Are there passages in Islam's sacred texts that condone this sort of behaviour?

A 25-year-old Pakistani woman has been stoned to death by her family outside the Lahore High Court in a so-called 'honour killing' for marrying the man she loved, police said.

Farzana Iqbal was waiting for the court to open when a group of around dozen men began attacking her with bricks, said senior police officer Umer Cheema.

Her father, two brothers and former fiance were among the attackers, he said.

Ms Iqbal suffered severe head injuries and was pronounced dead in hospital.

All the suspects except her father escaped arrest.

He admitted killing his daughter and explained it was a matter of honour.

link

I don't think the Koran has anything specific to say. But honour killings arent strictly a Islamic domain, so I'd say its more about strongly patriachial societies

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on May 28^th, 2014 at 8:51am:

I don't think the Koran has anything specific to say. But honour killings arent strictly a Islamic domain, so I'd say its more about strongly patriachial societies

Okay. I'm just asking.

But that leaves the question: How is it that Pakistan's Sharia Law has virtually no punishment for these horrific acts of violence?

The rich interwoven totemism of Islam and muslims is something we should cherish. Halla loves nothing more than a good lapidation and hand-chopping. Islam is a religion of peace.

link

How do Muslims explain this to an outsider?

Horrific story.

Herbert, to answer your question, stoning isn't mentioned in the Quran. 100 lashes is, though I think that's for adultery. I'm sure Gandalf or one of the other relevant Muslims will correct that if I'm wrong. Stoning is mentioned in Hadith, which are stories related by people who knew Muhammad and his teachings. The vast majority of hadith are false.

As someone else said, this is more about patriarchy and the misogyny that is deeply ingrained in a lot of Muslim societies - it's a cultural problem and a very serious one.

The last story you posted can't even be linked to any Islamic hadith that I've ever read. The husband was a Muslim and Muslim women are free to marry whoever they choose, as long as he's also a Muslim. Women are encouraged to seek the guidance of their parents, but forced marriages are prohibited.

Thanks for that, Annie.

The bulk of the hadith are lies? Hmmm ... the needle on my scepticism meter is wavering dangerously close to the red background on the far right ...

I'm wondering if this claim isn't just a convenient disclaimer in order to avoid having to answer some prickly questions.

I've just fished these up:

These hadith narrations have formed the controversial basis of the Shariah models of "Islamic law", despite the contradictions they contain with regards to the Quran itself, such as regarding the punishment for Zina in the hadith (stoning to death) contradicts the Quran,

Fair enough. But then the justification for stoning to death is taken from the authority of the hadith.

The Hadith has also had a profound influence on molding the commentaries (tafsir) on the Quran. The earliest commentary of the Quran by Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari is mostly sourced from the hadith, in-line with Tabari's Athari creed which considered rational inquiry in matters of religion to be forbidden.

That shows a very close alliance between the hadith and the Koran.

As the application of deductive reasoning in deriving laws directly from the Quran was sidelined, the arbitrary authority of the hadith was used to replace the Quran in forming the basis of 'Shariah' Law.

If the hadith is mainly lies, then it logically follows that the authority of Sharia Laws must be based on very shaky ground indeed.

link

100 lashes for adultery in the Koran? Ouch. That's a little excessive isn't it? 50 would do. Only the female, of course ...  :P

No this is not a product of islam, and the first thing I would point out is that the perpetrator himself didn't even mention islam as his justification, he cited family honour.

As for punishment, the quran prescribes lashing (and the act itself has strict rules like not being allowed to bend the elbow - such that it does not cause serious injury, and is actually very mild) and/or house arrest.

The ahadith have a couple of mentions of the prophet ordering stoning. Here's what bothers me: you have the quran and ahadith - both mention different punishments. Any muslim will tell you that the quran trumps ahadith, yet the hudud fan club will always go with stoning. And secondly, the quran is an actual specific command to muslims of how this should be punished. The ahadith is merely mentioning what the prophet did - doesn't say this is the prescribed punishment for all time and places.

Common sense dictates that the quranic prescription is the actual law for muslims to follow, and the prophetic example mentioned in the ahadith - especially when it contradicts quranic law - is just an historical account of how The Prophet ruled in his time and place. It can be argued that those muslims who order stoning for adultery are directly violating quranic - and therefore islamic - law.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 28^th, 2014 at 1:15pm:

No this is not a product of islam, and the first thing I would point out is that the perpetrator didn't even mention islam as his justification, he cited family honour.

Sorry, Gandalf, but EVERYTHING is shrouded, couched, and drenched in 'Islam' in that part of the world. Culture derives from religious text in most societies.

It's not necessary for them to state the obvious. The hadith cites the case of someone having been stoned for adultery, with no accompanying words of disapproval for this act.


polite_gandalf wrote on May 28^th, 2014 at 1:15pm:

As for punishment, the quran prescribes lashing (and the act itself has strict rules like not being allowed to bend the elbow - such that it does not cause serious injury, and is actually very mild) and/or house arrest.

So the Koran doesn't approve of ... "100 lashes for adultery"? Is that correct?

Gandalf, if we're going to have this conversation, could we please keep it real? There's absolutely no point if you believe you owe it to the Muslim community to play Defence Counsel with a lot of dodgy and slippery rhetoric.


polite_gandalf wrote on May 28^th, 2014 at 1:15pm:

The ahadith have a couple of mentions of the prophet ordering stoning.

Ah-HA! Thank you. The sad thing is that millions of Muslims living in the rural areas of the world take this as something they can emulate in their own village lives. It's sponsored by the hadith.


polite_gandalf wrote on May 28^th, 2014 at 1:15pm:

Here's what bothers me: you have the quran and ahadith - both mention different punishments. Any muslim will tell you that the quran trumps ahadith, yet the hudud fan club will always go with stoning.

***

Hudud (Arabic: حدود Ḥudūd, also transliterated hadud, hudood; singular hadd, حد, literal meaning "limit", or "restriction") is the word often used in Islamic literature for the bounds of acceptable behaviour and the punishments for serious crimes. In Islamic law or Sharia, hudud usually refers to the class of punishments that are fixed for certain crimes that are considered to be "claims of God." They include theft, fornication (zina) and adultery (extramarital sex), consumption of alcohol or other intoxicants, and apostasy (see apostasy in Islam).

***


polite_gandalf wrote on May 28^th, 2014 at 1:15pm:

And secondly, the quran is an actual specific command to muslims of how this should be punished. The ahadith is merely mentioning what the prophet did - doesn't say this is the prescribed punishment for all time and places.

But certain conclusions can be drawn from his example, surely? He was a model for all future generations of Muslim.


polite_gandalf wrote on May 28^th, 2014 at 1:15pm:

Common sense dictates that the quranic prescription is the actual law for muslims to follow, and the prophetic example mentioned in the ahadith - especially when it contradicts quranic law - is just an historical account of how The Prophet ruled in his time and place. It can be argued that those muslims who order stoning for adultery are directly violating quranic - and therefore islamic - law.

That doesn't hold water. Too many two-way bets here. Too much placing the chips on a whole lot of roulette numbers in the hope one will be a winner.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 28^th, 2014 at 9:35am:

The husband was a Muslim and Muslim women are free to marry whoever they choose, as long as he's also a Muslim. Women are encouraged to seek the guidance of their parents, but forced marriages are prohibited.

I don't believe this is true, many muslim women around the world have been killed for wanting to marry for love. In a Sydney court at the moment is the forced underage marriage of a muslim girl. In a more muslim part of the world http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2014/05/16/from-jewess-sol-hachuel-to-christian-meriam-ibrahim-200-years-of-sharias-brutal-injustice-for-non-muslim-women-of-faith/ And so on and so on and so and.

Adamant wrote on May 28^th, 2014 at 2:42pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 28th, 2014 at 9:35am: The husband was a Muslim and Muslim women are free to marry whoever they choose, as long as he's also a Muslim. Women are encouraged to seek the guidance of their parents, but forced marriages are prohibited. I don't believe this is true, many muslim women around the world have been killed for wanting to marry for love. In a Sydney court at the moment is the forced underage marriage of a muslim girl. In a more muslim part of the world http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2014/05/16/from-jewess-sol-hachuel-to-christian-meriam-ibrahim-200-years-of-sharias-brutal-injustice-for-non-muslim-women-of-faith/ And so on and so on and so and.

I should have added "according to Islamic law." It is, of course, not the reality for many women and girls throughout the Muslim world.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 28^th, 2014 at 3:46pm:

according to Islamic law."

I, nor any thinking individual that lives in a civilized society has need of "Islamic Law".

Islam is the most repugnant of ALL death wish religions.

Please, for your sake have a look around.

Lord Herbert wrote on May 28^th, 2014 at 1:39pm:

The hadith cites the case of someone having been stoned for adultery

Why are we even talking about adultery? The girl was stoned because she married someone who made the family feel embarassed - nothing to do with adultery, and nothing to do with islam.

The entire direction of this thread fails.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 28^th, 2014 at 4:29pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on May 28th, 2014 at 1:39pm: The hadith cites the case of someone having been stoned for adultery Why are we even talking about adultery?

But we're not talking about 'adultery' ~ as you very well know. We're talking about an Islamic religious text that reports Mohammad as having ordered a stoning at least a couple of times ... leading us to the reasonable conclusion that some followers of Islam feel his example provides them with the excuse to do the same.


Quote:

The ahadith have a couple of mentions of the prophet ordering stoning.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 28^th, 2014 at 4:29pm:

The girl was stoned because she married someone who made the family feel embarassed ........ nothing to do with islam.

And beside the hadith providing a model for certain Muslims of a fundamentalist mindset to resort to this horrendous type of capital punishment, the perpetrators confirmed their Muslim credentials by using stoning as their preferred method of execution.

Not a rope. Not a bullet. Not a knife.

Stoning.

As in the Hadith.

As ordered by the prophet.


polite_gandalf wrote on May 28^th, 2014 at 4:29pm:

...... nothing to do with islam.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 28^th, 2014 at 9:35am:

Horrific story. Herbert, to answer your question, stoning isn't mentioned in the Quran. 100 lashes is, though I think that's for adultery. I'm sure Gandalf or one of the other relevant Muslims will correct that if I'm wrong. Stoning is mentioned in Hadith, which are stories related by people who knew Muhammad and his teachings. The vast majority of hadith are false. As someone else said, this is more about patriarchy and the misogyny that is deeply ingrained in a lot of Muslim societies - it's a cultural problem and a very serious one. The last story you posted can't even be linked to any Islamic hadith that I've ever read. The husband was a Muslim and Muslim women are free to marry whoever they choose, as long as he's also a Muslim. Women are encouraged to seek the guidance of their parents, but forced marriages are prohibited.

Quote:

........Muslim women are free to marry whoever they choose, as long as he's also a Muslim...

so they are not free to marry.

forced marriages happen often in islam.

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 28^th, 2014 at 3:46pm:

[quote I should have added "according to Islamic law." It is, of course, not the reality for many women and girls throughout the Muslim world.

I was going to argue the point with you, Annie ... but I came up empty-handed when I checked out the facts.

Annie: 1
Herbert: 0

:)

Most religious scholars agree that Islam permits Muslim men to marry "women of the book" - Christians or Jews - thus expanding the number of potential partners to choose from.

Muslim women, on the other hand, are forbidden to marry a non-Muslim unless her partner converts to Islam, say purists. Some men nominally convert to Islam in order to appease their partner's family.

Imam Taj Hargey of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford is an exception. He has conducted marriage services for Muslim women without their Christian or Jewish partners converting. Most Muslims find this notion unacceptable, claiming it is tantamount to living in sin.

Imam Hargey's stance may be controversial, but he argues: "There is no verse in the Holy Quran that bans Muslim women from marrying non-Muslim men."

"Almighty God would have revealed explicit directives if Muslim women were not allowed to marry outside the faith," he says. "As Muslim men are entitled to marry women from the People of the Book who are not Muslim [Surah al-Maidah 5:5], the same right must be afforded to Muslim women as Islam is a gender-equal religion.

link

I suppose killing them reasonably quickly by stoning, is better than locking them up and starving them to death, however I can see how easily honour killings can morph into any type of killing:

qur’an 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death [by starvation] claims them.”

Murdering women is allowed in islam.

There's the usual evasion and spin on this, Moses.

link

Dodgy, slippery, and evasive.

They make any normal person sick.

Of particular interest, and shows the true degenerate nature of muslims are these last lines reporting the said honour killing:

Campaigners say few cases come to court, and those that do can take years to be heard.

Even those that do result in a conviction may end with the killers walking free. ]Pakistani law allows a victim's family to forgive their killer.

But in honour killings, most of the time the women's killers are her family, said Wasim Wagha of the Aurat Foundation.


The law allows them to nominate someone to do the murder, then forgive him.

So sick muslims can nominate someone to do the murder, then forgive him. But they can't forgive their own daughter for marrying the man she loves, islam is a mental disease of the worst kind. but then again they base their life on the thief, liar, pedophile, rapist, torturer and mass murderer muhammad. What else can you expect from them?

Oh but it has nothing to do with Islam, Moses. I have gandalf's assurance on this.

There is absolutely not the remotest connection between these 'honour killings' and Islamic cultural viewpoint, anymore than 9/11 had even the most distant and tenuous connection to the 'Religion of Peace.'

8-)
 

Adamant wrote on May 28^th, 2014 at 2:42pm:

Annie Anthrax wrote on May 28th, 2014 at 9:35am: The husband was a Muslim and Muslim women are free to marry whoever they choose, as long as he's also a Muslim. Women are encouraged to seek the guidance of their parents, but forced marriages are prohibited. I don't believe this is true, many muslim women around the world have been killed for wanting to marry for love. In a Sydney court at the moment is the forced underage marriage of a muslim girl. In a more muslim part of the world http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2014/05/16/from-jewess-sol-hachuel-to-christian-meriam-ibrahim-200-years-of-sharias-brutal-injustice-for-non-muslim-women-of-faith/ And so on and so on and so and.

I believe the man involved also has to agree to it.

The idea that a girl as young as 6 is going to marry for love or effectively exercise her right to choose is a ludicrous excuse for arranged marriage and a culture of sexual servitude.

Lord Herbert wrote on May 28^th, 2014 at 9:02pm:

Oh but it has nothing to do with Islam, Moses. I have gandalf's assurance on this. There is absolutely not the remotest connection between these 'honour killings' and Islamic cultural viewpoint, anymore than 9/11 had even the most distant and tenuous connection to the 'Religion of Peace.' 8-)

when commenting against islam I believe it is better to be direct.

eg, 'honor killngs' are only done by muslims and directly mirror mohs attitude against women and his perchant for extremism.

it is entirely of islams doing, it is entirely their responsibility and the result of a deeply flawed cult.

Imagine some ugly 6 year old girl selecting you as her 54 year old husband gross.

Lord Herbert wrote on May 28^th, 2014 at 5:18pm:

And beside the hadith providing a model for certain Muslims of a fundamentalist mindset to resort to this horrendous type of capital punishment, the perpetrators confirmed their Muslim credentials by using stoning as their preferred method of execution.

1. There is no islamic law permitting family to kill their daughters for marrying someone they didn't choose.

2. There was no islamic justification invoked by the perpetrators. They cited "family honour", nothing more.

Claiming the method of murder as evidence they were 'following' the prophetic example is what we call clutching at straws.

Did she marry a non-Muslim?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 29^th, 2014 at 8:12am:

Lord Herbert wrote on May 28th, 2014 at 5:18pm: And beside the hadith providing a model for certain Muslims of a fundamentalist mindset to resort to this horrendous type of capital punishment, the perpetrators confirmed their Muslim credentials by using stoning as their preferred method of execution. 1. There is no islamic law permitting family to kill their daughters for marrying someone they didn't choose. 2. There was no islamic justification invoked by the perpetrators. They cited "family honour", nothing more. Claiming the method of murder as evidence they were 'following' the prophetic example is what we call clutching at straws.

Taking your audience for mugs is not the way to win debates. I've said enough in my above comments to convince most reasonable people who have no stake in defending Islam at all cost, that these sort of stonings are very much a phenomenon characteristic of Muslim societies.

Jesus of the Bible is reported to have told his audience not to 'cast the first stone unless you are without sin'.

The hadith record the Islamic prophet as having ordered the stoning of at least two people.

This demonstrates a judicial ethic that is poles apart between Christianity and Islam.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2014 at 8:18am:

Did she marry a non-Muslim?

A question you probably didn't think of - but is even more relevant: were the perpetrators even muslim?


Lord Herbert wrote on May 29^th, 2014 at 8:56am:

The hadith record the Islamic prophet as having ordered the stoning of at least two people. This demonstrates a judicial ethic that is poles apart between Christianity and Islam.

Laughable. Jewish and christian prophets ordered the genocide of men women and children.

Also, muslims follow Jesus too.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 29^th, 2014 at 4:05pm:

Laughable. Jewish and christian prophets ordered the genocide of men women and children.

In the name of Jesus?

Did the founder of Christianity order any stonings?

Did the founder of Islam order any stonings?


polite_gandalf wrote on May 29^th, 2014 at 4:05pm:

Also, muslims follow Jesus too.

Laughable.

Name me one thing they 'follow' from his preachings that are unique to him.

Lord Herbert wrote on May 29^th, 2014 at 5:08pm:

In the name of Jesus?

In the name of God actually.


Lord Herbert wrote on May 29^th, 2014 at 5:08pm:

Did the founder of Christianity order any stonings?

For a christian, Jesus was not the founder of christianity. Just as muslims don't consider Muhammad the founder of islam.

Since you insist on making moral comparisons, an important one you probably should consider is that the bible (you know, christians holy book) commands stoning, and the quran does not.

Christianity doesn't start with Christ, it starts with the genocidal prophets who slaughtered babies in the name of God. You won't see any christian here try and pretend those deeds are not part of christian doctrine. The Quran orders restraint and non-combatants to be spared. Hows that for a moral comparison?

Now go ahead and reply with your usual "I'm not going to be drawn into [insert random strawman] as a way of worming out of your stupid claims yet again.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 29^th, 2014 at 6:55pm:

For a christian, Jesus was not the founder of christianity

Yadda is best to answer that but I doubt your are correct!


polite_gandalf wrote on May 29^th, 2014 at 6:55pm:

it starts with the genocidal prophets who slaughtered babies in the name of God.

Off with the fairies again are we Gandalf. How much of the old testament do you believe is true. 10% max maybe if your lucky?


polite_gandalf wrote on May 29^th, 2014 at 6:55pm:

The Quran orders restraint and non-combatants to be spared.

Adamant has gone to vomit.

Before the battle for Delhi, Timur executed 100,000 captives. (captives read innocent's!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur

polite_gandalf wrote on May 29^th, 2014 at 6:55pm:

For a christian, Jesus was not the founder of christianity. Just as muslims don't consider Muhammad the founder of islam.

Who were the chief architects of Christianity and Islam? They were Jesus and Mohammad. All the rest were bit-players who were and are subordinate to these two.


polite_gandalf wrote on May 29^th, 2014 at 6:55pm:

Since you insist on making moral comparisons, an important one you probably should consider is that the bible (you know, christians holy book) commands stoning, and the quran does not.

The figure-head of the Christian religion counselled against using violence towards others, whereas the prophet Mohammad was reported as having ordered stonings.

I would say that's one hell of a moral comparison. Sorry for 'insisting' on bringing this up again. I'm sure it's a 'sensitive' subject with you apologists.


polite_gandalf wrote on May 29^th, 2014 at 6:55pm:

Christianity doesn't start with Christ, it starts with the genocidal prophets who slaughtered babies in the name of God.

Well, no ... you've got it wrong again.

It's the bible that starts with genocidal infanticide ... not Christianity, which arrived later on, as explained in the bible.

Grand Duke Imam Gandalf  wrote:

Quote:

The Quran orders restraint and non-combatants to be spared.

The qur'an has an entirely different view to you Ghandi:

qur'an:8:67 "It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land."

So a great slaughter in the land before taking prisoners is showing restraint and sparing of people.

Quote:

The Quran orders restraint and non-combatants to be spared. Hows that for a moral comparison?

Does it do this to highlight Muhammed's failure as a human being and leader. Or is Muhammed's example a demonstration of that "restraint"? Is this merely another glaring contradiction that Muslims use to say one thing and do another?

moses wrote on May 29^th, 2014 at 8:56pm:

The qur'an has an entirely different view to you Ghandi: qur'an:8:67 "It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land."

The word used is يثخن which literally means 'thickens' - a better translation is 'subdued' or 'subjugated' the land:

Yusuf Ali:
It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land.

Dr Ghali:
In no way can any Prophet have captives until he has subjugated (the enemy) in the earth

How did Muhammed 'subdue' the Arabian peninsula? By sitting on people?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 29^th, 2014 at 6:55pm:

For a christian, Jesus was not the founder of christianity. ....

For Christ's sake!

Who was it then?

What is the name of the founder of Islam, otherwise referred to as Mohammedanism? Was it George?

Was Moses a Christian? Was Yahweh a Christian?

Jesus Christ was a Jew who transformed the old 'eye for an eye' savagery of the Old Testament into the new 'turn the other cheek' philosophy of the current belief systems of modern society.

Executed by the Romans for what? Denying the pantheon of Roman gods and defying established authority?

Where was your prophet at this time?

And what has been his message ever since?

Remember Martel at Tours?

His battle has not yet been won.

Just as Moh's ambitions have yet to be realised.

We are waking up now. We who have not yet been blinded by socialist governments and kowtowing apologist puppets.

As Sun Tzu said, " Know thy enemy."

Scouts motto, "Be prepared."

The World has expanded since the time one could wish to rule it.

The pity of it is, Lionel, is that the Muslim hordes who have descended upon Western nations these past 60 years have found to their amazement and delight that they have had a huge cheer-squad of politicians and 'No-Borders' enthusiasts awaiting them to sponsor and facilitate their imperialist ambitions.

Here's a reformed Useful Idiot confessing to this:

Peter Hitchens, Christopher’s smarter brother, wrote a devastating piece recently on the reason for the Left’s promotion of immigration:

    When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible.

    It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants — from anywhere — as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties.

    Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people – usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly ‘vibrant communities’.

    If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.

None of this is unique to the U.K. Throughout the developed world, the Left uses mass immigration and lies about racism to bend the sovereign, patriotic nation-state to its will. And it does so with plenty of help from its accomplices on the corporate and libertarian right.

link

Just a few from the hadi'th and qur'an, to show muslims are ordered to kill mercilessly.


Bukhari:V4B52N220 "Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been made victorious with terror.'"

Qur'an:8:12 "I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle."

Qur'an:8:57 "If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned."

Ishaq:326 "If you come upon them, deal so forcibly as to terrify those who would follow, that they may be warned. Make a severe example of them by terrorizing Allah's enemies."

Qur'an:8:67 "It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land."

Ishaq:327 "Allah said, 'A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.'"

Ishaq:588 "When the Apostle descends on your land none of your people will be left when he leaves."

Tabari IX:42 "We have been dealt a situation from which there is no escape. You have seen what Muhammad has done. Arabs have submitted to him and we do not have the strength to fight. You know that no herd is safe from him. And no one even dares go outside for fear of being terrorized."

Ishaq:326 "Allah said, 'No Prophet before Muhammad took booty from his enemy nor prisoners for ransom.' Muhammad said, 'I was made victorious with terror. The earth was made a place for me to clean. I was given the most powerful words. Booty was made lawful for me. I was given the power to intercede. These five privileges were awarded to no prophet before me.'"



Qur'an:7:3 "Little do you remember My warning. How many towns have We destroyed as a raid by night? Our punishment took them suddenly while they slept for their afternoon rest. Our terror came to them; Our punishment overtook them."

Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us"

Murdering innocent people is part and parcel of the tenets of islam

Good research, Moses.

I feel confident that gandalf will happily admit that these are authentic quotes and that nothing is further from his mind than to try to put a spin on these as an escape strategy to save face.

moses wrote on May 30^th, 2014 at 9:29am:

Qur'an:8:67 "It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land."

Ah, still interpreting "thickens" as "great slaughter" I see.

Told ya so ...  ;D ;D ;D

polite_gandalf wrote on May 30^th, 2014 at 12:19pm:

moses wrote on May 30th, 2014 at 9:29am: Qur'an:8:67 "It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land." Ah, still interpreting "thickens" as "great slaughter" I see.

Ah still interpreting yourself there. Not a bad efart, now do the other dozen of so  ;D ;D ;D

Gandalf has a special method of interpreting Muhammed's example that I am keen to learn more about.

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2014 at 12:56pm:

Gandalf has a special method of interpreting Muhammed's example that I am keen to learn more about.

So am I.

I wish he had been my Tax Agent in years gone by ...

Mattywisk wrote on May 30^th, 2014 at 12:38pm:

Ah still interpreting yourself there.

No, 'thickens' is the literal translation. Look it up if you don't believe me.


freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2014 at 12:56pm:

Gandalf has a special method of interpreting Muhammed's example that I am keen to learn more about.

You didn't listen before, why would you start now?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 29^th, 2014 at 10:06pm:

moses wrote on May 29th, 2014 at 8:56pm: The qur'an has an entirely different view to you Ghandi: qur'an:8:67 "It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land." The word used is يثخن which literally means 'thickens' - a better translation is 'subdued' or 'subjugated' the land: Yusuf Ali: It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Dr Ghali: In no way can any Prophet have captives until he has subjugated (the enemy) in the earth

Yet most translations don't use that nor have I found the word "thickens" used in any of the 40 translations I have read already. If it was a literal translation as claimed by you would it not be used.

Funny that aint it.

Moving right along, translate the other 12 or so quoted from the Quaran, I'd be interested in your take on those as well.  ;)

Mattywisk wrote on May 30^th, 2014 at 2:01pm:

Yet most translations don't use that

Most? Care to be more specific? Why don't you show me those 40 translations you mentioned to see how many actually use the term "slaughter" or "massacre".

Here's a list of 31 translations I found here. I think there were 3 that mentioned slaughter. Yusuf Ali is arguably the most cited and renowned English translation, and he uses subdued.


Mattywisk wrote on May 30^th, 2014 at 2:01pm:

nor have I found the word "thickens" used in any of the 40 translations I have read already

Probably because 'thickens' would make absolutely no sense. It does however need to be interpreted, and "slaughter" is just one opinion of what the word means - a minority opinion as it happens, which does not include the most famous and widely cited translator (Yusuf Ali).

Mattywisk wrote on May 30^th, 2014 at 2:01pm:

Moving right along, translate the other 12 or so quoted from the Quaran, I'd be interested in your take on those as well.

very well...


moses wrote on May 30^th, 2014 at 9:29am:

Just a few from the hadi'th and qur'an, to show muslims are ordered to kill mercilessly.

On the battlefield - yes, and we make no apologies for that. What sane person do you know thinks its a good idea to fight a war with kid gloves? And just to be clear, all your quotes are references to the battlefield:


moses wrote on May 30^th, 2014 at 9:29am:

Qur'an:8:12 "I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle."

Is actually an account of God talking to the angels - who intervened on behalf of the muslims as they were under attack and nearly defeated. It is a reminder to the muslims that when they are threatened with destruction, God will intervene to save them.

Also I have no problem with combatants on the battlefield attempting to incapacitate and wound their enemy - do you?


moses wrote on May 30^th, 2014 at 9:29am:

ur'an:8:57 "If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned."

The preceding verse is referring to people who had signed a treaty with the muslims then violated it. It is a reference to what muslims should do to traitors: make an example of them to dissuade the people supporting them as well as any future would-be treaty breakers.


moses wrote on May 30^th, 2014 at 9:29am:

Qur'an:7:3 "Little do you remember My warning. How many towns have We destroyed as a raid by night? Our punishment took them suddenly while they slept for their afternoon rest. Our terror came to them; Our punishment overtook them."

So God has, in the past, destroyed the wicked? Wow that *MUST* be quite a revelation for a Christian right?  ;D ;D Have you not read Genesis? The Canaanites, Lot, the flood? Ring any bells??

I believe these are the same events being referred to in 7:3-4

Seems like the old:
The Quran orders restraint and non-combatants to be spared. Has gone out the window

Here are three different sources, each source gives the Arabic and the English translation.

Nothing about thickening the enemy they all use the word massacre

quran 8.67:It is not for a prophet to have captives [of war] until he inflicts a massacre [upon Allah 's enemies] in the land. Some Muslims desire the commodities of this world, but Allah desires [for you] the Hereafter. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.

Source


quran 8.67: It is not for a prophet to have captives [of war] until he inflicts a massacre [upon Allah 's enemies] in the land.  Some Muslims desire the commodities of this world, but Allah desires [for you] the Hereafter. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.

Source

quran 8.67:It is not for a prophet to have captives [of war] until he inflicts a massacre [upon Allah 's enemies] in the land.  Some Muslims desire the commodities of this world, but Allah desires [for you] the Hereafter. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.

Source

islam preaches murdering innocents

Hey Moses calm down Gandalf has only just got back from parking his arse.

If you trolls carry on he will be a Robinson Crusoe and be Fvucked by Friday. ;D

moses wrote on May 30^th, 2014 at 4:18pm:

Seems like the old: The Quran orders restraint and non-combatants to be spared. Has gone out the window

Moses, give me a single reference of me, or any other muslim claiming that muslims should show restraint on the battlefield

Do you understand yet that every one of your quotes is talking about the battlefield? Point out which of your quotes is referring to muslims slaughtering or being "unrestrained" towards non-combatants. Please. Note that one of your quotes is talking about what God did to the wicked, by his own hand and not by muslims - ala the flood and Lut.


moses wrote on May 30^th, 2014 at 4:18pm:

Nothing about thickening the enemy they all use the word massacre

Yes, all three. Its probably the same three out of 31 quotes I linked to above - ie that is, 28 out of 31 *DON'T* use massacre or slaughter.

Quote:

No, 'thickens' is the literal translation. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Most people usually go with the meaningful translation. Did he make soup out of them?


Quote:

You didn't listen before, why would you start now?

I want to put it on my wiki.


Quote:

Yet most translations don't use that nor have I found the word "thickens" used in any of the 40 translations I have read already.

You need a translation from a progressive Muslim. Let me see if I can find you one.


Quote:

Probably because 'thickens' would make absolutely no sense.

Was that your intention?


Quote:

On the battlefield - yes, and we make no apologies for that. What sane person do you know thinks its a good idea to fight a war with kid gloves? And just to be clear, all your quotes are references to the battlefield:

Would that be the "house of war"?


Quote:

The preceding verse is referring to people who had signed a treaty with the muslims then violated it.

If only the yanks used the Muslim way of handling treaties, they wouldn't have to deal with any more of those pesky natives.


Quote:

Do you understand yet that every one of your quotes is talking about the battlefield?

When you start slaughtering people, it is a battlefield by definition. Except of course when they are bound captives, but you have other excuses for that don't you?


Quote:

Point out which of your quotes is referring to muslims slaughtering or being "unrestrained" towards non-combatants

How about you point out if Muhammed's example is a demonstration of the restraint talked about in the Koran?

Your all over the place FD. Suggest you focus on something specific and try and argue something meaningful. As opposed to, you know, inane one line quips for everything.

Gandalf has a special method of interpreting Muhammed's example that I am keen to learn more about.

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2014 at 8:37pm:

Gandalf has a special method of interpreting Muhammed's example that I am keen to learn more about.

So am I.

I wish he had been my rep that time I defaulted on my rent ...

(The landlord had 'misinterpreted' my late-payment as non-payment or rent).  8-)

But would you listen if he told you?

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2014 at 8:44pm:

But would you listen if he told you?

Yes I would have, because I enjoy listening to sleight-of-tongue just as much as I enjoy watching sleight-of-hand.

Gandalf is a Master of sleight-of-tongue.

Now you see quotes by Mohammad in the Koran ~ and now you don't. It's like the disappearing rabbit in the top-hat trick (if you play the video backwards).

If you have made your mind up already then there is no point telling you.

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2014 at 8:53pm:

If you have made your mind up already then there is no point telling you.

Precisely.

Telling me 'religious truths' is a complete waste of time. There were learned biblical scholars at one time seriously discussing how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin.

I heard about this when I was around 13 years old ~ and promptly gave up being a 'Believer'.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 30^th, 2014 at 3:08pm:

Mattywisk wrote on May 30th, 2014 at 2:01pm: Yet most translations don't use that Most? Care to be more specific? Why don't you show me those 40 translations you mentioned to see how many actually use the term "slaughter" or "massacre". Here's a list of 31 translations I found here. I think there were 3 that mentioned slaughter. Yusuf Ali is arguably the most cited and renowned English translation, and he uses subdued. Mattywisk wrote on May 30th, 2014 at 2:01pm: nor have I found the word "thickens" used in any of the 40 translations I have read already Probably because 'thickens' would make absolutely no sense. It does however need to be interpreted, and "slaughter" is just one opinion of what the word means - a minority opinion as it happens, which does not include the most famous and widely cited translator (Yusuf Ali).

Google yourself , pick the 1st 40 it aint hard.

As it happens a cursory google will show you it is a majority opinion and thickens I never saw appear once. Educate yourself.

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2014 at 8:37pm:

Gandalf has a special method of interpreting Muhammed's example that I am keen to learn more about.

gandalfs way is the same as all adherents to the cult of islam

I disagree. The others were a bit more literal. Gandalf has a way of rejecting the actual example and reading into it a principle that is largely at odds with what Muhammed did.

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2014 at 9:47pm:

I disagree. The others were a bit more literal. Gandalf has a way of rejecting the actual example and reading into it a principle that is largely at odds with what Muhammed did.

if islam were not so abhorrent, i'ld be laughing at your comments

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2014 at 9:47pm:

I disagree. The others were a bit more literal. Gandalf has a way of rejecting the actual example and reading into it a principle that is largely at odds with what Muhammed did.

I believe gandalf has been receiving lucrative offers to take up a teaching position at the Keysar Trad Academy of Spin-Doctoring here in Sydney.