StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I've been debating a xenophobe called Dajall, on Bloggers Base. He's the standard christian apoligist, only now he's hit me with a hadith that talks about jews, that isn't as easy to counter. I need some advice on how to defuse his arguements.

I've brought up christian atrocities, and demonstrated that christianity is just as intrinsically violent and hateful, and when I commented and proved that one of the sources he used (barenakedislam) was a genocidal racist, he actually tried to justify it.

The Racist actually wrote:BNI is a Jew, fully aware of Allah's mandate to wage war against Jews and Moe's prophecy that the Muslims can not enter their celestial bordello until they hunt down and kill the last Jew. Many people are not aware of that hadith, recorded by Muslim: 41.6985 and Bukhari 4.52.177. Most are not aware of Moe's prophecy that Jesus will return to kill the remaining Jews & Christians as recorded in Sunan Abu Dawud 37.4310 and confirmed by Ibn Kathir's Tafsir: "Eternal humiliation placed on the Jews".
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid= 7&tid= 18998

Muslims have been trying to conquer the world and exterminate Jews for 1387 years. Nothing has stopped them; noting has reduced their ardor. Nothing will short of death or apostasy.

I argue that apostasy is preferable. The alternative is more practical.

I know that this will not be well accepted, but it is true and must be expressed. When someone is trying to kill you, killing him is not an act of evil. Likewise, when a group are trying to commit genocide against you, doing it to them first is not evil. "The best defense is a good offense." is as true in war as it is in chess, particularly in existential conflict.

Allah issued a mandate to conquer the entire world. That mandate is contained in Surah Al-Anfal 39. Allah promised Muslims victory. Allah promised them that they will dominate the world. Allah threatened them with eternal damnation if they refuse to participate. (9:38-39) Allah promised them eternity in his celestial bordello if they participate. (61:10-13) So long as Muslims continue to believe, they will continue to strive for global conquest; they will persist in doing evil. There is no other possibility.

Can someone please help me shut this assclown up?

I don't have much to help, but I would point out two things:

First, there are many different "denominations" of Muslim, so just because one Muslim leader says something doesn't make it apply to the beliefs of ALL Muslims.

Second, Christians also have a mandate to conquer the world. The difference is that they want to do so by conversion. Of course, technically Muslims have never believed in resorting to war if conversion is an option, so maybe there isn't actually a difference.

I wish I knew more. Good luck!

do you have proof of that? That might also work.

would quotes from the NT showing anti semitism work? Are there any passages that justify torture and murder if it will cause conversion?

The convert or die approach of the Conquistadors was practiced by the Teutonic Knights and Conquistadors. Then there was the "we torture and kill them as an expression of love- we love them enough to do these terrible things to save their souls" approach of the crusades.

Muslims have been trying to conquer the world and exterminate Jews for 1387 years. Nothing has stopped them; noting has reduced their ardor. Nothing will short of death or apostasy.

Yeah, lets ignore Muslim nations that didn't give a damn about conquest, the spread of Islam by conversion across the Sahara or the fact empires are built on conquering their neighbors.

As for being against Jews...
Like all individuals who believe they are the choosen one, Muhammed was pissed when the Jews didn't accept him (Luther expressed similar feelings). In practice Muslim nations were more accepting until recently- after all if you plan on conquering the world you need a lot of money and having a group of people you can tax more always helps. Muslim states were tolerant towards people of the book although it was nothing like the accomedation religions expect today (tolerate meaning "does not kill/maim or torture over disagreement").

It is also worth point out Christians have historically been alot more intolerant of Judaism. Jews are generally tied with Eastern Europe because France and England kicked them out around the 12th and 14th century with Spain following after beating the Moors. Many of the Jews fled to the (Muslim) Ottomans.

It is worth noting that the push to convert varies by state. The Balkans and India are mostly non-Muslim despite ownership by a Muslim state (in fact it is specifically noted that only one leader of the Mughal empire wanted to convert as many as possible). Egypt continues to have a coptic minority even after 1200 years.

Darth Yan wrote:would quotes from the NT showing anti semitism work? Are there any passages that justify torture and murder if it will cause conversion?

Here's the verse that shows the mandate to convert, but I'll explain why there are no passages discussing torture and murder to force conversion in a moment:

Matthew 28:19 (NIV) - "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations

Okay. So, Christianity and Islam began under very different circumstances, and the result was that early Islam discusses conversion by arms and early Christianity discusses conversion by peaceful means.

Christianity: Rome controlled the whole Mediterranean area. If you tried to start a fight or kill someone for believing the wrong way, Rome would stomp on you. Outside of occasional rebellions against Rome, it was a fairly peaceful, un-warrior-like time. You lived and let live and tried not to get in the way of the Romans. Christianity started out as a small sect among the poor of the culture. The only way to gain converts was through peaceful means. Therefore, early Christian texts speak of converting peacefully.

Islam: Islam began when there was a power vacuum in the Middle East. The different areas were controlled by tribal chieftains who frequently warred with each other. It was a time of warriors and swords, and the law was defined by how much power and how many swords you had. After fleeing to Medina, Mohammad gained many converts, and when the Meccans seized the property of the Muslims, they fought back. The most effective way to gain converts was in war. Therefore, early Muslim texts speak of converting by war.

As a further illustration: In Ancient Israelite times, there was often no central power in the time, and various groups fought each other. The Ancient Israelites didn't convert peacefully; instead, the vanquished their enemies.

After the first period, Islam left its warrior-like phase and became a religion of scientific innovation and progressivism. Today, Islamic fundamentalists desire to resurrect a time Islam has left long behind (long as in over a hundred years), a time that has almost nothing to do with the Islam of the recent history. This is of course an oversimplification, but there is some truth to it.

After the first period, Islam left its warrior-like phase and became a religion of scientific innovation and progressivism.

I think it is more accurate to say the focused of trade and the fruits of wealth and culture.

Today, Islamic fundamentalists desire to resurrect a time Islam has left long behind (long as in over a hundred years), a time that has almost nothing to do with the Islam of the recent history. This is of course an oversimplification, but there is some truth to it.

All Muslims united under a single ruler hasn't existed since 750 AD. A caliphate hasn't existed since 1922. Conversion by expansion hasn't occured since... what, 1486? Maybe 1707 if you count Aurangzeb. And that was voluntary conversions under the Ottoman Empire. Unless you count the convert or die policy of the Chechan rebels, but that would count as modern fundamentalists

I don't know how legit this link is, but I think it might help you:

http://www.whyislam.org/?TabId=165#Q1

Again, it's an Islamic site, but it does use actual Koran quotes and such.