[BATTLE MODE] Gervonta Davis Converts to Islam

 

[original cartoon pending]

CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "[BATTLE MODE] Gervonta Davis Converts to Islam." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 00 Date 2024.  [cartoon pending] Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.

CLICK & SUBSCRIBE below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:

M. Rasheed on YouTube!

M. Rasheed on BitChute!

*************************************

Diamond Adams - 🥊🥊 TANK DAVIS CONVERTS TO ISLAM; CHANGES HIS NAME TO ‘ABDUL WAHID’ 🥊🥊

The superstar boxer has chosen the name Abdul Wahid, which translates to 'Servant of The One.' The change has now finalized his conversion to Islam. Davis' conversion took place on Christmas Eve, December 24, and represents an important step in his new personal and religious journey as a Muslim. 

Tony Rudd - Guess if that support network gives him what he needs that's great. Not sure the Arabic name, is that to reflect his heritage?

Muhammad Rasheed - @Tony... Black Americans usually have the name of their former slave masters, and take on the Arabic name with their conversion as a symbol of returning to wholeness, since many of the captured Africans on the Middle Passage journey were Muslim. This was a practice started under Elijah Muhammad's original Nation of Islam organization.

Tony Rudd - @Muhammad... original slaves weren't Muslim at all where did that come from, 9out of 10 slaves came from West Central Africa.........👀 Orisha was the main religion in West Africa.....

Muhammad Rasheed - Most of the original slaves were Muslim, since nearly all of the old Christian tribes had converted, other than in the far East. The European slave traders preferred Muslim Africans anyway because they didn't believe in suicide. Pagan Africans were the ones who would dive off the side of the ships if given a chance.

Tony Rudd - rubbish, most of the slaves were Orisha not Muslim and they certainly weren't Christian prior to that 🤣

Muhammad Rasheed - It is as I've said. I'm sorry you're in the habit of spreading misinformation about the topic. I notice you're in New Zealand. Where are your people originally from?

Tony Rudd - Gondwanaland originally, you don't have to be from somewhere to know history.

Tony Rudd - African slave religions, 1400–1790

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "you don't have to be from somewhere to know history"

People's background does tend to explain the reasons behind their penchant for lying about certain topics though.

The problem with Johnson's narrative is that the European Christian missionaries assumed that Christianity had never touched the region, since all the former Christian tribes had converted to Islam by that time. The Kongo and Ndongo kingdom religious decisions reflected their alliances with the Portuguese traders.

Tony Rudd - and you will choose what you want to believe.....where as If I take an impartial approach to research i would tend to Believe someone with hi credentials (and a Black man) rather than yours... lol In the Kongo who was Nzambe?

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "and you will choose what you want to believe..."

It sounds like you expected me to just blindly accept what you wanted to spoonfeed me. Is that the treatment you are used to from the New Zealanders? What is your original native ethnic group again?

Tony wrote: "..where as If I take an impartial approach to research"

Who in their right mind would be so foolish as to believe that of you?

Tony wrote: "i would tend to Believe someone with hi credentials (and a Black man)"

You would rather 'believe' the opinion of a hand-picked communist black guy to push an agenda that you personally favor. How very droll. And you consider this an "impartial" position from one such as you, eh? lol

Chris Lipton - @Muhammad... bro most of the slaves were not Muslim. They practiced traditional African religions. Information about the ancestry of African Americans is widely available.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Chris... A lot of misinformation is certainly widely available.

There's a reason the classic white racist figure is so against Islam, and why jim crow era Western Intelligence went out of their way to prevent a pure form of the religion from reaching the Black American former slave class.

Chris Lipton - To be honest, Islam confuses me they preach and boast about how Islam is not racist to black people but their actions don't show it.

Do you know the African tribe that most African Americans descended from?

Muhammad Rasheed - Chris wrote: "To be honest, Islam confuses me they preach and boast about how Islam is not racist to black people but their actions don't show it."

I would also be confused if I didn't study the material for myself, but only relied on the actions of flawed humans to inform me of what was going on with a belief system. As a Black American, it would be very easy for me to throw Christianity away because of the actions of white Christian Americans against my people over the centuries, instead of looking into the teachings from the source texts to see what the religion is really about. Obviously, I cannot use the example displayed by whites to determine what Christianity is really about since they obviously don't believe in being "Christ like" and are Christian by shallowly-chosen title alone.

Chris wrote: "Do you know the African tribe that most African Americans descended from?"

Black Americans are an eclectic mixture of various ethnic tribes seized and sold to European traders over an approximate three century time span. The number of people captured are estimated in the tens of millions, so the idea that the majority of them came from one particular tribe is at best a myth.

Tony Rudd - nope read lots of peoples opinions, even yours, and I picked to read his work among others including Okri and Ogundipe as well. Still don't know why he wouldn't find his ancestral "homeland" and choose a name that fits, especially if as you say his ancestors were pretty much Muslim by the time they were stolen. (and assuming his ancestors were actually slaves?????)

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "Still don't know why he wouldn't find his ancestral 'homeland' and choose a name that fits"

During the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, entire tribal clans would be seized, branded and sold to VOC. The only DNA we would realistically have on the continent, would belong to distant relatives found within enemy clans. We no longer have a home in Africa.

Tony Rudd - you never did, Your ancestor did. You are from the USA unless you weren't born there. The difference between you and I is that my parents left the country that abused their "class" to give their children a better life, yours kept you in the USA 👍 where in general to this day equal is based on 💲

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "you never did, Your ancestor did."

I'm talking about my ethnic group. It's genuinely stupid to reference individual lives in these kinds of general population movement discussions.

Tony wrote: "You are from the USA unless you weren't born there."

If you don't know for sure, what's the point of attempting to proclaim stuff about me? Why are you trying to force a general discussion to be personal and anecdotal?

Tony wrote: "The difference between you and I is that my parents left the country that abused their 'class' to give their children a better life, yours kept you in the USA"

You volunteered the info that your people took you to someone else's land to be a parasite off of someone else's story. Weird. The difference between us is that my family stayed to fight in our sacred freedom struggle to put in the work to make our country better, while your people ran from your problems. You should probably keep stuff like that to yourself since being a runner parasite doesn't really show you in a positive light.

Tony wrote: "where in general to this day equal is based on [money]"

Being equal is an economic social status manipulated with political grifts by legacy family racketeer criminals.

Tony Rudd - the need to be a part of tribe..... Need the weight of us not I? Have you heard of Claude Mckay "If a man is not faithful to his own individuality, he cannot be loyal to anything."

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "the need to be a part of tribe..."

lol The secret to humanity's success is our social groups.

Tony wrote: "Need the weight of us not I?"

Are you trying to pretend your own runner-parasite expatriate/immigrant isn't its own tribe? You all certainly act the same wherever ye are found leeching off someone else's history.

Tony wrote: "Have you heard of Claude Mckay"

He's Jamaican. Don't care.

Tony Rudd - haha triggered a little, I have a heritage don't need to leach, or cry poor because of it, the only groups I have are the ones society labels (and obviously you) me with, like the one in my passport. Nb if the boat stopped in Jamaica first, he could be a relative haha....

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "haha triggered a little"

History is quite triggering unless you're dead inside (or the actual root cause of the mischief in the earth).

Tony wrote: "I have a heritage don't need to leach"

A heritage of leeching. That's why you prudently decided to hide it from me.

Tony wrote: "or cry poor because of it"

My ethnic group has been artificially impoverished, probably by a cousin of yours, so I will protest the foul treatment as I like.

Tony wrote: "the only groups I have are the ones society labels (and obviously you) me with, like the one in my passport."

And by "society," you mean you and your cousins. Right.

Tony wrote: "Nb if the boat stopped in Jamaica first, he could be a relative haha...."

He's literally a different ethnic group with their own lineage & heritage. 🙄 That's his entire point of calling himself a "Jamaican-American" to differentiate himself from my group. smh

Tony Rudd - history should teach us how to be better, it can't be changed but more recently people seem to want to re write it. I don't leach I work, and read.

Couldn't be my historical cousins, they were slaves in their own special way.... Probably by the same people you protest about. By society, I mean people and governments 

And Nope black Jamaicans were slaves too... Same boats, same slavers, different bunch of arsehole "owners"

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "history should teach us how to be better"

It SHOULD, but for some it only teaches how to perfect the criminal art of running-parasite. A shame.

Tony wrote: "it can't be changed"

The narrative can be changed. And further evidence unearthed can provide a more accurate picture.

Tony wrote: "but more recently people seem to want to re write it"

lol Rarely is the victor's initial version accurate. History should be re-written/updated like any other science, as further facts/truths are revealed. This is reasonable. hahahaha

Tony wrote: "I don't leach I work, and read."

You leech as work, and read about how to leech more and more efficiently.

Tony wrote: "Couldn't be my historical cousins, they were slaves in their own special way..."

Oh, here we we go with more nonsense. 🙄 Are you trying to get up the courageous to actually share your background with me, so I may have the pleasure of weaponizing it against you finally? lol

Tony wrote: "Probably by the same people you protest about"

🙄

Tony wrote: "By society, I mean people and governments"

That's what I said. By "society" you mean the racketeering monopoly you and your ilk have over the world governments. Right.

Tony wrote: "And Nope black Jamaicans were slaves too..."

The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade is an aspect of our heritages we hold in common, but we are still completely separate ethnic groups with our own completely separate lineages & heritages. As a member of the political identity group who invented the concept of collapsing ethnic groups into a monolithic, race-based economic political group that you exclusively benefit from, I can understand how you could (pretend) to not understand the separation in context. 😏

Tony Rudd - the world needs to know how terrible it is to be born a black American, no other ethnic group suffered like yours, or was as disadvantaged as yours, and through this you continue to suffer, economic injustice isn't race based, it's greed based in that wonderful capitalist system loved by the "free" and espoused as the right way to be, not my ilk by any standard. Context not genetics?

Tony Rudd - Three generations ago my family had no schools, Two generations ago they were forced economic slaves and pushed to fight in rich men's wars, One generation ago they escaped, My generation was the first that dared a tertiary education, My children have opportunity....

Were you also the first in your family (extended) to go to a tertiary establishment?

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "the world needs to know how terrible it is to be born a black American"

Agreed. Though I suspect they already know, but have taken on a gas lighting sub-culture as a commitment to the exploitation models & tactics of the runner-parasite.

Tony wrote: "no other ethnic group suffered like yours, or was as disadvantaged as yours, and through this you continue to suffer"

This sounds suspiciously like a strawman effigy logical fallacy. Does another person's suffering somehow negate my own? I certainly don't believe this, so why does it appear as if you are trying to give this argument to me? Or, are you saying I have no right to focus on my own people's issues because someone else has issues? This would also be a strange and illogical position for you to try to pin on me, since I reject the concept.

Tony wrote: "economic injustice isn't race based"

In my country, the light-skinned descendants of the European ethnic tribes decided to permanently delegate the enslaved Africans to a hereditary, chattel bondsman class. This was encoded into law according to physical racial phenotype. So, from the 1600s to 1965, economic injustice in the USA was absolutely race-based. Now it is lineage-based.

Tony wrote: "it's greed based"

The point of it is greed, but it targets a specific lineage group for exploitation to uphold another group.

Tony wrote: "in that wonderful capitalist system loved by the 'free' and espoused as the right way to be"

Here in the Second Gilded Age, there's very little of the current system that can be classified as "capitalist." That era appears to be long over.

Tony wrote: "not my ilk by any standard."

lol Of course it's by your ilk.

Tony wrote: "Context not genetics?"

The context is lineage-based which of course implies genetics.

Tony Rudd - your own?

Muhammad Rasheed - I am representative of the American Descendants of Slavery ethnic group. I happen to be the most exploited, plundered, economically excluded group in my country — surrounded by hostile, running-parasites who collude to keep me in a state ripe for further exploitation and plunder.

A big part of their tactics involves false narratives of history, fast-talking/gas lighting and mind games, all of which are displayed here within your own discourse ("Talks like a duck"), which is how I know these are your cousins, even if only in economic "spirit." 😉

Tony Rudd - ahhh you are the hero representative of the victims? But only those from slavery? But not the Caucasian ones or the Asian ones or the Hispanic ones, and not even the black Jamaicans ones. You say the modern tool is economics... Driven by the terrible white folk, all white folk by their whiteness, disregarding their struggles because in your country that is the definitive measure. I would think more its the economics of education, and while there are always a few exceptions what else stops people from reaping rewards where the streets are paved with not gold but blood.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "ahhh you are the hero representative of the victims?"

I'm a representative of the group that you are in discussion with. You inserted "hero" in what appears to be another strawman effigy.

Tony wrote: "But only those from slavery?"

This sounds like yet another strawman if you mean ALL slavery ever throughout the history of the species. Specifically, I am a descendant of the U.S. American chattel slavery that my ancestors went through, the legacy of which continues to keep us economically excluded from the benefits of full citizenry today. THAT slavery.

Tony wrote: "But not the Caucasian ones"

lol No.

Tony wrote: "or the Asian ones"

Hell no.

Tony wrote: "or the Hispanic ones"

The Portuguese and Spanish initiated the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, chief.

Tony wrote: "and not even the black Jamaicans ones."

Currently, the Jamaicans are working with other Caribbean and Afro-Latin ethnic groups to secure their own version of reparations under the "CARICOM" program. Please note that my own group is pointedly excluded from this.

Tony wrote: "You say the modern tool is economics..."

The primary tool is politics; the spoils of war are economic.

Tony wrote: "Driven by the terrible white folk"

They should work to be less terrible.

Tony wrote: "all white folk by their whiteness"

By their political actions. "Whiteness" is the political identity they've named and given themselves under the economic caste system they created and benefit from.

Tony wrote: "disregarding their struggles because in your country that is the definitive measure."

Their "struggles" involved enslaving, exploiting and plundering me, so of course I disregard them. At least from your angle. lol

Tony wrote: "I would think more its the economics of education"

You would be wrong. Deliberately withholding quality education from my identity group is part of the history of U.S. systemic racism. Look up the white community's response to the Brown v Board of Education (1954) Supreme Court decision.

Tony wrote: "what else stops people from reaping rewards"

Weaponizing the state's institutions against me using racketeering, organized crime tactics by the molestation of our political processes. What else?

Tony Rudd - plundered you are....or the group you represent, as the descendants?

Muhammad Rasheed - lol This is a general, political discussion about the history of groups. This is not an anecdotal/individual discussion, Mr. Logical Fallacy.

Tony Rudd - again with the name calling and finger pointing, Did you learn your debating style from Trump and his MAGA bullies, 😂

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "again with the name calling and finger pointing"

Do you think that's worse than your attempts to pass fabricated history off as real? Your "economics of education" item in particular stands out as a sly attempt to use that "low IQ" racial slur line on me. Just because you frame insults in a performatively "civil/nice" way, do you believe that keeps them from being insulting?

Tony wrote: "Did you learn your debating style from"

Is this your way of responding to my calling you out for all of your logical fallacies? If you actually knew how to debate, you wouldn't use them.

Tony wrote: "Trump and his MAGA bullies"

Ironically, those are the same clowns you just wanted me to feel sorry for because they claim to have gone through "Caucasian slavery" or whatever. Now you're mocking them. #tribalism

Tony Rudd - 😂 sorry because you use words I don't have to accept them as fact, I see nothing in anything I have written to suggest you feel sorry for any group, especially not Trump's mob, especially his pawns 👍.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "sorry because you use words I don't have to accept them as fact"

We're finally on the same page, I see. lol Between the two of us, your group is the one on record for using lying as a formal part of your whiteness culture ("speaks with forked-tongue").

Tony wrote: "I see nothing in anything I have written to suggest you feel sorry for any group"

When I said I was representative of the American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS) ethnic group, what was the point of naming off all of those other identity groups when only the Black American fits the ADOS description? It seems like you were trying to guilt me for my not caring a damn about anyone else's experiences with slavery. No?

Tony Rudd - From what I have read here you just want to be the most important and first in line for the handouts if they come 🤣, good luck with that in a country that cant even get political consensus on keeping the federal government running..... 🤣 noting that your "first hand" experience with slavery is not your own. And going back to my original post, taking the name of those who probably were his ancestral slavers is quite ironic really (if his family came from slavery).

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "From what I have read here you just want to be the most important and first in line"

Exactly right.

Tony wrote: "for the handouts"

My complicit government owes me a debt for the centuries of accrued discrimination that plundered my people of our inheritance wealth and handed it to whites. It's not a "handout." You certainly don't go around calling the Holocaust reparations "handouts," do you? You save all of your disrespect for my group. The free handout 'GibMeDats' you're talking about were what the European runner-parasites were gifted just for showing up in this country that my people built with our exploited slave labor.

Tony wrote: "if they come 🤣, good luck"

Thanks.

Tony wrote: "noting that your 'first hand' experience with slavery is not your own"

Irrelevant. The unaddressed, multi-generational, economic effects of slavery are mine. 

Tony wrote: "And going back to my original post, taking the name of those"

I have a Palestinian work colleague who points out that Black American Muslims don't have real "Arabic" names, since we mix & match them based on how subjectively good they sound and whether we like the meaning or not, etc. For example, my own name is never put together like this among actual Arabic-speaking peoples. So, our taking on generic Muslim names is symbolic of a spiritual wholeness that involves the former slave class having agency over our own lives as the next level up from legal slavery abolishment. The practice is more of a sub-cultural significance to our group, than a literal taking on the name of centuries old people that no longer exist.

Tony wrote: "who probably were his ancestral slavers"

lol Our ancestral slavers were hostile neighboring African ethnic groups and the more successful of the African traders in direct partnership with VOC.

Tony Rudd - M. Rasheed wrote: "that no longer exist" 

wtf are you saying that you now have no ancestral links to Africa, as to the name the people serving you up you have already said we're Muslim Arabs..... I'm impressed with your decisive rhetorical answers.....

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "'that no longer exist' wtf are you saying that you now have no ancestral links to Africa"

The only DNA of mine on the continent is to be found among the vastly distant relatives within enemy ethnic groups. The survivors of my entire family clan were seized, branded and shoved into those great stinking ships, as was the procedure. 400 yrs later, what would the thoroughly colonized and war-torn "Africa" mean to me? Especially considering I'm neither a foolish pan-africanist, nor a worthless communist. 

Tony wrote: "as to the name the people serving you up you have already said we're Muslim Arabs..."

No, I didn't. Copy/paste here what you are referring to. The African ethnic group[s] who sold us to VOC were probably Muslim. My own people were probably Muslim back then, too. I'm not talking about the Ishmaelites specifically.

Tony wrote: "I'm impressed with your decisive rhetorical answers"

Thanks. I'm not impressed with your oft-repeated anti-Black American comments at all. I'm frankly tired of hearing that tripe. You should try a new angle since that one doesn't work on me.

Tony Rudd - well if your ancestry isnt from there where's your claim 😂 I'm not anti black American at all, I'm anti bullshit artist trying to money grab from historical injustices, and trying to segregate themselves as more important than others that suffered injustice. You suffered nothing with your education, neither did the others in your group, and I'd guarantee the monies and fees you misappropriate from the needy will eclipse their reparations. That's what the greedy do 👍👀

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "well if your ancestry isnt from there where's your claim"

My Justice Claim is with my own US government. You seem to have gotten lost somewhere.

Tony wrote: "I'm not anti black American at all"

Sure, you are. Hence why you blindly regurgitate all the same stereotypes & tropes on autopilot while attaching giggle emojis the way the typical anti-Black American racist does.

Tony wrote: "I'm anti bullshit artist"

Clearly not, since this thread is full of your bullsh*t artistry.

Tony wrote: "trying to money grab from historical injustices"

Are you, as a New Zealand foreigner, trying to tell someone else in their own land whether they are owed for the historic injustices done to their people? How do you justify this behavior?

