 Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC) Posts: 3,537
|
Quote:On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:43 AM, SL wrote:
> Dear sir/madam, > > As I write this email, I'm wondering why I'm wasting my valuable time > since it appears as though you selectively include on your website > only vicious, maniacal responses to your website. In any case, I'm an > eternal optimist and hope against hope that you will see that violence > comes through the actions of people interpreting ideologies and not > necessarily the ideologies themselves (exceptions being those such as > fascism). Your understanding of Islam lacks context and is informed by > the actions of those Muslims who are frustrated by political, > socio-economic factors and lack of education. > > You site Hamas and Fatah as two prominent examples of the violence > inherent in Islam, however you don't give their entire history in the > context of the Arab/Israeli conflict. Yes, Prophet Muhammad, who by > the way is not the only Islamic prophet but according to Islamic > tradition is the last prophet in the tradition of monotheistic > religions, speaks of killing the infidel, and there is no doubt that > Hamas takes and applies this literally, but take the word "infidel" > out of the directive and replace it with "enemy" and you have a > statement from any foreign policy document describing what one must do > if attacked or livelihood is threatened. What America is doing now is > exercising their right to protect themselves against the "enemy" (some > would say poorly at that) who according to some conservative Christian > interpretations would also be seen as the "infidel." > > A suicide bomber is a freedom fighter from the perspective of many > Palestinians and Muslims and a terrorist from the Israeli and most > Western perspectives. You have squarely placed yourself on the > Israeli/Western side, which is your prerogative, but you have done so > in a way that leaves no room for constructive debate/discussion. By > characterizing Islam, the religion of over 1 billion people, as > doomsday-bringing, terrorist-supporting, anti-freedom, cultic, > zealotry, you are alienating Islamic, educated voices and have closed > your mind. > > Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion and interpretation of > a given subject, and I wouldn't presume to dictate what should be > yours, but please ask yourself whether you are helping the current > situation; whether you are informing or inflaming? > > Best wishes, > -SL Yada's response' Quote:SL,
Your first point is errant. And that isn't a good way to start. There are entire sections of the Feedback area of Prophet of Doom dedicated to letters which are not "vicious or maniacal." In fact every temperate response to Prophet of Doom is responded to and eventually posted on the site. While your ignorant (improperly informed) attack will be shared immediately in the Yada Yahweh Forum, it will also find its place in Prophet of Doom as our webmaster is able to process it. Dealing with ignorance is one of my favorite topics.
You did, however, waste your time because you wrote your letter without first investing time reading Prophet of Doom. If you had done so, you would have learned that according to the overwhelming preponderance of the oldest Islamic sources, Muhammad was a ruthless terrorist--having led 75 terrorist raids in the first ten years of the Islamic era. And make no mistake, other than personal greed, there was no justification for 73 of them. He simply led armed militants against innocent civilians to steal what was theirs and to enslave and rape them. Since the Qur'an orders Muslims to follow his horrid example, according to Islam's most revered sources, all good Muslims are terrorists. (There are many bad Muslims who are peaceful, but they don't represent Islam as it was presented by Muhammad in the Qur'an and Hadith. Moreover, the Koran says that Allah hates peaceful Muslims. He calls them "hypocrites" and says that he will personally attend to their torture in hell.)
The only way to "interpret" Islam as being peaceful is to ignore 95% of what is known about Muhammad and the founding of the religion. Terrorism is a byproduct of Islam. It is the result of jihad. And as a result, 99% of today's terrorist acts are committed by Muslims. Therefore, it is you who lacks "context," not me. It is why I referred to your letter as "ignorant."
What you missed is that Prophet of Doom is the best documented, most comprehensive and contextual chronological presentation of what is known about Muhammad, Allah, and Islam from the oldest and most reliable sources. It not only presents the Qur'an, it orders it chronologically and sets it into the context of Muhammad's life as revealed in the Hadith. And by so doing, one comes to understand Muhammad's motives and thus Islam's legacy.
Along these lines, the notion that Muhammad was the last of many prophets, is also ignorant. Muhammad's message was the antithesis of Abraham's, of Moses', of David's, of Isaiahs, and of Yahushua's. They could not rationally be speaking for the same God. Allah, therefore is not Yahweh.
Muhammad's claim was not unlike me saying that Alexander the Great was an American prophet who taught and lived democratic ideals. Anyone familiar with Alexander and America would know that such a claim was nonsense. It is your ignorance of what Yahweh revealed in the Torah, Prophets and Psalms, and what Yahushua fulfilled in the Renewed Covenant which causes you to believe that which is evidentially and rationally impossible.
Moving on through your letter, let it be known that Islam is responsible for the horrid social, economic, and educational climate which exists in most every Islamic nation. The religion is so corrupt, so irrational and ignorant, it has created the least prosperous, least educated, least inventive, least educated, least civil, least free places on earth. The evidence is obvious and ubiquitous.
It is racist and foolish to blame Jews for the fate of Muslims. In this regard, you sound like Hitler in Mein Kamph, or Allah in the Koran.
The Islamic Terrorism Timeline, like Prophet of Doom, is over 1000 pages. As such, they provide the context in which Islam was created and the context in which Islamic terrorism came to exist. They even explain why Muslims hate Jews and why they have tried to kill them for 1400 years. The problem isn't a racial one as you allege with "Arab" but instead a religious one.
