Upon June fifth of 1967, what later came to be known as The Six Day War began, within which the United Arab Republic, made up of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, in addition to several other military backers (I.e. Pakistan, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan, Kuwait etc.) converged upon the nation of Israel with the stated aim of its total annihilation, a declaration of war with the direct genocidal objective of slaughtering the Jewish race and annexing the land of Israel into a wider union of non-Jewish people. The President of Egypt and chief antagonist leading to the fateful week, Abdel Nasser, invoked an earlier war (the 1948 Palestine war) in underscoring their wider ambitions, pan-Arab unity:
“There was no Arab unity and no line for concrete Arab action [in the previous war]. There was no plan for a unified Arab objective. . .The Arab countries were defeated because they were seven countries fighting against one country, namely Israel. . .In order that we may liberate Palestine, the Arab nation must unite, the Arab armies must unite, and a unified plan of action must be established.”
The “liberation” of Palestine conveniently meant an annexation of the land into Egypt and the sphere of Nasser’s control, with which the “Arab” nations by their reckoning had to be unified (though the Turkish aren’t in any wise part of the Arab world), though the above alludes to yet another earlier conflict, that being the 1948 Palestine war, whereby Israel had to fend off no less than seven hostile nations bent upon its total annihilation.
The Iraqi President, Abdel Rahman Aref, speaking just before the monumental Six Day War, wasn’t any less ruthless in their rhetoric: “This is the day of the battle,” They boosted forces leaving Jordan, saying further: “We are determined and united to achieve our clear aim, to remove Israel from the map. We shall, Allah willing, meet in Tel Aviv and Haifa.” The Muslim armies of Jordan and Egypt had planned to smash their way through the Israeli ranks by way of armoured vehicles, both invading from opposite ends of the country, after which they then intended to unite their forces in an orgy of war and mayhem dissolving the Jewish people before their eyes. Or as the Islamic traditions explain: “You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me); kill him.”
The above war, of which there were numerous warning signs, came as no surprise to people with a seasoned understanding of the Quran and traditions of Islam: ‘Apparently when Muhammad started his new movement, he encouraged non-believers to freely consider Islam: Sura 2:256 says, “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” Later, however, he seemed to have developed a much harsher attitude: Sura 9:5 says, “Fight and slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them.” What may be considered crimes against the state and crimes against God (OSC: They’re in Islam one and the same) are dealt with in Sura 5:33, “The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land.” Jews and Christians are “People of the Book” (Sura 5:5; 5:19), but that does not mean that Muhammad had the highest regard for them; in Sura 5:41 Jews are called people “who will listen to any lie” and Christians are enemies (Sura 5:14), and Muslims were not to have Christians and Jews as friends (Sura 5:51).’ Walter Martin’s The Kingdom of the Cults p. 536
The bloodletting, both by Muslims against who would be commonly recognized as unbelievers, in addition to the more nuanced attacks upon who are described as hypocrites of the pure Islamic faith, “real Muslims” are they’re described by the Western media, abounds. The West’s response is an awful disjoined show of interest and wilful ignorance so as never to be truly aware of what the Islamic material and Mohamed’s example actually proscribed practising Muslims to do, which leads of course to no obvious culture shift (what’s really needed). “We’re not sheep” a political commentator said with regards to the recent vote on Britain’s membership of the European Union, saying so in response to the “in” campaigners, who insisted the British people were so ignorant of the issues and easily manipulated that they needed to rerun the elections. Similarly, we’re not excused by making sheeplike noises for having an incomplete or bankrupt view of Islam, that’s not to say people aren’t being led as if they were sheep (they are), rather the point is to say it’s a state of affairs people are allowing in their lives, they’re choosing to believe the lie, they’re not sheep by nature, they’re just deciding to baa.
The 1967 Six Day War was pointless, pitiless and mayhem fuelled based upon ideas of a Pan-Arab and Islamic nature, and the worldwide non-Arab reaction to the above was absolutely nothing (“pitiless indifference” even). Once more, could Mohamed’s life have had an impact of the above war, or rather the mentality which drives men to so easily continue to wage war:
‘According to extra-Quranic sources, Muhammad’s first mystical experience was allegedly being attacked by two men who cut his belly open in search of something. His foster mother thought he was demon-possessed after finding him standing and not having appeared to be the victim of any violence. He later claimed his non-existent attackers to be angels who cleansed his heart. In A.D. 610, he claimed to have received his first of a series of revelations of the Quran from God through the angel Gabriel. His first disciple was his wife, then his cousin Ali, then his slave, and then his friend Abu Bakr.
His following grew without many problems: first with slaves and the poor and oppressed, and then some wealthy clans, because, according to some, he used the so-called Satanic verses (a now-deleted version of Sura 53:19 that advocated the worship of the three daughters of Allah; later the angel Gabriel chided Muhammad for claiming divine inspiration for this verse and told him he did this on his own while under Satan’s power) in preaching to the unconverted. Muslim apologists claim the Satanic verses incident never happened and he had always derided the existence of pagan gods. At any rate, others began to challenge him, although his movement continued to grow.’ Walter Martin’s The Kingdom of the Cults p. 537
Mohamed’s critics challenged him not on account of his deeds being in some wise supernatural, actually the supernatural claims came far later, over two hundred years after Mohamed’s death in the widely disputed traditions, but due to how very human they were, with which they (the early critics of Islam) said “Why isn’t their god sending down a sign, a miracle, like how they say Moses came with miracles?” (these critics are found in the Quran) To which Mohamed replied: “Because people disbelieved previously, now Allah no longer sends miracles so to confirm Their prophets.” Satanic deception was an embarrassing aspect of Mohamed’s ministry, for which believers have long tried to deny the events, not miracles however. Though what next Mohamed said gave his critics something further to think on: “Allah’s sign today isn’t something miraculous, instead they’re sending terror [terror by way of the Muslim army and their swords].”
I’m not meaning to be flippant, but the above threat couldn’t even pass what people have called “the straight face test”, it’s simply so laughably transparent that it’s no surprise Mohamed needed to gather their following from rapists, slaves and desert plunderers so to have their ideal society realized. “The prophet” as they’re so often named, as if to say it enough makes it true, had simply nationalized their private desires, for which they married whomever they pleased, forced sex relations with any women they fancied, and generally acted as an awful brute. For what reason though would generations of often loving, thoughtful people follow an ideology created by such an unpleasant figure, Nasser’s rein as president of Egypt goes some way to explain it in the modern world:
The quote concluded upon page 157: “take up its lines, to put on its costume, since no one else is qualified to play it.” (Islamic Imperialism: A hisory p. 156 & 157).
Once over, people aren’t sheep, they’re in charge insofar as they’re not constraint to attack Coptic Christians after visiting the Mosque on Friday (as is routinely done), they’re not puppets on the stings of an Islamic dictator, as they’re showing every time the ruling elite are overthrown, and lastly, they weren’t sheep who had to humourlessly swallow the above lies without so much as a question about the distant lands and people they were actively despising. Continuing by way of Walter Martin, as the lies of “the prophet” (much like those of Muslim leaders today) carried their own benefits, especially so in terms of war spoils:
Badr was conquered in 626, and in 627 a Meccan army 10,000 strong arrived to attack Medina, but Muhammad and his 3000 men had prepared by digging a trench around the city. The Meccans later gave up and turned back. The Medinans retaliated by attacking a Jewish tribe, the Banu Qurayza, for allegedly conspiring with the Meccans, and killed all the 800 male Jews of this tribe while selling all of the women and children into slavery. Two other Medinan Jewish tribes, the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadr, were driven from their homes and had all of their property confiscated. In 628, they conquered another group of Jews at Khaybar, and paid the jizyaD-23 to be left alone. Finally, in 630, they conquered Mecca. On June 8, 632, Muhammad died. His successors soon wrested Palestine and Syria away from the Byzantines (629–641), conquered Iraq and Persia (633–643), Egypt (639), Tripoli (644), Toledo in Spain and western India (712), Crete (825), and Sicily (899). In West Africa, Muslims under Almoravid rulers pillaged the capital of Ghana (1076). Nubia, in East Africa, survived, as did a few small Christian nations until the 1500s.
Arab domination of conquered lands did not last forever, and soon many Muslim states declared their independence. In the early 1000s, the Seljuk Turks, who had only recently embraced Islam, began taking over territory previously held by Arab Muslims. By 1055 Tughrul Beg, leader of the Seljuk Turks, took control of Baghdad. Eventually under the Ottoman Turks, who supplanted the Seljuks, Muslims went far into Europe, conquering Serbia (1459), Greece (1461), Bosnia (1463), Herzegovina (1483), Montenegro (1499), parts of Hungary (1526–1547) and Poland (1676). Although there were wars with European countries in the interim, many countries did not regain independence until the 1800s. Montenegro did not win independence until 1799, Serbia in 1817, Greece in 1821, and Bulgaria in 1878. Many Middle Eastern areas held by the Turks were lost under Napoleon Bonaparte, and later held by the British and French. Moreover, many modern Middle Eastern countries did not come into existence as we know them until the early twentieth century. Iraq became independent in 1921, Egypt in 1937, Lebanon in 1945, Syria in 1946, Jordan in 1946, and Kuwait in 1961. Walter Martin’s The Kingdom of the Cults p. 537 & 538
They continue by way of the human cost wrought by Islamic ideology:
From the example of the Medinan Jews, to the more recent examples of the 50,000 Greeks and Armenians massacred in 1822, the 10,000 Armenians and Nestorians murdered in 1850, 11,000 Maronites and Syrians in 1860, 15,000 Bulgarians in 1876, 10,000 Armenians in 1894, 325,000 Armenians from 1895–1908, 30,000 Armenians in 1909, and 80 percent of the Armenian population (1.5 million) wiped out in 1915–1918, religious persecution has been a frequent occurrence under Islam. Idi Amin Dada murdered at least 300,000 fellow Ugandans in the 1970s. In the ’80s and ’90s, Muslim Arabs in North Sudan were either starving or selling into slavery Black Christians and animists in the South. Oppression against non-Muslims in general, but Christians in particular, has also occurred in Libya, Mauritania, Nigeria, and Tanzania. In 1990 it was believed that Mauritania had at least 400,000 slaves. In 1994 Iran began a campaign of persecution against Christians, especially the Assemblies of God. Even in the more “moderate” Muslim nations, such as Saudi Arabia, importation of a Bible, Christian evangelism, and conversion from Islam may be considered capital offenses. The nations where such extreme measures exist are those that practice a strong adherence to Islamic law (sharia). According to The State of Religion Atlas, as of 1993 sixteen countries have sharia nationalized into their state legal systems. Walter Martin’s The Kingdom of the Cults p. 539-540
The Armenian genocide was particularly galling in terms of its devaluing of human life, and although Dr. Martin didn’t touch upon its individual acts of terror, Efraim Karsh in their Islamic Imperialism in history does go so far as to explain the human cost in human terms:
How could thirteen Muslim nations in a conspiratorial and hive minded fashion attempt to genocide the Jewish people, or how could another Muslim nation (Egypt) massacre with intent to genocide the Arminian people, in all candour, it’s easy just so long as you’re Muslim, as it’s in Islam, as opposed to in either Judaism or Christianity, where people aren’t made “in the image of God”, people simply do not have that intrinsic value, rather they’re given extrinsic value based upon Allah’s capricious will. To heighten the Muslim’s justification for wiping out their neighbours, not only is Allah’s will responsible for whether or not an individual creation has value, but that same will is only open to extrinsically imposing value upon people if they’re Muslim, as it’s repeated in the Quran: “Allah loves not the unbeliever” in addition to many other such verses. Mara, who had been involved in an ongoing discussion with me, though they’ve since cuts the lines of communication, came to the table believing it’s okay to be Muslim simply because they’re able to interoperate Islam through the lens of an open, modern person’s viewpoint (even though that’s clearly not what Islam was originally about), to which I’d like to add the following.
Just because we’re able to read peace into an act of war, that doesn’t make the violence pacifism, and just as we’re able, able due our own cunning, to find ways of misrepresenting a creed which is at bottom imperialistic, inhumane and possibly Satanic as liberating, humane and from God, that doesn’t make our misinterpretation true of the original creed itself. Islam in short, by which I mean the doctrine, should receive our attention, if only for the fact that it deserves our contempt.
Oldschoolcontemporary: Good morning, Mara. I’m also enjoying the conversation, and for the length we’re coming to a far better understanding of how the other person approaches the subject, including whether or not their various objections are truly worth insisting upon. Supposed slavery in the Bible for example, which clearly isn’t promoted, couldn’t be complained about, whereas sex slavery, as found in the Quran and Islam traditions, ought to be highlighted, meaning one objection was shown to be false and misguided, while the other valid and an accurate description of events.
So, when you, even after mistakenly highlighting slavery, again write about the Bible condoning rape, murder and the execution of a mixed race couple (the strangest accusation) etc etc, aren’t you just slightly hesitant, especially considering you’ve misjudged the Bible before. I’m tempted to simply write Chapter and verse please, although before anything of that sort, I’d have to quote you again.
You explained: “On the dark side we have the KKK and Islamic terrorism. On the bright side we have Nobel prize winners and activists. Can we agree on that?”
Replying straight I’m not totally sure we can agree, and that’s not just me being contrary, not only is comparing the KKK (a tiny group which hasn’t been relevant in donkey’s years) to Islamic terrorism, which hold to views supported by the majority of Muslims [for more on that read the myth of the tiny radical Muslim minority], inaccurate, it’s also ignoring the point that Quran commands like “Fight those who believe not in Allah” gives Islamic terrorists justification from Allah for their cruel and perverted behaviours, whereas KKK behaviour, as show by the Jubilee, parable of the good Samaritan etc are explicitly forbidden. Terrorists have Allah’s seal of approval, racists don’t have Jesus’. There’s simply no comparison.
For example, KKK members (likewise Muslim terrorists) are extremely anti-Jewish, of course that’s absurd after having considered how Jesus Himself is Jewish, they’re simply misguided when they act in racist ways and try attributing their behaviour to anything other than their own prejudices.* Sadly for KKK members the Bible isn’t their alibi, whereas in the case of Muslim terrorists, Mohammad’s life and Quran teachings are very much backing up their bombings, beheading and rapes. That’s partly why I’m surprised, you’re very nonchalant about the entire thing in the case of Islam, at least in print. Obviously in person these things would be very upsetting for both you and me, however by writing you’ll simply explain “Yes, Mohammad was a bad man.” then kinda move on, as if to admit they were horrid is good enough for you. Surely that’s not good enough for you, right?
Take Quran chapter 9 verse 29 for an example of the sort of thing I’m surprised people can just brush away: “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, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
The chapter itself, which was the last of the entire book to be spoken/written, casually omits the customary “In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate.” which proceeds every other chapter of the Qur’an, which clearly goes to show the command to no longer be merciful or compassionate as Muslim believers, at least merciless insofar as how to behave towards unbelievers. In addition, Muslims in the above are being told to fight not because they’re being attacked, that’s commonly a misconception, rather they’re being told to go on the offensive and attack other people for having different beliefs and practices from Muslims. This form of fighting is not spiritual, it’s physical violence, as the chapter shows (9:111). Many Muslims appeared shocked by the Charlie Hebdo murders, yet why, they’d drawn pictures and weren’t holding forbidden what “Allah” holds forbidden.
In closing Muslims are commanded to do battle with unbelievers until they pay protection money, after which they’re told to stay their assault. So, unlike the KKK, who are failing to misuse the Bible, terrorists are actually doing as their book says when they tax people who aren’t or are Muslim. What’s even sadder is how in Islamic theology not believing in Allah is supposedly an unforgivable sin, yet rather than correct people so to remove this most heinous of sins from their lives, Allah’s fighters are ordered to tax unbelievers and take of their income. An all good God doesn’t mind sin apparently, not whilst people are paying the Islamic state protection money from out of their wages.
To decide whether or not the above is really commanding such horrible things means reading into the immediate context, which says: “O ye who believe! (Muslims) The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.”
I’m sorry to have to stress this so thoroughly, but in the case of the KKK, reading the Bible only shows they’re wrong, while reading the Quran only shows IS they’re right. Later Muslim commentators give the historic context to Quran chapter nine too:*
Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4—Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says, “O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. 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.” Therefore, the Messenger of Allah decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam.’
Now, context wise, Mohammad’s army had already destroyed 360 idols in Mecca, by which they’d stopped thousands of people from practising their own religion (Islamic state do likewise to Buddha statues), though to add further insult to injury, after banning these people from their own homes, Mohammad then decides to chase these people he’d already expelled to take their money in taxes. So, Muslim fighters destroyed their religion, evicted them and stole their property, and rather than let them be afterwards, they chase them outside of the city for further pay days, I mean, is there yet another reason why this is acceptable, surely not. The big problem is there’s no waving these things away as an act of Mohammad and him alone, because they’d often involve “Allah” in their comments, Allah “enriches” Muslims from his bounty, hence they’re allowed to rob people, “Allah” says Muslims can rape married women, “Allah” supports Mohammad being a pedophile for no obvious reason. Trashing Buddha or Jesus or Moses really doesn’t make the above go away, it’s only good for making communities get their backs up against the wall.
Again, Allah being Mohammad’s defence for various dodgy behaviours happens to be in the Quran too, as found in chapter thirty-three: “When thou saidst to him whom God had blessed and thou hadst favoured, ‘Keep thy wife to thyself, and fear God,’ and thou wast concealing within thyself what God should reveal, fearing other men; and God has better right for thee to fear Him. So when Zaid had accomplished what he would of her, then we gave her in marriage to thee,”
The above in full in supposedly justification for Mohammad taking the wife of his own adopted son in marriage, which despite as you’ve written, was bad even for the age, as the surrounding people knew, though, isn’t a pattern forming here, Mohammad is in some social situation, with which they claim Allah has given the revelation which permits whatever revolting behaviour he or his believers want to indulge in. “concealing within thyself” Means Mohammad had secret sexual desires for the wife of his own adopted son, while they were married no less, which surely led into their divorce, after which Mohammad took her for himself. The above verse ends with reasons for yet another seemingly selfish, unprophetlike behaviour: “so that there should not be any fault in the believers, touching the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished what they would of them; and God’s commandment must be performed.” Ruining a marriage was really the best way to teach people about adoption, not simply a beautiful poem? Only divorce and Mohammad having sex with someone else’s wife could solve the issue, are you convinced?
About the rest of your reply, because you’ve written: “And on the case of the Quran, there is variation. Studies have just shown that there is no significant variation. Many copies were destroyed, but not every single copy. Tests and testaments have been verified by studies,” However, you can’t test what isn’t there, that’s how forensic science works. Your argument is an argument from authority, but not substance. Rather you’re saying these men have the substance, and we ought to believe them because they’re a doctor or something along those lines. The evidence is gone, that’s really the bookend, as Muslims intended, they wanted to destroy damaging material and did exactly that, as for Muslims today, people who didn’t destroy the manuscripts, they can only be annoyed with the last generations for possibly hiding the words of Mohammad forever.
Insofar as I’ve read your replies, Mara, I’m sympathetic and understand how you’re as unhappy with Mohammad’s behaviour as anybody else, especially so when you write: “Mohammad did quite a few bad things. Mohammad lived in a time where such bad things were common. That makes it no less terrible, and makes me no happier with his actions.” Yet, after explaining that it’s like you’ve already made your peace with it, you’re then likely to sling mud at the nearest holy man you can find. You’ll follow up by writing: “Like I’ve said before, I’m not here to slight any other prophet, just to mention that none are perfect.” You may then write something disparaging about Buddha, or even accuse Jesus of supporting things they clearly don’t support like slavery, even then however, throwing mud, even mud that just won’t stick, wouldn’t make Mohammad any less reprehensible. The main question wouldn’t be can people find some sort of twisted reasoning to rescue an otherwise monstrous historic figure, there’s in fact nothing more impressive than listening to a Mormon talk themselves (and sometimes others) in circles to make something read in a way it was never meant to read, rather the question is whether or not you’re personally convinced by the kinds of answer you’ve had to read in order to defend both Mohammad and Islam. Are these good defenses, even claims like “studies have shown” when there can be no forensic study of the destroyed evidence etc etc. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, for example, had many wives, had a secret revelation given to him by an angel, said they needed to return the pure religion because the others had been corrupted, likewise they boasted in being an unlearned person, and just like Mohammad they had a sordid sex life and were involved in violent movements, yet, there’s always “a reason”, always some bizarre “isn’t it possible?” excuse which can rescue Smith if the Mormon really really wants to believe, isn’t the same true of Islam?
“I’m an illiterate.”
“I’m just as human as anybody else.”
“I had to rape that child. . . for political reasons.”
“It may not have been me who allowed their followers to rape their married captives.”
“Those destroyed manuscripts which people say were causing division weren’t really causing division. . .they were destroyed for other reasons.”
“I took my son’s wife to teach everybody a valuable lesson about adoption.”
“I ended adoption because these kids aren’t really your kids (making the first lesson totally void).”
“Allah has enriched me from his bounty, that’s why I’m robbing you.”
“Allah says you’re unclean, that’s why I’m destroying your religion.”*
Now, is giving the proverbial middle finger to the Buddha over supposed sexism really an appropriate/adult answer to the above? Also, because I’m asking you the above questions sincerely, are you personally impressed by the above list of excuses, or do they seem as weak to you as they do to me?
Mara: I mentioned that I wasn’t trying to bring other prophets down, just mention the human nature involved. I don’t study or debate religions. Yet you accuse me of slinging mud, giving Buddha the middle finger, and tell me I’m being less than adult. Yet, why not use the adult response of educating me to my error and explaining a better path of reason than degrading me?
I ask genuine questions about the bible, and am trying to have a conversation about it, despite having never studied it or Christianity and instead of highlighting how I’m wrong in some of the cases and educating me, you tell me I’ve simply misjudged the bible again.
You say that most Muslims are in favor of the ideas behind terrorism despite the fact that we make up a huge population, many of us living lives in support of compassion and possessing very different interpretations, in comparison to a very small group of terrorists. Yet we’re somehow all on the same boat as terrorists
You’ve also accused me of prejudice for saying that there are members of every religion that aren’t good people.
You’ve continuously brought up rape after I respectfully asked if we steer away from the subject as to not bring on another PTSD episode.
I made it very clear in the beginning that I don’t study religions, and am very casually religious.
I came to this conversation with genuine questions, and a willingness to learn, so long as I was treated with respect.
You’ve stopped treating me with respect.
So, I’m afraid I’m done with this conversation. I have a life, finals, a job, I don’t need to continue a conversation where I’m being degraded on a personal level.
Feel free to respond back and degrade me more, tell me how I’m wrong, or insult me yet again.
I just won’t be here for it.
Ivy Willow: I think an interesting read for both of you would be to check out http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
It will definitely answer some of the questions that were brought up here, and it will be a learning adventure for both of you. This is a project that has been going on since well before the internet, and was given the perfect platform with the rise of the internet. it’s got the Book of Mormon, the Bible and the Quran.
OldSchoolContemporary: [To Mara] Islam degrades you, Mara, not me. How you interpret the faith wouldn’t really matter if you’re not being faithful to how Mohammad practiced Islam. Good luck with your finals and the like.
Briefly, for Ivy, you’ve written: “Christianity and Judaism absolutely have the same issues with their stances toward the treatment of women.” Quickly, because I’ll be catching my forty winks soon, I’d really like to read where you see the same kind of issues in the Christian religious writings as in the Islamic ones. Sex slaves, child abuse and the like don’t seem really prevalent insofar as I’ve read.
For example, in the case of Christianity, women were the chief discoverers of the empty tomb, which given the context was very taboo, as they were thought of in Jewish culture in the same way Mohammad considered women, meaning their testimony was worth half that of a man’s. To write how women discovered the empty tomb not only hurt the Resurrection event, because people didn’t believe women and their testimony, but it also, in time, elevated the status of women everywhere.*
Silence, total and utter silence, “it would be hard to convay the stillness of it”, to quote H. G Wells’ Time machine. Ivy, much like Mara, is for any length of conversation met by questions of mine, questions not produced for a steady diet of pop culture apologetics, all of which are geared towards defending Islam, but for study, diligent, honest study, the same sort which brought me to Christ in my twenties, after which I’ve never been the same. They signed off by what was an ever present threat throughout our conversation, the threat being that despite what motivates my messages, they’re always on the verge of interoperating my comments in a hostile or hateful way, with which, regardless of whether or not the person speaking is actually hateful, Mara is at liberty to brand people as whatever they like, after which they’ll dismiss their conversation partner (and I’d imagine their well-founded points) as nothing more than hateful bigotry. And never the reader mind that Mara’s prophet, the rapist, the paedophile and mass murderer has been given the fullest defence they can muster, whereas me, apparently for the crime of being a meanie, must be ignored or silenced so that Mara can continue to revere their demonstrably false prophet in peace (a strange double standard indeed).
Westernised Muslim believers are a joy to speak with, not always, but mostly, because (possibly due to the influence of the ancient Greeks) they value intellectual arguments, or at least like to style themselves as people who value intellectual arguments. Mara is an example of the above, they’d even be the first to admit to not being overly intellectually inclined, nor heavily involved in scholarship, yet throughout our discussion they’ve been boldly proclaiming “The scholars say” or “Reza Aslan” can answer, as if to say they really have given study time or proper attention to what the scholarly consensus has concluded. The pretence to intellectualism is there, though not the reality, as is evident, likewise the constant companion to Islamist extremism (the atheist) is famous for their self-proclaimed intellect, while of course having little to no more scientific or logical capability than your average Hindu, Buddhist or Christian (and often far worst when the aforementioned believers are actually practising). We’re at the conclusion of our discussion nonetheless, and briefly reading back just notice how much we’ve learnt, Christianity (in the form of the Christ) and Buddhism (by way of the Buddha), much maligned, Mohamed, thoroughly defended, yet the dirt washes right off of the figures Mara has slandered, whereas Mohamed, who they have fought tooth and nail to defend, has been exposed by their behaviour for what they truly were, that being a man, though not an ordinary man, rather they were a man like how Genghis Khan, Napoleon or Hitler was a man. They were, to lay our cards on the table, an evil man, a thoroughly evil man who came with a sword calling it the work of God, and while believers of their time expected miracles, as in people rising from the dead or the seas parting, Mohamed could only put people in the ground, and parted nothing save the spoils of war he greedily consumed.
In the hundreds of years after Mohamed’s assassination, Muslims began coming into contact with Christian believers in polemical debates, the result of which are yet being played out in the modern ages. An example of this going on today would be the way in which Muslims explain Mohamed’s death, or rather their lack of an explantation, as they’ll merely explain Mohamed “ascended” from the site of the dome of the rock, much like how Isaiah or Enoch in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures were taken by God never to be seen by their contemporaries, or, more specifically, like how Jesus was taken to Heaven after Their Resurrection. Despite clearly being killed by the damaging effects of a poisoned lamb chop (the lamb of God perhaps), Muslims needed some way in these ancient and modern debates to match Christ’s life, at least superficially, for which “the ascension” of Mohamed was a must, in like fashion, the miracle barren life of Mohamed needed a serious rewrite, although the truth still rears its ugly head in that Muslims call the Quran Mohamed’s only miracle.
The above, though often involving deception and outright violence from the Islamic world, hasn’t birth hostility as though it were a natural occurrence, far from it, as there have been peaceful polemics and discussions about the universe so long as there have been people to discuss these things, so, what’s made the umma [meaning the universal Muslim community] so very different, why are their views like acid to open debate, even demanding conformity and assimilation from the nations defeated underfoot. Perhaps this piece of advice from the Christian speaker Dr. William Lane Craig could help, as they say, to paraphrase “The stronger your arguments, the less likely you are be become frustrated or angry.” Methinks the Islamic world, even holding “days of rage” in which they attack non-Muslim homes and places of business, are betraying something deeply wrong at the heart of their religion, an insecurity reaching back to Mohamed himself. The end result of these feelings can be at their highest point war, for which the Arab nations, alongside of Egypt, invaded Israel, with which the 1967 Six Day War Began, but, was it the Reckoning Muslims everywhere had in mind:
Totally humiliated, the hostile nations turned their rage upon one another:
Continuing on page 172: “existence, and left the door open to Israel’s retention of some land by requiring from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” Now, from Mohamed’s slaughter (beheading) of hundreds of Jewish men and boys in a trench, to modern warfare, even to terrorist icons like Bin Laden and the Islamic State, the spirit of Islam hasn’t been one of peace, but rather of violence, greed and lust. Mara and others being unable to admit to the above isn’t an issue to be addressed by the media, education industry or government, as they’re from where much of the misconceptions are being generated (we too have our own powerful transmitters spreading lies much like Egypt had), rather the responsibility lies with (I’m sorry to say) you. It’s my responsibility and yours to be educated on these highly sensitive subjects, for which we’re able both to dismantle untruth, in addition to offering an honest, powerful alternative in their place, the truth of the Christian faith. Humanism, a tired line, isn’t equipped to explain why the Islamic war machine has done wrong, and certainly not so to the long occupied Islamic world’s satisfaction, neither are any of the mystical and contemporary pagan religions of today able, Muslims know this, as they’ve been aware for the past 1000 years, within which time the Islamic empire have feared the intellectual encroachment of merely one world-view, the Christian world-view, which they mask in their hostility towards “The Crusaders.”
The above Christian view of the world says God so loved that They made people possessing intrinsic vaule, and that our forgiveness in eternity is based upon forgiving others when they’ve wronged us, by the above we’re not called to be warring soldiers, but rather loving servants. Moreover, Jesus didn’t simply live a miraclous life, they died an otherworldly death, having the veil of the Temple torn from top to bottom, a supernatural tearing of the veil. In that moment Jesus did something Allah never could nor would do, they laid down Their life for Their friends, even while we yet hated Him. That’s where the Gospel message again lives up to its name, it’s good news because Jesus didn’t just do something for you and I that we couldn’t do for ourselves, but They then returned victorious over death and the grave as a vindication of the claims They made. Now, it’s up to readers whether or not they’re willing to share that name which is above every other name.
― T. C. M