Tony wrote: "and trying to segregate themselves as more important than others that suffered injustice."

lol My people are the most important and should have been in front of the line to receive economic repair. Instead, people like you are proclaiming that whites everywhere magically deserve yet more free gov 'GibMeDats' because all bullsh*t artists stick together.

Tony wrote: "You suffered nothing with your education"

Are you doubling-down on using your anecdotal/individual logical fallacy in a group-population history discussion? Are you drinking?

Tony wrote: "neither did the others in your group"

So, you didn't look up the white response to the Brown v Board of Education (1954) decision then? Note that your cowardly stubbornness doesn't prevent you from talking out of the side of your neck though, innit?

Tony wrote: "and I'd guarantee the monies and fees you misappropriate from the needy will eclipse their reparations."

This is what it sounds like when someone is blindly throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks. lol

Tony wrote: "That's what the greedy do"

lol I'm positive you are quite the expert.

Tony Rudd - Surely your claim for justice is on behalf of others.

As to the bullshit artist, it seems to fit, you are caught in the same circular spiral. regardless of my current residence, I'm still allowed an opinion, you are just making assumptions as to what that is.... first in line should be the Indigenous, but your groups is the most important. Never said whites should be considered anything other than equal where they have a valid claim. Ive always believed that racism is rampant in the USA, but its not limited to Whites. Drinking... that's funny, had any nice weed or mead lately? Brown v Board of Education (1954) was a good thing but I think you still have what were traditionally Black only schools? As to Money, Lawyers generally benefit more from any reparation, and the organisations that bring cases. The rhetoric in your answers and assumptions is again bullshit....

and if you were to make a good NZ insult joke you would have accused me of being a sheep fucker not milker. 🤣🤔🤣🤔🤣🤔🤣

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony wrote: "Surely your claim for justice is on behalf of others."

It's on behalf of my own Black American ethnic group. Other groups take care of themselves just fine, and usually at my group's expense.

Tony wrote: "As to the bullshit artist, it seems to fit"

It fits you better. Are you not a foreign white projecting your ignorant biases into someone else's culture without having a clue? 

Okay then.

Tony wrote: "you are caught in the same circular spiral."

You've spent this entire thread reciting off of the same, tired ole anti-Black American propaganda pamphlet, which is only based on racist biases and baseless stereotypes.

Tony wrote: "regardless of my current residence, I'm still allowed an opinion"

Sure. Just recognize that your opinion isn't fact-based at all. Attaching a giggle emoji doesn't magically imbue your baseless opinion with truth.

Tony wrote: "you are just making assumptions as to what that is..."

I am learned in the history of U.S. race relations. You are clearly not. Why do you believe your willfully ignorant opinion about my country should hold more weight than my own? Obviously, you are only pushing for that because of your whiteness entitlement. Tsk.

Tony wrote: "first in line should be the Indigenous"

They've already received theirs:

Tony wrote: "but your groups is the most important."

It is. In fact, I should have received mine before they received theirs since they also owned Black African slaves and successfully competed with whites in the cotton-planting wealth-building markets using the preferred free slave labor of the time.

Tony wrote: "Never said whites should be considered anything other than equal where they have a valid claim. Ive always believed that racism is rampant in the USA, but its not limited to Whites."

The specific form of system racism that built the great wealth of the USA was invented and encoded into law by white Americans for their exclusive benefit. They've bestowed an "honorary white" status to immigrants who agree to exploit my group and uphold the whiteness protocols. So, you are wrong. You don't know enough about America to opinionate.

Tony wrote: "Drinking... that's funny"

Isn't it. lol

Tony wrote: "had any nice weed or mead lately?"

No. I've never smoked anything and I've always avoided alcohol. I am a practicing Muslim.

Tony wrote: "Brown v Board of Education (1954) was a good thing"

lol Of course it was, but I asked you to look up the white American RESPONSE to it. Their behavior, up to the present day, negates your opinion of U.S. education.

Tony wrote: "but I think you still have what were traditionally Black only schools?"

Look up the white American response to the Brown v Board of Edu SCOTUS decision and you will understand exactly what I have.

Tony wrote: "As to Money, Lawyers generally benefit more from any reparation, and the organisations that bring cases."

My Reparations program is a Federal Legislative Branch responsibility and not a judicial item.

Tony wrote: "The rhetoric in your answers and assumptions is again bullshit...."

How would YOU know? lol

Tony wrote: "and if you were to make a good NZ insult joke you would have accused me of being a sheep fucker not milker."

That would be going too far. As you say, that is something you would say, not me. I am not white/uncouth.

Limitations Inherent Within a Human-Developed Quality Check Process

 

[original cartoon pending]

CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "Limitations Inherent Within a Human-Developed Quality Check Process." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 00 Date 2024.  [cartoon pending] Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.

CLICK & SUBSCRIBE below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:

M. Rasheed on YouTube!

M. Rasheed on BitChute!

*************************************

Q: If atheists are good at criticising Christianity and the Bible, why is it so hard for them to criticise Muhammad and the Islamic texts, since there is so much low hanging fruit for ammunition such as Muhammad’s pedophilia?

Krister Sundelin (atheist) - There are several reasons.

The first is that many atheists in the west have no real knowledge about Islam. We live, after all, mostly in countries dominated or formerly dominated by Christianity. Not only that, but many Christians are very in your face about their Christianity, just like you are. So we know more about Christianity than Islam.

The second is again a consequence of living in countries dominated or formerly dominated by Christianity. While many Christians spread their faith to any and everyone regardless if the audience wants it or not, Muslims in the west is a minority, and therefore mostly keep their religion to themselves as to not stand out so much and offend the host country.

The third is a corrollary to the second: the reason that we criticise Christianity is that you push it on us all the time. That merits a response. Muslims generally do not push their religion on anyone else, but when they do, they get the same kind of response.

I am also a bit surprised about your hangup on Muhammad’s pedophilia, and just gloss over the pedophilia of about a gazillion Christian priests – something which is still happening and which is even lower-hanging fruit than Muhammad’s.

You know, John 8:7, Matthew 7:5 and so on.

Ian MacKinnon - How old was Aisha when she got married? As for the Catholic priests, reprehensible no doubt, but their actions don't excuse pedophilia by others-pure "whataboutism, no?

Jake Mikelson - Aisha was 6 when married and 9 when the marriage was consummated. In today’s world we find this disgusting and reprehensible. However this was fairly standard in the ancient world.

The issue is that Muhammad is meant to be “the most perfect human” and so we should follow his example. Of course this is ridiculous and he was a product of his environment and time.

Starbuck - There are numerous misconceptions regarding Aicha's age.

Before she married the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), Aicha was already betrothed to a polytheist named Jubayr ibn Mutim, which can only suggest she was much older than the hadith would have us believe.

The Qur'an which has an authoritarian character and does not mention the age of marriage, it forbids if a person lacks biological maturity as well as emotional, psychological, intellectual, and moral maturity.

And this is evident from the following verse;

"Test the orphans' ability until they reach marriageable age. Then if you think they are capable of sound judgment, return their wealth to them. And don't consume it wastefully and hastily before they grow up to demand it. If the guardian is right" ~(Qu'ran 4:6)

In Bukhari we read: “O young men, whoever of you is able to bear the responsibilities of marriage, may he/she enter into marriage. This will lower his gaze and keep him/her chaste. Whoever is unable, let him/her fast. Because fasting reduces (physical) desire.” ~(Bu. 62:4)

The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said also:

"The widow and the divorced woman should not be given in to marriage until an order is received from her, and the virgin should not be given in marriage until permission has been obtained from her" ~(Bu. 67:42)

So we see that Allah the Exalted protects individuals who are not intellectually capable of bearing the obligation of a marriage.

In summary, someone who thinks rationally understands that Aicha must have been far older than the given age.

Partly because Aisha would not have joined the combat in Uhud if the Prophet had not issued a ruling requiring everyone wishing to fight to be at least 15 years old.

This including Abdullah ibn Umar, Zaid ibn Thabit, Usama ibn Zayd ibn Harithah, Abu Saeed al Khudri, and Zaid ibn Arqam. They all were sent away, except for Raf'i ibn Khadij who was 14 years, he was asked to remain because he was an excellent archer.

Jake Mikelson - The majority of Muslims scholars do not contest the age of Aisha and is a somewhat recent approach by modern Muslims to try and come to terms with the concept that their prophet married and had sex with a 9 year old child.

However, if you say that the Quran and Muhammed was from a time long long ago then that is a different story. These types of marriages to young girls was not uncommon. But in today’s modern society this is disgusting and reprehensible which is why Muslims try to bury it or make up excuses or stories that she was much older.

Starbuck - Let's assume for the sake of argument that what the Hadith states is true, then we are left with the question of why the Prophet was not accused of this act?

For his enemies, the polytheists sought every opportunity to discretize him, he was accused of a liar, a madman, a sorcerer yet never was he accused of marrying a 9 years old, why is that?

Jake Mikelson - There is no need to assume for the sake of argument. The Hadiths are considered Sahih so they are authentic and accurate.

Starbuck wrote: "we are left with the question of why the Prophet was not accused of this act?"

There is nothing to “accuse” him of. Marriage of young girls was fairly common 1,400 years ago, so what would they accuse him of? However, so was slavery if you want to make that case.

As I stated, even Zainab the daughter of Muhammed was around 10 when she was married. His daughter Ruqqaya was also betrothed when she was 9.

So the issue is not specially that Muhammed married a 9 year old, but that Muhammed is supposed to be the prophet of God! Is this the behavior and example you would expect from the chosen one of God? And to be held up as the perfect human and an example for all mankind for all time?!

Muhammad Rasheed - Jake wrote: “The Hadiths are considered Sahih so they are authentic and accurate”

“Sahih/authentic” means that the person being interviewed passed the hadith collector’s quality check test. It doesn’t mean the content of the hadith really came from the person.

Jake Mikelson - As you say, it passed the quality control of the interviewer to determine that the person that has memorized the hadith is honest and trustworthy, along with the chain of narration.

It doesn’t mean that the person himself said the words (hadith), but it can be reliably traced back to the source (i.e. Muhammad).

The stamp of “sahih” is the highest grade a hadith can be given, therefore it should be taken as accurate.

Muhammad Rasheed - Again, all that Sahih/authentication means is that the hadith collector had a checklist they used to determine if the person being interviewed could be trusted or not. They could not verify whether the interviewee was passing along a false hadith or not, only that as far as the interviewee themselves knew, it was real and they weren’t deliberately passing along false info.

“Sahih/authentication” is only a limited QC tool, it is not proof that the hadith did in fact come from the prophet and the sahaba. Other methods need to be used to determine that next level of QC, including whether the hadith align to the letter and/or spirit of the Word of Allah (Qur’an).

Jake Mikelson - I agree with most of what you said. However, determining what is really real and not would prove almost impossible. If a person has been deemed trustworthy, honest and a keeper of hadith, that is as close as we could possibly get. I understand Bukhari had a very strict grading system and would only accept hadith from the highest quality of people, even 1 small concern caused him to disregard many.

It seems to me, from discussions I've had with Muslims, they will reject hadith that make Muhammad look bad and only accept positive ones.

This is intellectual dishonesty.

If a hadith has been graded as sahih then you would need a very compelling argument to disregard it.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jake wrote: “I agree with most of what you said.”

I’m sure you have your own special reasons for doing so.

Jake wrote: “However, determining what is really real and not would prove almost impossible.”

Well, I’m actually Muslim and have the Qur’an as my guide — it’s on earth for that very purpose, so the task isn’t impossible, one just has to care.

Jake wrote: “If a person has been deemed trustworthy, honest and a keeper of hadith, that is as close as we could possibly get.”

There’s a clear difference between being an honest and trustworthy person and reciting something that didn’t actually come from the prophet and his companions that you assumed did come down from the prophet.

Jake wrote: “I understand Bukhari had a very strict grading system and would only accept hadith from the highest quality of people, even 1 small concern caused him to disregard many.”

It’s true, but what’s important here is that the method he chose to formulate his quality checklist still possessed elements of arbitrariness, for one, and for two, the body of hadith literature never pretends to be anything but a work of mere men doing their best to collect the numerous sayings of the prophet as passed down in a couple of generations at that point. It’s not a divinely protected work. Its strength is that there are a LOT of them collected, and the most numerous ones are of the most strongly-supported class of material — which backs up the pillars & tenets of Islam commanded in the Qur’an. The weakest hadith are the ones rarely mentioned in the body of hadith and are the most obscure, which gain the fascination of our enemies & rivals.

Jake wrote: “It seems to me, from discussions I've had with Muslims, they will reject hadith that make Muhammad look bad and only accept positive ones.”

Which makes sense considering the prophet’s actual reputation and character known during his lifetime. There are far more accounts that support him being trustworthy and an exemplary human being than otherwise.

Jake wrote: “This is intellectual dishonesty.”

I would think that a hostile outsider expecting me to blindly accept as true poorly-supported things that claim the prophet of Allah was a degenerate, just because our enemies want to think that of him and push to pretend those items represent truth, as an example of intellectual dishonesty.

Jake wrote: “If a hadith has been graded as sahih then you would need a very compelling argument to disregard it.”

Not aligning to the Word of God is a very compelling argument. But as a strict monotheist, I am, of course, biased in this regard.

Jake Mikelson - M. Rasheed wrote: "I’m sure you have your own special reasons for doing so."

I agree that the hadith cannot be 100% verified that they came from Muhammad. But a sahih hadith is as close as possible. And I have no reason to doubt those that are graded sahih. It has nothing to do with whether it makes Muhammad look good or bad. We must take it as authentic and accurate.

M. Rasheed wrote: "There’s a clear difference between being an honest and trustworthy person and reciting something that didn’t actually come from the prophet and his companions that you assumed did come down from the prophet."

That’s a contradictory statement. If you are deemed to be an honest and trustworthy person, then there is no reason not to accept the hadith to be accurate.

M. Rasheed wrote: "The weakest hadith are the ones rarely mentioned in the body of hadith and are the most obscure, which gain the fascination of our enemies & rivals."

I am only focusing on hadith graded as sahih. You cannot have a weak sahih hadith, that is nonsensical.

M. Rasheed wrote: "Which makes sense considering the prophet’s actual reputation and character known during his lifetime. There are far more accounts that support him being trustworthy and an exemplary human being than otherwise."

Here is where we diverge. There are numerous sahih hadith that show Muhammad to have done some terrible things.

M. Rasheed wrote: "I would think that a hostile outsider expecting me to blindly accept as true poorly-supported things that claim the prophet of Allah was a degenerate, just because our enemies want to think that of him and push to pretend those items represent truth, as an example of intellectual dishonesty."

Nobody expects you or anyone else to “blindly accept” anything. Check the many Muslim sources yourself, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Rashid, Ibn Hisham, al-Waqidi, Ibn Sa’d, al-Baladhuri and al-Tabari. They don’t pretend to know why Muhammad did anything, but in describing what he did, they paint a remarkably consistent picture. Let alone the hadith in Bukhari and Muslim.

But I am going off topic.

If a hadith is graded sahih, then it should be taken as accurate and that it came from Muhammad or a companion as recorded in the chain.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jake wrote: “I agree that the hadith cannot be 100% verified that they came from Muhammad. But a sahih hadith is as close as possible.”

Meaning that the best that the hadith collectors could do was at least try to ensure that the people they interviewed were not deliberately lying, whether the hadith they quoted were true or not.

Jake wrote: “And I have no reason to doubt those that are graded sahih.”

Agreed. With “graded sahih” meaning that the interviewee wasn’t lying as far as the determination of the hadith collector’s QC check.

Jake wrote: “It has nothing to do with whether it makes Muhammad look good or bad.”

If the hadith really was originally fabricated before it reached the interviewee who recited it, then it ultimately does matter, which is why further QC checks are required — it’s not wise to take all of the hadith at face value since we agree that the hadith cannot be 100% verified that they came from the prophet and the sahaba.

Jake wrote: “We must take it as authentic and accurate.”

We must take it that it passed the level of the hadith collector’s limited QC check, but to pretend that represents true authenticity & accuracy after we both agreed that the hadith cannot be 100% verified that they came from the prophet and the sahaba is unreasonable.

Jake wrote: “That’s a contradictory statement.”

No, it’s not.

Jake wrote: “If you are deemed to be an honest and trustworthy person, then there is no reason not to accept the hadith to be accurate.”

The only honest & trustworthy being in existence who doesn’t make mistakes is God. Well-meaning humans accidentally pass along false info they mistakenly assumed was correct all the time.

Jake wrote: “I am only focusing on hadith graded as sahih. You cannot have a weak sahih hadith, that is nonsensical.”

Again, sahih/authentic hadith are those that were collected from interviewees determined to be trustworthy according to the hadith collector’s QC checklist. The method cannot verify whether the hadith really came from the prophet and the sahaba, therefore, of the body of sahih hadith, some are stronger than others.

Jake wrote: “Here is where we diverge. There are numerous sahih hadith that show Muhammad to have done some terrible things.”

Those hadith are in the minority of collected hadith. The majority of collected hadith are those that show the prophet as truthful, of exemplary character, and affirm the tenets and pillars of the faith.

Jake wrote: “Nobody expects you or anyone else to ‘blindly accept’ anything.”

Your last post gives the impression that you want ‘sahih’ to mean that all of the hadith so labeled should be accepted as authentic & accurate, despite it 1) not being possible to verify whether the sayings really were uttered by the prophet and 2) the fact that ‘sahih’ is only a reference to the QC method developed to determine the interviewees trustworthiness and not the content of the hadith itself.

Jake wrote: “Check the many Muslim sources yourself, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Rashid, Ibn Hisham, al-Waqidi, Ibn Sa’d, al-Baladhuri and al-Tabari. They don’t pretend to know why Muhammad did anything, but in describing what he did, they paint a remarkably consistent picture. Let alone the hadith in Bukhari and Muslim.”

My point was that, of the vast collection of ahadith, those that show the prophet in a poor light are in the minority and are the least supported. There’s no reason to give extra attention to them since they are less likely to be accurate. The biased opponents of Al-Islam would like to take the opposite approach for obvious reasons, but objectively that wouldn’t make any sense.

Jake wrote: “If a hadith is graded sahih, then it should be taken as accurate and that it came from Muhammad or a companion as recorded in the chain.”

It should be as long as it agrees in letter and/or spirit with the revelation of the One God (Qur’an). If it does not, then it clearly fails the next level of authenticity quality check, which was a method not included in the collection processes of the original hadith collectors.

Jake Mikelson - M. Rasheed wrote: "If the hadith really was originally fabricated before it reached the interviewee who recited it, then it ultimately does matter which is why further QC checks are required — it’s not wise to take all of the hadith at face value since we agree that the hadith cannot be 100% verified that they came from the prophet and the sahaba."

Anything beyond this verification would be speculation. Nothing can be 100% verified. Multiple attestation of the hadith through various chains would amplify the probability, but nothing can be 100%.

M. Rasheed wrote: "Those hadith are in the minority of collected hadith. The majority of collected hadith are those that show the prophet as truthful, of exemplary character, and affirm the tenets and pillars of the faith."

Being truthful doesn’t make you a good person, and from what I’ve read and studied, Muhammad was certainly not a good person, let alone of exemplary character.

M. Rasheed wrote: "My point was that, of the vast collection of ahadith, those that show the prophet in a poor light are in the minority and are the least supported. There’s no reason to give extra attention to them since they are less likely to be accurate. The biased opponents of Al-Islam would like to take the opposite approach for obvious reasons, but objectively that wouldn’t make any sense."

Again, I would not say they are in the minority but are pieces of a whole picture. You can’t ignore them just because they go against what you believe. We all carry biases but I am a firm believer of following the truth no matter where it leads or how uncomfortable it can be - I only care about the truth.

Anyway, appreciate the discussion my friend, I wish you and your family all the best over the holiday period.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jake wrote: “Anything beyond this verification would be speculation.”

Not quite. The Qur’an is a most excellent guide in this regard.

Jake wrote: “Nothing can be 100% verified.”

That’s where faith comes in.

Jake wrote: “Multiple attestation of the hadith through various chains would amplify the probability, but nothing can be 100%.”

Some hadith have more attestations than others and are amplified closer to the 100%. This is significant, despite your own hostile outsider penchant to downplay it.

Jake wrote: “Being truthful doesn’t make you a good person”

What a genuinely odd thing to say. If you’re supposed to be a Christian, surely you recognize that this comment taints your witness terribly. In essence, God commanded that “Thou shalt not bear false witness!” and Jake counters with, “That’s not a thing!” Okay. Wow.

Jake wrote: “and from what I’ve read and studied”

“Studied” on anti-Islam hate sites, mind you.

Jake wrote: “Muhammad was certainly not a good person, let alone of exemplary character.”

You’re saying this as a hostile outsider who is biased against the religion. Your opinion isn’t objective nor clear-headed. Your mentality is one of the narrow-minded partisan, or a fanatic sports team fan who is committed to be against the opposing team NO MATTER WHAT. Hence, how you can actually allow “Being truthful doesn’t make you a good person” to come out of your face.

Jake wrote: “Again, I would not say”

That doesn’t matter.

Jake wrote: “they are in the minority”

They are in the minority of the ahadith. Literally. The majority of hadith literature supports the core tenets of the religion of Al-Islam and are amplified closer to 100% verification.

Jake wrote: “but are pieces of a whole picture.”

Only in the sense that dubious haters lurking in the background seeking to cause discord and insider threat sabotage are always part of any human story of such size & scale. But pretending that dank negativity found as a minority within a large body of testimony automatically is true just because the dedicated hostile outsider committed to being biased against the material wants it to be, is unreasonable.

Jake wrote: “You can’t ignore them just because they go against what you believe.”

lol Sure, I can. Watch: 

Jake wrote: “We all carry biases”

We should train ourselves to be biased towards God’s Truth. You’ve already expressed that you believe truthfulness is a treacherous tool of the satan—or whatever you wanted me to believe with that objectively crazy comment—so your witness is tainted and you are dismissed from the jury selection.

Jake wrote: “but I am a firm believer of following the truth”

Are you?

Jake wrote: “no matter where it leads or how uncomfortable it can be - I only care about the truth.”

So, you want to chase down and uphold the minority comments that conspicuously conflict with the hadith that have the greater attestation towards being 100% verified, and you think this weird behavior reflects love of truth. lol

Jake wrote: “Anyway, appreciate the discussion my friend, I wish you and your family all the best over the holiday period.”

Peace.

Jake Mikelson - M. Rasheed wrote: "Some hadith have more attestations than others and are amplified closer to the 100%. This is significant, despite your own hostile outsider penchant to downplay it."

Not sure what you are saying here, I was agreeing that some hadith have greater attestations than others making them stronger and more likely to be true. Like that of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha, is multiply attested.

I didn’t make any hostile remarks but you are certainly being very defensive.

M. Rasheed wrote: "What a genuinely odd thing to say. If you’re supposed to be a Christian, surely you recognize that this comment taints your witness terribly. In essence, God commanded that 'Thou shalt not bear false witness!' and Jake counters with, 'That’s not a thing!' Okay. Wow."

What are you confused about? So being truthful is what makes you a good person? A murderer that is truthful is a good person? A rapist that is truthful is a good person?! That’s just nonsense.

M. Rasheed wrote: "'Studied' on anti-Islam hate sites, mind you."

Anti-Islam hate sites?! What are you talking about? So the Quran, Bukhari, Muslim, Dawud, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d, al-Tabari, these are anti-islamic sources?! This is what I read, not random websites on the internet!

M. Rasheed wrote: "You’re saying this as a hostile outsider who is biased against the religion. Your opinion isn’t objective nor clear-headed. Your mentality is one of the narrow-minded partisan, or a fanatic sports team fan who is committed to be against the opposing team NO MATTER WHAT. Hence, how you can actually allow 'Being truthful doesn’t make you a good person' to come out of your face."

Pot, meet kettle lol

I am on objective outsider reviewing the Islamic sources without any “indoctrination” to believe everything being said. You on the other hand cannot be objective because you are embedded within the religion itself and you are telling me that my opinion isn’t objective?! Gold.

Muhammad was a warlord that murdered and executed people, raped women, was a slave owner and child molester. How can this be a prophet of God?! It is not me who is committed to opposing reality. I see it for what it is, not through the lens of someone embedded in the religion.

By your own admission you ignore the references that show Muhammad to be of poor character, such as the child marriage to Aisha. Multiple chains of narration, but hey, it makes Muhammad look bad so just ignore it. Or worse, let’s lie and say she was much older to fool those that don’t want to actually read.

M. Rasheed wrote: "You’ve already expressed that you believe truthfulness is a treacherous tool of the satan"

What an asinine thing to say. I already explained that being truthful doesn’t necessarily make you a good person. Is that all it takes for you to believe someone to be a good person, that they are truthful?! Hitler believed he was truthful, was he a good person?

M. Rasheed wrote: "So, you want to chase down and uphold the minority comments that conspicuously conflict with the hadith that have the greater attestation towards being 100% verified, and you think this weird behavior reflects love of truth. lol"

What minority comments conflict with the hadith that have greater attestation? The child marriage to Aisha is towards 100%, does that conflict? The Quran even supports it [Q65:4]. What about the slaves Muhammad owned? Again, numerous hadith and the Quran supports it. So where is the conflict?

Imagine that it wasn’t Muhammad that had committed these acts but that it was another figure from a different religion, would you still find it morally acceptable? I dare say not, but you are blinded by faith and your own bias.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jake wrote: “Not sure what you are saying here, I was agreeing that some hadith have greater attestations than others making them stronger and more likely to be true. Like that of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha, is multiply attested. I didn’t make any hostile remarks but you are certainly being very defensive.”

This very first part is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. There are an estimated tens of thousands of ahadith. Very few of them include the ones Christians and atheists like to harp on (like the Age of Consent item with Aisha). The only reason you wouldn’t be aware of this fact is if the sum total of your “research” involved perusing anti-Islam hate propaganda site, which cherry-pick all the negative stuff and give the false impression it makes up a higher percentage than it does. Trying to convince me from your uncritical non-Muslim position that my religion is false is an inherently hostile act.

Jake wrote: “What are you confused about?”

lol I’m not confused at all. I’m just watching to see where you plan to go with this.

Jake wrote: “So being truthful is what makes you a good person?”

Being truthful is objectively one of the principles of righteousness. lol

Jake wrote: “A murderer that is truthful is a good person?”

Both ‘Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder!’ and ‘Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness’ are commandments of the Lord thy God. Is it possible to break a commandment, repent, and resume a good person standing?

Jake wrote: “A rapist that is truthful is a good person?! That’s just nonsense.”

Being good person would involve more than one of the righteous principles, I would think. Being truthful and a man of your word is universally recognized as a trait of a good person. You seem to go my your own original moral code, or you are trying to downplay ‘truthfulness’ specifically for some reason.

Jake wrote: “Anti-Islam hate sites?!”

Yup.

Jake wrote: “What are you talking about?”

Probably ‘AnsweringIslam.’

Jake wrote: “So the Quran, Bukhari, Muslim, Dawud, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d, al-Tabari, these are anti-islamic sources?! This is what I read, not random websites on the internet!”

This explains why you tried to downplay ‘truthfulness’ as a righteousness trait. Shame on you. The quality of your argument gives away what you’ve read and haven’t read. You only copy/paste cherry-picked verses and hadith from your favorite anti-Islam hate sites, since the quality of your argument is no different than any other surface-level troll “critic.” This is Quora, so you don’t use all of those giggling emojis like they use in the FB debate chats and you seem supremely confident in your sneaky gas lighting/grifting skills to hide them behind an unassuming polite tone.

Jake wrote: “Pot, meet kettle lol”

*shrug* I know my religion. You only pretend to know it. I’ve had arguments with critical scholars who were actually studied in the material and could go into the deep waters.

Jake wrote: “I am on objective outsider”

lol No, you’re not. You literally believe that just because someone claims something negative it must automatically be real, for no other reason than because they direct it towards a religion you don’t subscribe to.

Jake wrote: “reviewing the Islamic sources”

You mean the cherry-picked items in prepackaged arguments on anti-Islam hate sites.

Jake wrote: “without any ‘indoctrination’ to believe everything being said.”

Instead, you’re brainwashed to uncritically believe all the negative stuff said about Islam on your favorite hate sites. I know.

Jake wrote: “You on the other hand cannot be objective because you are embedded within the religion itself and you are telling me that my opinion isn’t objective?! Gold.”

I changed my name to this when I converted. I’m not an Arab. But go off.

Jake wrote: “Muhammad was a warlord that murdered and executed people, raped women, was a slave owner and child molester.”

Literally no objective truth-seeker would come away with this summary. This proves without a shadow of a doubt that you have only brainwashed yourself on anti-Islam hate sites. You’ve never read the Qur’an for yourself. The prophet was none of these things. You don’t know the history of the religion.

Jake wrote: “How can this be a prophet of God?!”

You are tiresome.

Jake wrote: “It is not me who is committed to opposing reality.”

Oh, yes, you are. You are lazy, disingenuous and you hate integrity.

Jake wrote: “I see it for what it is, not through the lens of someone embedded in the religion.”

You see it through the willing dupe eyes of a hate propaganda site subscriber.

Jake wrote: “By your own admission you ignore the references that show Muhammad to be of poor character, such as the child marriage to Aisha.”

lol How does this item show him being of poor character? In what way?

Jake wrote: “Multiple chains of narration”

“Multiple” is relative. “Multiple” compared to what? Of the thousands and thousands of collected hadith, the marriage to Aisha item is barely mentioned in comparison. There are far more hadith explaining how to pray, make the poor tax, even of the prophet brushing his teeth, etc., but you think the marriage to Aisha ones are some of the most prolific because that’s how they look as displayed on an anti-Islam hate site. lol

Jake wrote: “but hey, it makes Muhammad look bad”

Only if the one reading it has a skewed mind against the material and a penchant for interpreting everything from a negative angle because of his own hatred. “Warlord” indeed. lol

Jake wrote: “so just ignore it. Or worse, let’s lie and say she was much older to fool those that don’t want to actually read.”

Even if she was 9 yrs old when the marriage was consummated, what of it? Marrying women of as soon as they reach puberty was/is a normal custom in traditional families that value having a million children. This isn’t even a religious item, so why would it be relevant in this context?

Far more is known in the record about Aisha’s sister Asma, and calculating her age from the Hijrah with Aisha does show that Aisha was much older. So, what measurement are you using to choose one age as real and the other as fake outside of your own anti-Islam biases and hatred?

Jake wrote: “What an asinine thing to say.”

You’re the one who jumped through hoops to pretend that truthfulness isn’t a trait of righteousness, seemingly to cover over your own plans to pretend you did a deep dive into Islam.

Jake wrote: “I already explained that being truthful doesn’t necessarily make you a good person.”

In popular fiction, authors often will write a villainous figure sympathetic by having them be uncharacteristically truthful and bend over backwards to keep promises, etc. In real life, being truthful goes a long way towards being a genuinely good person, and people will often not put themselves in compromising situations if they know it will require lying to maintain or protect people in the shady business.

Jake wrote: “Is that all it takes for you to believe someone to be a good person, that they are truthful?!”

The “spirit of truth” is all Jesus used to describe the coming Comforter/Paraclete after him who would bring a fuller explanation of the divine message of his Only True God. Here I find you trying to convince me that it is a small matter, by contrast. Curious.

Jake wrote: “Hitler believed he was truthful, was he a good person?”

Did he? Should I take your word this is so? Why would I do that? Aren’t you the one who called the prophet of the One God a warlord and child molester? That was you, right?

Jake wrote: “What minority comments conflict with the hadith that have greater attestation? The child marriage to Aisha is towards 100%, does that conflict?”

You don’t understand what a “minority” among a majority means? This seems pretty elementary. Or do you somehow believe that the marriage to Aisha makes up 10,000 hadith of 10,100? lol

Jake wrote: “The Quran even supports it [Q65:4].”

lol No, it doesn’t. smh There’s a million reasons why a woman wouldn’t get her menses, especially in those conditions back then.

Jake wrote: “What about the slaves Muhammad owned?”

He freed his slave upon receiving his prophethood commission and adopted him as his son. What about him?

Jake wrote: “Again, numerous hadith and the Quran supports it. So where is the conflict?”

It seems like you are throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks. Do you actually have a point right now?

Jake wrote: “Imagine that it wasn’t Muhammad that had committed these acts”

I’m apparently supposed to blindly accept a hostile and biased outsider’s willfully twisted interpretation of these acts as default truth.

Jake wrote: “but that it was another figure from a different religion, would you still find it morally acceptable? I dare say not, but you are blinded by faith and your own bias.”

Why would I care about the hypothetical figure from another religion when only Islam is the final religion perfected for me by God? I don’t share your blind hatred against Islam for such a challenge to even make any sense intellectually because I know too much about the faith to play stupid games that require me to convert to paganism.

Rogue Moderators: Official Abuse of Social Media Power

 

[original cartoon pending]

CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "Rogue Moderators: Official Abuse of Social Media Power." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 00 Date 2024.  [cartoon pending] Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.

CLICK & SUBSCRIBE below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:

M. Rasheed on YouTube!

M. Rasheed on BitChute!

*************************************

Alamin Hossain - Jesus declared, “Surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him ˹alone˺. This is the Straight Path.” ~(Holy Qur'an 19:36)

Nazarenes Caller - Who? When? How did 6th century Muhammad came to know what Jesus said 600 years before? If you say Isa ibn Maryam the cousin of Haroon and Musa said - we would not care dear. Prove things with historical evidences.

Alamin Hossain - This is the matter you should think deeply that after 600 years before and from 1000 miles away an Arab guy how and why he was guided to talk about Jesus.

Firstly Muhammad wouldn’t know anything about Jesus birth, whether he was killed or not etc. Quran is revealed to him by Allah thus he know about Jesus.

Muhammad Rasheed - Nazarenes wrote: "How did 6th century Muhammad came to know what Jesus said 600 years before?"

Divine revelation came to the prophet of God.

Nazarenes Caller - @Muhammad... does this look like natural causes? Or muhammad the false prophet died of poison from the Jewish lady eventually after a terrible 3 years. Can you laugh now abdool? https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4428

Muhammad Rasheed - Nazarenes wrote: "from the Jewish lady"

So, a Jew fabricated a hadith (or a portion of the ahadith) and you decided you should enthusiastically believe it without any critical scrutiny whatsoever, huh?

Is that why you believe that particular hadith should be unquestionably believed with pure blind faith like it was Jesus himself? lol

Tell me why, out of ALL THE OTHER HADITH that are far, far better supported, that you decided to have PURE BLIND FAITH — the same exact pure blind faith you give to your "divine son Jesus" concept — to this hadith? lol

Please explain. I'm sure this will be a great story.

Nazarenes Caller - Sahih Bukhari fabricated by jews now? Abdool, you are really deluded, ask your Imam next time you go to mosque 

Muhammad Rasheed - "Sahih" means that Bukhari, Muslim, etc., used a particular quality check method to evaluate the trustworthiness of the people interviewed. It doesn't mean that the content of the narrations themselves are guaranteed to be what they say they are.

FYI.

Nazarenes Caller - Bring evidence for the nonsense you wrote right now in 3mins or you are going on the corner, means getting suspended

Muhammad Rasheed - 

Muhammad Rasheed - Nazarenes wrote: "you are really deluded"

For some reason, a hostile outsider who hates my religion with his entire raggedy soul (such as it is) expects me to hold the same values and beliefs about my religion that he has.

Curious.

Muhammad Rasheed - I honestly think you are doomed to hellfire because of everything you've typed in this FB chat group. Just in case you weren't clear.

Instead of expecting me to also be an idiot and partner with you in foolishness, I strongly suggest you repent and convert to Al-Islam before it's too late for you.

**** Nazarenes Caller abused his Admin/Moderator powers to ban me from from the Christianity and Islam religious debates chat group because he lost a debate ****

[BATTLE MODE] Muslim versus the Xenophobic Hate Troll

 

[original cartoon pending]

CITATION
Rasheed, Muhammad. "[BATTLE MODE] Muslim versus the Xenophobic Hate Troll." Cartoon. The Official Website of Cartoonist M. Rasheed 00 Date 2024.  [cartoon pending] Pen & ink w/Adobe Photoshop color.

CLICK & SUBSCRIBE below for the Artist's Description of this #MRasheedCartoons image:

M. Rasheed on YouTube!

M. Rasheed on BitChute!

*************************************

Q: Why in Islam is Allah called the best of deceivers?

Muhammad Rasheed - lol Allah is not called “the best of deceivers” in Islam, He’s only called that as a disingenuous slur by the anti-Islamic xenophobe crowd.

Atheist, Jewish, Christian and Hindu chat group debaters collude to shamelessly fashion a ‘shadow Islam’ strawman effigy, composed of carefully cherry-picked-out-of-context Qur’an quotes, deliberately twisted Islamic principles and sayings, upholding poorly-supported and obscure hadith, pretending certain secular Arabian societal norms were inherently religious, and as shown within this very Question, purposely mistranslating Qur’anic verses using synonyms with negative connotations and pretending it’s the most correct translation in order to smear the religion. Apparently, our debate opponents find it safer to maintain their delusions by arguing at their conjured ‘shadow Islam’ strawman, instead of risking a candid & courageous truth-seeking discussion with the game proponents of Al-Islam.

James Chambers - Because allah=devil?

Think about it. The religion dominates its population, allows acts of brutality against nonbelievers, etc.

Muhammad Rasheed - James wrote: “Because allah=devil? Think about it.”

In the Qur’an, Allah explains why the arrogant satan rebelled and fell from heaven, warns humanity to avoid the creature’s treacherous promises, and has the believers seek refuge with Allah from satan in everyone of our prayers. So, when I “think about it” as you suggest, it appears that you like to type without any facts/truth to support your claims.

James wrote: “The religion dominates its population”

Does it? I’m a lifelong practicing Muslim and I’m not “dominated” by Islam. It’s a willing, voluntary walk along the Path because I choose to believe the promises of my Guardian Lord are true. In fact, as a member of the Black American (ADOS) ethnic group, the only religion that literally and brutally dominated me throughout my family’s history in my country is that of the former slave holder’s identity group.

James wrote: “allows acts of brutality against nonbelievers”

Like what?

James wrote: “etc.”

???

Smedley Farnsworth - I would like you to comment on what is below.

Here are but a few non-tolerant verses of the koran that moslems follow This is what moslems believe about the rest of the worlds population:

• "Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax.” Koran 9:29
• “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.” Koran 2:191
• “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.” Koran 9:123
• “When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them.” Koran 9:5
• “Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.” Koran 3:85
• “The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them.” Koran 9:30
• “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam” Koran 5:33
• “The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque.” Koran 9:28
• “Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies.” Koran 22:19
• “Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them.” Koran 47:4
• “The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.” Koran 8:65
• “Muslims must not take the infidels as friends.” Koran 3:28
• “Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an.” Koran 8:12
• “Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.” Koran 8:60

Muhammad Rasheed - I saw these on a meme card somewhere earlier. I’ll address them one-by-one since you’ve asked nicely, but your questions about it would clear up immediately if you just read the Qur’an for yourself and saw what they actually said in context. Some of them aren’t even real and were invented by the original sneaky meme creator as some kind of exegesis from a hostile, propagandist outsider.

Stand by…

Smedley Farnsworth - It is quite common to hear the argument from Muslims and apologists of Islam, the old standby of, “you have quoted out of context.” Or that you have not read all of the book.

Just what is out of context with "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the latter day and who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden and who do not adopt Islam, (even if they are) of the People of the Book - [fight] until they humbly pay the Jizyah and have been subdued." ~Quran 9:29

It seems very clear to me like these ones.

• “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.” Koran 2:191
• “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.” Koran 9:123
• “When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them.” Koran 9:5

Then of course there is the practice of koranic "abrogation"; It refers to the practice whereby contradictory material within, the koran — is resolved by superseding or cancelling the earlier verse with the later one. Thus the “good” verses are trumped by the later hateful ones.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley wrote: “It is quite common to hear the argument from Muslims and apologists of Islam, the old standby of, ‘you have quoted out of context.’”

You literally posted a list of cherry-picked verses isolated out of context. Since this is a common fallacy trait of anti-Muslim critics, why wouldn’t I point it out when you do it?

Smedley wrote: “Or that you have not read all of the book.”

The rest of the Book is where the context of the verses lay that you left out, yes? lol

Smedley wrote: “Just what is out of context with 'Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the latter day and who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden and who do not adopt Islam, (even if they are) of the People of the Book - [fight] until they humbly pay the Jizyah and have been subdued.' - Quran 9:29"

I answered that one further down in this thread, but I’ll repost the context here, too:

Again, this is talking about cleansing the Holy City specifically of hostile disbelievers while the peace treaty was in place.

Smedley wrote: “It seems very clear to me”

You don’t study the religion though and are uninformed.

Smedley wrote: “like these ones. [Koran 2:191, Koran 9:123, Koran 9:5]"

I already answered those above.

Smedley wrote: “Then of course there is the practice of koranic ‘abrogation.’ It refers to the practice whereby contradictory material within, the koran — is resolved by superseding or cancelling the earlier verse with the later one. Thus the ‘good’ verses are trumped by the later hateful ones.”

None of this is true. Scriptural abrogation refers to the Qur’an abrogating the previous revelation and being a fuller explanation of the Book of Moses (pbuh).

Smedley Farnsworth - Are you being deliberately obtuse, yes of course you are. You are using Taqiyya. Taqiyya is where moslems say what they want infidels to believe. In other words – moslems lie all the time to conceal the true evil intent of islam.

Moslems do it all the time. The biggest deception is that “islam is a religion of peace”.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley wrote: “Are you being deliberately obtuse, yes of course you are.”

Because I don’t blindly accept the hostile opinion of an enemy of my faith?

Smedley wrote: “You are using Taqiyya.”

You’re using a term generally known to be stressed by the shia sect (I am not a shiite), but used mostly by Western anti-Islam propagandists to smear Islam. You’re presenting it as if you are an expert on the religion of Al-Islam, and not just a hostile troll who gets all of his shady lore from hate sites.

Smedley wrote: “moslems lie all the time to conceal the true evil intent of islam.”

Funny. I happen to be a member of the ever-maligned Black American former slave class ethnic group who subscribes to the religion. In my people’s experience, one would get the impression that white men invented lying, as I still find myself struggling for economic inclusion as a full citizen in my own country because of the diabolical political manipulations of the white identity group. I am not interested in your shallow attempts to smear my adopted faith since it is no secret what your true motives are. Notice you are pretending that your short list of cherry-picked verses and half interpreted verses are the entirety of the Qur’an and when I demonstrate the greater context and message the verses come from, you accuse me of lying about it. You are the one committing the cherry-picking fallacy, but you claim I’m lying for pointing out YOUR xenophobic propagandist deceptions. This is a classic, no-frills performance of the white male I know in history.

Smedley wrote: “Moslems do it all the time.”

Do we, white man? How are you tracking that data exactly?

Smedley wrote: “The biggest deception is that ‘islam is a religion of peace.’”

It is a religion of peace, as its practitioners are commanded to uphold the truth and protect the vulnerable. The last thing you would need is for the people at large to be so empowered, since it would sabotage your goals of total domination with zero competition on the world stage.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “’Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax.’ Koran 9:29″

For context, the Muslims had just reclaimed the Holy City of Mecca after many years of exile. They were about 10,000 strong but not a drop of blood was shed. Even though the Muslims were all dressed in pilgrim garb, determined to complete the Hajj ritual, their pagan foes were intimidated by their numbers alone.

There was a peace treaty in play up to that point, but one of the pagan tribes had blatantly violated their side of the bargain, and these are the ones Allah had the prophet announce aloud that the believers were commanded to run them out of the city and slay them if they were found hiding. The other pagan tribes who hadn’t broken the treaty were to be treated with kindness in hopes they would convert by the contract’s expiry. If not, then the Holy City of Mecca was for the believers in Allah alone and even the Jews and Christians had to leave. This restriction is only for Mecca and not for any other Muslim majority place; Jews and Christians can live in peace under Muslim rule as long as they pay the jizya.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “’Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.’ Koran 2:191”

The early Muslims who fled persecution from the pagan Meccas by going to Medina started off as a vulnerable, pitiful little band. Their number were steadily growing though, with the strict monotheist message eventually threatening the peace-of-mind of the powerful polytheist tribes who controlled the pilgrimage revenue, who made the decision to wipe the Muslims out completely which they tried and failed at a few times.

The Qur’an’s controversial “war verses” are only defensive in nature, and the take the righteous position as a guide for those who believe.

Smedley Farnsworth - Thank you for proving my points.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol I’m not done yet, but how did I prove your point exactly? What is your point?

Smedley Farnsworth - I am exposing the flaws and violence of islam and the lengths you go to hide it from non moslems. (Until it is to late).

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley wrote: “I am exposing the flaws”

Are you? Because from here it looks like a textbook cherry-picking fallacy performance.

Smedley wrote: “and violence of islam”

The fact that the so-called “violence of Islam” is no different than the violence of the biblical prophets, but without the problematic corrupt parts your scribes and Constantinian councils added later, means you’re trying to make a mountain out of a sand divot.

Smedley Farnsworth - It looks like cherry-picking to you because you are looking from the viewpoint of being inside islam and you don’t want the truth exposed.

What about the violent passages in the Bible?

First, violent Biblical passages are irrelevant to the question of whether Islam is violent and is simply “whataboutism” on your part in a failed attempt to deflect away from the fact of islamic violence.

Second, the violent passages in the Bible certainly do not amount to a standing order to commit violence against the rest of the world. Unlike the koran, the Bible is a huge collection of documents written by different people at different times in different contexts, which allows for much greater interpretative freedom. The koran, on the other hand, comes exclusively from one source: Muhammad. It is through the life of Muhammad that the koran must be understood, as the koran itself says. His wars and killings both reflect and inform the meaning of the koran. Furthermore, the strict literalism of the koran means that there is no room for interpretation when it comes to its violent injunctions. As it is through the example of Christ, the "Prince of Peace," that Christianity interprets its scriptures, so it is through the example of the warlord and despot Muhammad that Muslims understand the koran.

You problem is, that I, a non moslem, do understand the true nature of islam and both reject it and expose it.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley wrote: “It looks like cherry-picking to you because you are looking from the viewpoint of being inside islam”

Meanwhile, it looks like cherry-picking to me because you literally use a short list of isolated verses that you (and the original meme writer you pulled them from) are trying to pretend mean something different from the Qur’an’s actual messaging context. lol

Smedley wrote: “and you don’t want the truth exposed.”

Ha! Sure, I do. I love it. More than you know, white man.

Smedley wrote: “What about the violent passages in the Bible?”

That’s not what I said. That makes this is a strawman effigy.

Smedley wrote: “First, violent Biblical passages are irrelevant to the question of whether Islam is violent and is simply ‘whataboutism’ on your part in a failed attempt to deflect away from the fact of islamic violence.”

I didn’t commit the WhatAboutism fallacy. In Islam, we believe in the pillar “BELIEF IN THE PROPHETS” which means we are commanded by God to treat all the prophets exactly the same. Allah said they all had the same mission and all performed excellently, and so we aren’t to treat any of them any different than any other. So, far from deflecting from the topic as you falsely claimed, what I actually said was that Muhammad functioned with his violence no different than the prophets before him — he stood in the righteous position of defense to protect his community from the enemies of Islam. A criticism against the violence performed by Muhammad is a criticism against all of the prophets at one and the same time.

Smedley wrote: “Second, the violent passages in the Bible certainly do not amount to a standing order to commit violence against the rest of the world.”

That’s arguable. There’s a reason that I did NOT say “the violent passages in the bible,” but pointedly said the violence of the biblical prophets themselves, which is an altogether different kettle of fish. The bible is a notoriously fabricated document according to your own believing Christian scholars—corrupt beyond repair—and horrendous acts were shoved into the text by people pushing un-Godly political agendas. I was talking about the actions performed by the prophets of olde according to the spirit of the Word and God’s message, not whatever your corrupt bible literally says about violence. That’s the real reason you are protesting talking about the bible’s violence in a comparative manner, because you realize you would not come out on top in such a contest. Did I not demonstrate the true context of the Qur’an’s so-called ‘war verses?’ The only context of the bible passage violence is corruption.

Smedley wrote: “Unlike the koran, the Bible is a huge collection of documents written by different people at different times in different contexts, which allows for much greater interpretative freedom.”

“Interpretive freedom” meaning you are in the habit of conjuring lies to grift the community with a fabricated pagan doctrine pretending to be from God. I’m quite aware of what you hold and what you do with it. I suggest you repent.

Smedley wrote: “The koran, on the other hand, comes exclusively from one source: Muhammad.”

It comes from Allah. Muhammad (pbuh) is merely the mouthpiece, commanded to only speak the Words that the Lord thy God put into his servant’s mouth and commanded him speak, as described in Deut. 18:18. ;)

Smedley wrote: “It is through the life of Muhammad that the koran must be understood”

It’s weird watching hostile outsiders proclaim false things about material they have never studied with such tissue-thin confidence. lol

Smedley wrote: “as the koran itself says.”

Be so kind as to provide the verse that says this, please, if ye are truthful.

Smedley wrote: “His wars and killings”

lol They were not his wars and killings, since there was an active bad guy on the stage who initiated all conflicts. The Muslims stood only in the righteous position of defense.

Smedley wrote: “both reflect and inform the meaning of the koran.”

I’ll accept this. If you will notice, the full context of the message that your cherry-picked verses conspicuously left out did provide direct instruction as to how the believers were to act in wartime.

Smedley wrote: “Furthermore, the strict literalism of the koran”

lol This is yet another example of you violently proclaiming something about Islam that is patently not true. The Qur’an often uses a poetic style of expression, generously providing similes, metaphors and similitudes of things:

You would know this if you ever bothered to read the Book for yourself. Then you would have the benefit of actually knowing what you were talking about instead of embarrassing yourself as a committed xenophobic hate-peddling troll.

Smedley wrote: “means that there is no room for interpretation when it comes to its violent injunctions.”

So, to be clear, you’re saying that you—in your role as the hostile outsider who demonstrably has no idea what he’s talking about—has the authority and leeway WITHIN ISLAM to legitimately invent/conjure/concoct meanings for the Qur’anic verses as you see fit, and they will be equally as real (and more so!) than the actual context of the message itself. lol Is that what you are saying to me, with a straight face, no less? Honestly, I think you deserve to be arrested for the suggestion as a crime against truth itself.

Smedley wrote: “As it is through the example of Christ, the ‘Prince of Peace’"

Show me in the New Testament where Jesus (pbuh) is ever called the Prince of Peace, please. Your emboldened use of quotations there amused me, so I’ll go ahead and call your bluff.

Smedley wrote: “that Christianity interprets its scriptures”

Christians interpret their so-called “scriptures” in a way that defies both logic and common sense. You ignore the unambiguous, explicit sayings of Jesus, to instead use ambiguous, implicit verses to cobble together the pagan-influenced tripe you are famous for. Your clumsy attempts to use the same cock-eyed flimflammery on the Qur’an are rejected out of hand as the sputtered ravings of a crackpot.

Smedley wrote: “so it is through the example of the warlord and despot Muhammad”

The prophet of Islam was neither a warlord, nor a ‘despot.’ If he was, then certainly so was both Moses (pbuh) and Joshua (pbuh).

Smedley wrote: “that Muslims understand the koran.”

You think I understand the Qur’an through the eyes of a hostile propagandist troll, do you? I think one would just have to read my responses to see if that were objectively true or not. Do you honestly believe that you give the impression that you really know Islam to outsider eyes, especially since everything you say can be found on the typical anti-Islam hate site meme graphics?

Smedley wrote: “You problem is, that I, a non moslem, do understand the true nature of islam and both reject it and expose it.”

If this is true, then please begin to provide proof/evidence of your claims. So far, in providing the greater context of your isolated, cherry-picked verses, the truth is firmly upon my side of the argument and you didn’t have a firm comeback.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.’ Koran 9:123”

This verse is for those Muslims who are surrounded by active hostile enemies who have waged war upon them. Allah is reminding the believers that they have Him on their side, while the unbelievers only have sociopathic greed and the whispers of the satan.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “’When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them.’ Koran 9:5″

This took place when the Muslims returned to Mecca from exile and took Mecca without bloodshed while wearing the pilgrimage garb. This announcement was letting the pagans who broke the peace treaty know that war would be waged upon them lest they fled or converted, while the pagan tribes who upheld the terms of peace would be granted leniency until the contract expired, then they would be required to leave the Holy City, too, lest they converted.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “’Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.’ Koran 3:85″

The All-Powerful One God, Supreme Creator of reality and Master of the Day of Judgment sent His final revealed scripture (Qur’an) and perfected His religion (Al-Islam) as a universal message for humanity, so why would He accept anything else from someone who believed and then rejected it?

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “’The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them.’ Koran 9:30”

If you’re feeling some kind of way about being called out by the Lord of the worlds for your perverting of the faith of the prophets of olde, then it should stand to reason that you would try to fix your perverted state instead of complaining that you got called out for your wrongdoing.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “’Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam’ Koran 5:33”

There’s nothing in the verse you’re supposed to be referencing that says anything about killing for “criticizing” Islam; this is clearly a message of instruction during active war time.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: "’The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque.’ Koran 9:28″

This bullet of yours is pretending people aren’t allowed in ANY mosque, when it’s in fact talking about restrictions around THE mosque — al-Masjid al-Ḥarām that encircles the Ka’aba in Mecca. The infidels are the ones who filled the House of Allah with 300+ idols, remember? Clearly, they don’t need to be anywhere NEAR the most sacred site in Al-Islam. I don’t even understand why you included this bullet, other than deliberately pretending the verse said something it didn’t say. Staying away from the Ka’aba is different from visiting a local mosque in Columbus OH, right? lol

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “‘Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies.’ Koran 22:19”

This is clearly a description of the torment of hell, not a command for the believers to torture anyone. lol smdh You have zero credibility. I hope you realize that.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “’Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them.’ Koran 47:4”

This one is instructing the believers in how to treat the defeated enemy during individual battles within a greater war campaign. Making them sign a strict contract and giving the leeway to be either generous with them or offer ransom depending on their behavior during this period. That’s the literal opposite of what your bullet claimed.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “’The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.’ Koran 8:65”

lol This one is 99% accurate. The only part you’re missing is that the pagan Meccan forces were on their way to Medina to wipe the Muslims out, and Allah gave the prophet permission to tell the believers to defend themselves. Allah sent down a company of angels to help them, so they shouldn’t fear.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley wrote: “’Muslims must not take the infidels as friends.’ Koran 3:28″

Accurate. ‘Nuff said. Do you think all of the lies and slander you’ve put forth against my sacred belief system this day qualify you as friendship material? Alright then. Shaddap.

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “’Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an.’ Koran 8:12”

This is another of Allah’s after-battle-briefings where He explains to the believers the nature of the Help he provided for the Battle of Badr. Again, this was when the pagan Meccan forces came to Medina with the intention of completely annihilating the Muslims and Allah didn’t allow it. With His help, 300 Muslim fighting men defeated 1,000 pagans. Note how none of this has anything to do with attacking people who “believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an” which was clearly a lie. Aren’t you the one who brought up the jizya tax? You all should think your lies through so there is at least some consistency. smh

Muhammad Rasheed - Smedley posted: “’Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.' Koran 8:60"

This is only describing normal, common sense battle preparation. What’s the matter? Does the idea of the God-fearing oppressed preparing to strike back against a long-time enemy disturb you, white man? I think we both know that very imagery is the root cause for your hatred against Al-Islam. It’s VERY different from what the old slave holders taught to my ancestors from your doctored-up version of Christianity, isn’t it? You SHOULD be in terror as you’ve earned it. I suggest you repent.

Norman Jones - M. Rasheed quoted: "and the best of planners is Allah."

Thanks for your answer. So what you are saying is that Allah also plotted and planned and Allah is the best plotter and planner. I just don't understand why you contradict yourself.

Muhammad Rasheed - The Omniscient One God by definition is the Best Tactician — His power to know literally everything makes God the Most Skilled at planning tactics. The usage of the word “deceiver” or to imply that “planner” in your own usage above has a negative connotation from your biased position doesn’t make sense in context outside of anti-Islam hate propaganda.

Norman Jones - Islam is full of contradictions, read the Quran with an open mind and you will see for yourself . Abrogated versus make no sense. An all known God would not change his mind.

Muhammad Rasheed - Norman wrote: “Islam is full of contradictions”

lol No, it’s not.

Norman wrote: “read the Quran with an open mind”

I did. That’s why I’m a practicing Muslim.

Norman wrote: “and you will see for yourself”

Are you supposed to be pretending that you’ve read the Qur’an before? Skimming cherry-picked quotes on your favorite anti-Islam hate site is not the same as reading the Qur’an for yourself, bud.

Norman wrote: “Abrogated versus make no sense.”

The Qur’an abrogates the previous scriptures and is a fuller explanation of the Law of Moses. That’s what Allah was talking about.

Norman wrote: “An all known God would not change his mind.”

The problem with that line is it inappropriately reflects up towards God instead of inward towards yourself. It’s an arrogant position to take. God does what He does to guide and test us. That’s the entire point of scripture and the history of the Word on earth.

Norman Jones - Islam is brainwashed and your a good example. Please provide proof of your assumption, and don't say the Quran, which has no proof of anything,except that it is a badly written book. Harry Potter makes more sense. Flying horses don't exist.

Muhammad Rasheed - Norman wrote: “Islam is brainwashed and your a good example.”

You don’t appear to know what “brainwashed” actually means. So far, you’ve proven that all you know how to do is blindly parrot hate propaganda. You don’t have a cohesive position you are capable of defending, you just say stuff you heard without understanding. This is what it looks like when someone is brainwashed.

Norman wrote: “Please provide proof of your assumption, and don't say the Quran”

lol Well, I’ll say the Qur’an anyway, thanks. You’ve never read it, and I’ll wager you’ve never even tried. Do you think I can’t tell the difference between someone who is actually informed on the topic and holds well-thought out criticisms he’s willing to explain versus someone like you who’s only heard something somewhere and wants to shout at people from across the street with no certain knowledge? Why are you even on Quora? This platform isn’t for one such as you. TikTok is down the hall to the left.

Norman wrote: “which has no proof of anything”

Sure, it does.

Norman wrote: “except that it is a badly written book.”

How would YOU know?

Norman wrote: “Harry Potter makes more sense.”

Does it? The Qur’an says to worship only the One God who made you, do good, reject evil and repent when you mess up. Is that alien to you?

Norman wrote: “Flying horses don't exist.”

Explain to me—in your own words—what “flying horses” have to do with the religion of Al-Islam, if you please. Take your time.