us what 9:29 means?

Yes. Read 9:28. The verse applies specifically to the tribes of Meccans who had made war on the Muslims. It has precisely zero to do with declaring war today, and you can tell that even further if you look at the three conditions listed in 9:29. This is a classic case of twisting text to mean what you want it to mean, something Protestants commonly do to our Church.

Your quote from the Sheikh is a repost of 9:29. Just as some nutcase Christians use the bible to justify slavery, racism, and killing jews, so some nuts use the Koran the same way. Nothing too shocking there.

I don’t believe the Jews of Germany circa 1930s ever fought anybody. In contrast, the Muslims are behaving exactly the same as the Nazis. Bully and rioting and behaving like criminals.

That didn’t matter to the nazis, and the truth of what muslims believe does not matter to you. The point is that the Germans lied about and manufactured propaganda to defame the Jews. That is what is happening when you post these rants on muslims. (Note: Jews did in fact occupy many important positions in the banks that ruined people’s lives during the depression there…just as terrorism is used as a tool by anti-muslims in the west, those jewish bankers were used as tools by the nazis.)

There really is no moral equivalence between the Muslims and the Jews, is there? Or do you think debt refining is morally equivalent to the burning churches and killing 50+ Christians?

You keep missing the point. What I’m showing is that the equivalence is between you and the Nazi propaganda machines. There was no secret Jewish conspiracy; there is no conspiracy is Islam to kill all christians and Jews. Yet that didn’t stop the nazis from claiming that about jews, and the truth certainly does not stop you from slandering muslims.

There’s the comparison, for the fourth or fifth time.

So you think Christians should lie and say Muhammad was the best of human beings like Muslims claim? How many Muslims would be swayed by white-washing Muhammad’s ‘sublime morality’?

You missed the point again. Arguing that because Islam spread by the sword, it is evil, defeats our own church, since the Christian religion spread almost entirely by the sword. I don’t support making arguments that make us out to be hypocritical revisionists who think that the conquest of the New World was a “peaceful mission” that simply offered new choices to the Native Americans.

I would prefer Christians be honest about their own history and recognize the good in muslims, so that we can achieve more peace and understanding…instead of wasting our time recreating nazi propaganda with “Muslim” in place of “jew”.

 

[pro_universal]

May I remind you yet again that the Muslims fought on Hitler’s side during WWII? Don’t tell me now they’re the persecuted minority today.

So did the Italians. Does that mean that Catholicism is evil, because the most Catholic country in Europe at the time fought with Hitler?

People ally in wars for reasons other than religion. You should look up the Moroccan Jews…there were no death camps in any middle eastern state, even when Nazi soldiers occupied them. Can you explain that, if anti-semitism was a part of the alliance?

As for your claim that Muslims are anti-semitic, find me one muslim source before the Israel-Palestine conflict that says all Jews should be killed. Let’s see it. Something like the Nazi papers saying that every Jew has to die. (I’m asking you this question even though I know the answer because it will help you to see for yourself.)

Now tell me how this equates to the Jews in Germany in the 1930’s? Like I said, your moral inversion is ‘interesting’ to say the least.

The comparison is that just as the banking scandals that wiped out millions of peoples’ incomes and homes had zero to do with the Jewish faith (even though it’s a fact that individual Jews did play a role in the banking system), terrorism has precisely zero to do with the worldwide muslim religion, even though individual muslims participate in terror (just like individual christians).

Your list of revolutions and conflicts is worthless, as conflict pervades every single part of the Christian world where similar economic and political conditions exist. Why do you reduce conflict to religion when it’s in a place with muslims, without doing the same when there’s a fight in a place with christians?

This demonizing of the Jews and the kafirs is similar to the demonizing of the Jews by the Nazis – all without foundation.

Again, the demonization simply does not exist. You are claiming it does based on quotes from Al Qaeda and grossly out of context, twisted pieces of Islamic religious text. It would take you 1 hour of reading the opinions of the various Muslim scholars to figure out how wrong your interpretation of the religion is.

The fact that you don’t do it tells me that you are willfuly blind, not accidentally so, and that is definitely a problem of the spirit.

I invite you to mass, as Catholic religion is your heritage, and I hope you’ll become a truth seeker instead of a strife-spreader.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

May I remind you yet again that the Muslims fought on Hitler’s side during WWII? Don’t tell me now they’re the persecuted minority today.

So did the Italians. Does that mean that Catholicism is evil, because the most Catholic country in Europe at the time fought with Hitler?

The behavior of the Catholic church during WWII has been questioned by some people. Sorry to my Catholic friends, but them’s the breaks.

However, the Italians fought on BOTH sides – so I would say in final analysis their stance was NEUTRAL.

It was those racist fascists you accuse us of being that fought on Hitler’s side.

pro_universal:

People ally in wars for reasons other than religion. You should look up the Moroccan Jews…there were no death camps in any middle eastern state, even when Nazi soldiers occupied them. Can you explain that, if anti-semitism was a part of the alliance?

As for your claim that Muslims are anti-semitic, find me one muslim source before the Israel-Palestine conflict that says all Jews should be killed. Let’s see it. Something like the Nazi papers saying that every Jew has to die. (I’m asking you this question even though I know the answer because it will help you to see for yourself.)

Only one Muslim source that says all Jews should be killed?

Here are eight hadiths all saying the same thing:

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews. (Sahih Muslim, 41:6985; see also 41:6981-84 and Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:176,177 and 4:56:791)

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

Now tell me how this equates to the Jews in Germany in the 1930’s? Like I said, your moral inversion is ‘interesting’ to say the least.

The comparison is that just as the banking scandals that wiped out millions of peoples’ incomes and homes had zero to do with the Jewish faith (even though it’s a fact that individual Jews did play a role in the banking system), terrorism has precisely zero to do with the worldwide muslim religion, even though individual muslims participate in terror (just like individual christians).

What banking scandals would these be?

pro_universal:

Your list of revolutions and conflicts is worthless, as conflict pervades every single part of the Christian world where similar economic and political conditions exist. Why do you reduce conflict to religion when it’s in a place with muslims, without doing the same when there’s a fight in a place with christians?

But it is Muslims against Christians, against Pagans, against Hindus, against Buddhists, against atheists.

See the common denominator?

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

This demonizing of the Jews and the kafirs is similar to the demonizing of the Jews by the Nazis – all without foundation.

Again, the demonization simply does not exist. You are claiming it does based on quotes from Al Qaeda and grossly out of context, twisted pieces of Islamic religious text. It would take you 1 hour of reading the opinions of the various Muslim scholars to figure out how wrong your interpretation of the religion is.

So I quote the al-Qaeda chief’s translation of the Quran. Would you feel better if I used other translations of the same verse?

cont

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Pickthall: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Yusuf Ali: Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Shakir: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Sher Ali: Fight those from among the people of the Book, who believe not in ALLAH, nor in the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what ALLAH and HIS Messenger have declared to be unlawful, nor follow the true religion, until they pay the tax considering it a favour and acknowledge their subjection.

Khalifa: You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.

Palmer: Fight those who believe not in God and in the last day, and who forbid not what God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who do not practice the religion of truth from amongst those to whom the Book has been brought, until they pay the tribute by their hands and be as little ones.

Sale: Fight against them who believe not in God, nor in the last day, and forbid not that which God and his apostle have forbidden, and profess not the true religion, of those unto whom the scriptures have been delivered, until they pay tribute by right of subjection, and they be reduced low.

Rodwell: Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled.

“Progressive Muslims”: Fight those who do not believe in God or the last day, and they do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden, and they do not uphold the system of truth; from among the people who have been given the scripture; until they pay the fine, willingly or unwillingly.

“BlessedCause.org”: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and his messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the book [Christians and Jews], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Syed Javed Hussain: And fight those who have not faith in God nor in the Hereafter and (who) forbid not what God and His Prophet gave forbidden, and who are not committed to the religion of truth. pakobserver.net/200411/23/articles01.asp

Ahmadiyya Muslim Community: Fight those from among the people of the Book, who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor hold as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared to be unlawful, nor follow the true religion, until they pay the tax considering it a favor and acknowledge their subjection.

Hilali and Khan: Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Maulana Mohammed Ali: Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Dawood: Fight against such as of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the truth Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued."

Wow, see the difference? No? I think not.

Grossly out of context? I think not.

cont

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

The fact that you don’t do it tells me that you are willfuly blind, not accidentally so, and that is definitely a problem of the spirit.

Willfully blind? I’m the one who’s obviously read the Quran.

pro_universal:

I invite you to mass, as Catholic religion is your heritage, and I hope you’ll become a truth seeker instead of a strife-spreader.

The strife isn’t caused by me nor spread by me, but by those followers of the prophet of the sublime morality whom you so love.

Mozeltof,
Cid

 

[pro_universal]

Wow, see the difference? No? I think not.

Grossly out of context? I think not.

You just reposted the same text I did over and over but failed to see the point.

It’s a specific command to fight a specific tribe in Arabia in the 7th century. It has zero to do with today. Read 9:28 and the whole book to see that.

Willfully blind? I’m the one who’s obviously read the Quran.

No my friend, you haven’t. You didn’t even bother to look up the verse one line before the one you’re citing for context.

The strife isn’t caused by me nor spread by me, but by those followers of the prophet of the sublime morality whom you so love.

That’s what the Nazis said about the jews. “It’s not us, it’s them…they’re forcing us to expose them by being so evil.”

It’s an excuse, and one that’s made war so much more easy to pull off. Take some responsibility for yourself.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

I have read the Quran. Have you? Try and tell us what 9:29 means?

Yes. Read 9:28. The verse applies specifically to the tribes of Meccans who had made war on the Muslims. It has precisely zero to do with declaring war today, and you can tell that even further if you look at the three conditions listed in 9:29. This is a classic case of twisting text to mean what you want it to mean, something Protestants commonly do to our Church.

Arberry How? If they get the better of you, they will not observe towards you any bond or treaty, giving you satisfaction with their mouths but in their hearts refusing; and the most of them are ungodly.
Khalifa How can they (demand a pledge) when they never observed any rights of kinship between you and them, nor any covenant, if they ever had a chance to prevail. They pacified you with lip service, while their hearts were in opposition, and most of them are wicked.
Palmer How!- if they prevail against you, they will not observe either ties of blood or ties of client ship; they please you with their mouths, but their hearts refuse; and most of them do work abomination.
Pickthall How (can there be any treaty for the others) when, if they have the upper hand of you, they regard not pact nor honour in respect of you? They satisfy you with their mouths the while their hearts refuse. And most of them are wrongdoers.
Rodwell How can they? since if they prevail against you, they will not regard in you either ties of blood or faith. With their mouths will they content you, but their hearts will be averse. The greater part of them are perverse doers.
Sale How [can they be admitted into a league with you], since, if they prevail against you, they will not regard in you [either] consanguinity or faith? They will please you with their mouths, but their hearts will be averse [from you]; for the greater part of them are wicked doers.
Shakir How (can it be)! while if they prevail against you, they would not pay regard in your case to ties of relationship, nor those of covenant; they please you with their mouths while their hearts do not consent; and most of them are transgressors.
Sher Ali How can it be when, if they prevail against you, they would not observe any tie of kinship or covenant in respect of you. They would please you with their mouths, while their heart repudiate what they say and most of them are perfidious.
Yusuf Ali How (can there be such a league), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you, but their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are rebellious and wicked.
Transliterated Arabic Kayfa wa-in yathharoo AAalaykum la yarquboo feekum illan wala thimmatan yurdoonakum bi-afwahihim wata/ba quloobuhum waaktharuhum fasiqoona

I don’t think so, bud. 9:28 doesn’t say anything like what you claim. It just says the pagans will not respect ties of blood or faith and that they are evil – according to Muhammad’s interpretation of that word.

pro_universal:

Your quote from the Sheikh is a repost of 9:29. Just as some nutcase Christians use the bible to justify slavery, racism, and killing jews, so some nuts use the Koran the same way. Nothing too shocking there.

Actually, it is exactly 9:29. Re-read my post.

pro_universal:

Rodrigo:

I don’t believe the Jews of Germany circa 1930s ever fought anybody. In contrast, the Muslims are behaving exactly the same as the Nazis. Bully and rioting and behaving like criminals.

That didn’t matter to the nazis, and the truth of what muslims believe does not matter to you. The point is that the Germans lied about and manufactured propaganda to defame the Jews. That is what is happening when you post these rants on muslims. (Note: Jews did in fact occupy many important positions in the banks that ruined people’s lives during the depression there…just as terrorism is used as a tool by anti-muslims in the west, those jewish bankers were used as tools by the nazis.)

Yup, the Nazis lied about and manufactured propaganda to defame the Jews.

So, how have I lied about and manufactured propaganda to defame the Muslims? Everything I’ve said I’ve evidenced either from the Quran, hadiths, sira or from current affairs.

Want to try again?

cont