107 replies

  1. Excellent statement. And we Muslims can relate to it (we were also part of it). It is always worth reminding one and other of why it is also important to us within the faith. I will try to make the obvious more obvious here and I believe I speak for majority British Muslims.
    Most with common sense can identify WW1 like many other wars as a brutal mass murder of innocent young men from all sides who were killed unnecessarily just for a few greedy ruling elitist.
    A waste of valuable lives on a mass scale, to say the least.
    In contrast, although WW2 was also a brutal war caused by the first war along with being caused by the Treaty of Versaille and Great Depression and many other major factors, it was the most necessary war of the last century that had to be fought against the axis of evil.
    Britain and Churchill, despite being a nation and a figure (respectively) deserving of every condemnation for many of its crimes it had committed globally had this exceptional finest hour in the history of our country.
    We don’t glorify wars but we salute the defence of fighting back when necessary despite the odds.
    Islam is a peaceful religion during peace time though it is not and shall not be a pacifist religion during the times of necessary wartime defence and whatever critics may say to us in regards to this we have every right to hold these values. Todays certain types of so-called Christians and other so-called pacifist would’ve taken the appeasement approach during 1939 whilst Muslims with common sense through the guidance of Quran and Sunnah would’ve understood that for the sake of survival and in the face of evil, one will have to fight back.
    That is why I also say (with all due respect to the Gospels in some aspects) Britain chose the Seerah and not the Gospel to confront Hitler.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. England (and the other Allied Powers) chose the western tradition (which existed long before Islam) of just war theory, which was developed by Augustine (400 AD), who based the argument on Romans 13:1-8, that the government has authority to punish evil doers by police force and by military force in self defense.

    Fighting against Hitler and Japan was seen as a just war, built on many centuries of western-Christian tradition, without the Sira (or Sunna or Qur’an).

    It is interesting that Hitler admired Islam.
    See below:
    Adolf Hitler said basically, as he rejected the Christian religion of the history of Germany:
    “Why couldn’t we Germans have a manly and warlike religion like Islam (he called it “Mohammadan”) or the Japanese religion – one that fights; not the wimpy and weak and meek Christianity.” (my paraphrase)

    Here is his actual quote:

    “It’s been our misfortune of have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammadan religion too would have been much more acceptable to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” Adolf Hitler

    page 165, “Bonhoeffer, Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy”, by Eric Metaxas

    See more interesting facts about Himmler and other Nazi nuts:
    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/hitler-admired-islam/

    Like

    • Something is just if it is on par with morality. According to what xtians teach (turning the other cheek) this implies that the government was wrong in waging war against Hitler. Now you quote Romans 18 to justify its action. One contradiction after another.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Ken, firstly, I should’ve underlined an important point that when certain western critics portray and attempt to undermine Muslims and their faith as war-like jihadist and attack Islam on the basis of being a “religion spread by the sword” but similtaneously glorify Western military actions as “patriotic” and its western soldiers as “martyrs” and “heroes” reveals true western double standards whether it be portrayed on our education system, news bulletins, tabloid headlines or even hollywood movies to name but a few examples.
      Secondly, it is the concept of defending and fighting evil when necessary that is more found in the Islamic concept and most of its campaigns throughout Islamic history and we can even go beyond that even with moral conduct during warfare which is much more favourable since the start of Islamic military (rather than prior to that) such as the trend to have mercy and not harm vulnerable prisoners of the enemy combatants as ordered by the final Prophet (pbuh) which many rightfully guided Islamic leaders in the following centuries had been hugely influenced by and feared disobeying this particular sunnah. Such a great thing actually came into practice regularly for the first time in recorded human history and such concepts were unheard of prior to that, least of all practiced amongst the grand Roman armies and even as late as other western medieval armies and beyond. Non-Muslim scholars have even acknowledged that as part of human history and if you (along with both many other non-Muslims and certain misguided Muslims alike) read and understoood the rules of warfare in true Islamic tradition from 7th and 8th century onwards you would surprisingly see elements of it found in much recent rules within 20th century UN military peace-keeping forces conduct and regulations. So much for anyone thinking Islamic traditions were backwards and not ahead of its time.
      Thirdly, now this is a point that you would better hear from a public figure like Akala and in one of his books. Whether you deny the truth of this matter or not I don’t know, but in summary he made an important point (paraphrasing him) that whilst the enemy forces that Britain had fought during ww1 and ww2 were related to many a British natives by shared genetics and history and were fellow white Europeans it was Commonwealth non-white citizens among the million plus commonwealth soldiers for Britain including Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs and black soldiers who played a major role not just for the British army but for the whole infrastructure of Britain long before and after the second world war, that concept and reality Akala argued through research had many westerners to this day find very hard to swallow and accept especially amongst white and European supremacists, they even suppressed many info to prevent black and ethnic minorities in Britain to gain the rights they deserve. I hope you are not of that mindset but when you write of other allied forces and western traditions you give a picture of a western superiority narrative that has become too commonplace and needs to be finally corrected. Majority of the British force in both wars were not even “western” and we have yet to have major memorial for commonwealth soldiers (a huge portion of which were British-Indian Muslim soldiers) to commemorate. Our British establishment is still digustingly racist on this matter and in many other areas of tribute to the commonwealth, period. If someone like you denies that then I’d have every right to be seriously suspicious about you (and I hope not).
      Fourthly, you try to undermine Islam by attempting to indicated it attracted and was admired by the evil dictator Hitler (there are many things I can say factually speaking of what he forcefully did against the Muslim communities in Germany that goes against the major teachings of Islam). But with that statement of yours you also forgot Churchill despite his criticism of Islam also had admiration for Islam. Nevertheless Churchill was no choirboy in regards to his actions on fellow humans but that is a conversation for another day. But why did you not acknowledge the opponent of Hitler also having an admiration of Islam? There were even words going round that Winstons family had prevented him from converting to Islam. Who knows? But Ww2 was arguably not just Britains finest hour but also Churchills, if there was a time he would be looked upon for his greatness it would be for his role in the fight against Nazi Germany.
      Adolf Hitler on the other hand felt he was a complete Christian, say what you want about who or what else Hitler admired, he openly addressed the name of Christ in the Reichstag and to his generals and in so many areas to the extend to call this extremist Christian Hitler anything else (other than a fascist dictator) would be ridiculous. Here is just one of the quotes from the Führer himself-

      “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.”

      Hope you’re still reading Ken. That is one among many of his Christian views. So if a murdering devout extremist Chiristian was to compliment others like Muslims or Japanese etc here and there, but overall held firmly to his Christian beliefs. He is still one who claims to follow Christianity more than anything else. But I’m not going to go down your level of indicating he represented Christianity, let alone any other faith for that matter. Yet you were so quick to smear Islam by associating it to a mass murderer who had nothing to do with that faith?

      Thanks for reading, I really do not want conflict but for us all to have a good understanding.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Amanotholi A
        Both you and Abdullah1234 below mix up three different issues:
        1. Personal one on one relationships.
        2. Government responsibility for police and military for self-defense and justice war situations.
        3. The video of comedian Bill Maher calling Evangelical Christians in USA hypocrites – he is doing the same thing, mixing commands about personal relationships one on one (love your enemy, don’t take revenge, turn the other cheek, etc. – these are about how to act in personal relationships and they don’t preclude self-defense, defending women and children, etc. and they don’t preclude government’s responsibility to have police and military defense.)

        Hitler was not a Christian. As Bill Maher even said in the video that Abdullah1234 put up – you cannot just claim you are a Christian and do things that are deliberately violating His commands (like Hitler did).

        The speech you quoted from Hitler is a famous quote from 1922, before he even came to power in 1933. He made reference to Christianity a lot, but he was deceiving the people of Germany. If you read the chapter on Bonhoffer by Eric Metaxas you would understand.

        He told Himmler, Martin Bormann, Rosenberg, and Heydrich (all 4 were even more Anti-semitic and Anti-Christian that Hitler was, and they wanted to get rid of the churches and Christianity and replace the religion with some kind of pagan war-like religion modeled after the old paganisms of old Gothic and Nordic ancient cultures.

        Besides Hitler admiring Islam (on it’s war-like qualities), the chapter in Eric Metaxas’ book on “Nazi Theology” is very interesting and informative, because he tells of some of Hitler’s inner circle and Nazi leaders, such as Martin Bormann, Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and Alfred Rosenberg were even more anti-Christian than Hitler was, and wanting to go all out against the church in Germany and create a new German religion based on war and the ancient pagan German gods. But, Adolf Hitler was more pragmatic; and sneaky, he used the church and used deception and told Himmler and Bormann and those guys that they had to wait until they won the war because they needed the people to think they were Christians, but they were not. Chapter 11 is very interesting. (pages 165-175)

        As Paul Williams and I discussed on Twitter, getting wet as a baby in a church and a priest saying words over you, does not make one a Christian. (Hitler was baptized a Roman Catholic, but later he became “lapsed” = apostate = lost his salvation.)
        Paul even agreed with me that according to RC theology, Hitler became an apostate (a lapsed Catholic) because of his mortal sins. RC theology believes infant baptism gives regeneration and justification, but they always loose that a few years later after their first mortal sin. Hitler continued in developing his own interpretation of Christianity, mixed with deception in order to keep the people of Germany on is side, and Hitler denied the virgin birth, resurrection, atonement, Deity of Christ, etc. which was a total denial of real Christianity.

        This article is a good summary of that:
        https://www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/Sorry-Whoopi-Hitler-was-no-Christian

        Like

    • “chose the western tradition”
      European people such as French people should have applied Romans 13:1-8 for Adoltf Hitler. Romans were occupiers loaded with dictatorship, yet they are the “servant of God” for you, and that’s why the western christians choose to be hypocrite once they realize that the teachings of their prophet Paul are not satisfying, especially with this tendency/attitude of the western supremacy evangelists have. It’s really not our problem that you’re hypocrites, Ken.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Ken, who cares if fools like Bill Maher and others say Hitler was not Chriistian, we all know such actions went against any religious values. I hope you apply the same with KKK, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Westboro Baptist etc and I have clearly stated the opposite that Hitler doesn’t represent real teachings of Christ (maybe you forgot we Muslims also believe in Christ) and I objected to you associating Hitler with Islam. I was simply pointing out the tactics in you to smear Islam by associating it with an evil dictator who had nothing ro do with the faith. Why am I against you on this issue Ken? On the basis that Hitler made probably one or two statements on Musulmans (much less than Churchills statements on Musulmans) but in contrast Hitler made hundreds of statement for support of Christianity yet you say he was against Christians and had nothing to do with Christianity? But you said he admired Islams war-like message rather than Christianity? Hence claiming Islam did more to this evil man than Christianity. You could have at the least said this evil dictator was a Christian extremists (not a real rep of Christianity or he was rather like the Christian equivalent of Daesh) who was misguided and was a nutter but you jumped at saying he admired Islam and wanted to destroy the church? Really Ken? You say he wanted to start a pagan-like nordic nonsense when he categorically on ratio of thousand to one (to that nordic argument) publically and privately felt he was acting on behalf of Christian values and you say I only quoted something from 1922 long before he became Führer?
      This is Hitlers statement from 1933 with the negotiations between Nazi party and the Vatican church

      “Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith”

      Even I personally feel that’s a good statement in itself as will any good Muslim or good Christian but we know an evil man like Hitler stating this would be more deceiving. There is no denying that this psychopath was not truly religious but nevertheless believed in his religious conviction like many other extremists to this day.
      Then you might say along the lines “give me a statement he made in support for Christianity since he became the Führer?
      There are many and this is one of them delivered at Koblenz after his full control of Reichstag as the Führer himself,

      “I know that here and there the objection has been raised: Yes, but you have deserted Christianity. No, it is not that we have deserted Christianity; it is those who came before us who deserted Christianity. We have only carried through a clear division between politics, which have to do with terrestrial things, and religion, which must concern itself with the celestial sphere. There has been no interference with the doctrine of the Confessions or with their religious freedom, nor will there be any such interference. On the contrary the State protects religion, though always on the one condition that religion will not be used as a cover for political ends.
      There may have been a time when even parties founded on the ecclesiastical basis were a necessity. At that time Liberalism was opposed to the Church, while Marxism was anti-religious. But that time is past. National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a REAL CHRISTIANITY.
      The Church’s interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. THESE ARE NOT ANTI-CHRISTIAN, THESE ARE CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES”.

      There are so many other statements from this madman that claims real Christianity. It is always typical of evil extremists (and most politicians alike) to say valid points like this at times but to have their own hidden evil agenda tied to it. In principle it is the same with those like Bush Jnr, Bin Laden, Anjum Chowdury, other political Islamists or Enoch Powell, Nick Griffin, Tommy Robinson, Geert Wilders etc.

      My aim here with you Ken is to defend both Christianity and Islam against Adolf Hitler. And to make clear he was a hijacker of Christianity and a Christian extremist who mixed his personal faith with a modern fascist agenda. Your aim here so far has been to defend Christianity against Hitler but to attack Islam associating it with Hitler. Can you not see Ken the double standard and truly disengenuious and nasty approach you are taking in comparison to my defensive approach? Refrain from it brother. For the sake of peace Ken, what would Christ do? I’m afraid I’m going to now see if you are a decent Christian.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I guess, because what Islam did against Byzantine Empire and Persian Empire and the rest of it’s Jihad’s until it was stopped, demonstrates that it was trying to conquer the world until stopped. That is all historical.

        Like

      • It was a wonderful thing, bringing God’s justice to the world.It resulted in a Golden Age for Christians and Jews. A superior civilisation.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You just confessed that I am right and Islam has the right to conquer in aggressive warfare. (not just self-defense)

        Like

      • Confessed? Like a sin? Lol
        It brought liberation. To the Jews for example. From Christian persecution.

        Of course you will also condemn the armies that committed genocide on God’s orders in the OT.

        Liked by 1 person

      • This proves that if Islam gets the power, might = right; and my point has been proven correct.

        Like

      • It is to liberate the people and bring God’s justice to the earth. Because you are an enemy of God you oppose His will Ken.

        Liked by 1 person

      • see, you just confessed that Islam’s goal is to apply that Hadith to the whole earth and “liberate” people, set up Sharia law, etc. I was right.

        Like

      • No you are wrong. Watch the video by someone who has actual knowledge of the subject. A fellow American no less.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ken, stick to your own misconceptions and try to fix it. Why try to divert? Anyway what would you know about aggressive and defensive?
        You talk about the events against the Persian and Byzantine empire like it was a bad thing.
        I hope you don’t also say it like it was a bad thing that from Operation Barbarossa the Soviets fought back and then conquered the eastern blocs right upto Berlin. I take it you may have a narrow-minded narrative as the Soviets being all conquering and not defending. According to your history Ken, that was probably the worst outcome in the Second World War.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ‘the events against the Persian and Byzantine empire like it was a bad thing.’ – It was a great thing as history proved.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. “Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” Adolf Hitler

    He had a point!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Indeed. And it’s amazing how xtians have the audacity to even dare point a finger at Islam seeing how Hitler was a xtian and called himself a xtian numerous times! Here are just 2 quotes:
      “My feelings as a CHRISTIAN points me to my Lord and Savior as a FIGTHER. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a CHRISTIAN and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. …Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.”
      “I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit”

      Liked by 2 people

    • Meek and flabby Ferdinand and Isabella saw you guys off in “Al Andalusa”, lol.

      The meek and flabby Charles, the hammer, Martell delivered a few timely blows also in his time.

      Hitler was an ignoramus as well as a mass murderer.

      I recommend Spencer’s new book, the history of Jihad.

      Peace and happy Christmas. No insult intended.

      Like

      • Madman, still a moron huh?

        You just proved brother Paul’s point! You Christians pretend to “turn the other cheek” but know that it does not work in the real world. So all that nonsense about your god teaching everyone to “love your neighbor” and “turn the other cheek” is just a smoke screen to deceive people. Fortunately, not many people are falling for than anymore.

        Yeah, Ferdinand and Isabella recaptured Spain after 800 YEARS of glorious Islamic rule…and then they proceeded murdered thousands of Jews and Muslims.

        Martel stopped the Muslims after Spain had already fallen. Guess the “Hammer” didn’t have enough power to reverse the Christian losses there!

        Liked by 3 people

  4. You guys are mixed up as usual. The NT doesn’t contain any rules for rulers as to how they should behave towards other nations. The gospel is a covenant that God makes with individuals not nations.

    You would have to go to the OT for a biblical doctrine of the state.

    Actually Ferdinand and Isabella were just following the koran, supposedly revealed to a certain Mohammed, which says drive them out from where they drove you out.

    Like

    • Lol, so walking back your idiotic comment now, huh? Did you realize that you are a moron? Finally!

      ““You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven.”

      Oops, so what was that now about fighting your enemies based on the OT? Still having trouble with the law of Moses, eh madman? 🤣🤣🤣

      This has become a pattern with you:

      https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/30/christian-fanatic-madman-has-some-trouble-with-the-law-of-moses/

      https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/02/03/madman-has-more-trouble-with-the-law-of-moses/

      https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/02/09/madman-still-has-trouble-with-the-law-of-moses-this-is-getting-sad-now/

      https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/02/18/madmans-troubles-continue/

      Like

      • @ Faiz

        “““You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven.”

        In the context of the sermon on the mount the enemies of the Father’s children are their personal enemies. Turning the other cheek, in the context of a minor physical assault, is also in a personal context.

        According to Paul the only function of the state is to punish ethical evil. It has no business to interfere in religion like the islamic Ummah does. The forming of faith in the human heart is the work of God, not the purpose of the state. The parables of the kingdom in Matthew 13 show that faith grows like a seed in to a plant. This is a natural organic process which should not be forced or influenced by political power in one direction or the other.

        So one purpose of the state would be to preserve the freedom to form worldviews and propagate them, as long as they are non-violent. Many so-called pagan empires have done this. It is interesting to note that the plagues of Egypt were not used by God to shut down the pagan worship of Egypt.

        Don’t you think it is also interesting to note that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were never ceremonially unclean because of their seminal discharges? Neither were Sarah, Rebekah or the wives of Jacob ever ceremonially unclean because of their menstrual discharges.

        So Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not required by any law to perform ablution to cleanse themselves in order to pray to God. This is one proof that Islam is a false religion because its followers are still behaving as if they were under the Mosaic Covenant. Perhaps for political reasons, who knows.

        Does a population have a right to resist sharia oppression, as did the spanish under Ferdinand and Isabella? I would say yes it does.

        Why doesn’t the UN call for sanctions against countries like Pakistan with its blasphemy and apostasy laws oppressing non-Muslims or those who would like to become the same?

        Like

      • “In the context of the sermon on the mount the enemies of the Father’s children are their personal enemies. Turning the other cheek, in the context of a minor physical assault, is also in a personal context.”

        Yes, quite convenient. So when later on, Christians were (allegedly) being persecuted by the Romans, why didn’t they fighting back? After all, this wasn’t just “personal” problems that individuals Christians were facing. It was, as your lying church claims, a brutal state-sponsored campaign of violence against Christians as a whole. So why didn’t they fight back?

        “According to Paul the only function of the state is to punish ethical evil. It has no business to interfere in religion like the islamic Ummah does. The forming of faith in the human heart is the work of God, not the purpose of the state. The parables of the kingdom in Matthew 13 show that faith grows like a seed in to a plant. This is a natural organic process which should not be forced or influenced by political power in one direction or the other.”

        LOL!! Such a nice little secular suck-up you are! Not to mention a brainless idiot who doesn’t even realize the contradiction in his rant.

        If punishing “ethical evils” is the function of the state, who decides what is “ethical evil”? Hmm, let me see. Oh yeah, isn’t it your Bible that decides? So despite your lies for Jesus, you tacitly admit that the state does indeed have to interfere in matters of religion, because it is religion that determines what is “ethical evil”, at least for Christians, isn’t it? So save your lying BS, please. No one is falling for that here. Save it for your church, where other brainless idiots might believe this garbage.

        “So one purpose of the state would be to preserve the freedom to form worldviews and propagate them, as long as they are non-violent. Many so-called pagan empires have done this. It is interesting to note that the plagues of Egypt were not used by God to shut down the pagan worship of Egypt.”

        WOW! So your god didn’t care if the pagans were worshiping idols? So then what was his plan of salvation for them, if any? What would happen to them in the afterlife?

        Of course, you are just exposing your ignorance once again, but I just wanted to humor you. You see, your Bible says this, which exposes your rubbish:

        “And the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out of it.” (Exodus 7:5)

        “On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the Lord.’ (12:12)

        Why do you lie so much madman? Are you the seed of the devil? He is the father of all lies after all!

        “Don’t you think it is also interesting to note that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were never ceremonially unclean because of their seminal discharges? Neither were Sarah, Rebekah or the wives of Jacob ever ceremonially unclean because of their menstrual discharges.”

        What on earth are you talking about? According to your Bible, Noah (pbuh) was told to bring “clean” and “unclean” animals on the ark, so purification laws of some sort were clearly already in place long before Moses (pbuh)

        Oh and we have also this little tidbit:

        “Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments…” (Gen. 35:2)

        Here, Jacob tells his family to cleanse themselves before heading to Bethel to make an altar to God. You’re lying through your teeth again. You really must be the see of the devil!

        “So Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not required by any law to perform ablution to cleanse themselves in order to pray to God. This is one proof that Islam is a false religion because its followers are still behaving as if they were under the Mosaic Covenant. Perhaps for political reasons, who knows.”

        LOL, I have already embarrassed you on this matter in the past. The book of Ezekiel proves that Christianity is a false religion concocted by the heretic and false prophet Paul. The laws were to apply for all times. Even the law banning Gentiles from the temple will supposedly be restored!

        “Does a population have a right to resist sharia oppression, as did the spanish under Ferdinand and Isabella? I would say yes it does.”

        ROFTL, the level of ignorance is strong with madman! Only a Christian zombie would associate the tyrants Ferdinand and Isabella with sort sort of freedom fighters. They wanted puritanical Christian laws in Spain, which is why they killed thousands of Jews and Muslims. Only a demonic hypocrite pagan like you would make excuses for the crimes of your fellow pagans.

        You truly are a madman, and your hypocritical attempts at appearing pious and God-fearing will only increase your anguish on the Day of Judgement. Muslims will not fall for such false piety.

        “Why doesn’t the UN call for sanctions against countries like Pakistan with its blasphemy and apostasy laws oppressing non-Muslims or those who would like to become the same?”

        Probably for the same reason why the UN doesn’t sanction Germany and other European countries for slowly re-embracing fascist and Nazi principles.

        Liked by 1 person

    • madmanna, you’re being a troll.
      This is a blogging theology site where we have agreements and disagreements and ideas and discussions. This is not a youtube comments section where countless far-right trolls spout their vile conduct and disrespect for fellow humans. I hope you can understand.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. These are not rational responses to my comment.

    Like

  6. So hey madman, since you said that we have to go to the OT “for a biblical doctrine of the state”, is this what you had in mind:

    “They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man.”

    “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

    “When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the wilderness where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it.”

    Liked by 2 people

  7. This article proves Hitler was NOT a Christian. (along with the other article to Whoopi Goldberg)

    Getting wet as a baby in a Roman Catholic Church by a RC priest who says words over you does not make a person a Christian.

    Even Roman Catholics believe baptized babies who later commit mortal sins and never repent of them are not true Christians – they go to hell because of mortal sin. So, Hitler was not a Christian.

    https://www.equip.org/article/was-hitler-a-christian/

    Like

  8. While the Qur’an and Hadith and Sira have verses that promote self-defense, they also have a lot of material that shows that Islam teaches conquering areas by aggressive war in order to establish Sharia law – eventually over the whole earth. Also the history of Jihad / Qatal قتل (fighting to the death, slaying) / Harb حرب (war), etc. in the way Islam attacked the Byzantine Empire and conquered the Persian Empire and did their Jihads against the Zoroastrians, the Hindus and the Buddhists into India and other lands, demonstrate that Islam teaches aggressive expansionist warfare – if commanded by a legitimate Caliph. (for Sunnis) – for Shia – if the Vilayate Faqih (Ayatollah representative of Allah’s program on earth) declares a Jihad – these are standard Islamic views; along with defense.

    This Hadith, along with Surah 9:29-30 and many other Hadith passages, etc. demonstrates the principle.

    Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:

    Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ), and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah.”

    Sahih al-Bukhari 25
    Book 2, Hadith 18
    Vol. 1, Book 2, Hadith 25

    bolding my emphasis

    https://sunnah.com/bukhari/2/18

    It was the war-like qualities of Islam that Hitler admired – conquering other areas that neither one of them had the legitimate right to do that.

    Like

    • You have been exposed for this nonsense before, yet like a programmed robot, you repeat it over and over again. The Hadith you referred to has been interpreted as referring specifically to the Arab pagans, not the entire world.

      Now despite the call to jihad and self defense, Islam categorically prohibits killing civilians, and especially women and children. I wonder where Hitler got that idea from then? Hmm, which book talks about genocide as being divinely ordained? Damn, I know this! Can anyone think of that book? 🤔

      Liked by 3 people

      • Why would Ken cry for the Roman pagan dictatorship? Is he eager to be a slave for them? You are not even a Catholic christian! Isn’t Roman Empire the fourth kingdom in Dan 2 for most Christians? It had to be crushed by the kingdom of God. Do you want it back so that you can fulfill what you failed to fulfill or what?

        Liked by 3 people

      • Historically, the Muslims applied the same principle of that Hadith against Hindus, Buddhists, and even Zoroastrians and other pagans also; not just the Arab pagans in the Arabian peninsula. (principle of Dar Al Isalm vs. Dar Al Harb)
        limiting that Hadith (and many others like it) to only the Arabs in the Hijaz or Arabian peninsula, does not pass smell test.

        Like

      • But you are wrong Ken. Your right wing American fundamentalist nose is all blocked up.

        Liked by 2 people

      • You cannot demonstrate that I am wrong; all you can do is throw out insults when your argument is defeated.

        Like

      • Actually, it is an accurate description of your views.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Historically, the Muslims applied the same principle of that Hadith against Hindus, Buddhists, and even Zoroastrians and other pagans also; not just the Arab pagans in the Arabian peninsula. (principle of Dar Al Isalm vs. Dar Al Harb)”

        LOL, there goes the BS meter again!

        The hadith you referred to talked about waging war until everyone accepted Islam! Since when did all the Hindus, Buddhists and Zoroastrians accept Islam?! You just shot yourself in the foot and exposed your shoddy argument!

        So the history actually proves that Muslims did NOT apply that hadith to people outside of the Arabian peninsula. There you have it, folks! Kenny is ignorant of history!

        Liked by 2 people

    • Kenny is also ignorant of what Islam teaches. Big shock, I know…

      Liked by 1 person

      • He is arrogant because he thinks he knows it all. His hubris makes him unteachable. Very sad.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Indeed. Ozymandias needs to lay off the hubris.

        Like

      • I watched all of Jonathan Brown’s explanation. It still does not pass the smell test, given the rest of the history of Islam and the way they conquered. In Islam, “might = right” and even Paul W. has admitted this by claiming it deserved to conquer Byzantine and Persian. No, it was unjust conquering. The Muslims only stopped when they were stopped at certain points. (Europeans, Charles Martel in 732 AD, etc. Battle of Vienna in the 1600s, etc. )

        Almost all Zoroastrians were killed or they fled to India. Largest population is in Mumbai, the descendants of the Persian Zoroastrians who fled the Persian Empire. The Muslims killed most of the men and took the woman as their wives and sex. slaves. Even Yasir Qadhi admitted that the Abassids (Abbasid Dynasty of Iraq & Iran (Persian Empire at that time) and Uthmaniye (Ottomans) were descendants of the taking captive of the women of the conquered areas. (see video below)

        The Buddhists of what is today Afghanistan were wiped out by your religions injustice, wars, Jihads, and unjust principles.

        The Hindus survive in India only because they fought back.

        Like

      • That BS meter has gone off the charts! Kenny the ignorant historian and Hadith specialist makes idiotic generalizations like any good liar does.

        The smell coming off of this loser doesn’t pass the smell test. As we have already seen, the Hadith says to fight until everyone believes. In general, the conquered populations outside of Arabia were given the choice of converting to Islam or paying the jizya. Therefore, the Hadith was clearly not applied to these populations.

