« Hit and Run | Main | Trump Card »

Irresistible Forces, Immovable Objects

The New York Times had an interesting piece the other day. Edward Luttwak, writing in their op-ed section, brought up something that had only been brushed upon before: is Senator Barack Hussein Obama an apostate in the eyes of many of the world's Muslims?

Going by a strict interpretation of Muslim law, the answer is inescapable: yes.

And under Muslim law, Luttwak notes, apostasy is quite possibly the greatest sin and crime. The prescribed penalties are the most extreme offered by Muslim law: death, in a truly brutal fashion. Beheading is the normal means, but stoning and hanging have been offered as alternatives.

How does Barack Hussein Obama qualify as an apostate under Muslim law? By the same sort of laws that Jews use to determine whether someone is a Jew -- but where Israel uses those laws to determine access to the benefits of Judaism, and leaves their exercising of said rights up to the individual in question, Muslim law considers it an obligation to which the individual has no right to reject.

Barack Hussein Obama (nee Jr.) is the son of a man who was a Muslim. Therefore, he was Muslim from birth. That his father had, during his lifetime, rejected Islam, and the fact that Senator Obama has either never been a practicing Muslim or rejected it decades ago is irrelevant. He is, by birth, a Muslim, and can not escape that status in this lifetime. He must accept that, or pay the price -- and the price is death.

So, what does that state to Senator Barack Hussein Obama's presidential ambitions? How relevant is it that a good-sized chunk of the Islamic world will see him as the worst type of offender against their faith, the sort of man for whom literally hanging is too good for?

To my way of thinking, not one damned thing.

Senator Barack Hussein Obama is not a Muslim, as we civilized folk see it. He has never publicly embraced that faith. Indeed, just the opposite -- he has been a practicing Christian for decades (as attested to his recent troubles, thanks to his long-time association with a Christian pastor). The people pushing the "Hussein is a secret Muslim" canard need to be confronted and beaten down with the truth at every opportunity. There are numerous valid reasons to oppose the presidential ambitions of Senator Obama (I have about a dozen of my own); we don't need to stoop to that level of fraud to make our case.

But the question of Obama's apostate status is something we should consider quite seriously -- in ways that actually have very little to do with him.

This principle that is being espoused here is a crucial part of fundamental Islam: that once a person or a thing is "of Islam," it is forever of Islam, and can not be taken away or traded or bartered or surrendered or reformed or sold or conquered or converted, be it land or people.

I've been wracking my brain for a good metaphor for this aspect of Islam, and I've got several "almost" candidates. When I list items in the categories of "once you get them, you can't ever get rid of them," certain things come to mind: AIDS. Herpes. General Motors vehicles with diesel engines from the late 70's. Loss of virginity. Aging.

All of those things are negative, and life-changing. The first three are universally negative, while the other two can be two-edged swords., blessings or curses. I tried to come up with some sort of permanent mark that is unabashedly positive, but I was stumped. "Immunities" came up, but we're finding all sorts of maladies that are proving resistant to treatments and vaccines all the time.

This is the unspoken deep, dark secret of militant Islam that no one likes to talk about. It is an ideological equivalent of the most malignant and incurable forms of cancer, one that once it takes root, cannot be excised. It is, as I have said before, a "Roach Motel" -- once you check in, you can never check out. Or, if you prefer, a "Hotel California" -- you can "check out" (i. e., die) any time you like, but you can never leave.

Fortunately, there are signs of sanity -- at least among American Muslims (as opposed to Muslims living in America -- an important distinction.) One mosque in Pennsylvania has refused to host the funeral and grave of one Muslim who murdered a police officer, saying that "we don't want one slight scintilla hinting that we condone his behavior."

An incredibly small step, but one that is potentially revolutionary.

The message that we need to send is not to reject Senator Obama as our president out of fear of the radical Islamists' laws. Nor, for that matter, should we deliberately elect him in spit of them. We should simply say that their beliefs are utterly irrelevant to us (and the rest of the civilized world) and refuse to give them any credibility whatsoever. Let them rail and howl and threaten all they like; we will choose our president based on our laws and our traditions and our mores and our beliefs, and there's not a damned thing they can do about that.

And if they insist, then we can show them just how a "civilized" society can wage war back at them when we are properly provoked. Hell, we could even get the Enola Gay out of its museum and use it to deliver the same message once again.

For should it come down to a confrontation between militant Islam and the West, I'll put my money on us. We've seen too many times just how much of an "irresistible force" Western culture and technology can be (just look at the global nature of Big Macs and Coke for relatively benign examples), and the most radical elements of Islam are hardly an "immovable object."

What I do fear, though, is the price we -- as humanity -- will eventually have to pay to drive this particular lesson home once again.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/29660.

Comments (24)

I think some elements of th... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

I think some elements of the Islamic World might hold Obama as apostate. But overall, he will be judge by whether his presidency will advance or retard the growth of Islam.

And he will help it. Not because he's a closet Muslim, but because he's a raging leftist who has learned to not go frothing at the mouth over his positions.

Most Muslims including most diehards will be dancing in the streets when & if he wins.

I think the apostate story got some press in NYT to try to separate Obama from Islam. NYT is believing its own press about rednecks and why they won't vote for him.

I don't know for a fact tha... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

I don't know for a fact that simply being born to a Muslim parent makes one a Muslim by default. I don't know all the rules. But just for the sake of argument, let's say you're correct. Wouldn't it make this guy a hypocrite? Unless of course he sincerely believes that Obama is practicing taqiyya in his condemnation of Carter's visit with Hamas, which is indicated by his lack of concern over it. It's possible Yousef thinks that, if elected, Obama will certainly engage Hamas. That would be a travesty in my eyes.

So many good reasons not to... (Below threshold)
Bob:

So many good reasons not to elect B. Hussein Obama as our President - but his being a Muslim is not one of them. OTOH, the fact that Muslims think anyone who "leaves" the faith (i.e., whose father was a Muslim and doesn't follow the faith) should be executed is certainly relevant to the current public debate.

And you know "he was never ... (Below threshold)
OLDPUPPYMAX:

And you know "he was never a practicing Muslim"....HOW, exactly? Because his campaign says so? Remember, he also knew nothing about Wrights insane racist ramblings and anti America screeds. Believing anything this guy says is tantamount to putting faith in Bill Clinton. And as it was with slick Willie, try as they may, the media will not be able to protect him forever.

We don't need to bring the ... (Below threshold)
The Grumpy Old Bald Guy:

We don't need to bring the Enola Gay out of retirement, we could quite easily rename a B-52 or B-2 Enola Gay II. The original has earned her place in history, let her rest in peace.

Would the name Enola Gay be... (Below threshold)
Mattnu:

Would the name Enola Gay be considered politically correct? If we Hyphenate O'Bama, could we claim he is a closet Irishman?

On the subject of Obama being an apostate some factions of Islam would consider him apostate. However, how they deal with it would depend on how well he treats Islam.

I don't want to play into the hands of the "closet Islamist" theroists, but one does have to be reminded that Islam considers lying, dissembling, deception, ets as being acceptable if it is neccesary to the survival of Islam or the individual Muslim, or of it helps attain a strategic goal.

Finally, I agree there are lots and lots of very good reasons not to vote for Obama that have nothing to do with Islam.

A permanent mark that is un... (Below threshold)
pa:

A permanent mark that is unabashedly positive: becoming a parent.

Edward Luttwak, wr... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Edward Luttwak, writing in their op-ed section, brought up something that had only been brushed upon before.

Well I know it doesn't count for squat, but I brought up this issue in Wizbang comments months ago. The best response to that point was that Muslims don't consider the offspring of a marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim to automatically be Muslim. Thus, Obama wasn't a Muslim by birth and if he never became a Muslim before becoming a Christian, then he's not an apostate.

Now if someone can demonstrate that Obama became a Muslim at some point, then that's another issue. Even if that doesn't happen, I expect the executive chief supreme great grand master Ayatollah of Iran to declare Obama an apostate, but only after he becomes President. The motive will be political rather than religious, however.

Think we have problems with the Muslim world now? Just wait until they think we elected an apostate as our President. Ten dollar a gallon gas could be just months away, so you better take that vacation this summer as it might be the last one you ever have.

"I've been wracking my brai... (Below threshold)
LouisianaLightning:

"I've been wracking my brain for a good metaphor for this aspect of Islam, and I've got several "almost" candidates. "

Jay, you missed the obvious one:

Islam: the Roach Motel of Religions! Once you check in, you never check out!

"I don't know for a fact th... (Below threshold)
DontBeFooledBySoCalledModerateIslam:

"I don't know for a fact that simply being born to a Muslim parent makes one a Muslim by default. I don't know all the rules."

Oyster,

It is. And so is the fact that apostasy is not allowed. And this sentiment is prevalent among muslims --- except the very few who call themselves reformists (who exist mainly in the United States, and are shunned by the Muslim majority).

