T. C vs FFI Staff

Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionFrom: T. C. To: faithfreedom2@gmail.com Date: Apr 25, 2006 1:18 AM Subject: **From A READER (Please read and reply) On 4/25/06, T. C. wrote: To start, I'm a Muslim living in the West I have mostly (due to my surroundings) [url=http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/friends.htm] non-Muslim friends.[/url] I respect everyone, and love all people who are respectful and just (and there we can agree, yes?). I'm open to a lot of ideas. I don't reject new ideas without consideration. With that mindset, I started reading your page (thinking it was Islamic, not anti-Islamic, to be honest). Still, when I realized what your page was focused on, I still read on. All sides of an argument are to be considered--even ones I disagree with. Bear in mind that I have no desire to "win" a non-existant $50,000--I simply wish to provide an argument for the faith that I follow and respect (deeply). I want to point out a few points to be considered. [color=purple] For a book that is supposed to be a sure guide and easy to understand it certainly causes a lot of caveats that you need to provide again and again as demonstrated by your need to give a link. The issue dealt at the link is another matter for another time. [/color] You focus on a lot of "weak points" you attribute to the Prophet Mohammed. You focus on a lot of "slaughters" that aren't really respected in historic studies. You simply provide links that claim they occured, but no defense from many historians. I, on the other hand, have information like [url=http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/quote1.html#hitti]THIS.[/url] Read those quotes, by the way. You'll soon realize (with further research of course, unless you want endless links) that Mohammed is praised very often by people who aren't even Muslim. That said, I'm sure many have cut him down as well throughout history, but those people often had agendas of their own. Of course King Richard wouldn't praise Mohammed--his religious group was fighting against Mohammed's followers (unless you want to give that baseless argument that Christians were actually the victims of the Crusades--one that almost no historians support). Plenty of non-Muslims have praised Mohammed, and I doubt that they have/had agendas. [color=purple] The sources that AliSina uses are from the Islamic sources and of Islamic historians. Mohammed is defined by these "orginal sources", and all the later historians you are referring to have to rely upon the material of the hadeeth and the maghazi literature. The issue is not what these non-islamic historians have or have not said, but what the original islamic sources say about Muhammed. Is there anything that AliSina has presented from the hadeeth and the origingal islamic historians like ibn ishaq and Waqqidi that he has made up? What AliSina says about mohammed is in the writings of the islamic historians themselves.[/color] You have made claims across your site that Mohammed was not truly a Prophet, but merely lied in order to gain wealth, sex, etc. You claim he was constructing a religion as he wanted it--one that allowed him to achieve his goals of luxury and domination. There are a number of issues that point in the opposite direction. Consider the three main substances Muslims are forbidden to consume--pork, alcohol, and drugs (hallucinogens and the like). [color=purple] Mohammed's actions are not those of a prophet. His actions as reported by the islamic sources speak for themselves.[/color] If I was a false-prophet constructing my own religion, I certainly wouldn't outlaw any of those things. I've never eaten pork (since it is against my religion), but I'm sure it tastes as good as any other meat. I would have no reason, as a false prophet, to outlaw its consumption, for that would also be restricting myself. The same goes for alcohol. As any non-Muslim will tell you, alcohol can be a quite enjoyable substance. It can get you drunk, which is considered an interesting, "fun" feeling (not considering the terrible ramifications that can come along with it; i.e. drunk driving). That is why college students drink so much of it (I doubt they drink vodka for the taste). Why would a false prophet outlaw such a fun, interesting drink? Wouldn't he like to use some? Of course, the above statements are also applicable to drugs, so I don't need to continue the example. [color=purple] Gosh , that is like saying how could Hitler be evil because he was a vegetarian? What an argument! I am sorry but that is a silly argument you construct. None of those was new. Judaism had it and so mohammed merely is plagerizing and lifting and making a hodge podge that he can sell.[/color] Islam has many restrictions like this, as do the other two major religions of the world. Why would false prophets set restrictions like this? I understand why a false prophet would speak out against certain issues (nobody would follow a religion that supported having sex with animals, for example, so it would have to be outlawed), but other acts considered sins in Islam (like the three listed above) could have been easily OK'd under a "false religion" without a fuss. I don't think Arabs had lifelong grudges against pigs or marijuana that would require such a law. Clearly, there was an alterior motive behind it. That motive was God, who spoke to Mohammed--his prophet--and told him to tell his people that these substances were not to be used/eaten. [color=purple] Islam is not a religion. Mohammed lived at a time and place where there were jews and christians. He obviously misunderstood what he heard and that is why quran misrepresents judaism and christianity. Why would a false prophet not set restrictions like that? Obviously he did what he thought was best to get him his dominance.[/color] The bigger issue is adultery. You basically claim the Mohammed was (for lack of a better term) a sex fiend. Why would a sex fiend outlaw adultery? Certainly a man as well respected as Mohammed could have had sex with every girl in town if he so desired. He was, again, very well-respected. Marriage is a complication that simply lengthens the time before one can have sex. Why enforce marriage and demand abstinence from sex with someone before marriage? Also, why make women dress so modestly? Why not demand they walk in loincloths? The weather in the Middle East would have been perfect for clothing like that. Sex-hungry "false prophet?" Signs point to "no." [color=purple] He did worse. He cheapened and destroyed marriage itself. That is why there are marriage for four hours in Islam. That is why the institutions of marriage of convineance exists among the sunnis and the shias. Besides polygamy he also instituted "how ever many the right hand possess. He did not make women dress modestly. He covered them because he considered them equivalent to 10 awrahs (or vaginas). He put them in body bags and got them locked up behind high walls. [url=http://news.sawf.org/Lifestyle/10775.aspx] "Temporary marriage catches on in Afghanistan[/url] Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 (EST) Twenty-nine-year-old mechanic Payenda Mohammad was married last month in a simple ceremony in this northern Afghanistan town, but the marriage only lasted four hours." [url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060425/wl_mideast_afp/gulfislammarriage_060425164743] No strings attached marriage enrages Gulf women[/url] DUBAI (AFP) - An Islamic tribunal's ruling that allows Sunni Muslim men to marry without having to live with or financially support their wives has enraged Gulf women's rights activists who say Islamic marriage is unfair enough already. The Mecca-based Islamic Jurisprudence Assembly announced on April 12 that so-called Misyar marriage -- from the colloquial Gulf Arabic word for visitor -- was permitted, drawing the ire of women in the region..... The practice has previously already been accepted in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, with the blessing of notable clerics. "Enlightened Islamic scholars should stand up to such radical thoughts disseminated through (Islamic) tribunes, and not abandon women to stand up to them alone," Dashti said. You consider a burqa a modest dress? [/color] Of course, I can list example after example where Islamic sins don't correspond with the desires of a selfish, greedy, sex-hungry man. On the contrary, acts considered sins in Islam are ones that produce greediness and perversion. You'll no doubt cite Mohammed's marriage to Aisha (at a very young age) as proof of his perversion, though. That said, marriage to girls at younger ages was not at all uncommon during his time-period. You must also note (though you never do) that Aisha had nothing bad to say about the Prophet, even after his death. Nothing, ever. Only deep, deep praise and stories about how well he treated her. Certainly a victim of rape (or whatever crime you attribute to this particular marriage) would speak against the man that raped her (especially after his death, when there was little risk of retribution, as you might say). [color=purple] Muslims like you never understand the evil of Mohammed's marriage to Aiesha. Muhammed is held up as a prophet for all time and for all people. Muslims use his actions to make Sharia laws. His actions were not set just at that time. His actions are not judged by what people did at that time, but for all time. That is the reason why there is no lower limit of marriage for girls in many muslim countries. It is that action that condemned millions of baby girls to be subjected to filthy old men among the muslims for the last 1450 years. That is why old men still marry pre-teen girls in the islamic world now, and many for only a few hours. That is the crime that condemned not only girls of that time but condemned them for all time and for all people. Pakistan had set in their secular law the age of marriage to be 16 but that was overturned because it is against Sharia becuase of muhammed's example in the case of a 10 or a 12 year old girl within the last couple of years. And you living in the west, muslim, cannot see the crime against women but are defending it!! [/color] This email is getting long, though, and I'm going to cut it short. There are many other issues that should be discussed, and I hope to send you a message regarding them soon. To be honest, many of the things (in the Quran) you wrote are truly being taken out of context. Honestly. I know you hear it a lot, but it really is true. If I wanted to write about them, this email might never end (it's already quite long, and it's already quite late as I'm writing this). I don't want to confront you with anger, and I hope my language and tone throughout this email made this point clear. I simply think you're viewing an entire religion wrong, basing it on the actions of people who commit sins in the name of religion. You had pictures of men cutting their childrens' foreheads, for example, on your site. This is wrong (sin) in Islam regardless of what these men say. What's important to remember is that we have a book (The Quran) that can prove these actions as non-Islamic. Nobody can truly "twist" religion if a holy book can be used as a reference to prove him/her wrong. This is what I urge. I feel my religion (Islam) is the truth. I hope you can come to respect it again, too. Nothing is better than that. Please reply back as soon as possible. I'm impatiently waiting. --- (I know you often post mesgages on your site. Feel free to post this on your site, if you so desire. I only ask that you leave my email address out. I'm sure you can understand). [color=purple] Please post your questions at the FFI forum and you will get your answers from people far more knowledgable than I. Doubtless[/color]