Sunday, March 20, 2011 at 4p.m., the trial will start, lasting for four hours. I doubt that is sufficient time, but it is not up to me. Since Chowderhead backed out, Sheikh Imam Mohamed El Hassan has been recruited to defend the Koran. The prosecution team is loaded with apostates. Ahmed Abaza, the prosecutor, is a convert to Christianity. Mr. Ahmed Paul is an expert witness, another apostate. Sheikh Abdulla Al Sabah, another expert witness, also knows Islam from the inside, being an apostate. According to the press release, the poll is running 69% in favor of immolation. That should make for some fun, because Dr. Jones previously promised that he would not burn the Koran. How will he resolve that conflict? Is he secretly hoping for an acquittal? One of the charges could be difficult to prove: the Koran is accused of inciting murder, rape and terrorist activities. The Koran commands Muslims to engage in perpetual warfare but I am not convinced that meets the legal definition of murder. It does sanction sexual exploitation of slaves and commands terrorism. If you doubt this, visit http://www.quranbrowser.com/ and search for right hands possess; you will find plenty of evidence of rape. A search for strike terror will bring up direct evidence of the last charge.
The event appears to be drawing little attention from the print media, with only two articles showing up this week in a Google search, but it fares far better in the blogs. I know that there is some government interest because my blog posts about it have been read by the local police and the Department of Homeland Security. Even a local television station read my most recent previous update post. There is also some international interest: the OIC Islamophobia Report for February mentioned International Judge the Koran day.For those of us who can not travel to Gainsville, Florida for the event, it will be broadcast live on the internet at www.truthsat.tv.
6 comments:
I've searched for the two terms you mentioned in the Qur'an browsers you referred to and I found the passages you were talking about, and here's my opinion. The translations can easily be misinterpreted. Unfortunately, I can't recommend a better translation to you because I've never read any (I'm an Egyptian Muslim and I read Qur'an in Arabic). About the right hands possession, the Qur'an says that a man can have sexual intercourse with his female slaves. I admit the in this passage, the Qur'an didn't explicitly put regulations for that in this passage, that's because that the Qur'an is define the main course for Muslims, but it doesn't specify details because that's prophet Muhammad's rule, In his teaching, he ordered that slaves must not be forced into sexual intercourse, or hired to others for the same purpose, also if a man impregnated his slave, he can't sell her or give her away in any way, and the child free from slavery and is to be treated the same way he treats his children from his wife. Also, freeing slaves is considered a very great deed by Islam and used in many cases to repent sins ( check 004:092 ), plus, Islam prohibits any form of adultery including rape, so Islam can't sanction it. As for the terrorism part, it's completely misinterpreted. In the verse I've found including the term, Allah commands angels to stand by his believers in war and tells them that he'll make their opponents fear them, there's nothing here that incites terrorist activities even in war, we're commanded that in war, we must not kill a woman, a child or an elder and we must not burn plants nor kill animals except for food, and we're only to fight those who fight us. Also, we're prohibited from hurting any one following another religion without a rightful reason, which is self defense for individuals, and punishment for crime for law enforcement authorities.
Dear I Hassan, Thank you for reading and commenting.
Egyptian Copts tell me that the Hilali & khan Noble Quran is 95% accurate, the inaccuracies being deliberate: "marriage" & "fight".
In the matter of rape, see Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459, the key word being "azl". Moe gave his companions implicit permission to use that technique on captive women.
In the same vein, remember Safiya & Rayhana whom Moe took for his personal harem.
In the matter of terrorism, there are two relevent hadith, quoted and cited in other recent posts, the prime example being Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220.
In the matter of interpretation: Moe showed us how he interpreted his revelations, by his actions. See especially Hisham's rescension of Ishaq's Sirat Rasool Allah trans. by Guillaume as "The Life of Muhammad. Between Ishaq, Tabari and Bukhari, we have ample confirmation of the obvious. The pattern is unmistakable.
Dear Ben
With all my respect to my fellow Egyptian Copts, but they're not in a position to tell whether a Qur'an translation is accurate or not, that's an opinion you should take from a Muslim.
About Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459, it discusses the matter of coitus interruptus which, according to wikipedia " has been widely used for at least two millennia as a method of contraception, and is still in use today. This method was used by an estimated thirty-eight million couples worldwide in 1991". In the hadith allowing it to be used with slaves doesn't meant forcing them into sex, plus coitus interruptus is permitted with captive women and wifes after their permissions.
Safiya was a captive woman that prophet Muhammad bought, released from captivity, and married her. As for Rayhana she was a captive from one of the wars and prophet Muhammad took her for himself, but that doesn't mean she was raped. Enslaving war captives was being done all over the world by people from all religions including Christians and Jews and we never heard of any one protesting against that in the name of any religion. It was legal in the united states till the end of the civil war to enslave black people, they were kidnapped from Africa and brought to America as slaves. The Islam gave slaves more rights than The American law and people in the past century.
The hadith in Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 is no more evidence than the verse you referred to in your essay, it doesn't command or even sanction terrorism in any form, and as I explained before, Islam strictly prohibits harming civilians in any form except for two cases, self defense and punishment for crimes.
As for Ishaq's Sirat Rasool Allah trans. by Guillaume, I couldn't find it so please send me a link and refer to the parts you see support your point of view because I'll be too busy to read the whole book.
I've just read a newspaper report stating that Heads of the Egyptian Christian church announced their complete refusal of the judge the koran day. Do you think that this would have happened if we Muslims have been terrorizing them ???
Yes, I am firmly convinced that the Coptic Clergy are essentially dhimmified & intimidated. Of that issue, I have no doubt whatsoever.
Dear I Hassan,
http://www.archive.org/download/IbnIshaq-SiratRasulAllah-translatorA.Guillaume/IbnIshaq-SiratRasulAllah.zip
is a 141MB archive containing 432 jpg images each containing two pages.
The algorythm I use to convert page numbers to image numbers ain't perfect, but usually will be within two images.
page Image#
322 185
326 187
368 208
395 222
437 242
438 243
461 254
698 373
486 267
523 286
573 310
600 324
626 337
770 409
785 416
Of those, you may find pages 461 & 785 among the most interesting.
I prefer Irfanview for viewing the images, but FrontPage and ACDC also work well. Most will find it easier to go to Amazon and purchase a hard copy.
Moe bragged that he was "made victorious with terror". That matches the ayat I cited.
Moe would not have snatched Safiya had he not first invaded her village and murdered her husband, fathers and brothers.
The companions took captives and wanted to sexually explit them, but not knock them up, which would reduce their monetary value. Fat chance those captives willingly copulated with the barbarians who had murdered their husbands.
Post a Comment