To Mo: Typical, bluster about issues unconnected with questions raised

Submitted by Plato (India), Jan 12, 2008 at 07:01

Mo, like most Muslims you think that whenever a person with a Christian-sounding name commits a crime it is the Christian religion which is responsible. But when a person with a Muslim name commits a similar atrocity Islam cannot be blamed because such a person in your estimation is not one! This is another of those typical Muslim proclivities, attempting to have one's cake and eat it too.

You clean forget the fact that except in some of those forgotten eras of the inquisition and colonial depredations Christians did not explicitly claim they were torturing, killing and raping in the name of their Lord Jesus (this despite Jesus'explicit injunctions against hating your enemy and doing him damage).

Dillah wrote:

>>Know this: There is not one single New Testament Scripture that teaches humans to be violent with each other. If You don't believe - then present those New Testament Scriptures. Until then - you stand accused.<<

This is the issue you should have addressed but like most Muslims when confronted with uncomfortable facts you go off on a tangent and bring in crimes committed by past Christians against their religion's express commands. Islam on the other hand expressly commands it followers to fight and kill in several verses (read Dillah's post again).

Mo, defend the violent statements contained in your holy of holies, the Koran. Dillah has already mentioned them. Take them one by one and show what hidden messages of peace they contain.

Dillah has missed out on my ‘favourite' verse 9:111, the one which I am sure all the Muslim suicide bombers have in mind when blowing up themselves and innocent infidels. This is a verse that gives a contract to Muslims to go and kill or be killed in exchange for paradise. 009.111

YUSUFALI: Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.

What does Allah reveal with this verse? The most obvious is it falsifies His claim to be all-powerful. An all-powerful being will not plead or make a contract with humans to go and kill or be killed on His behalf. Another thing that strikes the mind is that His followers have to be given a binding promise of paradise to get them to fight and kill or be killed on His behalf.

The verse show Allah needs helpers to get his work done and reveals the venal nature of His followers who need to be egged on with promises of a life of ease and pleasure.

You told Dillah:

>>As you are licenced to tell lies in the name of you religion, do don't have to show the proof.<<

Obviously this means YOU cannot tell lies in the name of your religion. Mo, after your charge of lying laid on Dillah, you are now obliged to tell us truthfully what all those verses he mentioned mean. Spare us the context and history spin for that falsifies the Koran's claim that it is a message for all time and places. An eternal message cannot be constrained by context and time.

You have thrown out several atrocities committed by Christians at Dillah. You seem to have forgotten that the same charges can be laid at the doors of Muslims beginning with your prophet. Allah allowed Mohammed to slaughter the Banu Quraiza. Khalid bin Walid revelled in killing even people who were willing to surrender. Muslims began slaughtering each other (three of your rightly guided caliphs were murdered by other Muslims) even as they went about killing infidels. Millions were killed in India in their rapacious march eastward. Muslims blowing each other up has now become a holy Islamic game in Pakistan.

I invite you to show me that these charges are lies.

Plato

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".