Muslims Polish The "peaceful" Credentials Of Their Faith

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1301580' date='Jun 25 2007, 07:48 PM']I have read every single post, and nowhere did ANY phatmasser say all muslims are terrorists.
Didn't happen.[/quote]

Yes it did happen, Kenrockthefirst repeatedly made this assumption and it even was brought to the attention of Seven777, who commented that he may be crossing the line.


[quote name='mortify' post='1301588' date='Jun 25 2007, 07:58 PM']Peace,

Let me first call to mind an event in Muhammad's life, just to put this whole article in context.

It is recorded in Islamic tradition, that there had been a poetess named Asma bint Marwan, who would sit in public places and sing verses that mocked Muhammad. When the Muslims gathered in the mosque for prayer, Muhammad asked the congregation, "Who will take care of this problem for me?" meaning, who will kill Asma bint marwan. It just so happened that Asma's servant was a convert to Islam, and he decided to take it upon himself to kill her. Late in the evening, when Asthma was sitting by the light, her servant approached her and stabbed her in the stomach. Asma was pregnant, and the thrusting of the dagger into her belly caused the fetus to be expelled. The next day the servant was so horrified that he would be punished that he literally shivered when Muhammad called him to the front of the mosque, but instead of scolding the servant, Muhammad ordered that no man hurt him.[/quote]

Please provide documentation to where you read this, what book specifically, so that I may properly respond.

[quote]There are many Muslims who would never hurt another human being, let alone Salman Rushdie, and they are at times some of the kindest people you can meet, many such Muslims are probably the ones Reza refers to as being part of his family. Perhaps Reza feels what we say about Islam somehow projects on to his family members (which it doesn't) or other Muslims he personally knows.[/quote]It does because statements have been repeatedly made that someone that doesnt kill isn't a "true Muslim", etc.

[quote]We are simply talking about Islam from an objective point of view, and this point of view doesn't mean all Muslims are this way.[/quote] Well no not everyone in this thread and others are talking about Islam from an "objective standpoint", as comments such as "check out the suicide bombings in Palestine, that proves Islam is violent" have been made, when that is particularly a political conflict, and Palestinian Christians are also fighting in that war.

[quote]Many of us Reza, are at a loss how you can overlook the worst atrocities committed by Muslims, and yet attack the Catholic Church unscrupulously, which ought to be closer to your heart than the Islamic religion.[/quote]

I see a great hypocracy, as nearly every single Roman Catholic on this message board has attacked Muslims for their supposed violent history, but in turn, sought to justify the crusades and their filthy atrocities. Many of you have deliberately endulged in Anti-Muslim propaganda, but when those same propaganda sources turn on your own sect of Christianity, you fight tooth and nail to "prove them wrong". If you were a Muslim, you'd see things on the opposite side of the spectrum. I'm in the middle, as Copts have been persecuted by both the Crusades and Muslim extremists and I'm friends with both Roman Catholics and Muslims, as well as having family on both sides of the spectrum.

Reza

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1301621' date='Jun 25 2007, 08:38 PM']why didn't you respond to mortify? I thought that was a good post. Reza, I don't portray your family or friends as terrorists, though I can't ignore what's going on. Heck, I have a friend who has a Muslim friend. They get along fine.[/quote]

Oh I did, just a seperate post because the other one I responded to was on the other page [page 2 I believe], and Morts was on page 3.

[jeffpugh]

Oh, okay. Actually I meant that previous post, but I see you covered it. I tell ya, it's hard reading this thread... I just don't know what to think right now...

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1301639' date='Jun 25 2007, 08:46 PM']Oh, okay. Actually I meant that previous post, but I see you covered it. I tell ya, it's hard reading this thread... I just don't know what to think right now...[/quote]

stay tuned.

[mortify]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1301624' date='Jun 25 2007, 09:40 PM']Please provide documentation to where you read this, what book specifically, so that I may properly respond.[/quote]

As you can probably tell I'm recalling the event from memory, I may have picked it up from some of the books I read about Muhammad (by Muslim authors), perhaps you could try googling it, it turns out after all these years I can still spell her name!

[cmotherofpirl]

Quoting books written by muslims about islam is not engaging into anti-muslim propaganda. Just because one disagrees with an author's conclusions doesn't make his book propaganda. And disagreements with an author is no reason to threaten to murder him for his beliefs. Any group that does that are terrorists. Any person who agrees with that tactic are terrorists as well.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1301852' date='Jun 25 2007, 10:31 PM']Quoting books written by muslims about islam is not engaging into anti-muslim propaganda. Just because one disagrees with an author's conclusions doesn't make his book propaganda. And disagreements with an author is no reason to threaten to murder him for his beliefs. Any group that does that are terrorists. Any person who agrees with that tactic are terrorists as well.[/quote]

That's not the propaganda that I'm talking about...

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='mortify' post='1301706' date='Jun 25 2007, 09:10 PM']As you can probably tell I'm recalling the event from memory, I may have picked it up from some of the books I read about Muhammad (by Muslim authors), perhaps you could try googling it, it turns out after all these years I can still spell her name![/quote]

Oh... ok... well since that's the case [and I do doubt that you remembered her name, I'm pretty sure that you got it from wikipedia among other sources, as the original author that reported it, reported it quite differently], let me provide some quotes:

[quote]Allegations of forgery
Some Islamic scholars consider this story to be a forgery because the only sources for the story are Ibn Ishaq's Sira and Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir. Also, one of the reporters in the chain of narration, Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj, is known for fabricating Hadiths[/quote][quote]this isnad (chain of reporters) is not narrated on authority of Mujalid but by Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj and they all (other reporters in the chain) accuse Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj of forging it. (Al-Kamel Vol 6, pg. 145)[/quote]

[quote]Ibn al-Gawzi in his book Al-Ilal (Vol. 1, pg. 279) mentioned that this report was false. This report is also listed among other flawed reports.[/quote][quote]After we had verified that the chain of transmitters is intact without interruption and that all reporters are honest, sane individuals, we must make sure that each reporter has received the report directly from the preceding one and that the report itself is in agreement with other authentic reports without flaws. The eminent hafiz Ibn Kathîr states that

Authentic Hadith is the transmitted hadîth whose chain is continuous through transmission of an accurate sane memorizer on authority of an accurate sane memorizer till its termination without being eccentric or flawed.[1]

Is there a method more precise and meticulous than this?

There is no nation in the entire history that took care of reporting events and their verification as the Muslims have done. The Western Orientalist Bernard Lewis notes that

From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition. "Traditional science", as it was called, differed in many respects from modern historical source criticism, and modern scholarship has always disagreed with evaluations of traditional scientists about the authenticity and accuracy of ancient narratives. But their careful scrutiny of the chains of transmission and their meticulous collection and preservation of variants in the transmitted narratives give to medieval Arabic historiography a professionalism and sophistication without precedent in antiquity and without parallel in the contemporary medieval West. By comparison, the historiography of Latin Christendom seems poor and meagre, and even the more advanced and complex historiography of Greek Christendom still falls short of the historical literature of Islam in volume, variety and analytical depth.[2]

Then we talk about historical references written by Muslim authors. First of all, these books are not trustworthy references due to the fact that they do not follow proper methodology of transmission.

Imâm Ahmad ibn Hanbal sums up the Muslim point of view as regards the trustworthiness of the biographical reports when he declares that the biographies

...are not based on any principle.

The early Muslim scholars who compiled books of hadîth and scrutinized this particular field undertook thorough and painstaking investigations to determine the authenticity of the reports from the Holy Prophet's time by tracing them back to eye-witnesses of the time, through unbroken lines of reliable narrators. As a result, they never held a high opinion of the biographies whose authors had simply copied masses of reports without check or criticism. One such scholar of hadîth, Hafiz Zayn-ûd-Dîn of Irâq, says about the biographies as follows:

The student should know that the biographies contain all kinds of reports, both true and false.[/quote]

[quote]The story of the killing of Asma' bint Marwan is mentioned by Ibn Sa'd in Kitab At-Tabaqat Al-Kabir[3]and by the author of Kinz-ul-'Ummal under number 44131 who attributes it to Ibn Sa'd, Ibn 'Adiyy and Ibn 'Asaker. What is interesting is that Ibn 'Adiyy mentions it in his book Al-Kamel on the authority of Ja'far Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn As-Sabah on authority of Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim Ash-Shami on authority of Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj Al-Lakhmi on authority of Mujalid on authority of Ash-Shu'abi on authority of Ibn 'Abbas, and added that

...this isnâd (chain of reporters) is not narrated on authority of Mujalid but by Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj and they all (other reporters in the chain) accuse Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj of forging it.[4]

It is also reported by Ibn al-Gawzi in Al-'Ilal[5] and is listed among other flawed reports.

So according to its isnâd, the report is forged - because one of its reporters is notorious for fabricating hadîth. Hence, such a story is rejected and is better off being put into the trash can.[/quote]

[and this is just what I did a quick search to find]

Reza

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.kactuzkid.com/excuses.html"]SOURCE[/url]

[quote]The following points must be considered:
1. First, it is from Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasul Allah" - the oldest and basic biography of the Prophet of Islam. Almost all original source material relating to the life of Mohammad comes from here.

2. In any historical work, there are certain rules that are used to judge the source. Three of them are relevant here: a. an earlier work has precedence over a later one, b. a work is judged according to its entire content, c. a work is judged against other sources, preferably other historical records and archeological findings.

3. The problem (in this case) is that all Muslims accept and respect Ibn Ishaq and his writings. They are cited everywhere in Islamic scholarship and his stories of the life of Mohammad are told everyday millions of times on the planet. If one throws out parts of "Sirat Rasul Allah" you must throw out 9o% of what is known about Mohammud. You must be consistent.

4. Notice that other there is another ancient source (Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir). Muhammad ibn Sa'd is the author of the earliest extant collection of biographies of distinguished Muslims. His work, Kitab al-tabaqat al-kabir, contains more than 4,000 individual entries, with 600 devoted to women - including Asma.

5. Bad chain of narration? Actually there is more than one chain, very long ones, and multiple sources. Notice how many names of "authorities" are given as referring to the tragic event even in the paragraphs above arguing that the narrative lacks authority. So there is a chain, but the writer doesn't like it so he accuses Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj of forging it. Actually, he doesn't accuse Ibn Al-Hajjaj of forging this particular story, but of forging other hadiths, and therefore concludes that the story of the death of Asma to be unreliable because the source is flawed (because other reports, not that os Asma's death, were fabricated). So what he is saying is not that it doesn't have an Isnad (chain of narration), but that it is an invalid one. No, it is not invalid (unsubstantiated) but a forgery (a made-up lie!) because one of the reporters is known to have lied about another story. Whatever!

6. The writer accuses a certain Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj of forging this hadith. Oh yes, so who was this dispicable, vile, loathsome ibn al-Hajjaj that did this dastardly, horrible thing? [size=1]Here is a brief biography from Encyclopædia Britannica: born c. 817, Nishapur, Iran - died 875, Nasrabad. In full, Abu Al-husayn Muslim Ibn Al-hajjaj Al-qushayri - scholar who was one of the chief authorities on the Hadith, accounts of the sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad. Muslim traveled widely; his great work, the Sahih (“The Genuine”), is said to have been compiled from about 300,000 traditions, which he collected in Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. The Sahih has been unanimously acclaimed as authoritative and is one of the six… and so on. Here is another report on this guy from Answers.com: Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Muslim Author of the second most widely recognized collection of Hadith in Sunni Islam, "Sahih Muslim", "Muslims authentic (collection)". He is largely known as simply "Al-Muslim." His book is considered among the most authentic collections of hadith, second only to al-Bukhari's work (a minority of scholars consider Muslim's work more authentic). The introduction of his book is a methodology on hadith, and how to differentiate between authentic and non-authentic narrations.[/size]
I must admit that when I first read this explanation I didn't realize the writer was accusing Muslim (the Muslim) of being a big fat liar - I though he was referring to some minor, unimportant historian. It almost makes me think that the writer used the little known name "Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjajman" instead of the well-known and respected "Al-Muslim" name to fool people. Or maybe I am just cynical. I also imagine that very few of the Muslims (plural, people of the Islamic faith) that have posted this 'explanation' as to the case of Asmaa bint Marwan realize that they are defaming Muslim (singular, a particular person), a man they constantly quote. Well, kiss all the hadiths goodbye.

7. So Al-Muslim, the man considered either the second or first most authoritative expert on hadiths, is accused not just of bad work, but of forging a story. What about the thousands of other hadiths he collected? Are they also invented? fake? lies? Oh yes, this is the guy that wrote the rule book for authenticating hadiths. See the Note about the hadiths below. Also, the Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir (by the well-known scholar Ibn Sa'd) is widely available in numerous translations and is considered a highly regarded and primary biography of Islam's prophet. It accepts the story of Asma's death as reliable.

8. Note that the writer quotes Bukhari in his original argument, saying that M. could not have killed Asma because in Bukhari's hadith it states that it is forbidden to kill women. So I take it that this means that the writer considers Bukhari to be a reliable, reputable source. Great! Note that Bukhari also says that Mohammed and his men make unprovoked, surprise attacked on villages, killing men and enslaving the women. Note that when asked about sexually assaulting the women (something about coitus interruptus), the prophet says "Don't worry, just screw them." Here is the link, note the source and read it yourself: Click for link to Islamic source. Note that Bukhari also tells us that Mohammud committed brutal, barbaric torture. Of course, unless cropping off legs and hands, putting hot nails in eyes and then letting people then die of thirst is not really torture. Click for link to Islamic source (read verse 261). Actually the books of Bukhari are full of stories of hate and violence against non-Muslims, who are portrayed as vile and treacherous. Also, look up the word 'ghazawat' in Bukhari's accounts. For a so-called man of peace, or as he is known to Muslims - a Mercy for all Mankind - Mohammed and his men sure did a lot of ghazawating, bringing pain, suffering and sorrow to thousands, and maybe tens of thousands.
So which is it? Would the writer care to explain how he uses a source to deny that Mohammed did one specific evil when that same source affirms that Islam's prophet murdered, plundered, enslaved and raped on other occasions? Just asking.

9. The numerous other accounts of murder and mayhem by Muhammud must be taken into consideration. If it were only a single case in one source, then the "fabricated" explanation would be worthy of consideration. The problem is that there are dozens of cases of murder, torture, slavery, rape and other horrible deeds done by Mohammad himself or upon his command. These are found in many different sources (including the respected works of Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Kathir, and al-Tabari) and are far too mumerous to dismiss.

10. The words "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" follow a pattern of other murders found in many Islamic traditions (For example: "Who would kill that scoundrel?" "Who is ready to kill Ka’b bin Ashraf?" etc). According to the hadiths, on several other occasions Mohammed would say something like "who will rid me of so and so?" and then some follower would take the not so subtle hint and so and so would die. I guess this method is what is called "modus operandi".

11. Here is a partial list of people killed on the orders of Mohammad, compiled from a wide range of sources, including the earliest biographies and the strongest and most reliable hadiths: Abd Abbah Ibn Hilal Ibn Khatal al-Adrami, Abd Allah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh, Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul al-Aufi, Abu Afak (*), Al-Huwayrith Ibn Nuqaydh, Al-Nadr bin al-Harith (*), Al-Yusayr b. Rizam and Khalid b. Sufyan, Amr b. Jihash, Asma Bint Marwan (*), Fartana, Habbar Ibn al-Aswad, Hind Bint Utbah, Ibn Sunayna (*), Ikrimah Ibn Abi Jahl, Ka`b bin al-Ashraf (*), Kinana al-Rabi (M. built a fire on his chest), Miqyas Ibn Sababah al-Laythi, Qaribah, Sallam Ibn Abu'l-Huqayq (Abu Rafi), Sarah the mawlat of Amr Ibn Hashim, Singing girl for Abdullah bin Katal(*), Umaiya bin Khalaf Abi Safwan,Unnamed One-eyed Bedouin (*), Uqba bin Abi Mu`ayt / Uqba bin Abu Muayt (*). These do not even include several other people without names or even a specific description - or the slaughter of prisoners from his raids on caravans and villages or the mass executions after his victories in wars. The (*) indicates a poet or singer, which leads us to conclude that Mohammad was not exactly a great fan of the arts (not to mention jokes about "Mohammad's Dead Poets Society").[/quote]

[url="http://www.kactuzkid.com/excuses.html"]Continued...[/url]

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html#038.4348"][b]Partial Translation of Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 38, Number 4348:[/b][/url]

Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:

A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.

He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.

Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

[b]Book 38, Number 4349:[/b]

Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:

A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1301442' date='Jun 25 2007, 05:11 PM']I never insisted that Islam was a religion of peace, anymore then Christianity. I'm glad that you mentioned honor killing, because it's not in the Quran and wasn't practiced by Muhammed [amongst other things you mentioned]. Suicide bombings, aren't done in the name of Islam but in the name of politics. You make over generalizations and fail to see the specifics of it, and it's pretty obvious that you've never ever even picked of a Qur'an [which is why Catholic Annonymous isn't posting no more].

<snip>

You don't understand Islam, as you have yet to quote a single surah from the Quran, yet use your stereotypes to charectorize every Muslims as a potential terrorist. Except you forgoet, that it was through Islam that I accepted Christianity! You forget that Islam has it's roots in Christianity, just as Protestantism has it's roots in Christianity [check my previous posts].

Reza[/quote]
Where are the denunciations [i]by Muslims[/i] of "honor" killings, then? Where are the denunciations [i]by Muslims[/i] of suicide / homicide killings - which are practiced throughout the Islamic world - then? Perhaps I don't understand Islam or the Koran. Neither do many Muslims, obviously, since many are not living by what you aver their religion teaches.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1301546' date='Jun 25 2007, 08:02 PM']Go back and re-read, several of the previously posts charectorized every Muslim as a terrorist.[/quote]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1301624' date='Jun 25 2007, 09:40 PM']Yes it did happen, Kenrockthefirst repeatedly made this assumption and it even was brought to the attention of Seven777, who commented that he may be crossing the line.[/quote]

I never claimed that all Muslims are terrorists, and you can't provide a single quote of me doing so.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1301624' date='Jun 25 2007, 09:40 PM']I see a great hypocracy, as nearly every single Roman Catholic on this message board has attacked Muslims for their supposed violent history, but in turn, sought to justify the crusades and their filthy atrocities. Many of you have deliberately endulged in Anti-Muslim propaganda, but when those same propaganda sources turn on your own sect of Christianity, you fight tooth and nail to "prove them wrong". If you were a Muslim, you'd see things on the opposite side of the spectrum. I'm in the middle, as Copts have been persecuted by both the Crusades and Muslim extremists and I'm friends with both Roman Catholics and Muslims, as well as having family on both sides of the spectrum.

Reza[/quote]

But the point, as I've stated before, is that you have to reach back nearly 1,000 years to the Crusades to find an analogous situation of Christians using violence against those with a different worldview, whereas I only have to reach back about twenty minutes to cite the last instance of violence committed in the name of Islam.

Let me state my position plainly, so I don't get kicked off the board: I'm not saying that all Muslims are terrorists. Really, I'm asking a question. If Islam is a religion of peace, why haven't I seen a vocal, persistent dissociation of Muslims from the use of violence, advocacy of the use of violence, religious intolerance, subjugation of women, etc? Where is the "silent majority?"

[Seven77]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1301984' date='Jun 26 2007, 08:27 AM']Where are the denunciations [i]by Muslims[/i] of "honor" killings, then? Where are the denunciations [i]by Muslims[/i] of suicide / homicide killings - which are practiced throughout the Islamic world - then?[/quote]

here are three sites:

[url="http://www.freemuslims.org/"]http://www.freemuslims.org/[/url]

[url="http://www.m-a-t.org/"]http://www.m-a-t.org/[/url]

[url="http://www.islamagainstterrorism.com/"]http://www.islamagainstterrorism.com/[/url]

-----personally i believe some if not many Muslims are scared to denounce...

[mortify]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1301898' date='Jun 26 2007, 01:41 AM']Oh... ok... well since that's the case [and I do doubt that you remembered her name, I'm pretty sure that you got it from wikipedia among other sources, as the original author that reported it, reported it quite differently], let me provide some quotes[/quote]

Gosh Reza, you think so highly of me!

When I first came across Asma bint Marwa (6 or so years ago), wikipedia (as far as I know) did not yet exist.

I've seen this account retold in various biographies on Muhammad's life, I see no reason to reject it. It fits squarely with who Muhammad was, though some want to deny it.

It's possible I confused the story of Asma bint Marwan with the Sunan abu dawud that Knight of Christ quoted.

Edited June 26, 2007 by mortify

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1301984' date='Jun 26 2007, 07:27 AM']Where are the denunciations [i]by Muslims[/i] of "honor" killings, then? Where are the denunciations [i]by Muslims[/i] of suicide / homicide killings - which are practiced throughout the Islamic world - then? Perhaps I don't understand Islam or the Koran. Neither do many Muslims, obviously, since many are not living by what you aver their religion teaches.[/quote] Simple, Muslims have/are denouncing these practices. As a matter of fact, Queen Rania of Jordan has been one of the most outspoken critics of honor killing and taking a harsh stance against it in Jordan along with her husband King Abdullah II. These are cultural practices that should be abolished.

Prior to Islam, Byzintine women were known to fully veil themselves [their faces included], most historians believe that Muslims got it from the Byzintines. The Byzintines did so, not because of Christianity [thou some interpreted 1 Corinthians to mean so] but because of cultural practices. Just as Christians have cultural practices that are both good and bad, so do Muslims. You're simply saying "Muslims do suicide bombings, so it must be a tenent of Islam", without checking the facts and reading the Qur'an for yourself.

[quote]I never claimed that all Muslims are terrorists, and you can't provide a single quote of me doing so.[/quote]Saying that honor killing, etc. is a tenent of Islam, without doing the research is the same as saying that all Muslims believe in honor killing.

[quote]But the point, as I've stated before, is that you have to reach back nearly 1,000 years to the Crusades to find an analogous situation of Christians using violence against those with a different worldview, whereas I only have to reach back about twenty minutes to cite the last instance of violence committed in the name of Islam.[/quote]

The difference is that you don't know any of these people that you've accused, and you don't even remotely understand their culture or their religion.

[quote]Let me state my position plainly, so I don't get kicked off the board: I'm not saying that all Muslims are terrorists. Really, I'm asking a question. If Islam is a religion of peace, why haven't I seen a vocal, persistent dissociation of Muslims from the use of violence, advocacy of the use of violence, religious intolerance, subjugation of women, etc? Where is the "silent majority?"
[/quote]Because you haven't done your research. King Abdullah II of Jordan has even traveled to Columbus Catholic university and spoken regarding this [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5z6cmC7dys"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5z6cmC7dys[/url], he's spoken before congress regarding this issue [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6pgWReJTrE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6pgWReJTrE[/url], his wife has even spoken about it [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI3zpzDeeIE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI3zpzDeeIE[/url], amongst the others. King Abdullah II's liniage goes back to Muhammed.

[quote name='mortify' post='1302434' date='Jun 26 2007, 04:15 PM']
Gosh Reza, you think so highly of me![/quote] No don't take it like that, it's not an insult or nothing. I just did some research and found similar statements amongst the various websites.

[quote]When I first came across Asma bint Marwa (6 or so years ago), wikipedia (as far as I know) did not yet exist.[/quote]Please provide the source, in which you read it then.

[quote]I've seen this account retold in various biographies on Muhammad's life, I see no reason to reject it. It fits squarely with who Muhammad was, though some want to deny it.[/quote] There's great reason to reject it, because the first person that wrote about it, got it from an unreliable source [someone that was known to lie frequently].

[quote]It's possible I confused the story of Asma bint Marwan with the Sunan abu dawud that Knight of Christ quoted.[/quote] Yeah I don't respond to knightofchrist's propaganda, since he just quotes from websites such as "answering islam" and isn't interesting in truely understanding the Islamic perspective/doctrines but simply pushing his own agenda.

Reza

[jeffpugh]

Staying tuned... Okay, I think I'm deciding who to agree with, but I'm not telling which side though :