Most people in Britain would consider it to be offensive and rude to preach outside somebody else’s place of worship. If they stood outside of the mosque to simply hand out those leaflets as “Christian” missionaries and make slogans about Jesus as Muslims were leaving their prayers this seems offensive. They have now opened the invitation for Muslims or anybody else to do the same in return outside their church on a Sunday.
The young male missionary is somebody who argues with Muslims at Hyde Park. The female Christian missionary is from DCCI Ministries.
Important update. Please do not picket or preach outside Tooting Church. We’ve spoken to a pastor – pastor Joe, they are usually called Joe! 🙂 [Joke] – there and the missionaries outside the mosque in that inflammatory video were NOT sanctioned by the church. Again, please, if there are any youngsters thinking of preaching outside their church please let them know it would be unfair and the “invitation” in the video is not sanctioned by that church, their staff or their congregants. Thanks. They try to provoke Muslims but Muslims be fair, kind and loving in return. #fairness
Categories: Christian extremism, Islamophobia, London, Missionaries, Speakers Corner
Blogging Theology 
Bob looking for a “Ouasis”?
LikeLike
Your boy Hashim got schooled big time in that one lol.
LikeLike
Bob the Loser
LikeLike
Christians like Lizzie and her friend have no concern or respect for the religion of other people, let alone the sanctity of other non-Christian houses of worship. Disturbing the peaceful atmosphere at a House of God, by accosting worshippers outside is a despicable, inconsiderate, and dishonorable act, which Muslims have not engaged in towards Christians.
The distasteful behavior of these two Missionary hate preachers is reprehensible, offensive, discourteous, and outrageous.
But more than that – it is a shameful embarrassment to Christianity.
I don’t think it is enough for “Pastor Joe” to simply and quietly deny that these two Missionaries are sanctioned by the Church. The Pastor and Tooting Church, along with all other Christians should publicly speak out LOUDLY and FIRMLY against this type of offensive behavior aimed at Muslim and/or Non-Christian communities. If Christians do not object and speak out against this type of repellent behavior from the start, then it will be allowed to continue and fester, until things spin out of control.
All decent and educated Christians should be ashamed of such sinful tactics which are used so often by their own co-religionist Christian Missionaries today. All good and honest Christians and Christian leaders should find the courage to call these disingenuous apologists out on such tactics in defense of common decency. Otherwise such sinful acts will bring shame on the name of those good Christians whose silence so often seems to agree with such shameful deeds.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Christians like Lizzie and her friend have no concern or respect for the religion of other people, let alone the sanctity of other non-Christian houses of worship. Disturbing the peaceful atmosphere at a House of God, by accosting worshippers outside is a despicable, inconsiderate, and dishonorable act, which Muslims have not engaged in towards Christians.”
Ibn Issam, I agree with you. There is a time and place for everything. Unfortunately, Muslims have done far worse in the past. Muslims have stolen Christian places of worship.
If this is “a shameful embarrassment to Christianity”, what do you make of the conduct of Sultan Mehmet II who stole the Hagia Sophia from the Greek Christians of Constantinople? If preaching outside another house of worship is bad, what do you make of Sultan Mehmet II. He must be the devil incarnate in your eyes? Am I correct?
LikeLike
Allan,
We’ve had this conversation before, and I don’t feel the need to rehash. But nice attempt at trying to deflect onto Islam.
We can go back in history and count crimes on both sides (Christianity is definitely not innocent).
The fact is that today, you don’t see Muslims standing outside Churches accosting worshippers and handing out literature etc.
What Missionaries like Lizzie and her friend are doing is wrong. Glad you at least agree with that.
LikeLike
“But nice attempt at trying to deflect onto Islam.”
You’re the one who said:
“Disturbing the peaceful atmosphere at a House of God, by accosting worshippers outside is a despicable, inconsiderate, and dishonorable act, which Muslims have not engaged in towards Christians.”
You brought up Islam because you said it hadn’t been done. I’m saying Sultan Mehmed II did something 1000 worse. That’s all.
