If you or someone you know is anti-Islam, Why?

[Anonymous]

1:51, you miss the key point about the story about Jesus and the adulteress. Nobody disputes that the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus--it's explicitly in the John 8 passage to which you referred.

The story is told because of the lesson/moral it conveys: Jesus chose the course that set her free. He could have let them stone her, but he didn't. Why!

Throughout his time on earth, Jesus preached that we are all sinners and that he brought God's forgiveness to us. His message to the bystanders, that only the sinless can cast stones, is consistent with his larger message, throughout the gospels, that we're all sinners, and that God is the ultimate judge. The passage you cite has the accusers leaving after he calls for a blameless man to through the first stone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1:51, you miss the key point about the story about Jesus and the adulteress. Nobody disputes that the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus--it's explicitly in the John 8 passage to which you referred.

The story is told because of the lesson/moral it conveys: Jesus chose the course that set her free. He could have let them stone her, but he didn't. Why!

Throughout his time on earth, Jesus preached that we are all sinners and that he brought God's forgiveness to us. His message to the bystanders, that only the sinless can cast stones, is consistent with his larger message, throughout the gospels, that we're all sinners, and that God is the ultimate judge. The passage you cite has the accusers leaving after he calls for a blameless man to through the first stone.

Jesus was the Prophet who was indeed the most compassionate but the law that the first to cast the stone must be sinless is not Jesus' moral lesson in that story, it WAS THE LAW AT THE TIME!! So no need to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, that the lesson was built into law means the community already recognized the value of it! And yet if Christians knew that, why did this story get exploited to make it look like that was Jesus' lesson? Now if you are saying Jesus was reminding us of it again, okay. But even in Jesus' time women were indeed stoned providing all the conditions of the law were met.

The compassion toward women was also exhibited by the Prophet Muhammad. The story you cited shows the prophet did not want the woman to be subjected to punishment as evidenced by the fact HE REPEATEDLY TURNED HER AWAY and LEFT IT IN HER DISCRETION TO RETURN.

Besides, the Quran does not ever command stoning for adultery. You will never find such a passage.

[Anonymous]

You see, Islamophobe, this is WHY people think you are an Islamophobe:

1) you hand pick passages from unreliable hadith
2) you tell half stories so you can prove your point
3) and heres your biggest mistake, you completely discount countering evidence of current scholars or the Quran itself, which provides more weighty evidence

D

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You see, Islamophobe, this is WHY people think you are an Islamophobe:

1) you hand pick passages from unreliable hadith
2) you tell half stories so you can prove your point
3) and heres your biggest mistake, you completely discount countering evidence of current scholars or the Quran itself, which provides more weighty evidence

D

This is why people think you're a joke:

a. You hand-pick passages from equally unreliable hadith, as long as they back up your story
b. You tell half stories to prove your point
c. And here's your biggest mistake: you completely discount countering evidence of other, equally degreed and reputable scholars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
1) You FIRST said it was from the Quran. Now you admit it's not from the Quran but rather from Sahi Muslim 4206. Hadith were the sayings of the prophet as remembered by people. Hadith were collected over 200 yrs after the death of prophet Muhammad. Some are authentic and are valuable in providing context for Quranic principles, but some may be completely false. For example, Sahih Muslim also has numerous wacky hadith about the Prophet's sweat being so precious that his mother saved it in a bottle, about his body smelling fragrant and other complete nonsense like that. Yet you still chose this hadith as an authoritative source to make your point. Why?

Do you understand the meaning of the word "Sahi" in Arabic?

If you want to take a position that ahadith aren't a reliable source, that's your right. Just don't get up and say that you value the weight of scholarly consensus. Because the weight of Islamic scholarly consensus on the subject of ahadith is best conveyed in the word they chose to call it: Sahi.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sahi Muslim No. 4206:

“A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, [b]Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and [/b]she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her.”

Okay we need to break this down because what you're doing is a bit deceptive:

1) You FIRST said it was from the Quran. Now you admit it's not from the Quran but rather from Sahi Muslim 4206. Hadith were the sayings of the prophet as remembered by people. Hadith were collected over 200 yrs after the death of prophet Muhammad. Some are authentic and are valuable in providing context for Quranic principles, but some may be completely false. For example, Sahih Muslim also has numerous wacky hadith about the Prophet's sweat being so precious that his mother saved it in a bottle, about his body smelling fragrant and other complete nonsense like that. Yet you still chose this hadith as an authoritative source to make your point. Why?

