The Suicide Bomber Prophet: Samson

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.
com
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/03/the-suicide-bomber-prophet/
Robert Spencer | Pamela Geller | Bat Ye'or | Brigitte Gabriel | Daniel Pipes | Debbie Schlussel | Walid Shoebat | Joe Kaufman | Wafa Sultan | Geert Wilders | The Nuclear Card
Home About Archive Contact Send Us a Tip Site Map Register

Enter your search keywords here...
SUBSCRIBE TO THE RSS FEED SUBSCRIBE TO THE FEED VIA E-MAIL Anti-Loons Feature Loon Flashback Loon Media Loon People Loon Politics Loon Sites
Categorized | Feature, Loon Politics

Tags | Bible, David, holy books, Jihad, Koran, Muhammad, Quran, Samson, Suicide Bomber, Terror, Terrorism, Violence, which religion is more violent
The Suicide Bomber Prophet

Posted on 20 March 2011 by Danios This article is part 3 of LoonWatchs Understanding Jihad Series. Please read my disclaimer, which explains my intentions behind writing this article: The Understanding Jihad Series: Is Islam More Likely Than Other Religions to Encourage Violence?
As we noted in an earlier article: A recent Pew Research poll found that almost half of U.S. adults think that the Islamic religion is more likely to encourage violence than other religions, a gure that has almost doubled since 2002. A clear majority of conservative Republicans (66%), white Evangelicals (60%), and Tea Baggers (67%) believe Islam is more violent than other religions, with a plurality of whites (44%) and older folks (42-46%) also thinking this. (Of note is that blacks, Hispanics, and liberal Democrats are signicantly less bigoted towards Islam.) The idea that Islam is more violent than other religionsheld most strongly by old white conservativesis a key pillar to the edice of Islamophobia. Prof. Philip Jenkins writes: In the minds of ordinary Christians and Jews the Koran teaches savagery and warfare, while the Bible offers a message of love, forgiveness, and charity.
1 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com
Worse, the Quran is said to be a book of terrorism. It was in this vein that Bill OReilly invoked an analogy between the Quran and terrorism and Mein Kampf and Nazism. It must be the Quran that compels these Islamic radicals to engage in suicide bombing and terrorism. Prof. Jenkins responds: In fact, the Bible overows with texts of terror, to borrow a phrase coined by the American theologian Phyllis Trible. The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. In part 1 of LoonWatchs Understanding Jihad Series, we traced the violence of the Bible to the Jewish prophet Moses, who submitted heathen nations to what can only be described as genocide. In part 2, we moved on to Moses divinely ordained successor, Joshua, who was arguably the most violent prophet in history. But the holy killing did not stop there. The Warrior Tribe After the death of Joshua, the Israelites wondered who would carry on the God-sanctioned genocide and conquest of the promised land. They did not have to wait long for the answer. God passed down the sword of the faith to the tribe of Judah: Judges 1:1 After the death of Joshua, the Israelites asked the LORD, Who will be the rst to go up and ght for us against the Canaanites? 1:2 The LORD answered, Judah, for I have given them victory over the land. Judah heeded this call and continued the holy genocide against the unbelievers, culminating in the brutal conquest of Jerusalem: 1:8 The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem also and took it. They put the city to the sword and set it on re. From there, the tribe of Judah vanquished the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills (1:9), Hebron, the Sheshai, Ahiman, Talmai (1:10), and Debir (1:11). They destroyed Zephath: 1:17 [Judah] attacked the Canaanites living in Zephath, and they utterly destroyed the city. Therefore it was called Hormah [Hormah means Destruction.] Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron (1:18) fell to the Israelite nation, for the Lord was with the men of Judah. (1:19) Judge, Jury, and Executioner After the massacre of most of the inhabitants of Canaan, the God of the Bible was concerned with ensuring that Israel remain warlike: 3:1 These are the nations the Lord left to test all those Israelites who had not experienced any of the wars in Canaan 3:2 It was only in order that the generations of the people of Israel might know war, to teach war to those who had not known it before. The sword was then wielded by the judges of Israel, rst with Othniel, then Ehud, then Shamgar, then Barak, then Gideon, then Jephthah, and then Samson. Each of these judges of God was involved in religiously motivated massacres. The Bible recounts the hundreds of thousands of people they collectively slaughtered. From the rst Israelite judge: 3:10 The Spirit of the Lord came upon him, so that he became Israels judge and went to war. To the last of them: 1 Samuel 7:11 The men of Israel chased the Philistines from Mizpah to a place below Beth-car, slaughtering them all along the way. Samson the Suicide Bomber Gloried in the Bible One of the Israelite judges is worthy of special mention: the Jewish prophet Samson. According to the Bible, Samson was responsible for killing thousands of Philistines (the indigenous population of southern Canaan). Eventually, the Philistines successfully used a ruse to capture Samson, who was then taken to a temple where he was to be given as a sacrice to one of the Philistine gods. Instead, Samson leaned against the pillars of the temple, and brought the temple down, killing himself along with 3,000 men and women: Judges 16:26 Samson said to the young man who held him by the hand, Let me feel the pillars on which the house rests, that I may lean against them. 16:27 Now the house was full of men and women. All the lords of the Philistines were there, and on the roof there were about 3,000 men and women, who looked on while Samson entertained. 16:28 Then Samson prayed to the Lord, O Sovereign Lord, remember me. O God, please strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes. 16:29 Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other, 16:30 Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines! Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived. Today, Samson is gloried as a hero by Israelis. Far from being a dead letter, Samsons deed has become part of Israels state policy. The Samson Option is a doctrine adopted by the state of Israel, which states that should Israels existence ever be threatened, it will release a nuclear holocaust upon its enemies and other targets as well. As Israeli military historian Prof. Martin van Creveld famously put it (as reproduced on p.119 of David Hirsts The Gun and The Olive Branch): We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them as targets in all directionsWe have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under.
2 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
Unfortunately, the temple Samson destroyed has now become entire countries or even the entire world. David: Giant Slayer and Baby Killer The militant sword of Israel was then passed from the judges to holy kings. The rst king of the United Kingdom of Israel was Saul. His story is especially interesting, and one which we will return to. We will however focus now on David, who at that time was Sauls appointed generalissimo. The Israelite ladies fawned over David, not only because he killed the Philistine Goliath but also because he massacred tens of thousands: 1 Samuel 18:6 When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with tambourines and lutes. 18:7 As they danced, they sang: Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands. It should be noted that by the end of Davids death, he ended up killing not tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands. In any case, King Saul became jealous over the fact that David was credited with more kills than he was: 18:8 Saul was very angry; this refrain galled him. They have credited David with tens of thousands, he thought, but me with only thousands. What more can he get but the kingdom? 18:9 And from that time on Saul kept a jealous eye on David. But then the kings daughter fell in love with David. It seems that David was interested in this proposal but thought he was too poor to offer an adequate dowry: 18:23 David said, Do you think it is a small matter to become the kings son-in-law? Im only a poor man and little known. King Saul reassured David that he accepted American Express penile foreskins: 18:25 Saul replied, Say to David, The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies. David was unfazed by this interesting request and brought back double the number of requested foreskins: 18:27 David and his men went out and killed two hundred Philistines. He brought their foreskins and presented the full number to the king so that he might become the kings son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage. However, King Sauls jealousy continued to grow and he unsuccessfully tried to kill his son-in-law. David found refuge in Ziklag (Philistine territory!) and raided other cities to stay nancially aoat. Typical Biblical cruelty was added to these ghazwas raids: 18:8 Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites 18:9 Whenever David attacked an area, he did not leave a man or woman alive, but took sheep and cattle, donkeys and camels, and clothes. Then he returned to Achish. 18:10 When Achish asked, Where did you go raiding today? David would say, Against the Negev of Judah or Against the Negev of Jerahmeel or Against the Negev of the Kenites. 18:11 He did not leave a man or woman alive to be brought to Gath, for he thought, They might inform on us and say, This is what David did. And such was his practice as long as he lived in Philistine territory. David massacred the Amalekitesmen, women, and children: 30:17 David and his men rushed in among them and slaughtered them throughout that night and the entire next day until evening. None of the Amalekites escaped except 400 young men who ed on camels. Eventually David became king of Israel and continued his string of conquests, subjugating heathens to Israelite rule: 2 Samuel 12:31 He also made slaves of the people of Rabbah and forced them to labor with saws, iron picks, and iron axes, and to work in the brick kilns. That is how he dealt with the people of all the Ammonite towns. It should be noted that Davids slaughter of the Philistines was sanctioned by God: 1 Samuel 23:2 David inquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go and smite these Philistines? And the LORD said unto David, Go, and smite the Philistines! God promised David: 23:4 I am going to give the Philistines into your hand. As well as: 2 Samuel 5:19 So David inquired of the Lord, Shall I go and attack the Philistines? Will you hand them over to me? The Lord answered him, Yes, go! For I will surely hand the Philistines over to you. And David did what God commanded him to do: 5:25 And David did so, as the Lord had commanded him, and smote the Philistines. Although we will discuss the genocide of Amalekites in a later article, it is safe to say that virtually every Biblical authority agrees that this was God-ordained as well. In fact, God approved of everything David didall of his many killingsexcept for in the case of Uriah the Hittite: 1 Kings 15:5 David had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord and had not failed to keep any of the Lords commands all the days of his lifeexcept in the case of Uriah the Hittite. Uriah was one of King Davids soldiers. David had an affair with Uriahs wife and had Uriah killed, an act which earned Gods displeasure. God forgave David, but it was
3 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
the one killing that God did not approve of. The Geneva Study Bible commentary assures us that David enterprised no war, but by Gods command. In fact, Jews and Christians today revere Davids obedience to God and even argue to become more like David. Jewish and Christian children read about David in Sunday school. Addendum I: Muhammads wars will be discussed in a future part of this series. But sufce to say, we have now set the groundwork to prove that several Jewish prophetsincluding Moses, Joshua, Samson, and Davidwere far more violent and warlike than Muhammad. The major difference between Muhammad and the others was with regard to targeting and killing civilians. Samson killed 3,000 men and women in his suicide bomb attack, and David did not leave a man or woman alive. (1 Samuel 18:11) This stands in marked contrast with Muhammad who repeatedly forbade the killing of women and children. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.4, Book 52, #258) Regardless of issues surrounding historicity,what is quite clear is that the Bible glories genocide and the killing of civilians, whereas the Quran does not. Unlike the Bible, no single verse in the Quran talks about killing women, children, and babies. These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
202 Comments For This Post

1. Farlowe Says:
March 20th, 2011 at 2:13 am
eyeless in Gaza at the mill with slaves .. Samson should be on the Australian Olympic weightlifting team.
2.
Danios Says:
Note: I just added some stuff under the section on David.
3.
Mosizzle Says:
I guess the argument made by some Islamophobe in the last article that Jews have left Moses behind but Muslims still follow Muhammad cant work here since no one has left David behind his star is on the Israeli ag. It also interesting that Spencer requires Muslims to condemn their own Prophet and reject his violent teachings in order to become moderate. However, he doesnt require Jews or Christians to condemn David before they can be accepted as peaceful.
4.
Danios Says:
^ Mosizzle, the argument that Jews have left Moses behind but Muslims still follow Muhammad will be refuted in a future article. Right now, we need Islamophobes to admit that the Bible is more violent and warlike than the Quran, which is their starting argument.
5.
Jack Says:
Danios, when youre nished with the series you might want too contact CAIR to ask them whether theyre interested in publishing it as a booklet. I think itd be great for Muslims to dispense at universities and to use as a referencebook to dispel prevailing myths on messages boards when they come across Islamophobes who push the idea Muslims are obligated to go around killing people because Muhammad did so, or that Muhammad was superevil.
4 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
6.
ThruSriLankanEyes Says:
Wow, theres a lot of violence here alright.making me feel very uncomfortable. Tho I almost fell off my chair laughing at the penile foreskins part. What was Saul thinking????
7.
Cynic Says:
King Saul reassured David that he accepted American Express penile foreskins LOL.
8.
mindy1 Says:
This is interesting
9.
Sam Seed Says:

Where are the Islamophobes? I knew that the Bible contained a lot of stories about sex and violence but was taken aback when reading this article which gives a picture of how ruthless it was and was supposedly ordained by God (God forbid).I think this is the only language the Islamophobes understand so give it to them brother Danios. Where is the ever so sarcastic J-Bob? And I wonder if these bigots would care to read what Ezekiel chapter 23 is all about, as the late Ahmed Deedat once said I dare any good Christian to read this chapter in his debate with Tele-Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart.
10.
TheDemiprist Says:
Another excellent article. I nd Israels Samson Option to pose more of an existential threat to the world than the projected enemies being fed by the media: Russia (the Soviet threat was an exaggerated one), China (scapegoated currently even those its the Feds own stupid policies thats harming Americas economy not foreign countries), and Iran (a country thats had to put its military on the defensive, and provoked into considering nukes even though it hadnt beforehand) then of course theres Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan they all didnt like the news of 9/11 but what do they get in return? free genocide, oppressive occupation, and rigged elections. http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/ http://globalresearch.ca/ @Mosizzle, David or Rothschild? either way, neither are good examples of civilized humanity towards others.
11.
Tarig Says:
Dont worry Sam Seed, they will show up! Just dont expect them to actually address the points raised in the article! JB will bring up some act of terrorism from some obscure part of the world and try changing the subject completely, and the rest will just rant off on some mindless BS about the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) being some kind of warmongering, genocidal Pedophile, regardless of how many times they are proven wrong! There very predictable like that!
12. test
rambo Says:
13.
Harry Guggen Says:

With all due respects, I dont see any rhyme or reason to do this jihad series. Except to prove that yours is bigger than mine. Your jihad series is not going to change general public perceptions against us moslems. We have to prove it by our actions by being loyal to the non-moslem nations that we live in. And by our religious leaders and our moslem leaders to condemn violence and terrorism loud and clear. BTW, dont we as moslems consider the bible and the torah as corrupted????? And then isnt it idiotic to compare??? There is an excellent discussion on JIHAD on the New York Times:
5 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/magazine/mag-20Salas-t.html
14.
abdul-halim Says:
March 20th, 2011 at 10:14 am
Good job. I dont know how far ahead this series is planned but another chapter could be discussing Banu Qurayzah. It is arguably the most violent incident involving the early Muslims but it is also clear that it was a *specic* decision made for unique circumstances. On the other hand, it was evidently based on the *policy* given in Deuteronomy for how you treat your enemies. Another section would be the violence in the NT, especially in Revelations.
15.
rambo Says:
March 20th, 2011 at 10:39 am
his star is on the Israeli ag the only thing you were able to connect with david is the israeli ag? you dont know nothing about the ETERNAL promises Yhwh makes to David? you dont know anything about yhwhs REPEATED assurances about maintaing davids dynasty ?
16.
rambo Says:
March 20th, 2011 at 10:45 am
i found some gems from the Hebrew bible Exodus 14:13 Moses answered the people, Do not be afraid. Stand rm and you will see the deliverance Yahweh will bring you today. The Egyptians you see today you will never see again. 14 Yahweh will FIGHT for you; you need only to be still. Joshua 10:14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when Yahweh listened to a man. Surely Yahweh was FIGHTING for Israel! Joshua 10:42 All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one campaign, because Yahweh, the God of Israel, FOUGHT for Israel. Joshua 23:3 You yourselves have seen everything Yahweh your God has done to all these nations for your sake; it was Yahweh your God who FOUGHT for you.
17.
rambo Says:
March 20th, 2011 at 10:48 am
MOsizle: his star is on the Israeli ag rambo: the only thing you were able to connect with david is the israeli ag? you dont know nothing about the ETERNAL promises Yhwh makes to David? you dont know anything about yhwhs REPEATED assurances about maintaing davids dynasty ? rambo: i would add that ABSOLUTELY NO CONDITIONES WERE attached.
18.
NassirH Says:
March 20th, 2011 at 10:54 am
the only thing you were able to connect with david is the israeli ag? There are also Jews and Christians today who argue that children should become more like David. Of course, I doubt that theyre going to run around smiting people, but if a Muslim said to be more like Muhammad then you can be assured the usual suspects would start posting a few rants on the internet. Also, why is this the only argument that Islamophobes have? It seems that theyre more than happy to reject their own prophets as long as it means looking less hypocritical when bashing Muslims. Its pretty sad, really. Danios already said that this topic will be covered more extensively, eventually. http://www.nathhan.com/godsownheart.htm
19.
Jack Says:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:13 am
What was Saul thinking???? Actually, he thought David would be killed for sure. One less competitor for the throne less to worry about, because according to the biblical account, David was getting pretty popular. Therefore, he needed to go. Saul tried to kill him a number of times.
6 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
20.
rambo Says:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:16 am
need Islamophobes to admit that the Bible is more violent and warlike than the Quran, which is their starting argument. i wonder which islamophobe you have in mind? the christian one? you see the christian one will simply downplay the bloody violence in the hebrew bible. twist language. claim that it is hyperbole language. assume that destroy everything that breaths does not meant everything that breaths. http://www.theskepticalreview.com/JFTMillerGoodQuestion5.html see how they make lot of assumptions to soften the violence in the hEBREW bible??
21.
TheDemiprist Says:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:33 am
http://agnosticreview.com/ I like using the above site against Fundie Christian proselytizing propaganda that the Bible itself seems to be at odds against. You and others here at LW might benet from it as well, rambo. Take care.
22.
Mosizzle Says:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:46 am
Today is International Judge the Koran Day. Theres about three hours until the Quran is going to be judged by the same morons that tried to burn it last year. Its been put on trial on charges of inciting murder, rape and terrorist activities. Sheikh Muhammad al Hassan will be the defence but clearly that whole thing is biased. The Prosecution has 3 expert witnesses 2 of whom are ex-Muslims and the other is a Christian whose father was killed by Sharia Law. The Defence seems to have no witnesses. Thankfully, the media has been responsible this time round. But it seems Terry Jones is wanting to try and burn it once more. These articles have come at an appropriate time. Perhaps Jones can put the Bible on trial as well, since it ts the charges much more than the Quran.
23.
rambo Says:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:53 am
http://agnosticreview.com/ I like using the above site against Fundie Christian proselytizing propaganda that the Bible itself seems to be at odds against. You and others here at LW might benet from it as well, rambo. Take care. the article i just linked to straigtens out every twist and turn of the christian apologist farrell till addressed. it also does a point by point rebuttal. it is good to have excellent language skills and a bit of logic when dealing with christian abuse of the hebrew bible.
24.
Abdul Says:
March 20th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Harry Guggen, either you are a toddler or an emotional wreck. we moslems, you tried but you are betrayed by the stupid things you wrote. Try again to be a moslem. Oh, i love it!
25.
TheDemiprist Says:
How about the Talmud, can we put that on trial too? covers all three Abrahamic faiths.
26.
Mosizzle Says:
Harry Guggen, I think you should read the disclaimer at the top of the page. That was the rst line of the article, how did you miss it? That explains your question. Heres the link again: http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/03/2011/03/the-understanding-jihad-series-is-islam-more-likely-than-other-religions-to-encourage-violence/
27.
Danios Says:
7 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
Harry Guggen is doing taqiyya.
28.
abdul-halim Says:
Demprist, why focus on the Talmud? And in what sense does it cover all three Abrahamic faiths? Only Jews actually believe it. Fundamentalist Christians believe the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament is inspired but dont really follow the Talmud. Muslims dont really follow either.
29.
Danios Says:
I think he means that the Quran covers Muslims, Bible covers Christians, and Talmud covers Jews. But I think in actuality the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) covers Jews.
30.
TheDemiprist Says:
Danios is correct, however some Jews are very strict and differentiate the Hebrew Bible from the Christian Bibles Old and New Testament as entirely separate texts. They can usually be found at places like the Yahoo group JPA (Jews, Pagans, and Allies) or even the Messiahtruth website.
31.
JustBob Says:
Now, does the Bible promise heavenly rewards for holy warriors who die whilst killing unbelievers?
32.
Garo Says:
Couple of Points: ~ According to the movie,Samson and Delilah I saw in the early 1950s,the secret of Samsons enormous physical power was in the long hair he had. The beautiful Philistinian,Delilah,managed to make him falling in love with her.Through their intimate relationship,she managed cutting his hair after which it had become easy for her people,the Philistines,to capture him,which they did. He only could destroy the Philistines Temple only as his hair grew-up. It is an entertaining movie.I thought the director,Cecil Demil,the leading actor,Victor Mature(Samson),the leading actress,Hedi Lammar(Delilah),all had done a good job. It is very entertaining and is worth the time in seeing it. ~ I wonder why so many 21st century Jews,Christians and Muslims keep naming their children Moses and David after what those two guys had done: the former was a murderer and the latter was a murderer and adulterer. Such a wonderment of mine has nothing to do with the profound respect I do hold for the three Abrahamic religions,inspite of the fact that I am not a religious person,at all.
33.
JustBob Says:
On the other hand, it was evidently based on the *policy* given in Deuteronomy for how you treat your enemies. Im not aware of any policy for Jews to follow in Deuteronomy. Care to elaborate? Another section would be the violence in the NT, especially in Revelations. Its actually Revelation. And I fail to see how end of days prophecies is any more violent than the destruction of entire peoples by Allah and his followers recorded in the Koran, either in the past or prophesied in the future.
34.
NassirH Says:
And I fail to see how end of days prophecies is any more violent than the destruction of entire peoples by Allah and his followers recorded in the Koran, either in the past or prophesied in the future. I dont see why youre complaining, since you have a penchant for whining about how the concept of Hell exists in the Quran. More than a bit hypocritical if you ask me. Anyway, when are you going to admit that the Bible is more violent than the Quran? Clearly, the lives of Moses, Joshua, Samson, and David are far more violent than that of Muhammad at least in the way purported by the Jewish and Christian traditions.
35.
Mosizzle Says:
8 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
Im not aware of any policy for Jews to follow in Deuteronomy. Care to elaborate? The Jews were judged at the time by their own law. Saad ibn Muadh, the arbiter appointed, said I will judge them according to the Law of Musa. This was probably done to avoid any complaining about the harsh punishment as it would come from their own laws. The passage that many people identify as being from the Torah that Saad (who was from the tribe that was friendly with the Jews) used is Deuteronomy 20:12-14. However, there is no direct evidence that this is the exact passage, only that the law used was that of the Jews themselves. However, the passage seems to exactly describe what happened. Also, Saad used to be Jewish so he had knowledge of these issues. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. I hope Danios next article deals with this. The loons are getting impatient! And I fail to see how end of days prophecies is any more violent than the destruction of entire peoples by Allah and his followers recorded in the Koran, either in the past or prophesied in the future. But you admit that the violent destruction of entire peoples by God and his followers recorded in the Bible is far worse than that in the Quran. That seems to be the point of the three articles in the series so far.
36.
Khushboo Says:
JB is gettin a bit defensive. Let this be a lesson! or will he ever learn??
37.
JustBob Says:
Deuteronomy 20:12-14 Nope, this could not be the passage in question. The passage is referring to a specic people at a specic time. You would have to show that this was how Rabbinic Jews interpreted the Bible in the seventh century for me to believe that this was nothing more than an interpolation by later Muslim authors.
38.
Khushboo Says:
^hmmmsounds awfully familiar. So youre saying that only Rabbinic Jews can interpret the bible?? Muslims are not allowed to interpret. Interesting!
39.
JustBob Says:
So do non-Muslims interpret Islam for Muslims and wage holy war against Muslims because its in the Koran? Errr?
40.
Khushboo Says:
^Some non-Muslims do distort whats in the Quran to start war against Muslims because of their political, selsh agenda!
41.
Garo Says:
Yes,indeed,Khushboo. I have lived in it all my life. Cheers.
42.
NassirH Says:
passage is referring to a specic people at a specic time. It sounds like a very likely candidate. People have often identied that Biblical passage before, in regards to the punishment of the Banu Qurayza. As for it referring to a specic people at a specic time, I nd it funny that you dont allow the same for Surah 9: 5, even after being shown numerous Tafsirs. Clearly, there is an immense double standard you apply against Islam. You would have to show that this was how Rabbinic Jews interpreted the Bible in the seventh century for me to believe that this was nothing more than an interpolation
9 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
by later Muslim authors. Firstly, does it really matter what you believe? You believe that FOX news has a pro-Muslim bias, so its already clear that your logic is extremely warped. Secondly, what matters is whats in the Islamic traditions, not the interpolation and baseless conjecture of a hateful troll. Youve shown before that you literally fabricate your own version of what happened about 1,400 years ago, even rejecting Hadith at whim and pretending that you have access to the intimate thoughts of 7th century Muslims. If the Islamophobic argument is so strong, then why are you repeatedly forced to reject parts of the Sunnah (and interpretations of the Quran by Muslims)? So do non-Muslims interpret Islam for Muslims and wage holy war against Muslims because its in the Koran? Well, Spencer has explicitly written about the need for a new Crusade against Islam. He did this after ranting about the Quran, Islam, and the Prophet Muhammad for several chapters. I do hope that Turkey isnt involved in his new Crusade, because we all know how that noble effort will end. PS: When are you going to admit that the lives of the Biblical Moses, David, Joshua, and Samson are far more violent than that of Muhammad? I take it that youre conceding defeat through your silence on the issue?
43.
NassirH Says:
*The link doesnt seem to be working. Here it is.
44.
JustBob Says:
March 20th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
So youre saying non-Muslims can have Muslims feel themselves subdued just for being Muslim?
45.
NassirH Says:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
So youre saying non-Muslims can have Muslims feel themselves subdued just for being Muslim? Im saying that the Biblical Moses, Joshua, Samson, and David are far more violent than the Prophet Muhammad. Im sure you agree, despite your deafening silence on the matter.
46.
abdul-halim Says:
March 20th, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Rabbinic authorities have come up with a fairly widely accepted enumeration of 613 commandments of the Torah. The genocidal commandments, and the commands about taking concubines, and enslaving the women and children of your enemies are all still there in the section on war if you want to read them. Furthermore the PEneteuch is fairly clear on the point that the commandments of the Torah are meant to be followed forever. Christianity has an out since most Christians teach that the Torah was done away with after Jesus came, but Judaism doesnt do any such thing. The only commands which cant be followed are those which are moot because they dont apply (e.g. the laws regarding the Temple dont apply if the Temple isnt standing)
47.
TomThumb Says:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:10 am
@Danios, I was going through all of your earlier articles on this site and was wondering about a comment you made in response to an Islamophobe: Yup. Take your heart out of your chest, wash all the hate out, and put it back in. You will feel like a much better person. I was a hate-lled person before, and after I renounced itand dedicated my life to refuting such hate-lled peopleI felt much better about myself. This might sound like a crazy questionbut, were you also one of them before you turned into a crime ghter Danios?
48.
DefenderofIslam Says:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:24 am
Thank god its jihad bob. I thought that out intertainement had left us, but he prevails. How much does Danios pay jihad bob to post, 50$ per post mabey 80$ what ever it is double it. Where can you buy those things any way? I need to get one, so much better than telivision
49.
Dawood Says:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:30 am
Its a Bot, regurgitating the same tired old stuff.
10 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
50.
Mosizzle Says:
March 21st, 2011 at 1:59 am
So do non-Muslims interpret Islam for Muslims and wage holy war against Muslims because its in the Koran? Learn to read. War wasnt waged against the Jews because of the Torah. War happened because of their treason. When it comes to punishing them, the judge decides that he will use The Law of Moses to judge them because that will avoid any complaining or objections by people who will say that the law is too harsh. The passage is referring to a specic people at a specic time All the websites Im looking at refer to Deuteronomy 20:10-12 as the summary of Jewish rules of war. They do so because Deuteronomy 10 requires Jews to favour peace over war, so its nice passage to quote. Anyways, heres the relevant bit on Jewish rules of war: This approach solves another difcult problem according to Jewish law: the role of the innocent civilian in combat. Since the Jewish tradition accepts that civilians (and soldiers who are surrendering) are always entitled to ee from the scene of the battle, it would logically follow that all who remain voluntarily are classied as combatants, since the opportunity to leave is continuously present. Particularly in combination with Joshuas practice of sending letters of warning in advance of combat, this legal approach limits greatly the role of the doctrine of innocent civilian in the Jewish tradition. Essentially, the Jewish tradition feels that innocent civilians should do their very best to remove themselves from the battleeld and those who remain are not so innocent. If one voluntarily stays in a city that is under siege, one has the status of a combatant The unintentional and undesirable killing of involuntarily remaining innocent civilians seems to this author to be the one killing activity which is permissible in Jewish law in war situations which would not be permissible in the pursuer/self-defense situations. Just like Jewish law permits one to send ones own soldiers out to combat (without their consent) to be perhaps killed, Jewish law would allow the unintentional killing of innocent civilians as a necessary (but undesired byproduct) of the moral license of war. http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/war3.html Jewish writer Michale J Broyde still mentions it as part of Jewish Law. So did the famous 12th century Jewish scholar Maimonides. So obviously Jews arent interpreting the passage as you do now. They consider it part of Jewish law and this writer justies it quite convincingly. So why is the Israeli army not doing this? Is it because they dont believe it applies today? No, actually. Broyde says that Jewish law commands Israel to abide by international law (Ha!) and so they have to do things differently. There are many traditional scholars who disagree. But thats not the question. The question is: was this part of Jewish law in the 7th Century? Considering that it is still part of law in the 21st Century, but has only been superseded by the international agreements of the 20th Century, then yes. In fact, had the Jews conquered Medina they would have done exactly the same thing to the Muslims.
51.
Isa Says:
What I have always found intriguing, is that the Quran often leaves out the bad stories attributed to the Prophets of the Bible. For example, Noah is not described as being drunk and cursing his children, Lot is not said to have had sex with his daughters, etc. Perhaps this is an indication that the Author of the Quran does not accept these stories as accurate part of the scriptures?
52.
Anj Says:
That is exactly why the muslims say that the other scriptures have been corrupted! Muslims reject those stories of incest, debauchery and rape. The message of the prophets has always been to remind people that there is no god but the one god. The message of tauheed.
53.
Mumija Says:
@Garo I wonder why so many 21st century Jews,Christians and Muslims keep naming their children Moses and David after what those two guys had done: the former was a murderer and the latter was a murderer and adulterer. Such a wonderment of mine has nothing to do with the profound respect I do hold for the three Abrahamic religions,inspite of the fact that I am not a religious person,at all. Muslims name their children Moses (Musa) or David (Dawood) because they see them as perfect examples of servants of God. We dont consider the biblical acount to be historically correct therefore we reject that David commited adultery and murder or that Moses commited genocide. I can not answer for Jews and Christians hopefull a Jewish/Christian Reader can clarify this.
54.
Jack Says:
@Mumija; As someone who was brought up a Christian and been one for about twenty years, I think I could answer that. Well, from a Christian perspective anyway. Christians take the biblical stories about the shortcomings of their prophets to mean that all people are sinners. Even the heroes of faith make mistakes (like Noah getting drunk or David committing adultery, even though technically, neither Noah nor David are considered prophets according to Christian understanding, since prophet is a technical term for someone who is inspired by God to communicate His message to man). As far as the killings of entire tribes and nations go, as far as it was ordered by God (according to the Scriptures) modern day Christians will argue in a variety of
11 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
strategies that justify these mass killings without leading to the conclusion that its okay to do so again. So theyll argue that since God is the creator of every individual life, he also has the right to take life away, that these were especially harsh times, that the pagans of old were especially sinful, that it was necessary to kill the other nations in Canaan to prevent the Israelites from going along with idolatry, sacred prostitution, child sacrice and what have you not, anyway, you get the idea. Theyll argue that these were exceptional circumstances and youd need a revelation from God to allow for such action. But since most Christians believe God doesnt speak in that way anymore after the Bible was nished, thats not going to happen. Problem solved! They will do anything to prevent themselves from associating modern day genocides (which is far to close for comfort) with genocides in biblical times, which for them is almost like a magical time when God still spoke to mankind directly and miracles still happened. But as far as sins go, Christianity teaches that all men and women are under the spell of sinfulness, so of course the heroes of faith also make mistakes, sometimes grave ones, and Jesus Christ died on the cross to atone for that too.
55.
Garo Says:
Mumija and Jack: Thank you both. Jack, please stay tuned for a follow-up.
56.
Mumija Says:
Thanks for that Jack Peace be with you
57.
Garo Says:
Jack: these were harsh time Well,Jack,it seems to me that humanity has an incurable decease called harsh time. I call it bluntly war. I grew up in the 20th century. All I have witnessed till present time one single trend that has connected most decades of the 20th century and the early part of the 21st century. That trend is war after war after war etc.. And it seems,at least to me,there is no end to the endless wars. Why? Human nature? Survival of the ttest?,or What? or perhaps,economies that depend on wars? In justifying the invasion and destruction of Iraq,some Right-Wing Christian evangelical leaders appeared on TVs different talk shows in 2003 and claimed that the God of the Bible was/is the God of War. And yet,on their Sundays sermons,the same leaders called their God,as embodied in Jesus Christ,The God of Love. They could not possibly have it both ways. Could they? Your comments,from a Christian perspective,please.
58.
DefenderofIslam Says:
Jack, this is a little bit of a random and a little offtopic question. How does god killing himself save humanity in christian beleif?
59. Danios,
RZ Says:
Why dont you also do a series on the Religious Beliefs of the Founding Fathers. Ive read a little into it and it seems they were not religious people AT ALL! Thomas Jefferson, for example, criticized the trinity and his views would be considered heretical by todays orthodox standards. He referred to the Revelation of St. John as the ravings of a maniac and wrote: The Christian priesthood, nding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an articial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to prot, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which owed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained. Benjamin Franklin said: As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religionhas received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
12 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
60.
Tarig Says:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:11 pm
I wonder if Adriana Lima is a stealth jihadist? http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lh10c6UDgT1qhrbbso1_500.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.womeninscarves.com/&usg=__R_jltrbxIVtl7hV4wxvEdEcYxI=&h=679&w=500&sz=56&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=x8K9Nu_gwNtUzM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=89& ei=eJSHTaqALMHo4Aad9fC_CA& prev=/images%3Fq%3Dadriana%2Blima%2Bheadscarf%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D677%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&itbs=1& iact=hc&vpx=293&vpy=53&dur=847&hovh=262&hovw=193&tx=105&ty=138&oei=eJSHTaqALMHo4Aad9fC_CA&page=1&ndsp=39&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0
61.
John Says:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Oh right so the bible advocates suicide bombing! I cant think of any other religion has followers who believe they are following their principles of their faith and their god by blowing themselves up. I may be wrong but I can bring to mind names of a lot of Muslims who believed in blowing themselves up in the name of Islam, but cant think of anyone do you have any names I can google? Also, where do all these virgins come from, and where do they go once the martyred suicide bomber has had his way with them?
62. Isa,
abdul-halim Says:
March 21st, 2011 at 12:49 pm
It is true that the Quran doesnt contain some of the more scandalous stories which are found in the Bible. I think that to some degree this has to do with the doctrine of sinlessness of prophets. Muhammad (saaws) own behavior was itself exemplary so almost by denition his behavior has to be near perfect. And in a similar way, all the prophets are, in some way, protected from sinking past a certain point. At the same time, the Quran still does still tell the story of Moses murdering the Egyptian. It still tells the story of Jonah running away when he was sent to Nineveh. And if you are familiar with the Biblical story of David and Bathsheba, there is a passage in the Quran which seems like a very delicate reference to the same event. And apparently there are some scholars who explicitly accept some version of the story of David and Bathsheba. In the three cases, the prophets are still described in somewhat more virtuous ways than they are in the Bible, but a doctrine of absolute sinlessness seems hard to justify.
63.
abdul-halim Says:
March 21st, 2011 at 1:14 pm
John, the Tamil Tigers also do suicide bombing. But if you break suicide bombing to its basic elements, there were certainly Christian soldiers during the Crusades who did reckless and stupid things on the battleeld because they felt that being a martyr would guarantee them salvation. As Jesus is made to say, Greater love hath no one than this; that he lay down his life for his friends
64.
Mosizzle Says:
Oh right so the bible advocates suicide bombing! Err, no. Learn to read, John. Not a single line in this article even remotely suggests that. Perhaps you havent even read it, and jumped in as soon as you saw suicide bomber and launched a rant against Islam. What a failure in basic reading comprehension. I cant think of any other religion has followers who believe they are following their principles of their faith and their god by blowing themselves up Oooh. Unlucky, John. The Tamil Tigers have carried out over 160 suicide bombings, including one notable incident where the Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi, was assassinated as a female member of the organisation blew herself up in front of him. In fact, the Tamil Tigers are credited with inventing the suicide belt. The Tamil Tigers were not Muslim, they were actually quite anti-Muslim and forced many out of their homes. The article is about a comparison between the violence of Biblical Prophets vs the violence of the Prophet Muhammad. This is only intended to silence those hypocritical Jewish and Christian Islamophobes who attack the Prophet for being violent yet still admire Prophets in their own scriptures that are far far more violent. The title comes from the story of Samson, who is described as carrying out a suicide attack on the Phillistines in the Old Testament and killing 3000 (equivalent to the death toll of 9/11). It would be appreciated if you could deal with the topic of the article rather than random accusations.
65.
JustBob Says:
All the websites Im looking at refer to Deuteronomy 20:10-12 as the summary of Jewish rules of war. Oh, but you didnt quote Deut 20:10-12 but originally quoted Deut 20:12-14.
13 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
So I was simply responding to what you quoted. In the three cases, the prophets are still described in somewhat more virtuous ways than they are in the Bible, but a doctrine of absolute sinlessness seems hard to justify. Abdul, David is not a prophet in Judaism. I wished you would learn of Judaism from more neutral sources than Dawa websites, otherwise you and Danios would not have both made this very basic error. I once had a discussion with a Dawagondist whom I caught lifting Bible verses from a Muslim missionary website. It was because he relied on missionary websites for his information on Christianity that I was able to catch him on the most basic errors regarding Christian history and the Bible. Unfortunately, our Dawagondadist wasnt the least bit fazed after he repeatedly attributed a quote from an Epistle to Jesus. He was unable to register his fundamental mistake of the Bible because he relied on websites so much that he did not even understand the differences between the Epistles and Gospels. From my interaction with Muslims, they all seem to believe every book of the New Testament is a Gospel save, perhaps, the Book of Revelation.
66. freak
rambo Says:
67.
JustBob Says:
Lot is not said to have had sex with his daughters, etc. Perhaps this is an indication that the Author of the Quran does not accept these stories as accurate part of the scriptures? Dene bad, Isa. I certainly cant think of modern Westerners who would offer their children to be raped by a mob as Lot is recorded as doing in the Koran or a prophet who murders a child because hell later grow up and shame his parents by becoming a disbeliever. As society progresses, more and more stories in the Koran will be disregarded as quaint bedtime readings but not something for individuals to live by or take direct examples from.
68.
Mosizzle Says:
Oh, but you didnt quote Deut 20:10-12 but originally quoted Deut 20:12-14. I meant that the Jewish writers whose articles I was reading quoted verse 10,11 and 12 because the message is good and acceptable. But when it comes to verse 13 and 14, the writers understand that readers might be shocked at the content if they arent that knowledgeable so they dont quote it but proceed to justify the act of putting the captured civilians to the sword which is basically the point of verses 13 and 14 by emphasising that civilians who ee before the army breaks into the city are spared. They do this without referring to that verse directly, but its clear that they are talking about those verses. But the judgement of Banu Qurayza does seem to be from Deuteronomy 20:12-14 Once the siege is over: execute the men of ghting age, enslave the women and children and keep their property.
69.
rambo Says:
I wished you would learn of Judaism from more neutral sources than Dawa websites where do you learn about judaism? answering islam? james patrick holding? m brown? sam shamoun? evangelical christian channels? it is the jews of messiah truth forum who say that the ishmaelim are not herem, but the christians are. should israel be free from idolatry? let a member from messiah truth forum answer : http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/reply/42196#reply-42196 Ideally, Eretz Yisral should be free from all idolatrywhich includes chrstianity (but not Islam)and, God willing, in the time of the King-Mashiya it will be so. However, until that time, we have to tolerate idol-worshippers in our midst. Moreover, God commands us in His Torah to loathe and despise all idol-worshippers (and, again, that includes chrstians). Burn the carved statues of their gods in a re; dont desire the silver or gold that decorates them and take it for yourself in case it entraps you: it is disgusting to Adonai your God. Dont bring anything disgusting like that [i.e. like the precious metals that decorate the gentiles' idols] into your house or you will become rem like them [i.e. like the idol-worshippers] you are to feel total revulsion and utter disgust for each of them because they are rem. (Dvarim 7:25-26) and I repeat that this includes chrstianity, which IS idolatry (whether chrstians like to admit it or not). ot says that by the time of the messiah all nations will worship the hebrew God Yhwh. what happends to the idolaterors in the time of the messiah who REFUSE to worship the ot GOd Yhwh and who ght for thier gods?
14 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
70.
Mosizzle Says:
otherwise you and Danios would not have both made this very basic error. Danios recognised that he was a King of Israel: The militant sword of Israel was then passed from the judges to holy kingsEventually David became king of Israel and continued his string of conquests, subjugating heathens to Israelite rule I think its clear that Danios knew that David was a King so any sentence that has you believing otherwise must be a mistake on Danios part. From my interaction with Muslims, they all seem to believe every book of the New Testament is a Gospel save, perhaps, the Book of Revelation. You mean your non-existent interaction with Muslims. By the way, I know that there are 4 gospels in the New Testament, so obviously you are lying if you say that all Muslims youve interacted with didnt know this.
71.
rambo Says:
I wished you would learn of Judaism from more neutral sources than Dawa websites the christian new covenant propaganda is INSULTING to the jews. didnt you learn that from a neautral source? didnt you learn that calling the torah old is OFFENSIVE to the jews? here comes a pauline telling the muslims about learning about judaism from more neutral sources.
72.
JustBob Says:
the christian new covenant propaganda is INSULTING to the jews. Ill be happy to offer you some modern scholarship on Christianity and the New Testament: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm I cant correct someones misunderstanding when its passed off as fact. Also, please let me know what Jews think of the Muslim belief that the Hebrew Bible has been corrupted by Rabbis to erase any reference to Muhammad and that modern Jews are Talmudists?
73.
muhammad 'abd-al haqq Says:

I certainly cant think of modern Westerners who would offer their children to be raped by a mob as Lot is recorded as doing in the Koran or a prophet who murders a child because hell later grow up and shame his parents by becoming a disbeliever. Here we have the Jahil doing his own tafsir again. Did Lot(as) really offer his daughters up to be raped, according to Quran? Did Khidr(as) really kill the boy because it was believed he shame his parents by becoming a kar? I remember asking you JahilBob to post the relevant verses of the Quran when you make your claims, so that everyone can see for themselves what you are really doing. As society progresses, more and more stories in the Koran will be disregarded as quaint bedtime readings but not something for individuals to live by or take direct examples from. Thank you for laying your bigotry out boldly for all to see. According to you, society is said to progress as more and more of the Quran is discarded! Allahu Alam
74.
JustBob Says:
Btw, rambo is some fake who lifted his post from someone more than six months ago: http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/edl-speaker-says-it-is-gods-will-to-kill-apostates-and-homosexuals/ Or should I call you mansubzero, rambo?
75.
Mosizzle Says:
I certainly cant think of modern Westerners who would offer their children to be raped by a mob as Lot is recorded as doing in the Koran Quran 15:71
15 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
Lot said: These (the girls of the nation) are my daughters (to marry lawfully) if you must act (so) Looks like the translator knew some smart-ass Islamophobe would try to imply that Lot was offering his daughters to be raped. The verse clearly means that Lot is offering his daughters for marriage, as Islam forbids sex outside of marriage. Of course, this is far far better than the Bibles claim that Lot had sex with his daughters a prophet who murders a child because hell later grow up and shame his parents by becoming a disbeliever. Not everyone is sure that Khizr was actually a Prophet. But lets forget that issue for the moment. The reason he was allowed to take the life of the child is that God had given him knowledge of the future. Hence, he was able to make decisions that other humans would not be able to make and are forbidden for them. In fact, even Moses objected to what Khizr was doing. Khizr is still a bit of a mystery in the Islamic tradition, he is implied to have been given special knowledge as opposed to the revelations that Moses had been given. What is certain is that Khizrs example is not meant to be followed. We are to follow what has been revealed to us. A comparison here is that some people would kill Hitler as a child if they knew that he would grow up to be a dictator, to prevent the bad consequences such as the Holocaust. Obviously, no one will know that knowledge beforehand so it is illegal and forbidden for them to do so. As society progresses, more and more stories in the Koran will be disregarded as quaint bedtime readings but not something for individuals to live by or take direct examples from. You mean as the Bible is now? Lol. Couldnt resist. Anyways, how is it that you have failed to understand the point of this series. Do you admit that, in general, the Bible is more violent than the Quran?
76.
JustBob Says:
mansubzero said, on October 29, 2010 at 6:29 pm You have to have two witnesses, 13 years or older that believe in the Torah, to it was very hard for the god of israel to include the bS you quoted? god of the torah had to wait for some jew to create CONDITIONS because the jew found uncomfortable the plain torah law? the rabbi is a dirty, disgusting hypocrite. exegesis created and then red in to a law which isnt enviromental friendly.sort of like the faggot beliefs of paulines who say, i paraphrase , god self abused himself (atoning works) and now torah laws are no longer needed. should israel be free from idolatry? let a member from messiah truth forum answer : http://messiahtruth.yuku.com/reply/42196#reply-42196 Ideally, Eretz Yisral should be free from all idolatrywhich includes chrstianity (but not Islam)and, God willing, in the time of the King-Mashiya it will be so. However, until that time, we have to tolerate idol-worshippers in our midst. Moreover, God commands us in His Torah to loathe and despise all idol-worshippers (and, again, that includes chrstians). Burn the carved statues of their gods in a re; dont desire the silver or gold that decorates them and take it for yourself in case it entraps you: it is disgusting to Adonai your God. Dont bring anything disgusting like that [i.e. like the precious metals that decorate the gentiles' idols] into your house or you will become rem like them [i.e. like the idol-worshippers] you are to feel total revulsion and utter disgust for each of them because they are rem. (Dvarim 7:25-26) and I repeat that this includes chrstianity, which IS idolatry (whether chrstians like to admit it or not). so according to the well learnt mordochai, the proffessor, people like madman and other paulines are HEREM! note that the JEWISH contributors to that forum do not spell christianity and jesus properly. they omit few letters, because according to them paganism (i.e. christianity) should not have accurate pronouciation. so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God when the jews were conducting their blitzkrich on amalekit people, did they delay thier blitzcrich and ask the little children who were wiped out, are you sure u are an idolatoror ?? *********************** Rambo, posing as a Jew to attack Christians. Thats pretty funny. Especially when you appear to be some anti-Semitic Muslim.
77.
Mosizzle Says:
Just ignore him, Bob, rambo was banned for his disgusting remarks but somehow managed to change his IP address and post again.
78.
NassirH Says:
16 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
If my memory is correct, Lot does offer his daughters according to the Islamic version. However, he doesnt have incestuous relations with them, which is what Isa mentioned and the reason Bob is suffering from a tantrum.
79.
NassirH Says:
Bob, did you really feel the need to copy/paste the entirety of Rambos post, or are you just spamming and trolling again? Abdul, David is not a prophet in Judaism. I wished you would learn of Judaism from more neutral sources than Dawa websites, otherwise you and Danios would not have both made this very basic error. Perhaps he isnt a prophet of Judaism, but he is a Jewish Prophet of Christianity so technically Danios has made no error, even if what youre claiming is correct. Denying Davids importance in Judaism and Christianity is dishonest, as evidenced by the Star of David on Israels ag. Some Judeo-Christians even ask their children to emulate David. Theres nothing wrong with that, of course, but remember that some Islamophobes become enraged whenever a Muslim speaks of the Prophet Muhammad positively.
80.
JustBob Says:
15.067 YUSUFALI: The inhabitants of the city came in (mad) joy (at news of the young men). 15.068 YUSUFALI: Lut said: These are my guests: disgrace me not: 15.071 YUSUFALI: He said: There are my daughters (to marry), if ye must act (so). So youre saying Lot offered his daughters to a mob of ravenous men to marry? Even if your claim stands up to scrutiny, the story is unpalatable for Western consumption. How many Westerners believe in handing their daughters over to a mob for marriage to be the right thing? What kind of screening process is that? A mob wants to rape some men and Lot says, Wait! Take my daughters to marry instead. Yeah, ok. Regardless if it was marriage or not, the entire episode is still not something to be emulated by people for today. (and the Koran does allow relations between men and women outside of marriage, but thats another story)
81.
abdul-halim Says:
The story of Lot is a bit complicated. In the Quran it says: [11.77] And when Our messengers came to Lut, he was grieved for them, and he lacked strength to protect them, and said: This is a hard day. [11.78] And his people came to him, (as if) rushed on towards him, and already they did evil deeds. He said: O my people! these are my daughters they are purer for you, so guard against (the punishment of) Allah and do not disgrace me with regard to my guests; is there not among you one right-minded man? [11.79] They said: Certainly you know that we have no claim on your daughters, and most surely you know what we desire. [11.80] He said: Ah! that I had power to suppress you, rather I shall have recourse to a strong support. [11.81] They said: O Lut! we are the messengers of your Lord; they shall by no means reach you; so remove your followers in a part of the night and let none of you turn back except your wife, for surely whatsoever befalls them shall befall her; surely their appointed time is the morning; is not the morning nigh? [11.82] So when Our decree came to pass, We turned them upside down and rained down upon them stones, of what had been decreed, one after another. [11.83] Marked (for punishment) with your Lord and it is not far off from the unjust.
82.
abdul-halim Says:
I dont see why it makes any difference or has any relevance whether or not David ts into rabbinic parameters of who is or isnt a prophet. In any case, he was the means God chose to use to transmit the Psalms (which is considered scripture) and he is described in the Bible as a man after Gods own heart.
83.
Mosizzle Says:
Good point, Muhammad Abd Al Haq, when you actually take a look at the verses, it is clear Bob has made something up. Of the 6 translations that I checked, none of them mention what he claims. The relevant verse: Quran 18:80 And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared lest he should oppress them by rebellion and disbelief. That is quite different to hell later grow up and shame his parents by becoming a disbeliever.. Looks like Bob needs to learn of [Islam] from more neutral sources than [Islamophobic] websitesotherwise youwould not have both made this very basic error.
17 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
84.
NassirH Says:
So youre saying Lot offered his daughters to a mob of ravenous men to marry? Even if your claim stands up to scrutiny, the story is unpalatable for Western consumption. How many Westerners believe in handing their daughters over to a mob for marriage to be the right thing? Are you saying the Biblical version is more acceptable to Westerners? Unlike in the Islamic version, Lot has incestuous sexual relations with his daughter. The other difference is that he attempts to give his daughters to the men without any regard for marriage. Personally, I think every sane person would agree that the Islamic Lot is better than his Judeo-Christian counterpart.
85.

NassirH, Lot(as) offering up his daughters is markedly different from Lot(as)offering up his daughters for marriage! Allahu Alam
86.
NassirH Says:
Dawood has already thoroughly refuted Bob regarding Al-Khidr. http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/09/islam-and-the-media-in-the-age-of-islamophobiapalooza/#comment-44750
87.
JustBob Says:
Sigh, theres nothing in the Koran that says Lot offered his daughters to a mob of men for marriage. You cant just say something and expect it to be true.
88.
Mosizzle Says:
the story is unpalatable for Western consumption. WTH? So having sex with your daughters is? This is all in response to Abdul Halims comment where he noted that the Quran does not contain the story of incest. You have yet to address that story. Actually lets remember the real point of the article, something that you have ignored entirely (I wonder why?) Be honest, whats worse: having sex with your daughter or offering their hand in marriage to a man who engages in homosexuality? I was LOLing at your claim that they were ravenous. They had lost their lust for women and were chasing men, so they would only be ravenous if Lot had offered a son instead. So they wouldnt be ravenous towards the women. And it wouldnt be a mass marriage of the mob to their daughters, *duh* thats not possible. Its clear that Lot offered his daughters out of desperation (he obviously knew that he cant get a whole mob of people who no longer feel attracted to women to stop their homosexuality by offering two daughters) and didnt really think it would work. His intention, as Gods prophet, was to ensure that the people stop doing things that would earn the wrath of God and he desperately tried to do so.
89.
JustBob Says:
WTH? So having sex with your daughters is? No, and its not supposed to be, either. But the silver lining in that story (if you can call it one) was that Lots daughters made the decision to have sex with their father and they did so by making Lot drunk. Thats slightly different from a sober Lot telling his daughters to go marry (wink, wink) a mob of men without any consent from their part. So I would say the story, which is recorded in both the Bible and Koran, of Lot offering his daughters up to a vile mob of hedonists is far worse than an inebriated Lot being taken advantage of by his daughters.
90.
Mosizzle Says:
Sigh, theres nothing in the Koran that says Lot offered his daughters to a mob of men for marriage. Sure. Lets just ignore that when Muslims actually read the passage they understand the offering of the daughters to mean that he is offering the people a chance to
18 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
marry his daughters. Its Tafsir Al-JihadBob all over again 15:71 (Lot) said: These (the girls of the nation) are my daughters (to marry lawfully), if you must act (so). I just dont see where it says that the daughters are for marriage. I just dont.
91.
NassirH Says:
Oh boy, I just noticed this doozie: I once had a discussion with a Dawagondist whom I caught lifting Bible verses from a Muslim missionary website. It was because he relied on missionary websites for his information on Christianity that I was able to catch him on the most basic errors regarding Christian history and the Bible. Unfortunately, our Dawagondadist wasnt the least bit fazed after he repeatedly attributed a quote from an Epistle to Jesus. He was unable to register his fundamental mistake of the Bible because he relied on websites so much that he did not even understand the differences between the Epistles and Gospels. From my interaction with Muslims, they all seem to believe every book of the New Testament is a Gospel save, perhaps, the Book of Revelation. For the sake of argument, lets pretend that this story is true and that Bob isnt blufng. As anyone who has seen Bobs comments can tell, the above is dripping with hypocrisy. Its actually quite disturbing how much hypocrisy and projection Bob has managed to t into a paragraph. Although Im no fan of him, I must say that Bob has amazingly outdone himself in lunacy and Im condent he will continue to do so in the future. First, he scolds a Mooslim for not using neutral sources. Ironically, Bob has linked to anti-Muslim, polemical websites like Answering Islam and JihadWatchboth known for making the most basic errors regarding Islamic history and the Quran. Then Bob whines that the likely non-existent Muslim was unfazed after he nobly rebutted his heathen lies against the true faith of Christianity. Of course, this is also ironic. Bob is known for completely rejecting all evidence that contradicts his views, no matter how overwhelming. His repeated invocation of some random bigot on the internet (Narnian) in favor of numerous Tafsirs is a case in point.
92.
JustBob Says:
and didnt really think it would work. How do you know what Lot was thinking and how did Lot know the sexual desires of every man in that mob? Did he take a straw count to determine that every man was a homosexual repulsed at the sight of women? Did he get lucky that there were no bisexuals in the crowd? Was Lot unaware of the practices of some cultures in the Ancient world to have a wife but also have relations with men and boys? Youre making quite a lot of assumptions. I just hope youre not trying to convince yourself more than you are me.
93.
Mosizzle Says:
Thats slightly different from a sober Lot telling his daughters to go marry (wink, wink) a mob of men without any consent from their part. 6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, No, my friends. Dont do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But dont do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof. Genesis 19: 6-8 LOL!
94.
JustBob Says:
Whoosh! Thats the sound of my comment ying over your head.
95.
Khushboo Says:
^LOL Give it up JB!
96.
Mosizzle Says:
Looks like both our scriptures have the same event, perhaps you can justify it as well, since we are now in the same boat. Well, actually, the interpreters of the Quran clearly see the event as referring to marriage. And my claim that they lost their lust for women was not an assumption. Observe:
19 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
Quran 7:81 Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people.
97.
rambo Says:
justbob: Or should I call you mansubzero, rambo? both names belong to the same person.
98.
rambo Says:
No, and its not supposed to be, either. But the silver lining in that story (if you can call it one) was that Lots daughters made the decision to have sex with their father and they did so by making Lot drunk. god sent angels to destroy the faggots, but god didnt send an angel to prevent incest? this is how your god works?
99.
rambo Says:
Rambo, posing as a Jew to attack Christians. Thats pretty funny. posing as a jew?
100.
rambo Says:
rambo was banned for his disgusting remarks but somehow managed to change his IP address and post again. conspiracy theorist, i didnt change my ip address.
101.
JustBob Says:
Mosizzle, two of the six Muslim translators inserts the word marriage into the verse. That hardly proves that Muslims understand Lot to mean he was offering his daughter up for marriage, especially when one of the translators, Yusuf Ali, has translated other passages of the Koran based on his understanding of modern science, to make the Koran appear miraculous. http://qb.gomen.org/QuranBrowser/cgi/bin/get.cgi That Lot knew his daughters would be rejected by the mob could be said of the Bible, too, since Genesis presents the mob of men as sodomists, etc. Thirdly, the alternative interpretation that Lot offers his daughters to an unruly mob of men for marriage (assuming somehow his two daughters could satiate the lustful desires of a mob and quickly) STILL falls short of modern conceptions of justice and ethics. What kind of screening process is that? Who lets their children be taken in marriage to a group of savages? Are arranged marriages of this type to be followed for all times?
102.
MohammedKasib Says:
Its funny really, JustBob has managed to derail the whole comments section and hopefully some of you have realized that. He is clearly holding his hands over his ears and creating fallacious arguments that ignore every point that you guys raise. This article will never bring truth to people like him, because they just cannot accept it and instead try to point at this or that and say blindly YOURE WRONG! Lets just ignore him because the truth is he will most likely never change, and as much as we want to help, it wont do anything.
103.
JustBob Says:
god sent angels to destroy the faggots, but god didnt send an angel to prevent incest? this is how your god works? Thanks for proving youre not Jewish, rambo. Youre an anti-Semite, a Christianophobe and a Homophobe.
104.
NassirH Says:
20 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
This is rich. Bob is criticizing a story that occurs in the Quran that occurs in far less acceptable form in the Bible. This is a classic case of calling the kettle black, which of course of JihadBobs modus operandi. Mosizzle, two of the six Muslim translators inserts the word marriage into the verse. That hardly proves that Muslims understand Lot to mean he was offering his daughter up for marriage, especially when one of the translators, Yusuf Ali, has translated other passages of the Koran based on his understanding of modern science, to make the Koran appear miraculous. Lets check to Tasrs, shall we? And his people, when they became aware of them, came to him, running, hastening, towards him and previously, before they came, they had been committing abominations, namely, penetrative sexual intercourse with men. He, Lot, said, O my people! Here are my daughters, marry with them; they are purer for you. So fear God, and do not degrade me, [do not] disgrace me, before my guests. Is there not among you any upright man?, to enjoin decency and forbid indecency? http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=11&tAyahNo=78&tDisplay=yes&UserProle=0&LanguageId=2 That Lot knew his daughters would be rejected by the mob could be said of the Bible, too, since Genesis presents the mob of men as sodomists, etc. Youre making quite a lot of assumptions. I just hope youre not trying to convince yourself more than you are me.
105.
NassirH Says:
Mosizzle, two of the six Muslim translators inserts the word marriage into the verse. That hardly proves that Muslims understand Lot to mean he was offering his daughter up for marriage, especially when one of the translators, Yusuf Ali, has translated other passages of the Koran based on his understanding of modern science, to make the Koran appear miraculous. Youre speaking of verse 15: 71, correct? Most of the translations I checked insert marriage (in one form or another) into to the verse in question. [Lot] said, These are my daughters if you would be doers [of lawful marriage]. (Sahih International) [Lout (Lot)] said: These (the girls of the nation) are my daughters (to marry lawfully), if you must act (so). (Muhsin Khan) He said: There are my daughters (to marry), if ye must act (so). (Yusuf Ali) He said, These are my daughters (to marry), if you would be performing (that). (Dr. Ghali)
106.
NassirH Says:
Youre an anti-Semite, a Christianophobe and a Homophobe. I suppose if he was also an Islamophobe your opinion of him would be radically different.
107.

JustBob, Whoosh! Thats the sound of my comment ying over your head. More projection! Thats actually Mosizzles comment going over *your* head. So I would say the story, which is recorded in both the Bible and Koran, of Lot offering his daughters up to a vile mob of hedonists is far worse than an inebriated Lot being taken advantage of by his daughters. Only in the Biblical story is he offering up his daughters for sex(rape), but you need to equate the stories(Biblical and Quranic), simply because you cannot deny that the Bible story is horrible. You move goalposts quite nicely. Wasnt Isa talking about how the story of incest is not found in the Quran? How do you know what Lot was thinking and how did Lot know the sexual desires of every man in that mob? Hint: its not the same way he knows the verse isnt about offering up his daughters to be raped. Did he take a straw count to determine that every man was a homosexual repulsed at the sight of women? Did he get lucky that there were no bisexuals in the crowd?..Was Lot unaware of the practices of some cultures in the Ancient world to have a wife but also have relations with men and boys?Youre making quite a lot of assumptions. It seems that your are the only one making assumptions. So youre saying Lot offered his daughters to a mob of ravenous men to marry? Sigh, theres nothing in the Koran that says Lot offered his daughters to a mob of men for marriage. In light of this statement of mine:Lot(as) offering up his daughters is markedly different from Lot(as)offering up his daughters for marriage!, lets look at some actual tafsir:
21 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
1.Ibn Kathir Concerning the statement, (and since aforetime they used to commit crimes.) This means that this did not cease being their behavior until they were seized (by Allahs torment) and they were still in the same condition. (He said: O my people! Here are my daughters (the women of the nation), they are purer for you) This was his attempt to direct them to their women, for verily the Prophet is like a father for his nation. Therefore, he tries to guide them to that which is better for them in this life and the Hereafter. This is similar to his statement to them in another verse, (Go you in unto the males of the nation, and leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your wives Nay, you are a trespassing people!)[26:165-166] Allah said in another verse, (They (the people of the city) said: Did we not forbid you from entertaining any of the `Alamin)[15:70] This means, Didnt we forbid you from hosting men (male) guests ([Lut] said: These (the girls of the nation) are my daughters, if you must act (so). Verily, by your life, in their wild intoxication, they were wandering blindly.) [15:71-72] Then, Allah said, in this noble verse, (Here are my daughters, they are purer for you.) Mujahid said, Actually, they were not his daughters, but they were from among his nation. Every Prophet is like a father to his nation. A similar statement has been reported from Qatadah and others. Concerning the statement, (So have Taqwa of Allah and disgrace me not with regard to my guests!) This means, Accept what I command you by limiting the fulllment of your desires to your women. (Is there not among you a single right-minded man) This means, Is there not a good man among you who will accept what I am enjoining upon you and abandon what I have forbidden for you (They said: Surely, you know that we have no need of your daughters) This means, Verily, you know that we do not want our women, nor do we desire them. (and indeed you know well what we want!) This means, We only want males and you know that. So what need is there for you to continue speaking to us about this (Tafsir of Ibn Kathir) 2.Tabari Narrated by Qutada: Allahs Messenger Lot commanded the people to marry women. (Tafsir Tabari, Commentary on Surah 15:71) 3. Tafsir Jalalayn And his people, when they became aware of them, came to him, running, hastening, towards him and previously, before they came, they had been committing abominations, namely, penetrative sexual intercourse with men. He, Lot, said, O my people! Here are my daughters, marry with them; they are purer for you. So fear God, and do not degrade me, [do not] disgrace me, before my guests. Is there not among you any upright man?, to enjoin decency and forbid indecency? (Tafsir Jalalayn, Commentary on Surah 11:78) He said, These here are my daughters, if you must be doing, what you desire [to do] in the way of satisfying your lust, then marry them. God, exalted be He, says: (Tafsir Jalalayn, Commentary on Surah 15:71) 4. Qurtubi also says the same thing in his commentary on Surah 11:78 and Surah 15:71, namely that Prophet Lot meant that the men should go and marry the women of his tribe. And dont think that this doozie went unnoticed: (and the Koran does allow relations between men and women outside of marriage, but thats another story) You are denitely following my manual, shifting goalposts and throwing out as many claims as possible to offer distraction from the issues at hand.Your hypocrisy knows no bounds and you will go to any length to avoid admitting where the Bible sounds worse than the Quran Allahu Alam
108.
NassirH Says:
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds and you will go to any length to avoid admitting where the Bible sounds worse than the Quran. Im sure many will wholeheartedly agree with this comment, including Philip Jenkins who said Jews and Christiansso ignore their own scriptures that they become self-righteous [towards Islam and Muslims].
109.
Mosizzle Says:
Ouch. Muhammad abd al haq and NassirH hit Bob where it hurts. I guess this just ends the discussion, really: Narrated by Qutada: Allahs Messenger Lot commanded the people to marry women. (Tafsir Tabari, Commentary on Surah 15:71)
22 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
I would go on longer but I want to just remind people. This all started when Abdul Haleem mentioned (correctly) that the Quran does not contain some of the stories from the Bible such as the incestuous relationship. Rather than discuss this, Bob, tried to change the subject. He thought that he would nd an equally objectionable story in the Quran and the two would just cancel out. However, this argument came crashing down when I decided to read Genesis and lo and behold, the same story was there. So to sum up, Bible contains both incest and Lot offering women for marriage. Quran contains just the second one. Bobs point has been nullied. Bob is trying to talk about the ethics of that story, but clearly, God has put both stories in our scriptures. So if Bob has a problem he should take it up with Him. Bob mocked me when I claimed that Lot knew his offer was futile. But notice the change of tune as soon as Bob is reminded that the same story is in the Bible: That Lot knew his daughters would be rejected by the mob could be said of the Bible, too I also mentioned that obviously Lot knew that 2 women wouldnt be enough to stop the advance of the mob anyway. But Bob ignored this at rst. But now says the same thing after he realises that the same story is in the Bible.
110.
Mosizzle Says:
Are arranged marriages of this type to be followed for all times? I dont know about a similar thing said by Jesus but the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was clear that the womens consent is essetial: A [girl who was not married] came to the Messenger of God and mentioned that her father had married her against her will, so the Prophet allowed her to exercise her choice. (Abu Daud, on the authority of Ibn Abbas) Also, the man and woman are allowed to meet: Go and look at her (the woman you are considering marrying) because this will help your time together to be strengthened. (Ahmad)
111.
Alastair Says:
Evening, It seems that you miss the time factor. Torah was written 3500 years ago. 2000 years before the Quran was created and 1500 years before the New Testament was compiled. The New Testament is a different type of document entirely from the other two which are complete books. The NT is a collection of seperate cannons produced separately then joined at a later date. If I recall correctly the NT has 33(ish) Cannons and this number was decided by the early Church at Constantinoble(Turkey) and each Cannon was assessed and included or declared forbidden from an original of over 50 cannons. You are also misunderstanding the Founding Fathers of the United States and their complaints about religious practise. You would gather a lot of insight if you were to do some research into the Enlightenment in Europe Calvinism Protestantism Christian Reformation Basically for hundreds of years we killed each other over method of observance and interpretation of belief much in the same way Muslims do at the moment in the middle east. The religious practices were Reformed by the Protest-ant movement who Protested at much of the practise of the Christian church, the manipulation of religious rulings to maintain power for certain families, states. The reasons for wars, etc. etc. (Can you see the similarity) After the Reformation and Enlightenment with society no longer being held back by religious rulings. Science, laws, social order and cultural development were able to ourish and we conquered the whole world. Northern Ireland Explained Very quickly and in brief summary There are still divisions in the UK from the last changes in 1689. The Rightful King of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland with a history going back over 1000 years and more unbroken bloodline. The King was a Catholic and was deposed by his daughter and her Husband William from Netherlands. Many battles followed the King ed. William died and instead of the Monarchy passing to next in line (Oldest Male of Bloodline) it passed to 52 in line who was rst Protestant and a foreigner from Germany called George 1. More wars in Scotland and Ireland,to try to reinstate King. To this day the Troubles of Northern Ireland stem from this time. When the Protestant German, replaced the Gaelic Catholic King who was the rightful King by all the laws except the law of the sword. The UK then sent many Protestant Scots and English to live there and rule over the Catholic Irish (Iraq Sunni/Shia comparison) It is not just religion, it is culture, monarchy, race and religion. People are people. Teach them hate and they hate. Teach them love and they love. Tell them it is US against THEM and they will HATE THEM and make excuses for US. It is not what is written in books written 1500-3500 years ago. It is about how we each live today in the here and now. Are their Muslims who wish to have Religious Law to be the authority for order in the world. YES. Are their Christians who wish to have Religious Law to be the authority for order in the world. YES. Do the Muslims have the support of powerful governments and armed militias Yes Do the Christians have the support of powerful governments and armed militias = No
23 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
ACTIONS are what matters not WORDS
112.
JustBob Says:
Yeah, ogging this dead horse is getting tiresome. I think even the horse is getting tired. What we all can agree on is that the Koran does not use the word marry, marriage when Lot is recorded in the story of offering his daughters to satiate a mob of lustful men. One must decide whether that interpretation makes sense in light of the situation would a marriage proposal of two women stop a rampaging mob? Would anyone, for a second, think that? I certainly applaud the mental gymnastics youre willing to perform to make your interpretation logical for you. Ill stay with the clear reading of the text since I dont have the faith to believe such a remarkable interpretation. It should be interesting when non-Muslims read these passages and consider the arguments and give their opinion as to what Lot did. I also dont see the logic behind the interpretation that Lot merely offered his daughters to the mob but knew the mob would refuse. So then why did Lot offer his daughters in the rst place? The mind boggles at these quaint views. But bravo to the mental acrobatics being performed.
113.
Mosizzle Says:
One must decide whether that interpretation makes sense in light of the situation would a marriage proposal of two women stop a rampaging mob? When are you releasing your own Tafsir, Bob? You seem to have more knowledge than all the past scholars of Islam for 1400 years. You only ignore the Muslims interpretations of the verse because you would rather project your own awed understanding upon to the text. Regardless, all major Tafsir nd the command to have referred to a marriage. It is also clear that you didnt read my comment. I said that a marriage wouldnt stop a mob. This proves that Lot didnt intend that the deal would actually happen. He only did so out of desperation, as a last attempt to save the people from Gods punishment. This was the last minute to act, the mob was at the door ready to rape the men inside. So Lot had to do something, as the Prophet of God appointed to guide the men to the straight path (no pun intended) so that he could at least tell God that he tried. I certainly applaud the mental gymnastics youre willing to perform to make your interpretation logical for you. Please explain to me how you, as a Christian, interpret this story. You are in the same situation as me, except that the Islamic tradition makes it clear that marriage is implied yet the Christian tradition does not. I dont have to make it seem logical. To me it is logical. At least far more logical than God appointing a man who condones rapes and sleeps with his daughters. In what bizarre world would Josef Fritzl be a Prophet of God? Ill stay with the clear reading of the text since I dont have the faith to believe such a remarkable interpretation. But you have the faith to admit that one of Gods appointed men could have offered his daughters to a ravenous mob to do whatever they want and that he could have slept with them? If you go for a clear reading of the text, no interpretation, you have to believe this. So then why did Lot offer his daughters in the rst place? See above.
114.

JahilBob, You are denitely a skilled sophist, i give you that. Flogging a dead horse while advocating that we stop doing it? What we all can agree on is that the Koran does not use the word marry, marriage when Lot is recorded in the story of offering his daughters to satiate a mob of lustful men. You really dont understand Islamic tradition at all, and you display it fully when you attempt your own little tafsir according to the plain meaning of the text. You should read up on juristic methodology, principles of jurisprudence, Quranic exegesis, and science of hadith before you comment. If you did then you would know that one of the principles of Quranic exegesis is Quran explains Quran. Here is why Muslim translators insert the word marriage in the verse and why all the tafsir destroy your argument: The story of Lot(as) is not only found in the two aforementioned verses. (Quran 26:165-166): Do you come to the males from among the creatures And leave your wives whom your Lord has created for you? Nay you are a people exceeding the limits.
24 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
The other verses must be understood in this light. From this we get a picture not of Lot(as) offering up his daughters for anything(sex,rape, marriage),but using the example of his daughters as legitimate mates, to tell the men of the city to have sex with women, in a marital relationship. The rest of your post is your typical hypocrisy and projection. One must decide whether that interpretation makes sense in light of the situation would a marriage proposal of two women stop a rampaging mob? Would anyone, for a second, think that? It wasnt a marriage proposal, youre doing your own tafsir again. I certainly applaud the mental gymnastics youre willing to perform to make your interpretation logical for you. Ill stay with the clear reading of the text since I dont have the faith to believe such a remarkable interpretation. Someone who believes that a Prophet of God got so drunk that he was vulnerable to seduction by his own daughters,and that his daughters actually contemplated and went through said seduction, nds it hard to believe what Muslims say about their own scripture?! You dont say! I will leave it to readers to decide which storys interpretation is a result of mental gymnastics. You have a lot of more faith than you proclaim. You have enough faith to justify everything in the Bible, no matter how horrible it sounds. You have enough faith to be sure that your interpretation of Islam is correct in the face actual Muslims contradicting your claims. It should be interesting when non-Muslims read these passages and consider the arguments and give their opinion as to what Lot did. Without being rooted in the Islamic tradition, their opinions, like yours, will be just that; opinions. It will not necessarily reect what Muslims actually believe about our texts. Allahu Alam
115.
Vinny Says:
your article proves nothing. all religions are the same, because they were all started by men. religion denies the power of God. God does not belong to any religion. .and so what if God told his prophets to go and killthere was a reason for it, so get over it. what you dont quote is that Gods love is as same as his wrath.how much love has God got?that the same measure of his wrath. so all this rubbish about my religion is better than yours is a waste of time. look what religions have causedwar, famines, deaths (spanish inquistion) killed millions.and will continue to do so answer me this please.what has God got to do with the stupidity and evil of men?yet they say we do it in Gods name.rubbish.
116.
NassirH Says:
I nd it hilarious that Bob is suggesting that we listen to him regarding the Quran rather than Qurtubi, Jalaluddin Al-Suyuti, Ibn Kathir, and Tabari. They certainly know more about the Quran, Arabic, and Sunnah than him or any other Islamophobe. This guy obviously thinks too highly of himself! Maybe hes a bit like Spencer, a little man who suffers from a Napoleon complex.
117.
Sam Seed Says:

Boy, when I mentioned Islamophobe I wasnt expecting mister sarcy-pants.Just what is your problem exactly?
118.
Mosizzle Says:
It should be interesting when non-Muslims read these passages and consider the arguments and give their opinion as to what Lot did. Indeed: An incident just before the destruction of Sodom has caused many to look at Lot with revulsion his offering of his two young daughters to the evil mob. Did Lot really mean it? Would he really have handed his two daughters over to the mob? Or, was it intended as some sort of a diversionary tactic, an offer that would not be accepted, because he knew that those men had no interest in women? That could be a possibility to consider, in view of the mobs response they continued to ignore the two daughters, and decided to assault Lot along with the two men/angels. (Genesis 19:9) Source: keyway canada A Jewish site offers a more bizarre explanation: At rst, Lot is downright heroic: he goes outside his house, closes the door behind him, and implores the crowd dont do this to my guests; but then he immediately, cowardly, offers to the crowd those wolves his innocent daughters to do to them as you please. Can it be that Lot actually values hospitality over his daughters innocence? I dont think so. I think Lot offered his daughters not to protect his guests so much as to protect himself. He did so to preserve good relations with his neighbors as well as with the strangers in his home. After all, he had moved to Sodom, drawn by its wealth, with the intent of acquiring wealth himself. He would not be able to do this without maintaining good relations with his neighbors, and with any traveling merchants with whom he might nd himself interacting. Daughters in those days were not revenue generating. Even if they married well, they would not necessarily have been obligated to see to Lot in his old age.
25 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
Lovely stuff from site beth-elsa. The Catholic Encyclopedia says that Lot made a mistake. *Whoops* I dont know what denomination you are, but from past conversations it seems you are Catholic (forgive me if I am wrong). But this is Haydocks Catholic Commentary, 1859 on Genesis 19: Lot tries by every means to divert them from their purpose; being well assured, that they would have nothing to do with his daughters, who were promised to some of the inhabitants. He endeavours to gain time, hoping perhaps that his guests would escape by some back way, while he is talking to the people. A whole range of responses there from absolutely random sources that I found on Google. But it was you who pondered that my explanation was rubbish and that it would be interesting what non-Muslims make of the situation. You now have a range of responses. The most logical of which correspond with my explanation. And the rest contradict each other.
119.

Alastair, It seems that you miss the time factor. Torah was written 3500 years ago. 2000 years before the Quran was created and 1500 years before the New Testament was compiled. No disrespect but it seems you missed the disclaimers for this article series. It is not what is written in books written 1500-3500 years ago. It is about how we each live today in the here and now. These two statements do not go together if we are talking about groups of people who live their lives according to what *is* in millenia old books. What is in those books become relevant. Are their Muslims who wish to have Religious Law to be the authority for order in the world. YES. I get that you are against religious law being the authority in the world, and i can show you that all laws that give justice, peace, tolerance, love, security to the world are religion-based, but that is besides the point. Can you please explain what you mean by this?: Science, laws, social order and cultural development were able to ourish and we conquered the whole world. Do the Christians have the support of powerful governments and armed militias = No If you actually think that some people in Western militaries are not on some crusade to civilize the world, or that many in the US military in particular are not giving fundamentalist Christians armed support to carry out their crusades into the Muslim world, thenI dont know what to tell ya. ACTIONS are what matters not WORDS Words can incite/encourage actions, so they have equal importance, in my view. In other words i dont understand your point or your objections. Allahu Alam
120.
Cynic Says:
March 21st, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Im not sure if Bob realizes or not but the daughters that Lot refers to in the Quran are metaphorical; ie: the women of the land as evidenced by the various tafsir. Whereas the ones referred to in the Bible are the same two described as practically raping their father. By the way Bob, when is The Abridged Tafsir of JihadBob going to hit stores?
121.

March 21st, 2011 at 11:40 pm
JustBob, I cant believe i missed this earlier! Mosizzle, two of the six Muslim translators inserts the word marriage into the verse. That hardly proves that Muslims understand Lot to mean he was offering his daughter up for marriage, especially What? How so? Which two out of six Muslim translators? Besides there arent only six Muslim translators in the world who have translations of the Quran. I have 20 on my computer alone. And lets not forget the tafsir. I think it can be rmly established that the verse refers to marriage, but not in the sense of offering up his own daughters, but commanding the men to move away from lewdness and marry women instead.And that is how the majority of Muslims see it. And why would you even refer to Muslim translators and tafsir if you only intend to discount what they say and do your own tafsir anyway? I think you are simply trying to equate the Biblical and Quran account in your latest disguised tu quouque argument in order to avoid admitting that the Biblical account is worse. Where were we again? AhSamson, the suicide bomber? Lets deal with that sahll we Bob. Staying on topic might actually be better for you here since you have been thoroughly trashed on your other points. And dont think i didnt notice your inability to back up your claim that Quran allows sex outside of marriage, or that you ran to a thread rst posted in late 2010, calling it an abomination, instead of admitting defeat here.
26 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
Allahu Alam
122. *shall

March 21st, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Allahu Alam
123.
Mosizzle Says:
March 22nd, 2011 at 12:48 am
Im not sure if Bob realizes or not but the daughters that Lot refers to in the Quran are metaphorical; ie: the women of the land as evidenced by the various tafsir. Hmm. You seem to be right. I was mixing up the Biblical commentary and Tafsirs that I was reading at the same time. In which case, this whole thing has been a pointless argument. Bob owes me an hour.
124.
Cynic Says:
March 22nd, 2011 at 1:46 am
Mosizzle, I think Muhammad Abd-al Haqq explained it quite eloquentlywith relevant quotes from the tafsir.
125.
Jack Says:
DefenderofIslam: Jack, this is a little bit of a random and a little offtopic question. How does god killing himself save humanity in christian belief? That is way off topic, and it would take way to far to describe all the different strands of thought that come together in that particular doctrine. You might want to try to get a hold of Alister E. McGraths Iustitia Dei. A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justication, (1995 or 2005 edition) for some background in the historical development of the Christian doctrine of Justicaton. Or have a take at the eleventh century st. Anselms Cur Deus Homo. Garo: First of all, Im not a Christian any longer, so its not really my problem. I merely explained how most Christians read their bibles. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them. Second of all, that these were especially hard times wasnt the only argument I mentioned, not by a long shot. Third: you dont have to tell me that Right-Wing Christian evangelical leaders are crazies. I already know that. Besides, throughout history Christian leaders have reverted back to the Old Testament when it suited them and cited David and Jonathan. Oliver Cromwell (1599 1658) justied his wars by quoting the Bible. He even distributed a Soldiers Bible, to boost morale, mostly quoting verses from the Old Testament about righteous slaughter. However, we werent talking about Christians from the sixteenth century or about the Christian Right, who are plain fascists if you ask me, but how schmansy pansy Christians square killings in the bible and the trespassings of the biblical heroes of faith with their notions of a loving god and the righteousness of biblical role models. I merely explained how the average modern day Christian does that.
126.
rambo Says:
The Quraan used the word athara he said these banaat are athara for the people. this word is from the ta ha ra root whcih means clean physically and (i think) spiritually. you really think that they are athara for fornication? you are an idiot.
127.
RZ Says:
March 22nd, 2011 at 10:37 am
Haha i love reading comments of Christian apologists!
128. atharu
rambo Says:
March 22nd, 2011 at 12:59 pm
129.
Percey Says:
27 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
March 22nd, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Regardless of issues surrounding historicity, what is quite clear is that the Bible glories genocide and the killing of civilians, whereas the Quran does not. First of all that is merely a reason to reject religion in general; religious texts are outdated poorly written ction. Also the biblical you mention has a clear pseudo historical context and there is the matter of Christs teachings to be considered, violent verses in the Quran have no pseudo historical context since the Quran is a book out of context; it isnt a narrative it is a collection of random verses.
130. Percey

First of all that is merely a reason to reject religion in general; What?! why are you such a fan of non-sequiturs? Re-read what you are objecting to. If the Bible glories genocide and killing of civilians, then that is a reason to reject the Bible in particular, not all religion in general. Besides, how does lack of historicity make for a good argument against religion? religious texts are outdated poorly written ction. Also the biblical you mention has a clear pseudo historical context and there is the matter of Christs teachings to be considered, violent verses in the Quran have no pseudo historical context since the Quran is a book out of context; it isnt a narrative it is a collection of random verses. Like i told you in the other thread, we understand that you are not a fan of religion or religious laws being the law of the land, but you have no right to make blanket unsubstantiated statements, drive-by fashion; especially statements that *cannot* be substantiated. Verses in Quran lack historical context?! You really think lack of pseudo-historical context equals no context, ie no historical context? You really think the Quran has no narrative, that its a collection of *random* verses? Prove it all if you can Allahu Alam
131.
JustBob Says:
The Koran does lack historical context and the reader is reliant on other texts, namely the Bible, to understand the lives of a number of gures, including major ones such as Moses.
132.
JustBob Says:
Wow, you guys really spun story of Lot to the breaking point. Now the story of Lot offering his daughters to a hedonistic mob (for marriage, wink wink) is to be viewed metaphorically. Sigh.
133.
NassirH Says:
Why are you enraged at the Tafsirs, Bob? Its not our fault that they contradict your claims. Cant you just get over the fact that you were palpably wrong and stop spamming this thread with inane comments. Its become evident that the reason you post here is because youre furious at Danios for writing about Christianity and the Bible.
134.
NassirH Says:
Also, you cant read Arabic so when you claim erroneously that youre just going by what the Quran says its nothing but hot air. The fact is that Muslims dont interpret the Quran the way you do, and no amount of whining will change that.
135.
NassirH Says:
The Koran does lack historical context and the reader is reliant on other texts, namely the Bible, to understand the lives of a number of gures, including major ones such as Moses. Is this true? I recall that Muslims used the numerous Ahadith for context, as they contain narratives about the Prophets. Please provide evidence that Mufassirs have used the Bible to understand the Quran, or I will forced to dismiss your claim as nothing rantings and ravings of an angry loon.
136.
Cynic Says:
28 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
JihadBob, its all in the tafsir. Nobody is spinning anything but yourself. In the words of Ibn Kathir: (He said: O my people! Here are my daughters (the women of the nation), they are purer for you) This was his attempt to direct them to their women, for verily the Prophet is like a father for his nation. Therefore, he tries to guide them to that which is better for them in this life and the Hereafter. This is similar to his statement to them in another verse, Plain English Bob, deal with it.
137.
Solid Snake Says:

SideShowBob! Anti-Bart and Anti-Islam but fails at every attempt to destroy both! Hehehe Wait a minuteSideshow Bobs real name is Robert Underdunk TerwilligerRobert! Robert Spencer!!! There it isarghhhh such a deep conspiracyand Terwilliger! Shariah is somewhere in that conspiracy but im too lazy to go in depth.
138.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JahilBob is such a sore loser1 Now he has misrepresented what I, Cynic, Mosizzle, and NassirH have said just to save face to make it seem like he won some argument! Wow, you guys really spun story of Lot to the breaking point. Now the story of Lot offering his daughters to a hedonistic mob (for marriage, wink wink) is to be viewed metaphorically. First, no one claimed that the story was to be taken metaphorically, but Cynic said that the daughters of Lot(as) were not his literal, biological daughters, as the real tafsir also show. You should re-read the Bible where it is clear that the they Second, I already told you that Lot(as) was not offering up his daughters to the mob for anything(sex, rape, or marriage). He was commanding them to stop their lewdness and marry women instead. You think someone who cant read Arabic can fool people into believing that your bogus tafsir is based on primary sources? Just because many Muslim translators inserted the word marriage into the relevant verse, does not mean that Lot(as) was making a marriage proposal on behalf of his daughters as you deceptively suggest. Again,only in the Biblical story is he offering up his daughters for sex(rape), but you need to equate the stories(Biblical and Quranic), simply because you need to avoid admitting that the Bible story is horrible. Quranic verses 15:71 and 11:78 need to be read in light of Quran 26:165-166: (Quran 26:165-166)Do you come to the males from among the creatures. And leave your wives whom your Lord has created for you? Nay you are a people exceeding the limits. That coupled with the tafsir, like this one: Narrated by Qutada: Allahs Messenger Lot commanded the people to marry women. (Tafsir Tabari, Commentary on Surah 15:71) Makes it impossible to believe that Lot(as) was offering up his daughters for rape, or even marriage, literally or metaphorically. And dont even get me started on the Hadith. I am usually a nice person, after all I am Muslim, but you need to STFU on this particular topic now, Jahil. Its over. Focus on the suicide bomber Prophet, according to Bible, and see if you can nd a suicide bomber Prophet in the Quran or if any Hadith describe Muhammad(saws) as such. No more distractions. Allahu Alam
139.

*You should re-read the Bible where it is clear that the they Should read: You should re-read the Bible where it is clear that not only did the Lot of the Bible offer up his daughters for the mob to do with them whatever they saw t, but Lot got so drunk that he had sex with said daughters, who themselves had conspired to get him drunk and have sex with him. None of this is in the Quran. So do you, Jahil, concede that the Biblical version is worse than the Quranic version? Allahu Alam
140.

March 22nd, 2011 at 10:04 pm
The Koran does lack historical context and the reader is reliant on other texts, namely the Bible, to understand the lives of a number of gures, including major ones such as Moses.
29 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
Right. And what Biblical texts were the mufassir of the early centuries of Islam relying on to understand the Quran? You make these claims as if there is documented, authentic evidence that the Early Muslim community had access to these biblical documents, in Arabic. Besides that your statement is actually an argument *for* the Quran having a historical context, unless you are actually agreeing with Percey that the Bible stories have a pseudo-historical context, not a real one. Is this your ofcial position, as a Christian? Allahu Alam
141.
Shlomo Says:
March 23rd, 2011 at 12:35 am
JustBob: Now, does the Bible promise heavenly rewards for holy warriors who die whilst killing unbelievers? YES IT DOES> Either you are lieing or you are ignorant and your behaviour in this thread implies the latter Sexual paradise is plain as day in the opening of Genesis. The rst is Genesis 6:1-4 and Numbers 13:33. These are nephilim, when biblical angels have sex with human women to give birth to giants. Hence clearly sexuality plays a strong role in biblical heaven
142.
JustBob Says:
March 23rd, 2011 at 4:42 pm
So do you, Jahil, concede that the Biblical version is worse than the Quranic version? Well, no because the story of Lot offering his daughters to a mob of men IS in the Koran.
143.
JustBob Says:
Schlomo, just quote the Biblical passage where warriors who die whilst killing non-believers are rewarded in the afterlife.
144.
Mosizzle Says:
Well, no because the story of Lot offering his daughters to a mob of men IS in the Koran. But the fact that it exists in the Bible as well nullies your original point that the Quranic representation of Lot is worse than the Bible.
145.
JustBob Says:
Actually, this all started when I was responding to Isa. I pointed out the tales in the Koran are not for people to follow or take moral guidance for today. The other example I provided was a prophet of Allah (Allah gave the man the ability to foresee the future, so call that whatever you want) who murdered a boy because he feared the boy would dishonor his parents by becoming a disbeliever.
146.
NassirH Says:
Mosizzle, I think he wants the nal word. Hes a sore loser, you know. Absolutely cant stand the fact that brown people have disagreed with him since time immemorial, as evidenced by the Tafsirs he constantly contradicts.
147.
Mosizzle Says:
On JihadBobs allergy to the tafsirs: Spencers readers are carefully steered away from all contact with the Islamic interpretative tradition, which equals or exceeds that of any other religion, because any scholarly knowledge about Islam would expose all his extremist interpretations to ridicule. Robert D. Crane Also, Spencer has his own pseudo-Tafsir on his website.
148.
Jack Cope Says:

30 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
just quote the Biblical passage where warriors who die whilst killing non-believers are rewarded in the afterlife. Well bob, one of the Popes seemed to think it did: If you die on the journey or if you are killed in battle against these Saracens all your sins will be forgiven at once. God Himself has given me the power to tell you this. Pope Urban IIs sermon And please note, the Quran does not promise that, martyrdom is more than dieing killing unbelievers. Better add that to your Tafsir.
149.
Cynic Says:
Well, no because the story of Lot offering his daughters to a mob of men IS in the Koran. Except that he wasnt offering his real daughters, but instead was urging the men to marry the women of the land (ie: his daughters). Not to mention the story of him getting raped by his own daughters isnt in the Quran. You failed miserably on this thread. Why dont you just concede defeat like a man for once and stop wasting our time.
150.
JustBob Says:
Except that he wasnt offering his real daughters, He said: Here are my daughters, if ye must be doing (so). Right.. And please note, the Quran does not promise that, martyrdom is more than dieing killing unbelievers. Better add that to your Tafsir. So what does the Koran say about those who die killing non-believers?
151.
Mosizzle Says:
He said: Here are my daughters, if ye must be doing (so). Right.. Obviously you dont want to see the Tafsir for an explanation of that verse because you would rather interpret it in your own way and attack Islam. Maybe Ill do the same: I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword [Matthe 10;34]
152.
Jack Cope Says:

Of course he cant, it would sink the argument so it HAS TO NOT EXIST. Simple.
153.
JustBob Says:
As I said, the passage is clear, Lot is talking about his real daughters. There is no evidence presented in the Koran to show that those were his metaphorical daughters he was offering to a mob of strangers.
154.
NassirH Says:
Note how Bob only quotes the rst half of Cynics sentence, truncating the part that mentions whats in the Tafsir. Its hard imagining having a rational conversation with someone who has lled their mind with as much hate as JihadBob. All he does is go in circles, and when rebutted, marches blindly forward. As Dawood explained on this thread, Its a Bot, regurgitating the same tired old stuff.
155.
JustBob Says:
^ Thats one interpretation. The passage doesnt lead me to believe that Lot was referring to his daughters in a metaphorical sense.
156.
Mosizzle Says:
31 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
As I said, the passage is clear Your opinion on that verse vs. the opinion of respected Islamic scholars who have interpreted the verse in that way for the past 1400 years. Hmmm Ibn Kathir: This was his attempt to direct them to their women, for verily the Prophet is like a father for his nation. Therefore, he tries to guide them to that which is better for them in this life and the Hereafter. Forget it, Bob, you are immune to reason. The fact is that the Bible contains the same story, so I fail to see what your point is. It is a story, like many others in the Quran. No one is told to base their actions on that one incident.
157.
Jack Cope Says:

As I said, it conicts so thus CANNOT EXIST. Simple logic for simple people one things.
158.
NassirH Says:
Sorry Bob, but your interpretation of the Quran is insincere and warped by your immense hatred of Muslims. In other words, we care about what the mufassir of the past 1,400 years say about the Quran, not the opinion of some hateful troll.
159. Bob,
Cynic Says:
Daughters = women of the land. Figurative speech. It isnt rocket science. You seem to have no problem busting out the tafsir when if seemingly agrees with your preconceived narrative (although its usually the exact opposite of it)all of a sudden youre rejecting them. Please carefully study the denition of bigotry, then self-reect.
160.
Michael Elwood Says:

@JustBob Actually, this all started when I was responding to Isa. I pointed out the tales in the Koran are not for people to follow or take moral guidance for today. On the contrary, Bob. The Quran still offers moral guidance for today. Like Chris Hedges, I dont believe in the myth of moral progress. I believe 21st century dudes like Bob could learn a thing or two from 7th century dudes. . . like how to be morally consistent. If Bobs delicate moral sensibilities arent offended by the following Biblical verse: Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof, (Gen. 19:8). how can it be offended by the following Quranic verse: 11:78 His people came rushing towards him, and were accustomed to committing sin. He said, My people, these are my daughters, they are purer for you, so be aware of God and do not disgrace me regarding my guests. Is there no reasonable man among you? Bob claims to be oh-so-offended that the Quran says that Lot offered his daughters to be raped. Thats what the Bible says, however, not the Quran. Notice the subtle differences in the verses above. In the Quranic narration, Lots offer is insincere, and his people knew it. How do we know this? Because the very next verse (which always seem to be missing from Bobs analysis) says so: 11:79 They said, You know we have no interest in your daughters, and you are aware of what we want! The other example I provided was a prophet of Allah (Allah gave the man the ability to foresee the future, so call that whatever you want) who murdered a boy because he feared the boy would dishonor his parents by becoming a disbeliever. And this is another example of you being morally inconsistent, Bob. If Bobs moral sensibilities arent offended by the following Biblical verse: When a group of children from Bethel taunted the prophet for his baldness, Elisha cursed them in the name of YHWH and two female bears came out of the forest and mauled 42 of them (2 Kings 2:23-25). how can it be offended by the following Quranic verse: 18:74 So they ventured forth until they came upon a youth, and he killed him. He said, Have you killed an innocent person without justice? You have truly come with something awful! Verses 18:65-80 is all about patience (sabr) and not jumping to conclusions. Its moral guidance that ultra-modern dudes like Bob should take heed. Notice how Bob
32 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
tries to tease his amusing honor killing interpretation from the verse, and jumps to the conclusion that the man was killed for dishonoring his parents by simply disbelieving. The Quran, however, tells us he was killed for his transgressions (tughyanan): 18:80 As for the youth, his parents were those who acknowledge, so we feared that he would oppress them by his transgression and denial. He wasnt killed for simply disbelieving, and he certainly wasnt killed for making fun of Moses baldness. He was killed for his transgressions. Bob knows there is no capital punishment in Islam for simply disbelieving (despite what paranoid Islamophobes believe): 2:256 There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient. 109:1-6 Say, O you disbelievers. I do not worship what you worship. Nor do you worship what I worship. Nor will I ever worship what you worship. Nor will you ever worship what I worship. To you is your religion, and to me is my religion. Hopefully Bob will get the same moral guidance from this mysterious teacher that Moses got. But Im not holding my breath. . .
161.
NassirH Says:
March 23rd, 2011 at 10:17 pm
Thanks for your input, Michael Elwood. It should be noted that Michael Elwood is a Quran only Muslim, since Bob was continuously claiming that he was sticking to the clear reading of the text (which of course is a fallacious assertion, as Bob cant read a word of Arabic). Thus, both Quran only Muslims and more mainstream Muslims who go by both the Quran and Sunnah have interpretations that contradict Bobs. As for Bobs moral sensibilities, he has none. His issue was not with the Prophet Lot, but with Islam and Muslims. He couldnt care less about what Islam says about Lot.
162.
Rob Says:
March 23rd, 2011 at 10:42 pm
Nice post Mike.
163.
Cynic Says:
March 23rd, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Its funny because Lot in the Bible was really hoping for his daughters to be raped. Maybe he wanted revenge because they raped him? If thats not morally screwed, then I dont know what is. Great post btw Michael.
164.
Anti-Atheist Says:
Perhaps, loonwatch could make a article on the oldest known neo-alQaeda group. Tamil tigers ? Irish ? No. Its religious, its judeo-xtian; and it goes back to the 1st century. The Zealots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealotry
165. vw polo
rambo Says:
166.
rambo Says:
elwoods: Because the very next verse (which always seem to be missing from Bobs analysis) says so: 11:79 They said, You know we have no interest in your daughters, and you are aware of what we want! i looked at the ayah in arabic and saw the word haqqin if i were to grab a girl and try to do what i please with her, someone might say, you have no HAQQ over her meaning i have to haqq over her because i am not married to her. but i think there is also another way to interpret the ayah which will kill your apologetic. your claim Lots offer is insincere, and his people knew it
33 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
but it is possible that his offer was SINCERE because he became too desperate, but deep down in his heart he knew that the faggots PREFERED /DESIRED/ want batty , not woman. so it hasnt got anything to do with insincerety ,but preference.
167. Bob,
rambo Says:
March 24th, 2011 at 10:40 am
Daughters = women of the land. Figurative speech. It isnt rocket science. if you are familiar with christian apologetics , you will know how they try to reconcile contradictory passages in the bible. they will say something like the audience ALREADY knew that there was an EXCEPTION clause exception clause? according to mark, jesus says that WHOEVER divorces COMMITS adultery . according to matthew, jesus says WHOEVER divorces except if it be for adultery, COMMITS adultery. so i n matthews version, divorce is only ALLOWED if one partner commits adultery. but this exception is not MENTIONED in marks VERSION so apologists cook up a bull sh it assumption and assume that the audience of mark ALREADY knew about the exception, so mark didnt need to mention it. such apologetic reasoning has been dealt with here http://the-anointed-one.com/divorce11.html all gayBob needs to do is APPLY his christian apologetic on the ayah about luut and his daughters and assume that the arab LISTNERS ALREADY KNEW THAT DAUGHTERS = WOMEN OF THE LAND. gaybob, all you got to do is stop being a phukin hypocrite.
168.
rambo Says:
boob : Who lets their children be taken in marriage to a group of savages? according to the bible, did lots daughters get pregnant?
169.

Me: So do you, Jahil, concede that the Biblical version is worse than the Quranic version? Jahil:Well, no because the story of Lot offering his daughters to a mob of men IS in the Koran. Whoa Whoa Whoa! You need to stop with the deception and sophistry!! The story of Lot(as) offering up his daughters to the mob is *not* in the Quran rst of all! Second: The question is in reference to this: Bible where it is clear that not only did the Lot of the Bible offer up his daughters for the mob to do with them whatever they saw t, but Lot got so drunk that he had sex with said daughters, who themselves had conspired to get him drunk and have sex with him. None of this is in the Quran. You responded to my question with a subtle shift in topic(goalposts), even though the topic is relevant, which displays an almost diabolic penchant for misdirecting deceptiveness. The point is that Lot(as) having sex with his daughters(naudobillah) is not in Quran. Judging which story is worse is based on the Quran not containing that story. So Jahil,concede that the Biblical version is worse than the Quranic version. As I said, the passage is clear, Lot is talking about his real daughters. There is no evidence presented in the Koran to show that those were his metaphorical daughters he was offering to a mob of strangers. There is actually plenty of evidence, albeit circumstantial, in English translation of the Qur;an, for those intelligent enough to be allergic to hate to see he was not offering up his biological daughters. But when we go to the Arabic, which we should, there is incontrovertible evidence in Quran that not only was he not referring to his biological daughters, but he wasnt even offering up *these* daughters to a mob of strangers. Lot(as) was passing judgement on the evil of the men and suggesting that they *marry* women instead of raping men!! Now, I wonder what would be the point of convincing Muslims, through Islamophobic interpretation, that we believe something that we do not? Could it be that people like you intuitively recognize how horrible the Biblical story is when compared to the Quran, and you need to equate them in order to avoid admitting this, so you concoct a ridiculous non-Muslim tafsir that ignores Islamic tradition, specically the tafsir of the verse, and what Muslims actually believe about the story? JahilBob would make a great professor of Islamic studies at my Islamophobic University: Qualications: 1.No knowledge of Arabic whatsoever. 2.No degree in any Islamic studies program from any accredited University 3. Must hate Arabs, Muslims, and Islam, but be able to hide it by couching his rhetoric in pseudo-intellectuallism.
34 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
^ Thats one interpretation. Right. The MUSLIM INTERPRETATION! The passage doesnt lead me to believe that Lot was referring to his daughters in a metaphorical sense. Key word being me, indicating you are doing your own tafsir, based on secondary sources, since you dont have *any* knowledge of Arabic beyond Islamophobese. Re-read the textual context, if you know what that means. Then you will understand *why* some Muslim translators insert marriage into the verse and why the REAL tafsir give the interpretations they do. The fact is that the Bible contains the same story But the fact that it exists in the Bible as well nullies your original point that the Quranic representation of Lot is worse than the Bible. Whoa Whoa Whoa! The Quran does not contain a story of Lot(as) offering up his daughters for rape to a mob of men!! Please read my favorite hadith below as it well describes Muslim Extremists, and Islamophobes like JahilBob Allahu Alam This sacred knowledge shall be borne by reliable authorities from each generation, who will preserve it from the distortions of extremists, the plans of the corrupt and the false explanations of the ignorant. (Narrated mursal by Al-Bayhaqi in Kitab al-Madkhal on the authority of Ibrahim bin Abd al-Rahman al-Udhri.)
170. .
rambo Says:
171.
JustBob Says:
Bob claims to be oh-so-offended that the Quran says that Lot offered his daughters to be raped. Offended? No. Never claimed to be personally offended by that particular passage in the Koran. Theres a lot of other passages which concern me far more than a mythical tale. Lots offer is insincere, and his people knew it. How do we know this? Because the very next verse (which always seem to be missing from Bobs analysis) says so: I guess if Lot were living today, he would have said JK, JK immediately after offering the mob his daughters. Here, take my daughters. JK! JK! how can it be offended by the following Quranic verse: I wonder if you realize the difference between murder and an act of God. Because the only difference from a hungry bear and annihilating entire peoples as recorded in the Koran is the order of magnitude of life that was lost. But in your attempt to compare the two events, the differences stick out. Khidr was either a prophet or similar in stature to a one who believed it justied to kill a child not for what the child did but for what he feared the child would do. That is the bottom line. Ill leave your hair splitting for someone else.
172.
Mosizzle Says:
Youre not going to give up Bob, so Im not really bothered. Everyone has made their point clear. You just dont want to accept it. Its cool. Deaf, dumb and blind [Quran 2:18]
173.
Cynic Says:
annihilating entire peoples as recorded in the Koran i Oh the irony! Please Bob, just quit while youre still only a few lightyears behind. Good grief, youre a bigger imbecile than I ever imagined.
174.
Mosizzle Says:
Speaking of irony, Bobs loony comments here are actually driving up the popularity of LoonWatchs new articles. If you look on the popular tab on the top right, at least 6 of those articles are there with Bobs help. Thanks Bob!
35 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
175.
JustBob Says:
Thats why I never understood why in the past my IP and e-mail have been blocked and my posts removed.
176.
Mosizzle Says:
At the end of the day, we do get some, ahem, interesting discussions. But you have been posting here on-and-off for a few months now. I dont think any of us have lasted that long on Jihadwatch before getting banned by Marisol. But of course, one does not justify the other. I guess Loonwatch moderators dont need a war happening under every single article. Personally I dont mind but it probably scares away other Loonwatch commenters.
177.
NassirH Says:
This guy doesnt know why he was banned? Not surprised, since he seems to be oblivious to a lot of things, including responses to his posts. Hence the reason he sounds like a broken record.
178.

@Rob and Cynic Thanks! @rambo i looked at the ayah in arabic and saw the word haqqin if i were to grab a girl and try to do what i please with her, someone might say, you have no HAQQ over her meaning i have to haqq over her because i am not married to her. I was using Yuksels translation, not my own. The word haqqin is sometimes translated/understood as right/justication (see 3:21). You could translate it as, you know that we have no right to your daughters/alimta ma lana banatika min haqqin. but i think there is also another way to interpret the ayah which will kill your apologetic. your claim Lots offer is insincere, and his people knew it but it is possible that his offer was SINCERE because he became too desperate, but deep down in his heart he knew that the faggots PREFERED /DESIRED/ want batty , not woman. so it hasnt got anything to do with insincerety ,but preference. Ignoring your gratuitous use of the word faggot, I think he was insincere precisely because he knew that they preferred men. I think he was desperate and was trying to by some time. @JustBob Offended? No. Never claimed to be personally offended by that particular passage in the Koran. Theres a lot of other passages which concern me far more than a mythical tale. This is the second time that Bob has unwittingly referred to the Quran as a tale, like his predecessors: 6:25 Among them are those who listen to you; and We have made covers over their hearts to prevent them from understanding it, and deafness in their ears; and if they see every sign they will not acknowledge; even when they come to you they argue, those who reject say, This is nothing but the tales from the past! Bob cant seem to recognize a genuine tale when its right in front of him, like that one about Lot sleeping with his daughters. This tale serves no other function except to give an ignoble genealogy to Israels neighbors, the Ammonites and Moabites (who were said to have resulted from the incestuous relationship). This is why that tale isnt in the Quran. I guess if Lot were living today, he would have said JK, JK immediately after offering the mob his daughters. Here, take my daughters. JK! JK! Yeah, if he were living today. Or, like the comedian Henny Youngman, he could have said take my wife, please! I wonder if you realize the difference between murder and an act of God. Because the only difference from a hungry bear and annihilating entire peoples as recorded in the Koran is the order of magnitude of life that was lost. Sure, I realize the difference. But the Biblical verse in question isnt talking about an act of God. Suppose you continue to insult my intelligence with this spiel, and I said may the curse of Allah be on you. Then, that very moment, two bears came out and mauled you to death. Thats not an act of God, my friend. Thats me putting the root on ya! By the way, this is another one of those tales that Bob believes in that isnt in the Quran.
36 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
Also, unlike the Bible, there are no tales of annihilating entire peoples in the Quran. Stop trying to change the subject! But in your attempt to compare the two events, the differences stick out. They sure do! Theres a difference in magnitude in the life that was lost (1 and 42). Theres also a difference between the reasons they were killed (for committing criminal transgressions and for making fun of someones baldness). Ill leave your hair splitting for someone else. Weve just begun, and youre already taking your marbles and going home?
179.
Jack Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 12:27 am
You know, despite the fact I dont like Bob or his agenda, and the topic wasnt about Lot and his daughters, I have to say Im somewhat aghast at the way seemingly intelligent Muslims simply accept the explanations of the tafsir as the nal word, without examining critically if what they say makes sense. So when Lot says in 11:78 Oh my people! Here are my daughters: they are purer for you, he means the daughters of the land? The tafsir quoted dont actually seem to offer any arguments, let alone *valid* arguments why my daughters would refer to everybody elses daughter. It makes no sense at all! If Lot was referring to other peoples daughters, then why is he saying my daughters? It seems to me that if you want to argue that the *Quran* doesnt say Lot offered his own daughters to the men of Sodom, youd have to at least come up with a good explanation to that question. Nobody has. People just say: well the tafsir say he didnt mean his daughters, so thats that. Or: well, the hadith say he didnt mean his daughters, so thats that. Has anyone considered the thought that the tafsir and the hadith may be wrong on this issue? What is wrong with you people? Do you put your critical faculties on hold, every time religious dogma gets in the way of reason? Isnt is pretty obvious the tafsir make up this explanation for apologetic reasons, because they nd it unbecoming for a prophet like Lot to offer his daughters to the men to be sexually abused? Furthermore, the biblical stories are about a thousand years prior to the Quran. Muhammad heard them from Jews. And dont give me that Yeah but they changed the stories and God told Muhammad the true version because rst of all, thats far to convenient (it puts you in the right every time, now doesnt it), and second of all: theres not a shred of evidence thats true. Theres not a shred of evidence God told Muhammad anything, let alone the particulars of biblical stories, and theres not a shred of evidence Jews changed their scriptures. For crying out loud: Christians accepted these scriptures, and they didnt detect any changes. Do you know how Jews transmitted their scriptures? Theyd copy the roll letter for letter, and if any mistake was found, theyd burn the roll and start all over again. They have checked the Biblica Stuttgartensia from the eleventh century against the Dead Sea Rolls: there were no discrepancies. Its not hard to fathom why the story of Lot committing incest is not in the Quran. First of all, its not relevant to the point being made. Its pretty obvious to anyone who is familiar with the biblical stories that the Quran takes these stories as given and expects the readers to know them beforehand, only to refer to certain events to draw out moral lessons. Secondly, Lot is considered a prophet in Islam, so its not all that convenient for the Quran to accuse him of incest. However, in the bible he is portrayed as an anti-hero to Abraham. In Genesis 13 Lot chooses to try and succeed by relying on the world he can see, by dwelling in the fertile lands around Sodom and Gomorrah, even though the people there are wicked, whereas Abraham is left with the arid parts of the land. Lot chooses the world, whereas Abraham has to rely on faith. The moral of the outcome of the story, with Lot being destitute and committing incest with his own daughters, and Abraham becoming the father of a multitude of progeny, is that in the end, even through hardship, trials and tribulation, faith lasts longer, whereas relying on ones own insight and efforts to succeed in the world, will end in destitution and ruin. Furthermore, the names of the sons of Lot, Ammon and Moab, are two historical enemies of Israel. Saying they were begotten by incest was taking a verbal jab at them. This is a recurring motif in the Old Testament. Notice how Esaw, who is rejected by God even though he is the rst born and a great hunter, is portrayed both as a rube and the forefather of Edom, a people the Israelites had many altercations with.
180.
Cynic Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 12:48 am
Has anyone considered the thought that the tafsir and the hadith may be wrong on this issue? Why the hell would a Muslim think that Jack? I think youre failing to understand that to a Muslim, the Hadith and tafsir are the nal word on the issue. Any attempt to deny that would be tantamount to interpreting Muslims religion for them. Which ironically, is the MO of most Islamophobes; including JustatrollBob.
181.
Dawood Says:
The problem is Jack, is that Bob was saying that Islam (by which he means the Islamic interpretive tradition, obviously) portrays the story as X, when it actually portrays it as Y. The issue is not what individual Muslims may or may not believe, or even how the story found its way into the Quran etc. (that is an issue of academic interest, to be sure), but an issue of what mainstream Muslim scholarship says about the story of Lot. If you make a claim that Islam states X, then it is dealing with religious scholarship not the masses, so it is to the books we need to turn for clarication. One of the key methods of doing Quranic exegesis is known as al-tafsir bi al-mathur, which is exegesis from inter-textual understanding. Basically, this method (which is the main method used in Islamic scholarship) understands specic Quranic verses in reference to others on the same topic, or from other recorded sources such as Prophetic narrations (i.e. hadith), or narrations from Muhammads companions and other early luminaries. In this case, the same story is repeated in 11:78, so exegesis discusses the issue in both places. Its not dissimilar to how the Jewish exegetical tradition understands their scripture with reference to the Talmud and the collective opinions of countless luminaries from their long-inherited intellectual tradition.
37 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
Even the earliest authorities in Quranic exegesis, including the likes of al-Tabari (d. circa 930CE) who is known for collecting variant opinions on issues, makes clear that it refers to the daughters of the nation and not his physical daughters. He also supports this with a number of narrations from the earliest sources, which later authorities transmit and record on his authority. He cites a very interesting quote from Mujahid ibn Jabr (d. 722CE), who was considered the inheritor of Ibn Abbas (d. 687CE) knowledge in Quranic exegesis (Ibn Abbas being the cousin of Muhammad and considered by Muhammads companions to be the pre-eminent exponent of Quranic exegesis). He basically states that It was not his actual daughters, although they are from his nation (umma); and every Prophet is the father of his nation (umma). [6#": &$ )(' .-",+ &(' 0' 1' 12+ 05 87 +21 ]..9 He also records another narration from Mujahid on the topic, noting that His command was for them to marry women, not to offer them fornication. [:#" "I"JK $DEFG ;C) $" &A-& .]1;:$ )2?>9 Interestingly, the last word ( "I"JK) also refers to bloodshed as well. In other early sources, we nd similar sentiments. The tafsir of al-Hawari (d. circa 923CE), for example again quotes Mujahid as an authority, noting that he said Every Prophet is the father of his nation; this means, rather, that his daughters are the women of his nation [+21" A8 +,"-7. N-G "L8]05 876 .9 12+ From what I can see, this is where the twin-strands of exegesis on this issue appear most clearly, namely that 1) it was not Lots physical daughters meant here, and 2) he commanded them to marry and turn away from their debauchery. As I said, the issue of the Qurans reproduction of the story and its relationship to Biblical versions and so forth are denitely interesting, but entirely different from claiming that Islam says X, when its interpretive tradition clearly says Y, continuing to do so even today. Modern tafsirs such as that of al-Qattan (d. 1984), Ibn Ashur (d. 1973), al-Sharawi (d. 1998) and others, for example, all state the same thing.
182.
Jack Says:
Why the hell would a Muslim think that Jack? Maybe because youre a thinking, rational human being, who uses their critical faculties? I think youre failing to understand that to a Muslim, the Hadith and tafsir are the nal word on the issue. Any attempt to deny that would be tantamount to interpreting Muslims religion for them. Or an attempt to get you to critically examine the dogmatic framework you inherited from your faith tradition. Secondly, at the very least, an attempt at staying true to myself. See, for a Muslim thinking within the dogmatic framework of traditional Islam, the hadith and the tafsir may be the nal word on what the Quran actually says. But for me, as a non-Muslim, neither the hadith or the tafsir hold any special authority in and out of itself. So if you want to convince me that the Quran actually means not-X when it says X, youre going to have to come up with some evidence which would be universally accepted, not evidence that is solely faith-based. How does the fact that a commentary or a bunch of commentaries drawing upon one another says the verse should interpretet in a certain way settle the matter. How is that an argument? Its not in any way with respect to content. I want to see a semantic argument which shows that my sons or my daughters actually means: men in general or women in general in Arabic and preferably in the parlance of the Quran. And if you come up with a hadith, then Id like to see some pretty solid evidence that Muhammad himself said, when asked: You know, when I said that Lot said My daughters, I actually meant the daughters of the land. Although Im not sure in what sense Muhammads opinion would weigh in on the matter, since everything he recited is supposed to come straight from God, so its not impossible the recitation revealed the prophet Lot did something Muhammad thought was too unbecoming of a prophet. But anyway, I have a hard time believing any of this, because we know Muhammad learnt the biblical stories from Jews and Christians, and we pretty much know what they are, because the bible tells us what they are (althoug the Quran contains some references to stories Christians regard as apocryphal, but even those can be traced). The bible clearly tells us Lot offered his own daughters. Sura 11:78 clearly echoes that when it says: Here are my daughters: they are purer for you, and its easy to understand how later generations thought it unbecoming for a prophet like Lot to offer his own daughters as sexual treats, so they invented hadiths which altered the meaning, and tafsir drew on them. This is a perfectly coherent, logical explanation of the verse. If you want to contest it, youd better come up with some solid evidence that my daughters is often used to mean any women walking around in a sexual context. But I think it would make for a lot of awkward misunderstandings, when prospective father in laws tell suitors: Sure, youre free to ask for the hand of any of my daughters, when in fact they mean Youre free to ask for the hand of anybody elses daughters, but not mine!
183.
Jack Says:
Dawood: The problem is Jack, is that Bob was saying that Islam (by which he means the Islamic interpretive tradition, obviously) portrays the story as X, when it actually portrays it as Y. Ah! Okay, that actually does clear the matter up. But in Bobs defense, one might assume that in his mind the Quran and Islam is probably the same. And, certainly if Bob has a protestant background, upon hearing claims that the Quran is the Word of God and the nal authority, hed assume that the Quran, like the protestant Bible, should take precedent over the interpretative authority that follows it. But the more I learn about Islam, the more I start thinking that Muslims are like traditional Roman Catholics when it comes to the interpretation of the bible. So when the gospels talk about Jesus brothers, they go out of their way to argue why that very well could mean his nephews or something along those lines, since they decided that May never slept with Joseph because the sex thing would somehow stain her with sinfulness.
184.
Dawood Says:
38 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
The whole issue was brought up by Bob to show that the Quran is just as bad as the Bible regarding Lot, when he couldnt admit that Biblical passages referred to above are far worse than anything the Quran contains, even at a surface level. This is, at least as I understand it, is the point Danios was trying to make. No doubt the interpretive traditions in each respected religion deal with such passages in specic ways, but if Christianity and Judaism are allowed to do this regarding the above, then why is it no one accepts Muslims doing the same from within their own religious tradition? The Lot issue is a case in point. If we read the Quran literally, it literally says his daughters, but when we look at exegesis, they take the term non-literally, for whatever reason they deem strongest compared to the literal meaning. Scripture is not always literal anyway, such is the nature of language, especially high-level language. The issue too, is that Muhammad did not speak on every single verse found in the text, at least as recorded in the hadith; but when Mujahid speaks on tafsir, its understood that he does so on the authority of his knowledge from Ibn Abbas, a prominent companion and Muhammads cousin. As I mentioned, he is seen as the pre-eminent authority from the Sahaba in exegesis. Other authorities such as al-Baghawi (d. 1122) and al-Suyuti (d. 1505) relate this designation of his daughters as meaning daughters of his nation to a specic Quranic verse, 33:6. In it we nd the statement The Prophet is more protective towards the believers than they are themselves, while his wives are their mothers. [$D,"D1$ >+ DAJ8 1' U-1VX". N& O67Q-& .]Muhammad Asad gives a good explanation for this statement, noting that Q [T]his verse points to the highest manifestation of an elective, spiritual relationship: that of the God-inspired Prophet and the person who freely chooses to follow him. The Prophet himself is reported to have said: None of you has real faith unless I am dearer unto him than his father, and his child, and all mankind (Bukhari and Muslim, on the authority of Anas, with several almost identical versions in other compilations). The Companions invariably regarded the Prophet as the spiritual father of his community. Some of them e.g., Ibn Masud (as quoted by Zamakhshari) or Ubayy ibn Kab, Ibn Abbas and Muawiyah (as quoted by Ibn Kathir) hardly ever recited the above verse without adding, by way of explanation, seeing that he is [as] a father to them; and many of the tabiin including Mujahid, Qatadah, lkrimah and Al-Hasan (cf. Tabari and Ibn Kathir) did the same: hence my interpolation, between brackets, of this phrase. -
185. @ Jack
Cynic Says:
Its isnt really about what the Quran says in black and white; but rather how it is (and was) interpreted Muslims. That is whats most relevant to the discussion (if you can call it that) brought to the table by Bob. See, for a Muslim thinking within the dogmatic framework of traditional Islam, the hadith and the tafsir may be the nal word on what the Quran actually says. But for me, as a non-Muslim, neither the hadith or the tafsir hold any special authority in and out of itself. This is exactly my point Jack. Bob here is trying to interpret Islam for Muslimswhen all other interpretations point to the opposite of his own little tafsir. Islamic tradition is fairly unanimous in its interpretation on this issue, and it is absurd to point out that Muslims believe X (based on a personal interpretation of a certain passage), when Muslims actually believe the opposite. I hope you can see the point Im trying to make, and that Dawood made much more consisely before me.
186.
Anti-atheist Says:
The tafsirs help to know how the verse was interpreted/understood for 1400yrs by muslim scholarship. Now the verse could either mean his personal daughters or daughters of his nation. I dont think theres absolute proof for either opinion within the Quran itself. Islamic scholarship from Prophets(pbuh) companions onwards cite the latter opinion. Thats enough proof for muslims. But i dont see much of a case even if the other opinion is supposed. For the context shows it was about making them understand in his desperation & frustration; rather than just throwing away his daughter to a gay mob, as jihad bob unconsciously self projects himself. Quran 11: (77. And when Our messengers came to Lut, he was GRIEVED on account of them and was CONCERNED for them. He said: This is a DISTRESSFUL day.) (78. And his people came rushing towards him, and since aforetime they used to commit crimes, he said: O my people! Here are my daughters, they are purer for you. So have Taqwa of Allah and disgrace me not with regard to my guests! IS THERE NOT AMONG YOU A SINGLE RIGHT-MINDED MAN) The mob themselves are aware that Lot(as) very well knows that they dont want his daughters. (79. They said: Surely, you know that we have no need of your daughters, and indeed you know well what we want!) Why would Lot(as) offer his daughter to a people who dont want his daughter in the rst place ? If the gaymob themselves understood Lot(as), why is jihadbob concerned ?
187.
Jack Says:
So, youre saying that when a drunk enters a bar and demands a glass of beer or whiskey, and the bartender says to him: Sir, youve really had enough to drink. Can I offer you something else instead? A glass of tonic, perhaps? Fresh orange juice? And the drunk replies: Surely, you know that I have no need of your zzes and juices, and indeed you know damn well what I want!, the bartender is insincere in his offer? Iwould take You know well what we want, namely X not to be an evaluative statement of Lots state of knowledge, but a prescriptive act, as in: Dont beat around
39 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
the bush, old man. Just give us what we came for, in other words, not just a decline of the offer, but a bid to stop the bartering.
188.
Jack Says:
By the way, I really ought to commend Dawood again for his elucidating and informative comments. You certainly know your stuff. Id like to urge you to copy your responses to word les in a folder on your desktop, and format the material into a booklet on Islamic theology. In a few years from now, when coming across the same questions for the fth time, youd wished youd saved everything.
189.
Anti-atheist Says:
No. The analogy is not correct i would say. For the bartender was instead yet offering what the drunk person did NOT have. While in the case of Lot(as), the mob already had women and wives. They would least be bothered with Lot(as)s. But Lot(as) by way of mentioning his daughters is directing them to go to the women which is pure for them and to fear God( for absolute morality requires God). All of this is concerned only if there is some rational logic that a line should be favourable from every possible interpretative angle. I dont think there is. Its a purely speculative polemic. And jihadbob swimming in it is because of the disease mentioned in Quran 3:7.
190.

March 26th, 2011 at 10:22 am
I agree with Jack (minus the atheist dogma that we touched on in a previous thread, of course). I think Lot is referring to his daughters in particular and not daughters in general. I think the reason contemporary Muslims prefer the traditional interpretation is for theological, not linguistic reasons. Sunni and Shia developed a belief over time that the prophets were sinless. Even though the Quran relates the foibles of the prophets (like Moses murdering the Egyptian, for example). Muhammads foibles are also sprinkled throughout the Quran. Muhammad and the previous prophets said concerning their humanity: 41:6 Say, I am no more than a human being like you. I am inspired that your god is One god, therefore you shall be upright towards Him and seek His forgiveness. Woe to those who set up partners. 18:110 Say, I am but a human being like you, being inspired that your god is One god. So whoever looks forward to meeting his Lord, then let him do good works and not set up any partner in the service of his Lord. 14:11 Their messengers said, We are but humans like you, but God will bestow His grace upon whom He pleases from His servants. It is not up to us to bring you an authorization except by Gods leave. In God those who acknowledge should place their trust Ironically, the disbelievers tried to use their humanity and their foibles against them (by comparing the fallible prophets of history to the infallible beings of mythology like Jesus, Buddha, various secular heroes, etc): 11:27 The leaders who rejected from amongst his people said, We do not see you except as a human like us, and we see that only the lowest amongst our people with shallow opinion have followed you. We do not see anything that makes you better than us; in fact, we think you are liars. 23:24 But the leaders who rejected from among his people said, What is this but a human like you? He wants to make himself better than you! If it was indeed Gods will, He would have sent down angels. We did not hear such a thing among our fathers of old. 23:33 The leaders from amongst his people who rejected and denied the meeting of the Hereafter; and We indulged them in this worldly life; said, What is this but a human like you? He eats from what you eat and he drinks from what you drink. Needless to say, the Jesus, Buddha and secular heroes of history dont measure up to the Jesus, Buddha and secular heroes of mythology either. So, youre saying that when a drunk enters a bar and demands a glass of beer or whiskey, and the bartender says to him: Sir, youve really had enough to drink. Can I offer you something else instead? A glass of tonic, perhaps? Fresh orange juice? And the drunk replies: Surely, you know that I have no need of your zzes and juices, and indeed you know damn well what I want!, the bartender is insincere in his offer? Thats a poor analogy, Jack. Lots offer was insincere, rst, because both knew that they preferred men, second, because Lots daughters were engaged (making them off limits to them). Hence, their response: you know that we have no right to your daughters/alimta ma lana banatika min haqqin. As I pointed out to Rambo in my post yesterday (which will remain in moderation for God knows how long), the word haqqin usually means right or justication (see 3:21). Iwould take You know well what we want, namely X not to be an evaluative statement of Lots state of knowledge, but a prescriptive act, as in: Dont beat around the bush, old man. Just give us what we came for, in other words, not just a decline of the offer, but a bid to stop the bartering. I think a more apt parallel would be the comedian Henny Youngmans famous one-liner, take my wife, please! Nobody thought Henny was sincere.
191.
Ugur Mustafa Says:

March 26th, 2011 at 11:27 am
As-salamu alaykum,
40 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
Among the homosexual mob who attacked the Prophet Lot (peace be on him) there may have been unmarried young men and so Lot may have primarily meant that he will be happy to marry his several daughters to several yet unmarried men from the town. It is then inferred from this proposal that all of the homosexual townsmen must quit their wicked ways and try to satisfy themselves with women instead of men. Oh, if he offered his own daughters his offer was obviously that each of the daughters would marry one townsmen. So, as a natural consequence the other townsmen would have to follow suit and turn to women instead of men. To interpret his offer as an offer of a sexual treat, one needs either to be either a desperate, fantasizing Biblical scribe of bad morals who altered the Biblical text that he was writing or else to be an unfortunate follower of such a scribe. How sad for them.
192.
JustBob Says:
Jack, that pretty much summed my feelings of this verse up as well. Muslims must explain what they do when scholars contradict each other on certain passages. Also, Im used to debating Muslims (Ahmadi) who reject the traditionalist understanding of the Koran Dawood and Cynic rely on and actually use it against Christians and Jews (the Koran is superior because Muslims do not need theologians/priests to interpret their holy book for them the Koran is clear and complete). Strangely, I never heard anyone call the Muslim a Christianophobe for this line of argumentation, yet anyone who interprets the Koran without scholarly guidance is an Islamophobe. The mind boggles!
193.
Jack Cope Says:

*sigh* why am I doing this I suspect my lack of effort and caring will show in my response but whatever, its 5:40AM and Im not going to get to sleep so may as well. What I really should do is write a bit about interpreting the Quran etc, expect a) you wouldnt read it and b) someone already has. Thus no point. Anyway Jack, that pretty much summed my feelings of this verse up as well. If you read it carefully, its actually not a good thing, in my opinion it is saying how foolish you are. Muslims must explain what they do when scholars contradict each other on certain passages. You judge the scholar based on their credentials. E.g. bob = no credentials, thus ignored. Also, Im used to debating Muslims (Ahmadi) who reject the traditionalist understanding of the Koran Dawood and Cynic rely on and actually use it against Christians and Jews (the Koran is superior because Muslims do not need theologians/priests to interpret their holy book for them the Koran is clear and complete). I doubt you debate them but anyway one of the reasons the view held by Ahmadi are classed as rejected is precisely that, they ignore normal teachings. Strangely, I never heard anyone call the Muslim a Christianophobe for this line of argumentation, yet anyone who interprets the Koran without scholarly guidance is an Islamophobe. The phrase Islamaphobe isnt about that but you know that already. While interpreting the Quran without scholarly guidance normally doesnt lead to someone being a prat but it can, then you get Islamaphobia. Put simply, very rarely does someone read the Quran and end up with a reading like Bin Ladan. Such people that do are either doing it on purpose or somehow lacking. The mind boggles! Wonder why.
194.
JustBob Says:
Jack, disagree with you that Ahmadi views are not normal. They sounded very normal to me. How are you able to interpret the Koran if two scholars of similar credentials both disagree with each other? What if at one point there was a consensus on the meaning of a certain verse but the interpretation changed? Dont you see the problem with believing the word of man more than what Allah clearly writes in the Koran? But at least we agree that a tafsir must make sense before that interpretation should be believed. Blindly accepting what someone thinks without critically evaluating the verse for yourself seems like a dangerous road to follow.
195.
Mosizzle Says:
But at least we agree that a tafsir must make sense before that interpretation should be believed. Blindly accepting what someone thinks without critically evaluating the verse for yourself seems like a dangerous road to follow.
41 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
Thats what I did. But you mocked me. For you its easier to dismiss the word of God as a mythical tale but that to me seems less logical than actually interpreting the verse in question. Jack, disagree with you that Ahmadi views are not normal. They sounded very normal to me. No one was saying that their views are abnormal, just that they have rejected traditional/normal understanding of the Quran. And if that is where youre getting your idea that Tafsir, Hadith are irrelevant when discussing the Quran then understand that I and most others here are not Ahmadi so theres no point whining about that. As for your rant about contradictions etc, then please inform me of a Tafsir where the scholar believes that Lot handed his daughters over to be raped. There are Christian commentaries that say this though, as I mentioned above on this thread.
196.
Jack Cope Says:

Jack, disagree with you that Ahmadi views are not normal. They sounded very normal to me. Of course they did, 90% of their stuff is normal, however they go against most Muslims in that 10% in a huge way, number one being they demand that the Mehadi has already come. One of the tow Ahmadi sects also claims that Mohamed wasnt the last Prophet and that their founder was a Prophet, this again is an issue. How are you able to interpret the Koran if two scholars of similar credentials both disagree with each other? What if at one point there was a consensus on the meaning of a certain verse but the interpretation changed? It doesnt happen, all that Scholars disagree with is the way they get their ideas from, this is in effect the whole basis of the 4 Schools. As the Quran states, it is easy to understand and thats why they get to the same place with it. Dont you see the problem with believing the word of man more than what Allah clearly writes in the Koran? I dont believe what man says more becuase man simply agrees with what is written and explains it. You deliberately misunderstand the whole concept. But at least we agree that a tafsir must make sense before that interpretation should be believed. Blindly accepting what someone thinks without critically evaluating the verse for yourself seems like a dangerous road to follow. Correct, and that is what Muslims do, as I said you never take the word of a person just because they say it. None of what you state is really relevant, all you are doing is trying to make it seem as if your false view of a certain verse is correct. Clearly it is not, just accept that and we can move on.
197.

Also, Im used to debating Muslims (Ahmadi) who reject the traditionalist understanding of the Koran(that)Dawood and Cynic rely on and actually use it against Christians and Jews (the Koran is superior because Muslims do not need theologians/priests to interpret their holy book for them the Koran is clear and complete). Ya Allah!! Surprise surprise, the Jahil is now misrepresenting the Ahmadiyya. Not only that, he extends his false understanding to make it seem that the Ahmadiyya reject use of Tafsir and Hadith as a method of interpreting Quran. I have 5 physical Qurans, besides the 20 or so on my computer(i gave one away to an Atheist classmate who said he loved the Quran). 3 translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali(One in English translation only. Two with English translation, transliteration and Arabic text side by side, for recitation purposes). 1 translated by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan,an Indian Muslim, which is just English text. And lastly, my rst Quran with English translation, Arabic text, and *tafsir* as footnotes by Maulana Muhammad Ali, an Ahmadi Muslim. He makes extensive use of Hadith, other mufassir, premodern and modern, and Islamic and Arabic Dictionaries, so this idea that Ahmadiyya disregard hadith and tafsir when seeking to understand Quran is false. And Maulani Muhammad Ali is not only respected by myself, but in the Ahmadi Muslim community as well. I highly doubt that jahilBob knows any Muslims in person, so these Ahmadiyya he refers to are probalbly just trolls projecting an Ahmadi identity. Allahu Alam This sacred knowledge shall be borne by reliable authorities from each generation, who will preserve it from the distortions of extremists, the plans of the corrupt and the false explanations of the ignorant. (Narrated mursal by Al-Bayhaqi in Kitab al-Madkhal on the authority of Ibrahim bin Abd al-Rahman al-Udhri.)
198.
JustBob Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Could anyone be so kind as to tell me what the medieval commentators wrote of The Flood and Noahs Ark? I seem to have read that Tabari believed the entire world was ooded based on what is said in the Koran, but Muslims today tend to interpret the Koran that the The Flood was a regional catastrophe. Clearly, if Jack is correct, medieval commentators will agree with modern ones regarding Noah and the ood.
199.

42 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
@JustBob Could anyone be so kind as to tell me what the medieval commentators wrote of The Flood and Noahs Ark? Uh, what the hell does the ood and Noahs Ark have to do with Danios article? When you couldnt quibble with his article, you tried to change the subject to Lots daughters. When you couldnt defend your interpretation of the Quran regarding Lots daughters, you try to change the subject to the ood and Noahs Ark? I seem to have read that Tabari believed the entire world was ooded based on what is said in the Koran, but Muslims today tend to interpret the Koran that the The Flood was a regional catastrophe. Clearly, if Jack is correct, medieval commentators will agree with modern ones regarding Noah and the ood. Now I see what Muhammad was talking about. Critics of Islam seem to be following some type of script. One of them subjected me to the same Noah and the ood polemic in the past: http://www.amazon.com/tag/islam/forum/ref=cm_cd_search_res_rm?_encoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=197&cdPage=8&cdSort=oldest& cdThread=Tx1I0QYWRM7ITLV&cdMsgID=Mx53FNWTP5W84B#Mx53FNWTP5W84B
200.
Bob Smith Says:

No one (sane and intellegent) claims that the bible was written by G_d only inspired by him. You people claim your book was written by G_d. Our book was written a cultural context. If what you say is true, yours should be perfect, eternal and everlasting. There can be no comparison and it is foolish to try.
201.

JahilBob, Also, Im used to debating Muslims (Ahmadi) who reject the traditionalist understanding of the Koran Dawood and Cynic rely on and actually use it against Christians and Jews (the Koran is superior because Muslims do not need theologians/priests to interpret their holy book for them the Koran is clear and complete). You are a master of disinformation and distortion. Ahmadiyya Muslims dont rely on tafsir and hadith? rejecting traditionalist understanding of Koran(whatever you mean by that) is markedly different from the intentionally deceptive comment, the Koran is superior because Muslims do not need theologians/priests to interpret their holy book for them the Koran is clear and complete. The very rst Quran I owned in hard copy was translated by Maulana Muhammad Ali, and Ahmadi. He included in his translation, *gasp* his own tafsir. He included in his tafsir *gasp* extensive references to the Hadith and the works of other mufassir, besides referring to their tafsir. Allahu Alam This sacred knowledge shall be borne by reliable authorities from each generation, who will preserve it from the distortions of extremists, the plans of the corrupt and the false explanations of the ignorant. (Narrated mursal by Al-Bayhaqi in Kitab al-Madkhal on the authority of Ibrahim bin Abd al-Rahman al-Udhri.)
202.
Jack Cope Says:

Im sorry, but why has Noah and his Ark come up? How is it relevant to the current topic what one person said X years ago to what is said now? Is the story of Noah relevant in any real way or is it philosophy that different people take different meanings from? Its philosophy and nothing more. And its just part of the training Michael
12 Trackbacks For This Post

1. Why it is quite clear that the Bible glories genocide and the killing of civilians, whereas the Quran does not Exploring Life, The Universe and Everything Says:
[...] New from Loonwatch.com [...] 2. Jesus Loves His Enemiesand Then Kills Them All Says:
May 13th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
[...] West. When it is pointed out that the Biblical prophetsincluding Moses, Joshua, Samson, Saul, David, among many otherswere far more violent and warlike (and even engaged in [...] 3. Islam more violent than Judaism & Christianity? Beard, Book, & Bread Says:
May 16th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
[...] The Suicide Bomber Prophet [...] 4. The Bibles Prescriptive, Open-Ended, and Universal Commandments to Wage Holy War and Enslave Indels (IV) | Spencer Watch Says:
May 24th, 2011 at 10:04 am
43 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
[...] responded by producing oodles of violent Biblical passages (see parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this Series), which are in fact way more violent than the Quran. The Bible, unlike [...] 5. The But Thats Just the Old Testament! Cop-Out (II): How the Christian Right Interprets the Bible | Spencer Watch Says:
June 2nd, 2011 at 10:22 am
[...] that the Old Testament, which is clearly far more violent and warlike than the Quran (see 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6), simply doesnt count. The double-standards used to single out the [...] 6. My God is Better Than Yours (I): Christians Calling Muslims Mohammedans a Case of Pot Calling Kettle Black | Spencer Watch Says:
June 22nd, 2011 at 10:19 am
[...] claims are not well-founded, and weve thoroughly refuted them (see parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Understanding Jihad Series). Clearly, the Biblical prophets [...] 7. Pamela Geller Ready to Start Holy War Over Mistranslated Bumper Sticker | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper Says:
August 28th, 2011 at 10:03 am
[...] in which he committed acts of ethnic cleansing and even genocide, which Ive documented here. Indeed, God grants victory to David, who subsequently did not leave a man [...] 8. The Bibles Yahweh, a War-God?: Called Lord of Armies Over 280 Times in the Bible and Lord of Peace Just Once (I-II) Middle East atemporal Says:
August 30th, 2011 at 10:26 am
[...] platitudes were shattered in LoonWatchs Understanding Jihad Series, (see parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8). Clearly, the Bible is more violent than the Quran, and the Biblical [...] 9. Why Religious Zionism, Not Judaism, Is The Problem Middle East atemporal Says:
October 5th, 2011 at 12:00 am
[...] and Yahweh of the Bible to be far more violent than Allah of the Quran. (See parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6-i, 6-ii, 6-iii, 6-iv, 7, 8, 9-i, and 9-iiof LoonWatchs Understanding Jihad [...] 10. The Top Five Ways Jewish Law Justies Killing Civilians; #2: Collective Punishment is Kosher (II) | Spencer Watch Says:
October 9th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
[...] to here was the civilian population, the IDF publication likened the Palestinians to the Bibles Philistines, who were exterminated to clear the land for the [...] 11. The Top Five Ways Jewish Law Justies Killing Civilians Anti Islam: FAQ 99 Says:
October 18th, 2011 at 11:01 am
[...] and Yahweh of the Bible to be far more violent than Allah of the Quran. (See parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6-i, 6-ii, 6-iii, 6-iv, 7, 8, 9-i, and 9-iiof LoonWatchs Understanding Jihad [...] 12. Jesus Loves His Enemiesand Then Kills Them All Exploring Life, The Universe and Everything Says:
December 11th, 2011 at 7:16 am
[...] West. When it is pointed out that the Biblical prophetsincluding Moses, Joshua,Samson, Saul, David, among many otherswere far more violent and warlike (and even engaged [...]
Leave a Reply
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
Submit Comment
44 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
POPULAR COMMENTS FEATURED TAG CLOUD All Terrorists are Muslims...Except the 94% that Aren't Pamela Geller: The Looniest Blogger Ever Spencer Distorts Egyptian Society; Spreads Interfaith Bigotry Islamophobes Build Faux Memorial for Muslim Victims on Land that Muslims Cannot Own Robert Spencer of JihadWatch Becomes Desperate Against LoonWatch Jesus Loves His Enemies...and Then Kills Them All The Understanding Jihad Series: Is Islam More Likely Than Other Religions to Encourage Violence? Warrior Prophet: Moses or Muhammad? Should Canada ban Islamic face veils? Muslims and Christians Condemn Baghdad Church Massacre
CATEGORIES Recent Comments

Young & Free on In Police Training, a Dark Film on U.S. Muslims Hajj Dawud on Santorum: Equality doesnt come from Islam but from God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob khushboo on Two More Southern States Join the Anti-Shariah Craze! khushboo on On the Outlandish Claim That There is No Islamophobia Nur Alia on Santorum: Equality doesnt come from Islam but from God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob
Share LoonWatch
Bookmark on Delicious Digg this Recomend on Facebook Share on Reddit Share with Stumblers Tweet this
Tags
9/11
Amago Anti-Muslim Anti-Semitism Atlas Shrugs Barack Obama Bible Bigotry CAIR Christianity Europe FBI Florida France Geert Wilders GOP Ground Zero Mosque Hate Hate Crime
Islam Islamophobia Israel Jihad Jihad Watch JihadWatch Judaism Mosque Muslim Muslims New York Palestine Pamela Geller Pamela Geller Watch Quran racism
Right-wing
Robert Spencer Robert Spencer Watch Sharia SIOA Terrorism UK Violence What if they were Muslim Zionism
ARCHIVES Browse
About Ads Help Promote Loonwatch.com! Archive Contact Register Send Us a Tip Site Map
45 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM
Blogroll
Anti-Hate: Krapuul (Netherlands) Bartholomews Notes on Religion Chasing Evil Euroblog: Yellow Stars FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) Fake Ex-Muslims Gates of Vienna Vs. The World Vs. LGF Glenn Greenwald Hate Hurts America Islamophobia Today: e-News Magazine Max Blumenthal Media Matters Muslims Wearing Things My Best Friend is Muslim ObsessionForHate.com Plunderbund Richard Silverstein: Tikun Olam Sadly, No! Smearcasters SpencerWatch SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) WhatIfTheyWereMuslim? Copyright loonwatch.com. follow: Become Our Facebook friend RSS Tweet with Us Visit SpencerWatch.com Subscribe to our YouTube Channel
46 of 46
1/25/12 12:39 AM

The Suicide Bomber Prophet: Samson

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

The Suicide Bomber Prophet: Samson

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.

Home About Archive Contact Send Us a Tip Site Map Register

Categorized | Feature, Loon Politics

The Suicide Bomber Prophet

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

202 Comments For This Post

Note: I just added some stuff under the section on David.

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

Sam Seed Says:

Harry Guggen Says:

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

Harry Guggen is doing taqiyya.

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

JB is gettin a bit defensive. Let this be a lesson! or will he ever learn??

Yes,indeed,Khushboo. I have lived in it all my life. Cheers.

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

*The link doesnt seem to be working. Here it is.

Its a Bot, regurgitating the same tired old stuff.

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

Thanks for that Jack Peace be with you

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

muhammad 'abd-al haqq Says:

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

muhammad 'abd-al haqq Says:

Dawood has already thoroughly refuted Bob regarding Al-Khidr. http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/09/islam-and-the-media-in-the-age-of-islamophobiapalooza/#comment-44750

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

Whoosh! Thats the sound of my comment ying over your head.

^LOL Give it up JB!

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

March 21st, 2011 at 3:59 pm

muhammad 'abd-al haqq Says:

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

ACTIONS are what matters not WORDS

muhammad 'abd-al haqq Says:

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

Sam Seed Says:

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

muhammad 'abd-al haqq Says:

muhammad 'abd-al haqq Says:

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

muhammad 'abd-al haqq Says:

Haha i love reading comments of Christian apologists!

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

March 22nd, 2011 at 4:59 pm

muhammad 'abd-al haqq Says:

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com

Solid Snake Says:

muhammad 'abd-al haqq Says:

muhammad 'abd-al haqq Says:

muhammad 'abd-al haqq Says:

The Suicide Bomber Prophet | loonwatch.com