I remember that you wouldn’t condemn him in our prior discussion, and I didn’t think you’d condemn him here. I was right.
The man stole the greatest Cathedral in Eastern Christendom. But hey, don’t preach outside a mosque!
LikeLike
Allan
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Sultan Mehmet Fatih, claimed the Hajja Sofia as part of a “Counter-Crusade” in response to initial Christian aggression as well as in response to Byzantine political betrayals, treachery, and the Crusade of Varna which was aimed at destroying the Ottomans. Stop reading your white washed western history books and try to understand what really happened.
LikeLike
I love the world you live in Ibn Issam,
“initial Christian aggression” I hate to break it to you but the Byzantine Empire pre-existed your religion, let alone the Ottoman Empire which came centuries later.
It’s obvious that your knowledge of history is comparable to your knowledge of the Bible. Remember how you said St. Paul called works filthy rags and I had to point out that the filthy rags quote if from Isaiah. You’ve just shown that your knowledge of history is comparable to that.
Keep those missionaries away from the mosque but we’ll steal your cathedrals. I’m pretty sure that Islam is against theft so you would be a good Muslim to condemn Mehmet II for this. Be a good Muslim and condemn this monster since you condemn Christians for so much less.
You disgrace your own faith by having such low standards for your co-religionists.
LikeLike
Allan,
The re-appropriation of places of worship was common to Christendom too.
For example, the Seville Cathedral and the Mosque–Cathedral of Córdoba during the Reconquista.
LikeLike
I don’t know much about the Seville Cathedral so I won’t comment on that. As for the Cordoba Cathedral, that was originally a Church, it was stolen by the Muslims, then the Christians took it back.
The Muslims invaded Spain and ruled this Christian country for hundreds of years.
The Hagia Sophia was built in a Greek City, with Greek money. It was stolen by foreign invaders.
Let me admit it here. Fernando and Isabella were wrong to expel the Muslims and Jews. Unlike Ibn Issam, I have no problem admitting when my fellow co-religionists do something immoral.
However, the Muslims had no right invading the country in 712.
We could debate this all we want. I’m not bringing this up to go tit for tat with Islam. I’m doing this to expose Ibn Issam.
According to Ibn Issam, a Christian can’t hand out tracts by mosque but Sultan Mehmet can steal Churches from the Greeks. I’m at least happy he holds my a faith to a much higher standards than his own. If I were a Muslim, I’d have a bone to pick with him though.
LikeLike
Allan,
Your anachronistic view of history is skewed by your own biased faith beliefs, and limited to what your white washed western history books teach.
Here is the history:
The Byzantine Empire had been at an almost continuous state of war with the Persian Empire with whom the Seljuk’s were allied with. The Seljuk’s were simply engaged in an ongoing war with the Byzantines that had been in effect for a very long time. By the 1440’s the Byzantine Empire had been reduced to a shadow of its former self. It had been beleaguered by constant raids from Seljuks, and other tribal marauders, along with wars and the costs of administrating a crumbling Empire. By the time of the Ottomans, Byzantium was virtually defenseless and had been reduced to a small Ottoman vassal state. The Byzantines could have had peace and kept their remaining holdings (including the Hajja Sofia) if only they would have upheld their oaths as loyal vassals. But, the Christians did not keep their promises (no surprise) and Byzantium was not a loyal vassal, as they traitorously orchestrated an attempted political coup by supporting a pretender to the Ottoman throne, which sparked infighting among the Ottomans. However, the reigning Sultan Murad II survived the coup, and held the Sultanate together. Also, in another bid to regain their former glory, the Byzantines gathered a coalition of Christian states and launched a venomous crusade against the Ottomans. The Crusade almost destroyed the Ottomans but it was ultimately crushed at the battle of Varna in 1444 by Sultan Murad II. So it can be seen that the Byzantines had entered into a political contract and relationship with the Ottomans, but had treacherously betrayed that pact. The Byzantine betrayal and constant plotting threatened the Ottoman’s western boundaries, which later required a defensive response from Sultan Mehmet Fetih (son of Sultan Murad II). The subsequent “Counter-Crusade” into Europe was then clearly in recompense to the initial Christian crusade of Varna against the Ottomans, who needed to secure their Northwestern boundary and guard it from further Christian assault. This ultimately resulted in the conquest of Constantinople 1453. Therefore, as you can see the Turkish actions were not simply motivated “Purely by religion” as you and some others would like people to think, but also by the same concerns that any modern country takes into account, rational political concerns, internal and external threats, and national self-defense.
