Muslim Responses to Unpleasant Islamic Facts

[Sister_Amy]

Evidence?

My sheikh told me… lol. I don’t know if the source has been translated into English. So… some Arabic history book somewhere. I don’t know. Sorry.

'Umar might be her son, not grandson… I think that might be more right.

Why?

 

[Sister_Amy]

there’s no reasone to suppose that, perhapse accecpting your premisses as true that would authenticate the message first received, it would in no was validate it as more accurate 1300 years after the fact, especially considering that the message was hopelessly currupted in a mere 700ish years.

Well, God promised to preserve that Message?

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Abu Bakr died of natural causes. He was succeeded by 'Umar, who was stabbed while leading a prayer by a non-Muslim over a personal grudge, and died soon thereafter. (He was not killed by a Muslim.)

He was succeeded by 'Uthman, who faced some rebellions in Egypt and Iraq (which were Muslim by then) and several mutineering soldiers stormed his home and was stabbed while he was reading Qur’an. This was the first time Muslim blood had been shed by Muslims. He was like 80 years old then, assassinated.

The next caliph was 'Ali, and while he was caliph there was a group of Muslims who had a pretty grave misunderstanding about Islam, and they tried to take over, by assassinating all the leaders of the Muslims including 'Ali. 'Ali was shot with a poisoned arrow while praying and died later.

:crying:

extraordionary conicidence that all were killed while in the middle of pious devotion isin’t it?

You have kind of glossed over some historical details I beleive,

“Uthman’s rather heavy handed attempts to centralize religious authority were at the root of the general discontent about his rulethat began to emerge, particulairly among those already alarmed at his tendency towards clan favoritism”

I mean, you make it sound as though they were angels only trying to be pious, charatiable men but were sadely struck down. I’m not saying they were bad men,just that things don’t seem to be as simply as you present them.

As for the Khawarij, what was their gross misunderstanding?

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Evidence?

My sheikh told me… lol. I don’t know if the source has been translated into English. So… some Arabic history book somewhere. I don’t know. Sorry.

'Umar might be her son, not grandson… I think that might be more right.

Why?

It just seems strange that such an obscure conversation would be recorded, it could well be, it just sounds like the folk stories of saints, nice stories, but not really supported, there was no real reasone, I just wanted to know where you got it from

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Well, God promised to preserve that Message?

Well, God seems to have promised several peoples that very same thing about their message

 

[IvanKaramozov]

You’ve not condemned the kidnapping of the Chaldean Catholic Bishop of Mosul, Sister Amy. Why?

Why would she need to do that?

Unless, of course, you start with the assumption that she supports it unless she specifically denounces it.

I mean I have not condemend every IRA act of violence, nor should I need to, I have no connection and have never supported them, so people assume that Catholics don’t support IRA terrorism, why is this not the case with Muslims? Why are Muslims constantly looked upon with suspicision?

Cunnungham and others of his ilk have highlishted Anti-Muslim biggotry by their own despiciable tatics and claims, unfortunatly it still seems to be seeping into our culture.

 

[Sister_Amy]

extraordionary conicidence that all were killed while in the middle of pious devotion isin’t it?

You have kind of glossed over some historical details I beleive,

Glossed over? I left out quite a lot, in fact. My point with the post was really just to show how each one died–assassinated. The impression might have been that they killed eachother, which I intended to dispel.

I mean, you make it sound as though they were angels only trying to be pious, charatiable men but were sadely struck down. I’m not saying they were bad men,just that things don’t seem to be as simply as you present them.

Well all I have are the historical sources, and that’s all I can present to you. There was growing discontent among the Muslim lands by the time of 'Uthman, that’s true and I don’t dispute it.

As for the Khawarij, what was their gross misunderstanding? Since you know it was Khawarij, don’t you know that they called 'Ali a kaafir for trying to reach an agreement with Mu’awiyah?

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Glossed over? I left out quite a lot, in fact. My point with the post was really just to show how each one died–assassinated. The impression might have been that they killed eachother, which I intended to dispel.

Well that’s fair enough

Well all I have are the historical sources, and that’s all I can present to you. There was growing discontent among the Muslim lands by the time of 'Uthman, that’s true and I don’t dispute it.

ok

As for the Khawarij, what was their gross misunderstanding?

Since you know it was Khawarij, don’t you know that they called 'Ali a kaafir for trying to reach an agreement with Mu’awiyah?

I have read they rejected Mu’awiyah for his questioning of the authority of the Caliph and Ali because of his trying to reach an agreament and because they felt he was to passive in identifying and capturing Uthman’s assassins, but I don’t know anything more other than their recognising only the Qur’an and Sunna as sovreign, history is not my strong point, nor is Islam so I may just be horribly confused.

 

[jttierney1]

I’m not an expert on the Quran so I’m not going to claim to know what’s being used out of context and what isn’t. There’s plenty of stuff in the Bible that can be misconstrued.

There is, however, one problem which I keep bringing up which no one has ever been able to answer.

It’s very difficult to trust the Quran when it contradicts the New Testament and several secular accounts of Jesus being crucified and killed. It’s pretty much an objective, historical fact that Jesus Christ was executed by crucifixion.

But because the Quran says something else (and the Quran was written much later than the New Testament) many feel they need to somehow defend the Quran. And the only way to do this is to utilize circular reasoning: “I trust the Quran because Allah inspired it.” How do you know that Allah inspired it? “Because it’s in the Quran.” And why do you trust the Quran? “Because Allah inspired it.”

Obviously it’s rarely as explicit as that (though sometimes it is) but in the end it boils down to that. To say that Jesus Christ wasn’t killed by crucifixion is to deny an incredible amount of early historical testimony that no serious, objective scholar would take seriously. And that means that the Quran is in direct error in what says about Jesus, which means that it isn’t infallible.

I don’t bring up this to try to antagonize or mock the faith of any Muslims - I am very inspired by the strength of faith of many Muslims I know of. But, as a Christian, my primary mission is to bring people closer to Christ, and when anything - even a sacred text of another religion - speaks clear falsehood about Him, I will address it.

EB, Very well put! Respectful and direct!

 

[Reuben_J]

Abu Bakr died of natural causes. He was succeeded by 'Umar, who was stabbed while leading a prayer by a non-Muslim over a personal grudge, and died soon thereafter. (He was not killed by a Muslim.)

He was succeeded by 'Uthman, who faced some rebellions in Egypt and Iraq (which were Muslim by then) and several mutineering soldiers stormed his home and was stabbed while he was reading Qur’an. This was the first time Muslim blood had been shed by Muslims. He was like 80 years old then, assassinated.

The next caliph was 'Ali, and while he was caliph there was a group of Muslims who had a pretty grave misunderstanding about Islam, and they tried to take over, by assassinating all the leaders of the Muslims including 'Ali. 'Ali was shot with a poisoned arrow while praying and died later.

:crying:

My point - the Golden Age was mired with intrigues and murders. I haven’t heard you said so yourself but many Muslim posters here have referred to the four Caliphates as the examplary Islamic government. They were not so ideal after all, whatever the reasons. Murder in high places, especially within a short span of 30 years, that took the lives of three in four kings who were supposed to be the heads of ideal Islamic government.

Whatever the reason, I am not convinced and the governments certainly did not work. There was no subsequent government that Muslims uninamously considered ideally Islamic. So you guys do not have strong example that Islamic government does work for none had been established on earth as evidence.

Just a thought

 

[Reuben_J]

Abu Bakr died of natural causes. He was succeeded by 'Umar, who was stabbed while leading a prayer by a non-Muslim over a personal grudge, and died soon thereafter. (He was not killed by a Muslim.)

He was succeeded by 'Uthman, who faced some rebellions in Egypt and Iraq (which were Muslim by then) and several mutineering soldiers stormed his home and was stabbed while he was reading Qur’an. This was the first time Muslim blood had been shed by Muslims. He was like 80 years old then, assassinated.

The next caliph was 'Ali, and while he was caliph there was a group of Muslims who had a pretty grave misunderstanding about Islam, and they tried to take over, by assassinating all the leaders of the Muslims including 'Ali. 'Ali was shot with a poisoned arrow while praying and died later.

:crying:

My point - the Golden Age was mired with intrigues and murders. I haven’t heard you said so yourself but many Muslim posters here have referred to the four Caliphates as the examplary Islamic government. They were not so ideal after all, whatever the reasons. Murder in high places, especially within a short span of 30 years, that took the lives of three in four kings who were supposed to be the heads of ideal Islamic government.

Whatever the reason, I am not convinced and the governments certainly did not work. There was no subsequent government that Muslims uninamously considered ideally Islamic. So you guys do not have strong example that Islamic government does work for none had been established on earth as evidence.

Just a thought.

 

[Sister_Amy]

I’m not convinced.

And you’re forgetting the caliphate of 'Umar ibn Abdul-Azeez.

By your logic no form of government works unless all the people are entirely satisfied and nobody tries to off the rulers. Even American presidents suffer assassinations and attempts–even the most “beloved” Presidents like Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan… but we don’t say that American government doesn’t work at all?

 

[Reuben_J]

I’m not convinced.

And you’re forgetting the caliphate of 'Umar ibn Abdul-Azeez.

By your logic no form of government works unless all the people are entirely satisfied and nobody tries to off the rulers. Even American presidents suffer assassinations and attempts–even the most “beloved” Presidents like Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan… but we don’t say that American government doesn’t work at all?

Right. That’s why I don’t believe God provides for God’s government administered by humans because it does not work. Man is finite and thus cannot carry out the infinte laws of God. Man cannot see the hearts of human beings.

 

[R_not]

Actually, this is common from most Muslim posters that we have had on here. I will say that those whose are from the West tend to discuss a little better. Perhaps it is from being in a culture where faith is questioned openly.

As an aside, I see the same kind of tactics from many groups, both on here and in life.

The ones from the West are better at our language and its nuances.

But as for it being a tactic from many groups - islam has made a science of it. They are skilled beyond imagination. But,you are right others use the same tactics. This is why I suggest that people READ!! Know when they are deceiving us means that one has to know what they are taught and not taught.

Many muslims do not know mohammed’s origins as a pagan. They are not taught that before mohammed started up islam that everyone lived in relative peace and there were many Jews, Christians, Zorastrians and pagans living together. Well, the Zorastrians have been wiped out. And they were the three people’s ‘of the book (Bible)’ that were allowed to be subjugated if they surrendered. The pagans were dealt with more harshly - as the Hindus and Buddhists are treated today by them. The only options for pagans is either death or conversion. We are allowed subjugation.

But, like I said muslims are not taught much of their own history. This is why a question such as 'how can you follow a guys such as mohammed - a rapist, enslaver, thief, liar, torturer, and killer falls on ears that will accuse us of insults while our definition is exactly true of what mohammed was.

 

[R_not]

Maybe so.

Vickie, AgnostTheist, and I think maybe even R_not have all accused me of lying about Islam. They use a fancy word for it, that I actually had to ask to be defined because I didn’t know it. But it means simply lying. So you can call it ad hominem, but I think I make a very good point–I have (I’m admitting it) called some posters liars. And I have also been called a liar.

:

I will post, again, what I posted on the other site. Proof that the koran says it is ok for muslims to… let me say it nicely?! mislead, misdirect and give us disinformation about islam to us infidels.

The following can be gotten from this website, and if you want to research the sources that are mentioned - go for it!

jihadwatch.org/archives/015800.php
“Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them” (Qur’an 3:28).
The Sunni Qur’an commentator Ibn Kathir explains that in this verse “Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers.” However, exempted from this rule were “those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, ‘We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.’ Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, ‘The Tuqyah [taqiyyah] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.’"
This practice is also sanctioned by the Qur’an warning Muslims that those who forsake Islam will be consigned to Hell — except those forced to do so, but who remain true Muslims inwardly: “Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters unbelief — except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in faith — but such as open their breast to unbelief, on them is wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful penalty” (Qur’an 16:106). Ibn Kathir explains that “the scholars agreed that if a person is forced into disbelief, it is permissible for him to either go along with them in the interests of self-preservation, or to refuse.”
Moreover, Sahih Bukhari, the hadith collection that Sunnis consider the most reliable, records three times Muhammad’s statement that “war is deceit.” Are we to suppose that no Sunni who reads that thinks it is a principle worth implementing?
Another hadith in a collection considered reliable by Sunnis has Muhammad saying that lying is permissible “in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)” (Sahih Muslim 6303). Muhammad also gave the killer of Ka’b bin al-Ashraf permission to lie in order to deceive Ka’b and lure him to his death.

 

[R_not]

I’m not an expert on the Quran so I’m not going to claim to know what’s being used out of context and what isn’t. There’s plenty of stuff in the Bible that can be misconstrued.

There is, however, one problem which I keep bringing up which no one has ever been able to answer.

It’s very difficult to trust the Quran when it contradicts the New Testament and several secular accounts of Jesus being crucified and killed. It’s pretty much an objective, historical fact that Jesus Christ was executed by crucifixion.

But because the Quran says something else (and the Quran was written much later than the New Testament) many feel they need to somehow defend the Quran. And the only way to do this is to utilize circular reasoning: “I trust the Quran because Allah inspired it.” How do you know that Allah inspired it? “Because it’s in the Quran.” And why do you trust the Quran? “Because Allah inspired it.”

Obviously it’s rarely as explicit as that (though sometimes it is) but in the end it boils down to that. To say that Jesus Christ wasn’t killed by crucifixion is to deny an incredible amount of early historical testimony that no serious, objective scholar would take seriously. And that means that the Quran is in direct error in what says about Jesus, which means that it isn’t infallible.

I don’t bring up this to try to antagonize or mock the faith of any Muslims - I am very inspired by the strength of faith of many Muslims I know of. But, as a Christian, my primary mission is to bring people closer to Christ, and when anything - even a sacred text of another religion - speaks clear falsehood about Him, I will address it.

mohammed was a pagan of his father’s faith. He was also illiterate. But, he wanted to convert the Jews, and also the Christians, of his time to his new religion that he thought up. So, he threw in some Biblical stories. But, how could an illiterate do so if he couldn’t read the Bible? These are probably stories he heard, but obviously screwed them up because he wasn not a Jew or Christian and could not read them for himself.

He threw in a caveat - that us Jews and Christians rewrite the stories in the Bible and that is why we will go to hades. And, of course, his versions are true and if a muslim rewrites any of the koran they will go to hades too. This is why the muslims do not question the koran even though it is so #1. kludgy, #2. has abrogated passages and #3. has stories different from the Bible.

The abrogated passages were quite often done because mohammed would forget what he said one day to the next. And from Mecca to Medina he ‘turned’. And what do I mean by that? In the late Meccan to Medina years he started his violent words and deeds.

The Jews and others laughed at mohammed so after awhile he started his battles, fatwas, and other atrocities against anyone who laughed, questioned, or did anything that he didn’t like.

sources:
‘The Life and Religion of mohammed’
the koran and hadiths
and there are other books out there that all muslims abhor and I won’t mention them here.

 

[ZuzuBailey]

I am betting Christians also have such responses to such “unpleasant” things in Christianity.

Or did everyone forget the things** we** have done in the name of reigion?

This thread is a reference for those debating with Muslims. It deals with the typical responses they use when faced with challenges to their religion. I’ve encountered these tactics on many occasions! Don’t let them bamboozle you!

When Muslims are told about scores of horrendous facts contained in the Quran, Sunnah and the Sharia, they will typical respond as follows:

1. Accuse the person of lying and ignorance. Tell him/her to read “authentic” Muslim websites and texts. Say that critics of Islam are “so-called” experts. Say that once a person “learns” about the “real” Islam, he/she will understand how beautiful and peaceful it is.

2. Accuse the person of racism or Islamophobia (This is one of the best tactics!). Say they are “filled with hate” (this works really well with Liberals!). Restrict your arguments to a specific subject (How Muslims are persecuted and misunderstood). Generalize a lot. Never suggest that a person examine both sides of the issue (that is, compare arguments from anti-Islamic sites with those from Muslims experts). Never refer to the hate and violence Muslims do. Say that the actions of Muslims have nothing to do with Islam.

3. Say that the problem is that Muslims today are not practicing the “Original Islam” of Mohammed and the glorious era of the ‘Four Righteous Caliphs’ that followed him (Do not mention the hate and violence that Mohammad preached and practiced and do not mention that 3 out of the 4 so-called Righteous Caliphs were murdered by Muslims in a fifty year orgy of conquest, greed, violence and rivalry that ended at battle of Kerbala - called the Ashura ─ with Muslims fighting Muslims and the heads of Mohammad’s grandson and even infant great-grandson and 70 others being carried in bags as trophies by the victorious Muslim army). Tell them that Islam is really peaceful!

**4. **Say that any verse from the Koran that portrays Islam negatively is “out of context”. Tell them it doesn’t really mean what it says. Also, insist that any tradition that says that Mohammad did very bad things is “weak” or forged, or that it has no isnad (chain of narration) even if it has a long isnad and Muslims constantly quote from this same source.

See the complete article here.

Vickie

 

[rpp]

I am betting Christians also have such responses to such “unpleasant” things in Christianity.

Or did everyone forget the things** we** have done in he name of reigion?

Apparently we have forgotten. Could you be more specific?

 

[Booklover]

Well, Vickie has called me a liar. So have others.

So if calling a person a liar is bad, and I can’t ask for textual proof…

then I am asking how should I respond? It is not a rhetorical question.

Too many articles have been written about the practice of taqqiya. Where there’s smoke there’s fire… Here’s another one:

"With regard to honesty and lying, Islam has some semblance to other religions. There are sections in the Qur’an (Koran) where honesty is praised as a virtue, and in a general sense lying is forbidden. The Qur’an says, “Truly, Allah does not guide one who transgresses and lies.”[Surah 40:28]. In the Hadith, Mohammed was quoted as saying: “Be honest because honesty leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise. Beware of falsehood because it leads to immorality, and immorality leads to Hell.” This approach to communication and ethics is laudable, but unfortunately for many in the world, that direction appears to be intended as a standard limited to Muslim-to-Muslim relations, and does not necessarily apply to non-believers, whom the Islamic God*** ‘does not love’. Unlike most religions, within Islam there are certain provisions under which lying is not only tolerated, but actually encouraged. Bluntly stated, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime that they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened.* The book “The spirit of Islam,” by the Muslim scholar, Afif A. Tabbarah was written to promote Islam. On page 247, Tabbarah stated:

“Lying is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people, than telling the truth. To this effect, the Prophet says: 'He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good.”

Notice the reference to Allah not loving unbelievers as I stated in another post?

Vickie

 

[Sister_Amy]

That’s called “spin.” You take a little bit of truth here, a little bit there, and insert your opinion. Even though your opinion is contradicted by the truth, people think it’s actually given more credibility because of it. How easily they are misled.

I’m not the dishonest one.