New book on Muhammed

[Montalban]

Again, pointing out that a doctor doesn’t have a medical degree in order to suggest that his advice is bad isn’t attacking the man.

But you’ve not done that. You’ve just said he’s wrong quoting it. You’ve said HE is wrong. You’ve not even said why he’s wrong. You made an absolute statement about the man

You seem to only be capable of repeating yourself. When you can answer the objection, I’ll respond to you again.

You seem only capable of giving the same baseless attack. “He is wrong”

or truisms

“Quotes can be taken out of context” without discussing how this or that quote is taken out of context.

If you don’t want to respond, it’s entirely up to you, but it’s not like you’re wasting your time. It must take, what (?) all of ten seconds to repeat the same accusations?

 

[Montalban]

pro_universal:

Sure.
On his website, he states: “In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.””

In fact, Islam contains no such command.

Actually it is.
“Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme” (8:39)

pro_universal:

Here are two articles by different Sheikhs that give professional takes on the subject (and others that Reverend Spencer covers in his religious tracts):

meforum.org/article/14

Abdul Hadi Palazzi is a western-based Moslem apologist. But rather than just leave this (as you would) an attack on the person, let’s look at where he’s wrong

pro_universal:

Quote:Sunnis do not conceive of Islam as an organization dependent on a centralized leadership,

That’s not the claim Spencer made. He simply says Islam is supposed to be about the supremacy of Islam. Your rebuttal argues past the point.

pro_universal:

And

livingislam.org/maa/dcmm_e.html

Quote:The upshot is, whether one likes it or not, the decision and discretion and right to declare war or jihâd for Muslims lie solely with the various authorities as represented today by the respective Muslim states - and not with any individual, even if he is a scholar or a soldier (and not just anyone is a soldier or a scholar) - in the same way that an authority (such as the qâdî in a court of law: mahkamah) is the only one with the right to excommunicate or declare someone an apostate [murtad]. Otherwise, the killing would be extra-judicial and unauthorized.

Which is to argue that Islamic centralised authorities, the states have the power to do this.

 

[pro_universal]

Actually it is.
“Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme” (8:39)

Abdul Hadi Palazzi is a western-based Moslem apologist. But rather than just leave this (as you would) an attack on the person, let’s look at where he’s wrong

That’s not the claim Spencer made. He simply says Islam is supposed to be about the supremacy of Islam. Your rebuttal argues past the point.

Which is to argue that Islamic centralised authorities, the states have the power to do this.

If you can’t see how that refutes spencer’s claim that Muslims must make war to spread Islam or subdue other nations, you didn’t read the articles.

That’s the only possible explanation for this post of yours. Read the articles. The whole thing, even…they should only take about 30 minutes to read. I even quoted the part that says explicitly that you can’t declare war on people who don’t attack you first in Islam.

Palazzi’s article proves that there’s no such thing as an “islamic government” that must do x or y; it’s not part of the religion.

 

[cestusdei]

pro, here’s an idea. Why don’t you read Spencer’s book. Then come back and give an example of where he was incorrect.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Rodrigo,

Quoting sources does not mean you do so correctly. This is so obvious it shouldn’t have to be said.

Don’t talk rot. As a supposed ‘lawyer’ you would know something called ‘admission of guilt’.

Caliph Umar said in a sahih hadith that Muhammad ordered the spread of Islam to other countries (in this case Persia) by the sword.

I don’t care about your latter day apologists when the facts are so clear from the ‘horse’s mouth’.

 

[Montalban]

If you can’t see how that refutes spencer’s claim that Muslims must make war to spread Islam or subdue other nations, you didn’t read the articles.

More ‘just-so’ arguments. Your first citation didn’t address the concern you claimed he had. Not at all.

That’s the only possible explanation for this post of yours. Read the articles. The whole thing, even…they should only take about 30 minutes to read. I even quoted the part that says explicitly that you can’t declare war on people who don’t attack you first in Islam.

This is itself misleading. You know full well that Islam attacked the Roman empire without provocation, you even pegged me on a technical point (in another thread) when I said Muhammed declared war on Rome, and you pointed out correctly it was one of the leaders that came after Muhammed. Now you wish to argue against yourself. But the misleading part is that you can call upon a peaceful group to accept, and if they don’t, then you can declare war upon them.

You simply declare that they’ve insulted the prophet by not submitting.

Palazzi’s article proves that there’s no such thing as an “islamic government” that must do x or y; it’s not part of the religion.

An Islamic government, by its nature must follow Islam.

All you showed was that there was no ‘centralised government’ in Islam. This doesn’t mean that there is no ‘government’ in Islam.

Try and come up with a better argument. Simply calling on me to ‘submit’ to your opinion won’t work. “Just read the article again” !

 

[Montalban]

Don’t talk rot. As a supposed ‘lawyer’ you would know something called ‘admission of guilt’.

Caliph Umar said in a sahih hadith that Muhammad ordered the spread of Islam to other countries (in this case Persia) by the sword.

I don’t care about your latter day apologists when the facts are so clear from the ‘horse’s mouth’.

This is an historic truth. The (Eastern) Roman Empire and the Persian Empire had just fought a 30 year old war against each other when Islam burst upon them both, nearly crippling the Romans and destroying the Persians.

Neither empire was then at war with Islam, they’d never even heard of it.

 

[pro_universal]

This is an historic truth. The (Eastern) Roman Empire and the Persian Empire had just fought a 30 year old war against each other when Islam burst upon them both, nearly crippling the Romans and destroying the Persians.

Neither empire was then at war with Islam, they’d never even heard of it.

Both empires were Imperial states that conquered any weak neighbor at the first opportunity. They were certainly a threat to the Arabs. That’s how the policy of Imperial states operated…war and conquest to gain money.

I explained that to you in the other thread too, but you conveniently forgot that when you cited my point about Muhammad not being alive at that time.

Montalban, I’m going to have to say again:

Read the article. Maybe it’s difficult for you, but reading the entire article will show you the Islamic view on warfare. To claim that it isn’t in there only shows that you either did not or cannot read the article.

 

[amoxoxoma]

…Imperial states … conquered any weak neighbor at the first opportunity. … That’s how the policy of Imperial states operated…war and conquest to gain money.

Well, that certainly applies to the Islam/Arabic Empire too.

 

[amoxoxoma]

Read the article. Maybe it’s difficult for you, … only shows that you either did not or cannot read the article.

Blahblahblahblah…

Is anybody else tired of this argument ad absurdum?

 

[Montalban]

Both empires were Imperial states that conquered any weak neighbour at the first opportunity. They were certainly a threat to the Arabs. That’s how the policy of Imperial states operated…war and conquest to gain money.

More problems
a) So you’re idea is that a ‘potential threat’ is one that is right to be attacked. (in effect anyone can be attacked, which is what Spencer said of Islam, and you’ve just proved!) Thank you.
and
b) the historical facts are that the two empires were exhausted after 30 years of war, hence one fell so quick to Islam. They were not in any condition to attack anyone.

I explained that to you in the other thread too, but you conveniently forgot that when you cited my point about Muhammad not being alive at that time.

Doh! I just acknowledged that in my post that you did this. I’m more than happy to repeat that this is so. But then you’ve never acknowledged your faulty knowledge of British history, where you laughably had the Saxons attacking themselves. Still, if at least one of us is willing to have open and honest dialogue.

Anyway, all you’ve done is moved from Islam attacked under Muhammad to Islam attacked under someone else. The issue of Islam attacking is not negated.

However, Muhammad had already threatened them to submit, or face destruction
PROPHET MUHAMMAD’S LETTER TO HERACLIUS

In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Most Merciful. From: The Prophet of Allah To: Heraclius, the greatest of Romans Peace be upon those who follow Divine Guidance. I therefore invite you to embrace Islam. Surrender to Allah and live in peace. Allah will doubly reward you, but if you turn away, the sin of the Arians will rest upon you." Then he quoted the Koran:

'Say: People of the Book! (Jews, Nazarenes and Christians) let us come to a common word between us and you, that we will worship none except Allah, that we will associate none with Him, and that none of us take others for lords beside Allah.’ If they turn away, say: ‘Bear witness that we are Muslims’ Koran 3:64

islamic-paths.org/Home/English/Muhammad/Book/Millennium_Biography/Preface.htm

Montalban, I’m going to have to say again:

You’re compelled to. You think repeating something unfounded equates to proof. Then again Islam is the religion of ‘rote’.

Read the article. Maybe it’s difficult for you, but reading the entire article will show you the Islamic view on warfare. To claim that it isn’t in there only shows that you either did not or cannot read the article.

As noted you refuted yourself by recognising that Islam attacked first. All you’ve done here is tried to suggest (with nothing but supposition) that both empires might have posed a threat. They both posed a threat, simultaneously too, because they were both attacked at the same time.

Also, what threat did the Visigothic kingdoms in Spain and North Africa pose to Islam for them to be attacked?

 

[Montalban]

Blahblahblahblah…

Is anybody else tired of this argument ad absurdum?

It is an Islamic argument. To just keep reading and suddenly ‘submit’ to the illogic of the argument. Just accept it. Submit. Find peace in removing oneself from logic.

Islam requires simply having all arguments at once

There’s one master of lies and confusion and his work is seen in Islam.

 

[Damascus]

No spread of Islam by violence? So Caliph Umar got it wrong eh? I don’t care about your apologetics, pro. People can read Islamic sources for themselves.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386:

Narrated Jubair bin Haiya:
'Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, 'Umar said to him. “I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade.” Al-Hurmuzan said, “Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs; If one of its wings got broken, it would get up over its two legs, with one wing and the head; and if the other wing got broken, it would get up with two legs and a head, but if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless. The head stands for Khosrau, and one wing stands for Caesar and the other wing stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau.” So, ‘Umar sent us (to Khosrau) appointing An-Numan bin Muqrin as our commander. When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, “Let one of you talk to me!” Al-Mughira replied, “Ask whatever you wish.” The other asked, “Who are you?” Al-Mughira replied, "We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life: we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. 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.” (Al-Mughira, then blamed An-Numan for delaying the attack and) An-Nu’ man said to Al-Mughira, “If you had participated in a similar battle, in the company of Allah’s Apostle he would not have blamed you for waiting, nor would he have disgraced you. But I accompanied Allah’s Apostle in many battles and it was his custom that if he did not fight early by daytime, he would wait till the wind had started blowing and the time for the prayer was due (i.e. after midday).”

they would have been better off sticking to worshiping the trees and stones.

 

[Montalban]

they would have been better off sticking to worshiping the trees and stones.

We could have a discussion about al-lah the moon god.

 

[Damascus]

We could have a discussion about al-lah the moon god.

I did that once a while back, the Muslims got mad.

 

[Montalban]

I did that once a while back, the Muslims got mad.

At least there’s no ‘compulsion’ in their religion.

 

[Damascus]

At least there’s no ‘compulsion’ in their religion.

I think the Moon god is happy you said that.

 

[Montalban]

The best defence is an offence; an axiom of Islam too.

One needs to understand Islamo-speak.

Here ‘defence’ means offence - attacking someone who may one day pose a threat.

Peace is the prelude to war, and only can we return to that once we submit to Islam.

The example of Muhammad is the beacon of darkness for the rest of the world; he threatened the Roman Emperor Heraclius demanding that this emperor surrender. In the historical context this same emperor was engaged in a war not with Islam, but with Persia.

 

[pro_universal]

Blahblahblahblah…

Is anybody else tired of this argument ad absurdum?

I’m glad to see your charity has grown so much that you contribute to the debate instead of just making a snide remark.

I guess now that I’m not Catholic, I just can’t make Christ present in the world like you can.

 

[pro_universal]

As noted you refuted yourself by recognising that Islam attacked first. All you’ve done here is tried to suggest (with nothing but supposition) that both empires might have posed a threat. They both posed a threat, simultaneously too, because they were both attacked at the same time.

Also, what threat did the Visigothic kingdoms in Spain and North Africa pose to Islam for them to be attacked?

What do you mean “might”? Christians operated this way also in medieval times, and it wasn’t because they didn’t know their religion.

Imperial states are a threat to the states around them. Did the Visigothic kingdoms in Spain and North Africa get there by accident or a vote? No…they expanded and rooted out Roman Christians (or rather, enslaved some and let the rest assimilate).

You might be interested to know that the Goths in North Africa had been ravaged and subdued by Roman Christians long before the Muslims got there, and that most north african christians actually wanted Muslim rule (it meant they could practice Christianity how they wanted, not how the Emperor wanted.)