Why should we condemn Sultan Mehmet Fatih for something that occurred almost 600 years ago? He is a national hero, and defender of Islam. If he was Christian and made the same achievements in reverse the Church leaders would have named a holiday after him and we never would have heard the end of it.
Speaking of low standards for co-religionists, in our previous conversation, you failed to answer MY questions:
If you want to make the comparison between modernity and the past, then I am free to do the same. Do you condemn the violent and unjust history of Christianity? Do you condemn the Byzantine conquest and oppressive overbearing rule of Syro-Arab lands and North Africa? Do you condemn the violent unjust, and barbaric Christian Crusades – ALL NINE – of them? Do you condemn the occupation and brutal rule of Muslim lands for over 200 plus years by Barbaric Christian Crusaders? Do you condemn Trinitarian Christian Crusades against Unitarian Christians? Do you condemn the Crusade of Varna? Do you condemn Christian backed colonialist Imperialism of the past. Do you condemn the spread of Christianity by the Imperialist gun and sword, in Africa, Asia, and Western Hemisphere? Do you condemn the rape and slavery of Non-Christian peoples who were victims of that imperialism? Do you condemn the recent modern western (Christian majority) incursions into Muslim lands and countries? Do you condemn the theft of Palestine? Do you condemn Christians for the theft and/or destruction of Muslim mosques and holy sites?
Pardon our past, current, and future, rape, pillage, and plundering seems to be YOUR “good” Christian attitude.
A couple of Christians preaching outside of a mosque is just adds insult to injury.
LikeLike
The Persian Empire? The Persian Empire was destroyed in the 630s by the Arabs. The Seljuks don’t come on the scene until much later. Your knowledge of history is a joke.
I’ve exposed your double standards. Christians are immoral is they preach by a mosque but Muslims can take their Churches and all is fine and dandy.
All of your accusations are red herrings but let me respond:
Do you condemn the Byzantine conquest and oppressive overbearing rule of Syro-Arab lands and North Africa?
The Byzantine Empire ruled it far better than the Muslim Arabs in my opinion.
Do you condemn the violent unjust, and barbaric Christian Crusades – ALL NINE – of them?
Depends which ones. We’d have to go through them and discuss each one. Keep in mind the territory of the crusades was once Christian land.
” Do you condemn the occupation and brutal rule of Muslim lands for over 200 plus years by Barbaric Christian Crusaders? ”
It’s ironic that if you read the history of the Muslim Ibn Jubayr, he talks about how Muslims had better lives in the Crusader states that areas under Islamic rule!
“Do you condemn Trinitarian Christian Crusades against Unitarian Christians?”
You’ll have to elaborate. Which Unitarian Christians?
“Do you condemn the Crusade of Varna?”
No because that was an attempt to save Constantinople. It was to halt the Ottomans from Invading Christian lands.
“Do you condemn Christian backed colonialist Imperialism of the past. Do you condemn the spread of Christianity by the Imperialist gun and sword, in Africa, Asia, and Western Hemisphere?”
I’ll need specific examples. In Colonialism, there was a difference between colonial powers and the Church. The Catholic Church usually opposed the brutal treatment of the natives such as Fr. Bartholomew de las casas. He convened the debate in Salamanca to help give natives rights. That’s why most conquistadores hated the Church.
“Do you condemn the rape and slavery of Non-Christian peoples who were victims of that imperialism?”
Yes. The Church usually opposed it but sometimes shamefully engaged in it. I condemn that.
“Do you condemn the recent modern western (Christian majority) incursions into Muslim lands and countries?”
Yes, all of those wars are based on Zionist and Neocon lies.
“Do you condemn the theft of Palestine?”
Yes.
“Do you condemn Christians for the theft and/or destruction of Muslim mosques and holy sites? ”
I’ll need examples but if they did yes.
I value history so I have to look at context.
LikeLike
“Why should we condemn Sultan Mehmet Fatih for something that occurred almost 600 years ago? He is a national hero, and defender of Islam. ”
So Muslims are entitled to any Churches they like but Christians can’t preach outside a Mosque.
Gotcha.
I think Sultan Mehmed is a disgrace to Islam. There have been far better people who give a better name for Islam.
LikeLike
Allan,
“We could debate this all we want. I’m not bringing this up to go tit for tat”
-Agreed. Though I suspect if we did get to the bottom of who owned what originally, I suspect the Pre-Christian and Pre-Islamic indigenous pagan religions could stake a claim to most places of worship.
LikeLike
Hi all, this has been fun, but its time to move on.
I’ve had a lot to think about while on this blog but this will be my last post. To the Muslims on this blog who are concerned with truth and consistency, I wish you all the best. To the ones that aren’t…I suppose I wish you the best as well.
I’ll no longer be commenting on this blog, but I can always be found at allanruhl.com or on Twitter.
To all the Muslims on this blog. If you’re ever in Western Canada and want to have a debate, discussion or just a good old chat, I can be contacted at alruhl25@gmail.com.
God Bless
LikeLike
Allan,
It seems that you are the one in need of history lessons. The Persian empire existed from the 6th century B.C.E Achaemenid era, up until the 20th century C.E. in the Qajar era. The Arabs interrupted the Sasanian dynasty in the mid 7th Century. The Seljuk turks were a Persianate society, taking on Persian language, and traditions, they were allied with Persians against the Byzantines, at times they independently continued the wars against the Byzantines. At other times they also fought against the Persians as well at times. They Byzantine Seljuk wars dated from 1048 to 1308. The Ottomans were the successors to the Seljuks and continued in their stead.
I NEVER said that it is ok for Muslims to take Christian Churches (especially not in this day and age) you have misportrayed my position with your loaded remark which has historical implications that are not equivalent. Regardless of what you might say, you ARE engaging in tit for tat with Islam, and trying to deflect.
Given that Mehmet Fatih was able to stand up to the worst treachery, betrayal, and violence that Christianity had to offer in his day and age, I will consider him a hero. Sorry, but Allan Ruhl does not get to reinterpret our own history and arbitrarily decide who is an who is not a hero for Muslim peoples.
Your responses to my questions betray your own biases, it must be comfy in your white washed world.
“The Byzantine Empire ruled it far better than the Muslim Arabs in my OPINION.” – The facts tell a different story.
“Depends which ones. We’d have to go through them and discuss each one. Keep in mind the territory of the crusades was once Christian land.” – However it was never European land, and EVERY Crusade was an unjust and brutal criminal spree spurred on by a violent Christian religion hell bent on destroying all who opposed it.
In regard to Ibn Jubayr– For a more detailed depiction of life under the crusaders read the book “The Crusades Through Arab Eyes” by Amin Maalouf which documents how Barbaric Christian Crusaders were unaware of the most elementary rules of honor, dignity and social ethics. Your pleasant view of Christian occupation of Muslim lands is untrue, and if it was, then why didn’t Muslims defend their Christian overlords when Saladin and the Muslim armies arrived? Instead the people flocked to the banner of Islam, in order to free themselves of unjust and oppressive Christian rule.
“You’ll have to elaborate. Which Unitarian Christians?” – Start with the Albegensian crusade against the Cathars, in which the Roman Church massacred 20’000 fellow Christians.
Your characterization of the Crusade of Varna is actually a backward reading of history. To be expected from you, since you always prefer to play the victim card and lay all the blame on Islam.
Your view of Colonial past is white washed. Christians used to hang natives in the Americas in groups of 12 in honor of the 12 apostles. Even the Pope himself has recognized the crimes committed against the native peoples during the so-called conquest of America. The Catholic Church was one of many Christian denominations that ran boarding schools in Canada and the U.S. designed to “kill the Indian in the child” by taking kids from their families, cutting them off from their culture and educating them in the ways of the European-minded settlers. The Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission on June 2 came out with a report calling such practices “cultural genocide.”
I highly doubt that the church “usually opposed” slavery and imperialism. Most often they engaged in it or turned a blind eye.
Good – we agree on theft of Palestine
.
Umar Ahmad provided a few examples of Christian theft of mosques. How many Mosques did Christians steal, convert, or destroy during the crusades? During other Christian led wars in Europe (Balkans, Eastern Europe/Russia, etc.)? During Colonial period? How many mosques have been destroyed as a result of recent western interventionism in the middle east?
You cry like a little baby about one Church while Muslims have lost so many Mosques (not to mention entire countries) to Christianity that we have stopped counting.
LikeLike
Allan,
Roman empire was an invader to that area. I cannot see the point when christians complain about Islam while the Roman empire had not reached that area( i.e. the middle east and minor Asia) but by the force and violence. Paul was more than fine with that kind of political power which had nothing to do with democracy. In fact, he labeled those pagans as “servants of God” you must obey!
Also, Roman empire, the fourth divided pagan kingdom according to to the most vivid prophesy in your bible, had to be crushed under the kingdom of God, the fifth one, which is Islam.
Yes, you can say some Sultans and even Kaliphs did some mistakes, yet the general scene is definitely fine, and when I say fine, I mean it’s fine with your bible and your history.
LikeLike
“Al-Aqsa Mosque Address by Sheikh Abu ‘Umran Al-Barq: The Goal of Jihad Is to Make Islam Triumph over All Religions
In an address delivered at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Palestinian Sheikh Abu ‘Umran Al-Barq said that the infidels today “have been trying to vilify the notion of Jihad” and that Arab curricula have been adapted to their will and “and the first step was to present Jihad as a war of defense only.” Jihad should be waged “until Islam triumphs over all other religions,” said Sheikh Al-Barq. The address was posted on the Internet on November 3.”
I’m glad these people are trying to help Muslims enslaved by the teachings of the masjid. Jesushuakbar!!
LikeLike
selective quotes hedged around by commentary. Lets see the original in context.
LikeLike
https://www.memri.org/tv/aqsa-mosque-address-jihad-triumph-over-all-religions
Is this what they teach in your Mosque Paul?
LikeLike
Palestinians have all the right to fight for their rights whether you like that or not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you agree with Paul of Tarsus that one day every non-Christian in the world will be forced to submit to Jesus? Do you accept that at the end of the day Paul’s gospel did not respect differences of faith and belief but taught the forced conversion of the entire human race to his religion?
‘at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.’
Philippians 2
In the Book of Revelation Jesus slaughters his enemies in a genocidal bloodbath. No loving enemies there.
Do they teach this in your church Paulus?
LikeLike
It appears that you Muslims are slowly showing your true colours. Over and over again you tell us that jihad is only defensive, yet here is a leading muslim calling Muslims like you infidels.
But the reality is you are not infidels at all. You agree with him. And your taqiyyah is now exposed. Your attempted islamisation of biblical texts shows just how corrupt you are. You tell us to our face how tolerant Islam is. Then you enter the masjid and debate how best to conquer the world.
I’m glad the people on the video are trying to help Muslims leave such a horrible ethic. There is no trusting the masjid and it’s masjidians.
LikeLike
Paulus, if what you said were true which is not, then just love us and keep your mouth shut.
Your false prophet paul told you to be submissive to the authority of the pagan romans’ “jihad”.
Why would you cry now?
LikeLike
@ Paulus,
I wouldn’t trust anything that comes out of Memri as it is a well known propaganda arm of the Mossad, which is politically motivated to mistranslate statements and/or take them out of context (I noticed that the video was edited) in order to misportray Arabs and Muslims in general. But I’m sure you already knew that and shamelessly used clip anyway to score points..
Selective Memri – The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/aug/12/worlddispatch.brianwhitaker
Norman Finkelstein Exposes MEMRI As Mossad Op
MEMRI Is A ‘Propaganda Machine,’ Expert Says And Why You Need To Know About Them
By Lawrence Swaim Infocus Staff Writer 6-23-7
http://www.rense.com/general77/norm.htm
LikeLike
Blaming the Jews. How original
LikeLike
“selective quotes hedged around by commentary. Lets see the original in context.”
” And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah ”
” Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. ”
Sounds very much in keeping with the words of your god, Bilal. Or am I being selective with these quotes too?
LikeLike
Silly Samaritan you have been naughty today with your dishonest cherry picking so allow me to correct you as a good samaritan should 😉
The first verse is most certainly taken out of context so let me provide it for you lets begin with the verse before it:
“Say to those who have disbelieved [that] if they cease, what has previously occurred will be forgiven for them. But if they return [to hostility] – then the precedent of the former [rebellious] peoples has already taken place.”
And the one after it:
“But if they turn away – then know that Allah is your protector. Excellent is the protector, and Excellent is the helper.”
As you can see it is referring to a conflict taking place at the time of the qurans composition, but the general principle is that of defensive war not going around killing all and sundry. Unlike the bible where God commands the slaughter of innocents on a regular basis.
The second verse you mention is talking about the war with the meccans after they broke a peace treaty. Again it is not a command to winsomely slaughter anyone and everyone unlike Jesus who in the end times will kill the unbelievers without such care for their human rights. Oops!
If you want the full context read surah 9 verses 1 to 29.
Y know i preferred you in the gospel story when you were good but now bro you gone bad 😣
LikeLike
You’re taking me out of context.
Paulus quoted a sheikh who stated
Jihad should be waged “until Islam triumphs over all other religions,”
To which Bilal Williams responded by accusing Paulus of selective quote miming and demanding the original context.
My objective was simply to point out that the Sheikh’s declaration is very much endorsed by the Quran.
Let me use a smaller spoon so you’re able to digest it properly.
Premise one: Sheikh asserts jihad should be waged until ISLAM TRIUMPHS OVER ALL OTHER RELIGIONS.
Premise two: Your Quran demands ALL RELIGION BE FOR ALLAH and TO FIGHT THOSE WHO DO NOT ADOPT THE RELGION OF ALLAH.
Premise three: Therefore this sheikh’s statement and motivation corresponds accurately with the teachings and will of your Allah and ultimate end goal of Islam.
LikeLike
Samaritan,
Premise One debunked:
The video of the Sheikh allegedly making certain assertions is undermined by the fact that the video is a production of MEMRI a well known propaganda arm of the Mossad, which is politically motivated to mistranslate statements and/or take them out of context (I noticed that the video was edited) in order to misportray Arabs and Muslims in general.
Premise Two debunked:
See statement below by AmuslimDude213 which puts the verses you quoted into context.
Premise Three debunked:
Questionable videos and Cherry picking proves nothing.
Selective Memri – The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/aug/12/worlddispatch.brianwhitaker
Norman Finkelstein Exposes MEMRI As Mossad Op
MEMRI Is A ‘Propaganda Machine,’ Expert Says And Why You Need To Know About Them
By Lawrence Swaim Infocus Staff Writer 6-23-7
http://www.rense.com/general77/norm.htm
LikeLike
“Premise Two debunked:
See statement below by AmuslimDude213 which puts the verses you quoted into context.”
What part of “the religion, all of it, is for Allah” and “and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture” are you not getting?
How can those two passages be interpreted in any way other than Allah calling for the worldwide domination of islam?
LikeLike
Ibn Issam,
My friend stop lying. What do you think people are stupid? You know as well as anyone that Islam’s end goal is worldwide domination and the implementation of sharia law. You believe that’s your god’s will and that’s what dawaganists in speakers corner and the terrorists in the Middle East and Africa are striving for. They have different methods of going about it of course at the end of the day it’s the same vile agenda.
LikeLike
Samaritan
“How can those two passages be interpreted in any way other….” –Try interpreting them IN CONTEXT for starters.
In regard to world domination – Isn’t that what Christian Dominion theology is all about?
Funny how you don’t mention the “end goal” and “vile agenda” of Missionaries who are striving to spread the Gospel in order to usurp governments and conquer every country for “world domination” by Christian theocracy. You must be practicing Christian Taqiyya.
You sound like a scared little boy afraid of the Islamic bogey man.
LikeLike
“Try interpreting them IN CONTEXT for starters.”
Again you disingenuous little creep. What context do we draw from “ALL RELIGION BE FOR ALLAH and TO FIGHT THOSE WHO DO NOT ADOPT THE RELGION OF ALLAH.”?
LikeLike
” Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. ”
But you must put this into historical context
Even non Muslims agree this was revealed in a battle
Reverend E.M. Wherry, writes:
Vers. 29-128 refer to the events connected with the expedition to Tabuq, which occurred in Rajab of A.H. 9. They were not, however, all enunciated at one time, but partly before the expedition, partly on the march, and partly after the return. Vers. 29-35 may be referred to the time of arrival at Tabuq, when the Christian prince, John of Aylah, tendered his submission to Muhammad, paying tribute (Jazya). [1]
And to put Tabuq into context
In one of our authentic early Islamic sources, ‘Sahih Muslim’, it says:
He (Hadrat ‘Umar further) said: I had a companion from the Ansar and, we used to remain in the company of the Messenger turn by turn. He remained there for a day while I remained there on the other day, and he brought me the news about the revelation and other (matter), and I brought him (the news) like this. And we discussed that the Ghassanids were shoeing the horses IN ORDER TO ATTACK US. Id y companion once attended (the Apostle). And then came to me at night and knocked at my door and called me, and I came out to him, and he said: A matter of great importance has happened. I said: What is that? Have the Ghassanids come? He said: No, but even more serious and more significant than that: the Prophet has divorced his wives. [2]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Samaritan.
Don’t you love how quickly muslims want to talk about context when their texts are under discussion but so readily dismiss context when discussing biblical passages.
Bilal’s misuse of Mark 10 comes to mind…
LikeLike
Guys, don’t you just love it when a Christian clown realizes he is way out of his league and cannot refute anything?
LikeLike
Okay let us apply Samaritan’s logic to this verse,
KJV Luke 19:27
“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
To hell with context…the verse is clear…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Quran&Bible, don’t you love how quickly Christians wants to talk about context when their texts are under discussion but so readily dismiss context when discussing Quranic passages.
David Wood’s misuse of 9:29 comes to mind…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Samaritan Seems to be using a very stupid argument,according to ahadith the best kind of Jihad is Jihad against unjust rulers
Tariq ibn Shihab reported: A man asked the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, “What is the best jihad?” The Prophet said, “A word of truth in front of a tyrannical ruler.”
Source: Musnad Aḥmad 18449
Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to An-Nawawi
And for the rest of your quotes,You quoted Surah 9:29
” Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. ”
But you must put this into historical context
Even non Muslims agree this was revealed in a battle
Reverend E.M. Wherry, writes:
Vers. 29-128 refer to the events connected with the expedition to Tabuq, which occurred in Rajab of A.H. 9. They were not, however, all enunciated at one time, but partly before the expedition, partly on the march, and partly after the return. Vers. 29-35 may be referred to the time of arrival at Tabuq, when the Christian prince, John of Aylah, tendered his submission to Muhammad, paying tribute (Jazya). [1]
And to put Tabuq into context
In one of our authentic early Islamic sources, ‘Sahih Muslim’, it says:
He (Hadrat ‘Umar further) said: I had a companion from the Ansar and, we used to remain in the company of the Messenger turn by turn. He remained there for a day while I remained there on the other day, and he brought me the news about the revelation and other (matter), and I brought him (the news) like this. And we discussed that the Ghassanids were shoeing the horses IN ORDER TO ATTACK US. Id y companion once attended (the Apostle). And then came to me at night and knocked at my door and called me, and I came out to him, and he said: A matter of great importance has happened. I said: What is that? Have the Ghassanids come? He said: No, but even more serious and more significant than that: the Prophet has divorced his wives. [2]
As for 8:39 you quoted “Fight them until there is no fitnah”
You must put this into context aswell
8:38 Say to those who have disbelieved [that] if they cease [from war], what has previously occurred will be forgiven for them. But if they return [to hostility] – then the precedent of the former [rebellious] peoples has already taken place.
So as we can see,none of what you quoted really spoke about any hostility caused by Muslims first at all.
Stop with the cherry picking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
These are selective quotes
Samaritan Seems to be using a very stupid argument,according to ahadith the best kind of Jihad is Jihad against unjust rulers
Tariq ibn Shihab reported: A man asked the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, “What is the best jihad?” The Prophet said, “A word of truth in front of a tyrannical ruler.”
Source: Musnad Aḥmad 18449
Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to An-Nawawi
And for the rest of your quotes,You quoted Surah 9:29
” Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. ”
But you must put this into historical context
Even non Muslims agree this was revealed in a battle
Reverend E.M. Wherry, writes:
Vers. 29-128 refer to the events connected with the expedition to Tabuq, which occurred in Rajab of A.H. 9. They were not, however, all enunciated at one time, but partly before the expedition, partly on the march, and partly after the return. Vers. 29-35 may be referred to the time of arrival at Tabuq, when the Christian prince, John of Aylah, tendered his submission to Muhammad, paying tribute (Jazya). [1]
And to put Tabuq into context
In one of our authentic early Islamic sources, ‘Sahih Muslim’, it says:
He (Hadrat ‘Umar further) said: I had a companion from the Ansar and, we used to remain in the company of the Messenger turn by turn. He remained there for a day while I remained there on the other day, and he brought me the news about the revelation and other (matter), and I brought him (the news) like this. And we discussed that the Ghassanids were shoeing the horses IN ORDER TO ATTACK US. Id y companion once attended (the Apostle). And then came to me at night and knocked at my door and called me, and I came out to him, and he said: A matter of great importance has happened. I said: What is that? Have the Ghassanids come? He said: No, but even more serious and more significant than that: the Prophet has divorced his wives. [2]
As for 8:39 you quoted “Fight them until there is no fitnah”
You must put this into context aswell
8:38 Say to those who have disbelieved [that] if they cease [from war], what has previously occurred will be forgiven for them. But if they return [to hostility] – then the precedent of the former [rebellious] peoples has already taken place.
So as we can see,none of what you quoted really spoke about any hostility caused by Muslims first at all.
Stop with the cherry picking.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hahahaha, bad samaritan is exposed yet again. The guy pretends to be an expert and get debunked every time.
Sammie, why don’t you ask your old-man god for help?
LikeLiked by 2 people
This short video completely debunks the jihad is only defensive myth:
LikeLike
Bring something original anyone can play the Linking games,what he is using is trying to change the words of Sahih Bukhari,etc to fit his own narrative,you should know the sources he uses,he never ever lists them out properly or gives a full reference.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But since you bought links into the battle,I’d link you to this
http://azblogtalk.blogspot.ae/2016/07/the-masked-arab-and-dunning-kruger.html
Trust me you’ll love seeing Maskedarab getting completely embarassed c;
LikeLiked by 1 person
AMuslimDude, i forgot to mention he’s a masked Arab Fan…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Zaid should show some mercy to Masked Arab by the way, seeing him getting exposed that hard almost makes me feel bad for him…
LikeLiked by 1 person