Error: No CURL Found - Social Networks AutoPoster needs the CURL PHP extension. Please install it or contact your hosting company to install it.

President Trump Vs. Muhammad – Who is Racist/Extremist? – Faithfreedom.org

President Trump Vs. Muhammad – Who is Racist/Extremist?

17 Responses

  1. Walter Sieruk says:

    About one of the current followers of the prophet of Islam, Muhammad. To be more specific , he is that mullah who is the president of that brutal,cruel and oppressive Islamic tyranny of Iran. His name is Rouhani and he is a great contrast, in character to President Trump . For example ,the Iranian people who are brave enough to criticize Rouhani do so at their own risk. By contrast, The American people and even people who live in the Unites States who are non-US citizens are very free to strongly and harshly and also unfairly criticize President Trump and they have or take no risk on themselves for doing do. For America has freedom of speech. In contrast this “mullah regime” of Iran does not. Another example, President Trump likes peace and is willing to make “official peace” even with Communist North Korea . In vicious contrast, Rouhani likes to threaten militant military violence.. Even against American and the American people. So only in response to such threats did president Trump tweet a reply . Therefore President Trump is right and righteous when he warned that mullah, Rouhani , who is the president that Islamic tyranny of Iran that Rouhani should “NEVER ,EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN.”
    The arrogant gall of Rouhani to even speak and make such threats out of his scheming Islamic violent and malicious desire and Shi’ite imagination. This also, very much applies to his partner Ayatollah Khamenei and well as other mullahs and ayatollahs in power in Iran. Further any other Islamic officials who are the stooges of those wicked Muslim clerics should likewise beware of launching any kind of attack against he USA.
    Such a vicious mindset of heinous arrogance of Rouhani, Khamenei and the other hateful and spiteful Islamic clerics in this “mullah regime” of Iran is reflected in the words from the Bible describing Tyrannical villains in power of an oppressive regime. For Psalm 73:6—9 read “Therefore pride is their necklace:: they clothe themselves with violence. From their callous hearts comes iniquity; their evil ;their evil imaginations have no limits. They scoff and speak with malice; with arrogance they threaten oppression. Their mouths lay claim to heaven, and their tongues take possession of the earth.” [N.I.V.]

  2. Steve (2) says:

    @ECAW’s blog

    “But I do maintain that the 19th century European concept of anti-Semitism is not applicable to Mohammed’s hatred of Jews which I believe stemmed solely from their refusal to acknowledge him as a prophet. If they had done so he would not have got increasingly vicious about them”

    It’s not that clear cut. The European concept of anti-Semitism arose from an alleged tendency of Jews not to assimilate (ie to the then-Christian mainstream), and only took on more overtly ‘racial’ flavor later, under the influence of things like late 19th century racial Imperialism, Social Darwinism and Eugenics. So in essence it began also from a ‘refusal to acknowledge’ the right ‘prophet’, and their refusal to to do so was inherent to their identity as Jews. It started from the same place and ended in the same way, vilification, persecution, expulsion, enslavement, and massacre. Had Jews previously converted wholesale and wholeheartedly to Christianity, things might have gone differently, even given some vestige of resentment etc at ‘convert’ economic success etc. But the religious basis of anti-Semitism would have been gone, at least over time, and people like the Nazis presumably would not have got so vicious about them (of course they got vicious about atheist-communist ‘Jews’ as well as religious ones, but they still had ‘Jewish’ and non-Christian identity. Some knowable or ‘insufficiently assimilated’ converts also were caught up in the process, especially due to the substantially racial form anti-Semitism had adopted by then, but they were not the main target per se. Some received dispensations, especially ‘racially’ part-Jews). Especially if by the 20th century the process had already been largely complete for some time.

    Upshot being, that there is no reason to somehow consider Islamic anti-Semitism as ‘lesser’ or ‘more accidental’ than European. Both began in religion and continued to ‘race’.

  3. ECAW's blog says:

    Thanks.

    “I think the author uses the word racist as critics of Islam are often branded racist. So if that qualifies as racism then Islam it self is racist.”

    So two wrongs make a right then…

  4. Steve says:

    “On another note, have the latest seven posts at the top of the homepage disappeared on your screen as they have on mine?” Yes

    I think the author uses the word racist as critics of Islam are often branded racist. So if that qualifies as racism then Islam it self is racist.

  5. ECAW's blog says:

    Steve

    I think our discussion has come to a natural end. On another note, have the latest seven posts at the top of the homepage disappeared on your screen as they have on mine?

  6. Steve says:

    ECAW’s blog

    “Mohammed himself had no aversion to taking Jewish wives/sex-slaves (Rayhana and Safiya).” Well even white slave owners would have sex – and children – with their black slaves.

    “After a couple of generations would there be any trace left of the new Muslims’ Jewishness in the community’s awareness or would they all just have been Muslims?”They would all have been Muslims by a couple of generations later – the same as happened to all the other nations and races that Muslims later conquered. Just the same as people who was descended from Jews who was forced to convert to Christianity I suppose.

  7. ECAW's blog says:

    Steve – I concede that anti-Semitism is invariably used today to refer to Jews and not to other Semitic peoples. But I do maintain that the 19th century European concept of anti-Semitism is not applicable to Mohammed’s hatred of Jews which I believe stemmed solely from their refusal to acknowledge him as a prophet. If they had done so he would not have got increasingly vicious about them (only starting in Medina, I believe, when he first started to come into political conflict with the local Jewish tribes).

    Bernard Lewis appears to back me up on this:

    “In Lewis’ view, it was only in the late 19th century that movements first appeared among Muslims that can be described as antisemitic in the European forms”.

    Let’s go back to my original question about Satyam’s post “What has any of this got to do with racism?” In my understanding racism is necessarily about race, which is an unchangeable characteristic of an individual, unlike belief. If Mohammed’s objection to the Jews was based on race he would surely never have accepted Jewish converts any more than Hitler would have accepted Jews in the Nazi Party. I’m pretty sure there are some converts mentioned in the Sira but the great majority of Muslims with at least part Jewish ancestry would have come from the breeding between Mohammed’s warriors and captured Jewish women, and also from captured Jewish children, all of whom automatically became slaves with no choice but to be Muslim. Mohammed himself had no aversion to taking Jewish wives/sex-slaves (Rayhana and Safiya). After a couple of generations would there be any trace left of the new Muslims’ Jewishness in the community’s awareness or would they all just have been Muslims?

  8. Steve says:

    ECAW’s blog

    “According to Schweitzer and Perry, the hadith are “even more scathing (than the Quran) in attacking the Jews”:
    They are debased, cursed, anathematized forever by God and so can never repent and be forgiven; they are cheats and traitors; defiant and stubborn; they killed the prophets; they are liars who falsify scripture and take bribes; as infidels they are ritually unclean, a foul odor emanating from them – such is the image of the Jew in classical Islam, degraded and malevolent.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism

    “As for race, I believe I have shown that Mohammed’s objection to the the Jews was entirely religious.” Yes but he also preached the above views about them – which are anti Semitic. And on anti semitism “The root word Semite gives the false impression that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic people, e.g., including Arabs and Assyrians. The compound word antisemite was popularized in Germany in 1879[7] as a scientific-sounding term for Judenhass (“Jew-hatred”),[8][9][10][11][12] and has been its common use since then.[13][14]” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

    So the word comes from German for “Jew hatred”, so it doesn’t include hatred towards other Semitic people.(Or exclude other Semitic people’s from being anti-Semitic).

    Because (in Islamic beliefs) Allah my choose to guide (or “save”) a small (tiny) minority of the Jews doesn’t mean Islam is not anti Semitic. If a white supremacist believes that some (a tiny minority) of individual blacks have higher intelligence, better mental health etc than most whites does that mean they are not a white supremacist? Of course not.

  9. Steve

    If you are talking about what Muslims believe now then the terms racist and anti-Semitic are quite appropriate but if you are talking about Mohammed’s/Allah’s expressed views about the Jews of his time then they are not.
    The term anti-Semitic is a recent invention and would make no sense anyway in that context since Arabs were Semitic too. As for race, I believe I have shown that Mohammed’s objection to the the Jews was entirely religious.

  10. Steve says:

    “Over to you.” I suppose technically believing that 99.9% of Jews (those who will never convert to Islam) deserve to be turned into monkeys and pigs (for disbelief, corrupting the revelations of Allah and killing their own prophets) is not racist or anti Semitic.

  11. ECAW's blog says:

    Steve

    My question was “What has any of this to do with racism?” since the title of the post says “President Trump Vs. Muhammad – Who is Racist/Extremist?” I assume you agree with me that the answer is nothing since you do not attempt to defend any of the points raised in it but go straight to another issue, that of apes and pigs.

    Ok, let’s discuss that. I agree that much of current and historical Muslim attitudes toward Jews is not only racist, in our modern terms, but speciesist!

    But going back to the source, the Koran, I find evidence only of Mohammed’s religiously based antagonism towards Jews and as far as I can make out this stems from their refusal to acknowledge him as a prophet. Hell hath no fury like a prophet scorned but there was nothing unchangeable about Mohammed’s Jew hatred as there was with Hitler’s. All a Jew had to do to escape Mohammed’s (and Allah’s) wrath was to say the magic words.

    If we look at sura 5:

    http://www.koran-at-a-glance.com/sura5.html

    Verse 60 tells us that at some time in the past Allah turned SOME of the Jews into apes and pigs for disobeying his instructions. Presumably at the time of the revealing of sura 5 those who were thus transformed were out of the equation, disporting themselves elsewhere in fields and jungles. At least there is no suggestion in the Koran that the Jews Mohammed engaged with had curly tails under their robes or swang from trees.

    In verse 65 Allah says if only the Jews would believe in him he would forgive their sins and admit them to Paradise. So Allah’s problem with the Jews is only a matter of choice and actions.

    In verse 69 Allah reiterates that if the Jews, and others, change their ways and believe in him they’ll be ok.

    Over to you.

    By the way, thanks for bringing the Jewish Virtual Library site to my attention. It looks full of useful information.

  12. Steve says:

    ECAW’s blog

    “What has any of this to do with racism? Mohammed’s problem with the Jews was religious not racial.”

    “which would not have been the case if Mohammed’s objection was based on anything unchangeable like race.”

    Well Muhammad did say Allah cursed the Jews by turning them into apes and pigs so it’s sounds racial to me.

    https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/muslim-clerics-jews-are-the-descendants-of-apes-pigs-and-other-animals

  13. Walter Sieruk says:

    President Trump has one wife. In contrast ,the founder and prophet of Islam, Muhammad, had many wives. This fact leads to the reality that Polygamy is not sanctioned by God. For example God gave Adam one wife. Furthermore, in the New Testament Jesus taught “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife…” Jesus said “wife.” Not “wives” Mathew 19:5. [K.J.V.] Likewise, in First Timothy 3:2. In instructs “A bishop the must be blameless, the husband on one wife.” Here again it’s “one wife” Nevertheless, there are some people who will act as apologists for polygamy by say the king David of Israel and then later his son ,who became King Solomon of Israel did practice polygamy. Such people aren’t taking into account both the time and place. For the only reason that God did tolerate this tradition was not because it was right or that He approved of it. It was because this practice of having many wives was such an entrenched custom in the ancient Middle East that God allowed it for the above mentioned Kings of Israel. This does not mean that this custom, of polygamy, was to keep on going in other times and places.

  14. ECAW's blog says:

    What has any of this to do with racism? Mohammed’s problem with the Jews was religious not racial. Any Jew who converted to Islam was welcomed into the Umma, which would not have been the case if Mohammed’s objection was based on anything unchangeable like race.

    As for having black slaves, Mohammed had a number of slaves of different ethnic origins. You only had to be the wife or child of a member of a defeated Arabian tribe to immediately become a slave.

  15. Walter Sieruk says:

    A man’s actual character is known not only by who he has as friends but also by who he has as enemies .Therefore this helps explain why the jihadists, the leftists, as James Comey and also those who compose the ACLU, the Marxists, the anarchists and the Muslim/ jihadists all hate for President Trump with a passion . This is strong evidence that Donald Trump is the right man to be President of this nation. . In other words, those all those characters just mention terrible detest Mr. Trump not only serves as a good compliment to him but this also reveals that Donald Trump must be an all American patriot..

  16. Walter Sieruk says:

    There is a left wing witch hunt against the President. It’s vicious, malicious and hate filled. It’s not based on reason or logic but pure malice-filled spite. It likewise contains the strong spirit of anti-Americanism within its very essence , as somethings seen in the stealth jihadists and the Antifa hooligans. This heinously hateful left wing movement might only lead the USA to division, disunity and may even some kind a national disaster. This spiteful division movement of the left is awful. All this also is, somewhat, of a reminder of the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson. Who had declared “A nation united can never be conquered.”

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: