Islam: A Religion of Lies...

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Several points were made that i will address and have to break up due to size.

The points of this post are:
That sex at 12 was common in history.
That it (I assume you mean islam) is a different culture.
I am grabbing a strange dog by the ears.

A question asked is how does my post “serve God”?

Then the accusation of “helping satan accuse”.
Then you call it “hatemongering”.

You state that you are not trying to be judgmental.
Then try to justify Islamic child brides by attempting to equate a moral equivalency with Mississippi child brides.
Next you state you have never seen it in a muslim community that you are aware of.

So allow me to address these points.
1) That sex at 12 was not uncommon because of lifespans, historically.
This has nothing to do with the subject. First the Islamic “holy man” married a 6 year old girl not a 12 year old. Big difference in that alone. Also, morality is not based upon cultural norms. If that were the case there would be little that could ever be considered “wrong”. Should child sacrifice be accepted and justified because historically it was a cultural norm? I sincerely pray you don’t actually think so.

What you have attempted here is a false dichotomy. There is no moral equivalency. Remember Muhammad set himself above the entire world by proclaiming himself to be uniquely established to be the mouthpiece of his deity. Therefore, he alone sets the standard of morality. This is far different from sinful humanity attempting to establish a cultural norm. One can expect a depraved human being to establish a culture that is shocking to a holy God. However, when a man proclaims himself to be the mouthpiece of god and is more depraved than the “sinful” peoples around him it is quite telling what kind of man he was.

As mentioned this is a false dichotomy. First because the girl in question in regards to the supposed “holy man” was 6 not 12. Secondly, there is no moral equivalency due to the fact that he established a new “culture” through his unique position of being the mouthpiece of his deity. He asserted that what he did, he did with the blessing and/or commandment of his deity.

2) That islam is a different culture.
This appears to mean that we cannot say that the culture is wrong regardless of what they do. If this is what you mean then you are completely and totally wrong. Truth and justice demands that we acknowledge what is right or wrong. Should we accept honor killings as well because of the culture of violence within muslim communities? Should we bury our heads in the sand because millions of muslims exercise jihad as part of their culture? When they murderously blow up people like at the Boston Marathon should we not acknowledge the evil because it is a “different culture”? As far as I am concerned I will continue to the truth regardless of culture, foreign or domestic.

3) Grabbing a strange dog by the ears.
I suppose it is a “strange dog”. Actually it’s worse than a “strange dog”.

4) How does my post serve God?
First remember the audience. This is supposed to be a “Christian” forum or more specifically an “Apostolic” one. Truth is truth therefore it is reasonable to me that “Apostolics” would desire to know the truth.

For those who are unaware of the tenets of islam they can see for themselves the truth and the obfuscations of muslims. It’s apparent to me that the resident muslim does not care about the truth. He seeks only to justify the bad behavior of other muslims. Yet, that bad behavior is inherent in islam and is something to be emulated since its founder propagated this bad behavior. People need to know the evil of islam so they can perhaps help someone who is sincere but sincerely wrong.

Please note that the facts have never been questioned. There has only been attempts to justify the bad behavior.

5) You accused me of helping satan accuse.
How ridiculous. Jesus was very forthright with the religious rulers of his day. It is not an accusation to stand for truth. It is not an accusation to call evil – evil. Indeed we live in a day when people call evil good and good evil. Based upon your premise a Christian should never take a stand against sin. A Christian should never tell someone that the behavior they are propagating is evil. Jesus said if the salt has lost its saltiness it is good for nothing (paraphrased). Apostolics are to be the light of the earth. That means light will be directed at darkness. It is not an accusation to call evil – evil. It’s the truth.

I am reminded of the narrative of the Good Samaritan. I am sure you know the story so I will only make the point about the oil and the wine that was poured into the wounds of the man. Oil is symbolic of the Spirit of God which is the Spirit of truth. As such an alcoholic, for example, must first recognize he is an alcoholic before he can begin the process healing. In fact everyone must come to grips with the d=fact that we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God. That can only happen when we are confronted with the truth. The “wine” can be poured into the wound. The wine is of course symbolic of the blood of Christ. Once we understand our need of a savior then spiritual healing can take place. It will never take place without the truth being accepted.

6) You called it “hatemongering”.
Really? You prefer people bury their heads in the sand and ignore the fact that a major religion supports and tells its believers to emulate an old man that married a 6 year old girl? This mindset reminds me of the social psychological phenomenon known as the “Genovese syndrome”. It is shocking that you would call that “hatemongering”.

What is truly “hateful” is that young girls are being manipulated and exploited by old men for their own perverse gratification. THAT is “hateful” and despicable.

In case you did not read what muslim scholars have said concerning this despicable act here it is again:
Marrying a young girl before she reaches the age of adolescence is permitted in sharee’ah; indeed it was narrated that there was scholarly consensus on this point.
(a) Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise”
[al-Talaaq 65:4]

In this verse we see that Allaah has made the ‘iddah in the case of divorce of a girl who does not have periods – because she is young and has not yet reached puberty – three months. This clearly indicates that Allaah has made this a valid marriage.

There is Islamic scholarly consensus that their deity has made this a valid marriage.

Also,
Ibn Qudaamah (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Sharh al-Kabeer, 7/386:
With regard to females, the father may give his minor, virgin daughter who has not yet reached the age of nine in marriage, and there is no difference of opinion concerning that, if he gives her in marriage to someone who is compatible.

Ibn al-Mundhir said: All of those scholars from whom we acquired knowledge unanimously agreed that it is permissible for a father to give his minor daughter in marriage if he arranges her to someone who is compatible, and it is permissible for him to do that even if she is reluctant. End quote.

Did you catch that? All those scholars from whom they acquired knowledge unanimously agree that it is permissible for a father to give his daughter in marriage even though she is not yet 9 years old. Child brides are intrinsic to islam. It’s permissible to give a daughter in marriage as young as 6 years old under islam. And you dare to say my voicing of this travesty is “hatemongering”!?!?

It’s appalling that someone would attempt to justify such a heinous act but to then call it “hatemongering” when someone stands against it is shocking to say the least.

Muslims are also known as Mohammedans because they emulate their founder. Their founder was a pervert and they have unanimous scholarship that tells them that it’s okay with their deity for this kind of exploitive abuse to take place.

The true “hate” is those who would justify this disgusting practice and condemn little girls to a life of manipulation bound to the gratification of an old gray headed pervert. It’s simply disgusting that you would attempt to justify this practice. Shame on you. Shame on anyone who would adhere to such a belief system. Common sense should tell anyone to flee such a system of thought. Common sense should tell everyone to run to the only person the world should emulate, Jesus Christ. Instead the spirit of anti-Christ continues to this day.

If shazeep actually reads this post I would be in shock since he didn't read my post. Shazeep doesn't really post anything that is noteworthy and his posts are usually idiotic which is why I have him on ignore. He thinks everyone is HATEMONGERING and being judgmental which is the only real reason why he posts anything. No, he doesn't shock me that he cannot discern good from evil. If shazeep were to post anything substantive and reason I would be surprised.

That being said, I believe you made a good argument against Islam; even quoting Islamic scholars on the matter.

[shazeep]

no, not "everyone" by any means--not even most people, guys. spewing on anything in this manner is indicative of your heart, thats all i'm sayin.

[BrotherEastman]

Feels good to have shazeep on ignore. lol

[thephnxman]

I DON'T GET IT!

I have never tried to debate a denomination with their own doctrine: it's like trying to win a court case using logic, but disregarding case law. You will not win a case that way, I guarantee it.

With every denomination: JW's, Mormons, 7 Day Adventists, Trinitarians, etc., I will always
bring them to the gospel that saves. Let's face it: "All have sinned and come short of the glory
of God..."; therefore, everyone needs a Savior who can saves, and the gospel that offers that
salvation. People don'r need convincing, they need conviction.

"A man who is a heretic, after the second and third admonition, reject." Why should
we treat heretics as equals: they are not. There are too many souls who KNOW they are sinners
and need and are willing to hear the gospel. Why are we wasting so mush time on that uncircumcised muslim?

[shazeep]

um, because putting them down among people most likely to agree with you makes you feel better for a minute? i mean let's face it, objectifying others, "the uncircumcised," "different" in whatever way, assuages shaky self esteem. Grace is truly much harder than it sounds, huh?

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by shazeep

um, because putting them down among people most likely to agree with you makes you feel better for a minute? i mean let's face it, objectifying others, "the uncircumcised," "different" in whatever way, assuages shaky self esteem. Grace is truly much harder than it sounds, huh?

I don't object to disagreement, and don't seek agreement.
I stated: I don't get it! Now I can state, "I don't get it" to your post.
Are you defending the arguments of Islam: or just using their doctrine to
establish their deceit? Comparing lies to lies does not add up to truth. Or
perhaps you are just defending their right to express themselves according
to the dictates of the Constitution? Which is it?

Yeah, you guessed it: I have very shaky self-esteem.

[shazeep]

hey, there is also the sense that i must be a hypocrite to even see any issue with your post, otherwise it would make no sense to me, go right over my head, etc. The only finger i can point is ultimately at myself. i know the self esteem angle is not pleasant to contemplate, but it is universal; we are men. A chief--prolly the chief--definition of 'sinner' may be one who reduces others to objects, creating subject/object relationships. Making it easier to scoff, iow. "Well, they are uncircumcised." "Well, they are just legalistic hate-mongers." Etc

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by shazeep

hey, there is also the sense that i must be a hypocrite to even see any issue with your post, otherwise it would make no sense to me, go right over my head, etc. The only finger i can point is ultimately at myself. i know the self esteem angle is not pleasant to contemplate, but it is universal; we are men. A chief--prolly the chief--definition of 'sinner' may be one who reduces others to objects, creating subject/object relationships. Making it easier to scoff, iow. "Well, they are uncircumcised." "Well, they are just legalistic hate-mongers." Etc

C'mon, who's calling you a hypocrite? But...I'll say it again (maybe just a little bit louder).
Comparing lies to lies does not add up to truth.
Using the Q'uran does not expose its lies to a believer in the Q'uran: because in doing so
a person is bound by the same spirit that is in the Q'uran! Only truth can equal truth: and
it is truth, no matter who is the one proclaiming it! Calling truth a lie does not turn truth
into a lie; and calling a lie truth, does not turn a lie into truth.

[shazeep]

funny, i am saying just exactly the same thing, on another thread; using the Bible does not expose Its lies to a believer in the Bible...unless it does. I find both Spirit, and letter, in Scripture. But i am not interested in exposing any lies; they will expose themselves, even to those who call them truth.

Why not seek truths instead? Even from the Qur'an, should a Christian wish, for some strange reason, to go there. This finding lies in the Qur'an is no different than denominationalism to me; "Hey, they're just __________," inserting belittling objectifying Sect here. Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, whatever. Not the Four of Us.

And the standard reply of "Well, we can't just have people believing whatever, willy-nilly" i find to be completely spurious, simply on its merits; what anyone, me included, "believes," is what constitutes our "religion," mostly naive guesses and half-lies that negate the Spiritual principles hidden in the letters. If it is not helping you to a better, fuller grasp of Love Your Neighbor--all of your neighbors--then what good is it? What is the point of judging a Book that you most likely completely lack any cultural reference for? Heck, i can't culturally refer to half the stories in the OT

As soon as one finds something to condemn someone else for, they have missed the point. This does not mean that these people do not exist--one hardly needs to go halfway around the world, so to speak, to find them--but that one's heart has been revealed.

[phareztamar]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Several points were made that i will address and have to break up due to size.

The points of this post are:
That sex at 12 was common in history.
That it (I assume you mean islam) is a different culture.
I am grabbing a strange dog by the ears.

A question asked is how does my post “serve God”?

Then the accusation of “helping satan accuse”.
Then you call it “hatemongering”.

You state that you are not trying to be judgmental.
Then try to justify Islamic child brides by attempting to equate a moral equivalency with Mississippi child brides.
Next you state you have never seen it in a muslim community that you are aware of.

So allow me to address these points.
1) That sex at 12 was not uncommon because of lifespans, historically.
This has nothing to do with the subject. First the Islamic “holy man” married a 6 year old girl not a 12 year old. Big difference in that alone. Also, morality is not based upon cultural norms. If that were the case there would be little that could ever be considered “wrong”. Should child sacrifice be accepted and justified because historically it was a cultural norm? I sincerely pray you don’t actually think so.

What you have attempted here is a false dichotomy. There is no moral equivalency. Remember Muhammad set himself above the entire world by proclaiming himself to be uniquely established to be the mouthpiece of his deity. Therefore, he alone sets the standard of morality. This is far different from sinful humanity attempting to establish a cultural norm. One can expect a depraved human being to establish a culture that is shocking to a holy God. However, when a man proclaims himself to be the mouthpiece of god and is more depraved than the “sinful” peoples around him it is quite telling what kind of man he was.

As mentioned this is a false dichotomy. First because the girl in question in regards to the supposed “holy man” was 6 not 12. Secondly, there is no moral equivalency due to the fact that he established a new “culture” through his unique position of being the mouthpiece of his deity. He asserted that what he did, he did with the blessing and/or commandment of his deity.

2) That islam is a different culture.
This appears to mean that we cannot say that the culture is wrong regardless of what they do. If this is what you mean then you are completely and totally wrong. Truth and justice demands that we acknowledge what is right or wrong. Should we accept honor killings as well because of the culture of violence within muslim communities? Should we bury our heads in the sand because millions of muslims exercise jihad as part of their culture? When they murderously blow up people like at the Boston Marathon should we not acknowledge the evil because it is a “different culture”? As far as I am concerned I will continue to the truth regardless of culture, foreign or domestic.

3) Grabbing a strange dog by the ears.
I suppose it is a “strange dog”. Actually it’s worse than a “strange dog”.

4) How does my post serve God?
First remember the audience. This is supposed to be a “Christian” forum or more specifically an “Apostolic” one. Truth is truth therefore it is reasonable to me that “Apostolics” would desire to know the truth.

For those who are unaware of the tenets of islam they can see for themselves the truth and the obfuscations of muslims. It’s apparent to me that the resident muslim does not care about the truth. He seeks only to justify the bad behavior of other muslims. Yet, that bad behavior is inherent in islam and is something to be emulated since its founder propagated this bad behavior. People need to know the evil of islam so they can perhaps help someone who is sincere but sincerely wrong.

Please note that the facts have never been questioned. There has only been attempts to justify the bad behavior.

5) You accused me of helping satan accuse.
How ridiculous. Jesus was very forthright with the religious rulers of his day. It is not an accusation to stand for truth. It is not an accusation to call evil – evil. Indeed we live in a day when people call evil good and good evil. Based upon your premise a Christian should never take a stand against sin. A Christian should never tell someone that the behavior they are propagating is evil. Jesus said if the salt has lost its saltiness it is good for nothing (paraphrased). Apostolics are to be the light of the earth. That means light will be directed at darkness. It is not an accusation to call evil – evil. It’s the truth.

I am reminded of the narrative of the Good Samaritan. I am sure you know the story so I will only make the point about the oil and the wine that was poured into the wounds of the man. Oil is symbolic of the Spirit of God which is the Spirit of truth. As such an alcoholic, for example, must first recognize he is an alcoholic before he can begin the process healing. In fact everyone must come to grips with the d=fact that we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God. That can only happen when we are confronted with the truth. The “wine” can be poured into the wound. The wine is of course symbolic of the blood of Christ. Once we understand our need of a savior then spiritual healing can take place. It will never take place without the truth being accepted.

6) You called it “hatemongering”.
Really? You prefer people bury their heads in the sand and ignore the fact that a major religion supports and tells its believers to emulate an old man that married a 6 year old girl? This mindset reminds me of the social psychological phenomenon known as the “Genovese syndrome”. It is shocking that you would call that “hatemongering”.

What is truly “hateful” is that young girls are being manipulated and exploited by old men for their own perverse gratification. THAT is “hateful” and despicable.

In case you did not read what muslim scholars have said concerning this despicable act here it is again:
Marrying a young girl before she reaches the age of adolescence is permitted in sharee’ah; indeed it was narrated that there was scholarly consensus on this point.
(a) Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise”
[al-Talaaq 65:4]

In this verse we see that Allaah has made the ‘iddah in the case of divorce of a girl who does not have periods – because she is young and has not yet reached puberty – three months. This clearly indicates that Allaah has made this a valid marriage.

There is Islamic scholarly consensus that their deity has made this a valid marriage.

Also,
Ibn Qudaamah (may Allah have mercy on him) said in al-Sharh al-Kabeer, 7/386:
With regard to females, the father may give his minor, virgin daughter who has not yet reached the age of nine in marriage, and there is no difference of opinion concerning that, if he gives her in marriage to someone who is compatible.

Ibn al-Mundhir said: All of those scholars from whom we acquired knowledge unanimously agreed that it is permissible for a father to give his minor daughter in marriage if he arranges her to someone who is compatible, and it is permissible for him to do that even if she is reluctant. End quote.

Did you catch that? All those scholars from whom they acquired knowledge unanimously agree that it is permissible for a father to give his daughter in marriage even though she is not yet 9 years old. Child brides are intrinsic to islam. It’s permissible to give a daughter in marriage as young as 6 years old under islam. And you dare to say my voicing of this travesty is “hatemongering”!?!?

It’s appalling that someone would attempt to justify such a heinous act but to then call it “hatemongering” when someone stands against it is shocking to say the least.

Muslims are also known as Mohammedans because they emulate their founder. Their founder was a pervert and they have unanimous scholarship that tells them that it’s okay with their deity for this kind of exploitive abuse to take place.

The true “hate” is those who would justify this disgusting practice and condemn little girls to a life of manipulation bound to the gratification of an old gray headed pervert. It’s simply disgusting that you would attempt to justify this practice. Shame on you. Shame on anyone who would adhere to such a belief system. Common sense should tell anyone to flee such a system of thought. Common sense should tell everyone to run to the only person the world should emulate, Jesus Christ. Instead the spirit of anti-Christ continues to this day.

Good post Pliny.