New book on Muhammed

[pro_universal]

amox,

Like I said, this thread is hopeless.

I had started to respond again, and then reflected for a moment on what possible good can come of it.

It’s obvious you do not find anything Muslims say about their own texts and faith to be credible if you believe Reverend Spencer.

The posts by Cestusdei and Rodrigo Bivar amount to a hate campaign designed to defame Muslims and hold them collectively responsible for all misdeeds by any Muslim anywhere. It is exactly the same pattern that was used against Jews in the 20th century, and it’s pointless to argue with it. It’s not a position that can be reasoned with.

Judging by your response here, neither can you be reasoned with on this point. Any evidence, anything at all that supports Reverend Spencer’s attacks on Islam is something you will accept. But no matter how credible the source, you find anything that refutes it and paints a moderate picture of Islam to be suspicious.

And of course, the new leader of the Church is helping to fuel the flames of this suspicion and propaganda against Muslims. Just look at how cestusdei and rodrigo seized on his speech to issue condemnations of Islam.

It’s based on junk scholarship, it’s wrong, and it’s dangerous in the current political context to participate in this. I won’t do it, I realize I’m wasting my breath in imploring you not to do it, and I won’t be a party to any organization that’s part of the process.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Muhammad bin Abdallah: Qatiloo (i.e. kill) those who do not believe in Allah or the last day until they convert or pay the Jizyah in submission. = SPREAD ISLAM BY THE SWORD.

Caliph Umar al-Khattab, Companion of Muhammad, Second Caliph: Muhammad said to spread Islam by the sword.

Abū Zayd ‘Abdu r-Raḥman ibn Muḥammad ibn Khaldūn al-Hadrami, Great Muslim historian and philosopher: Islam was spread by the sword.

Pro_Universal: you guys are running a hate campaign against Muslims for quoting Islamic sources telling of the spread of Islam by the sword.

Credibility, pro, credibility.

 

[Montalban]

amox,

Like I said, this thread is hopeless.

It isn’t if you believe in honest debate.

I had started to respond again, and then reflected for a moment on what possible good can come of it.

It’s obvious you do not find anything Muslims say about their own texts and faith to be credible if you believe Reverend Spencer.

Even though you yourself proved him correct by saying Islam gives the right to attack non-threats.

And note, you’ve not addressed evidence I’ve given you even without referencing to anything Spencer himself has said -thus your objection (ad hom against Spencer) is odd given you’ve not addressed evidence from sources other than Spencer

The posts by Cestusdei and Rodrigo Bivar amount to a hate campaign designed to defame Muslims and hold them collectively responsible for all misdeeds by any Muslim anywhere. It is exactly the same pattern that was used against Jews in the 20th century, and it’s pointless to argue with it. It’s not a position that can be reasoned with.

Judging by your response here, neither can you be reasoned with on this point. Any evidence, anything at all that supports Reverend Spencer’s attacks on Islam is something you will accept. But no matter how credible the source, you find anything that refutes it and paints a moderate picture of Islam to be suspicious.

And of course, the new leader of the Church is helping to fuel the flames of this suspicion and propaganda against Muslims. Just look at how cestusdei and rodrigo seized on his speech to issue condemnations of Islam.

It’s based on junk scholarship, it’s wrong, and it’s dangerous in the current political context to participate in this. I won’t do it, I realize I’m wasting my breath in imploring you not to do it, and I won’t be a party to any organization that’s part of the process.
Another call to submit! Just ‘believe’ and all the bad stuff goes away!

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Please be careful about throwing around labels, particularly if they give the wrong impression. They are also ad hominems.

I do not hold Muslims today responsible for past misdeeds by Islam and/or Muslims. That would be uncharitable and nowhere have I written anything that blaming any living Muslim for Muhammad’s deeds or those of his followers.

We bear the responsibility for our own actions - nothing more.

I do blame Muhammad for inventing a diabolical cult, and I do blame Muslims for adhering to this diabolical cult. To show that the tree of Islam is rotten from the deepest root to the tips of the leaves is not instigating a hate campaign against anyone. Muslims are victims of Islam and I wish all Muslims would leave this diabolical cult.

Thus, by showing the evil nature, teachings and practice of Islam, I am showing the truth about this cult. If I show current teachings and practices that are abominable - such as the permissibility of having sex with little girls - is this not a fitting charge against the Muslims who do so? Do we sit by and ignore pedophilia as if it were a moral godly act, in emulation of a man who did such a heinous thing?

Regardless of our religious beliefs, it is never good, nor is it moral, to turn a blind eye to evil.

Although I am not a Christian I do consider myself good in that I will fight evil wherever I see it. Remember the saying: for evil to triumph it only takes good men to do nothing.

 

[Montalban]

Although I am not a Christian I do consider myself good in that I will fight evil wherever I see it. Remember the saying: for evil to triumph it only takes good men to do nothing.

I’m not Catholic (I’m Orthodox) so when Pro_universal argues about the evils of ‘the church’, in one sense I see these points are being argued past me.

However his ‘points’ consist mainly of ‘just-so’ statements and are thus at least an unwarranted attack on my Catholic brothers and sisters.

There’s not yet been any established causal link between the Christian faith and violence.

In fact the argument here is hypocritical

His stance: Christians should not be concerned with things in Islam
contradicted by his claims about Christianity and violence (he should not be concerned with things in Christianity)

Then he’s stated he’s not going to debate this anymore, so goes ahead and starts another thread on the same subject; Islamic violence. True Islam means submitting to the “Father of Lies” who causes such confusion.

 

[murtad]

What is wrong about the source he quoted, or him quoting it? Again you’re prepared to play the man, and not what’s said.

I do not see anything wrong with those sources. Also, quoting from Quran, Hadith and Islamic commentators like Kathir and Tamiyyah are not wrong at all as Islamic governments also use these sources to justify apartheid towards Christians and other non-Muslims.

If you do read the history of early Islam as recorded in the Sunnah and Hadith books, you can see that the 4 Caliphs of Islam, Abu Bakar, Umar, Uthman, and Ali were no different from Adolf Hitler.

They practised racism, colonism, imperialism and subjugation towards Middle Eastern Christians, Copts and Syrians as well as Nubians destroying their cultures via forced Arabisation. That’s how you get those 22 so-called “Arab” States, which were hardly Arab but merely Arabic-speaking.

Eventoday, these “Arab” states severely persecute Christians, denying them all the freedoms codified in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Christians have no freedom to build churches and preach the Gospel to Muslims. Nor do Muslims have freedom to renounce Islam.

Iraq is the only free country among all the 22 “Arab” states as the Christian language, Syriac has been declared one of the four official languages. The others are Arabic, Kurdish and Turkish. I await the day, Coptic will be made an official language of Egypt side-by-side with Arabic. This is the day when we can honestly say the Arab world is truly multi-cultural like the European Union.

 

[cestusdei]

pro, by hate campaign do you mean my objections to Islamic enslavement, torture, crucifixion, persecution and murder of Christians daily? None of those ever seem to trouble you.

 

[murtad]

I don’t believe in the Catholic Church either.

Can you tell us the reason why you left the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church? Just curious.

Violence by Christians is not connected to Christianity.

Violence is allowed under specific conditions given by St Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, who is universally recognised as a Doctor of the Church because of his canonisation as a saint by an Ecumenical Council.

Crusades were certainly Just War as we were liberating Coptics and Syriacs from Arab occupation and apartheid. There is no such thing as an Arab “Christian”, especially in North Africa or the Levant. Any Christian who calls himself an Arab breaks one of the 10 commandments, “thou shall not lie”. That’s because Middle Eastern Christians are merely Arabic-speaking but not Arabs at all and most of them supporting de-Arabising the Middle East.

As you can see, with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the Christian language, Syriac became one of the four official languages of the new Iraq. Syriac is the liturgical language of the Chaldean Catholic Church and Assyrian Church of the East.

As Christians, we know lying is a sin in God’s eyes and only Satanic religions like Islam and Marxism allow lying, which in Islam is called Doctrine of Takiyah.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

I don’t believe in the Catholic Church either.

murtad:

Can you tell us the reason why you left the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church? Just curious.

