CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM DIALOGUE OPPOSED

Share

In the name of Allāh,
the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Peace and Blessings of Allāh on Mohammad.
DEDICATED TO
Allāh–the Glorious and the High,
Lord of the worlds
AND TO
Mohammad–who brought the world
to our feet and eternity to our arms.
*

     CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM DIALOGUE OPPOSED
According to an article on the Internet, one individual opposes Christian-Muslim Interfaith dialogue for a number of reasons which we have noted in “brown” and our answers

(1) (That) In the New Testament, God presents Himself as a Trinity (Mt. 28:19); in the Koran, God explicitly denies being a Trinity (5:73). In the Gospels, God refers to Jesus as “my beloved Son” (Mt. 3:17); in the Koran, God curses Christians for calling Christ the Son of God (9:30). In the Christian account, God accepts His only Son’s sacrificial death on the cross; in the Muslim account, God declares reports of Christ’s crucifixion to be “a monstrous falsehood” (4:157). In light of these significant differences, it is difficult to see how the God of the Bible and the God of the Koran could be one and the same.
ANSWER:
That. In the New Testament, God presents Himself as a Trinity (Mt. 28:19); in the Koran, God explicitly denies being a Trinity (5:73).
God did NOT present Himself as Trinity. Trinity was invented by the Church 300 years after Jesus. Moreover the verse of Matthew 28:19 (and Mark 16:9-20) have been exposed as “forgeries” in the Bible.
(Notably, the pagan Romans had Trinity –Juno, Jupiter and Minerva. And Hindus have Trinity –Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. And the Romans and Hindu Trinity pre-date the Christian Trinity. In which event it may be advanced that Christians copied the Pagan Romans and/or Hindu Trinity. The assertion gains full traction considering that the tree of Christian theology is firmly rooted in the soil of ancient mythology (see Jesus-1000-year rule).

That. In the Gospels, God refers to Jesus as “my beloved Son” (Mt. 3:17); in the Koran, God curses Christians for calling Christ the Son of God (9:30). In the Christian account, God accepts His only Son’s sacrificial death on the cross; in the Muslim account, God declares reports of Christ’s crucifixion to be “a monstrous falsehood” (4:157). In light of these significant differences, it is difficult to see how the God of the Bible and the God of the Koran could be one and the same.
(Putting aside the fact that the authors of the Gospels were NOT eyewitnesses of the account of which they wrote (see Bible corrupt & obsolete). Jesus as Son of God in the Christian belief –which attributes the function of “sex” to God– is blasphemy. The Bible shows that God has legions of sons and daughters. Son of God is only an epithet of honor.

Interesting, Jesus says about God: “Ye have NEITHER heard his voice at ANY TIME, nor seen his shape”–(John 5:37). As no one has ever “heard his (God’s) voice at ANY TIME,” whose “A” voice was this that was heard at Jesus’ baptism and “transfiguration”? Who else had such power to throw his voice but Satan to lead people astray?).

God does not engage in human sacrifice –human sacrifice to the fire-God Molech was an ancient practice forbidden by God–(Leviticus 18:21).
God did not send Jesus to be killed for anyone’s sin –God sent Jesus only for Jews, to preach to them. Trinity, inherited sin and vicarious atonement are Christian’s assumptions: these doctrines have no Divine foundation, no prophetic foundation, no logical foundation and are repugnant to reason (see Christianity-lies, evil, hate. Those who follow these doctrines are not followers of Christ: they are followers of the Church and Paul; and are Churchians or Paulians and their religion is Churchianity or Paulianity),

That Jesus was not killed on the cross –he only appeared to be dead– is a fact determined by Christians themselves and which evidence was submitted to the Vatican (yet the Church continues to promote Jesus as “blood sacrifice” for the world) (see Christianity-a fake; Jesus-inherited sin to ascension).

As we have shown on our site the cardinal doctrines of Christianity are NOT Divine Revelations -they are not clearly expressed in the Bible- these doctrines are assumptions.
Trinity was invented by the Church 300 years after Christ; and inherited sin and vicarious atonement were devised by St. (?) Paul.

In summary. Christianity is:
  Trinity –God growing in the womb, coming out the vagina and getting circumcised; and needing to eat butter and honey “that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good”-(Isaiah 7:14-15)
  Son of God –attributing the animal function of sex to God; as “fatherhood” requires the union of sperm and ovum; (and Jesus is only “CALLED” son of God-Luke 1:35); and needing to eat butter and honey “that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good”-(Isaiah 7:14-15)
  Inherited sin –God loading a man’s (Adam’s) sin onto innocent, helpless and mentally non-competent babies
  Vicarious atonement –God having a blameless man (Jesus) killed for the sin of others.
Which are gruesome, unGodly monstrosities!

(Even Hinduism is superior to Christianity. Whereas both religions reduce God to “son” of a woman and make woman “mother” of God by placing God in the body of a woman and bring Him out her genital. Unlike Christianity which attributes injustice to God and makes God complicit in murder by shifting Adam’s sin around onto every person and then onto Jesus and having him murdered, Hinduism, does not attribute injustice to God and make Him complicit in murder; Hinduism gives to man an equal and opposite reaction to his action; though this renders God as being mercy-less, see Karma & Reincarnation.
Also, whereas Jesus/Christianity regards non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine” and preached in “parables” so these metaphorical “dogs” and “swine” would not understand and be saved, Hinduism does not regard non-Jews or non-Hindus as “dogs” and “swine” or preached in parables so they would not understand. The God or son of God or prophet that regards one sector of humanity as “:dogs” and “swine” and even preach so they would not understand and be saved is the God/son of God/prophet not worthy of honor much less of adoration and worship. Even humans fight against racism and bigotry).   

(2) (That) Muslims can generally be counted on to love their families. But in many respects, the Catholic and Muslim views of marriage and family are worlds apart. To Catholics, marriage is a sacrament; to Muslims, it is a contract. Moreover, it is primarily a contract about sex and money. In fact, the Arabic language uses the same word, nikah, for both marriage and sexual intercourse. In Islam, marriage is an institution ordained to meet the sexual needs of men. Thus, a Muslim man can have two, three, or four wives at a time and as many different families. And four is not really an absolute limit because if a Muslim man gets tired of one of his wives, he need only say “I divorce you” three times and he is free to marry another. Although many Muslim men rise above their religion and stay faithful to one wife, the knowledge that one can be easily replaced creates an undercurrent of insecurity and instability that, in turn, leads to widespread family dysfunction in the Muslim world. In fact, a number of scholars contend that Islamic violence is in large part the result of Islamic family dynamics.
ANSWER:
That “Arabic language uses the same word, nikah, for both marriage and sexual intercourse.”
Isn’t sex the primary physical function of marriage? “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth”–(Genesis 2:28). Isn’t marriage and sex inherent in this Biblical statement by God?

Muslim marriage is both a “sacrament” and “contract.” The Arabic word for marriage is “nikah which originally means ‘aqd or uniting” –uniting in faith, love, compassion and intimacy. Allah says that He creates mates for us from among ourselves–(Qur’an 30:21; 42:11); and that marriage is a mithaq, solemn covenant–(Qur’an 4:21). “Thus marriage is, according to the Qur’an, the union of two souls which are one in their essence”–(Muhammad Ali, The Religion of Islam, pp. 584, 586).

As marriage is a sacred contract between the man and woman, and as Allah has put love and compassion between them, that she is a source of peace and comfort, that they are garments to the other –to beautify, protect, conceal imperfections, and make comfortable– and that she has rights similar as the rights against her, it is absolute nonsense and a betrayal of ignorance to charge that in Islam marriage “is primarily a contract about sex and money.” and that “In Islam, marriage is an institution ordained to meet the sexual needs of men.”

That “if a Muslim man gets tired of one of his wives, he need only say “I divorce you” three times and he is free to marry another.” is a gross error. See Islam-divorce.

While marriage in Islam is a sacred bond, there is no “till death us do part.”
Contrast Islam’s clarity which requires that if a couple cannot live in harmony they are to part in peace and civility to the confounding Christian law of divorce. Where it is claimed that whereas Moses allowed a man to divorce his wife because “she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her”–(Deuteronomy 24:1), Jesus says “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away (i.e. the divorced woman) doth commit adultery–(Matthew 19:7-9; Mark 10:11-12).

Thus, a woman who is not adulterous is to waste her young beautiful self in a loveless marriage till death claims her. And if a man has a lazy and hard-nosed wife then, barring adultery, she can make the man’s life an infernal misery and he can do nothing about it. Also how can anyone marry the divorced Christian woman when she is to be stoned to death for committing adultery? (Notably, Jesus did not abrogate stoning to death, see Jesus and the adulteress).

(3). (That). Under Islamic law, women and children are little more than possessions of their husbands and fathers. Still, the bonds of natural affection often trump what Egyptian-born writer Nonie Darwish calls “the corrupting temptations” of Islam. Yet those religiously sanctioned temptations are ever present in the Muslim world. Take the matter of child marriage. Muhammad signed a marriage contract with Aisha when she was six years old, and consummated the marriage when she was nine. And Muhammad is considered by Muslims to be the most perfect human being who ever lived! The Koran says ninety-one times that all Muslims are supposed to pattern their lives after Muhammad. Thus, when Islamic societies strive to return to their Muhammaden roots, there is a corresponding demand for a lowering of the legal age of marriage. For example, Iranian lawmakers are now seeking to lower the age of marriage for girls to nine. Mohammad Ali Isfenani, chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee, called the current minimum age of thirteen “un-Islamic.”
ANSWER:
That “when Islamic societies strive to return to their Muhammaden roots, there is a corresponding demand for a lowering of the legal age of marriage.”
Who sets this “legal age” of marriage?

While there is no set age for marriage in Islam (or in Christianity) one’s age of marriage is dependent upon maturity of intellect (see Age of sexual consent).
However, though a girl may have maturity of intellect this does not mean she is to be given in marriage against her will. There is NO forced marriage in Islam; a woman has the right to choose her husband.
Says the noble Messenger of Allāh:

-“A matron should not be given in marriage except after consulting her; and a virgin should not be given in marriage except after her permission”–(Bokhari Vol. 7, # 67, 68; Vol. 9, # 98, 100);
-a virgin’s consent, because of bashfulness, is expressed by her silence–(Bokhari Vol. 7,  #68; Vol. 9, # 98, 100-101);
-and that “If a man gives his daughter in marriage in spite of her disagreement, such marriage is invalid”–it notes the dissolution of such a marriage by the Prophet on behalf of a “matron” who disliked the marriage her father had arranged–(Bokhari Vol. 7, # 69; Vol. 9, #78).
A woman may also propose to a man–(Bokhari Vol. 7 #’s 48, 53, 54). There is a report of a woman proposing marriage to the Prophet–(Bokhari Vol. 3, #505).(For more on marriage see Islam-women).

To repeat. Who sets this “legal age” of marriage? In contrast to Christianity which relegates little virgin girls as sex slaves.
Whereas Mohammad put an end to marriage/sex with young girls, modern man was yet sanctioning this abomination and even with little boys. I note a few examples taken from the website:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/09/age-of-consent-in-european-american-history/

“In Medieval and early modern European societies, the age of marriage remained low, with documented cases of brides as young as seven years, although marriages were typically not consummated until the girl reached puberty (Bullough 2004). Shakespeare’s Juliet was just 13, and there is no hint in the play that this was considered to be exceptional. The situation was similar on the other side of the Atlantic; Bullough reports the case in 1689 of a nine-year-old bride in Virginia. At the start of the nineteenth century in England, it was legal to have sex with a 10 year-old girl.” [2]

“In 1962, the American Law Institute recommended that the legal age of consent to sex- that is, the age below which sex is defined as statutory rape- be dropped in every state to age 10 (Katchadourian and Lund 1972: 439). In fact, until the mid 1960s, the legal age of consent in Delaware was 7 (Kling, 1965: 216). So a 50 year old man could legally have sexual intercourse with a 7 year old boy or girl.” [6]

 “Until the late 20th century U.S. age of consent laws specifically names males as perpetrators and females as victims. Following English law, in which the age was set at 12 in 1275 and lowered to 10 in 1576, ages of consent in the American colonies were generally set at 10 or 12. The laws protected female virginity, which at the time was considered a valuable commodity until marriage. The theft of a girl’s chastity was seen as a property crime against her father and future husband. If two people were married and had sex, no matter what their age, no crime was committed because a woman was her husband’s property. In practice, too, the consent laws only protected white females, as many non-white females were enslaved or otherwise discriminated against by the legal system.” [3]

“At what age is a person capable of making and informed decision about whether or not to engage in sex? Would it be7,10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, or 21? Over the last 300 years, all the ages listed above were thought to be that magic age at which one could make such a decision, and all the ages listed above have, at various times, been inscribed into law as the age of consent to sex.” [13]
How wise then that Islam has set the age of marriage as the age of maturity of intellect. (See Age of sexual consent).

It is a rather strange charge that “Under Islamic law, women and children are little more than possessions of their husbands and fathers;” in view of the fact that women has rights alongside man from the cradle all the way to Jannah/Paradise; and the welfare of children takes precedence over the desire of parents (see Islam-women; Islam-child custody. For the contrast between Muslim women and Christian women see Christianity-women).

Islamic scholars can say whatever they like. Child-marriage, which was the practice of Mohammad’s society, came to end when details of marriage was revealed to the Prophet.
In contrast, it is the Bible that allows child-marriage and even taking prepubescent virgin little girls as sex slaves (see Christianity-sex slaves & prepubescent girls). For Mohammad’s marriage to ‘Aisha see ‘Aisha & Mohammad; ‘Aisha’s marriage-9 or 19?

That “the bonds of natural affection often trump what Egyptian-born writer Nonie Darwish calls “the corrupting temptations” of Islam.….Muhammad signed a marriage contract with Aisha when she was six years old, and consummated the marriage when she was nine….Thus, when Islamic societies strive to return to their Muhammaden roots, there is a corresponding demand for a lowering of the legal age of marriage.”
ANSWER:
(Apart from the fact that the Bible, as noted in ‘Aisha & Mohammad allows sex with girls as young as seven years old, and relegates little virgin girls as sex slaves). If marriage to young girls (which Islam/Mohammad abolished) is, as Nonie Darwish calls it, “the corrupting temptations” of Islam:

  • What is “the corrupting temptations” in the Bible/Christianity that drove Solomon and his son to have nearly 1100 wives and concubines?
  • What is “the corrupting temptations” in the Bible/Christianity that drove God to give David the wives of David’s master; and to give David’s wives to his neighbor?
  • What is “the corrupting temptations” in the Bible/Christianity that drive Christians to engage in extra-marital affairs?
  • What is “the corrupting temptations” in the Bible/Christianity that drive Christians, including priests, to engage in sodomy and homosexuality? (See Internet). For a comment on Nonie Darwish see Now They Call Me Infidel; Cruel and Usual Punishment.

As for polygamy in Islam see Islam-polygamy.
Christianity not only allows polygamy but also concubinage and incest:

  • -Abraham had a wife and concubine (as Christians say Lady Hagar was a bondswoman)-Gen. 20:11-12; Lev. 20:17; Gen. 16:1-4;
  • -Lot built two nations with his two daughters–(Genesis 19:30-38); (incest).
  • -Jacob joyed with Bilhah and Zilpah, handmaids of his wives Rachel and Leah, and built tribes from their children–(Gen. 30:1-13);
  • -Judah, Jesus’ grandfather, played hide-and-seek with his daughter-in-law, Tamar, and made her fruit–(Gen. 38:11-18);
  • -Lamech had two wives (Gen. 4:19);
  • -God gave to David the wives of David’s master and gave David’s wives to David’s neighbor–(2 Samuel 12:7-11).
  • -Solomon and his son, Rehoboam, had almost 100 wives and “concubines” between the two of them–(1 Kings 11:3. 2 Chronicles 11:21).

Whereas Christians and critics crab at Mohammad; when it comes to speaking and writing about the thousand wives and concubines and sex-ploits of the prophets they believe in Christians (and critics) become dumb and illiterate. (For the reasons for Mohammad’s multiple marriages see Mohammad-and Moulood).

Notably, Jesus saying that a man is to leave parents and cleave to his wife does not abrogate polygamy. Jesus was only stressing that the relationship between a husband and wife is closer than child-parent relationship.
In answer to the Pharisees question “is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” Jesus reminded them that at the beginning God made them “male and female.” “And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder”–(Matthew 19:3-6. At the beginning there was only one man and one woman; and no preponderancy of women over men –as war generally leaves widows; wives generally live longer than husbands and females mature earlier than males– to contend with).

If this saying of Jesus is taken to mean “monogamy’ then, considering that women –widows and young blooming females mentioned above– have feminine needs which can only be fulfilled in the carnal bed then society would be filled with adulterers and adulteresses who, according to the Bible, are to be stoned to death; and with armies of “bastard” children who will become orphans after their parents are stoned to death..

It is rather intriguing that Jesus would condemn polygamy when, as noted above, God gave David “his master’s wives” and Solomon had “seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines, and Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, had “eighteen wives and three score concubines” And as sex with these concubines is adultery, David, Solomon and Rehoboam would need to be stoned to death as the Jewish Law require.
To emphasize. Clearly, Jesus was only stressing that the relationship between a husband and wife is closer than child-parent relationship; he was not negating polygamy.

(4). That:  Then, of course, there is the matter of honor killings. An increasing number of Muslim fathers, grandfathers, uncles, and brothers feel so strongly about family honor that they are willing to murder any female relative who calls the family honor into question. Some commentators say this practice has nothing to do with Islam but is merely an unfortunate tribal custom. But the fact is that Muslims account for the vast majority of honor killings worldwide. This is because honor killings are protected under Islamic law. Perhaps the most authoritative guide to Islamic law is Reliance of the Traveler, a nine hundred-page manual that has been certified as reliable by Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Section O, which deals with “retaliations” (punishments) for killing a human being, explains that some killings are not subject to retaliation. For example, “not subject to retaliation” is “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.” In other words, parents or grandparents who kill their children or grandchildren should not be punished. And so, in many places in the Muslim world, the perpetrators of honor killings are not punished or else are let off with a light or suspended sentence.
ANSWER:
There is no ‘honor killing” in Islam; honor killing and death for adultery, apostasy, blasphemy, parent abuse are the Jewish and Christian law. (See Islam-honor killing; Islam-adultery & flogging; Islam-apostasy; Islam-blasphemy).  Christians may not be observing these laws. But their God/Scripture demands it. And heaven lies in following/obeying God/Scripture.

That “Some commentators say this practice has nothing to do with Islam but is merely an unfortunate tribal custom. But the fact is that Muslims account for the vast majority of honor killings worldwide. This is because honor killings are protected under Islamic law.”
Do you blame Jesus Christ for Christian priests sodomizing young boys? (see Internet?).
Honor killing is NOT protected under Islamic law! Islamic Law Shari’ah is the Qur’an and teachings of the Prophet Mohammad. However, whatever saying of the Prophet contradicts with the Qur’an –and sayings were forged in the name of the Prophet even during his lifetime – is to be discarded: the Qur’an supersedes all other sources of guidance.
What is to be borne in mind is that

(1) The Qur’an was revealed over a period of about twenty-three years. Unless and until he received Divine revelation in a matter the Prophet Mohammad followed the Torah/Bible, which requires honor killing, death for apostasy, blasphemy and parental abuse, homosexuality, and adultery. The Qur’an abrogates these laws of Judaism and Christianity. (This is what the Qur’an refers to when it speaks of abrogation–Qur’an 2:106; it does not mean, as erroneously believe, that one verse of the Qur’an abrogates another verse. See Muhammad Ali’s comm. to Qur’an 2:106: www.muslim.org).
(2) Hadith/Sayings of the Prophet Mohammad are to be understood as to the time frame in which they were given –whether it was before or after revelation on the subject. The Prophet governed according to the Qur’an–(Qur’an 10:15; 21:45; 46:9; 53:3-4).

(5) (That) there is near unanimity among Islamic scholars and jurists that male apostates from Islam should be killed. And the average Muslim in the street tends to agree. A 2010 Pew Forum survey of public opinion found that eighty-four percent of Egyptians agree that apostates should be killed. A Pew survey of Pakistanis revealed that seventy-eight percent favor death for those who leave Islam.
ANSWER:
The “Islamic scholars and jurists” and “Muslim in the street” who sanctions death for apostasy need to revisit the Qur’an/Islam. There is no death for apostasy and blasphemy in Islam. There is death for apostasy and blasphemy and other acts in Judaism and Christianity. (See Islam-apostasy; Islam-blasphemy ).

(6) That. One of the major mistakes Christians make about Islam is to fail to understand its political nature. Unlike Christianity, subjugation of other religions and cultures is at its core.
ANSWER:
While there is no separation of Masjid and State in Islam; Islam has no “political nature.” Islamic governance is based on truth and justice for all and that the exacting of one’s rights is diametrically equal to the instituting of the rights of others.
In contrast, it is Christianity that has a “political nature” and requires the “subjugation of other religions and cultures.”
Christianity’s “political nature.”

  • -Its separation of Church and State: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things; and unto God the things that are God” –Mathew 22:21).
  • -“I am come to send FIRE on the earth”–(Luke 12:49).
  • -Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth, Nay; but rather DIVISION: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; and the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law”–(Luke 12:51-53).
  • -“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me”–(Matthew 10:35-37).
  • -“Think NOT that I am come to send peace on earth: I came NOT to send peace, but a SWORD”–(Matthew 10:34).
  • -“If any man come to me, and HATE NOT his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple”–(Luke 14:26).
  • -Christians are allowed make secret deals with his ‘adversary;” and to lie and deceive to spread their religion, on which they have assent of their God, Son of God and Paul. (See Islam-and lying; Allāh and Jesus or Paul; Bible corrupt & obsolete).

Christianity’s “subjugation of other religions and cultures”:

  • -If thy brother…entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth…thou shalt surely kill him–(Deut; 13:6-10).
  • -“They (Jeshurun and his children) have moved me (God) to jealousy with that which is not God…I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them…I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust. The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs”–(Deut. 32: 15-25); it will be legal to mutilate enemies: (The Israelites asked God “Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first, to fight against them” to occupy their land) “And the Lord said, Judah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand…and they slew of them in Bezek ten thousand men…and they pursued after him (Adonibezek), and caught him and CUT OFF HIS THUMBS and his GREAT TOES. And Adonibezek said, THREE SCORE AND TEN kings, having their THUMBS and their GREAT TOES CUT OFF”–(Judges 1:1-7. Islam only allows a defensive fighting and certainly not to “go up” and kill people to occupy their lands);
  • -“When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it…thou shalt SMITE THEM, and UTTERLY DESTROY THEM, thou shalt MAKE NO COVENANT with them, NOR SHOW MERCY UNTO THEM”–(Deut. 7:1-2. See Josh. 12:1-6).
    “And stay ye not, but PURSUE AFTER YOUR ENEMIES, and SMITE THE HINDMOST OF THEM; SUFFER THEM NOT TO ENTER INTO THEIR CITIES: for the LORD YOUR GOD hath delivered them into your hand;” “and Joshua called for all the men of Israel…Come near, put your feet upon the necks of these kings…And afterward JOSHUA SMOTE THEM, and SLEW THEM, and HANGED THEM on five trees.” “So Joshua SMOTE ALL THE COUNTRY of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and ALL THEIR KINGS: HE LEFT NONE remaining, but UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL THAT BREATHED, as the LORD GOD of Israel commanded…And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because the LORD GOD of Israel fought for Israel;” “And they UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL that was in the city, both MAN AND WOMAN, YOUNG AND OLD, AND OX, AND SHEEP, AND ASS, with the EDGE OF THE SWORD”–(Joshua 10:19, 24, 26, 40-42; 6:21. Read Joshua chs. 10-12; Numbers 21:24, 35; 31:17-18; Deut. 20:16-17; 1 Sam. 15:2-3, for slaughters by Joshua, Moses, and Saul). Notably, unlike the Arab idolaters who persecuted Mohammad, tried to assassinate him, forced him into exile, pursued him and warred against him, these little males and matrons and virgin girls and cattle did not take up arms against Moses and Joshua.
  • -the Geneva convention on war would have to be re-written, for it would be legal to slay all the soldiers of war as well as slay all the male and matron women and take the virgin girls as sex slaves (and as Christians say Jesus is God this is what Jesus commanded): “And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses …. And Moses said unto them…Now therefore kill every MALE among the LITTLE ONES (of the captives), and kill EVERY WOMAN who hath known man by lying with him, but ALL THE WOMEN CHILDREN, that have not known a man by lying with him (virgin girls) KEEP ALIVE FOR YOURSELVES….and of WOMEN that had not known man by lying with him (virgin girls), were 32,000”–(Numbers 31:1-53).
  • -“He that is not with me is against me (and a person can be neutral)–Matthew 12:30);
    “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (though the enemies might not militate against him)–(Luke 19:27. If these two sayings of Jesus were to be implemented more than five billion people of the world that do not accept Jesus as Divine and vicarious atoner would be slaughtered. These must be the verses that gave birth to the murderous Crusades that savaged Jews, Muslims and the natives of the Americas; and which muzzled the mouth of the Vatican while Christian Europe was “Holocausting” Jews).

Regarding “Islamic expansion.”
Isn’t Christianity trying to drown the world in the mythical blood of Christ?
There is no such animal as “stealth jihad — the process of spreading Islam by means of cultural rather than armed warfare.”
Unlike Jesus who was sent wholly and solely only for Jews and preached in parables so non-Jews would not understand and be saved, Mohammad preached clearly and gave the Divine Message of the Qur’an to all mankind.

There is no armed “warfare” in Islam to spread religion. see Islam-Jihad & Jihad Watch. In contrast, as shown above, there is “armed warfare” as well as “cultural” “warfare” in Christianity to spread religion.

If Muslims want to institute Shari’ah in America, Muslims would be doing an invaluable service to America: there is no system on the face of this earth that is more equitable and just than Islamic Shari’ah.

Muslims cannot give a “whitewashed picture of Islam.” Islam is the religion of reason, argument and example. “Call to the way of Thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner”–(Qur’an 16:125).
Unlike Christianity, Islam does not seek to silence voices, Islam seeks to enhance mentality:
Islam is civility, intelligence, and democracy!

Share