New Jersey Muslims' service after bombings

ELIZABETH, N.J. — Nearly 200 people gathered at the Muslim Community Center of Union County Friday afternoon for the first jumah prayer — Islam’s largest weekly gathering — since Elizabeth resident Ahmad Khan Rahami was arrested in connection to mostly unsuccessful bomb attacks in New York and New Jersey last weekend.

“I was shocked,” said a man named Faisal, reflecting on the incidents that rocked his community just days earlier before heading inside for Friday prayer. “This is a peaceful masjid.”

Like Faisal, the suspect’s father, Mohammad Rahami, is a longtime member of MCCUC, and is known to pray regularly at the red brick mosque, which sits on the leafy corner of a charming, residential enclave less than two miles from Elizabeth’s gritty downtown.

The elder Rahami reportedly came to pray at the mosque earlier this week, but today he was nowhere to be seen. His son was charged Tuesday in connection to a bomb that injured 29 in Manhattan, another that went off before a Jersey Shore charity race took off and two other attempted bombings. He was arrested Monday after a shootout with Linden, N.J., police officers.

And while Friday’s jumah prayer also coincided with the funeral service of an MCCUC member, it was clear that Imam Syed Fakhruddin Alvi’s sermon was inspired by the younger Rahami’s alleged crimes.

“What is Islam?” Alvi asked, a small microphone on his lapel carrying his deep voice over the sound of ceiling fans attempting to cool the mosque’s sun-soaked second floor. It was an exceptionally warm day in late September, summer’s last gasp before giving into autumn. One congregant, seated with his back to an open window, lightly wiped sweat from his neck as he listened to the imam outline the tenets of Islam.

“If you want to be a Muslim, take care of those who are needy, deprived of basic necessities,” Alvi said, adding that “hunger has no religion.”

About 35 men were seated on their knees on the mosque’s red and gold patterned carpet when the imam began speaking. The men appeared to be in their late 20s and older, with just a few younger ones mixed in. Their attire was just as varied, with some dressed in traditional Muslim robes but many more sporting jeans and button-downs, flannels and polo shirts. A few wore sweatpants.

People continued to trickle in throughout the service, and by the time it ended, the room was filled with more than 100 men. More women were located behind the partition that separates the sexes.

For each hadith, or Islamic scripture, he referenced, Alvi provided the name of the book, chapter and page number. “I know after this, many people will do Google,” he said.

After going through the basics of what it means to be a Muslim, Alvi asked, “What does the Quran say about those who are not Muslim?” He transitioned seamlessly to the subject of terrorism without ever directly referring to the previous weekend’s bombing incidents, or the fact that the man authorities believe is responsible is the son of a longtime congregant.

“If anyone kills a non-Muslim citizen, almighty Allah will make paradise forbidden from him,” he said, his voice growing louder as he sternly urged those listening: “Write this down.”

“No one has any right to kill any non-Muslim,” he said. “We are living here as citizens. It is our job, our duty, to respect the law of the land.”

“Islam has no justification for terrorism or extremism,” he continued, arguing that those who carry out “barbaric” actions like suicide bombings and other violence in the name of Islam, are motivated by misinformation found on the Internet in the form of “Imam Google” or “Shiekh YouTube.”

Not only is it “our civic and religious duty to support law enforcement,” Alvi argued, but as parents, “it’s your job to take care of your children” and to “keep children from evil activities.”

Not long after law enforcement officials named Rahami as the main suspect in last weekend’s bombing incidents, MCCUC released a statement on its website denouncing “the acts of this misguided individual whose action does not represent law abiding peaceful Muslims of our area congregations.”

On Tuesday, MCCUC President Nawaz Sheikh joined fellow New Jersey Muslim leaders at a press conference in Elizabeth to reiterate this message. Sheikh read from the statement once more on Friday following the imam’s sermon, emphasizing that the mosque would continue to be open as usual for all five daily prayers as well as Sunday school for the children.

“Please, we need your support in this rough and tough time,” Sheikh said, asking the congregation to “pray for this center, pray for our young brothers and sisters who are misguided, to get them on the right path.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/elizabeth-nj-mosque-services-ahmad-khan-rahami-225314209.html

Ben Reilly wrote:

ELIZABETH, N.J. — Nearly 200 people gathered at the Muslim Community Center of Union County Friday afternoon for the first jumah prayer — Islam’s largest weekly gathering — since Elizabeth resident Ahmad Khan Rahami was arrested in connection to mostly unsuccessful bomb attacks in New York and New Jersey last weekend.

“I was shocked,” said a man named Faisal, reflecting on the incidents that rocked his community just days earlier before heading inside for Friday prayer. “This is a peaceful masjid.”

Like Faisal, the suspect’s father, Mohammad Rahami, is a longtime member of MCCUC, and is known to pray regularly at the red brick mosque, which sits on the leafy corner of a charming, residential enclave less than two miles from Elizabeth’s gritty downtown.

The elder Rahami reportedly came to pray at the mosque earlier this week, but today he was nowhere to be seen. His son was charged Tuesday in connection to a bomb that injured 29 in Manhattan, another that went off before a Jersey Shore charity race took off and two other attempted bombings. He was arrested Monday after a shootout with Linden, N.J., police officers.

And while Friday’s jumah prayer also coincided with the funeral service of an MCCUC member, it was clear that Imam Syed Fakhruddin Alvi’s sermon was inspired by the younger Rahami’s alleged crimes.

“What is Islam?” Alvi asked, a small microphone on his lapel carrying his deep voice over the sound of ceiling fans attempting to cool the mosque’s sun-soaked second floor. It was an exceptionally warm day in late September, summer’s last gasp before giving into autumn. One congregant, seated with his back to an open window, lightly wiped sweat from his neck as he listened to the imam outline the tenets of Islam.

“If you want to be a Muslim, take care of those who are needy, deprived of basic necessities,” Alvi said, adding that “hunger has no religion.”

About 35 men were seated on their knees on the mosque’s red and gold patterned carpet when the imam began speaking. The men appeared to be in their late 20s and older, with just a few younger ones mixed in. Their attire was just as varied, with some dressed in traditional Muslim robes but many more sporting jeans and button-downs, flannels and polo shirts. A few wore sweatpants.

People continued to trickle in throughout the service, and by the time it ended, the room was filled with more than 100 men. More women were located behind the partition that separates the sexes.

For each hadith, or Islamic scripture, he referenced, Alvi provided the name of the book, chapter and page number. “I know after this, many people will do Google,” he said.

After going through the basics of what it means to be a Muslim, Alvi asked, “What does the Quran say about those who are not Muslim?” He transitioned seamlessly to the subject of terrorism without ever directly referring to the previous weekend’s bombing incidents, or the fact that the man authorities believe is responsible is the son of a longtime congregant.

“If anyone kills a non-Muslim citizen, almighty Allah will make paradise forbidden from him,” he said, his voice growing louder as he sternly urged those listening: “Write this down.”

“No one has any right to kill any non-Muslim,” he said. “We are living here as citizens. It is our job, our duty, to respect the law of the land.”

“Islam has no justification for terrorism or extremism,” he continued, arguing that those who carry out “barbaric” actions like suicide bombings and other violence in the name of Islam, are motivated by misinformation found on the Internet in the form of “Imam Google” or “Shiekh YouTube.”

Not only is it “our civic and religious duty to support law enforcement,” Alvi argued, but as parents, “it’s your job to take care of your children” and to “keep children from evil activities.”

Not long after law enforcement officials named Rahami as the main suspect in last weekend’s bombing incidents, MCCUC released a statement on its website denouncing “the acts of this misguided individual whose action does not represent law abiding peaceful Muslims of our area congregations.”

On Tuesday, MCCUC President Nawaz Sheikh joined fellow New Jersey Muslim leaders at a press conference in Elizabeth to reiterate this message. Sheikh read from the statement once more on Friday following the imam’s sermon, emphasizing that the mosque would continue to be open as usual for all five daily prayers as well as Sunday school for the children.

“Please, we need your support in this rough and tough time,” Sheikh said, asking the congregation to “pray for this center, pray for our young brothers and sisters who are misguided, to get them on the right path.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/elizabeth-nj-mosque-services-ahmad-khan-rahami-225314209.html

WHY have thee posted this? Ben.

Pro Muslim propaganda...


Why would this twat be telling them to 'write this down'...?


Surely it's already written in their guide book...?


Thing is... it's not written down in their guide book... but what is is this...


Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"


Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward " This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle).

Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."

Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals."

Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."

Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."

Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."

Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence at the time of Muhammad was to convert to Islam: prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars. The popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.


Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even "healing" the hearts of Muslims.

Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war.

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has charted them to make Islam "superior over all religions." This chapter was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.


Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.

Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).


Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.

Quran (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."


Quran (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme." How does the Quran define a true believer?

Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is "utter destruction." (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).

Quran (18:65-81) - This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with "special knowledge" who does things which don't seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would "grieve" his parents by "disobedience and ingratitude." He was killed so that Allah could provide them a 'better' son. [Note: This parable along with verse 58:22 is a major reason that honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.12).]

Quran (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"

Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.

Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter." This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered "merciless" and "horrible murder" in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to "fight in the way of Allah" (3:167) and hence don't act as Muslims should), those with "diseased hearts" (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and "alarmists" or "agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad's biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today's terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah's eternal word to Muslim generations.

Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." Those who reject Allah are to be killed in Jihad. The wounded are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn't do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test.

Quran (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"

Quran (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.

Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. This verse tells Muslims that there are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for 'hard' or 'ruthless' in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as 'painful' or severe' to describe Hell in over 25 other verses including 65:10, 40:46 and 50:26..

Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His cause" Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to "rows" or "battle array," meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9), which defines the "cause": "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.

Quran (61:10-12) - "O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of'Adn- Eternity ['Adn(Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success." This verse refers to physical battle in order to make Islam victorious over other religions (see verse 9). It uses the Arabic root for the word Jihad.

Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.

Hadith and Sira

Sahih Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Sahih Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.

Sahih Bukhari (52:65) - The Prophet said, 'He who fights that Allah's Word (Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause. Muhammad's words are the basis for offensive Jihad - spreading Islam by force. This is how it was understood by his companions, and by the terrorists of today. (See also Sahih Bukhari 3:125)

Sahih Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'

Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)

Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious

Sahih Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Sahih Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."

Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

Sahih Bukhari (52:73) - "Allah's Apostle said, 'Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords'."

Sahih Bukhari (11:626) - [Muhammad said:] "I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes."

Sahih Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..."

Sahih Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!"

Sahih Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite.'"

Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)."

Sahih Muslim (19:4294) - "When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him... He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them."

Sahih Muslim (31:5917) - "Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: 'Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?' Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: 'Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger'." The pretext for attacking the peaceful farming community of Khaibar was not obvious to the Muslims. Muhammad's son-in-law Ali asked the prophet of Islam to clarify the reason for their mission to kill, loot and enslave. Muhammad's reply was straightforward. The people should be fought because they are not Muslim.

Sahih Muslim (31:5918) - "I will fight them until they are like us." Ali's reply to Muhammad, after receiving clarification that the pretext for attack Khaibar was to convert the people (see above verse).

Sahih Bukhari 1:35 "The person who participates in (Holy Battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him do so except belief in Allah and His Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty ( if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise ( if he is killed)."

Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.

Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.

Tabari 17:187 "'By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.' And they returned to their former religion." The words of a group of Christians who had converted to Islam, but realized their error after being shocked by the violence and looting committed in the name of Allah. The price of their decision to return to a religion of peace was that the men were beheaded and the woman and children enslaved by the caliph Ali.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 484: - “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.’”

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 990: Cutting off someone's head while shouting 'Allahu Akbar' is an Islamic tradition that began with Muhammad. In this passage, a companion of Muhammad recounts an episode in which he staged a surprise ambush on a settlement: I leapt upon him and cut off his head and ran in the direction of the camp shouting 'Allah akbar' and my two companions did likewise.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid.

Saifur Rahman, The Sealed Nectar p.227-228 - "Embrace Islam... If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country; but if your refuse my Call, you’ve got to remember that all of your possessions are perishable. My horsemen will appropriate your land, and my Prophethood will assume preponderance over your kingship." One of several letters from Muhammad to rulers of other countries. The significance is that the recipients were not making war or threatening Muslims. Their subsequent defeat and subjugation by Muhammad's armies was justified merely on the basis of their unbelief.




Notes

Other than the fact that Muslims haven't killed every non-Muslim under their domain, there is very little else that they can point to as proof that theirs is a peaceful, tolerant religion. Where Islam is dominant (as in the Middle East and Pakistan) religious minorities suffer brutal persecution with little resistance. Where Islam is in the minority (as in Thailand, the Philippines and Europe) there is the threat of violence if Muslim demands are not met. Either situation seems to provide a justification for religious terrorism, which is persistent and endemic to Islamic fundamentalism.

The reasons are obvious and begin with the Quran. Few verses of Islam's most sacred text can be construed to fit the contemporary virtues of religious tolerance and universal brotherhood. Those that do are earlier "Meccan" verses which are obviously abrogated by later ones. The example of Muhammad is that Islam is a religion of peace when Muslims do not have the power and numbers on their side. Once they do, things change.

Many Muslims are peaceful and do not want to believe what the Quran really says. They prefer a more narrow interpretation that is closer to the Judeo-Christian ethic. Some just ignore harsher passages. Others reach for "textual context" across different suras to subjectively mitigate these verses with others so that the message fits their personal moral preference. Although the Quran itself claims to be clear and complete, these apologists speak of the "risks" of trying to interpret verses without their "assistance."

The violent verses of the Quran have played a key role in very real massacre and genocide. This includes the brutal slaughter of tens of millions of Hindus for five centuries beginning around 1000 AD with Mahmud of Ghazni's bloody conquest. Both he and the later Tamerlane (Islam's Genghis Khan) slaughtered an untold number merely for defending their temples from destruction. Buddhism was very nearly wiped off the Indian subcontinent. Judaism and Christianity met the same fate (albeit more slowly) in areas conquered by Muslim armies, including the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe, including today's Turkey. Zoroastrianism, the ancient religion of a proud Persian people is despised by Muslims and barely survives in modern Iran.

Violence is so ingrained in Islam that it has never really stopped being at war, either with other religions or with itself.

Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives. He inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered.

It is important to emphasize that, for the most part, Muslim armies waged aggressive campaigns, and the religion's most dramatic military conquests were made by the actual companions of Muhammad in the decades following his death.

The early Islamic principle of warfare was that the civilian population of a town was to be destroyed (ie. men executed, women and children taken as slaves) if they defended themselves and resisted Islamic hegemony. Although modern apologists often claim that Muslims are only supposed to "attack in self-defense", this oxymoron is flatly contradicted by the accounts of Islamic historians and others that go back to the time of Muhammad.

Some modern-day scholars are more candid than others. One of the most respected Sunni theologians is al-Qaradawi, who justifies terror attacks against Western targets by noting that there is no such thing as a civilian population in a time of war:

"It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al—Harb [ie. non-Muslim people who resist Islamic conquest] is not protected... In modern war, all of society, with all its classes and ethnic groups, is mobilized to participate in the war, to aid its continuation, and to provide it with the material and human fuel required for it to assure the victory of the state fighting its enemies. Every citizen in society must take upon himself a role in the effort to provide for the battle. The entire domestic front, including professionals, laborers, and industrialists, stands behind the fighting army, even if it does not bear arms."

Consider the example of the Qurayza Jews, who were completely obliterated only five years after Muhammad arrived in Medina. Their leader opted to stay neutral when their town was besieged by a Meccan army that was sent to take revenge for Muhammad's deadly caravan raids. The tribe killed no one from either side and even surrendered peacefully to Muhammad after the Meccans had been turned back. Yet the prophet of Islam had every male member of the Qurayza beheaded, and every woman and child enslaved, even raping one of the captives himself (what Muslim apologists might refer to as "same day marriage").

One of Islam's most revered modern scholars, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, openly sanctions offensive Jihad: "In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way." Elsewhere, he notes: "Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom. Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the 'homeland of Islam' diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life."

The widely respected Dictionary of Islam defines Jihad as "A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Quran and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims…[Quoting from the Hanafi school, Hedaya, 2:140, 141.], "The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect."

Dr. Salah al-Sawy, the chief member of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, stated in 2009 that "the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time," tacitly affirming the legitimacy of violence for the cause of Islamic rule - bound only by the capacity for success. (source)

Muhammad's failure to leave a clear line of succession resulted in perpetual internal war following his death. Those who knew him best first fought afterwards to keep remote tribes from leaving Islam and reverting to their preferred religion (the Ridda or 'Apostasy wars'). Then the violence turned within. Early Meccan converts battled later ones as hostility developed between those immigrants who had traveled with Muhammad to Mecca and the Ansar at Medina who had helped them settle in. Finally there was a violent struggle within Muhammad's own family between his favorite wife and favorite daughter - a jagged schism that has left Shias and Sunnis at each others' throats to this day.

The strangest and most untrue thing that can be said about Islam is that it is a Religion of Peace. If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, misogyny, sexual repression, warfare...) were applied equally to Islam, the verdict would be devastating. Islam never gives up what it conquers, be it religion, culture, language or life. Neither does it make apologies or any real effort at moral progress. It is the least open to dialogue and the most self-absorbed. It is convinced of its own perfection, yet brutally shuns self-examination and represses criticism.

This is what makes the Quran's verses of violence so dangerous. They are given the weight of divine command. While Muslim terrorists take them as literally as anything else in their holy book, and understand that Islam is incomplete without Jihad, moderates offer little to contradict them - outside of personal opinion. Indeed, what do they have? Speaking of peace and love may win over the ignorant, but when every twelfth verse of Islam's holiest book either speaks to Allah's hatred for non-Muslims or calls for their death, forced conversion, or subjugation, it's little wonder that sympathy for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader community - even if most Muslims personally prefer not to interpret their religion in this way.

Although scholars like Ibn Khaldun, one of Islam's most respected philosophers, understood that "the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force", many other Muslims are either unaware or willfully ignorant of the Quran's near absence of verses that preach universal non-violence. Their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others. In the West, it is typical for believers to think that their religion must be like Christianity - preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love, and tolerance - because Muslims are taught that Islam is supposed to be superior in every way. They are somewhat surprised and embarrassed to find that this is contradicted by the Quran and the bloody history of Islam's genesis.

Others simply accept the violence. In 1991, a Palestinian couple in America was convicted of stabbing their daughter to death for being too Westernized. A family friend came to their defense, excoriating the jury for not understanding the "culture", claiming that the father was merely following "the religion" and saying that the couple had to "discipline their daughter or lose respect." (source). In 2011, unrepentant Palestinian terrorists, responsible for the brutal murders of civilians, women and children explicitly in the name of Allah were treated to a luxurious "holy pilgrimage" to Mecca by the Saudi king - without a single Muslim voice raised in protest.

The most prestigious Islamic university in the world today is Cairo's al-Azhar. While the university is very quick to condemn secular Muslims who critique the religion, it has never condemned ISIS as a group of infidels despite horrific carnage in the name of Allah. When asked why, the university's Grand Imam, Ahmed al-Tayeb explained: " Al Azhar cannot accuse any [Muslim] of being a kafir [infidel], as long as he believes in Allah and the Last Day—even if he commits every atrocity."

For their part, Western liberals would do well not to sacrifice critical thinking to the god of political correctness, or look for reasons to bring other religion down to the level of Islam merely to avoid the existential truth that this it is both different and dangerous.

There are just too many Muslims who take the Quran literally... and too many others who couldn't care less about the violence done in the name of Islam.

But the bible also preaches violence...an eye for an eye, death and destruction, etc etc...any book is  only dangerous if deranged zealots take it all literally.

Syl wrote:But the bible also preaches violence...an eye for an eye, death and destruction, etc etc...any book is  only dangerous if deranged zealots take it all literally.

Syl wrote:But the bible also preaches violence...an eye for an eye, death and destruction, etc etc...any book is  only dangerous if deranged zealots take it all literally.

Indeed.
Jesus lost his temper and whipped the asses of all the traders in a temple.





I would not recommend it now though. The fatcat pervs would enjoy it! In fact they'd probably pay good money for that.

Mohammed robbed raped and murdered his way around the middle east with his gang of bandits... dont think it was anything to do with him losing his temper once in trying to make things better... but just because he was evil all the time...

Syl wrote:But the bible also preaches violence...an eye for an eye, death and destruction, etc etc...any book is  only dangerous if deranged zealots take it all literally.

Tommy Monk wrote:Mohammed robbed raped and murdered his way around the middle east with his gang of bandits... dont think it was anything to do with him losing his temper once in trying to make things better... but just because he was evil all the time...

NO HE DID NOT
This is not a Mulsim hate site where you can straight up lie just make up bullshit,
and KEEP posting it
LAST WARNING
post this stuff which you have been shown MULTIPULE TIMES is fake and I will ban you

How do you know it's fake Veya?

nicko wrote:How do you know it's fake Veya?

There's no evidence either way. Just as there's no evidence Jesus was a great healer, or Moses parted the Red Sea.

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Mohammed robbed raped and murdered his way around the middle east with his gang of bandits... dont think it was anything to do with him losing his temper once in trying to make things better... but just because he was evil all the time...

NO HE DID NOT
This is not a Mulsim hate site where you can straight up lie just make up bullshit,
and KEEP posting it
LAST WARNING
post this stuff which you have been shown MULTIPULE TIMES is fake and I will ban you

More one sided mod bullying and vindictiveness.

FAIRNESS FOR ALL.

Veya, are you a Muslim? just asking.

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Mohammed robbed raped and murdered his way around the middle east with his gang of bandits... dont think it was anything to do with him losing his temper once in trying to make things better... but just because he was evil all the time...

NO HE DID NOT
This is not a Mulsim hate site where you can straight up lie just make up bullshit,
and KEEP posting it
LAST WARNING
post this stuff which you have been shown MULTIPULE TIMES is fake and I will ban you

Nobody has ever shown what I said to be wrong.

In fact there is plenty of evidence to it all being true...


https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/islam-the-crimes-of-prophet-mohammed/

Tommy Monk wrote:In fact there is plenty of evidence to it all being true...


https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/islam-the-crimes-of-prophet-mohammed/

Look out, folks, he's got a BLOG!!!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:But the bible also preaches violence...an eye for an eye, death and destruction, etc etc...any book is  only dangerous if deranged zealots take it all literally.

Whats with the eyes ??

It's true, if anyone takes ANY religious book seriously and acts out the words of violence....which often contradict themselves anyway, they are dangerous idiots.
Every holy book ever written is written by man, there are no divine messages, just man made thoughts written down, some good some bad, but none to be taken literally.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:But the bible also preaches violence...an eye for an eye, death and destruction, etc etc...any book is  only dangerous if deranged zealots take it all literally.

Whats with the eyes ??

It's true, if anyone takes ANY religious book seriously and acts out the words of violence....which often contradict themselves anyway, they are dangerous idiots.
Every holy book ever written is written by man, there are no divine messages, just man made thoughts written down, some good some bad, but none to be taken literally.

This is exactly why I don't follow religion - too many contradictions and lies

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Whats with the eyes ??

It's true, if anyone takes ANY religious book seriously and acts out the words of violence....which often contradict themselves anyway, they are dangerous idiots.
Every holy book ever written is written by man, there are no divine messages, just man made thoughts written down, some good some bad, but none to be taken literally.

I rolled my eyes at the usual comparison with The Bible. Why can't people just talk about the religion in question instead of constantly bringing other ones into it? Someone else started on about Jesus as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong Raggs, but you are one of those who takes your holy book literally, no?

Original Quill wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong Raggs, but you are one of those who takes your holy book literally, no?

Is that a trick question? This is a thread about Muslims, not about me.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Whats with the eyes ??

It's true, if anyone takes ANY religious book seriously and acts out the words of violence....which often contradict themselves anyway, they are dangerous idiots.
Every holy book ever written is written by man, there are no divine messages, just man made thoughts written down, some good some bad, but none to be taken literally.

I rolled my eyes at the usual comparison with The Bible. Why can't people just talk about the religion in question instead of constantly bringing other ones into it? Someone else started on about Jesus as well.

Well why not compare them? Blindly following any holy book results in what amounts to terrorism.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I rolled my eyes at the usual comparison with The Bible. Why can't people just talk about the religion in question instead of constantly bringing other ones into it? Someone else started on about Jesus as well.

Well why not compare them? Blindly following any book results in what amounts to terrorism.

I bet you blindly follow the book of household crafts. This constant issue of people bringing up Christianity every time Islam is mentioned is pathetic, and very transparent.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong Raggs, but you are one of those who takes your holy book literally, no?

Is that a trick question? This is a thread about Muslims, not about me.

I know. It was just a thought in passing. Honest question...isn't that your position?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Whats with the eyes ??

It's true, if anyone takes ANY religious book seriously and acts out the words of violence....which often contradict themselves anyway, they are dangerous idiots.
Every holy book ever written is written by man, there are no divine messages, just man made thoughts written down, some good some bad, but none to be taken literally.

I rolled my eyes at the usual comparison with The Bible. Why can't people just talk about the religion in question instead of constantly bringing other ones into it? Someone else started on about Jesus as well.

Comparative religion is one of the most fascinating disciplines of study. It's very unusual for someone to take issue with that perspective.

Why do you?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well why not compare them? Blindly following any book results in what amounts to terrorism.

I bet you blindly follow the book of household crafts. This constant issue of people bringing up Christianity every time Islam is mentioned is pathetic, and very transparent.

I don't blindly follow any book about household crafts.....I am quite arty though, thanks for noticing.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I bet you blindly follow the book of household crafts. This constant issue of people bringing up Christianity every time Islam is mentioned is pathetic, and very transparent.

I don't blindly follow any book about household crafts.....I am quite arty though, thanks for noticing.

More like arsy ...

Rags I think the point is, that most threads turn into something else and a thread about Muslims will organically turn into one about Christians and vice versa.
No one is digging you out personally.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't blindly follow any book about household crafts.....I am quite arty though, thanks for noticing.

More like arsy ...

Sez you.

eddie wrote:Rags I think the point is, that most threads turn into something else and a thread about Muslims will organically turn into one about Christians and vice versa.
No one is digging you out personally.

I didn't say they were. However, if the admin are going to get all precious about defending Muslims, I shall speak out when bigots try to drag Christians into every thread about Muslims.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Rags I think the point is, that most threads turn into something else and a thread about Muslims will organically turn into one about Christians and vice versa.
No one is digging you out personally.

I didn't say they were. However, if the admin are going to get all precious about defending Muslims, I shall speak out when bigots try to drag Christians into every thread about Muslims.

It was me who first mentioned the Bible and I'm certainly not a bigot.

You are being too touchy, no one was criticising Christians, I was merely pointing out that taking any religious book literally leads to discrimination at best...bloody war at worse.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't say they were. However, if the admin are going to get all precious about defending Muslims, I shall speak out when bigots try to drag Christians into every thread about Muslims.

It was me who first mentioned the Bible and I'm certainly not a bigot.

You are being too touchy, no one was criticising Christians, I was merely pointing out that taking any religious book literally leads to discrimination at best...bloody war at worse.

Give them time ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

It was me who first mentioned the Bible and I'm certainly not a bigot.

You are being too touchy, no one was criticising Christians, I was merely pointing out that taking any religious book literally leads to discrimination at best...bloody war at worse.

Give them time ...

Is your intractability about discussing Christianity related in any way to a belief in Christian fundamentalism? If so, how?

Answer or not, I'm just curious.

Tommy Monk wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

NO HE DID NOT
This is not a Mulsim hate site where you can straight up lie just make up bullshit,
and KEEP posting it
LAST WARNING
post this stuff which you have been shown MULTIPULE TIMES is fake and I will ban you

Nobody has ever shown what I said to be wrong.

It's hard to prove something did NOT happen, TM. I'd have thought someone like you who is big on logic and ahem 'intellect' would know this.
Another thing ... when issued with a warning by an admin, it's usually a good time to wind your neck in, not pull it out even further.
You could always return and argue the case another day when things have cooled down a bit.


I don't know enough about the Muslim religion to know if those things you say are true or not but I know enough about forum rules (both generic and bespoke rules) and you sail dangerously close to the wind with sweeping generalisations like those.

It's impossible to prove a negative. It is incumbent upon the positive to be first asserted. Simply put, a negative is an insubstantial void.

Jules wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Nobody has ever shown what I said to be wrong.

It's hard to prove something did NOT happen, TM. I'd have thought someone like you who is big on logic and ahem 'intellect' would know this.
Another thing ... when issued with a warning by an admin, it's usually a good time to wind your neck in, not pull it out even further.
You could always return and argue the case another day when things have cooled down a bit.


I don't know enough about the Muslim religion to know if those things you say are true or not but I know enough about forum rules (both generic and bespoke rules) and you sail dangerously close to the wind with sweeping generalisations  like those.

Well... veya claimed that I have been shown multiple times that what I said was fake...


Can anyone provide any posts on this forum where this has actually happened...!?


No...?


Why not...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Jules wrote:
It's hard to prove something did NOT happen, TM. I'd have thought someone like you who is big on logic and ahem 'intellect' would know this.
Another thing ... when issued with a warning by an admin, it's usually a good time to wind your neck in, not pull it out even further.
You could always return and argue the case another day when things have cooled down a bit.


I don't know enough about the Muslim religion to know if those things you say are true or not but I know enough about forum rules (both generic and bespoke rules) and you sail dangerously close to the wind with sweeping generalisations  like those.

Well... veya claimed that I have been shown multiple times that what I said was fake...

Can anyone provide any posts on this forum where this has actually happened...!?

No...?

Why not...?

Of course one can show they are fake. Because you failed to substantiate them, they simply don't exist.

Ergo: what you have said was fake. Simple...

Next question?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/muhammad/life-of-muhammad.aspx

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Rags I think the point is, that most threads turn into something else and a thread about Muslims will organically turn into one about Christians and vice versa.
No one is digging you out personally.

I didn't say they were. However, if the admin are going to get all precious about defending Muslims, I shall speak out when bigots try to drag Christians into every thread about Muslims.

No one has said you can't.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't say they were. However, if the admin are going to get all precious about defending Muslims, I shall speak out when bigots try to drag Christians into every thread about Muslims.

No one has said you can't.

Good. I don't know why you bothered to post about it then.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't say they were. However, if the admin are going to get all precious about defending Muslims, I shall speak out when bigots try to drag Christians into every thread about Muslims.

No one has said you can't.

Good. I don't know why you bothered to post about it then.

Ner ner ner ner ner
What's up with you lately?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Good. I don't know why you bothered to post about it then.

Ner ner ner ner ner
What's up with you lately?

Dunno. This place is full of smug, arrogant people maybe.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ner ner ner ner ner
What's up with you lately?

Dunno. This place is full of smug, arrogant people maybe.

Open up your place again then and be more fussy who you let in.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Good. I don't know why you bothered to post about it then.

Ner ner ner ner ner
What's up with you lately?

Dunno. This place is full of smug, arrogant people maybe.

Such as?

You think most forums aren't like that?

Tommy Monk wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Mohammed robbed raped and murdered his way around the middle east with his gang of bandits... dont think it was anything to do with him losing his temper once in trying to make things better... but just because he was evil all the time...

NO HE DID NOT
This is not a Mulsim hate site where you can straight up lie just make up bullshit,
and KEEP posting it
LAST WARNING
post this stuff which you have been shown MULTIPULE TIMES is fake and I will ban you

Nobody has ever shown what I said to be wrong.

\

It is shown Worng every time you say it
You are just using a Racist MAKE BELEIVE translations that are not True at all
YOU ARE LITERALLTY JUST SAYING MADE UP SHIT
Because you saw it on a blog!!!

GO read an actual fucking historical book

Every single Time that link you posted says baby.
it really just says Wife
at NO FUCKING POINT
does it say it is the 6 year old!!!
that is all in your Blogger made up lies.


http://sunnah.com/bukhari/5

"According to Sunni scriptural Hadith sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old.
Aisha"

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


He was in his 50's...


And when we say 'married'... what we are really saying is taken hostage...


And when we say 'consummated'... what we are really saying is 'raped'...


But he would have been forcing himself on her all along with 'thighing' and other sexual activity...



Widely available facts for all to find with a little bit of research!!!

Mary was 12 years old when betrothed to Joseph
Catholic Encyclopaedia says:

“When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, “the Lord’s brother”). A year after his wife’s death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place.” [6]

One thing needs to be remembered, although they say that she was 12 years old when she was betrothed to 90-year-old Joseph, most Christians of today reject this story, because Joseph would be labelled a ‘paedophile’.
‘History of Joseph the Carpenter’ also confirms that Mary was 12 years old when betrothed to Joseph. Chapter 3 and 4 states:

3. Now when righteous Joseph became a widower, my mother Mary, blessed, holy, and pure, was already twelve years old. For her parents offered her in the temple when she was three years of age, and she remained in the temple of the Lord nine years. Then when the priests saw that the virgin, holy and God-fearing, was growing up, they spoke to each other, saying: Let us search out a man, righteous and pious, to whom Mary may be entrusted until the time of her marriage; lest, if she remain in the temple, it happen to her as is wont to happen to women, and lest on that account we sin, and God be angry with us.
4. Therefore they immediately sent out, and assembled twelve old men of the tribe of Judah. And they wrote down the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. And the lot fell upon the pious old man, righteous Joseph. Then the priests answered, and said to my blessed mother: Go with Joseph, and be with him till the time of your marriage. Righteous Joseph therefore received my mother, and led her away to his own house. And Mary found James the Less in his father’s house, broken-hearted and sad on account of the loss of his mother, and she brought him up. Hence Mary was called the mother of James. Luke 24:10 Thereafter Joseph left her at home, and went away to the shop where he wrought at his trade of a carpenter. And after the holy virgin had spent two years in his house her age was exactly fourteen years, including the time at which he received her. [7]

Infancy Gospel of James also states she was 12 years old when betrothed to Joseph. See the [url=https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/30/marriage-of-mary-to-joseph-the-carpenter/link here]link here[/url].

2. Marriage in Ancient Jewish times
One must remember in ancient Israelite times once a girl was betrothed, sexual intimacy was allowed. There was no law against that, nor does the Bible say anything against it. So, for Mary to be betrothed, it did not mean that Joseph and Mary could not get intimate. Click on the following article I have written on ancient Jewish marriages.
3. Experts agree that Joseph was a very old man
De Robigne Mortimer Bennett says:

“The following ‘Facts about virgin Mary’ are taken from one of the Apocryphal gospels- the ‘History of Joseph the Carpenter,’ a book that was popular and believed to be genuine in the so-called Evangelical of the Church. It is reproduced here from the ‘Revelations of Antichrist:’ Joseph was a widower with four sons and two daughters, all married but James and Judas. Joseph was a Priest as well as a Carpenter, but lived mostly by the latter trade. Mary had been brought up in the temple till she was twelve years old, when the priests sought to intrust her to the care of some pious old man who wanted a wife. So they assembled twelve old men, who raffled for Mary. The ex-priest and carpenter won and was betrothed to her at once, the marriage to be postponed until she reached a suitable age. But he took her to his house and kept her two years, when she became a mother by the Holy Ghost.
When Joseph discovered the condition Mary was in he became sorely troubled, and could not eat or drink for a whole day. He thought of hushing up the scandal by putting her away secretly. (It is not said whether he suspected his son James, who was most tenderly attached to his prospective step-mother. When she first came she found him broken-hearted at the recent loss of his own mother, but the advent of a lovely maiden, who, though some years his junior, assumed the relations of a mother to him, soon assuaged his grief; and she, caring for him as a loving step-mother knows how, became known as ‘the mother of James,’ even before she became a wife to his father. The absence of Joseph, who had to be away at work at his trade, to say nothing of his age, which was then ninety-two, no doubt tended to strengthen the ties between the son and the female guardian.) Joseph was not long left to remain in trouble about the condition of Mary. In the Midst of his distress he fell asleep at noonday, and had a dream, in which Gabriel appeared to him and explained the mystery of the Immaculate Conception. That was enough; happiness was restored. The angelic friend had tied up the storm. The far-off magi made haste to welcome the new-born king of the Jews. But the wicked Herod was wroth with them for not telling where the infant was, so he might go and worship him also. Jesus grew up and worked with his reputed father Joseph at the Carpenter trade, and lived in sweet accord with his two half-brothers, until the death of their father Joseph, who lived to the ripe age of 111 years. These statements should undoubtedly be taken with many grains of allowance.” [8]

De Robigne Mortimer Bennett says that the book ‘History of Joseph the Carpenter,’ was believed and genuine by Early Evangelical Church. Not just that, he also mentions when Joseph married Mary, she was 12 years old and he was 90 years old. At the end of his statement on ‘History of Joseph the Carpenter,’ he states, “These statements should undoubtedly be taken with many grains of allowance.” Here, he himself agrees that the statements where it mentions that Joseph was 90-year-old when he married 12 Mary is true, and should be accepted.
Bernard L. Fontana also mentions that Mary was 12 years old and Joseph 90 years old when married:

“Thanks to the apocrypha writings, which inspired many artists over the ages, the popular belief became widespread that Joseph had first married when he was forty years old and fathered six children by his wife before she died when he was eighty-nine years old. The youngest of his child was said to be James the Less, ‘Christ’s brother.’ This tradition holds that Joseph was ninety years old when he went to Jerusalem to join other candidates seeking the hand of the twelve- to fourteen year old Mary in Marriage.” [9]

4. Early Church Fathers Believed Joseph was 80 to 90 years old when he married 12-year-old Mary
The very advanced age of Joseph, marrying Mary, was true and accepted by most early Church Fathers. Reverend Jeremiah Jones writes about 2 to 3 pages long that Infancy Protevangelion of James was accepted by Early Church Fathers as truthful account of Mary and Joseph’s marriage. If one reads the Infancy Gospel of James (Protevangelion of James), in Chapter 8 it says that Mary was married to Joseph when she was 12 years old.

“…His eldest son was James, surnamed Oblias—that he begat him when he was about forty years old: after him he had another son named Jose, then Simeon and Judas, and then his two daughters Mary and Salome: after his wife’s death he continued many years a widower, and about fourscore years old married Mary. Besides Epiphanius, several other of the Greek fathers have given into this same opinion, viz. Hilary, Chrysostome, Cyrill, Euthyymius, Theophylact, Cecumenius, and generally, as bishop Peaterson says: ‘all Latin fathers till Ambrose, and the Greeks afterward; from which it is very evident that the account of Joseph’s age and family, which is in the Gospel of the Birth Mary, and the Protevangelion of James, met with very general credit among ancient Christians.” [10]

Jeremiah Jones continues:

“I might, add here, that the learned annalist cardinal Baronius, in his surprising apologies for the Virgin Mary, (…) cites many of the fathers as giving credit to its accounts, and particularly as to that of her being brought at three years of age to the temple, and devoted to its service, (Evang. Mar. c. 4. 6. Protevang. Jacob. C. 7.) and that she continued there eleven years. He says it is testified by Euodius, Gregory Nyssene, Damascene, Germanus bishop of Constantinople, Andreas Cretensis, George Bishop of Nicomedia, and others. See Apparat. Ad Annal. No. 48. And Casaubon’s reflections upon this Exercit. 1. Contr. Baron. Ad eund. Numer.” [10]

Charles Burlingame Waite, was a United States lawyer and a jurist, he also cites Epiphanies that Joseph was 80 years old when he married Mary,

“Joseph was very old when he married Mary, and had been many years a widower; that he was the brother of Clophas, the son of James, surnamed Panther; that he had his first wife of the tribe of Judah, and by her six children, to wit, four sons and two daughters. His eldest son was James, surnamed Oblias, (this probably taken from Eusebius, Ecc, Hist. 2. 23), that he begat him when he was about forty years old; after him he had another son named Jose, then Simeon and Judas, and then his two daughters Mary and Salome: after his wife’s death, he continued many years a widower, and about fourscore years old, married Mary.”- Epiph. Haeres. 78, see. 8. [11]

As we have read, most early church fathers believed Mary was married off when she was 12 years old and Joseph the carpenter was a very old man. Here is the list of fathers who believed that Joseph was fourscore years old when he married 12-year-old Mary:
1. Epiphanius (310 – 403AD)
2. Hilary (Hilarius) of Poitiers (300 – 368AD)
3. John Chrysostom (Born between 344 and 349 – Died 407 AD)
4. Cyril of Alexandria (376 – 444 AD)
5. Saint Euthymius the Great (377 – 473 AD)
6. Theophylact of Ohrid (also known as Theophylact of Bulgaria) (1055 – 1107 AD)
7. Cecumenius
8. Eusebius (263 – 339 AD)

5. Did Mary stay a Virgin whole her life?
Christians might say that she stayed virgin whole her life and it is insignificant if Joseph was an old man or not. But that is not correct, if we read Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 1 verse 25 it clearly says that Joseph had sexual intimacy with Mary after Jesus was born.

But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus. – Matthew 1:25

The above verse shows that they were not intimate until Jesus was born. Before someone accuses me of twisting this verse, let’s see what their own Christian experts have to say on the passage. Commentaries on the New Testament Matthew by Charles H. Talbert

“Did Mary have sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus’s birth? Among the earliest witnesses, Tertulian (Mar. 4.19) and Irenaeus (Haer. 3.16, 21, 22) say yes.” [12]

Tony Coffey

“…Matthew stated that Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary ‘until she gave birth to a son.’This tells us that after Jesus birth, Joseph and Mary had a normal sexual relationship like any other couple. The point needs to be made that there was nothing unholy about Mary and Joseph having sex. How could there be? Marriage was designed by God, with sex as one of its blessings. It must be remembered that Joseph and Mary were engaged to be married. Like any engaged couple, they may have discussed, among other matters, having children. Such a discussion would not have been unholy. Sex within the bounds of marriage has the endorsement of God. The notion of marriage without sex is the opposite of what scriptures teach: ‘Marriage should be honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral’ (Hebrews 13:4). The Apostle Paul was very outspoken about the place of sex in marriage and the mutual obligation of both husband and wife to fulfil the sexual desires of their partner…” [13]

American New Testament scholar Ben Witherinton III:

“Matthew 1:25 has caused no end of theological debate over the centuries. Joseph is said to ‘take’ his wife, ‘but he was not knowing her until she gave birth to a son.’ This seems to reinforce what was said in Matthew 1:18 and implies that Joseph abstained from sexual intercourse with Mary until Jesus was born. The verb here ‘he was not knowing’ (eginosken) is in the imperfect and stresses a specific period of time after which he was ‘knowing’ her in the biblical sense of sexual intercourse. As Matthew 17:9 and its similar construction show, a negative statement followed by ‘until which time’ always implies that the negated action will take place after the allotted time (indicated by the participle) is up. The end of the time is indicated by the aorist verb ‘gave birth’ (eteken). Therefore, it is most likely that this verse rules out the idea of Mary’s perpetual Virginity being part of Matthew’s theology.” [14]

Phil Moore

“Some Christian traditions see Mary as a ‘perpetual virgin’ who never had sex with Joseph. I find this impossible to reconcile with the straightforward teaching of Matthew 1:25; 12:46; 13:55.” [15]

The NIV Application Commentary by Matthew J. Wilkins also agrees that the verse in Matthew 1:25 is talking about sexual intercourse taking place after Jesus’s birth.

“…(1:25). The delicate way of Matthew phrases this expres​sion(lit., ‘he was not knowing her’) was a common way of referring to abstaining from sexual intercourse in both Hebrew and Greek. Sexual abstinence maintained Joseph and Mary’s ritual purification the pregnancy as well as ensured that Jesus was virgin-born. But this is not a hint of continued celibacy after Jesus birth. The word ‘until’ most naturally means that Mary and Joseph had normal marital sexual relations after Jesus birth, from which other children were born (see 12:46, 13:55).” [16]

6. Holy Spirit Impregnated Mary when she was 12 – 14 years old?
One would seem shocked by the title of this section. But this is true, if one reads certain passages in the Bible, one would realise that sexuality was involved in Mary’s pregnancy. Let’s have a read of the verses:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

The word ‘beget’, begotten’ means:
The concise Oxford dictionary of current English (1911)

“beget v.t. (-tt-, -got, -gotten). Procreate (usu. Of father, sometimes of father and mother, cf bear);…” [17]

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

“…begotten: (1) : OFFSPRING (2) : the entire progeny of a male animal b: lineage…” [18]

Chambers’s twentieth century dictionary of the English language (1903):

“Beget, be-get, v.t. to produce or cause : to generate : to produce as an effect, to cause :– pr.p beget’ting; pa.t. begat’, begot : pa.p begot , begot’ten. –n. Beget’ter, one who begets: a father : the agent that occasions or originates anything…” [19]

What are we supposed to me make of statements like this? That God begets a Son? This is exactly the same as human by human or animal by animal relationship. We as Muslims object to the word ‘begotten’ because begetting is an animal act, belonging to the lower animal functions of sex. How can Christians attribute such a lowly capacity to God? The words are crystal clear; anybody reading the above mentioned verse would straight away believe/think that Yahweh had sexual intimacy with Mary and this is the case. The language of the next verse clearly shows sexual intimacy.

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall COME UPON YOU, and the power of the Highest shall OVERSHADOW YOU: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God. – Luke 1:35

In Luke 1:35 when the words ‘COME UPON YOU’ is used this sounds exactly like husband come upon his wife.
There are Christians that believe that Yahweh had sexual intimacy with Mary, not just that, but also Mary became a WIFE of God (Na’uzubillah). Here is one of the commentaries on Luke;

God, the Father of our spirits, became the father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. Hence, the Father saith concerning him ‘Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.’ We are informed in the first chapter of Luke, that Mary was chosen by the Father as a choice virgin, through whom he begat Jesus. The angel said unto the Virgin Mary, ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore, also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.’ After the power of the Highest had overshadowed Mary, and she had by that means conceived, she related the circumstance to her cousin Elizabeth in the following words: ‘He that is Mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is His name.’ It seems from this relation that the Holy Ghost accompanied ‘the highest’ when he overshadowed the Virgin Mary and begat Jesus; and from this circumstance some have supposed that the body of Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost without the instrumentality of the immediate presence of the Father. There is no doubt that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary to sanctify her, and make her holy, and prepare her to endure the glorious presence of ‘the Highest,’ that when ‘He’ should overshadow her she might conceive, being filled with the Holy Ghost; hence the angel said, as recorded in Matthew, ‘That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost;’ that is, the Holy Ghost gave her strength to abide the presence of the father without being consumed; but it was the personage of the father who begat the body of Jesus; and for this reason Jesus is called ‘the Only begotten of the Father;’ that is, the only one in this world whose fleshly body was begotten by the Father. There were millions of sons and daughters whom He begat before the foundation of this world, but they were spirits, and not bodies of flesh and bones; whereas, both the spirit and body of Jesus were begotten by the Father- the spirit having been begotten in heaven many ages before the tabernacle was begotten upon the earth.
The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a father. Therefore, the father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the LAWFUL WIFE OF GOD THE FATHER : we use the term LAWFUL wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the saviour unlawfully. It would have been unlawful for any man to have interfered with Mary, who was already espoused to Joseph ; for such a heinious crime would have subjected both the guilty parties to death, according to the law of Moses. But God having had the most perfect right to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and PLEASURE He had a lawful right to overshadow the virgin Mary in the capacity of a HUSBAND, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct. It was also lawful in Him, after having thus dealt with Mary, to give her to Joseph her espoused husband. Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time and eternity, we are not informed. In as much as god was the First HUSBAND to HER, it may be that he only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in this mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity. [20]

Also, David Jay Jordan a Christian comments on the word “OVERSHADOW”, he writes:

And if you didn’t know it the word ‘overshadowed’ is just another delicate discreet way of saying a man got on top of a woman, casting his shadow over her, and entered her with his penis and ‘made love’ to her. This is just the good old-fashioned missionary way of producing babies. The woman gets ‘overshadowed’…or as King Solomon via the Holy Spirit said… His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me. (Song of Solomon 2: 6) Because her lover is over top of her…. and he is overshadowing her …..’and his banner over me was love’ (2: 4).
Do clouds penetrate into the womb ?…. Does gas produce babies ? The answer obviously NO. The Lord created sperm to break thru the egg of a woman to combine with the cell of a woman to reproduce into a new body for a new soul. That’s the Lord’s biology, that’s His embryology. That’s the Lord’s sexuality.
Mathew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is CONCEIVED IN her is of the Holy Ghost. And the conception happened INSIDE Mary’s womb. Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was CONCEIVED IN THE WOMB.

I didn’t add other points he brought up, I think it is distasteful. Read the rest here.
Brown Ogwuma says something on this as well:

“It seems that, like the adult human male, the Holy Spirit who fathered Jesus is also more sexually attracted to younger females than older ones. And for 90 years old Joseph having other children with Mary, who was so young as to be his grand-daughter, he must have been a busy old man, who apparently was endowed with sexual prowess.” [21]

We can all agree with the evidence presented that Mary’s pregnancy involved sexual intimacy with the Holy Spirit. This was not my view, but rather Christians who are admitting such blasphemous thing, that God had sexual intimacy with Mary for Jesus to be born.

7. Age of Consent in European & American History
Early marriages in American States and European countries prior the 20th century, click on the article here for more info.
8. Questions for Christians
1. Why was Mary pregnant at such young age by the Holy Spirit?
2. Why did Jesus not speak against (or abolish) child marriages?
3. How come Paul says nothing against such marriages?
4. Why did Yahweh not say anything against Mary’s marriage with Joseph?
5. Why did Yahweh bless the marriage of Joseph, who was 80 – 90 years old at least, with 12-year-old Mary?

Conclusion: I believe everything presented supports the fact that Mary married Joseph the carpenter when she was 12 years old and Joseph was at least 80 to 90 years old at the time. I went over and defined the word ‘Apocrypha’ as we have read already, it originally denoted ‘Hidden’ or ‘secret’. Moreover, I gave a reference from the Gospel of Matthew that said after Jesus’s birth, Joseph and Mary had normal sexual life. Lastly, the references quoted from some of the early Church fathers that Mary married Joseph when she was 12 years old, some of them believed even though Mary was married to Joseph, she stayed a Virgin whole her life. Their argument that Mary stayed a virgin, does not hold any weight when the Gospel of Matthew makes it clear that there was sexual intimacy between Mary and Joseph after Jesus (p) was born. Whatever opinion some of the early church fathers held on Mary staying a virgin whole her life, Matthew 1:25 negates their claims.
Disclaimer: Whatever is given in this article is just showing of the mirror to the Liars/deceivers and other missionary haters of Islam, otherwise neither I nor any Muslim can ever think of anything close to it. Christian brethren and sisters do understand that this article is in no way attacking the Christian faith. The article was mainly written in response to the double standards of Christian missionaries. No Muslim can be a Muslim if he/she has any such imagination about Mary, the purest and greatest woman of all.
References:
[1] The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls By James VanderKam, Peter Flint chapter 8
[2] Poetics of the Gnostic Universe: Narrative And Cosmology in the Apocryphon of John By Zlatko Plese page 7
[3] John the Baptist: Prophet of Purity for a New Age By Catherine M. Murphy page 161
[4] The Tree of Life and the Holy Grail: Ancient and Modern Spiritual Paths and the mystery of rennes-le-Chatean By Sylvia Francke page 6
[5] Forgotten Women of God By Diana Webb page xiv
[6] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm
[7] http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0805.htm
[8] The Semitic gods and the Bible. Being over three hundred pages from “The gods and religions of ancient and modern times.” Written while unjustly imprisoned (1912) By D. M. Bennet (De Robigne Mortimer Bennett) Page 605
[9] Bernard L. Fontana A Gift of Angels: The Art of Mission San Xavier Del Bac page 258
[10] A new and full method of settling the canonical authority of the New Testament. To which is subjoined A Vindication of the Former Part of St. Matthew’s Gospel from Mr. Whiston’s Charge of Dislocations By Reverend Jeremiah Jones, volume 2, page 116
[11] History of the Christian religion to the year two hundred [Published 1881] By Charles B. Waite page 131
[12] Commentaries on the New Testament Matthew by Charles H. Talbert page 34
[13] Answers to Questions Catholics Are Asking By Tony Coffey page 209 – 210
[14] The Indelible Image: The Theological and Ethical Thought World of the New Testament By Ben Witherington III. Volume 1, page 653
[15] Straight to the Heart of Matthew: 60 Bite-Sized Insights By Phil Moore page 24 Footnote 9
[16] The NIV Application Commentary: Matthew Michael J. Wilkins page 82
[17] The concise Oxford dictionary of current English [1911] page 74
[18] Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: [Eleventh Edition] page 525
[19] Chambers’s twentieth century dictionary of the English language  [1903] page 85
[20] The Seer [1853] by Orson Pratt page 158
[21] Playing God: Intuitive Reflections and Discourse on Life By Brown Ogwuma page 98
 



https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/09/30/marriage-of-mary-to-joseph-the-carpenter/

Desperate waffle...


Why not try to address the points instead of trying such diversion...!?

Same old Tommy, when it's something that knocks you into a cocked hat, the only thing you can say is 'waffle'.   Bless.