As shocking as it these are human rights violations to more open-minded societies, to the muslims these seems to be norm which must be followed at all cost. In fact, from my readings of muslim blogs (which are typically not in English) after this incident
http://www.persecution.org/suffering/newssummpopup.php?newscode=7732&PHPSESSID=8ec723bfbb3466a8aeedbcd081895c5f
, most Muslims are clearly unhappy about the fact that a woman has been allowed to convert back to Buddhism.

Simply born in a Muslim fam... (Below threshold)
Suhail:

Simply born in a Muslim family will not make him a muslim unless he belives in 1 God. A muslim is a quality of a person who submits his will to Almighty God alone... Any living being in this world who testifies that there is only One God the Creator and Sustainer of this world and worships and surrenders only to Him alone is a true Muslim. Hope this finishes the argument... of terming someone as muslim. Even Jesus says In John ch 5 ver 30 "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear I judge: and my judgement is just; because I seek not mine own will but the will of the Father which has sent me."

he says will of the Lord who has sent him. anyone who says that he is indeed a Muslim submitting his will to Almighty God.

"I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me...." John 6:38
"Jesus said to them, 'My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work."' John 4:34
"Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done." Luke 22:42
"I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God." (John 20:17)

And you know "he was nev... (Below threshold)
Kurt Cant:

And you know "he was never a practicing Muslim"....HOW, exactly?

Because there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that he was ever a Muslim. None. Zip. Zada. Nil. Nothing. There is, however, ample evidence to the contrary. The facts are these:
1. Obama's father was an avowed atheist. He went to grad school at Harvard. There's no way to debate this; he interacted with many people who back that up.
2. Obama's father left his mother when he was two (to go to grad school, incidentally). Again, there is really no way to debate this.
3. His mother was also an atheist. She was a stereotypical ivory tower anthropologist/feminist/liberal. She even published feminist literature; it would be quite ridiculuous for her to have been a secret Muslim. This is undebatable.
4. No one who has ever known Obama has ever seen him practice Islam. Undebatable.

Basically, the only evidence anyone has ever proffered to suggest that Obama is a Muslim is that he has a Muslim-sounding name. I must be Jewish because I have a Hebrew first and middle name. Anyone who suggests that Obama is a Muslim is either a liar or an ignoramus. Which are you?

Suhail,Anyone who ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Suhail,

Anyone who worships God as Jesus describes Him is a Jew or a Christian, not a Muslim. Without the atoning work of the Cross no one is righteous in the eyes of God.

2 Corinthians 5:21: He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

While Muslims acknowledge Jesus as a prophet, they deny His deity and the atoning work of the Cross, without which no one can be saved. Because of that, early Christians believed Islam was the work of the Devil instituted to deceive and blind people to the truth. Atrocities done in the name of Islam only heighten that belief.

To Mac Lorry Jesus p... (Below threshold)
Suhail:

To Mac Lorry
Jesus performed many miraculous wonders, and he without doubt said a lot of wonderful things about himself. Some people use what he said and did as a proof that he was God. But his original disciples who lived and walked with him, and were eyewitnesses to what he said and did, never reached this conclusion.

The Acts of the Apostles in the Bible details the activity of the disciples over a period of thirty years after Jesus was lifted up to heaven. Throughout this period they never refer to Jesus as God. They continually and consistently use the title God to refer to someone else other than Jesus.

Peter stood up with the eleven disciples and addressed the crowd saying: "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know." (Acts 2:22).

It was God, therefore, who did the miracles through Jesus to convince people that Jesus was backed by God. Peter did not see the miracles as proof that Jesus is God.

In fact, the way Peter refers to God and to Jesus makes it clear that Jesus is not God. For he always turns the title God away from Jesus. Take the following references for example:

"God has raised this Jesus..." (Acts 2:32)
"God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36)

In both passages, the title God is turned away from Jesus. So why he did this, if Jesus was God?

For Peter, Jesus was a servant of God. Peter said: "God raised up his servant..." (Acts 3:26). The title servant refers to Jesus. This is clear from a previous passage where Peter declared: "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus." (Acts 3:13).

Peter must have known that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob never spoke of a Triune God. They always spoke of God as the only God. Here, as in Matthew 12:18, Jesus is the servant of God. Matthew tells us that Jesus was the same servant of God spoken of in Isaiah 42:1. So, according to Matthew and Peter, Jesus is not God, but God's servant. The Old Testament repeatedly says that God is alone (e.g. Isaiah 45:5).

All of the disciples of Jesus held this view. In Acts 4:24 we are told that the believers prayed to God saying: "...they raised their voices together in prayer to God. 'Sovereign Lord,' they said, 'you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.'" It is clear that the one they were praying to was not Jesus, because, two verses later, they referred to Jesus as "...your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed." (Acts 4:27).

If Jesus was God, his disciples should have said this clearly. Instead, they kept preaching that Jesus was God's Christ. We are told in Acts: "Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ." (Acts 5:42).

The Greek word "Christ" is a human title. It means "Anointed." If Jesus was God, why would the disciples continually refer to him with human titles like servant and Christ of God, and consistently use the title God for the one who raised Jesus? Did they fear men? No! They boldly preached the truth fearing neither imprisonment nor death. When they faced opposition from the authorities, Peter declared: "We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus..." (Acts 5:29-30).

Christians and Muslims agre... (Below threshold)
suhail:

Christians and Muslims agree that God is all-powerful and all-knowing. The Gospels show that Jesus was not all-powerful, and not all-knowing, since he had some limitations.

Mark tells us in his gospel that Jesus was unable to do any powerful work in his hometown except few things: "He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them." (Mark 6:5). Mark also tells us that when Jesus tried to heal a certain blind man, the man was not healed after the first attempt, and Jesus had to try a second time (see Mark 8:22-26).

Therefore, although we hold a great love and respect for Jesus, we need to understand that he is not the all-powerful God.

Mark's Gospel also reveals that Jesus had limitations in his knowledge. In Mark 13:32, Jesus declared that he himself does not know when the last day will occur, but the Father alone knows that (see also Matthew 24:36).

Therefore, Jesus could not have been the all-knowing God. Some will say that Jesus knew when the last day will occur, but he chose not to tell. But that complicates matters further. Jesus could have said that he knows but he does not wish to tell. Instead, he said that he does not know. We must believe him. Jesus does not lie at all.

The Gospel of Luke also reveals that Jesus had limited knowledge. Luke says that Jesus increased in wisdom (Luke 2:52). In Hebrews too (Hebrews 5:8) we read that Jesus learned obedience. But God's knowledge and wisdom is always perfect, and God does not learn new things. He knows everything always. So, if Jesus learned something new, that proves that he did not know everything before that, and thus he was not God.

Another example for the limited knowledge of Jesus is the fig tree episode in the Gospels. Mark tells us as follows: "The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs." (Mark 11:12-13).

It is clear from these verses that the knowledge of Jesus was limited on two counts. First, he did not know that the tree had no fruit until he came to it. Second, he did not know that it was not the right season to expect figs on trees.

Can he become God later? No! Because there is only one God, and He is God from everlasting to everlasting (see Psalms 90:2).

Someone may say that Jesus was God but he took the form of a servant and therefore became limited. Well, that would mean that God changed. But God does not change. God said so according to Malachi 3:6.

Jesus never was God, and never will be. In the Bible, God declares: "Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me." (Isaiah 43:10).

The Bible clearly shows that Jesus was not all-powerful and all-knowing as the true God should be.

Oh, isn't this special. A M... (Below threshold)

Oh, isn't this special. A Muslim is lecturing us on Christianity.

Well, how about this non-Christian, non-Muslim tells Suhail a few things about Islam:

Islam was founded by a guy who thought it was just fine and dandy to marry a six-year-old girl, although he was considerate enough to leave her alone and not consummate the "marriage" until she was nine. In civilized societies, such guys are locked up -- or executed. In Islam, he's worshipped.

Islam was founded by a guy who not only tolerated, but encouraged its spread by the sword, routinely telling people "convert or die" and carrying out that threat. That is still a valid method of proselytizing to many of his followers.

I don't subscribe to any religious faith, but if I did, I sure as hell wouldn't sign up for one based on the teachings of a pedophile warlord.

J.

To Jay Tea You are s... (Below threshold)
Suhail:

To Jay Tea
You are so incorrect..!
I am not here to lecture on Christianity neither on Islam. I am quoting the verses which has to be read carefully and to understand it properly.
But i would love to clear your misconception about islam line by line...
The name of this religion, Islam, is derived from the Arabic word "salam," which is often interpreted as meaning "peace." However "submission" would be a better translation. A Muslim is a follower of Islam. "Muslim" is an Arabic word that refers to a person who submits themselves to the will of God.
AGAIN for your understanding...Islam is the youngest of the three monotheistic world religions (with Judaism and Christianity). An adherent to Islam is a Muslim [one who submits].

Muslims traditionally acknowledge respect for Muhammad, Jesus and other prophets (peace be upon them) by adding this phrase or an abbreviation "(pbuh)" after their names.
Islam existed before Muhammad (pbuh) was born,
The origins of Islam date back to the creation of the world, and
Muhammad (pbuh) was the last and by far the greatest of a series of Prophets.

Followers of Islam are called Muslims. "Allah" is an Arabic word which means "the One True God.

Now for those who are wondering who was prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

Unlike other great religious leaders, like the Buddha, Moses, and Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ), Muhammad was born relatively recently, in the late 6th century CE, about the year 570.


Suhaila, to Christians, Jes... (Below threshold)

Suhaila, to Christians, Jesus was not a prophet, he was the FULFILLMENT of prophesy. To demote him to "prophet" is a grave insult to Christians.

Of course, I'm speaking as a non-Christian, so I don't feel overly insulted.

And so Mohammed was born about 500 years after Jesus, and about 1500 years ago. Was having sex with a nine-year-old girl acceptable then?

I. Will. Not. Submit.

Especially to a faith that praises "conversion by the sword," states that lying to the kafir is perfectly legitimate, and openly espouses killing Jews, as they are "the children of pigs and dogs."

Peddle your lies elsewhere, Suhaila. We already know the truth.

J.

Which prophecy are you talk... (Below threshold)
Suhail:

Which prophecy are you talking about? The Prophecy of Moses ?? Jesus (pbuh)
When Jesus states that "I and the father are one," is it not possible to interpret this as Jesus doing the will of God, and therefore his will and God's will coincide to be one? A similar scenario would be a man completely devoted to his work, living through his work thus becoming like one with it.

Common Christian thought is that the only way to heaven is through Jesus, whether through intercession in prayer or devotion in worship as part of the trinity. It causes one to wonder if this requirement would exclude God's prophets and messengers who came prior to Jesus. The Old Testament clearly states that they worshipped and prayed to God alone. Or, is this a new requirement that was placed on humanity only after Jesus?


The practice of Christianity today is focused around Jesus. The Sunday service in a Catholic mass comes to a cli-max around the communal services. The practices of the religion are obviously very different from the practices prior to, during, and directly following the life of Jesus. Nowhere in the Bible, either the New or the Old Testament, is the word trinity mentioned; yet it is vital to Christian beliefs today. At no point does Jesus say "I am God" or "I am divine."

The issue of Jesus' divinity was extremely controversial within the church in the third and fourth century, and has remained a controversial issue until today. These issues which are so important to the practice and beliefs of Chris-tianity today were concluded upon some 400 years after the death of Jesus by Councils of the Church. Why would something so important as an issue which would question the unity of God not have been "clearly" stated by Jesus himself, or other prophets of God?

Instead see wht the Holy Qur'an Says:
Never would a human being whom GOD blessed with the scripture and prophethood say to the people, "Idolize me beside GOD." Instead, (he would say), "Devote yourselves absolutely to your Lord alone," ac-cording to the scripture you preach and the teachings you learn. (3:79)
O people of the scripture, do not transgress the limits of your religion, and do not say about GOD except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was a messenger of GOD, and His word that He had sent to Mary, and a revelation from Him. Therefore, you shall believe in GOD and His messengers. You shall not say, "Trinity." You shall refrain from this for your own good. GOD is only one god. Be He glorified; He is much too glorious to have a son. To Him belongs everything in the heavens and everything on earth. GOD suffices as Lord and Master. (4:171)

The Messiah, son of Mary, is no more than a messenger like the messengers before him, and his mother was a saint. Both of them used to eat the food. Note how we explain the revelations for them, and note how they still deviate! (5:75)

(On The Day Of Resurrection) GOD will say, "O Jesus, son of Mary,** did you say to the people, `Make me and my mother idols beside GOD?' " He will say, "Be You glorified. I could not utter what was not right. Had I said it, You already would have known it. You know my thoughts, and I do not know Your thoughts. You know all the secrets. (5:116)

**It is noteworthy that the Quran consistently calls Jesus "son of Mary" and the Bible calls him "son of man." God knew that some will blaspheme and call him "son of God"!


Did Jesus make statements r... (Below threshold)
Suhail:

Did Jesus make statements reguarding his status, the words, the will and the power he used ?

His WORDS


John 7:16 Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His
who sent Me.


Joh 14:24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word
which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

Joh 12:49 "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who
sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.


His WILL


Joh 4:34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of him who sent
me, and to accomplish his work.


