L
libby060
Guest
I agree Luke. Smoke and mirrors.
- Status
A
Acts17
Guest
Friends,
As one of the people assaulted by Muslims during the filming, I would like to briefly respond to some of the comments.
(1) Under Sharia law (as has already been pointed out), Christians are not free to preach the Gospel. This can be seen in the “Pact of Umar,” an agreement the second Caliph made with Christians. Under the agreement, Christians couldn’t repair their churches, preach, wear crosses, possess houses taller than those of Muslims, etc.
(2) Sharia law possesses no concept of Christians, Jews, and Muslims living together in a permanent peaceful state. Muslims are only allowed to seek peace when they are not strong enough to fight. When they become dominant, the rules change. As Muhammad said in Sahih Muslim 4366, “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.”
(3) Someone has criticized us for distributing materials at a Muslim festival. Someone else has already noted that this wasn’t a Muslim festival. I would add that we weren’t distributing material at all. Our crime was simple. Muslims had a booth in which they invited people to ask them questions. We asked them a question, and they couldn’t answer it. A few minutes later, security was slapping us around.
I’ll leave Islam’s defenders with a few passages to carefully consider:
Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Qur’an 47:35—Be not weary and fainthearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost: for Allah is with you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds.
Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Allah’s Messenger said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”
Sahih Muslim 30—It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right, and his affairs rest with Allah.
As one of the people assaulted by Muslims during the filming, I would like to briefly respond to some of the comments.
(1) Under Sharia law (as has already been pointed out), Christians are not free to preach the Gospel. This can be seen in the “Pact of Umar,” an agreement the second Caliph made with Christians. Under the agreement, Christians couldn’t repair their churches, preach, wear crosses, possess houses taller than those of Muslims, etc.
(2) Sharia law possesses no concept of Christians, Jews, and Muslims living together in a permanent peaceful state. Muslims are only allowed to seek peace when they are not strong enough to fight. When they become dominant, the rules change. As Muhammad said in Sahih Muslim 4366, “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.”
(3) Someone has criticized us for distributing materials at a Muslim festival. Someone else has already noted that this wasn’t a Muslim festival. I would add that we weren’t distributing material at all. Our crime was simple. Muslims had a booth in which they invited people to ask them questions. We asked them a question, and they couldn’t answer it. A few minutes later, security was slapping us around.
I’ll leave Islam’s defenders with a few passages to carefully consider:
Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Qur’an 47:35—Be not weary and fainthearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost: for Allah is with you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds.
Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Allah’s Messenger said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”
Sahih Muslim 30—It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right, and his affairs rest with Allah.
F
famdigy
Guest
Acts17,
I saw the video and thought Mr. Quraishi’s attitude was provoking the Muslims, it looked like he went in there looking for a fight, that’s the impression I got. It’s easy for someone to get their back up in this situation. Not to excuse their actions or defend their behavior but maybe if you weren’t so confrontational it wouldn’t have turned out the way it did.
Also, some people are sensitive about being video taped by a stranger, some may see it as an invasion of personal space when you stick a camera in their face especially with a confrontational attitude. You wouldn’t like it done to you if the roles were reversed and a group of Muslims with Cameras crashed a Christian Festival. Not cool man.
Finally, I wish you had taken your own advise and carefully considered the passages you quoted out of context. You know that when you quote a passage out of context its very easy to give it a misleading meaning. Here’s an example of a biblical passage quoted out of context.
In 2 Corinthians 12:16, Paul makes a perplexing, yet revealing, statement: “But be it so, I did not burden you: being crafty, I took you in by deceit.”
Does Christianity accept “taking in by deceit” as a means of “ministering,” and propagandizing?
do you see what I mean?
I saw the video and thought Mr. Quraishi’s attitude was provoking the Muslims, it looked like he went in there looking for a fight, that’s the impression I got. It’s easy for someone to get their back up in this situation. Not to excuse their actions or defend their behavior but maybe if you weren’t so confrontational it wouldn’t have turned out the way it did.
Also, some people are sensitive about being video taped by a stranger, some may see it as an invasion of personal space when you stick a camera in their face especially with a confrontational attitude. You wouldn’t like it done to you if the roles were reversed and a group of Muslims with Cameras crashed a Christian Festival. Not cool man.
Finally, I wish you had taken your own advise and carefully considered the passages you quoted out of context. You know that when you quote a passage out of context its very easy to give it a misleading meaning. Here’s an example of a biblical passage quoted out of context.
In 2 Corinthians 12:16, Paul makes a perplexing, yet revealing, statement: “But be it so, I did not burden you: being crafty, I took you in by deceit.”
Does Christianity accept “taking in by deceit” as a means of “ministering,” and propagandizing?
do you see what I mean?
D
dzheremi
Guest
Now watch as NO ONE here proceeds to hit you, threaten you, take anything from you, or gang up on you for asking a damn question.
Do you see what WE mean? Stop trying to defend the indefensible. That’s pathetic.
F
famdigy
Guest
I already said I’m not defending their actions or behavior, it’s in the first sentence of my reply to Acts. All I’m saying is it wasn’t right of Acts to ambush the Muslims in confrontation with a video camera in their face, it’s only natural they would get their backs up and react. Yes, they shouldn’t have ganged up on Acts, or stole his pamphlets or pushed or hit the cameras, I don’t defend any of that. But at the same time, Acts should have had a little more social finesse.
D
dzheremi
Guest
No it isn’t. Don’t you remember what you posted barely an hour ago?
That reads exactly like you are defending their actions and behavior. So does the rest of your post.
They knew he had a video camera already before he asked any question, so I don’t know how you can claim he was “ambushing” anyone. Their tent advertised that anyone with a question could ask it. He talked to the police (the legitimate police, not thugs in “Security” vests) and they told him he was entirely within his legal rights to film so long as he was not starting an argument with anyone. You’d think that if this particular group of Muslims weren’t a bunch of idiots, they would take this opportunity to answer his question about their OWN freaking pamphlets in a reasonable manner as a way of promoting Islam, instead of shoving him around and threatening him and then calling on more Muslims to come join in. Alas, that’s not how it happened, and EVERYONE is a little more miffed than the situation calls for as a result.
A little more social finesse than what? To ask a question? To be openly filming the festival? Sorry, bud, take that garbage elsewhere, cos I am not buying it. I don’t care if Dearborn has the most Muslims in the entire country, this was an ARAB (not Muslim!) festival, open to everybody, and these people were there to express their viewpoint as much as anyone else at the festival, as is entirely their right as Americans. If you or any other Muslim doesn’t like it, perhaps America is not the place for you.
You would be entirely free to do the same at a comparable Armenian, Maltese, etc. (other Christian-majority cultural group) festival in the USA, and I doubt any Muslim would not take the opportunity if presented with a big tent where they could ask any question about Christianity they wanted to, and film it if that was their intention and they were not doing so secretly or otherwise in a legally-suspicious manner. In fact, I know that this happens, because I’ve seen it myself back when I lived in Oregon and evangelical protestant groups would come through town and set up in town. The town I lived in had a large Muslim population due foreign students at the local university. They generally got a big kick out of making the evangelicals really exasperated (let’s just say these well-meaning evangelical folks were very misguided and unprepared for any intelligent questions), and I observed a pair of young Muslim guys filming one such exchange at least once. Sure, things got heated (even more heated when atheists started in, actually), but nobody ever pushed or threatened anybody, and security never had to be called. This is how public exchanges are supposed to work, but some Muslims just can’t handle it. Again, it’s pathetic.
A
Acts17
Guest
famdigy,
Yes, the Muslims said we were free to ask questions. If you watch the longer footage on our website (answeringmuslims.com), you can see that the Muslims said we could tape them . . . twice! The Muslims at the booth weren’t the problem. They didn’t know much about their religion, but they weren’t violent or anything. It was the guards that were the problem. They assaulted us for asking a question of another group that invited us to ask questions. (And it seems you have a similar way of thinking–point a finger at the people asking the question.)
I’m curious as to your accusation that I have quoted passages out of context. Please show me one example. Surah 9:29, in context, means that Muslims are supposed to fight Christians and the Jews. The context is given in the next verse, which says that Christian say that Jesus is the Son of God, and therefore we should be destroyed. Historically, the context was this: After receiving this verse, Muhammad launched an attack of the Byzantine Christians at Tabuk, despite the fact that the Byzantines had not attacked Muhammad. As for 47:35, I can provide you with Islam’s greatest commentaries on the verse, which say that Muslims aren’t allowed to seek peace when they are strong enough to fight. According to Ibn Kathir, for instance, this verse means that Muslims shouldn’t compromise, seek peace, or end the fighting with non-Muslims when Muslims are in a position of power. As for the Hadiths I quoted, there is no context. The passages are exactly as they are found in the Hadith. Thus, they describe Muhammad’s mission without qualification: fight until people submit to Islam.
Just to review, we were invited to ask a question, and we were given permission to record. We asked a question, and we recorded, and we were assaulted for it. On top of this, you say that we were clearly in the wrong. To show that this is to be expected, I quoted several passages from Muhammad, all of which mean exactly what they say. You act as if quoting Paul out of context somehow rescues the Muslim passages. It doesn’t.
Yes, the Muslims said we were free to ask questions. If you watch the longer footage on our website (answeringmuslims.com), you can see that the Muslims said we could tape them . . . twice! The Muslims at the booth weren’t the problem. They didn’t know much about their religion, but they weren’t violent or anything. It was the guards that were the problem. They assaulted us for asking a question of another group that invited us to ask questions. (And it seems you have a similar way of thinking–point a finger at the people asking the question.)
I’m curious as to your accusation that I have quoted passages out of context. Please show me one example. Surah 9:29, in context, means that Muslims are supposed to fight Christians and the Jews. The context is given in the next verse, which says that Christian say that Jesus is the Son of God, and therefore we should be destroyed. Historically, the context was this: After receiving this verse, Muhammad launched an attack of the Byzantine Christians at Tabuk, despite the fact that the Byzantines had not attacked Muhammad. As for 47:35, I can provide you with Islam’s greatest commentaries on the verse, which say that Muslims aren’t allowed to seek peace when they are strong enough to fight. According to Ibn Kathir, for instance, this verse means that Muslims shouldn’t compromise, seek peace, or end the fighting with non-Muslims when Muslims are in a position of power. As for the Hadiths I quoted, there is no context. The passages are exactly as they are found in the Hadith. Thus, they describe Muhammad’s mission without qualification: fight until people submit to Islam.
Just to review, we were invited to ask a question, and we were given permission to record. We asked a question, and we recorded, and we were assaulted for it. On top of this, you say that we were clearly in the wrong. To show that this is to be expected, I quoted several passages from Muhammad, all of which mean exactly what they say. You act as if quoting Paul out of context somehow rescues the Muslim passages. It doesn’t.
R
redhen
Guest
I think the most telling part of the video is when one of participants who is getting slapped around shouts “This is America!”. The reply we hear from the Muslims is “No way!”.
Dearborn is a flashpoint because of the concentration of Muslims there, but it is also an example of what is to become of the West.
I’m afraid Muammar Gadaffi was right when he pronounced:
“There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”
youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Finsidecatholic.com%2FJoomla%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D1154%26Itemid%3D10&feature=player_embedded
youtube.com/watch?v=i7ympF_grrA
Dearborn is a flashpoint because of the concentration of Muslims there, but it is also an example of what is to become of the West.
I’m afraid Muammar Gadaffi was right when he pronounced:
“There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”
youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Finsidecatholic.com%2FJoomla%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D1154%26Itemid%3D10&feature=player_embedded
youtube.com/watch?v=i7ympF_grrA
G
greggy53
Guest
I was raised in Dearborn. Many years ago the Chaldeans and Christian Lebanese were invited by the city to come and live there, and given safe haven from their Muslim persecutors…how sad to see such a great City come to ruin.
T
tomarin
Guest
What if his interpretation of those passages is different from yours? I think that’s what he’s getting at by quoting Paul – the meaning that Muslims generally attach to those verses may not be the meaning that you attach to them. You can mislead people by taking quotes out of context.
J
jakasaki
Guest
This is one of the verses Acts17 posted:
In the koran tafsir here is the explaination of the verse for your review. I will link the source as well for your further study and evaluation.
There is no mis-interpretation of the verse - it is clear explaination from an islamic site.
This is what the muslims understand.
In this portion the Muslims have been urged to fight in the Way of Allah with the mushrik Arabs, the Jews and the Christians, who were duly warned of the consequences of their mischievous and inimical behavior.
[Verse#29]
Fight with those from among the people of the Book, who do not believe in Allah nor in the Last Day; who do not make unlawful that which Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful, and do not adopt the Right way as their way. (Fight with them) until they pay Jizyah with their own hands and are humbled.
**At first this Command applied only to the Jews and the Christians. Then the Holy Prophet himself extended it to the Zoroastrians also. After his death, his Companions unanimously applied this rule to all the non-Muslim nations outside Arabia. **
searchtruth.com/tafsir/tafsir.php?chapter=9
C
cthulhubryan
Guest
Thomas Jefferson:
George Washington:
As we can see by the quotes of these great men, the idea of restricting Christians is an anti-democratic and necessarily illegal thing. Those in power in Dearborn should be removed from office if they are not able to gather the testicular fortitude to overcome this evil.
I did look for quotes from evil men as well but could only find one that was relevant:
Ayatollah Ali Khameini:
Other evils were less helpful
Ayatollah Khomeini:
S
sedonaman
Guest
I am not an attorney, but have taken an interest in free-speech cases. The Boy Scouts have been involved in some cases in the recent past that encompass the freedom of association aspect of free speech. The following has been taken from their website:
There have been several other noteworthy cases:
Many years ago, the American Nazi Party won a famous free-speech case. The courts said they had the right to march * on the public streets through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, IL, a city where a large population of holocaust survivors and their families live. The Nazis were defended by the ACLU. conservativeculture.com/2007/04/aclu-defends-nazi-party
The Irish Americans won a case involving the Boston St. Patrick’s day parade. A gay organization was suing the parade organizers to be included in the parade. The Court [again, all the way to the SCOTUS] ruled that a parade is a form of free speech being exercised by the Irish participants and that they were not obliged to include dissenting viewpoints.
What all this implies in the case of Dearborn incident is that whether free speech rights of the Christian Evangelists were denied depends on a number of factors not clearly evident in the video. Among them might be whether the Muslims had leased the entire facilities [including the streets] from the city for the duration of the festival. If they had, then it would seem that what is normally a “traditional public forum” had been temporarily converted into a forum similar to the streets of Boston during the St. Patrick’s Day Parade [whatever type that is]. If they had not leased the streets, then it seems to me that they had remained a “traditional public forum”. The same might be said of the claim that the Evangelists were only asking a question. When the Muslims put up a sign saying “Ask a question; we have answers” [without stating limits], that they open themselves up to any and all, and as in the Nazi parade case, the sensitivities of the Muslims would be irrelevant.
In view of all this, there appears to have been no excuse for the violence and intimidation. I mean, like, what did they have to fear about the cameras if they were acting in a legal way?
This is all going to make for some interesting grist for the courts’ mill, and some skillful attorneys will undoubtedly think of many more factors to argue and legal hairs to split.*
G
Ghoti
Guest
T
tomarin
Guest
So secretly Famdigy wants to make war on us, because of that sura?
T
tomarin
Guest
Well I can’t prove you wrong, since you have your Islamic site there. I just hope that there are moderate Muslims who do not take “war” literally – and if there are such, then I hope they aren’t pushed by people like yourself and Acts17 into accepting the more scary version of the surah because you have convinced them this is the “real” Islam.
Certainly my Muslim neighbors do not seem interested in making war on me. I will have to ask them what they make of this surah.
I think it’s important that Christians should work for peace and not sow dischord and strife if possible.
J
jakasaki
Guest
I don’t believe it’s a problem with Christians promoting peace and working for peace, perhaps you should “preach” this statement to the muslims and teach the muslims the Christian way.
And yes, I too have muslim neighbors AND friends and co-workers.
Off-topic -
Remember the famous 19 hijackers - they too were loving people and great to their neighbors and co-workers and friends.
They lived here and worked here , trained here… right here in America and everything was peachy keen until that one horrible day here in New York, I’m sure you remember it!
S
sedonaman
Guest
If we must avoid the “I-know-some-bad-Muslims-hence-all-Muslims-are-bad” stereotype, we should likewise avoid the “I-know-some-good-Muslims-hence-Islam-is-good” mistake.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Excuse me, but since when is it any Christian’s fault how Islam is interpreted by Islamic scholars? This makes NO sense at all. It’s not as though Jakasaki is making any of this up; that’s the point of emphasizing that it came from an Islamic site: this is what MUSLIMS say their faith is about. If any Christian or other non-Muslim dispels the warm ‘n’ fuzzy (a.k.a. fake) vision of Islam that many Muslim posters here try to convince us is the “true” Islam, it is for the benefit of everyone involved, not for the radicalization of any Muslim who previously lived in denial about their scripture. Jakasaki didn’t write the Qur’an of that tafsir.
We Christians have no stake in the continuation of Islam. It is entirely and only Muslims’ fault if they have any problem with their own scripture, with public reception of their bullying tactics (as in the video), or any other problem they try to pass off as the fault of others with the help of tepid apologists such as yourself.
Not that I don’t agree with you in one respect: I too think that is the responsibility of Christians to work for peace with our Muslim and other non-Christian neighbors. I am not about to hold my breath waiting for any sort of reciprochal statement from Muslims concerning their own responsibility to do the same with regard to us, though. Not when they can’t even apparently deal with questions without resorting to threats and violence. That kind of behavior deserves no respect or goodwill at all.
Respect and goodwill are a two-way street. and I’m tired of the B.S. excuses and deflection of responsibility on the part of Muslims who don’t feel they should to behave like decent human beings to non-Muslims. Sadly, this attitude is borne of and re-enforced by the Qur’an. Again, this is no Christian’s fault. We don’t ask to be threatened, murdered, treated like second class citizens, and condemned to hell by Islam.
- Status