Duel Accepted!

"I accept your challenge, infidel.  En garde!"

Jim Ashby - How do peaceful Muslims who condemn terrorism interpret the list of killings ordered or supported by Muhammad?

Just like the Bible, the Quran and the oral traditions that grew up around it contain stories, statements, or even apparent commandments that are unacceptable today. How do "modern" Muslims deal with these, especially given the very strong animus against any sort of historical-critical interpretation of the Quran?

Jim Ashby - I have the definite impression that Muslims are like Christians where their scriptures are concerned . . . namely, many of them have never read (much less, studied) their own holy scripture. Their understanding of Islam is based on what they've been told, so they have a positive impression of their religion.

It's possible they could read the Quran and retain a positive impression -- after all, Christians are often unfazed by the content of their Bible -- but it's also possible that reading the Quran might set them on the path to apostasy (as often happens with Christians and their Bible).

The Quran says there should be no compulsion in religion, yet Muhammad converted entire towns at the point of a sword. So do you favor the tolerant suwar or the militarisitic suwar? It's up to you. Islam, like Christianity, is what adherents make of it. Currently, Islam is getting a very bad rap because a significant number of Muslims have made Islam a bloody and intolerant religion.

To me, it's undeniable that Islam needs to disassociate itself from violence of ALL kinds. Violent Jihad, violent protests, violent punishments under sharia law, violent threats, violent antisemitism and violent anti-gay penalties.

Maybe then they'll stop killing each other . . . and us.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jim wrote: "...yet Muhammad converted entire towns at the point of a sword."

Tell me why do you believe that, please. What is the source of that comment's assertion?

Jim wrote: "To me, it's undeniable that Islam needs to disassociate itself from violence of ALL kinds."

Remember after 9/11 when President Bush started a war in a Muslim majority nation that intelligence said didn't have anything to do with the NY tragedy? I'm going to assume you voted for Bush, and support his political party, Jim. That's the party of dedicated war profiteers, who destroy entire counties for profit. Your own dedicated "anti-Islamism" stance is only a reflection of your party's war mongering propaganda. The radicalized militant "terrorist" activities in the middle east is directly caused by the West's power monopoly empire building and their greed-fueled foreign policies. Dipping as far back as the origins of Islam to find justifications for your xenophobia is disingenuous, as it ignores centuries of peace between all three Abrahamic faiths as they lived among each other under Muslim rule. The problems of the Muslim World that are currently headline news are all your fault, not theirs. Everyone has the right to defend themselves from greedy foreign agitators such as yourselves.

Jim Ashby - After capturing Mecca, Muhammad consolidated his power in the Hijaz and declared rule by divine law. He and his Muslims had established themselves as the dominant force in Arabia. Over the next year or so, as Muhammad extended Islam to the rest of the Arabian Peninsula, “most of the remaining tribes and states hastened to submit to Muhammad”.

Here’s the chronologically final, farewell, sura (An-Nasr) of the Quran in its entirety:

When the victory of Allah has come and the conquest, and you see the people entering into the religion of Allah in multitudes, then exalt [Him] with praise of your Lord and ask forgiveness of Him. Indeed, He is ever Accepting of repentance.

Muhammad Rasheed - Please note that the Muslims "captured Mecca" while wearing pilgrim garb, with not a single drop of blood shed. The tribes of Arabia hurried to join the new ruling order for a variety of reasons, but none of those involved being forced to do so at sword point. The world was ready for the perfected final message of the One God of Abraham.

Jim Ashby - LoL . . . you’re confusing the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah with the Conquest of Mecca.

Lord, please give me SOMEBODY who knows what they’re talking about.

Muhammad Rasheed - Let the record show that you led your response with “After capturing Mecca,” in which case I pointed out that the capture of Mecca happened “while wearing pilgrim garb, with not a single drop of blood shed.” Since this happened after the pagans willingly decided to cancel the truce of Hudaybiyyah, perhaps you’d like to start demonstrating that you know what you are talking about?

Jim Ashby - Like I said, you’re confused.

These are two separate and distinct historical events.

Use your head, for Christ’s sake! Do you really think Muhammad’s army of 10,000 soldiers approached Mecca from four different directions DRESSED IN PILGRIM GARB?

LoL . . . I get the most ridiculous comments here!

I have no doubt that if it were a slumber party instead of pilgrim season, you’d claim they approached in their pajamas.

Muhammad Rasheed - They weren't soldiers, they were pilgrims, hence the "pilgrim garb" and why no blood was spilled. You're trying to interpret those events based on how a White Supremacist European war monger thinks, but Muhammad (peace be upon him!) was nothing like that. This explains your confused, cocked-eyed interpretation of the historical events. No blood was spilled, because it wasn't soldiers that showed up 10,000 strong, but pilgrims for the hajj season... and ALL Muslims. The pagans were confused (as much as you are demonstrating here), frightened at the audacity, but sapped of their own mojo since the Muslims had decisively bested them in every major battle in the previous 20 years, despite having less resources. They didn't know what to think of this hajj, but they wouldn't dare try the Faithful with arms. Those among them that did not fall on their faces to submit their meager wills to Allah, wisely fled.

Muhammad Rasheed - Please stop pretending you know my faith better than I. Thank you.

Jim Ashby - It’s not faith I know better. It’s the Quran. I’ve already thoroughly debunked you but you’re apparently incapable of recognizing that fact. How? Let me repeat for those slow on the up-take:

LoL . . . you’re confusing the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah with the Conquest of Mecca.

Lord, please give me SOMEBODY who knows what they’re talking about.

It was posted, last Wednesday, here.

Any further denialism will result in you being blocked.

Muhammad Rasheed - I didn’t ‘deny’ anything, Jim. I did point out that the conquest of Mecca (in pilgrim garb) didn’t happen until AFTER the pagans willingly cancelled the truce of Hudaybiyyah. This fact means I’m not confusing anything with anything. lol

Are you going to address that and explain why you seem unaware of it since you believe you know the Qur’an, or are you going to block me like a coward and pretend that you won the debate when I can no longer see your posts to counter? :)

btw, smile for the camera. ;)

Jim Ashby - And I quote:

"I did point out that the conquest of Mecca (in pilgrim garb) didn’t happen until AFTER the pagans
willingly cancelled the truce of Hudaybiyyah."

Oh REALLY, Muhammad? Please cite (quote yourself) exactly where that happened.  I’ll give you a day. If you fail to do so, I’ll block you for dishonesty in your exchanges with me.  It’s time to put up or shut up. :-)

I look forward to your reply. There’s no telling what you’ll dream up next. I’m on the edge of my
seat . . .

P.S.
We know how to use the edit log . . . just saying . . .

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes, really. This thread isn't even that long. lol All you have to do is scroll up. Or were you so busy reading your own biases into my post that you failed to comprehend what I wrote? tsk. Here:

M. Rasheed wrote: "Since this happened after the pagans willingly decided to cancel the truce of
Hudaybiyyah, perhaps you’d like to start demonstrating that you know what you are talking about?"

Please note that I wrote that in the very next post after your amusingly shallow & silly comment
containing the Hudaybiyyah and Meccan conquest links. Maybe you should have actually read them,
chief. :)

P.S.
Are you going to threaten to block me in EVERY response now, or just the ones where you realize you messed up? Asking for a friend. :P

Jim Ashby - Yes. I should have blocked you already. Upon reviewing my previous posts, I see I’ve
already threatened to block you. But you’re providing too much fodder for our readers for me to pass up.

Are you daff? Hold on . . . will be citing the encyclopedia of Islam in a few minutes.

Muhammad Rasheed - I don't mind if you block me, since I'll just add your coward head to my trophy wall, but I'd prefer to trade with you and expose what you pass off as an 'intellect" as the
ineffective mush it really is, and in front of all your atheist pals (although I did appreciate the
stance you took in that Malala Yousafzai thread, which reveals you perhaps do have at least some
traces of non-jackass swimming around somewhere in you).

Jim Ashby - By your own admission the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah (in 628 A.D.) preceded the Conquest of Mecca (in 629 A.D.).

As I stated to begin with, you’re confusing/conflating the two. The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was
negotiated when Muhammad and his followers were prevented from entering Mecca, as pilgrims. The Conquest of Mecca, on the other hand, as the name implies, was a military operation in the following year.

• Treaty of Hudaybiyya = pilgrims.
• Conquest of Mecca = soldiers.

You've been wrong all along.

Put that on your blog too.

NOW I’m ready to block you.

Go ahead, make my day.

P.S.
I’ve copied the entire thread . . . in case readers of your blog would like the source material.

Muhammad Rasheed - *cracks fingers*

Jim Ashby - Bring it on, Muhammad. Put up or shut up.

Muhammad Rasheed - Okay, you were right. Even though the conquest of Mecca was achieved without a war, only a small skirmish as Khalid ibn Walid's team encountered the most hostile of the pagans when the 10,000 Muslim forces entered the holy city, they were not pilgrims. The image of the final scene in the film 'The Message' (1976) is what colored my memory of that event.

Enjoy your victory.