Wood: anti-Islam crusader
During yesterday’s debate between David Wood & Shabir Ally ‘Is the Quran a Book of Peace?’ I have been informed by a reliable source that the following occurred:
“David Wood admitted that he is glad when people die in terrorist attacks, for this supports his evangelizing efforts.”
This comes near the end of the debate, during his final rebuttal (which is then followed by each speaker’s 5 minute conclusions, followed by Q&A). In Dr Shabir’s own 5 minute conclusion he remarked that David’s confession was shameless, and Shabir’s remark was greeted with a lot of clapping.
Shabir Ally said:
“It is a real shame that some people would be thinking that it is a good thing that people are dying so that the Gospel looks good whereas the followers of the Gospel emphasize loving your enemies. It’s a major contradiction.
Fact: David Wood tried to murder his father by repeatedly hitting him with a hammer.
Fact: David Wood admitted in front of an audience of over 100 people in London (including myself) that he would kill a neighbour’s baby if he felt God was telling him to do so.
I await confirmation of this terrible report. I am sure Yahya Snow will produce a video about it.
Categories: Islam
Blogging Theology 
David Wood radicalized Robert Wells who also said he’d murder and kill if ‘God told him to do so’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He’s right regarding the neighbour’s baby. That’s called obedience to God.
LikeLike
Wait? Fact 1?
I think we need more information because this is attempted murder right, and he should be imprison?
If not, people change, we should give people a chance and stick by the Message of God, and His Messengers, be the bigger men.
LikeLike
Wood was arrested and imprisoned. This information is in the public domain. I first heard the story from Wood’s own lips in London in front of over 100 people. It is not a secret.
Some might say that his willingness to kill babies (if God tells him) and his apparent gladness “when people die in terrorist attacks, for this supports his evangelizing efforts” is all of a piece.
LikeLike
wow how desperate is the writer? how about addressing some of his arguments instead of trying to attack him personally, but i guess thats what you need to do when you have no arguments hey?
LikeLiked by 1 person
But we do have arguments.
LikeLike
I do agree that it is a character attack, but I don’t think Paul even intended that.
LikeLike
You can see the debate here: https://mediaonline.utc.edu/UTC5/Play/bfa2288a0c0e4854925f85105d38d43c1d
LikeLike
Hey Pals…why do u try to attack David? Islam the Goliath is falling infront of David’s arguments eh? Don’t worry..the truth that u guys hear will set u all free if u r listening with an open mind to seek the truth.
LikeLike
Islamophobia is the poison that blinds so many Christians.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Light of the crescent is reflected light and in it lurks the Serpents.Truly the Son is risen and in its light is the Truth.
LikeLike
Tom Nasrani – are you glad like Wood when people die in terrorist attacks, because this supports his evangelizing efforts?
LikeLike
No, I am not and my God is not.God weeps over all the bloodshed in His name.David is not either-I watched the debate and its elementary to understand David’s statement.
LikeLike
please explain…
LikeLike
I just watched the video Paul, I can’t tell if he’s being sarcastic, he seems so.
I wasn’t able to find Shabbir’s response.
LikeLike
“David Wood admitted that he is glad when people die in terrorist attacks, for this supports his evangelizing efforts.”
Judge it within the context of the debate and you would realize that he was being sarcastic! Even Shabir realized this, and he responded with his own sarcasm.
LikeLike
I watched the debate and it was obviously sarcasm. He cleared up that statement in tonight’s debate. It was sarcasm in response to the very serious allegation Shabir made about David being happy about the massacres. No real follower of Christ, like David, could ever be happy when the ones dying are our brothers and sisters in Christ.
LikeLike
I watched and listened to the whole debate. the section in question is about at the 1:20 mark to 1:32. It was Shabir Ally who first said he thought David Wood was glad about people getting killed, etc. because it helps his ministry, because it makes Islam look bad. That was Shabir trying to read motives into David. Anyone who reads his blog and listens to his videos would know he is not happy or glad about people being killed and raped.
When David then answers that at around 1:30 – 1:32, If you listen to the whole thing, David seems to have a sarcastic tone as in “yeah right; folks, you heard it here, I enjoy people getting killed, etc. . . . ”
David should have been clearer there; but it did seem he was saying it in a “yeah, right” tone. (actually denying it.)
Shabir earlier claimed that David said he respected Muhammad more and the war-like interpretations of the Hadith, Sira, Al Tabari’s Tarikh (History) and classical commentaries like Ibn Kathir and Ibn Abbas. David corrected Shabir on that – David said he respected the CLARITY of those Islamic sources. He made a good point on how many times the Qur’an says it is a clear book.
Shabir seemed to throw all the Sahih Al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim Hadith and Tarikh of Al Tabari and classical commentators like Ibn Kathir under the bus. Wow. I wonder if he is a “Qur’an only” Muslim.
LikeLike
David Wood tried to kill his father when he was an atheist. He was imprisoned for several years and became a Christian in the jail.
I don’t see why you would put that info here, as it is a testimony that Christ does change people, even people as low as David Wood was.
LikeLike
A testimony in Pastor Kumuyi’s own word.
‘We were at Gbagada at that time, I just finished in the office, as I finished in the office, there was this violent man and four men, hefty men, they were holding him. As they were holding him, I already got into the car and then they dragged the man and they were all sweating, I said, ‘What’s the problem’, and I wined down the glass, I didn’t have to come out, because you don’t come out for the devil, you relax and you sit down…. So I sat down and relax… and then I said, ‘What’s the problem’, they said, ‘It’s this man here, you know for four days, he’s been troubling us, this and that’ I said ‘In the name of Jesus, you devil come out.’ And then as I said that I told them that it’s alright now, ‘I’ll see you again’, and then you know they were still there, they didn’t understand that something has happened, I said, ‘Young man, what’s your name.’ And he answered, I said who is this, he said, ‘That’s my brother,….
Everything gone. And that it’s power is still there today.’
LikeLike
m8r-so04dc
‘I don’t see why you would put that info here, as it is a testimony that Christ does change people’
Can you be so sure? Would you kill a neighbour’s baby if you heard a voice telling you to?
LikeLike
Why is Shabir Ally debating those nutters?
LikeLiked by 2 people
An excellent question
LikeLike
Paul Williams
“Would you kill a neighbour’s baby if you heard a voice telling you to?”
I don’t know what would I do. But certainly, Abraham/Ibrahim would.
LikeLike
You don’t know what you would do??!!! What kind of religion do you follow? It has corrupted your soul. Islam absolutely prohibits the killing of babies. No civilised human being would question this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I don’t know what would I do. But certainly, Abraham/Ibrahim would.” As I said, absolute nutters. Holy spirit?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul Williams
Surely I wouldn’t do the babies killing.
But I don’t know what to do with the “voices”. (I said I don’t know what I would do. not what I wouldn’t do)
But I’m sure Muhammad would kill babies, as he killed women and children, according to Bukhari & Muslim. And it’s a disturbing news indeed.
LikeLike
Where does it say he killed women and children? Give us a quote
LikeLike
What’s the point?
Even *if* David Wood is an evil man, so what? There are evil people who claim to be Christian, there are evil people who claim to be Muslim.
Don’t you have better arguments?
LikeLike
“Even *if* David Wood is an evil man, so what?” This man claims to be “inhabited” by the HS, (God Himself, i.e. 1 “He” of the 3 or 4 or 5 divine “He’s”), just like yourself, I guess. Mega fail.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Shabir earlier claimed that David said he respected Muhammad more and the war-like interpretations of the Hadith, Sira, Al Tabari’s Tarikh (History) and classical commentaries like Ibn Kathir and Ibn Abbas. David corrected Shabir on that – David said he respected the CLARITY of those Islamic sources. He made a good point on how many times the Qur’an says it is a clear book.
Shabir seemed to throw all the Sahih Al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim Hadith and Tarikh of Al Tabari and classical commentators like Ibn Kathir under the bus. Wow. I wonder if he is a “Qur’an only” Muslim.
I say;
The Holy Quran is the uncorrupted word of God, so no Muslims will object to anything in it. The Hadith is history and sayings attributed to our prophet by men. Some has chain of narrations which are weaker. It has to be collected by Buhari, Muslims and other hadith collectors and compiled in a book at a later date. The Shite has their own hadiths and the Sunni.
Because the hadith is collected and written by men, some are obviously not reliable even if it is in Sahih. Any hadith has its interpretation by those who study the hadith and have a grasp of all hadiths and will explain it according to its historical context. Christians just quote them without historical context and also not considering other narrations of the same hadiths.
If there is a doubt in a hadith, we throw it and stick to the Quran which is the uncorrupted source. Muslims do reject certain hadiths if they feel it does not go with the Quran and then stick to the Quran, but cannot reject the Quran. When a hadith is quoted, it is matched with the Quran and the narrations and interpretation and explanation from the expert and one can conclude whether to accept it or not. You cannot just quote hadith with your own interpretation without knowing Arabic, Islam, the Quran and the science of hadith. Any hadith has its interpretation and even the interpretations differ and the one closer to the Quran is the accepted one and the one that is not closer to the Quran can be rejected but the Quran cannot be rejected.
Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
” . . . some are obviously not reliable even if it is in Sahih.”
Problem is they are called “Shahih” and that means “correct”, “genuine”, “right”, “true”, “valid”, “accurate”.
Another problem is that so much of the Ahadith and Sira and Tarikh and Tafsirs give the “asbab ol Nozul” اسباب النزول – “the reasons/historical background of the revelation. One cannot even understand much of the Qur’an without the Ahadith, since so much of the Qur’an is just random statements with no historical context.
Shabir also threw Omar under the bus, and you cannot do that as he and Abu Bakr, Uthman, Ali are the rightly guided Caliphs – and they applied all out war against the enemies of Islam. Abu Bakr against those who left Islam and would not pay the Zakat, (Surah 9:1-14 – apostates are considered infidels, along with the Hadith that says – “if anyone leaves his Islamic religion, kill him”
Hadith – Sahih Al Bukhari – Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Narrated Ikrima:
“Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ ”
and Omar and others against the Byzantines and Persians. (Surah 9:28-30) Uthman continued the expansion of conquering by aggressive war and under him, Muawiyah led the attacks on Constantinople. (Surah 9:28-30) All those attacks were unjust and wrong. They continued doing all that aggressive all the time all throughout Islamic history – they conquered the Turks, converted them to Islam, and then went to India, etc. Pakistan and other parts of India is result.
Do you think the Hadith quoted above is wrong or to be rejected?
LikeLike
Unjust and wrong? Then you condemn the genocide wars in the Bible too? Oh wait – you will not. Because you think God is just when he orders men to kill women and children because they ‘deserve’ to die.
Hypocrisy and double standards. Sad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The OT land war texts no longer apply today, since Biblical Israel does not exist and has not existed since 70 AD. Jesus took the kingdom of God away from Israel. Matthew 21:43-45. The commands for Israel to take the promised land were temporary and limited to only that land. Modern Zionist state is not Biblical Israel; though they do have the right to defend themselves, since it was the unjust Ottoman Turks who were the government of the land of Palestine until after WW I, and because they sided with Germany in WW I, they were justly punished and so the Jews were able to go back. But the Muslims never even accepted the 2 state plan of 1948, so because the Muslims never even allowed for that; they kept loosing more and more because the Muslims were always attacking first. But that is not based on Biblical OT land promises. Those are not in the NT as continuing.
David Wood actually proved that they were not “genocide wars”, because they were 2 commands: 1. drive them from the land of Israel – the promised land- outside the borders that God promised, they were not to attack. Canaanites (Phoenicians) continued in the land what is called today Lebanon, and many of the Maronite Christians today claim the Canaanites as their ancestors. 2. kill them in war context – Harem – God gave those specific pagans in the promised land 400 years of opportunity to repent. (Genesis 15:13-21, especially see verse 16). The book of Judges shows they survived and continued to fight, even though Joshua indicates that Israel conquered all the land. Haman the Agagite in the book of Esther was descendent of Agag in 1 Samuel.
We have clear NT texts and principles that say the OT land wars are no longer. But you don’t have that for Surah 9:28-30 and the Hadiths that say “fight until religion is all for Allah”. You even agreed with Abu Bakr, Omar and Uthman, etc. because all you could do was assert a kind of Tu Quoque logical fallacy.
LikeLike
Ken you deliberately miss the point. Wood is just wrong. Look at just 1 example from many. 1 Samuel 15 where ‘god’ commands the genocide of innocent women children and animals. Christians have used these texts through history in their forced conversion of other peoples. Christians saw themselves as the new Israel and applied these examples to their times just as Paul in 1 Tim 3:16 told them to!
LikeLike
Matthew 21:43-45 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
43 Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.
44 And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.”
45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them.
LikeLike
Paul Bilal Williams wrote:
Unjust and wrong? Then you condemn the genocide wars in the Bible too?
so, are you admitting that the wars of Abu Bakr, Omar, and Uthman were “genocide wars” ?
Weren’t they applying Surah 9:29ff to the Byzantine Christian Empire?
The historical evidence is all there, they were.
Shabir tried to say Surah 9:29 means to fight the people of the book who don’t believe in God . . . He asked the crowd – how many are Christians? Do you believe in God?, etc. and said “then it does not apply, since you believe in God”, etc.
the problem is that the Qur’anic context means the people of the book, who don’t believe in Allah (only, and deny that Jesus is the Son of God – verse 30, and deny the Trinity and deny the Deity of Christ), and don’t forbid pork and wine, etc. So it was all out attack on the Byzantine territories. And against Persians also, as they were considered fire worshipers, pagans.
LikeLike
Christians have used these texts through history in their forced conversion of other peoples. Christians saw themselves as the new Israel and applied these examples to their times just as Paul in 1 Tim 3:16 told them to!
No – until 380 AD – earliest Christianity NEVER did that.
And Ambrose and Augustine(400s), it was the Just war principles that were developed by the Christian west, that Shabir was relying upon.
Whoever did anything like 1 Sam. was DISOBEYING the NT and just war principles, as the church was never given what Israel had – a theocracy. Theocratic Israel was temporary and limited to that land; and now more.
LikeLike
It is you (and Shabir) who constantly deliberately miss the point of the NT and the change that Biblical Israel is no more.
LikeLike
Some Quotes on Tolerance: ‘O people of Quraysh! What do you think I will do with you?’ One of them, Suhayl ibn Amr, who had fought against the Prophet, replied on behalf of the Makkans: ‘We think (you will treat us) well, noble brother, son of a noble brother.’ A radiant smile flashed across the face of the beloved Prophet of God and, in a spirit of magnanimity and tolerance, he said: “I shall speak to you as Yusuf [Joseph] spoke unto his brothers: ‘There is no reproach against you today; God will forgive. He is the most Merciful and the most Compassionate.’ ” (Quran,12:92) And he added: ‘No more responsibility burdens you today. ‘Idhhabuu… wa antum at-tulaqaa – GO, FOR YOU ARE FREE.’ (Ibn Ishaque)
Malik’s Muwatta: Book 021, Hadith Number 010.Section : Prohibition against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.”I advise you ten things Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly.”
Abu Bakr, the first caliph of Islam, gave these armies rules which would seem very constricting by today’s standards of warfare:“Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; LEAVE THEM ALONE.”
Aboul-Enein, H. Yousuf and Zuhur, Sherifa, Islamic Rulings on Warfare, pag. 22, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, Diane Publishing Co., Darby PA
In the example of the conquest of Jerusalem, the caliph at the time, Umar ibn al-Khattab, wrote in the surrender treaty with the patriarchs of city:He [Umar] has given them an assurance of safety for themselves, for their property, their churches, their crosses, the sick and healthy of the city…THEIR CHURCHES WILL NOT BE INHABITED AND WILL NOT BE DESTROYED …THEY WILL NOT BE FORCIBLY CONVERTED. Kennedy, H. (2007). The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press. pag.91
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple “No – until 380 AD – earliest Christianity NEVER did that.”
Temple, what’s your point? As soon as Christians gained wordily power, the slaughter began, and it never stopped.
There is no religion that has as much blood on its hands like your religion of “love”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Pact of Omar Ibn Al Khattab, etc. your quote from Hugh Kennedy – the “tolerance” of Omar does not seem very tolerant at all, given what happened after that.
As long as they submitted and paid the Jiziyeh submission and humiliation tax and as long as they did not do any evangelism and so no freedom to talk about the gospel or Jesus as the Son of God, etc. (Surah 9:29-33)
1. First, they had NO right to conquer Jerusalem or Egypt or Syria in the first place.
2. They were forced by the economic pressure of having to pay the Jiziyeh and eventually most of the “Christians” in the conquered areas turned to Islam, especially in North Africa.
3. Later, many churches were destroyed.
4. Did not allow evangelism or freedom of speech or building new churches. The so called “assurance of safety” did not last. Omar 2 – Omar Ibn Abdul Aziz expanded the stipulations and made them even more harsh. ( 715 AD onward)
LikeLike
The Byzantines attacked the Muslims, they literally called for war when they killed the Messengers’s messenger.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Temple, what’s your point?
The point is which one of the two religions follows the original intention of it’s holy book?
The persecution against Jews in the 500s onward was wrong; against the book.
The Crusades were wrong in a lot of ways, against the book. (But some of it was just self-defense, since Islam attacked first.)
Islam did aggressive war from Surah 9 onward until fall of Ottoman Empire in 1918 and abolishment of Caliphate.
LikeLike
Temple (But some of it was just self-defense, since Islam attacked first.)
This childish nonsense.
LikeLike
The last part of Hadith, Sahih Al Bukhari, volume 4, book 56, no. 2941
Abu Sufyan added, “Caesar then asked for the letter of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) and it was read. Its contents were: “In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful (This letter is) from Muhammad, the slave of Allah, and His Apostle, to Heraculius, the Ruler of the Byzantine. Peace be upon the followers of guidance. Now then, I invite you to Islam (i.e. surrender to Allah), embrace Islam and you will be safe; embrace Islam and Allah will bestow on you a double reward. But if you reject this invitation of Islam, you shall be responsible for misguiding the peasants (i.e. your nation). O people of the Scriptures! Come to a word common to you and us and you, that we worship. None but Allah, and that we associate nothing in worship with Him; and that none of us shall take others as Lords besides Allah. Then if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are (they who have surrendered (unto Him)..(3.64) Abu Sufyan added, “When Heraclius had finished his speech, there was a great hue and cry caused by the Byzantine Royalties surrounding him, and there was so much noise that I did not understand what they said. So, we were turned out of the court. When I went out with my companions and we were alone, I said to them, ‘Verily, Ibn Abi Kabsha’s (i.e. the Prophet’s) affair has gained power. This is the King of Bani Al-Asfar fearing him.” Abu Sufyan added, “By Allah, I remained low and was sure that his religion would be victorious till Allah converted me to Islam, though I disliked it.”
“if you embrace Islam, you will be safe . . . ” – said to Byzantine Hericlius and to Persian king Khosrou
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 267:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “Khosrau will be ruined, and there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after him, and you will spend their treasures in Allah’s Cause.” He called, “War is deceit’.
“War is deceit”, etc.
and with the Hadith that says Surah 9 is the last Surah revealed.
The combined texts of Surah 9:29-33 and these Hadiths show that Omar and Uthman and all later were just applying all these texts and attacking in all out war.
It also shows the Asbab ol Nozul for Surah 3:64 – “come to a common word between us . . . ” etc.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
The Pact of Omar Ibn Al Khattab, etc. your quote from Hugh Kennedy – the “tolerance” of Omar does not seem very tolerant at all, given what happened after that.
As long as they submitted and paid the Jiziyeh submission and humiliation tax and as long as they did not do any evangelism and so no freedom to talk about the gospel or Jesus as the Son of God, etc. (Surah 9:29-33)
1. First, they had NO right to conquer Jerusalem or Egypt or Syria in the first place.
2. They were forced by the economic pressure of having to pay the Jiziyeh and eventually most of the “Christians” in the conquered areas turned to Islam, especially in North Africa.
3. Later, many churches were destroyed.
4. Did not allow evangelism or freedom of speech or building new churches. The so called “assurance of safety” did not last. Omar 2 – Omar Ibn Abdul Aziz expanded the stipulations and made them even more harsh. ( 715 AD onward)
I say;
This has clearly obliterated your continued and unrepentant claims that Islam force converted people. This is where Islam gain the upper hand and have the chance to force convert. Guess what? Islam did not force covert anyone. Islam did not force convert anyone in Spain and most places it had upper hand.
Because of Jizya?
It is not true. Don’t you want them to pay tax? as Mathew the disciple of Jesus was a tax collector and Jesus never condemned tax and who are you to condemn tax because it is from Muslims.
Or do you want the non-Muslims to pay zakat? so that percentage of their income will be deducted? together with percentage of money and food during every Islamic rituals? which the non Muslims do not believe in?
And do you want them unprotected under Muslim rule, so that any external forces can attack and harm them? Muslims and Jews would have been happy if their Christian conquerors would have allowed to stay and practice their religion and pay jizya or tax rather than killing them, force converting them and finally wiping the Jews and Muslims from Spain, Holy Land and where the Christians gain upper hand.
You said;
1. First, they had NO right to conquer Jerusalem or Egypt or Syria in the first place.
2. They were forced by the economic pressure of having to pay the Jiziyeh and eventually most of the “Christians” in the conquered areas turned to Islam, especially in North Africa.
3. Later, many churches were destroyed.
4. Did not allow evangelism or freedom of speech or building new churches. The so called “assurance of safety” did not last. Omar 2 – Omar Ibn Abdul Aziz expanded the stipulations and made them even more harsh. ( 715 AD onward)
I say;
I swear you are telling lies sir. There are Christians, Jews and non Muslims right now in all the places you sited and they were there for centuries and centuries living with majority Muslims side by side and they never converted either force or willingly, they remain Christians, Jews and non Muslims for all these centuries. The evidence is clear to expose your lies sir, I am afraid.
There are older Churches right now in all the areas you mentioned. Until now the oldest Churches and Christians can be found in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Egypt etc. Your evangelical vote for war on Muslims lands brought vacuum in Iraq, Syria etc. to create isis who are now destroying the ancient holy sites and troubling the first Christians of Iraq.
It is the cause of the evangelical imposed war on Muslim lands to spread their gospels by force by the cover of American soldiers that can be found on youtube that brought vacuum for isis. Still there are Christians and Jews who were there during the time of Omar and never force converted and are still Christians today. Spain exterminated the Jews and Muslims when the Christian conquered and the evidence is there as Spain is completely without Jews and Muslims, until the Europe freedom of religion laws that allow immigrant Muslims and Jews back recently. Last year or two, the government of Spain decided to compensate Jews by the Christ’s Christian inquisition that persecuted the Jews and the Muslims.
Thanks
LikeLike
Hugh Kennedy on purpose leave the so-called atrocities out to present Second Caliph in the good light, it just sheer nonsense. That book Name itself How Islam changed the World, if that happen he would have mention in his book.
Reality of Jizya: Sir Thomas Arnold writes;“… when any Christian people served in the Muslim army, they were exempted from the payment of this tax. Such was the case with the tribe of al-Jurajima, a Christian tribe in the neighborhood of Antioch who made peace with the Muslims, promising to be their allies and fight on their side in battle, on condition that they should not be called upon to pay jizyah and should receive their proper share of the booty. When the Arab conquests were pushed to the north of Persia in A.H. 22, a similar agreement was made with a frontier tribe, which was exempted from the payment of jizyah in consideration of military service.
We find similar instances of remission of jizyah in the case of Christian who served in the army or navy under the Turkish rule. For example, the inhabitants of Megaris, a community of Albanian Christians were exempted from the payment of this tax on condition that they furnished a body of armed men to guard the passes over Mounts Cithaeron and Geranea …. The Christians who served as pioneers of the advance-guard of the Turkish army, repairing the roads and bridges, were likewise exempt from tribute and received grants of land quit of all taxation; and the Christian inhabitants of Hydra paid no direct taxes to the Sultan, but furnished instead a contingent of 250 able-bodied seamen to the Turkish fleet, who were supported out of the local treasury.” (The Preaching of Islam pp.61-62) “
The tax was to be levied only on able-bodied males, and not on women or children. The poor who were dependent for their livelihood on alms and the aged poor who were incapable of work were also specially excepted, as also the blind, the lame, the incurables and the insane, unless they happened to be men of wealth; this same condition applied to priests and monks, who were exempt if dependent on the arms of the rich, but had to pay it if they were well-to-do and lived in comfort. The collectors of the jizyah were particularly instructed to show leniency, and refrain from all harsh treatment or the infliction of corporal punishment, in case of non-payment.” (The Preaching of Islam p.60) http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/05/reality-of-jizya.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because of Jizya?
It is not true. Don’t you want them to pay tax? as Mathew the disciple of Jesus was a tax collector and Jesus never condemned tax and who are you to condemn tax because it is from Muslims.
It was not a just tax; it was a submission tax to agree to never speak or evangelize and never build new churches; basically, “shut up and submit and stay in your homes and broken down churches”, etc. It was not a good tax as in modern eras.
Jesus taught evangelism – Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:44-49; etc.
LikeLike
I already agreed that some churches were allowed to exist – like the Copts in Egypt and some smaller groups in Syria, today’s Jordan, Iraq, Palestine/Israel areas.
But they are unjustly oppressed by the Dhimmi system and never allowed to grow or evangelize or talk to Muslims about the gospel, or build new churches.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Temple, what’s your point?
The point is which one of the two religions follows the original intention of it’s holy book?
The persecution against Jews in the 500s onward was wrong; against the book.
The Crusades were wrong in a lot of ways, against the book. (But some of it was just self-defense, since Islam attacked first.)
Islam did aggressive war from Surah 9 onward until fall of Ottoman Empire in 1918 and abolishment of Caliphate.
I say;
6. And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur’an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.
This is what Christian missionaries will not tell you. This is where someone could be force converted in Islam. Guess what? The Quran said the non Muslim be him Jew, Christian, Idol worshiper etc. during the middle of war should be escorted to where he will be free, so that he MAY hear the word of Allah. MAY means that non Muslims could not hear the word of Allah and no one can force convert him, because that could not be sincere and conversion in Islam means sincerity from your heart.
Below is excerpt from sura 9 in its entirety and it is talking about war with polytheists but not to go and attack anyone like Ken Temple wants us to understand. Umar, Abubakar etc. are all defending themselves because they were attacked by the Mongols and killed in their numbers, so they also have to pre-emptively defend themselves like when Bush and Tony Blair backed by evangelical Christians are waging preemptive war against Islam.
9. Surah At-Taubah (The Repentance)
http://www.noblequran.com/translation/surah9.html
1. Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger () to those of the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), with whom you made a treaty.
2. So travel freely (O Mushrikun – see V.2:105) for four months (as you will) throughout the land, but know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah, and Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.
3. And a declaration from Allah and His Messenger to mankind on the greatest day (the 10th of Dhul-Hijjah – the 12th month of Islamic calendar) that Allah is free from (all) obligations to the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) and so is His Messenger. So if you (Mushrikun) repent, it is better for you, but if you turn away, then know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah. And give tidings (O Muhammad ) of a painful torment to those who disbelieve.
4. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious – see V.2:2).
5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
6. And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur’an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not.
7. How can there be a covenant with Allah and with His Messenger for the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) except those with whom you made a covenant near Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah)? So long, as they are true to you, stand you true to them. Verily, Allah loves Al-Muttaqun (the pious – see V.2:2).
8. How (can there be such a covenant with them) that when you are overpowered by them, they regard not the ties, either of kinship or of covenant with you? With (good words from) their mouths they please you, but their hearts are averse to you, and most of them are Fasiqun (rebellious, disobedient to Allah).
9. They have purchased with the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah a little gain, and they hindered men from His Way; evil indeed is that which they used to do.
10. With regard to a believer, they respect not the ties, either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who are the transgressors.
11. But if they repent, perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat) and give Zakat, then they are your brethren in religion. (In this way) We explain the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) in detail for a people who know.
12. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of Quraish – pagans of Makkah) – for surely their oaths are nothing to them – so that they may stop (evil actions).
13. Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers.
Thanks
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Because of Jizya?
It is not true. Don’t you want them to pay tax? as Mathew the disciple of Jesus was a tax collector and Jesus never condemned tax and who are you to condemn tax because it is from Muslims.
It was not a just tax; it was a submission tax to agree to never speak or evangelize and never build new churches; basically, “shut up and submit and stay in your homes and broken down churches”, etc. It was not a good tax as in modern eras.
Jesus taught evangelism – Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:44-49; etc.
I say;
Churches continue to be built including the ancient ones in all the Muslims areas you mentioned. Until Christian created vacuum of isis, the Muslim majority countries have ancient Churches standing and people worshiping in them, including new Churches build. Spain under Christ’s Christianity exterminated all Muslims and Jews, they exterminated all Muslims and Jews until Muslimd took over the Holy land and build the destroyed Churches, Temples and Mosques. The old Churches, Temple and Mosques are there side by side now. Now the evangelicals are helping Israel to destroy the Churches and the Mosques by Israel continue bombing and bulldozing Churches, Mosques, and Palestinian farmlands and homes and supported by Ken Temple and evangelical Christians because the Bible said they should worship the state of Israel. You can see how republicans are worshiping Netanyahu actually like God. What he said is final to them no one dare challenge Netanyahu because the evangelical Christians think they should strongly support and worship anything Israel and Ken Temple is one of them and now they want to take their war to Iran.
Iran will not be easy for you boys.
Thanks
LikeLike
Christians did not create the vacuum of ISIS, the liberal current President Obama (he is not a true Christian, though he may claim to be) did, by withdrawing totally from Iraq, and Bashar Al Assad’s fault for being such a cruel dictator.
This article shows that Obama’s form of Christianity is not true Christianity. He says that Jesus is a good moral teacher. Nothing about His Virgin Birth, Deity, Resurrection, the Trinity, etc.
http://www.dennyburk.com/president-obamas-christianity/
LikeLike
I am not agreeing with Bush’s war in Iraq in 2003, but once it happened, by the time Obama took over in 2009, the place was fairly stable, and the Kurds have had great freedom and progress in the north, until ISIS. Even Obama admitted Iraq was stable, the problem was total withdrawal; the hornets of Jihadists then came out in full force. Now one of the leaders of Iraqi government is saying positive things about inviting Russia to fill that void.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
I already agreed that some churches were allowed to exist – like the Copts in Egypt and some smaller groups in Syria, today’s Jordan, Iraq, Palestine/Israel areas.
But they are unjustly oppressed by the Dhimmi system and never allowed to grow or evangelize or talk to Muslims about the gospel, or build new churches.
I say;
You are not truthful again. Give us example and evidence that a particular Church was not allowed to exist. It is not true that the Churches and Christians in the Muslim majority lands were not allowed to grow or evangelize. That is not true, because the Christians are part of everything including higher positions in government, military, commerce, etc. Thy are brothers, sisters, fathers, sons and daughters and are family. You will see a Muslim with a Christian mother or a Father with a Jewish son etc.
Until now when the evangelicals tried to divide them, the lived as families without a major problem. In every society there is minor problems but there was no any major problem to the extent of what the Christian created isis is doing now. A Muslim broad caster cried on camera for what isis were doing to his Christian brothers for he has never seen that before.
When the Egyptians wants to overthrow the dictator Hussein Mubarak, we all witnessed when Christians form a protective human shield or human wall to protect Muslims to pray, so the thugs of Hussein Mubarak will not attack them and how they all work together and shared the Egypt’s interim government with Muslims and Christians alike.
Saddam Hussein of Iraq has Tariq Aziz, a practicing Christian as his vice president and it is notable that Saddam Hussein, a Muslim has build a lot of Churches for his Christian fellow country men including donating money for his Christian country men to build Church in the United States.
Christians do not fear Islam, for they have lived with Islam for so many centuries except few like Egun Carner, Walid Shoebat, etc. who are using Christians as their bank account for telling lies and fairy tales to get cash.
The Christians in Iraq lived there since Jesus time and never force converted but are families to Muslims and Jews who work together without any problem until evangelical Christians force war on Iraq to spread the gospel by force. You see Ken with all your Crusade, Afghanistan and Iraq still remain Muslim majority lands and your Crusade did no do anything.
In Syrian refugee camp it was a field day for evangelical Christians exploiting the vulnerability of war victims with gifts and gospels and bibles and they did not get many Muslim converts. They camp still remain majority Muslims.
Christians spend billions of dollars every year to go to Africa, South America, Asia etc. to win people to Christ but who is spending this lot for Islam? No one but Allah himself and Islam is the one of the fastest growing religion in the world without the huge Christian budget and also taking the advantage to cause war by Christians to convince to vulnerable to Christ.
Come and convince me for I do not need anything from you but uses intellect to accept what Yahweh said He is one, only and alone in the Bible not vulnerable. They could convert to Christianity in front of you to get you gift but will be praying their five daily prayers without real conversion. You could get few ones any way. To cause war and get few people in your religion does not worth it.
Thanks
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
I am not agreeing with Bush’s war in Iraq in 2003, but once it happened, by the time Obama took over in 2009, the place was fairly stable, and the Kurds have had great freedom and progress in the north, until ISIS. Even Obama admitted Iraq was stable, the problem was total withdrawal; the hornets of Jihadists then came out in full force. Now one of the leaders of Iraqi government is saying positive things about inviting Russia to fill that void.
I say;
That is what any Christian will say “Oh I do not agree with Bush’s war” just like Robert Wells said “Dick Chenney must be arrested and prosecuted for war on Iraq”. I told Robert, my friend, it is not Chenney alone but you Robert as well because we all saw the evangelic Christian polls on cnn and fox news in 2003 with massive support for war on Iraq including most republican and democrats congress men and senators who voted to authorise the war on Iraq including Powells lies at the UN.
Ken Temple as evangelical Christian is among those interviewed in the cnn and fox news and other news polls to support the war on Iraq, in order to use the situation to evangelize his false gospel of God dying.
Now, he can conveniently exclude himself from such callous act. He inadvertently support the 2003 war on Iraq because he believes things are stable wr was stable before but Iraq never got stable when the US soldiers put their boots on the country’s soil since 2003. Iraq never god stable my friend. That is your day dream. Because you supported the war, you are trying to find some positive outcome. There is no positive outcome for now.
You said;
Christians did not create the vacuum of ISIS, the liberal current President Obama (he is not a true Christian, though he may claim to be) did, by withdrawing totally from Iraq, and Bashar Al Assad’s fault for being such a cruel dictator.
This article shows that Obama’s form of Christianity is not true Christianity. He says that Jesus is a good moral teacher. Nothing about His Virgin Birth, Deity, Resurrection, the Trinity, etc.
http://www.dennyburk.com/president-obamas-christianity/
I say;
Obama said he believed Jesus is his personal saviour and died for his sins. That is who a Christian is and Obama is indeed a Christian but not a Muslim. Since the early Christianity there were diverse among Ebionites, Arians etc. who do not believe Jesus is God. And they were persecuted by the stronger ones i.e. Emperor Constantine and the rest. The persecution continued until recently were Catholics and Protestants persecuted each other until the atheist and liberals beat them up and brought constitution and freedom of religion.
Thanks
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
Temple, what’s your point?
The point is which one of the two religions follows the original intention of it’s holy book?
Chris
The persecution against Jews in the 500s onward was wrong; against the book.
The Crusades were wrong in a lot of ways, against the book. (But some of it was just self-defense, since Islam attacked first.)
Islam did aggressive war from Surah 9 onward until fall of Ottoman Empire in 1918 and abolishment of Caliphate.
I say;
All persecutions are persecutions whether the 500 or earlier than that when the Ebionites and Arian Christians were persecuted by other Christians. Sura 9 said any non Muslim who is not an aggressor must be protected to a safe place.
You call Christian war self defence but I am telling you that Muslim war is of a self defense because in the middle of the war non aggressor must be saved but the Christians follow their scripture of “kill women and children including animals”, “kill everybody” in the Bible to exterminate the Jews and Muslims in Spain and the Holy Land.
Thanks you.
LikeLike
no, Obama is not a truly born-again Christian – and he is not a Muslim either. He is a Liberal – secularist who uses Christianity for political gain.
LikeLike
With the name of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful
//Because of Jizya?
It is not true. Don’t you want them to pay tax? as Mathew the disciple of Jesus was a tax collector and Jesus never condemned tax and who are you to condemn tax because it is from Muslims.
It was not a just tax; it was a submission tax.//
The Jizya and dhmmi is a just and right ,this is code how christians and muslims can coexist under muslim rule. These are a sign of Islamic tolerance because it is a fee for protection provided by the Muslim state for the non muslim who were being an exemption from military service.
Historian Thomas Arnold gives the example of the tribe of al-Jurajima, a Christian tribe in the neighborhood of Antioch who “made peace with the Muslims, promising to be their allies and fight on their side in battle, on condition that they should not be called upon to pay jizyah and should receive THEIR PROPER SHARE OF THE BOOTY
“As stated above, the jizyah was levied on the able-bodied males, in lieu of the military service they would have been called upon to perform had they been Musalmans ; and it is very noticeable that when any Christian people served in the Muslim army, they were exempted from the payment of this tax”
Source:
http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/The_Preaching_of_Islam_1000005744/71
So Jizyah works exactly the same way modern state function, there is nothing humiliating about it., even the christians have their share of the booty if they serve in military service
Can you give evidence similar code when christian rule?, Byzantine, Rome, European christian kingdoms?
They are all generally characterized by toleration of non-Christians, particularly the Jews. Even during the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 many Jews sided against the Byzantine Empire in the Jewish revolt against Heraclius, which successfully assisted the invading Persian Sassanids in conquering all of Roman Egypt and Syria.
During Byzantine rule who adhere to Latin Christianity,of triniitarianism, oppressive persecutions of Monophysites in Syria and Egypt were widespread- the Monophysite Christians,….this is why horribly persecuted by the Byzantines, welcomed Muslim conquerors with open arms based on their promise to tolerate their religion . … that explain why overwhelmingly of them voluntarily become muslims
LikeLike
Rhetoric versus reality…..I have some Evangelical friends (I’m not) living in Morocco. Regardless other religious faiths can perform activities in the country, persecution is well and alive there if you try to promote other faith rather than islam…….. My friends live in fear…….. They performed religious ‘activities’ in their own home and all of the new ‘Christians’ friends can’t even talk to their own families (brothers, sisters, parents) about it because apostasy is the “worst” crime for a Muslim. But I’m not surprise taking in mind that the “model of sanctity” Muslims have was a very controversial figure who begun his “Spiritual journey” marrying a 25 years older women (because her wealth) and ended up sleeping with a nine years old girl, with ‘countless’ wives, (sexual) slaves. A figure who commanded his followers to kill those opposing him as a profet and a messenger of god. Taking in mind how he behaved in life is understandable how oppression (and submission) is “assumed” in the Islamic world. So, hope you understand why I’m so critical with islam……..
LikeLike
‘Profet’? It’s a shame you cannot even write basic English correctly.
LikeLike
Magdalena “So, hope you understand why I’m so critical with islam……..”
Even if your opinion was correct, yes, we can understand, reason, can have a discussion based on common sense.
But that’s impossible with the “Evangelical” understanding. You cannot even start to understand a concept based on a walking contradiction – the trinitarian “Jesus”. When it comes down to the nitty gritty, one is left with basically a Gnostic philosophy based on “mysteries”, pneumatically revealed truth (of scripture) and so forth.
I think “Evangelicals” cannot be taken seriously when they try to “argue” against Islam. According to their worldview reason and common sense are inferior, what counts is “faith”. Only their understanding of “faith” exclusively.
Such a position cannot be understood. It has to be understandably and rightfully rejected.
LikeLike
@Magdalena
You have an issue with polygyny yet didn’ Martin Luther not say there’s nothing in Scripture which forbids it. Also if you’re consistent I suppose you reject the Old Testament due to the number of OT figures being polygamists – including Moses p…
LikeLike
Bismillah
Magdalene //I’m not surprise taking in mind that the “model of sanctity” Muslims have was a very controversial figure who begun his “Spiritual journey” marrying a 25 years older women (because her wealth) and ended up sleeping with a nine years old girl, with ‘countless’ wives, (sexual) slaves.//
If thats how you draw a conclusion from the Prophet of God whose teaching actively practised by a quarter of world population, It seems that, like anything else in the Bible, I am not surprised you can draw false conclusions, that Jesus practice homosexuality for example, After all He never married — That is actually significant. Jesus was a rabbi, a teacher, and pretty much every rabbi at the time was married. But there’s no testimony of Jesus’s marriage. But thanks God we muslims are not allowed to speculate anything like that with a prophet of God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who married a 25 years older woman?? At a push Khadija was 15 years older, though IMO even this isnt on very strong historical grounds (even though it is the most common view).
LikeLike
Paul Williams- do you still hold to the truth of this post? If so, this is a deceitful and dishonest post that is borderline libellous. David Wood is a big boy, and won’t care about this. But this is genuinely deceitful to continue to have this post on your page- when everyone else can see that this is so clearly a sarcastic comment from Wood. We all make mistakes- fine. But it is entirely unacceptable to continue to have this post on your page when it is false.
LikeLike
Jonathan
the post remains up on my blog dude. What do you object to precisely? My mentioning that Wood tried to murder his dad with a hammer? But this is already in the public domain and Wood told an audience of over a hundred about his crime. Do you object to my mentioning his willingness to kill children if he felt his god told him so? Again Wood said this in public before a large audience. In repect to Wood’s alleged sacrcasm I have already writen about it here: https://bloggingtheology.net/2015/10/07/was-wood-being-sarcastic-god-knows-best/
LikeLike
Your Prophet(on whom be peace) married Aisha (r.a) when she was nine years old. Boy, if I had a nickel for every time I heard that….
LikeLike
Ken Temple, I agree with a lot of what you’ve said but some of what you’ve said about Obama is wrong. Seems like everyone wants to just blame him for everything yet he came into power when there were already American soldiers posted in Iraq and pretty much every other Middle Eastern, Asian and African country. These soldiers shouldn’t have been there in the first place. They’ve been there since Bush’s regime and probably before that. Weapons of mass destruction were never found in Iraq so American/British involvement has always been pointless. The West did a lot of damage to that whole region ages before Obama came into power. ISIS and many of these Islamist organisations were created as a result of this kind of frustration that many people living there have against the West. On top of that, many Western nations are responsible for providing these organisations with the resources and weapons to do all this stuff anyway. Did you know that Osama bin laden was educated in America and had very good connections with people in power over there? His family was provided for and everything. It just makes me wonder how many more people they did this for. I mention this because it shows that the reasons why the West has intervened in Middle eastern conflicts is more than what they tell us in the news. I’m not going to say it’s a Zionist /Jewish plot or all of that nonsense but the information is clearly out there and has been revealed that a lot of this was done simply to gain access to resources like oil.
If America for example wants to get oil from the Middle East without looking like criminals, what’s the next best thing to do? Make the people you want to steal from look like the criminals first so then you have an excuse to go to their land and place military bases everywhere whilst taking the resources back home. This isn’t a conspiracy, it’s even been mentioned in the news from time to time if people really listen.
I’ve probably gone off the direction of this conversation but felt like it had to be said. But yeah, Obama probably isn’t Christian. More of a cultural/liberal Christian I’d say.
As for David Wood, I’d say he was joking and someone above already mentioned how he was an atheist at the time he attacked his dad so yes people can change. I know many Muslims who had dodgy lifestyles before becoming Muslim so I wouldn’t use something from their past against them unless they were still living that lifestyle which I don’t think David Wood is.
LikeLike
I would maintain that Wood still has potentially violent tendencies which he has not (yet) acted out in his post-Christian phase.
LikeLike
True but that goes for any human being who has been given free will. There’s no need to isolate David Wood just because of that.
If you or anyone else commited a violent act, no matter how small I can also say you have potentially violent tendencies which you have not yet carried out.
LikeLike
it does not go for just any human being. Wood has a track record of actual violence against another human being. To this day he stirs up hate speech against Muslims. Horrifically, he says he would kill babies in certain religious circumstances. He allies himself with notorious haters.
Has the leopard really changed his spots? I hope you are right, but I doubt it.
LikeLike
Nitro
You said;
I’m not going to say it’s a Zionist /Jewish plot or all of that nonsense but the information is clearly out there and has been revealed that a lot of this was done simply to gain access to resources like oil.
I say’
Perhaps you closed your eyes and ears not to see Zionist but not Jewish middle eastern policy, when all evangelical Christians and republicans headed by John Boerner who are ready to Implement anything Netanyahu wants to eventually attack Iran. Iran just like any other nation has its right to develop its peaceful nuclear for electricity, medicine etc. just like Japan, Canada, US etc. granted by the UN.
Iraq was attacked to destabilise the region, so that Israel will be stronger. With Saddam Hussein, no matter how weak he is because of the sanctions and a strong Iran, Israel would not have been doing what it is doing today, expansion, encroaching the holy places, putting wall and put Palestinians in open prison etc.
Now, Israel fear is only Iran, and when Iran is also destabilised, I bet you will see Israel establishing its full force on everyone in the religion, that is why Netanyahu, supported by republicans and supported by evangelical Christians are doing their best in the election campaign to support Netanyahu to attack Iran and nullify the peaceful deal Obama did with Iran.
Any republican presidential candidate said he will not have a deal with Iran and wants Iran to stop any nuclear development which is its right. All these confrontation are Biblical according to Zionists but not Jews. Not all Jews are Zionist and All evangelical Christians are Zionist according to their Biblical belief. Hypocrisy to have your Bible saying kill, murder, destroy farmland with bulldozer, home, Churches and Mosques and pave way for Jewish only neighbourhood as Israel is doing and supported and funded by evangelical Christians just to blame Muslims and some Christians and some Jews who are not Zionists for defending themselves. Too Bad.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Intellect I think it’s a lot deeper than just weakening Iran to strengthen Israel. Think about it, Israel has been strong since it was first created in 1948. There have been plenty of wars fought against Israel since that time and they were able to defend themselves, this being before Iraq or Iran were accused of nuclear weapons or having terrorists.
But you are right, nuclear energy can be used for many purposes. Americans saying that Iran had weapons of mass destruction was nonsense in my view, just an excuse for them to go into that land.
I’m also glad that you are a Muslim who doesn’t believe all Jews are Zionists. But I don’t agree that all evangelicals are Zionists, some of them don’t even get involved with the politics or historical debates about Israel and its land.
LikeLike
Nitro
Thanks. You sound a truthful person. All your comments are unbiased. Israel is no doubt a stronger nation because the Arabs allow that to happen by dividing themselves initially and now it is too late for them. I think Israel main concern now is Iran, even though it is powerful by itself(Israel) but why Netayanhu displaying a bomb in the UN pleading support to stop Iran from its right to have its peaceful nuclear weapons?
Republicans are playing and supporting that dangerous politics. Iran is not a country to just walk over. We pray the deal that Obama, made stands, so that there will be peace in the world.
I also pray for more evangelical Christians to stop their Zionist agenda and to promote peace with the Palestinians and Israelis because the Jews, Muslims and Christians lived there before the creations of Israel and there was peace and intermarriages. The destruction of farmland, homes, Churches and Mosques and burning babies and also rocket from the Palestinian sides has to be condemned and Palestinians has to get their self rule.
All these is due to a Biblical passage but Muslims will be accused of violence using their scripture instead of Christians using their scripture for all these.
Thanks
LikeLike
Thanks Intellect. I haven’t been following Netanyahu’s pleads so much so I’m not too sure. Perhaps he’s afraid Iran will target Israel first if war was to ever break out. But all this fear about nuclear weapons is rather silly because I know for a fact that America probably has much more deadlier weapons and technology. In fact which nation has actually carried out devastating attacks on their enemies, America or Iran? America is the one who blew up Hiroshima during WWII, and just recently they bombed a hospital in Afghanistan by “mistake”, yet they accuse Russia of intervening in Syria.
And yes you are very right, peace should be promoted for all the sides. But I don’t think it’s due to the biblical passages as such, it’s more to do with misinterpreting them. The biblical passages about Israelites returning to their land seem to indicate at a time of peace (apart from Zechariah 12 maybe, not too sure). But anyway let’s just say for the sake of the argument that Jews were allowed to go into Israel in 1948 by God, the rest of it will still be in their hands to maintain peace and order. I think Marvin Henry or someone else quoted this passage from Leviticus before
Leviticus 19:33-34 “When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.”
So even if Jews, Zionists or Christians were to say that Israel/Jews have a right to that land, according to this passage it is their responsibility to treat Palestinians as their own native-born. What a shame that the British did not incorporate this in 1948, and it’s a shame that Jews in parliament in Israel also do not follow this biblical passage today. Palestinians, African Hebrews, and even Christians are mistreated by some ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel. I think these people are more fascists rather than religious.
I’ll probably leave it at that, I think we’re going off topic now… Sorry Paul lol.
LikeLike
please continue… 🙂
LikeLike