2) The Quran is the true word of God and has greater authority than any hadith. Yet the Quran NEVER sanctions stoning adulterers or fornicators to death. The punishment as described in the Quran for adultery is flogging, as evidenced in Sura 24, verse 2.

3) Check out www.gotquestions.org, a Christian evangelical web site that provides the FULL story behind Jesus' "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" comment. You deceptively provided the abbreviated version of this story. Here's the full story of where Jesus' statement came from:

Jesus' statement is found in John 8:1-11. Jesus was teaching in the temple when the scribes and Pharisees brought to him a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery, and they asked him if she should be stoned as required by the Law of Moses. However, they cared nothing about this woman, they were only interested in using her to trap Jesus. If he told them to stone her, they could claim he was not the Savior. If he told them to set the woman free, they could claim he did not hold to the Law of Moses. If he said nothing, they could claim he lacked wisdom. Jesus did not answer immediately. Finally he said, in essence, "Go ahead and stone her because that is what the law requires. But the Law also requires that the first stone be thrown by a person that is sinless in connection to this charge." It was true that the law required that the guilty man be stoned as well (Deuteronomy 22:22). But it also required that witnesses be produced and that a witness also begin the execution. The scribes and Pharisees did not produce the guilty man and could not produce the required witnesses. So Jesus set the woman free with a warning to sin no more.

So basically, the requirement for a witness without sin to actually begin the execution was a law that was already in place. Jesus did not invent this. But unaware Christians have exploited this story to make it appear as if it was Jesus who preached this philosophy first and to show how compassionate and forgiving he was. This is not to say Jesus was not a compassionate and forgiving man, but this story has been woefully exploited. And the adulteress was not executed because none of the requirements were met to accuse her in the first place. There were neither witnesses nor any man that was brought forth and there was no one among them at the time who was sinless to begin the execution either.

And look how islamophobe, in her rebuttals, conveniently fails to copy my answer to her accusation! Do you know why I think you intentionally fail to copy my answer in your reply? Because you do not want people to read my answer. If you leave it out when responding, you hope people will not go back a couple of pages to read it.

So here was my reply to your half story. Bumping this up.

[Anonymous]

I personally don't copy more than one paragraph because I think it's bothersome to read pages after pages taken by quoted content with only a paragraph or two of original new writing. But if you want to think there are Islamophobes all around you, hey, whatever fits your story. In fact, that steak you ate yesterday that was overdone? The chef was Islamophobic. The traffic that took you a while to get home was also all Islamophobic. You remind me of my Syrian friend who would trip on the sidewalk after drinking all night and say, that damn Zionist sidewalk!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You see, Islamophobe, this is WHY people think you are an Islamophobe:

1) you hand pick passages from unreliable hadith
2) you tell half stories so you can prove your point
3) and heres your biggest mistake, you completely discount countering evidence of current scholars or the Quran itself, which provides more weighty evidence

D

This is why people think you're a joke:

a. You hand-pick passages from equally unreliable hadith, as long as they back up your story
b. You tell half stories to prove your point
c. And here's your biggest mistake: you completely discount countering evidence of other, equally degreed and reputable scholars.

And this reminds me of grade schoolers arguing:
Petey: "You're fat!"
Billy: "No, you're fat!"
Petey: "Oh yeah!?"

Congratulations for elevating the intellectual level of this discourse.

[Anonymous]

In the meantime, do you want to address the term "Sahi" and the weight of the scholarly consensus behind it?

[Anonymous]

Calling everyone who disagrees with you or presents countering evidence Islamophobic doesn't elevate this discourse either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1) You FIRST said it was from the Quran. Now you admit it's not from the Quran but rather from Sahi Muslim 4206. Hadith were the sayings of the prophet as remembered by people. Hadith were collected over 200 yrs after the death of prophet Muhammad. Some are authentic and are valuable in providing context for Quranic principles, but some may be completely false. For example, Sahih Muslim also has numerous wacky hadith about the Prophet's sweat being so precious that his mother saved it in a bottle, about his body smelling fragrant and other complete nonsense like that. Yet you still chose this hadith as an authoritative source to make your point. Why?

Do you understand the meaning of the word "Sahi" in Arabic?

If you want to take a position that ahadith aren't a reliable source, that's your right. Just don't get up and say that you value the weight of scholarly consensus. Because the weight of Islamic scholarly consensus on the subject of ahadith is best conveyed in the word they chose to call it: Sahi.

