There is no hope for Islam.

you discount christian values.

 

The closest thing I have ever seen to Nazis are Muslims, except that Muslims have been fascist supremacist killers for a much longer time, and as such, are therefore far worse.

Lies about Islam ? The list in post # 447. Would you call that "lies" ? Or would you call it what it is > History.

 

So, do you not believe that the God of the Old Testament was the God of the New Testament?

Okay? And?

 

No more ridiculous words have ever been spoken.

 

I don't believe or disbelieve anything about the God of the Old Testament, and I'm not a reader of the New Testament.

And, Matthew, and all the other writers of the Gospels may not have known what Jesus ever really said. I made my point just how I wanted to make it. I need not add anything.

 

1. Invalidation is hardwired into Islamapologists. So you call a source you don't like a hate site. HA HA HA. Well, golly gee. Aren't we surprised ?

2. In this forum, you have repeatedly proved yourself ignorant of history, and Islamization, MS QUIZ ZERO. That's including your ludicrous invalidation of the list of Muslim conquests in post # 447, if that's what you're trying to do.
Well, why don't we just talk about the content of the post ? (rather than the source of the material, or what you would like forum readers to think of my knowledge of history). So do you accept this list of Muslim conquests, or do you seek (like many Islamapologists) to rewrite history ?

 

So, you're not a Christian?

Okay? The point is that these words are written down in a holy book and people follow them.

 

I consider myself a Christian. Wow, didn't we just go through this twice in the last 2 days ? Get with it guys.

As for what people follow in a (holy) book, they have that right. They have the right to not pay much attention to that book (written by MEN, not God), just as well.

 

And which of those conquests where motivated by religious or purely secular reasons. Constantinople was the richest city in the world. It doesn't require a whole lot of imagination to assume it was conquered for non religious reasons.

 

Of course, because Islam isn't now, and never has been a religion. The "religion" scam has always been just a con job, set up by Mo the pedophile and his merry men, to shield them from criticism of all their extreme, vile behaviors.
Later, it just kept going by the knuckleheaded successors.

 

constantinople awas already weakened after it had been invaded by the western christians and never recovered.

as I am sure you are aware (unlike some on this forum) invading/attacking the neighbours was something everybody engaged in.

the people of constantinople, in 1453 said "better the Turkish Turban than the papal tiara"..

they preferred Muslim overlords to being ruled by their fellow christians from the west.

 

Muhammad and his followers may not of seen the difference between religion and the state, but that doesn't mean it's not a religion. Muslims pray to God. What else can you call if not religion?

 

my responses to you get deleted, but you are allowed to insult me because the moderators on this forum are ignorant of history and are unaware of how evil and sick people like you are.

that is the nature of these forums.

people like you tell lies about 1.2 billion people on this planet, you demonise people on the basis of their religion and speak about them in EXACTLY the same way that so called christians talked about the Jews for almost two thousand years - and you are allowed to get away with it because fear of Islam is in vogue in the US at the moment.

but you are sick and evil.

and you know it.

 

This is an absurd statement tacked onto a derelict opinion. Tell me how you define 'fascism '.

 

Response: To the contrary, it has been demonstrated from the Qur'an and Sunnah that islam only teaches violence in self-defense, as proven by 9:13 which states that the non-muslims attacked first and verse 8:61, which states that muslims are not to fight those who incline to peace. Debunked as usual. Furthermore, your own timeline proves you wrong, as it predates to two years after Muhammad's death, while the verses in the Qur'an and hadith show that the battle of Badr began first, which was a battle that non-muslims started during the time of Muhammad. Therefore, the muslims were responding in self-defense. Thus you've once again done nothing but continue to expose the fact that it is your ideology that is demeaning and violent, for the only reason why a person would call something violent when it is not is because they themself favors violence. Thanks for the confirmation.

 

Whether they attacked first or not is irrelevant to whether the Qur'an condones initiating an attack.

 

Confuse Muslim responds as usual that is why Muslims practice the rule of abrogation because Mohammed's revelation is not from Allah, Muslims can not distinguish facts from illusion.

Sura 9 was written as an ultimatum to all those who resist such as refusal to sign a treaty in favour to Mohammed's empire that would include conversion to Islam and or pay taxes.

It has to with Mohammed’s expedition to Tabuk a place near the frontier of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed thought that the Byzantines were getting ready for war so he assemble a large army upon arriving in the area he found no such threat he took advantage of the situation to force treaties with several small Christian and Jewish tribes in order to consolidate his position near the Gulf of Aqabah, historically known as Battle of Tabuk which saw no Byzantine army on site because they never had any intention to wage war.

After he return to Medina some of the Christian and Jewish tribes decided not to honour the treaties because they were force into it. This Sura 9 basically was wrote down to deal with those tribes and the expedition of Mohammed to conquer that area.

Mohammed allow 4 months for them to reconsider their position. Mohammed have already gather a large Muslim army while the infidels have not. Quran New Edition Abdullah Yusuf Ali page 435 Introdcution to Sura 9 - Tawbah

Sura 9: 2 Go ye, then, for four months backwards and forwards through out the land, But know ye that ye cannot Frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) But that Allah will cover with shame those who rejects Him.

Sura 9:3 A proclamation is herein issued from GOD and His messenger to all the people on the great day of pilgrimage, that GOD has disowned the idol worshipers, and so did His messenger. Thus, if you repent, it would be better for you. But if you turn away, then know that you can never escape from GOD. Promise those who disbelieve a painful retribution.

9:4 (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

It was also at this time that many Muslims started to doubt Mohammed as a prophet many Muslims refuse to fight the Jewish and Christian tribes their reason is that "those tribes have done nothing to threaten us" That is why Sura 9 also contains verses on how to deal with these "hypocrites" Muslims who refuse to fight.

 

There is no such thing as self defence with Sura 9, your definition of self defence for Sura 9 are:
1. Criticize Mohammed
2. Refusing to convert to Islam
3. Refusing to pay tribute (taxes ) to Muslim warlords
4. Proselytizing
5. Refusing to accept unfair treaties
6. Muslims who refuse to fight for Mohammed

Again and again you have mis-represented Islam adding more negativeness to Islam.

 

Neo Nazi ally with Islam they never misquote the Quran they share the same radical ideology with most Muslims. Islamophobes question the claim of Muslims that Islam is the true religion of Allah, if it is so then the Quran should be flawless no need to abrogate conflicting verses in fact there should be no conflicting verses at all.

Of that 1.2 billion Muslims 65+1% are not familiar with Islam and Mohammed, that is why they need us to point out what the real and false Islam.

The agenda is to know why, why Muslims hate us, why they bomb churches, why they took down the NY Twin Towers, why they cut off the head of innocent Korean missionaries, why why why? Only us dare to ask why, most Muslims are not allowed to ask why.

Christians who are concern with all these atrocities and we want to make sure we can identify and separate the true Muslims from the terrorist Muslims.

Qur’an (2:65-66) Christians and Jews must believe what Allah has revealed to Muhammad or Allah will disfigure their faces or turn them into apes, as he did the Sabbath-breakers.

Qur’an 9:29-Fight against Christians and Jews ”until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.”

The Bible has no verse calling for killing Muslims.

Individuals such as the Ayatollah of Iran that order the execution of all none compliant Iranians to the Islamic laws in accordance to Sura 9.

 

Response: The deluded non-muslim, in an effort to promote violence in islam, states that it was Muhammad that started battles for no just reason. But watch this. What proof do you have that the sources are reliable? Exactly. The deluded non-muslim has none, nor presents any. Debunked as usual.

Now the Qur'an's turn. The Qur'an and Sunnah says that Muhammad acted in defense to the non-muslim regimes that attacked the muslims because they wanted to maintain authority over the growth of islam. So what proof is there that the Qur'an and Sunnah is true? The answer is in the following challenges:

"Will they not then meditate upon the Qur'an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah they would surely have found therein much discrepancy" (4:82).

Here we have test that demonstrates that there is no error in the Qur'an, showing the truthful nature of the Qur'an. If a person disagrees, then the individual can take up the challenge to find a discrepancy in the Qur'an and when the person discovers that there is no discrepancy, then the only logical conclusion that can be derived is that whomever the author of the Qur'an is, the individual is a truth teller and righteous because all of the content in the Qur'an is without error, indecency, and immorality. Yet the question remains as to who is the author? The asnswer is in the following:

"And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to our servant, then produce a chapter like it, and call upon your helpers beside Allah if you are truthful'.(surah 2: 23 of the qur'an.)

Here we have a test that proves that it is not humanly possible to produce a chapter like the qur'an and proves so by challenging all of those who doubt so to prove so by trying to produce a chapter like the qur'an. For by trying to produce a chapter like the qur'an, you'll learn first hand that such a thing is humanly impossible to do.

But before the thread is filled with the common response of simply producing something in Arabic or claiming that the challenge is not valid because not being able to produce a play like Shakespeare does not mean that the play is from God so the same analogy applies to the qur'an, let me further elaborate. The qur'an, like any scripture, is inspiration. And like any scripture, it's intent is to inspire people to follow it's teaching. Thus the challenge is to produce something which is as inspirational as the qur'an, for it's the inspiration of the qur'an which is miraculous. And what is that miracle you ask? The miracle is within the following:

"It is humanly impossible for a person/s to use speech or literature that goes against the wants of a mass of people, that is invented by a person/s, to inspire enough followers amongst them to conquer a nation."

This is the miracle of Muhammad. For the challenge proves that it is impossible to use any speech or literature invented by a person/s that goes against the likes of the people, to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. You disagree? Then take the challenge and prove differently. Go and get or create a speech or literature invented by any person/s that goes against the likes of people. After this, try using that same speech/literature to inspire enough followers amongst the people to conquer a nation and see what happens. I'll even simplify the challenge by asking you to just conquer the street you live on and see what happens. You will fail and fail miserably. You won't come close to achieving the challenge. You'll learn first hand that such an act is humanly impossible and that is when you'll learn the miracle of Muhammad. Why? Because Muhammad used the qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. So if it is humanly impossible to use speech or literature invented by a person/s, that goes against the likes of masses, to inspire enough followers amongst them to conquer a nation yet Muhammad used the qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation, then what does that mean? That means that the qur'an in which Muhammad used is not the invention of any human but must come from a higher power and authority greater than humans, and that is Allah (swt). You disagree? Take the challenge and prove differently.

Thus we have two tests that provides a hands-on eyewtness account that the spread of islam by Muhammad by using the Qur'an is a miracle, and that the Qur'an is true. Thus the claim in the Qur'an and sunnah that islam was spread through self-defense is authentic, according to the very scientific method.

 

Response: Yet we see from the Qur'an itself that the verse refers to self-defense, proven from the very context in 9:13 where it says that the non-muslims attacked first. Thus you've done nothing but prove that the perverted thoughts of violence stem from your ideology, not islam.

 

First lesson:

when dealing with Islamophobes, what you know doesn't count.

the only thing that matters is that what they say reinforces their agenda.

quoting out of context? its fine as long as it supports their argument.

they claim that it is the muslims who lie to infidels, however the truth is that everythingthey say about Islam is steeped in lies.

and ... no matter how well versed you may be in your own religion - they ALL regard themselves as having superior knowledge to you.

Its a hangover of the cultural imperialism of the 19th century.

 

The sources that it was Muhammad that started battles for no just reason are the Koran.
See how it can all be simplified to it lowest common denominator ? No need for your big speeches. LOL.

 

A 1400 year old con job.

 

Rigid, one-party dictatorship. Brutal suppression of all dissent. Belligerent nationalism and militarism. This defines Islam to a tee. The nationalism is the the Ummah. The one-party is the Islamists. Describes Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Taliban, Syria, and soon to be Egypt, and everywhere in the world, if al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhoood had their way.