| Submit your comments on this article | ||||||||||
| Terror Networks | ||||||||||
| Islam & Harming the Innocent... | ||||||||||
| 2004-05-02 | ||||||||||
As far as the issue of violence, intolerance, and aggression against innocent civilians is concerned, the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states: No doubt, aggression against innocent people is a grave sin and a heinous crime, irrespective of the victim's religion, country, or race. No one is permitted to commit such crime, for Allah, Most High, abhors aggression. Unlike Judaism, Islam does not hold a double-standard policy in safeguarding human rights.
1. Islam Forbids Aggression against Innocent People Islam does not permit aggression against innocent people, whether the aggression is against life, property, or honor, and this ruling applies to everyone, regardless of post, status and prestige. In Islam, as the state's subject is addressed with Islamic teachings, so is the ruler or caliph; he is not allowed to violate people's rights, lives, honor, property, etc.
2. Individual Responsibility In Islam, every one is held accountable for his own acts, not others'. No one bears the consequences of others' faults, even his close relatives.
In Islam, the notion - End justifies the means - has no place at all. It is not allowed to attain good aims through evil means. By the same token, alms collected from unlawful avenues are not Halal (lawful). In this context, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, "Surely, Allah is Good and never accepts but what is good." Thereby, in Shariah, with all its sources - the Glorious Quran, the Sunnah, consensus of Muslim jurists - aggression and violation of human rights are completely forbidden.
The Islamic position as regards non-Muslims is that they should recognize Allah's Oneness and Prophet Muhammad as Allah's Final Prophet. They should accept Islam to live happily and successfully in this world and to be saved in the Hereafter. It is Muslims' duty to give them this message clearly, but without any coercion or intolerance. If others accept this message it is good for them, but if they do not accept, Muslims should still treat them with kindness and gentleness and leave the final judgment to Allah.
| ||||||||||
| Posted by: Gentle |
| #56 In general, this Moslem scholar is saying good things that should guide his Moslem readers in good directions. In general, he is saying clearly and publicly what non-Moslems often criticise Moslems for not saying clearly and publicly. He is not responsible for the words and actions of other Moslems whose words and actions contradict his own. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester TROLL 2004-05-02 12:09:58 PM |
| #55 You sent me a link to a blocked site. |
| Posted by: Gentle 2004-05-02 1:58:20 PM |
| #54 You sent me a link to a blocked site. |
| Posted by: Gentle 2004-05-02 1:58:20 PM |
| #53 There were no sex slaves dear. The prophet married those who had no one to take care of them. It was done by their consent. Most of these were widows & divorced women. Only one was a virgin. AND yes. There were women who said NO. and later got married to someone else. |
| Posted by: Gentle 2004-05-02 1:52:54 PM |
| #52 There were no sex slaves dear. The prophet married those who had no one to take care of them. It was done by their consent. Most of these were widows & divorced women. Only one was a virgin. AND yes. There were women who said NO. and later got married to someone else. |
| Posted by: Gentle 2004-05-02 1:52:54 PM |
| #51 [Troll droppings deleted] |
| Posted by: Man Bites Dog TROLL 2004-05-02 12:09:58 PM |
| #50 Re: #46 (TS(vice girl)) Your response is fair because you are holding Al-Qaradawi responsible for his own words and actions. Many participants in this thread respond to his article by holding him responsible for words and actions that he implicitly condemns in his article. For example, he writes, "I always answer that I do agree with those who do not allow such martyr operations to be carried out outside the Palestinian territories," but then a photograph of the burning World Trade Center is posted, as if he has somehow justified this attack in New York. If you read his article, you will see that he criticises Moslem excesses. He writes: "itâs very disgusting to see some people â who are Muslims by name â launching aggression against innocent people and taking them as scapegoats for any disagreement they have .... " Really, this article here should not prompt the reflexive rage that characterized this thread. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-05-03 5:50:53 AM |
| #49 So, who you voting for in November Zipster--Nader, who's going to pull the troops out of Iraq is he's Prez or John F'in Ketchup, who will crawl on his knees to the UN to apologize for us doing our duty as "protectors of secular democratic society" under President "Shrub" (what you, Molly Evil and all the screeching yard monkeys at Smirking Chimp and DUH.com call our Commander in Chief)? |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-02 11:56:39 PM |
| #48 Since Islam is a religion of peace, Gentle will undoubtedly have no problem with GI's blowing away all of those apostates who claim to be Muslims but are in the business of killing Iraqis, GI's and American civilians, thereby blaspheming the name of Allah. In fact, Muslims should be cheering our GI's on in their slaughter of these terror-loving apostates. Bravo, Zhang Fei! You are one of the first to suggest what I have been considering during my last week of silence. Now that moderate Moslems are being threatened too, maybe it is time to assist all Islam in the vital and onerous task of ridding them of those apostates who would desecrate their sacred mosques. If their "gentle" religion continues to be blasphemed in such vile fashion, it is our solemn duty as protectors of secular democratic society to overcome such an affront to one of our globe's preciously peaceful faiths. Reject all terrorism and maybe we won't have to protect you from yourselves. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-05-02 11:51:41 PM |
| #47 Mike -- pull your head out and look around. Muslims talk about "peace" to keep people like you from seeing what they're really doing. Watch their actions, not their words. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-05-02 11:51:32 PM |
| #46 Mike, don't be fooled. A little on the author of this article, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi: Al-Qaradawi says some countries will fall to the armed Islamic jihad, but in others, such as the United States, victory will come through Da'awa - the teaching of Islam to non-Muslims - which will trigger Westerners to convert to Islam ``in droves.'' ``We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through (the) sword, but through Da'awa,'' al-Qaradawi told members of the Muslim Arab Youth Association at the group's 1995 convention in Toledo, Ohio. http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001104.php Also the Sheikh approves of suicide bombings in Israel. He says when speaking of 9/11: "I have been asked several questions on TV programs and on public lectures about the martyr operations outside the Palestinian territories, and I always answer that I do agree with those who do not allow such martyr operations to be carried out outside the Palestinian territories. "Instead we should concentrate on facing the occupying enemy directly. It is not permissible, as far as Islam is concerned, to shift confrontation outside the Palestinian territories. This is backed by the Qur'anic verse that reads: "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loves not, aggressors," the renowned Muslim scholar concluded." http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-09/13/article25.shtml Also see: http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2002_11_13.htm Here is some more preaching from the good Sheikh "In conclusion, the imam prays to God: "O God, support our mujahidin brothers on the land of Palestine. O God, strengthen them, unite them, and help them score a victory. O God, turn against the arrogant, usurper, unjust, aggressor Jews and their wicked Crusader allies." http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001150.php How about what the Sheikh thinks of the jihad in Chechnya: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2004/04/001682print.html |
| Posted by: TS(vice girl) 2004-05-02 11:15:29 PM |
| #45 Since Islam is a religion of peace, Gentle will undoubtedly have no problem with GI's blowing away all of those apostates who claim to be Muslims but are in the business of killing Iraqis, GI's and American civilians, thereby blaspheming the name of Allah. In fact, Muslims should be cheering our GI's on in their slaughter of these terror-loving apostates. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-05-02 10:48:05 PM |
| #44 Mike - It is lovely that Gentle and the scholar whose work she posts actually believe in Islam as a religion of peace. However, when she asserts that these beliefs are universal, or even particularly widespread, in Islam she engages in either deceit or delusion. The form of denial she asks us to join her in has already cost far too many lives, and has to be slapped down like the dangerous nonesense it is. |
| Posted by: VAMark 2004-05-02 10:00:41 PM |
| #43 Gentle and its allies can post the truth or whatever views they want. The truth is the truth. The fact remains: bin Laden, and literally thousands of Muslim leaders worldwide have tainted Islam with a view of human behavior which is barbaric and absolutely unacceptable in any civilization I want defended. Equally, leftists worldwide who support Islam and its leaders' right to press for this version of Islam have helped those leaders tain this religion, perhaps for centuries to come, maybe even for all time. As a Christian and in view of 911, there is nothing either of those two groups can say that will ever change my view of Islam as a murder/enslavement cult. BTW: Gentle and antiwar probably stopped posting to restoke the crack pipe. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-05-02 9:51:12 PM |
| #42 Summing up, I remind our participants that Gentle posted an article by a Moslem scholar who asserted these main arguments: * Islam Forbids Aggression against Innocent People * In Islam, every one is held accountable for his own acts, not others * Ends Do not Justify Means I think those are arguments that we should all support. Gentle did a good deed by posting the article. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-05-02 9:27:25 PM |
| #41 LOL. Odd Ducks taken down by logic net! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-05-02 8:45:27 PM |
| #40 Nevermind, I think it is just a scripting error. Try this: If that's not enough, we can always review the unprovoked killing of Christians in Indonesia, just because they are Christians, courtesy of the Religion of "Peace"â¢. This little 9 month-old baby girl was murdered by Islamic Fundamentalists (i.e. Islamofascists) along with burning down the oldest church in the region. |
| Posted by: cingold 2004-05-02 8:21:37 PM |
#39 Just a little assist here. Ex-lib writes "If that's not enough, we can always review the unprovoked killing of Christians in Indonesia, just because they are Christians, courtesy of the Religion of "Peace"â¢. This little 9 month-old baby girl was murdered by Islamic Fundamentalists (i.e. Islamofascists) along with burning down the oldest church in the region." I think the server to the pictures on that site may be overloaded. Hereâs an alternate picture of the church from a different server:  |
| Posted by: cingold 2004-05-02 8:16:29 PM |
| #38 Well since we're dog piling on Gentle and Anti-war lets do it in style! Whatcha mean Jihad aint in the Quran? |
| Posted by: Valentine 2004-05-02 7:09:26 PM |
| #37 ex-lib - That's beautiful! *wipes away tears* Kudos! |
| Posted by: .com 2004-05-02 6:23:56 PM |
| #36 Hats off to all! (Except Gentle From the original post, today on Rantburg: that started this excellent educational forum on the evils of Islamofacism, I reitereate my submission (slightly edited for length): Gentle and Antiwar: No one will take you seriously unless you OPENLY CONDEMN what should be condemned by your false cult-religion, such as the above and:   Lest we forget: Courtesy of the Religion of "Peace"â¢. The moslem lady in the following photos was treated very "gently," courtesy of the Religion of "Peace"⢠as described in Thousands of Women Killed for Family "Honor" Her husband cut out her tongue, gouged out her eyes and cut off her nose and ears. No Islamic Fundamentalism here, folks.  Zahida before her husband's kind "makeover."  Or how about this "kindness and correction" of these women by religious police. (I dunno, they all look kind of "Moslem" to me.)  These photos are caught from a video film that has been filmed by RAWA on August 26, 2001 in Kabul using a hidden camera. It shows two Taliban from department of Amro bil mahroof (Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, Taliban religious police) beating a woman in public because she has dared to remove her burqa in public. If that's not enough, we can always review the unprovoked killing of Christians in Indonesia, just because they are Christians, courtesy of the Religion of "Peace"â¢. This little 9 month-old baby girl was murdered by Islamic Fundamentalists (i.e. Islamofascists) along with burning down the oldest church in the region. And while you're at it, Gentle and Antiwar, please also comment on why your Islamofascist mullahs tell your young men that they will be given 72 virgins to f-ck for all eternity, if they commit suicide and blow innocent people to bits, and why, if a muslim woman does the same thing, she gets to be "married" to one man in Islam-ick "paradise." And I still want to know where all those "paradise" virgins and marriageable young men come from. Are they created especially for the purpose by (spit) your god, the Islamic "Allah," god of war? Are the virgins, and husbands-in-reserve, automatons? Or do they enter into these "sex-for-suicide-" jihad pacts willingly? Gentle? Antiwar? (crickets chirping . . . ) |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2004-05-02 6:01:49 PM |
| #35 Gentle, if you're going to post on Islam don't you think you should know more about it than the non-muslims you're preaching to? |
| Posted by: Scott 2004-05-02 4:46:19 PM |
| #34 Wow - the master race is hopped up on denial and ignorance pills today |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-02 4:22:59 PM |
| #33 LOL,you folks sure took her to school. Come-on,Gentle.Lets see you refute these accusations using chapter and verse from your own Religion and history. LOL,LOL |
| Posted by: raptor 2004-05-02 4:18:16 PM |
| #32 Are you a Muslim, Gentle? I'm curious where you got your instruction. No, I'm not being sarcastic--I'm interested in finding out where peaceful Muslims are these days. I hear a lot from the jihadists, and a lot of "we hate terrorism but" from the CAIR-types and foreign dictators; but newspaper bias (if it bleeds it leads) means I hear very little from peaceful sorts. I can't tell whether that means they can't be heard or whether there aren't many of them. |
| Posted by: James 2004-05-02 3:14:44 PM |
| #31 There were no sex slaves dear. The prophet married those who had no one to take care of them. It was done by their consent. Ibn Sa'd's "Tabaqat", gives a clear description of Muhammad having "relations" with at least one of his slave girls. Muhammad had sexual relations with Mariyah, his Coptic slave. Mariyah and her sister, Sirin were slaves given as gifts to Muhammad. Muhammad gave Sirin to Hasan Thabit, the poet. Ibn Sa'd says that Muhammad "liked Mariyah, who was of white complexion, with curly hair and pretty." [Taken from Ibn Sa'd's "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir" (Book of the Major Classes), p151]. Ibn Sa'd also writes that Mariyah bore Muhammad a son named Ibrahim. He died 18 months later. Sa'd writes: "If he had lived, no maternal uncle of his would have remained in bondage", p164. This shows that there were other Coptic slaves owned by the Muslims. Mohammad had two concubines Mariyah the Coptic, and Raihanah bint Zaid An-Nadriyah or Quraziyah. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-05-02 2:40:08 PM |
| #30 Gentle, That site is written by an ex-Muslim female and the article documents historical sex slavery with Quran and Shura verses that justify it. Go to google.com and search for "Islam Sudan sex slavery" or other such terms. Some verses from the article: âIt is not lawful for you (to marry other) women after this, nor to change them for other wives even though their beauty attracts you, except those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses. And Allah is Ever a Watcher over all things.â Surah 33:52 And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts). Except with their wives and the (women slaves and captives) whom their right hand possess,--for (then) they are not to be blamed.â Surah 70:29-30 âExcept from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess,--for then, they are free from blame;â Surah 23:6 âAlso (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for youâ¦..â Surah 4:24 Some current sex slavery (girls, women, and boys): UN Commision on Human Rights report Slavery and Rape of Women and Girls in Sudan Requires Acrobat reader plugin Arab masters raping boy slaves Former captives recount the crime of boy rape |
| Posted by: ed 2004-05-02 2:22:20 PM |
| #29 Gentle...this is the 'Pact of Umar', it is commonly attributed to the second caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab (reigned 634-644). Do a search and see if you can find a site that isnt blocked. Oh and Gentle, if they werent slaves, the what exactly does "your right hand possesses out of the prisoners or war" mean? |
| Posted by: TS(vice girl) 2004-05-02 2:16:15 PM |
| #28 It never did have it. |
| Posted by: Gentle 2004-05-02 2:14:07 PM |
| #27 It never did have it. |
| Posted by: Gentle 2004-05-02 2:10:47 PM |
| #26 How about SHUT UP? Does your version of Islam still have that rule for women? |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-02 2:09:20 PM |
| #25 This is *------* Clip the fronts of our heads?! Not show lights?! Always dress the same way?! Rise from our seats when they wish to sit?! Not build houses taller than the houses of the Muslims?! TS, dear, where did you get these lies? |
| Posted by: Gentle 2004-05-02 2:08:06 PM |
| #24 This is *------* Clip the fronts of our heads?! Not show lights?! Always dress the same way?! Rise from our seats when they wish to sit?! Not build houses taller than the houses of the Muslims?! TS, dear, where did you get these lies? |
| Posted by: Gentle 2004-05-02 2:07:50 PM |
| #23 Barbara, TS vice girl, guys, doncha love it? That paragon of modern progress and religious and intellectual freedom (UAE) has blocked sites on the web that tell the truth about Islam! Fancy! |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-02 2:03:13 PM |
| #22 From the pact of dhimmitude: "We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims. We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days. We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor hide him from the Muslims. We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children. We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it. We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit. We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas [i.e. names starting with Abu ("father") or Umm ("mother")]. We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons. We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals. We shall not sell fermented drinks. We shall clip the fronts of our heads. We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists. We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims. We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims. We shall not build houses taller than the houses of the Muslims. (When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.") We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct. If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition. Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."" |
| Posted by: TS(vice girl) 2004-05-02 2:00:44 PM |
| #21 Gentle (NOT): Re dhimmitude - WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-05-02 2:00:05 PM |
| #20 You sent me a link to a blocked site. |
| Posted by: Gentle 2004-05-02 1:58:33 PM |
| #19 Dhimmi: A person (non-muslim) is under the protection of a mulim government. If he is well and has land he pays a certain price every year. Never more than a small % of what he makes. That money goes to defending the country. If a person is unable to paybecause of poverty, he will be given money from the Zakat to spend on himself and his family. The people are to be treated as equels to muslims, but they may not fight or marry muslim girls. That is what Dhimmi means. And I take it that sounds just fine to you. I repeat TS's: NEVER! |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2004-05-02 1:55:23 PM |
| #18 Slave Girls and Their Rights in Islam |
| Posted by: ed 2004-05-02 1:55:03 PM |
| #17 There were no sex slaves dear. The prophet married those who had no one to take care of them. It was done by their consent. Most of these were widows & divorced women. Only one was a virgin. AND yes. There were women who said NO. and later got married to someone else. |
| Posted by: Gentle 2004-05-02 1:53:37 PM |
| #16 Dhimmi: A person (non-muslim) is under the protection of a mulim government. If he is well and has land he pays a certain price every year. Never more than a small % of what he makes. That money goes to defending the country. If a person is unable to paybecause of poverty, he will be given money from the Zakat to spend on himself and his family. The people are to be treated as equels to muslims, but they may not fight or marry muslim girls. That is what Dhimmi means. |
| Posted by: Gentle 2004-05-02 1:50:12 PM |
| #15 Oh and Gentle, what about the sex slaves Muhammed made legal to himself during Jihad, were they classified as innocents or no? And since you will probably deny this happened as well, I'll go ahead and resource this now. Quran 33:50 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers;and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. |
| Posted by: TS(vice girl) 2004-05-02 1:42:02 PM |
| #14 The first Dhimmis and jizya: In Keibar he (Muhammed) exacted 50% of all the crops produced by the Jews from their own lands that he confiscated to be given to him. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-05-02 1:40:19 PM |
| #13 This dicussion is getting silly again, both gentle and antiwar are Left-wingers trying to disrupt the debate here, same thing is going on over at the Commandpost. |
| Posted by: Evert V. in NL 2004-05-02 1:33:19 PM |
| #12 Gentle, yes I know what a dhimmi is. I'm glad you asked. Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the legal superstructure that global jihadists are laboring to restore everywhere in the Islamic world, and wish ultimately to impose on the entire human race. If dhimmis complained about their inferior status, institutionalized humiliation, or poverty, their masters voided their contract and regarded them as enemies of Islam, fair game as objects of violence. Consequently, dhimmis were generally cowed into silence and worse. It was almost unheard-of to find dhimmis speaking out against their oppressors; to do so would have been suicide. For centuries dhimmi communities in the Islamic world learned to live in peace with their Muslim overlords by acquiescing to their subservience. Here is the text of the Pact of Umar, which spelled out exactly the "tolerance" granted (note the term "granted") to Christians (and Jews) in Muslim lands, and was the guideline for dhimmitude, the "pact of protection" Jews and Christians were bound to live under, or face death. http://www.domini.org/openbook/umar.htm Though in many Islamic countries today the status of non-Muslims is not quite as dim as it was in the past, that is due to the adoption of Western codes of law including equal citizenship for those of all religions. And even so, the position of non-Muslims is often quite unhappy, such as with the Copts in Egypt, who are discriminated against and treated poorly by the government, the Armenians who were massacred by the Turks during WWI, the Jews run out of Arab countries after the foundation of Israel, many with nothing but the clothes on their backs, the precarious situation of Christians in Lebanon, the special rights given to the 52% of Malaysians who are Muslim and denied to non-Muslims, and so on. Many Muslim countries have no problem with religious minorities because said minorities no longer exist--Turkey is now 99% Muslim, Pakistan is close to it, North Africa has hardly any Jews or Christians left, and so on. |
| Posted by: TS(vice girl) 2004-05-02 1:33:03 PM |
| #11 Gentle, look it up won't you? There were known assassinations of adversaries during the Prophet's time, that took place at his behest. Among them there was a 120 year old man, Abu 'Afak whose only crime was to compose a lyric satirical of the Prophet. (Kitab al Tabaqat al Kabir, Volume 2, by Bin Sa'd, page 32) Then when a poetess, a mother of 5 small children, 'Asma' Bint Marwan, wrote a poetry cursing the Arabs for letting Muhammad assassinate an old man, our Holy Prophet ordered her to be assassinated too in the middle of the night, which was carried out while her youngest child was suckling from her breast. (Sirat Rasul Allah (A. Guilaume's translation "The Life of Muhammad") page 675, 676). |
| Posted by: TS(vice girl) 2004-05-02 1:23:04 PM |
| #10 TS: Do you have any idea what a dhimmi means? |
| Posted by: Gentle 2004-05-02 1:19:40 PM |
| #9 Who the HELL told you that rubbish about a woman killed for writing poems? The prothet never even killed those who attempted to kill him. |
| Posted by: Gentle 2004-05-02 1:18:32 PM |
| #8 "The reaction today to the killing of an Israeli mother and her three small children by the Popular Resistance in Gaza hasn't been to hunt down and punish those.." I believe it was a pregnant mother and 4 children, but who's counting. Maybe only "Get in line and take a number." |
| Posted by: Cynic 2004-05-02 1:09:24 PM |
| #7 Ah, but see, the key is, what the definition of 'innocent' is according to Islam. The plain fact is, 'innocent' has a different definition in Islamic ideology that what most non-Muslims consider an innocent. Muhammed himself established the definition of what an innocent is, and is not, when he had a woman murdered for writing poems against him and Islam. He did not consider her innocent, did he? Those who damage Islam, in anyway, are no longer innocents, and that includes apostates. So to be an 'innocent' means you accept submission, be it converting to Islam or being a dhimmi when your time comes, and to that I say NEVER! |
| Posted by: TS(vice girl) 2004-05-02 12:27:25 PM |
| #6 that'd be Fred - the owner of the site - abuse him and his comments with extreme care and better propaganda than you've done in the past, pinhead |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-02 12:27:00 PM |
| #5 Sorry, but who on earth is the guy commenting on the article. I'd like to know please |
| Posted by: Gentle 2004-05-02 12:23:15 PM |
| #4 [Troll droppings deleted] |
| Posted by: Man Bites Dog TROLL 2004-05-02 12:09:58 PM |
| #3 Q. 9: 123 Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness (qilzat) in you. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-05-02 12:06:02 PM |
| #2 Barbara, ....ROFL!!! Bless you. This was too funny! |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-02 12:02:54 PM |
#1 I simply can't buy Islam as a religion of peace and justice. I've been watching the actions, not listening to the words.You and thousands of others. Get in line and take a number. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-05-02 12:00:54 PM |