        Once again, we see that Kenny’s idiocy knows no bounds.

        Liked by 2 people

      • ‘It still does not pass the smell test’ – such an unscholarly criterion! Your nose is dysfunctional Ken. So tell us what Brown was wrong about in his talk. Specifics.

        Like

      • Brown is wrong: The Hadith quoted goes with Surahs 8-9. Some Hadith say Surah 9 is the last revealed; others say parts of Surah 5 is.
        Surahs 8-9 (8:39 – “And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah .” “fitnah” means “turmoil”, “confusion”, “rebellion”, “crisis”, “chaos”, “mutiny”, etc. not persecution. When Islamic authorities are in power, anything can be interpreted as “chaos” and “rebellion” and they justify their unjust warfare and putting down of rebellions.

        “And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing” (Surah 2:191) “chaos”, “confusion in society”, “mutiny”, “rebellion” is worse than slaughtering them” also, Surah 9:5; 9:28-29, etc. ) along with those many Hadiths passages similar to the one quoted, along with how Abu Bakr, Umar, Khalid, Uthman, the Ummayids, the Abbasids, the Ottomans, etc. actually carried out Jihad and Qatal and Harb throughout history is clear that Brown is wrong. Even the title “Islamlophobes” is a non-intellectual way to argue -throwing that word out is a word and tactic Muslims used from the homosexuals.

        Like

      • “tactic Muslims used from the homosexuals.” LOLOLOL

        Like

  9. Answering Islamophobes – “I have been commanded to fight the people” hadith explained by Professor Jonathan Brown

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Abdullah1234 wrote:

    Why would Ken cry for the Roman pagan dictatorship?

    Where did you ever get that idea?
    A dumb rhetorical question.

    Is he eager to be a slave for them?

    Another Dumb rhetorical question.

    You are not even a Catholic christian!

    There is a great difference between ‘catholic” (universal, early church) vs. Roman Catholic Christianity (600s, (emphasis on Purgatory and combining it with indulgences, penance, treasury of merit, time / centuries spent in purgatory, mortal vs. venial sins, etc.), 1054 Split with EO; 1215 (Transubstantiation); Papal power and development to infallibility dogma of 1870; Mary dogmas of 553, 1854, 1950, etc.

    Isn’t Roman Empire the fourth kingdom in Dan 2 for most Christians? It had to be crushed by the kingdom of God.
    Yes, but it was “crushed” by the superior morality and theology with no violence or warfare, unlike Islam, which used aggressive warfare to conquer. (NOT Roman Catholicism)

    Do you want it back so that you can fulfill what you failed to fulfill or what?

    Another dumb rhetorical question.

    Like

    • Did you watch the video Ken. Do you dare educate yourself?

      Liked by 1 person

    • I got that from your obvious crying! Are you so sad because Islam destroyed those pagan occupiers?
      Also, why would you lose your nerve over us? It’s your prophet Paul who told you to be submissive for those pagans and their dictatorship because they are the”servants of God.” Yes, we know that you became hypocrites later about these teachings and that’s why you live in America after killing its people, but don’t blame us for exposing this hypocrisy. It’s really your own problem. Don’t blame us because your religion is telling you to be an ass for anyone to kick it till the messiah comes.

      “Yes, but it was “crushed” by the superior morality and theology with no violence or warfare, unlike Islam”
      How was that exactly?! 🙂
      By saying that the law of God is defect, and the law by pagan Romans is perfect, and you should be submissive to their authority? 🙂
      How pathetic and desperate try to avoid the facts and history. You have to say that although you know it’s rather than absurd because the only rational option is that the fifth kingdom is Islam which had to destroy and “..break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end.” It seems that’s why you cry because you are belong to the 4th kingdom which was a normal continuation for the pagan legacy your Paul praised.

      Moreover, “violence and warfare”≠ injustice necessarily. Neither do the “western traditions”, nor do many teachings in your bible teach that. You imply that because you’re just a hypocrite as most christians are.
      I warn you for any try to give yourself the right to give us lessons about peace or justice wars. You are the last people whom we should consider, if we assume that we would consider you to begin with, about these subjects. You have no right to do that by any mean!

      Liked by 2 people

      • I got that from your obvious crying!
        I don’t know what you are talking about.

        Are you so sad because Islam destroyed those pagan occupiers?
        Some were pagans (Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians), but pagans should be won by Christian evangelism, not your Islam force of Sharia law / top down conquer first and force through the Islamic pattern of “convert or war or Jiziye or die”. An ugly and unjust system that has been a massive evil perpetrated upon the world.

        Also, why would you lose your nerve over us?
        I have not lost my nerve. I don’t know what you are talking about.

        It’s your prophet Paul who told you to be submissive for those pagans and their dictatorship because they are the”servants of God.”

        Problem is that you are ignoring the historical context of how Christianity started within the pagan Roman Empire, and won over the Romans for over 4 centuries by persuasion and good moral examples. The apostle Paul was teaching that Christians do not do violent mob rule or violent unjust revolutions or aggressive warfare, etc. (like Islam did) “servants of God” in that context (Romans 13:1-8) does not mean they are totally servants of God, but only in the police and military authority that is just – punishing evil doers and rewarding good. (punishing thieves, murderers, rapists, criminals, etc.)

        Yes, we know that you became hypocrites later about these teachings and that’s why you live in America after killing its people, but don’t blame us for exposing this hypocrisy. It’s really your own problem. Don’t blame us because your religion is telling you to be an ass for anyone to kick it till the messiah comes.

        total mixing of categories and logic errors, just like other leftists do by mixing cries of “bigotry”, “racism”, and cry “homo-phobia” into the mix just to shut down conversation. You guys are the crybabies with “Islamophobia” – something you learned from the homosexual political activists and leftist journalists. The injustices of the past were not done by real Christians; western history has lots of unconverted people who got baptized as a baby or went to church, but those external things do not make a person a regenerated Christian. You must be born again by the Spirit of God doing a miracle in giving you a new heart. (John 3:1-21; Ezekiel 36:26-27; Romans chapters, 6, 7, 8)

        “Yes, but it was “crushed” by the superior morality and theology with no violence or warfare, unlike Islam”
How was that exactly?! 

        The Romans were converted to Christianity by evangelism, love, persuasion, superior morality and theology (Trinitarian Monotheism, the Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection), without injustice, wars or violence. (Unlike Islam) It was only later that the Byzantine Empire united church and state together and began to make mistakes of being too harsh. (LATER, especially under Justinian in the 500s AD, they were too harsh against the Copts in Egypt, other Monophysites, Jews, and Assyrian Nestorians, etc.)

        By saying that the law of God is defect, and the law by pagan Romans is perfect, and you should be submissive to their authority? 

        Islamic law is not the law of God. Dhimmi-tude and Sarah 9:5; 9:29; 8:39 – this is not from God at all. Yes, your law is “defect”. The Qur’an is not revelation from God. period.

        The New Testament is massively superior to Islamic law.

        How pathetic and desperate try to avoid the facts and history. You have to say that although you know it’s rather than absurd because the only rational option is that the fifth kingdom is Islam which had to destroy and “..break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end.” It seems that’s why you cry because you are belong to the 4th kingdom which was a normal continuation for the pagan legacy your Paul praised.

        No, Jesus was the kingdom of God who “crushed” the Roman Empire not by war, but by love, persuasion, evangelism. John 18:36

        Moreover, “violence and warfare”≠ injustice necessarily.
        I agree. I should have always qualified by “unjust violence and aggressive, warfare that seeks to subjugate”

        Neither do the “western traditions”, nor do many teachings in your bible teach that. You imply that because you’re just a hypocrite as most christians are.
I warn you for any try to give yourself the right to give us lessons about peace or justice wars. You are the last people whom we should consider, if we assume that we would consider you to begin with, about these subjects. You have no right to do that by any mean!

        I understand why for your point of view, you think the west is hypocritical; I get that. It seems that way when you don’t understand Christianity is not an external religion or state, but a change of the heart that results in slow change in society from the bottom up, not top down. Islam is “top down” and has no doctrine of regeneration or Holy Spirit to help people change; rather it is all just an externalistic ritualistic, legalistic, militaristic system that acts like the Mafia when threatened.
        Yes, I have the right to my opinion and debating issues. You have the right to try and refute; but you cannot say I have no right to speak or make an argument.
        The list you put up cannot be labeled as a simplistic list of “Christian wars”. some of them were defensive and fighting back after Islam first unjustly conquered, but mixed with wrong motivations also, and wrong application of war. (the reconquista of Iberia, Spain, the Crusades) Islam started all of that in the 600s-900s. Others, in the modern era, were evil apostates (baby baptism does not make one a Christian), atheists and pagans and communists (WW 1, WW 2; Korean, Vietnam) who started unjust conquering and the the western / Allied powers were just responding to injustice. Each one would have to be analyzed more intellectually than just throwing out a simplistic list like that.

        Like

      • //I don’t know what you are talking about.//
        I’m here to show your hypocrisy.

        //but pagans should be won by Christian evangelism//
        You mean by riding any political power hypocritically. We know how you won the pagans in the Roman empire once you reached the authority. We know how monstrous you are ,and that’s why you live in America without feeling of guiltily.

        //not your Islam force of Sharia law / top down conquer first and force through the Islamic pattern of “convert or war or Jiziye or die”. An ugly and unjust system that has been a massive evil perpetrated upon the world//
        By which standards do you judge/label the law of God as ugly? So the law of pagan Romans was perfect to live under, yet the law of God (i.e. whether it’s Mosaic law or Islam law) is ugly & defect?

        When your prophet Paul praised the pagan Romans’ authority, they were occupiers who forced jews to pay Jizyia(i.e. taxes), and they were still in the business of conquering . Also, when you “crushed” them by the fictional story of love, they continued this business with the blessings of the christians. You have been exploiting the political powers till this moment, so please stop this fictional story about the crushing by love because virtually you don’t believe in it. You have been the main source of injustice wars and violence. Again, it’s not our problem that you’re hypocrites, and don’t blame us for exposing this hypocrisy.

        //Problem is that you are ignoring the historical context of how Christianity started //
        No we didn’t! We present it as it’s and contrast it with your deeds. The result is a massive shameful hypocrisy.

        //The apostle Paul was teaching that Christians do not do violent mob rule or violent unjust revolutions or aggressive warfare, etc.//
        He was PRAISING them.

        //but only in the police and military authority that is just//
        That’s why you have not problem with using this tool of (i.e.military authority) once you have the chance, and many unjust wars began by you. The Roman law was unjust, yet you have no problem with it. Your heart has a problem only with the law of God. That’s why you have the right to close your mouth about these subjects. Your religion is so lacking, and it depends on hypocrisy and the man-made law. You have nothing to provide for humanity except the lust for the blood, the lust for money, and worshiping a human being who used to defecate. How dare you to talk about the superiority of your religion? Literally, you have nothing to brag about.

        //total mixing of categories and logic errors, just like other leftists//
        Not true. It’s the nature of your hypocrisy that it’s a mixture.I can’t help. Moreover, you depend on many standards of those lefties to talk against Islam. That’s why muslims and those lefties know that you’re just hypocrites.

        //The injustices of the past were not done by real Christians//
        I’m not sure how you expect us to understand that? Your prophet Paul was a christian for you. The founder of your sect was a christian. Your president said that Jesus told him to invade Iraq. Many evangelists back the wars around this world because they “love” their enemies.

        //The Romans were converted to Christianity by evangelism, love, persuasion, superior morality and theology//
        Not true! There were many shades of christianities, most of which are heretics according to your standards. Again, you have nothing to brag about. .

        //The New Testament is massively superior to Islamic law.//
        I would imagine a jew to say that, but christians have nothing to compare it with the Islam. Literally you have nothing! Do you compare the pagan roman law that your prophet praised with Islam? The 4th kingdom is pagan, but the 5th kingdom is from God which already broke in pieces all these kingdoms and brought them to an end.”

        //No, Jesus was the kingdom of God who “crushed” the Roman Empire not by war, but by love, persuasion, evangelism. John 18:36//
        Very nice fictional story, yet it doesn’t work with wording of the prophecy. In fact, many christians believe that the Roman empire somehow will revive again, so that Jesus will crush it when he comes back.
        You know what I’m talking about right? It’s that prophecy about the messiah that jews and christians believe in when he and his soldiers will “attack and plunder the nations to the east. They will occupy the lands ..”

        // II understand why for your point of view, you think the west is hypocritical; I get that//
        Don’t forget that a large bulk of the west is christians.

        //t seems that way when you don’t understand Christianity is not an external religion or state, but a change of the heart that results in slow change in society from the bottom up, not top down.//
        What I understand that christians themselves don’t understand that, and that’s why they choose the hypocrisy as a path for them in the real world which has no time for fictional stories.
        Your notion about Islam comes from a fanatic hypocritical mindset . Your religion tells you once you clean your heart, you don’t need to clean your body. No! This is not the message that the prophets of God preached. They preached the importance of the heart, yet to not forget your body. It’s really your own problem to think that there’s a contradiction.

        Also, these wars were either pure christians or got supported by christians. Let’s be honest here.
        On the other hand, your notion about the light of Islam when it reached the world is very naive and very simplistic, and it really has nothing to do with the world back then.

        //I have the right to my opinion and debating issues. You have the right to try and refute//
        Hypocrites refute themselves by themselves. They just need to be reminded. We’ll show them, Insha’ Allah, the trunk in their eyes once they put themselves in a position they don’t deserve.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Overall, you misunderstand completely. The apostle Paul was not praising all aspects of Roman pagan law. He was acknowledging that up until that time, in God’s sovereignty (which you also believe in), God had allowed unjust governments to be in power and that the Christians should not rebel against authority. Romans 13 does not mean we want that back again. The best thing is the western tradition of Christian morality. We believe in God’s law -in the OT and the NT fulfillments and completion of what they meant.

        About cleaning our bodies . . . of course we believe in bathing and washing and being holy not only in mind, but also in body. But one must come first and be the foundation of the other.

        “Therefore, having these promises beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” 2 Corinthians 7:1

        1 Thessalonians 4:1-8
        Finally then, brethren, we request and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us instruction as to how you ought to walk and please God (just as you actually do walk), that you excel still more. 2 For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you. 7 For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification. 8 So, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you.

        We have God’s law. Islamic law is man-made law that came about 600 years later and is filled with all sorts of things that are bad. And a lot of it is based on desert Arabian culture.

        Like

      • I believe you missed that we know that your hypocrites already, so save your time and your effort.

        //Romans 13 does not mean we want that back again.//
        Why don’t you want the “servants of God” to be in authority again, especially that you crushed them with love?
        Can you describe that authority as ugly and unjust?

        //The best thing is the western tradition of Christian morality.//
        Told you! You are a pure hypocrite. Jesus was not a western man. He probably didn’t like your immoral traditions and culture. Moreover, your prophet Paul thought that the pagan Roman traditions are good to live under. To say that Islam is ugly or wrong because you’re biased to your culture is not really an argument. It’s just a garbage. Its place is under our foot. Don’t forget that you don’t accept “the western christian traditions” in time of the founder of your sect.

        //About cleaning our bodies . . . of course we believe in bathing and washing and being holy not only in mind, but also in body. But one must come first and be the foundation of the other.//
        Then tell us why you have abandoned the circumcision? You are lying!
        Also, once upon a time the western christian traditions taught it’s not good to bath yourself once you are baptized. it’s a dirty immoral tradition. Your notion about Islam is wrong. Islam is complete way of life. Don’t mix what Islam teaches about how we should govern the land with its teachings about salvation and hearts. If you think that there’s a contradiction, it would be your own problem. In Islam, there’s no compulsion in religion “But only one who comes to Allah with a sound heart.” QT.

        //We have God’s law//
        No, you don’t! You hate God’s law. You are had a pagan law, and now yo have the secular law which is another form of paganism. Your heart is rebellious against God’ law as your prophet Paul.

        Liked by 2 people

      • In addition to what brother Abdullah has said in refuting Kenny the Nutjob, let me add that when Christians were living under the pagan Roman Empire, they shamelessly tried to go along for the ride like a bunch of barnacles hitching a ride on a whale. It is historically documented that Christians tried to act patriotic by actually praying for the Emperor to be victorious in battle and for the stability of the empire. Tertullian wrote about this:

        “Without ceasing, for all our emperors we offer prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection to the imperial house; for brave armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous people, the world at rest, whatever, as man or Cæsar, an emperor would wish.”

        “here is also another and a greater necessity for our offering prayer in behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete stability of the empire, and for Roman interests in general. For we know that a mighty shock impending over the whole earth—in fact, the very end of all things threatening dreadful woes—is only retarded by the continued existence of the Roman empire. We have no desire, then, to be overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome’s duration.”

        “We respect in the emperors the ordinance of God, who has set them over the nations. We know that there is that in them which God has willed; and to what God has willed we desire all safety, and we count an oath by it a great oath. But as for demons, that is, your genii, we have been in the habit of exorcising them, not of swearing by them, and thereby conferring on them divine honour.”

        (https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/tertullian_on_loyalty_to_emperor.htm).

        Liked by 2 people

      • As for Augustine’s supposed “western” inspired “just war” doctrine, first of all, Augustine was from modern-day Algeria. The town of Hippo Regius was a Roman colony in Africa.

        Second, and this is something Kenny the Nutjob knows because I embarrassed him about this a while back, Augustine felt that forced conversions were acceptable. He said as much during the Donatist controversy. So there is the “just war” of Christianity.

        So once again, Kenny the Nutjob’s woeful ignorance and laughable propaganda are exposed.

        Liked by 2 people

  11. You guys are the crybabies with using the word – “Islamophobia” – something you learned from the homosexuals and political activists and leftist journalists.

    You learned it from the homosexuals and use their tactics to shut down fair debate.

    Like

  12. “Brown is wrong: The Hadith quoted goes with Surahs 8-9. Some Hadith say Surah 9 is the last revealed; others say parts of Surah 5 is.”

    Oh, moving the goalpost now, are we? Well, you know what Surah 8 says right?

    “But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).”

    And what does Surah 9 say?

    “[This is a declaration of] disassociation, from Allah and His Messenger, to those with whom you had made a treaty among the polytheists.”

    So, it was the Arab pagans who were the subject of the hadith, as I and everyone else have said. Once again, Kenny the Nutjob is humiliated. Perhaps next time, you will do some real research and spare yourself more humiliation.

    “Surahs 8-9 (8:39 – “And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah .” “fitnah” means “turmoil”, “confusion”, “rebellion”, “crisis”, “chaos”, “mutiny”, etc. not persecution. When Islamic authorities are in power, anything can be interpreted as “chaos” and “rebellion” and they justify their unjust warfare and putting down of rebellions.”

    Uh huh, and verse 61 says to make peace when there is a chance. And Surah 9:13 says:

    “Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers.”

    So once again, Kenny the Nutjob is exposed as an ignoramus.

    “And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing” (Surah 2:191) “chaos”, “confusion in society”, “mutiny”, “rebellion” is worse than slaughtering them” also, Surah 9:5; 9:28-29, etc. )”

    Uh huh, and 2:190 says:

    “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.”

    So once again, Kenny the Nutjob is caught lying and misquoting the Quran.

    “along with those many Hadiths passages similar to the one quoted, along with how Abu Bakr, Umar, Khalid, Uthman, the Ummayids, the Abbasids, the Ottomans, etc. actually carried out Jihad and Qatal and Harb throughout history is clear that Brown is wrong. Even the title “Islamlophobes” is a non-intellectual way to argue -throwing that word out is a word and tactic Muslims used from the homosexuals.”

    Kenny the Nutjob makes many incoherent rants in the hope that someone will take him seriously.

    So let’s look at the facts. The following is from one of my articles:

    “In a hadith in Sunan Ibn Majah, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) gave orders to a military detachment which was going into battle, which included a clear prohibition against killing children:

    “[g]o in the Name of Allah, and in the cause of Allah. Fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Do not mutilate, do not be treacherous, do not steal from the spoils of war, and do not kill children.”

    Other ahadith also make it clear that killing women and children is forbidden. For example, a hadith in Sahih Bukhari states:

    “Narrated Ibn `Umar: During some of the Ghazawat of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) a woman was found killed, so Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) forbade the killing of women and children.”[9]

    It is clear that attacks against civilians are not allowed by Islamic law, even during a state of war. As Islamic scholar Jalal Abualrub has explained, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):

    “…forbade the killing of women and children and targeting civilians in war, thus, setting the righteous and humane standard of conduct during war.”[10]

    Thus, it is evident that terrorists, like the fictional group “Muhammad’s Faithful”, are actually disobeying the commands of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). So how can they be “good Muslims”? Such people, who disobey a command from Allah and His Messenger, are actually condemned in the Holy Quran:

    “[i]t is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.”[11]

    Commenting on this verse, the 13th-century scholar Ibn Kathir stated:

    “[t]his Ayah [verse] is general in meaning and applies to all matters, i.e., if Allah and His Messenger decreed a matter, no one has the right to go against that, and no one has any choice or room for personal opinion in this case.”[12]

    He also quoted another verse (Surah An-Noor, 24:63) to emphasize how serious this issue was:

    “…then let those beware who withstand the Messenger’s order, lest some trial befall them, or a grievous penalty be inflicted on them.”

    So let the real-life terrorists beware of their violations of the Prophet’s commands. They are not carrying out the “will of Allah”, and they are certainly not “good Muslims”.

    https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/02/11/islam-jack-chick-and-the-battle-for-souls-men-of-peace/

    Regarding the Muslim conquests, here is an excerpt from another article:

    “First and foremost, the first Quranic verse that was revealed with regard to warfare is generally agreed by scholars to be Surah Al-Hajj, 22:39, which states:

    “To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid.”

    Caner K. Dagli, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at the College of the Holy Cross, observes that in this verse:

    “…the use of force by Muslims is framed as a defensive action in response to wrongs committed offensively against them.”[26]

    Moreover, Dagli also observes that subsequent verses also emphasized the defensive nature of permitted fighting, such as Surah Al-Baqarah 2:217. Finally, despite the permission to fight in self-defense, Dagli explains that:

    “[t]he moral landscape of the Quran is unambiguously against religious persecution and military aggression and in favor of justice and forgiveness as well as restraint…”[27]

    As for the claim of widespread violence, massacres and rapes, the reality is again far less sensational. As Dagli explains:

    “[i]n their wake Muslim armies left large portions of the lands they conquered pre-dominantly non-Muslim for decades or even centuries, as we see in the cases of Syria and Persia, since the expansion of Islamic rule did not require the expansion of the Muslim population. Indeed, on occasion Christians fought alongside Muslims during the early conquests, and Jews fought alongside Muslims in Andalusia.”[28]

    Furthermore, when we examine historical accounts of the Muslim conquests from the point of view of the conquered peoples, we find varying views, ranging from being celebratory to highly critical. As an example, let us examine the Coptic accounts of the conquest of Egypt by the Muslim armies. As the historian Hugh Kennedy states:

    “[t]he Copts, in fact, are said to have helped the Muslims on a number of occasions, but this was by no means a general pattern, and they suffered like the Romans from the depredations of the Muslims and the effects of heavy and arbitrary taxation. The truth seems to be that the responses of the Copts were varied and perhaps confused…”[29]

    But even so, the Coptic accounts had a favorable view of the first Muslim governor of Egypt, Amr Ibn Al-As (may Allah be pleased with him), who became a Muslim during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). As Kennedy states:

    “[e]ven more striking is the verdict of John of Nikiu. John was no admirer of Muslim government and was fierce in his denunciation of what he saw as oppression and abuse, but he says of Amr: ‘He exacted the taxes which had been determined upon but he took none of the property of the churches, and he committed no act of spoliation or plunder, and he preserved them throughout all his days.”[30]

    Finally, the treaty signed between the Muslims and the Copts (known as the “Treaty of Misr (Egypt)”) provides more details into the reality of the Muslim conquests, which is a far cry from the tales of mass murder and enslavement that Chick wanted people to believe. According to Kennedy, the treaty stipulated that the Copts:

    “…would be obliged to pay the jizya (tribute) every year when the rise of Nile…was over. If the river failed to rise properly, payment would be reduced in proportion. If anyone did not agree to it, he would not pay the tribute but he would not receive protection. Romans and Nubians who wanted to enjoy the same terms might do so and those who did not were free to leave. […]

    This treaty is just one of a number of slightly differing accounts which we have of the terms that were made with the people of Egypt. In many of them the tax to be paid was assessed at 2 dinars per male except for the poor.”[31]

    This is of course not to say that in the aftermath of battles, some Muslim troops did not engage in illegal and immoral acts of violence and pillaging. But this was not the policy of the early Muslim rulers, but rather the short-lived acts of undisciplined troops, who were actually new converts to Islam. As Fred Donner, professor of Near Eastern History at the University of Chicago, explains:

    “…the arrival of the Believers in many areas may have been accompanied by widespread- though short and superficial- plundering and raiding, of a kind that would have been observed and reported by some early sources (such as the sermons and homilies of Sophronius in the 630s), but that would also leave little archaeological record since major towns were not involved. The reason for this petty plundering was simple. Many of the Arabian tribesmen who joined the Believer’s movement during the ridda wars were probably very undisciplined.”[32]

    As for the larger towns and cities, Donner explains that:

    “[i]t was only those cities and towns that refused to make terms that would have been subjected to siege, and these were few…But even in these cases we can expect the damage to have been limited, for the Believers’ goal was not to destroy these towns, but rather to bring their monotheistic populations under the rule of God’s law. It was not the monotheist populations against whom the Believers were waging war, after all, but the Byzantine and Sasanian regimes, which they saw as tolerating (or even imposing) sinfulness.”[33]

    Also of interest is how Christians tended to interpret the conquests with regard to divine punishment. These accounts show the extent of the sectarian hatred between rival Christian sects as well as hatred of Jews. As Kennedy explains:

    “[i]n general, the writers saw rival Christian sects and, of course, the Jews as the real enemy to be challenged and defeated. The Arabs, by contrast, could be tolerated and even manipulated to serve sectarian ends.”[34]

    As for alleged forced conversions, once again, the historical facts are far less sensational than the ludicrous assertions of Chick. As Kennedy states:

    “[t]he Islamization and Arabization that followed conquest over the next two or three centuries would not have occurred if political conquest had not already succeeded, but they were not a direct and inevitable consequence of that conquest. Instead, it was a gradual, almost entirely peaceful result of the fact that more and more people wanted to identify with and participate in the dominant culture of their time.”[35]”

    https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/18/islam-jack-chick-and-the-battle-for-souls-camels-in-the-tent/

    It should also be pointed out that when the Muslims conquered Jerusalem from the Christians under the caliph Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), Jews were allowed to resettle in the holy city for the first time in centuries (although the Persians also allowed them to live there during the short time they ruled the city). Here is another excerpt:

    “As a matter of fact, Jews largely welcomed the Muslim army, since in comparison to the treatment meted out by the Christians, treatment under the Muslims was far better. It is an interesting fact of history that when the Byzantine Christians controlled Jerusalem, Jews were not allowed to settle in the holy city, a continuation of Roman policy. But when the Muslims arrived, Jews began to settle in Jerusalem for the first time in nearly 500 years (not including the brief period when the Persians occupied Jerusalem)! The proof for this is found in Jewish sources themselves. For example, the Encyclopedia Judaica states:

    “…there is no doubt that during the Persian conquest (614–28) Jews lived in Jerusalem. It seems that even after the recapture of the city by Heraclius many of them remained in its vicinity. This may have caused Sophronius’ request that no Jews be allowed to stay in Jerusalem. […]

    A document (in Judeo-Arabic) found in the Cairo *Genizah reveals that the Jews asked Omar for permission for 200 families to settle in the town. As the patriarch [Sophronius] opposed the action strongly, Omar fixed the number of the Jewish settlers at 70 families. The Jews were assigned the quarter southwest of the Temple area, where they lived from that time…”[60]

    In a separate entry about the Caliph Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), the Encyclopedia Judaica states:

    “Omar permitted the Jews to reestablish their presence in Jerusalem–after a lapse of 500 years–and also seems to have allotted them a place for prayers on the Temple Mount (from which they were driven out at a later date). Jewish tradition regards Omar as a benevolent ruler and the Midrash (Nistarot de-Rav Shimon bar Yoḥai) refers to him as a “friend of Israel.””[61]

    Rabbi Reuven Firestone echoes this sentiment:

    “[Umar] ended Christian rule over Jerusalem and allowed Jews to legally re-enter and live in the holy city for the first time since the failed Bar Kokhba rebellion in the 2nd century.”[62]

    If Rivera’s claim of mass killings of Jews at the behest of the Vatican was true, then why were Jews being allowed to settle in Jerusalem, which the Vatican wanted for itself? Clearly, Rivera was ignorant of history! Rather than persecuting and killing Jews, the historical evidence shows that the Muslims did the exact opposite. As Professor David Wasserstein succinctly puts it (emphasis ours):

    “Islam saved Jewry. This is an unpopular, discomforting claim in the modern world. But it is a historical truth.”[63]”

    https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/06/13/islam-jack-chick-and-the-battle-for-souls-the-prophet-part-ii/

    Bottom line: Kenny the Nutjob should not be taken seriously. The guy’s brain has become rotten from the insidious influence of trinitarianism.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Faiz said: “Oh and we have also this little tidbit:

    “Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments…” (Gen. 35:2)

    Here, Jacob tells his family to cleanse themselves before heading to Bethel to make an altar to God. You’re lying through your teeth again. You really must be the see of the devil!”

    I reply, Jacob can’t be referring to menstrual uncleanness because that can’t be removed on command.

    Faiz: “What on earth are you talking about? According to your Bible, Noah (pbuh) was told to bring “clean” and “unclean” animals on the ark, so purification laws of some sort were clearly already in place long before Moses (pbuh)”

    I reply, which purification laws, apart from the law that man must make atonement by blood to purify himself before God?

    ““On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the Lord.’ (12:12)

    Why do you lie so much madman? Are you the seed of the devil? He is the father of all lies after all!”

    I reply, why am I lying?

    Moses was not an islamic prophet/warner and Jehovah is not Allah because neither of them sought to establish sharia law in Egypt.

    “It was, as your lying church claims, a brutal state-sponsored campaign of violence against Christians as a whole. So why didn’t they fight back?”

    I reply, I don’t think it is realistic or necessary to fight back as a minority in your own state against your own state but persecution of minority religions is wired in to Islam which a population may view as a foreign aggressor as was probably the case in Spain.

    Faiz; “LOL, I have already embarrassed you on this matter in the past. The book of Ezekiel proves that Christianity is a false religion concocted by the heretic and false prophet Paul. The laws were to apply for all times. Even the law banning Gentiles from the temple will supposedly be restored!”

    The temple changes its form from dispensation to dispensation. Salvation is progressive. Islam is regressive adopting forms that God has dispensed with.

    Like

    • “I reply, Jacob can’t be referring to menstrual uncleanness because that can’t be removed on command.”

      Idiot, you missed the point. The point is that if Jacob was telling his family to “cleanse” themselves before helping to build the altar to God, then there must have been some sort of purification rites that they practiced. And indeed, your own commentaries say this. The Benson Commentary states:

      “Cleanse yourselves by outward and ritual washing, (compare Exodus 19:10-14,) which even then was in use, and was considered as an emblem of cleansing the soul, by repentance, from all those impure lusts and vile affections, whereby a man becomes polluted in the sight of God. This, no doubt, Jacob had chiefly in view; namely, that they should cleanse their hands from blood, and from their late detestable cruelty, and purify their hearts from those evil dispositions which had given birth to such abominable wickedness, that they might be fit to approach God in his worship” (https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/genesis/35.htm)

      “I reply, which purification laws, apart from the law that man must make atonement by blood to purify himself before God?”

      LOL, are you being deliberately stupid? Noah was told to bring “clean” and “unclean” animals on board the ark. “Clean” and “unclean” referred to animals that the later Israelites could and could not eat, respectively. Stop lying through your teeth for once, demon. Accept the facts. Purification laws, whether involving dietary restrictions or ritual cleansing, were clearly in place well before Moses (pbuh).

      “I reply, why am I lying?”

      HAHAHA, the demon asks why he is lying? Because you said:

      “It is interesting to note that the plagues of Egypt were not used by God to shut down the pagan worship of Egypt.”

      This contradicts what you own Bible says:

      “On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the Lord.

      What does it mean to bring “judgment on all the gods of Egypt”? It’s not like these gods actually existed. It is a metaphorical statement condemning and punishing the Egyptians for their idolatry. Stop lying, demon.

      “Moses was not an islamic prophet/warner and Jehovah is not Allah because neither of them sought to establish sharia law in Egypt.”

      Your idiocy knows no bounds! Sharia Law is much more than simply criminal laws or purification laws. Yes, those are components, but it starts with Monotheism first and foremost. It wouldn’t make sense to tell the Egyptians to follow all the laws before they even accepted the One True God. That is why Moses (pbuh) went to Pharaoh to do two things:

      1. Persuade him to worship Allah (swt) alone.
      2. Release the Israelites from captivity.

      Furthermore, some of the laws have changed overtime. Sharia Law is the final law of God, but some aspects of it may have been different for previous nations, such as the number of prayers or certain dietary restrictions (for example, the Jews may have been forbidden to eat camels, but this rule was only for them and was later abrogated.

      “I reply, I don’t think it is realistic or necessary to fight back as a minority in your own state against your own state but persecution of minority religions is wired in to Islam which a population may view as a foreign aggressor as was probably the case in Spain.”

      LOL, how convenient! So you think that people should just accept persecution because they are a minority? You truly are a fascist madman, aren’t you? Face it, moron. You are contradicting yourself with your BS.

      Also, your lack of historical knowledge is astounding. When the Muslims arrived in Spain, many of its people, including the Jews, welcomed their arrival because the Spanish government was oppressive. It’s not surprising, given that it was under Christian control. Christians weren’t exactly the most tolerant people around.

      Like

    • “The temple changes its form from dispensation to dispensation. Salvation is progressive. Islam is regressive adopting forms that God has dispensed with.”

      Your BS doesn’t refute what your own Bible says. There was no “progressive” salvation, as Ezekiel shows. It completely refutes and demolishes your religion from within. The temple was to be rebuilt, the temple rites reinstated for all time. Thus, Christianity’s central tenet is refuted. Come to your senses madman and abandon your fraudulent “progressive” religion. 🤣

      Like

  14. “What does it mean to bring “judgment on all the gods of Egypt”? It’s not like these gods actually existed. It is a metaphorical statement condemning and punishing the Egyptians for their idolatry. Stop lying, demon.”

    There was no structure set in place for the Egyptians to worship Jehovah after the Israelites left Egypt. Allah would have taken booty and taxed the population at the very least.

    “The point is that if Jacob was telling his family to “cleanse” themselves before helping to build the altar to God, then there must have been some sort of purification rites that they practiced.”

    No, he could just have been telling them to respect God by cleaning their bodies and putting on fresh clothes so they were not smelly or dirty.

    Scholars are only needed when one is trying to deny the plain truth of the scripture or what can be logically implied as truth from it.

    “Your idiocy knows no bounds! Sharia Law is much more than simply criminal laws or purification laws. Yes, those are components, but it starts with Monotheism first and foremost.”

    Any god can be the god of a monotheist. Allah is not the God of the bible. Mohammed tried his best to make it appear that way but we are not fooled.

    Like

    • “There was no structure set in place for the Egyptians to worship Jehovah after the Israelites left Egypt. Allah would have taken booty and taxed the population at the very least.”

      LOL, well your god made them hand over all their wealth to the Israelites. So they got taxed anyway! Quite convenient!

      “No, he could just have been telling them to respect God by cleaning their bodies and putting on fresh clothes so they were not smelly or dirty.”

      HAHAHAHA, how pathetic! You lie against your OWN scripture!

      “Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments…

      The act of cleaning was specifically linked to their worship of false gods. There is nothing there about general cleanliness. Moreover, even if there was, it would still prove my point. If purification was not important, as you idiotically claim without evidence, then what difference would it make to your god if they smelled bad? Are his nostrils that sensitive?

      “Scholars are only needed when one is trying to deny the plain truth of the scripture or what can be logically implied as truth from it.”

      LOL, how convenient! Every time a Christian pagan gets cornered by scholarly evidence, he has to throw the evidence under the bus.

      You shouldn’t be speaking of “logic” because your pagan brain waved goodbye to that long ago.

      “Any god can be the god of a monotheist. Allah is not the God of the bible. Mohammed tried his best to make it appear that way but we are not fooled.”

      Tell that to Jews and Christians who refer to Allah as God. See Denis Giron’s recent post: https://bloggingtheology2.com/2018/12/21/jews-using-allah-even-in-hebrew/

      It’s true though. Any idiotic concept of “God” can be passed off as “monotheism”, such as your pagan trinity. That is not the God of Abraham and the prophets, including Muhammad (pbut).

      The point is that your idiocy cannot tell the difference between the different aspects of Sharia. It’s just a buzzword for your kind (the morons), which you don’t even understand. What a good little Christian dunce!

      Like

  15. “Your BS doesn’t refute what your own Bible says. There was no “progressive” salvation, as Ezekiel shows. It completely refutes and demolishes your religion from within.”

    The temple of Ezekiel cannot be a literal temple built with bricks and mortar.

    Like

  16. Faiz : “If purification was not important, as you idiotically claim without evidence, then what difference would it make to your god if they smelled bad? Are his nostrils that sensitive?”

    Does Allah smell the blood of menopausal women?

    Like

  17. And why Allah annul prayers if the male muslim still has traces of other discharges when he prays? Looks like his nostrils are pretty sensitive does it not?

    Why the ongoing obsession?

    Like

    • Same reason your god required Jacob and his family to clean themselves before building an altar. I see that you are running away from this realization. Don’t you get tired of being made into a fool? Why are you opposing your own Bible, heretic?

      Like

    • So to repeat what I said earlier, just in case the German pagan madman can’t get it through his trinity-infested mind:

      “Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments…”

      The act of cleaning was specifically linked to their worship of false gods. There is nothing there about general cleanliness. Moreover, even if there was, it would still prove my point. If purification was not important, as you idiotically claim without evidence, then what difference would it make to your god if they smelled bad? Are his nostrils that sensitive?

      Like

  18. @ Faiz

    “December 26, 2018 • 9:25 am
    Faiz : “If purification was not important, as you idiotically claim without evidence, then what difference would it make to your god if they smelled bad? Are his nostrils that sensitive?”

    Does Allah smell the blood of menopausal women?”

    December 26, 2018 • 8:58 pm

    LOL, so you’re unable to answer the question then?

    Touche

    Like

    • STILL not answering the question? You were the one who claimed that your god did not require purification rituals in the time of Jacob! It seems madman has bitten off more than he can chew!

      So come on madman, be a good boy and answer the question:

      If purification was not important, as you idiotically claim without evidence, then what difference would it make to your god if they smelled bad? Are his nostrils that sensitive?

      Like

  19. There is no mention of blood in the text. This is pure conjecture and bias on your part. Still no response as to whether Allah smells the menstrual blood to which he has an aversion.

    Like

    • Moving the goalpost now stupid? I never said anything about blood moron. I said the verse proves that there was some sort of purification ritual in Jacob’s time, which refutes your original idiotic assertion that there was none. We also have the distinction between “clean” and “unclean” animals in Noah’s time. So, I ask again:

      If purification was not important, as you idiotically claim without evidence, then what difference would it make to your god if they smelled bad? Are his nostrils that sensitive?

      Try to answer this time. If you can’t answer, then admit it and then go back to the mental asylum you came from. 🙂

      Like

  20. I thought we were discussing menstruating women so is it necessary to explicitly mention blood?

    I don’t see any evidence for a ritual purification as I understand it to be practised by Islam or as mandated by the law of Moses, which requires an offering to conclude the purification. So Jacobs household is not unclean in quite the same sense as the Israelites under the law of Moses though of course the underlying causes are the same in both cases. But at Jacobs time menstruation is not specifically cited as a cause of uncleanness. It is just one of a number of possible conditions which lead to an unhygienic state of the body which is a sign of mans sinfulness.

    As far as the animals are concerned they showed that all men are unclean and must approach God through sacrifice. In that sense they show a need for purification.

    As blood sacrifices are done away with, except for one religion which stubbornly clings on to them, the purification rituals that were associated with them must also be dispensed with, including ablution.

    Like

    • Your desperation is showing madman. Let me make it worse for you.

      “So Laban went into Jacob’s tent and into Leah’s tent and into the tent of the two female servants, but he found nothing. After he came out of Leah’s tent, he entered Rachel’s tent. 34 Now Rachel had taken the household gods and put them inside her camel’s saddle and was sitting on them. Laban searched through everything in the tent but found nothing.

      35 Rachel said to her father, “Don’t be angry, my lord, that I cannot stand up in your presence; I’m having my period.” So he searched but could not find the household gods.”

      So notice that Rachel uses her period as the excuse for not standing up to greet her father. Notice also that she sat in her tent. Even though she was faking having her period, the fact that the trick worked on Laban shows that menstruation required separation in that culture. Jacob was also part of this culture. And of course, later on, Jacob told his family to cleanse themselves before building God’s altar.

      So once again, madman is refuted by his own Bible. How long will he continue to oppose his book like a heretic?

      And again, the book of Ezekiel clearly establishes that madman’s pagan religion is false. The rituals are supposed to be everlasting. This demolishes the Christian religion and madman’s stubborn heresy.

      Like

    • Madman says – “But at Jacobs time menstruation is not specifically cited as a cause of uncleanness. It is just one of a number of possible conditions which lead to an unhygienic state of the body which is a sign of mans sinfulness.”

      Madman’s Bible says – “Rachel said to her father, “Don’t be angry, my lord, that I cannot stand up in your presence; I’m having my period.”

      Ouch…

      Like

      • @Faiz,

        Backfires on you. Rachel allows her pagan father to enter her tent and rummage through her belongings while in menstruation. She could not have been a muslim that’s for sure.

        Like

      • LOL, madman must be getting frustrated from being constantly humiliated!

        Pat attention, stupid. Rachel was married to Jacob, who had lived with her father for 20 years. He would have been familiar with the custom. Notice that when she was pretending to be on her period, she was sitting alone in her tent. This is during the time that Jacob was fleeing from Laban. He was the head of the household, not Laban. And yet when Laban went to search for his gods, he searched each person’s tent separately. Rachel was separated from Jacob. Ergo, even though she was pretending to be on her period, the fact that she was separated shows that this was the custom in Jacob’s household.

        It’s really not that difficult to understand, once you throw out the Christian virus from your head.

        So let’s summarize what we have learned:

        1. There was a distinction between “clean” and “unclean” as far back as Noah.
        2. Jacob’s wives separated themselves during their menstrual periods.
        3. Jacob’s family had to become “clean” before helping to build God’s altar.

        These three points refute madman’s idiotic claim that purification laws/rituals did not exist in the time of the patriarchs. They very clearly did.

        Liked by 1 person

  21. Rachel was obviously in the tent when Laban was searching.

    There is no evidence from the text that she was “separating” herself, or that any of Jacobs wives “separated” themselves because of their menstruation.

    You are just fabricating this whole thing out of nothing to save face.

    What a flimsy attempt, lol.

    It may also be the case that Rachel was speaking the truth.

    Like

    • Um, idiot, Jacob had left with his wives and Laban was chasing them. She was sitting in her tent pretending to be on her period and wouldn’t even stand. This must have been the custom of the household.

      Trinitarian pagans have to deny the evidence from their own scripture. 😂

      So again, we have learned from madmans’s Bible that there were laws clean and unclean animals, laws for cleaning oneself before approaching God’s altar and laws for menstruation. Yet madman the heretic wants to deny this as evidence. How pathetic!

      Liked by 1 person

  22. “25Then Laban overtook Jacob. Now Jacob had pitched his tent in the mount: and Laban with his brethren pitched in the mount of Gilead.”

    You are the idiot. Laban was in the tent with her. There is no evidence that she was not having her period.

    Even if she was pretending she would have to sit on her idols in her tent to hide them from her father. That doesn’t prove that she was “separating” herself.

    And if she was a Muslim, for which we also have no proof, she would not allow a pagan in to her tent if she was in it.

    Like

    • LOL, I know she wasn’t having her period stupid, but she was pretending to! She was sitting in her tent and pretended not to stand up for her father because she was on her period.

      Idiot, Laban was chasing them. Jacob and his wives then pitched their tents when Laban had caught up with them. Then, he searched through the tents one by one. Jacob had given him permission to search the tents.

      Like

  23. “Laban was chasing.”

    What has that got to do with it? Why do you keep repeating that like a parrot?

    She may have been pretending, she may not.

    Laban was in the tent with her so it was obvious that she would have allowed a male to enter her tent during her menstruation.

    So much for your separation fairy tale.

    Like

    • Moron, the fact that she couldn’t stand up because of the period shows that there was a specific custom being followed.

      The fact that Laban was chasing them is also important, stupid. He had a grievance, which is why Jacob gave him permission to search the tents. Extenuating circumstances, see?

      Like

  24. lol, what desperation.

    Like

  25. So muslim women don’t stand up with pagan males in their tents when they are menstruating.

    Wow. I am impressed.

    Like

    • 🤣🤣🤣

      Madman is clearly delirious! Who’s talking about Muslim women? What Rachel and the women in her time did regarding menstruation would not necessarily have been retained in Islam. Remember madman, some of the laws may have changed with the coming of the universal message of Islam.

      Don’t you get tired of being made into a fool? 😉

      Like

  26. Islam. Now you see it, now you don’t.

    Like

    • Christianity. Now you see it (Genesis), now you don’t (New Testament)…now you see it again (Ezekiel).

      So what have we learned? Well clesrly, madman is a moron who has to deny his own scripture. We have a clean and unclean dichotomy. We have purification rituals. We have menstruation customs. All of which prove that Christianity is a false religion which seeks to turn it’s followers into lazy hypocrites.

      Like

  27. You still haven’t proven separation. The fact that Rachel didn’t stand up does not prove any form of separation, just the opposite.

    Like

    • She was in her tent you dunce. And she specifically would not stand up to greet her father because of the period. Ergo, this was the custom in her household, of which Jacob was the head. If you still cant get it, I suggest recommitting yourself to an asylum.

      Like

      • Because she was covering something with her butt you dunce, which otherwise her father would have seen.

        Like

      • 🤣🤣🤣

        Yes, that’s why she was pretending to be on her oeriod, you dunce. That way, she wouldn’t have to stand up. It was a lie so she could hide her father’s idols. The point is she used her alleged period so the excuse for not standing up.

        Poor madman has the intellect of a child. 😂

        Like

  28. You are still not providing any evidence of a supposed separation. Except that between your brain and its cells.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: