69 million page views

time for some truth!

Reader comment on item: [The American Muslim Council:] 'Mainstream' Muslims?
in response to reader comment: wow

Submitted by Peter (Canada), Apr 14, 2007 at 00:14

ak wrote (as indented - my responses are in bold):

wow, I commend you for having the appearance of doing your research.

I have yet to see a factual rebuttal by any muslim - as your loyalty demands many "corrections" of the only facts there are. I am not saying here and now how "allah" was chosen as a name for the dominating principle of muhammad's cult, but marely making a point valid in its own right, after reading the paticular comment in question, quoted above. Whether or not you be right about what you immediately followed the comment with, you would do well to apply the principle of your last comment to yourself, that is:

I hope you learned not to trust ever single website or book that comes under your nose.

You certainly lack scrutiny in your loyalties.

As i explained before, Allah simply means god. It is a word. And like I said arab christians use it in their bibles. If you get that fact through your head; wed all have easier times communicating with each other. These practices that you mention: throwing stones, running around the kabah, etc., well these traditions were set by prophet Abraham (PBUH) That's why muslims follow this tradition to this day, with a few alterations of course because arabians had added to the traditions of abraham (PBUH).

Here you show naivity - that which you say non-muslims shouldn't show to every single website or book that comes under their nose - in accepting the fiction of Abraham having had pagan Arab customs (which are what these now islamic practices in deed are).

Do you, in saying "allah" is only a word, mean it is not originally a proper name? That is correct. I have seen an explanation by muslims that it took the place of an earlier "al-illah". They say that men at some time replaced the original term with "allah", which they boast can show no quality of number (including singulaity?) or gender, and is now in the form of a proper name, epitomizing deity in all its extent. Sounds rather man-made. Abraham certainly didn't devise this. So who did?

As for you claiming that the chief god in mecca was called al-illah, you are mistaken. Al-illah means the gods. In plurailty. You might have misunderstood your "source" because like I said al illah means the gods which would be a title for all of the gods. And muslims say allah is the greatest as in he is greater than any gods and godesses of roman mythology and paganism. It was used to show the arabs that one god is greater than 300. To conclude, Allah is NOT moon god, but the same god that sent revelations to moses and Jesus. You have further proved to me that you do need to brush up on your history or find more reliable sources.

As for saying "al-illah" is "gods" in Arabic, you might want to ask an Arabic speaker what "Al-alilha" is, as this is what one Arab looked up to as a "scholar" told all his islamic peers meant "gods" in Arabic on an islamic forum. In all sincerity, correct me if I am mistaken in taking his word for it, or correct him if he gave me the public incorrect information. (See here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=309666&page=331 )

You rush on to write in all too much careless haste:

Now to move on to the subject of prophet muhammed's (PBUH) sexuality. Yes the prophet married a young girl which was quite a normal practice at that time not only in the arabian peninsula but also in europe.

`Aisha was six when he contracted "marriage" with her, and nine when it took full course. Were there really marriages to girls this young in Europe at any time in history?! Some poor practioners of Christianity allowed for marriages much too young, but the actual Faith never condoned it - and one Pope said that a teen marriage was not legitimate, but mere fornication. True Christians found teen marriage abhorant. No man married a girl and was considered a Saint. And no one from the early Church allowed such young marriages - teen marriages involved those in Europe whose location there was due to a pagan invasion not far earlier, usually barbaric Germanic peoples, etc., that were either wholly heathen, or not truly Christianized in their late-coming culture, which had invaded the earlier Catholic culture and almost replaced it.

Any ways, shame on you - you merely look for others as bad as muhammad to make his low morals seem acceptable by the lowest standards of others. I, on the other hand, reject all men like muhammad, whether they be Arabic or European.

What I am trying to say is that prophet muhammed did marry many people, but it wasn't to satisfy his sexual cravings. In fact, when prophet muhammed (PBUH) was 25 he chose to marry a 40 year old widow even though he could have married the most beautiful daughter of the most influential family.

Shame on your darkened rationale. You are saying, then, that the reason he approached Abu Bakr, for his six year old daughter, `Aisha, the moment Khadiya, his first wife died, was not to satisfy his sexuality? While he waited three years for her to turn a ripe nine, why did he also get another wife at once, to occupy himself with in the meantime? As for his first wife, she had him for her servant, and had a social freedom he didn't have, and as his mistress, chose him to marry, a much younger man, who couldn't marry just anyone, nor anyone she didn't permit him to marry. By being married to her until her death, he inherited her status, with which to marry others. He took off for long periods of time until she died, coming home a little here, a little there, and, when Khadija turned to him in bed, he threw a blanket over him and used great fear and trembling as an excuse to be left wrapped up thick in a blanket (in this way avoiding the unattractive older woman as she was aging). The moment she died (maybe with a luttle help from you know who), everything changed!

The prophet had NINE wives and ZERO concubines. And if you did a bit more research on prophet muhammed's wives (PBUH) you'd find that he married them out of sympathy because they were in difficult situations. He married a widow, he married a daughter of a jewish leader because she had no where to go after she enetered islam, he married another woman because she begged him to saying it would be the greatest honor, he married the daughter of an egyptian king who was sent as property, but he gave her the honor of marrying her. He married the daughter of a leader of a tribe after her tribe was defeated and set her people free.

Who was Miryam the Copt again? There were at least thirteen main women in his life and bed! I have sympathy on all women, and I am a virgin, and I do not take anything in exchange for my Christian Charity - not even the woman's whole self in her sexual submission, just for some basics that once were free in Eden! You leave a lot of the Truth unacknowledged! Including the fact of the women under the right hand of muhammad and co.!

And to further discredit your "hypothesis" about sexually repressed males; how was it that your grandparents, you great grandparents, your great great grandparents could survive witthout having sex with 20 women? You may have the evidence of ONE study, but I have hundreds of years of records to back my theory. And hello there may be one tribe in lebanon who descend from canaanites, but there are many in palestine. They may not be of pure heritage, but they definitely have canaanite blood.

Sexual repression has never been the problem with muslims, but repression of self-control!

Neither Arabs nor Palestinians are Canaanites any way, so what is your point? Let the Arabs stay out of the Palestinians' way! Palestinian is an ethnic issue, and does not mean "muslim"! Let there be absolute freedom for Christian grwoth and prosperity in Palestine! But it is impossible under the Chamas and like groups! Before the Israelis took the land the Canaanites were controlling in Moshe and Joshua's days, others of the Hebrew people of which Israel were the possessors of the firstborn right, had already lived there. Some of their chiefs had been slaughtered by the spreading Canaanite powers, who, in fact, were not the first ever to inhabit that land, but were by this time ancient invaders in the Hebrew heritage land.

But even if you choose to give this no consideration, it must be conceded that both Hebrew and Canaanite were there before the Philistines (the Palestinians, who are related to true Egyptians, but not to Arabs). They only ever had a few cities, as invaders from the sea, pirates. And Arabs didn't arrive until their invasion thousands of years later. But the islamic Arabs don't respect the places of the Hebrew, the Canaanite, the Philistine, the Copt, the Syrian, the Sudanese, nor of anyone at all - and they disrespect the heritage of the Church in Arabia, long before islam appeared.

And just because a group of people ruled a counntry THOUSANDS of years ago for less than a century deos not give them the right or the privilege to suddenly grab that land thousands of years later. Israel survives on money given by AMERICA. Not money Israel made, but money America had made. And palestine can live without money. It will survive in the hearts of palestinians and all those who believe in justice. And when the day comes when Jesus comes down to earth; palestine will be bestowed on the rightful heirs. And youre right, muslims won't rest until Israel is gone. Israel has no right to exist. Israel in itself is by far the most racist, terrorist, violent country I have ever seen. Unfortunately, the media covers it up, but like people say the truth will come out.

The Arabs have no right to be in Israel at all. There was an Israel for thousands of years. Arabs have no right to continue their form of society - a machine that steals identities from real ethnic cultures. Arabs pretending to be Palestinians are a joke the TRUE GOD has already marked for eternal judgement. Let the Arabs back off, and allow purely ethnic Palestinians to choose leadership from among themselves. But as long as Palestinians want to bomb others, may they never have a square foot of anything!

Proportionately, they have killed far more decent Israelis than the Israelis have killed indecent Palestinians, who can't even treat Christians of their own blood properly! Let the Arabs let go of Jerusalem! What do you want with it? If it was really so important to islam, why was it only later added as a "third most holy site" later on? If it was always important to muslims, on what basis was it except on a Jewish and Christian basis? It was never an Arabic locale. Get out and leave Israel to those who know what the true significance of the site of the Temple! Or after you lose Arabia, and haven't had it for a long time, just accept the new Papal residence at Mecca!


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: © 1968-2024 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.)