69 million page views

Bilal: Standard Muslim reply. If you don't like what Muslims do claim they are not Muslim

Reader comment on item: Niqabs and Burqas - The Veiled Threat Continues
in response to reader comment: RE: Plato

Submitted by Plato (India), Sep 16, 2009 at 00:04

Bilal, you wrote,

>>After gleaming through the tedious copying and pastings that made up the overwhelming bulk of your post, I'll reply with a concise one.<<

You seem to resent documented evidence presented to refute your general statements given without any supporting matter. The copying and pasting are mostly from your scriptures and from reports on Islamic countries by people residing there. I notice that you have very little to say about the scriptural evidence I have quoted to substantiate what I said. You make blanket statements of disagreement without supporting facts. Being concise is not necessarily convincing.

>>1.) If Bush was following the advice of Muhammad, then he would have killed all the Jews in Israel; as we will do one day soon, because they are the filthy sons of pigs and monkeys. The fact kaafirs are naturally liars is proven by the lies that Bush has been caught out with the run-up to the war, such as "WMDs". So this in itself proves this point.<<

You were talking about the deceit of Bush. I showed you the deceit of Muhammad in his statements and actions. As an ally of Israel why would Bush kill Jews? He went in to kill Saddam and his aides. He used deceit just like the prophet did with his enemies.

>>2.) The hadd for rape is capital punishment; and rape is not synonymous with adultery. I yawn at the overused cunning tactic of trying to apply the conditions of accusing one of adultery to that of rape. Is that the best you can do?<<

You have again not read my post. The sharia jurists are talking about rape not adultery. If you are so sure I have given the law of evidence for adultery and not rape why don't you tells what it is?

>>As for Pakistani law; that does not constitute Shari'ah law.<<

If you don't like an Islamic country's Sharia based laws then it is not Sharia law. This is a trick you use with terrorists. When Muslims cause bloodshed without cause you simply claim they are not real Muslims.

>>If you didn't know there is a war being waged in Pakistan between that of the man-made law rulers and those Taliban militants fighting for Shari'ah law.<<

Great to know that the Pakistani Taliban are the custodians of Sharia. Blowing up schools for girls was a glimpse of Sharia in action.

>>So for you to quote from man-made law in injustice to rape victims is in fact attacking your own sphere of a legal system. Your foot must look like swiss cheese the amount you've shot yourself in it by now.<<

It is better to have cheese for feet than have cheese in the brain from reading the Koran.

>>3.) So in other words, you concede that a woman gets raped once every 2 minutes in the West as opposed to allegedly once every 2 hours in Pakistan. In other words, you admit the statistics of rape are explosive in comparison to a Muslim country. Very good.<<

LOL. Because I did not comment on your claim about a rape every two minutes in the West you concluded that your claims are proven. Without giving any supporting evidence you claimed that a rape occurs every two minutes in the West (the West has a population of about 700 million as against Pakistan's 160 million). I did not dispute your figures. But I gave you reports generated in Pakistan by Muslims (could not have been true sharia following Muslims, could they?) which said nearly ninety per cent of women suffer abuse in Pakistan. You are silent. If you accept rape occurs at the rate of one every two hours in Pakistan how many thousands is it? How many are in jail. You will no doubt tell me that Pakistan is not a Muslim nation as it does not follow sharia and hence the rape figures and conviction rates are immaterial to you. You are a true Muslim!

>>4.) In your hadith quoting 'Ali, I fail to see the word "rape" in there. Therefore it wasn't rape.<<

Oh the beauty of Muslim logic. If the hadith said Ali 'slept with the slave girl' he had captured that day or he 'had intercourse' with her after killing her husband or he 'enjoyed sexual relationships' with her after buying her from her captor all would mean Ali had not raped her. That is why Muslims insist the prophet did not rape Safia as the sira of Ibn Ishaq only tells us Muhammad had her husband tortured and killed and married her the same day.

>>What I don't fail to see though, is the fact that you can't deny the fact US soldiers rape women in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere; and now they're living in a cushy jail with free bed and breakfast protected from retribution. This is what your law and society encourages; and that is why there is a rape once every 2 minutes in the West.<<

But you see in the West they admit to rape and put rapists away in jail till they become harmless to society. Muslims rename rape as sexual relations. Those that your right hand possess are fair game to all Muslims.

>>As for mentioning 'Aisha, Safia and so on. These unions were all done consensually…<<

What is a six year old girls consent worth? If your six year old daughter says she wants to marry the nice old white bearded Mullah at her madrassa who offered her chocolates how seriously would you consider her request? When Abu Bakr hesitated to give his daughter to the mercy of a man past his prime giving the excuse of his being his brother, Muhammad brushes it aside: (I could not resist cutting and pasting this incident):

Muslim Book 62, Number 18: Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry."

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: It was said to the Prophet, "Won't you marry the daughter of Hamza? "He said, "She is my foster niece (brother's daughter)."

Muhammad has no use for Allah's religion and Book when his feelings for a six year old is aroused. But when an ugly girl is presented for marriage Allah's sharia is trotted out.

>>… as opposed to the women who get raped once every 2 minutes in the west, and the (at least one) paedophile that exists in every 10 mile radius.<<

Why don't you check how many of those rapists are in cushy jails compared to the number of rapists let off for want of Sharia-compliant evidence? In the West they are slapped into jail, in Sharia compliant countries they go rape some more.

I showed you what the report on paedophilia in Pakistan says. You will probably find pedophiles living next door not ten miles away.

>>In the Talmud where it instructs Jewish mothers to rape their 9 year old sons, is that consensual? Or how about the Rabbis that encourage each other to molest 3 year olds? Or how about the Bible that encourages daughters to get their father drunk then to molest him? Or how about the Hindu concept of Sati, whereby the wife torches herself alive on her husband's cremation. Are those things consensual?<<

Instead of addressing the immoralities endemic in your religion you conveniently narrate scandalous stories about other religions. How does that wash away the immorality of Islam? Just the pot calling the kettle black once more.

>>5.) So in other words you concede that Misyar is a form of marriage? And you concede that western whores in bars who spread their legs for the first man who buys her 1 barcardi and coke is not marriage? Speaks for itself.<<

When the man gives a woman a Bacardi and coke he is in effect making an oral marriage contract by giving her mahar and absolving himself of immorality just as misyar does by writing the contract on a piece of paper. Why is one woman a prostitute and not the other?

>>6.) In Islaam the hadd for the rapist is either capital punishment or amputation of the arms and legs from opposite sides. Anything else you are referring to is based on your model of law; i.e. man-made law.<<

Man made laws at least puts rapists in jail. How many Muslim rapists have you heard of who were killed or whose limbs were amputated? And what is the law of evidence for rape according to sharia?

Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 95: Narrated Abu Huraira: I heard Allah's Apostle saying. "All the sins of my followers will be forgiven except those of the Mujahirin (those who commit a sin openly or disclose their sins to the people). An example of such disclosure is that a person commits a sin at night and though Allah screens it from the public, then he comes in the morning, and says, 'O so-and-so, I did such-and-such (evil) deed yesterday,' though he spent his night screened by his Lord (none knowing about his sin) and in the morning he removes Allah's screen from himself."

The reason Muslims don't get punished for rape is Allah screens them from view of the necessary four witnesses. They will not be stupid enough like the man in the verse to come and reveal their sin. The Muslim rapist can happily spend the night raping and Allah will shield him. LOL. And read what Muslims who shield Muslims from crime gain in Allah's sight:

"…whoever screened a Muslim, Allah will screen him in the life of this world and in the hereafter." Muslim no 2699 (from Fiqh according to Koran and Sunnah, Vol 2, Darussalam publication, Riyadh)

>>Of course you didn't deny the story of Abeer Qasim al-Janabi; because it's true.<<

Read my reply (you do read them don't you, or do I have to put it down a poor memory?). I did not deny you story of Abeer Janabi. Even if it had been a lie I would not have denied it because these things happen in this imperfect world. But I find you do not deny that he got jailed unlike rapists in Sharia country.

>>. And this heinous crime is typical of what stems out of you cancers of the globe, and that is why you must all be eradicated.<<

Such heinous crimes when they happen in sharia country are not recognized as such or maybe Allah screened them from view. We excise our cancers while Muslims are not aware of the various cancers afflicting them. The cancers growing in Islam, shielded by an Allah ashamed of the behaviour of his followers will finally end in their own eradication.

>>7.) In Shar'iah law the hadd for homosexuality is capital punishment.<<

If religiously implemented not many able bodied men will remain in Pakistan.

>>Yet NAMBLA in the USA are pushing for legal homosexual intercourse between adult men and male minors. This is western values.<<

NAMBLA has been alive and well in Pakistan since Islam entered it as I showed you in my last post with documented evidence from Pakistani investigators. Muslims in Pakistan have had these values before the USA even existed.

>>By the way. Pakistan is not based on Islamic values.<<

We know that already. Pakistan seems to be based on NAMBLA values!

>>If it was, Pakistan wouldn't be at war with the Mujahideen. Rather their legal values represents that of the west. So these disgusting accusations you are making reflects your own values essentially.<<

Oh we know all about the Mujahideen. They are the ones who blow up girls schools to enforce Islamic sharia. It has done Pakistan a lot of good for sure.

>>8.) So you affirm the Iraq - Iran war was engineered by the west. Very good.<<

It is not only the Muslims who can engineer wars by giving three choices to us kaffirs. Accept Islam, pay the jiziya or die fighting. The West has even more ingenious ways of engineering war than Allah.

>>9.) So you affirm the thousands of deaths committed by Jews;<<

I will admit it if you admit the hundreds of thousands killed by Muslims in Sudan.

>>…whilst at the same time ironically crying about the holocaust fallacy.<<

I will admit the holocaust fallacy too if you admit the fallacy of Crusades being a holocaust against Muslims.

>>Hitler should have finished the job. The world would undoubtedly be a better place.<<

If the Crusaders had finished the job just imagine the peace that would have prevailed over the world? Allah's injunction in 9:29 would have been consigned to the dustbin of history.

>>10.) About 2 million have been killed in Iraq since 2003 alone due to a direct result of the US invasion of it. I see your rant did not dispel that fact.<<

How will you dispel the fact that hundreds of thousands are being killed and millions displaced by Muslims in Sudan?

>>Therefore everything I have clamped you with thus still substatitates the notion that you are a cancer that must be subject to a caesarian from existence.<<

Africa and the world will be a better place if disappears from the map.

>>11.) Forget moderates. As far as Islamists are concerned, the leaders are all apostates and hence any of those people who fulfil the profile of their muscle can not be correlated with Islamism.<<

True pious Muslims like you have tough job ahead of you. You have managed to eliminate only one or two of them so far, Sadat and Benazir.

>>Regardless, the Janjaweed are merely following the western example of yinvading innocent peoples' homelands and committing acts of genocide. Just like as is being done in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Chechnya, etc.<<

You must eliminate Omar Bashir to clear the fair name of Islam. I think the world will thank you if you do.

>>12.) The Jews of Banu Quraiza violated a covenant of security that had previously been made in pact with the Muslims.<<

Where can you find this covenant except in the baseless charges of modern day Muslims? You have not given any evidence for such a charge against the Banu Quraiza. Can you quote even one sahih hadith which shows the Banu Quraiza were contemplating letting the Meccans into Medina. Claims of conspiracy unless followed by action are worthless. Allah Himself asks Muslims to avoid suspicion in Koran 49:12. You must also consider the fact that Muhammad (alias Allah) also considers covenants to be worthless as He clearly states in the following verses:

009.001 YUSUFALI: A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances:-
009.003 And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.
009.004 (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous. [HOW CAN YOU BREAK A TREATY WITH SOMEONE WITH WHOM YOU HAVE NO TREATY??]
009.007 How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous. [pasting the verses I have left will not make a difference, I am doing it for brevity] [EXCEPT FOR ONE TREATY, MUHAMMAD a.k.a ALLAH DISSOLVES ALL OTHERS]

Oaths by Muslims are also worthless as ordained by Allah: 066.002 YUSUFALI: Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases): and Allah is your Protector, and He is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom.

For Muhammad and Allah covenants and oaths are worthless. It is only when the non-Muslims break their covenants and oaths that it is treated as a serious crime requiring capital punishment. Why do you want to hold only the Quraiza to their so-called (and non-existent) covenant with Muslims?

>>Their treason justified the end result.<<

Suspicion that they were contemplating treason is not treason. And Allah has told you suspicion is bad. By your reasoning the US should have attacked Pakistan long ago for running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. This is typical of Muslim attitudes. Betraying a kaffir friend is not betrayal at all and becomes a patriotic duty if it helps Muslims.

>>Treason in western armies in times of war over history resulted in execution too.<<

Only if treason is PROVED. Prove the Banu Quraiza BETRAYED, not that Muhammad (you may consider Muhammad to be truthful, but kaffirs like me have our own suspicions because Allah allows him to repudiate his covenants and oaths) suspected they were planning treason. Unsubstantiated claims of treason will not stand in Kaffir courts. Only a prejudiced judge like Sad Muadh would be capable of such a judgment.

>>I fail to see the problem.<<

You can blame it on Allah for giving you verses like 9:1, 9:3 and 9:4.

>>By the way, use a bidet. You kaafirs stink. I guess that's natural, too.<<

Allah created us to stink. Remember Quran 6:125, "……. thus does Allah lay uncleanness on those who do not believe."

And because we want to clean ourselves of the Allah-given stink we invented the bidet. Allah should have had the foresight not to bless us with so much intelligence that we could outwit Him with a simple invention.



P.S. You would have noticed that I have minimized my cutting and pasting in order not to offend you.


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2023 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)