Hon, you need to sit down, because you misrepresent Islam. Books written hundreds of years after prophets died are not fool proof. Are you saying they are? This is why your self education of Islam as a christian crusader is incomplete. You need to go to Saudi Arabia and speak to members of the World Fiqh Council. Have you done that? I have. One member told me all hadith are not 100% reliable. The only text that contains authentic hadith is still in Arabic and has yet to be translated and distributed to the world. This is why you have to be extremely careful in quoting hadith, because the publications today may include unreliable ones too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Calling everyone who disagrees with you or presents countering evidence Islamophobic doesn't elevate this discourse either.

So true, upon reflection I realized the more fitting name for you is CHRISTIAN CRUSADER or EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN. I bet the Pentagon has a fat file on you! Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I personally don't copy more than one paragraph because I think it's bothersome to read pages after pages taken by quoted content with only a paragraph or two of original new writing. But if you want to think there are Islamophobes all around you, hey, whatever fits your story. In fact, that steak you ate yesterday that was overdone? The chef was Islamophobic. The traffic that took you a while to get home was also all Islamophobic. You remind me of my Syrian friend who would trip on the sidewalk after drinking all night and say, that damn Zionist sidewalk!

To reiterate, you are a modern day Christian Crusader/evangelical Islamophobe because:

1) you refuse to recognize any countering evidence of modern day scholars just so you can vilify Islam
2) you hand pick the worst hadith which actually contradict the true word of God in the Quran so you can paint Islam as an awful religion
3) you seek out the harshest olden day scholars who still lived with old, tribal, cultural influences, just so you can say how terrible the religion is today.

Shameless tactics. This is not Christian like behavior at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally don't copy more than one paragraph because I think it's bothersome to read pages after pages taken by quoted content with only a paragraph or two of original new writing. But if you want to think there are Islamophobes all around you, hey, whatever fits your story. In fact, that steak you ate yesterday that was overdone? The chef was Islamophobic. The traffic that took you a while to get home was also all Islamophobic. You remind me of my Syrian friend who would trip on the sidewalk after drinking all night and say, that damn Zionist sidewalk!

To reiterate, you are a modern day Christian Crusader/evangelical Islamophobe because:

1) you refuse to recognize any countering evidence of modern day scholars just so you can vilify Islam
2) you hand pick the worst hadith which actually contradict the true word of God in the Quran so you can paint Islam as an awful religion
3) you seek out the harshest olden day scholars who still lived with old, tribal, cultural influences, just so you can say how terrible the religion is today.

Shameless tactics. This is not Christian like behavior at all.

Darlin', I hate to disappoint you. I'm not Christian. I don't believe in any religion at all. This is not the first time the fine Muslim ladies called me evangelical christian crusader for not falling into the dawah trap. I enjoy very much the look on their face when I inform them Jesus means as little to me as Muhammad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1) You FIRST said it was from the Quran. Now you admit it's not from the Quran but rather from Sahi Muslim 4206. Hadith were the sayings of the prophet as remembered by people. Hadith were collected over 200 yrs after the death of prophet Muhammad. Some are authentic and are valuable in providing context for Quranic principles, but some may be completely false. For example, Sahih Muslim also has numerous wacky hadith about the Prophet's sweat being so precious that his mother saved it in a bottle, about his body smelling fragrant and other complete nonsense like that. Yet you still chose this hadith as an authoritative source to make your point. Why?

Do you understand the meaning of the word "Sahi" in Arabic?

If you want to take a position that ahadith aren't a reliable source, that's your right. Just don't get up and say that you value the weight of scholarly consensus. Because the weight of Islamic scholarly consensus on the subject of ahadith is best conveyed in the word they chose to call it: Sahi.

Hon, you need to sit down, because you misrepresent Islam. Books written hundreds of years after prophets died are not fool proof. Are you saying they are? This is why your self education of Islam as a christian crusader is incomplete. You need to go to Saudi Arabia and speak to members of the World Fiqh Council. Have you done that? I have. One member told me all hadith are not 100% reliable. The only text that contains authentic hadith is still in Arabic and has yet to be translated and distributed to the world. This is why you have to be extremely careful in quoting hadith, because the publications today may include unreliable ones too.

Why is it not translated it? Did they just not get around to it?

If you don't want me to quote your hadith, tell you people to stop publishing them and calling them Sahi.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think any of them are reliable. But then I don't think that what you post is reliable either.