I did so on another thread. It’s for that topic, not this one. You’re welcome to comment there.

Montalban:

Violence by Christians is not connected to Christianity.

murtad:

Violence is allowed under specific conditions given by St Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, who is universally recognised as a Doctor of the Church because of his canonisation as a saint by an Ecumenical Council.

a) He’s not a doctor of the Orthodox Church (we don’t have ‘doctors of the church’) - so he’s not representative of Christian thought, in toto
b) not everything he says we accept - so he’s not representative of Christian thought, in toto

I accept that Augustine may have said these things. He did so some several centuries after Jesus. The difference in Islam is that violence was proclaimed by Muhammad

murtad:

Crusades were certainly Just War as we were liberating Coptics and Syriacs from Arab occupation and apartheid.

If you say that they were ‘just’ wars, that’s fine.

murtad:

There is no such thing as an Arab “Christian”, especially in North Africa or the Levant. Any Christian who calls himself an Arab breaks one of the 10 commandments, “thou shall not lie”. That’s because Middle Eastern Christians are merely Arabic-speaking but not Arabs at all and most of them supporting de-Arabising the Middle East.

That’s not true. There are Arabs who have converted. And there’s been some inter-marriages.

 

[pro_universal]

a) He’s not a doctor of the Orthodox Church (we don’t have ‘doctors of the church’) - so he’s not representative of Christian thought, in toto
b) not everything he says we accept - so he’s not representative of Christian thought, in toto

I accept that Augustine may have said these things. He did so some several centuries after Jesus. The difference in Islam is that violence was proclaimed by Muhammad

How convenient. Instant sensitivity to religious nuance and differences in authority when your own religion is discussed, yet you seem to be blind to this possibility when Islam is discussed.

Oh wait, I forgot to include a demand for proof:

“Come on montalban, you need more than that! Prove that Augustine’s statements don’t hold authority over Christianity.”

 

[Montalban]

How convenient. Instant sensitivity to religious nuance and differences in authority when your own religion is discussed, yet you seem to be blind to this possibility when Islam is discussed.

It’s called structuring an argument. If you disagree, actually show why it’s wrong. I stated that all of Augustine’s teachings are not pertinent to Christianity per se. If you disagree, try and actually come up with a reason why.

There are differences. I stated why.

For you, you state there are ‘differences’, but you simply repeat ad infinitum that there just are. Oh, and that non-Moslems can’t discuss Islam! How many times are you going to repeat that one! ROFL!

Sorry if you think that these are the exact same type of discussion. They are not.

Oh wait, I forgot to include a demand for proof

“Come on Montalban, you need more than that! Prove that Augustine’s statements don’t hold authority over Christianity.”

Although you offer no proofs, I’m more than happy to. And I already did. Augustine is revered more in the west, and that his teachings come centuries after Jesus.

There is thus a difference from Islam (as I stated) because the violence in Islam is from the very beginning and it’s universal to Islam, because it’s in the Koran. Augustine’s works aren’t universal to Christianity.

Even in post #182 I noted that your attacks on ‘the church’ miss the mark. You’re so ‘Catholic-centric’.

I know that your own posts are so devoid of facts that you couldn’t recognise them even when I stated them in my own post - hence you laughably now ask me to state what I’d already stated.

Even though this is off-topic, I have no worries about addressing your concerns. If only you worked the same side of the street. If you feel that strongly about it, start a thread.

But I expect you’ll concentrate on off-topic discussions like this so as to try and steer away from having to deal with difficult issues in Islam. If only it wasn’t always so.

 

[pro_universal]

Montalban,

Let me construct an argument with your claims about Augustine that is exactly the same type of argument you employ against Islam. This should be instructive, so you can see how poorly reasoned your attacks on Islam are:

"

I stated that all of Augustine’s teachings are not pertinent to Christianity per se. If you disagree, try and actually come up with a reason why.

Not true. Christians admire Augustine’s teachings, I’ll post proof:

bartleby.com/65/au/AugustnSt.html

Here’s a secular, objective proof that St. Augustine is second in importance only to St. Paul in Christianity:

St. Augustine’s influence on Christianity is thought by many to be second only to that of St. Paul

That proves that you are not telling the truth about Augustine and Christianity.

But anyway, Christians are allowed to tell falsehood in order to spread their religion (please don’t use a Christian apologist source to refute this point, as it’s not credible since Christians are allowed to tell falsehoods to spread their religion.)

ctlibrary.com/2301

Luther defended “a good hearty lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian Church, a lie in case of necessity, a useful lie.” Such lies, he said, “would not be against God.”

This is proof positive that Christians are allowed to lie to spread the faith.

If you want to refute me montalban, you need PROOF!"

Now, I don’t believe the above…but how is that any different from the way you’re attacking Muslims?

 

[Montalban]

Montalban, Let me construct an argument with your claims about Augustine that is exactly the same type of argument you employ against Islam. This should be instructive, so you can see how poorly reasoned your attacks on Islam are:

As noted this is off-topic. I predicted that you would do this.

You’ve been given the option of starting a thread to discuss this. You haven’t. Rather than deal with issue on Islam, you go off discussing Christianity; refuting yourself when you say…

Now, I don’t believe the above…but how is that any different from the way you’re attacking Muslims?

Then you have refuted your own argument by disagreeing with the ‘facts’ you think to present, which aren’t even on-topic. Your argument simply must win some award for nonsense (like a wordy/essay Darwin Award, notable for killing itself). I don’t say “Islam is violent. Now I don’t believe any of it”.

If you and I are in agreement about the influence of Augustine on the Christian church AS A WHOLE, then that should be the end of this attempt at comparison.

We are still in dispute however about Islam and violence and so should be discussing what’s in dispute, not what we’re in agreement with (you have a strange sense of ‘debate’)
I agree!
No, I agree!
NO! I AGREE!

And PS, when you start your thread to discuss violence in Christianity don’t cite [Homework Help and Textbook Solutions | bartleby]http://www.bartleby.com/65/au/AugustnSt.html](http://www.bartleby.com/65/au/AugustnSt.html"]http://www.bartleby.com/65/au/AugustnSt.html) which is just a general site. You need to state what was said pertinent to the argument, else it looks like you just did a hasty Google and cut ‘n’ pasted the first couple of results (not that you’d do something so lame as to not check your own referenced web-site address!)

I’m sorry, these posts are splitting my sides

 

[pro_universal]

AThen you have refuted your own argument by disagreeing with the ‘facts’ you think to present, which aren’t even on-topic. Your argument simply must win some award for nonsense (like a wordy/essay Darwin Award, notable for killing itself). I don’t say “Islam is violent. Now I don’t believe any of it”.

See, you’re attacking me instead of debating the issue. Typical ad hominem

If you and I are in agreement about the influence of Augustine on the Christian church AS A WHOLE, then that should be the end of this attempt at comparison.

All Christianity. You were trying to squirm out of responsibility for his statements even though you’re Christian.

And PS, when you start your thread to discuss violence in Christianity don’t cite [Homework Help and Textbook Solutions | bartleby]http://www.bartleby.com/65/au/AugustnSt.html](http://www.bartleby.com/65/au/AugustnSt.html"]http://www.bartleby.com/65/au/AugustnSt.html) which is just a general site. You need to state what was said pertinent to the argument, else it looks like you just did a hasty Google and cut ‘n’ pasted the first couple of results (not that you’d do something so lame as to not check your own referenced web-site address!)

I’m sorry, these posts are splitting my sides

You mean general sites are bad? How come you cited wikipedia to discuss Islam?

 

[Montalban]

See, you’re attacking me instead of debating the issue. Typical ad hominem

Are you saying I’m now arguing like you do? Wow! Should I take that as a complement?

All Christianity. You were trying to squirm out of responsibility for his statements even though you’re Christian.

I’m not squirming, I’m inviting you to discuss the appropriate subject on the appropriate thread.

You discussing Christianity here does not equate to answering questions about Islam, especially in light of the fact you’ve already admitted Augustine has no connection to all of Christianity. You’ve refuted your own objection! Are you now going to refute your refutation? :whacky:

You mean general sites are bad? How come you cited wikipedia to discuss Islam?

This is hysterical. Did you even check your cited site? It’s just the front-page to a general site on various works. There’s nothing specific about Augustine on that page, and nothing that shows any connection of Augustine to anything. They have fiction, non-fiction. There’s even works that reference the Koran like (appropriately ?) Bells. Dictionary of Phrase and Fable of 1898. By virtue of this, you’re now arguing that the Koran is central to Christian thinking, as is Bells Dictionary of Phrase and Fable.

I implored you to check your stuff, and you didn’t. It’s killing me to see you do this to yourself. (And that’s not an ad hom).

When I cited wikipedia, I cited something specific to the argument; and you’ve not disputed that.

That’s what you should do. Cite something specific (I know it takes time). Not just a general web-site that links to hundreds of different works!
:bowdown2:
You’re a classic!

 

[pro_universal]

Well, you clearly missed the point of my example.

 

[Montalban]

Well, you clearly missed the point of my example.

You clearly didn’t check your own citation. I apologise for laughing. It was very funny though, you’ve got to admit!

Not only that, you refute yourself about Augustine! (which is still off-topic).

Let’s get back to more violence-in-Islam evidence. Please, I invite you, tell me why this is misrepresentative…

The Banu Qurayzah tribe which had aided him in his early struggles, refused to convert to Islam (recall that Muslims will quote - there’s no compulsion in religion’!)

The members of the last surviving Jewish tribe in Medinah, Banu Qurayzah, were even less fortunate. Muhammad offered the men conversion to Islam as an alternative to death; upon their refusal, all 900 were decapitated in front of their enslaved women and children. The women were subsequently raped; Muhammad chose as his concubine one Raihana Bint Amr, whose father and husband were both slaughtered before her eyes only hours earlier.

chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/February1999/0299Trifkovic.htm

This is found in the Koran
“And He has caused to descend from their strongholds the Jews that assisted them. And he struck terror into their hearts. Some you slaughtered and some you took prisoner”

Sura 33.25

Muhammad himself over-saw the execution of these PoWs. He took one of the women for himself. Can you imagine her horror. She’s just seen all her male kinsfolk, including teenage boys killed, and then she’s got to share his bed?

 

[pro_universal]

You clearly didn’t check your own citation. I apologise for laughing. It was very funny though, you’ve got to admit!

It was supposed to be laughable. That was the point. The ironic part is that I was constructing the argument to show you how bad your sources and claims about Islam were, and you turned around by citing “chroniclesmagazine”, something you found on google, to prove a point about Islam.

To me, the irony there is spine-breaking. I’m not sure how it escapes you, but it does. You’re clearly impervious to such things.

 

[Booklover]

You clearly didn’t check your own citation. I apologise for laughing. It was very funny though, you’ve got to admit!

Not only that, you refute yourself about Augustine! (which is still off-topic).

Let’s get back to more violence-in-Islam evidence. Please, I invite you, tell me why this is misrepresentative…

The Banu Qurayzah tribe which had aided him in his early struggles, refused to convert to Islam (recall that Muslims will quote - there’s no compulsion in religion’!)

The members of the last surviving Jewish tribe in Medinah, Banu Qurayzah, were even less fortunate. Muhammad offered the men conversion to Islam as an alternative to death; upon their refusal, all 900 were decapitated in front of their enslaved women and children. The women were subsequently raped; Muhammad chose as his concubine one Raihana Bint Amr, whose father and husband were both slaughtered before her eyes only hours earlier.

chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/February1999/0299Trifkovic.htm

This is found in the Koran
“And He has caused to descend from their strongholds the Jews that assisted them. And he struck terror into their hearts. Some you slaughtered and some you took prisoner”

Sura 33.25

Muhammad himself over-saw the execution of these PoWs. He took one of the women for himself. Can you imagine her horror. She’s just seen all her male kinsfolk, including teenage boys killed, and then she’s got to share his bed?

As usual Pro continues to ignore the atrocities committed by Muhammad!

 

[pro_universal]

As usual Pro continues to ignore the atrocities committed by Muhammad!

Oh yes. I also always ignore your charity and well-reasoned contributions to any discussion on Islam.