Joh 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but
the will of Him who sent Me.

Lu 22:42 saying, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me;
nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done."

His POWER


Joh 5:30 "I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment
is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the
Father who sent Me.


Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me,
for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord,
but he sent me.


HIS KNOWLEDGE


Mr 13:32 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in
heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.


Mt 24:36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of
heaven, but My Father only.


Joh 7:16 So Jesus answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who
sent me;


HIS STATUS


Mt 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the
kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.


Mr 10:18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good
but God alone.


8:50 "And I do not seek My own glory; there is One who seeks and judges.


Some Christians, (not all) claim that Jesus implied that he was God. From the above verses, we
see that Jesus denied being God. It now leaves the Christians who believe Jesus is God to provide just one single verse in the Bible where Jesus says "I am God". There is no such verse, so we see from the many quotes above, that the House did not belong to Jesus, it belonged to the ONE WHO SENT him

Ayesha(ra) was engaged to s... (Below threshold)
suhail:

Ayesha(ra) was engaged to someone else before she got engaged to Muhammad(saw):
Lady Ayesha(ra) was already engaged to a non-Muslim man named Jober Ibn Al-Moteam Ibn Oday. Back then, the people of Mecca did not object to Ayesha(ra)'s engagement to Jober because she was physically mature enough to be considered for marriage. Her parents saw that and they engaged her to Jober.

The only reason why Ayesha (ra)'s father, Abu Baker Al Siddeek, broke her engagement with Jober is because he was a non-Muslim. Later, a woman named Kholeah Bint Hakeem suggested for Muhammad (saw) to marry Ayesha(ra), because Muhammad (saw) and Abu Baker became best friends. Muhammad (saw) engaged Ayesha(ra) for 2 years before he married her.

Abû Bakr (ra) is also recorded to have spoken these words: "There are three things I cherish most: a look at your face, to spend my wealth on you and that my daughter is thy wife."

All Muslim scholars agree 100% that Muhammad(saw) and Aisha(ra) were engaged for 2 years before marriage.

Prophet Muhammad(saw) was a Noble Messenger of God. Muhammad(saw) lived in a society and culture that existed 1400 years ago, and we must not judge what he or others did based on the standards we have set today. It is wrong and foolish to do so!.

Jay TeaWas ISLAM Spr... (Below threshold)
suhail:

Jay Tea
Was ISLAM Spread by the Sword ???

Many when they think about Islam, picture religious fanatics on camels with a sword in one hand and a Quran in the other. This myth, which was made popular in Europe during the Crusades, is totally baseless.

First of all, the Holy Quran clearly says "Let there be no compulsion in religion". In addition to this, Islam teaches that a person's faith must be pure and sincere, so it is certainly not something that can be forced on someone. In debunking the myth that Islam was "spread by the sword", the (non-Muslim) historian De Lacy O'Leary wrote:

"History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever accepted." (Islam at the Crossroads, London, 1923, p. 8.)

It should also be known that Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years. During this time, and up to when they were finally forced out, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Additionally, Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations. If Islam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islamic Empire? Additionally, if one considers the small number of Muslims who initially spread Islam from Spain and Morocco in the West to India and China in the East, one would realize that they were far too few to force people to be members of a religion against their will. Additionally, the great empire and civilization established by the Muslims had great staying power -- its citizens were proud to be part of it.

The spread of Islam stands in contrast to the actions of the followers of Christianity, who since the time of the Emperor Constantine have made liberal use of the sword - often basing their conduct on Biblical verses. This was especially true of the colonization of South America and Africa, where native peoples were systematically wiped-out or forced to convert.

It is also interesting to note that when the Mongols invaded and conquered large portions of the Islamic Empire, instead of destroying the religion, they adopted it. This is a unique occurrence in history - the conquerors adopting the religion of the conquered! Since they were the victors, they certainly could not have been forced to become Muslims! Ask any of the over one billion Muslims alive in the world today whether they were forced! The largest Muslim country in the world today is Indonesia --- and there were never any battles fought there!

So where was the sword? How could someone be forced to adhere to a spiritually rewarding and demanding religion like Islam?

suhail,Your taqiyy... (Below threshold)
Maggie:

suhail,

Your taqiyya is showing , like a neon
sign planted on your forehead.

I swear on God i have nothi... (Below threshold)
Suhail:

I swear on God i have nothing planted or anything.. i was just telling the defination of a Muslim. thats all.... but the questions increased from other users.. so had to answer it... Peace!!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy