Islam: Old BS that has been refuted multiple times - Part 2/3

 

Continued from Part 1/3

In my previous article, Part 1, I mentioned that:

 

1. as far as Islam is concerned, I've read hundreds of books baised and unbaised on the above subjects. Many of such books were written by "orientalists". Some of them were obviously biased against Islam and meant to spread hatred, and some fairly used solid reasoning, crediting and discrediting Islam,  

2. I found a common denominator which was: Judging religions by judging the followers of religions, and if one judges a religion by judging its followers, he/she will be distracted from his/her main course, because followers of religions and philosophies have all the time committed atrocities throughout history, and nobody can deny that,  

3. Currently, the cases raised by orientalists are raised again due to political and propaganda reasons, mainly by the Zionist propaganda machine and the Evangelist Church which is blindly following the Zionist steps. Others do the same thing due to their hate, fear and ignorance, 

4. some of the myths that have been refuted are: 

A) Muhammad is a pedophile as he married a prepubescent girl 

B) Muhammad is a womanizer as he had so many wives, and  

C) Islam is a religion of violence.

I'm going to explain why the above is not true.

Continued from part 1...

SHOWDOWN: THE HOLY BIBLE vs. THE QURAN

By: Devvy Kidd

December 25, 2006

According to the USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts referenced above, "Allah orders us in this verse to conduct our matters by taking counsel among ourselves, or by consulting each other.


This is the methodology of the Islamic state, to consult one another, but to always keep the Qur'an and Sunnah paramount. "Any law which contradicts the Qur'an or Sunnah is unlawful." Ellison cannot take an oath with his hand on the Quran and swear his allegiance to what it demands and swear to uphold our Constitution and Bill of Rights because they are incompatible. (Definition of Sunnah: The way of life prescribed as normative in Islam, based on the teachings and practices of Muhammad and on exegesis of the Koran. Also called hadith. Muhammad's way of life viewed as a model for Muslims." Muhammad married a child of six and had sex with her at age nine. Some role model.)

Now, the above demonstrate, not only how ignorant Ms. Kidd is, 

but also how stupid, too.

Yes, this is the way that should be for any Islamic state. It is called "Shurah", which means "consultation", and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. "Shurah" is a noun derived from the three-letter verb "sha-wa -ra/SWR) which, accroding to the Hans wehr's Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, means: 1. to ask someone's advice, 2. to consult, or take council, and 3. reflect, bethink, point out, etc. so what is wrong with that?! No wonder, the American foriegn policies are not sound because they are not subjected to the above "consultation, advice-taking, council-taking, etc), but they are the enforcement and intimidation of elite "do waht I say, or either you'll be ousted or scandalized"


This is the law in an Islamic country and is nothing of Ms. Kidd's concern.


But when the matter involves a Muslim living in a country of a different religion, then the case is different. This Muslim has to abide by that country's law. In the meantime, the country should not impose on a Muslim anything that is fundamentally forbidden in Islam.


EXAMPLES involving non-muslim minorities living in a Muslim state: It is stated in Islamic jerisprudence (religious law) that Muslims are forbidden to drink alcohol. Therefor, if a Muslim break the jar in which another Muslim is brewing alcohol or drinking from it, he is not to be punished or pay a compensation to the Muslim who owned the Jar. But if a Muslim do the same thing to a non-Muslim (Jew, Christian, etc), he is to be punished and to pay compensation.

Accordingly, Jews eat kosher meat, then they should be allowed to do so. If Christians eat ham, then they should be able to create their own product and look after it themselves without any religious interference of the Islamic state.

The point is as long as the above doesn't - and it doesn't - have an impact on the Muslim society where the non-Muslim minorities live - it is all right. Commonsense is also taken in consideration where some habits or practices are prohibitted no matter what, like: canipalism, public nudity, etc. In a nutshell, there is a grey area where it should be gently discussed with the minorites' religious authorities, and both parties have to compromise and reach a reasonable solution.


If Muslims eat halal meat, then they should create their own halal meat. If Jews eat kosher meat, then they should do the same. Both should not impose their eating habits on each other or on Christians, atheists or whomever; a case which is not true as regards Jews in the US because they have already imposed their kosher stuff on none-Jewish factories, forcing none-Jews unnecessary tax which at the end of the day is coveted by them.


I'm sure that Ms. Kidd knows about the abovementioned kosher case, but maybe she wouln't dare write and article about  it. She is conveniently comfortable attacking Islam. But when the Jews are involved, her precausion kiks in.


Americans need to take very seriously what has happened to France and England as a result of their "tolerance" of Muslims flooding into their countries and then demanding those countries cave into their demands or feel their wrath. How quickly people forget how these "peaceful" people lit a match to cities in France while they rioted day after day; see here. If you think this isn't what's coming to America, think again because the agenda is to force Islam on Americans and destroy our Christian nation. How long before Muslims like Keith Ellison who get elected to Congress began to simply ignore our laws or demand Sharia law replace our laws.

Now, Ms. Kidd is starting to sound like Evangelical and Zionist propaganda by disregarding the ethics of journalism.

 If in any case if someone, at the court of law, askes me to swear on the Bible, I won't do it, simply because I'm not Christian, not that I don't respect the Christian Bible. I would swear on the Qur'an because that is the book I believe in, hence I am bound to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Another solution to satisfy all Jews, Christians and Muslims is raise up the hand and swear. In my openions, this  resolves the conflict, and doesn't mean any disrespect to the Tanach, the Bible or the Qur'an.


"Sharia, derived from several sources including the Koran, is applied to varying degrees in predominantly Muslim countries but it has no binding status in Britain. However, the BBC Radio 4 programme Law in Action produced evidence yesterday that it was being used by some Muslims as an alternative to English criminal law. Aydarus Yusuf, 29, a youth worker from Somalia, recalled a stabbing case that was decided by an unofficial Somali "court" sitting in Woolwich, south-east London."

I have already discussed how minorities' believes according to Islam, 

not to what some Muslims believe, should be  accomodated be it a Muslim 

or non-Muslim society.

I don't know what the details are as regards Muslims in Britain, France, or Germany, etc., but I know that they're not trying to substitute the laws held by those countries. But their are parts of the Shariah that Muslim cannot forfiet because they are very important fundamintals of their belief and can be applied without causing any serious impact on the British society. Example: marriage and divource, burial in Islam, if let to be handled according to a minority's belief, how on earth would it be a negative impact on the brits?


Did Muslims riot in Britain saying, stop alcohol production, pork meat should not be on display in market places, usury - which by the way is a divastating invention - should not be allowed, and so on. NO! They didn't. The Qur'an says (my translation): "We have guided him [Man]  to both roads [ways]..."; the road leading to rightfulness, and the road leading to wronfulness. This is freedom of choice. Aren't people any more capable of tolerance and "live and let live"? Obviously according to Ms. Kidd they shouln't be.


Christians marry in the church, Muslims marry in the mosque. Does this breach the holy secular laws of a country, or even its laws which is based on the Bible? Who is intolerant her, Muslims or Christians?


Organizations like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) will lead the way in demanding we flush our laws to accommodate theirs. As someone who follows very closely the activities of organizations like CAIR, I am not afraid to call it as I see it: CAIR's principle mouthpieces are little better than thugs in expensive suits using religion to promote their "way of life" and intimidate gutless politicians in Washington, DC and the state houses. If these sissy, prissy, politicians don't cave, out comes the old, reliable smear tactics of "racism" and "bigotry." These people have redefined the term "spin masters." While they mouth PC platitudes like, "We revere Jesus," Muslims believe Jesus was some run of the mill prophet and not the Son of God, which is blasphemous to Christians.

Shofar being blown, and only lies come out of it

Is Ms Kidd blowing a shofar here. Yes, Muslims revere and believe in Jesus Christ. It is a fundamintal part of their "Iman" (Faith). The way they believe in him is none but the Muslims' concern. And they do not believe in Jesus as "run of the mill" prophet, but one of the so many most honourable prophets sent by God. It may be blasphemous to the Christians, but Christians can believe in Jesus any way they like. It shouldn't be any of Muslims' concern. Is Ms. Kidd blind? Jews don not only believe in Jesus at all,  but they are also far byond that. Dare she comment on that.

Jewish Woman Admits To Sacraficing a Baby

 on Oprah!

Is Ms. Kidd trying to impose her belief on non-Christian, or she is pushing a hot button instigating Christians against Muslim? Why doesn't she instigate Christians against Jews who are said  to have crucified and killed him.

Racism and spin mastering aren't Muslim favourite cup of tea. 

Open you eyes and look around to see who is every other moment crying "Racism, anti-sematism, etc."

I continue to see this statement come from the media and other sources: "There are 1.1 billion Muslims in the world." How do they know that? Who went out and counted heads? No one seems to know where this number, taken as fact, came from or when. One thing I do know: Muslims intend that one day America be a Muslim nation. I refer you now to an unsolicited e-mail I received from the Islamic Center of Beverly Hills titled Current Issues: Republicans, Democrats and Islamic Solutions. I put this in a pdf file here. In this comparison table, the Islamic solution to foreign policy for America is: "Promote world government under United Nations. In Islam nationalism is similar to racism.

What a crockpot full of crap! 

Does it matter whether Muslims are counted in billions or millions or even thousands? 

This is a lousy start for this paragraph, but a good introduction - stupid, though, I think - to Ms. Kidd's nastiness "Muslims intend that one day America be a Muslim nation". 

WOW, Muslims!!! What do you think they have done so far to achieve such an enormous goal? They had been colonized, bloo-sucked, cheated and betrayed by Christian Britain, Christian France, Christian Holland for hundreds of year, and  they just shook off the shackles of imperialism a few decades a go, and are still colonized, but implicitly. Have you Ms. Kidd heard of "masked imperialism" and "naked imperialism"?


" Keith Ellison, as a Muslim, pledges his allegiance to Islam which believes America should not exist as a sovereign nation. They close out their laundry list by stating: "We are 10 million American-Muslim now we must grow 5% per year so in 2070 we must have 100 million Muslims in America...We need more Islamic school in America to promote peaceful, loving and caring Islam to our future generations."

Islam has lived with Christian neighbours for thousands of years, untill the stinky crusaders attacked Muslims under fales pretences - history repeats itself - like the idiot US president, George Bush, when he unjustifiablly invaded Iraq. 

Muslims and Christians fough together in Egypt against the Britih occupation in Sa'ad Zaghlouls' revolution of 1919.  Ask Palestinian Christians, and they will tell you that they have always lived peacefully with their Muslim brothers. Read history of the Arabian invasion of Roman-occupied Egypt.  Amro Ibn Al-Aas asked the Christian priests not to be afraid and come out of ther hiding places; hidden places and ancient Egyptians' tombs because they suffered immensely at the hands of the Christian Romans. 

Do you know that Muhammad married a christian woman named "Mary". She was coptic (Egyptian Christian). 

 Do you know that the Vatican's hands are soaked in blood of millions of people in Europe, including the blood of Muslims?

Ms. Kidd, I think you should go back to school and re-study history. But a self-absorbed American like you would not do that, because Americans do not give a damn about other people's culture. This is my first-hand experience with Americans I worked with.

If the "boogie" Muslims in the USA increase in number by birth or reversion to Islam and ask for more schools, why would this bother you? 

Aren't they American citizens? 

Churches are tax-exempted in the USA. Did Muslims ever raise a hand and interject? Had the schools been Christian schools, would the case been any different?

Keith Ellison thinks America is a democracy, which clearly demonstrates he has no understanding of our legal form of government and is not qualified to serve in the U.S. Congress. He is for rewarding criminals by allowing those who have smuggled themselves across our borders (illegal aliens) with a free pass for citizenship. Ellison uses lots of cleverly worded "fellowship" propaganda, but he is not opposed to sodomites and lesbians marrying, which is in direct opposition to the "way of life" required under Islam. Ellison is for murdering unborn babies, also in opposition to the "way of life" required in Islam. Ellison goes from being a Catholic (abortion is forbidden as well as homosexuality and "same sex" marriages) to the Nation of Islam, to being a good pro-sodomy, pro-abortion Democrat. It would appear Ellison is a quick change artist who uses what ever works for his agenda. Should he be allowed to serve in Congress?

I am confused. 

I do not know whether I'll take the above as agains, or pro-Islam. 

Since Islam and Christianity both oppose the case mentioned above: homosexuality, abortion, etc, I am obliged to state that  Keith Ellison is not the right representative of Muslims in the congress. No doubt he is not the right representative of ISLAM, but he is serving his own personal agenda. But again, Ms. Kidd, which people are the majority in the USA Congress?...what! I cannot hear you...Did you say Talmudic Zionist Jews? Thank you..Go, please, and blame them. Do not pour all your anger  and malice on a lousy Muslim guy.


I believe as Judge Roy Moore so succinctly states in his recent column that he should not: "Islamic law is simply incompatible with our law. Jaafar Sheikh Idris, founder and chairman of American Open University, a radical Islamic school that has received funding from suspected al-Qaida sources and which supports Islamic law, recently stated that "Islam cannot be separated from the state,"and that no Muslim elected to Congress or the White House can swear to uphold the United States Constitution and still be a Muslim, because the law of Allah as expressed in the Quran is supreme. Idris was recently deported for his illegal activities. While we certainly disagree with Idris' radical extremism, he at least knows what Islam is all about!"

Jaafar Sheikh is right to some extent as regards "Islam cannot be separated from the state", 

but not all the way as long as this is happening in a Muslim country, 

not a Christian country. 

In a Christian country, it is right as long as it is applied within the Muslim minority, but the country's Christian or secularist laws should always prevail.

Let me sum this up: Ellison's a Democrat who advocates their communist agenda including pro-abortion, pro-homosexual and same sex marriage, which is completely diametric to the tenets of Islam. He claims he's a Muslim, but doesn't follow the teachings of Islam. If he isn't following the teachings of Islam, how can he say he's only following his religion when he demands that he be allowed to use the Quran to take his oath of office?Any law which contradicts the Qur'an or Sunnah is unlawful." Legally, I'm not sure how this could be done, but Keith Ellison should not be sworn into office to serve in the U.S. Congress because he cannot uphold his oath. The oath of office taken by members of Congress is in complete conflict with his Islamic laws. Remember: "


Ms. Kidd, I have to admit that your absolutely right this time. It is contradicting plain logic. But have you considered him as a crypto-Zionist, because Zionists are extremely liberal when it comes to such issues, or a hypocrite nominal Muslim whom you should not consider to be a representation of Muslim people anywhere, or consider his previous Christian life as a Catholic? I am not demeaning Catholics, but it is well known that too many Catholic priest as well as Jewish rabbis  molested young boys. Did you consider that he might have been on those boy?


Ms. Kidd, when you feel like critisizing Islam or anything in general, please, get your information from the right sources, clear your mind in order not to be biased, and then sit down and write your newspaper's column. Your column targets both Idiots and non-Idiots. You would not be happy to know that your are being followed by those who are idiots. To be continued (Part 3/3)...

False Journalism

Continue to part 3/3