Infidel is a very well defined term in the Qur'an. In the earliest passages devoted to jihad, it applies to Jews, who Allah calls "apes and pigs." But once Jews were over hunted by the first Muslims and a new enemy was required to keep the fist Muslim militants wallowing in stolen goods, infidel was redefined as "Christian." Today, infidel is still understood as a Christian or Jew, even any opponent of Allah--and thus Islam. It is a religious term, confirming the source of the problem.
Your examples are poorly chosen because I don't condone America's actions in Afghanistan or Iraq and have consistently spoke out against them. That said, they are also wrong because America has not fought either battle on religious grounds. The nation has instead responded to a religious attack--9-11 and the cry "Allahu Akbar." Further, while I do not advocate Christian doctrine or behavior, there is no reference to "infidel" among "conservative Christians." Roman Catholics may have used a similar term but without any Scriptural justification. Since the term is Koranic, such cannot be said of Islam.
Anyone who sees a "suicide bomber" as "freedom fighter" doing something good, has an inverted sense of right and wrong. And this is the very purpose of Islam. Yahweh's moral code was turned upside down by Muhammad and his wannabe god Allah. Bad is seen as good in the eyes of those corrupted by their hellish religion. Satan has become their god. It is what Allahu Akbar means. Allah wants to be greater than Yahweh--or at least seen as such. And there is only one spirit with such cravings.
The quantity of people fooled by a false doctrine doesn't suggest that it is somehow true. Truth has never been popular. Billions of people today are Secular Humanists, even Socialists, but it doesn't validate their false and failed dogma. And a couple of thousand years ago, most everyone worshiped the sun and moon as gods.
My characterization of Islam is derived exclusively from Islam's five oldest and most reliable sources. If that characterization is errant, then Islam is errant. Moreover, to suggest that those who are unaware of the immoral, violent, and perverted nature of the oldest Islamic sources are somehow "educated voices to whom I have closed my mind" is as mindless a thought as any you have mustered. If what I have presented in Prophet of Doom is untrue, be the first to prove it. But do so using reason and evidence, not unfounded opinions.
Opinions aren't entitlements. In fact, opinions are usually meaningless. Conclusions based upon the evidence are however pertinent and useful. Please ask yourself, by objecting to the obvious, by being ignorant of Islam's beginnings and nature, by ignoring what is known about the religion's prophet, scripture and god, are you "helping the current situation" or are you "inflaming" it? By excusing Islam's connection to terrorism, by ignoring Muhammad's words, deeds, and legacy, are you making it easier for good Muslims to terrorize infidels? Or is exposing and condemning false religions the best way to deter those who kill in the name of god?
Next time, before you write and demonstrate your foolishness (poorly reasoned opinions), take time to read, to learn the facts, and then ponder them judgmentally. Once you come to understand what is true and what is not, what is right and what is wrong, then you will be in a position to express your conclusions and "help the current situation" by being "informative."
Words are the most effective weapons to wield at inflammatory and violent dogmas. Peace isn't the tolerance of evil, but instead its irradiation. Such is the purpose of Prophet of Doom (exposing the lie) and Yada Yahweh (offering the truth). And the consequence of tolerating deceitful, destructive, deadly, and damning dogmas is the purpose of the Islamic Terrorist Timeline. I invite you to read them all. Consider them a gift.
Best Wishes,
Yada 'SL' responds' Quote:On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 8:33 PM, 'SL' wrote:
> Dear Yada, > > Thank you for taking the time to reply so expansively and > comprehensively to my small yet succinct email. After receiving your > response I did take some time to read your book, and although I agree > you have conducted extensive and rigorous research, you make some > serious judgements and allegations based on sources that require > clarification, yet you do not provide, but take literally. It is true, > and I am not ignorant of the fact, that Muhammad conducted numerous > battles proactively during his 22 year mission. It is also true that > the political environment in which he was preaching was extremely > hostile and that the military and political tactics he employed were > not unusual for his time, such as the exile, execution and enslavement > of Jewish tribes in Medina. > > You have jumped to conclusions and misjudged me just as you have done > your research. Just because something is well-researched does not mean > that the conclusions drawn from that research are valid. Here's an > example of what I > mean: Muhammad married Khadija, who was 15 years his senior, at the age of > 25. Muhammad came from a meager, although well-connected background. Khadija > was a wealthy widow and proposed marriage to Muhammad, which he accepted. > The aforementioned are facts; now the question is why did Muhammad marry > Khadija? One answer would be that he married her for her wealth and > connections, because he knew that he wanted to unleash a violent rebellion > in Mecca and would need her money and connections. A more sympathetic answer > would be that he respected her and already felt that women were being > mistreated in Arabia and sought an opportunity to marry a well-connected and > wise woman. Another answer might be that since he had lost his mother when > he was a baby that somehow Khadija fulfilled his subconscious desire for a > mother-figure. All answers are equally valid and are interpretations of the > same fact; Muhammad married Khadija. > > I am well aware of what Yahweh has taught not only through the Torah, > but also through the Prophets and the various scriptures. > >> It is racist and foolish to blame Jews for the fate of Muslims. In >> this regard, you sound like Hitler in Mein Kamph, or Allah in the >> Koran. > > I never blamed anyone for anything in my email. The fact that you've > written this reveals more about yourself than about me. On that note, > I politely decline any further correspondence with you. Obviously it > is not truth with a capital 'T' you seek but a truth that makes sense > to you. It is convenient to place blame because it shifts critical > focus away from oneself. It takes at least two to create a conflict, > and that is the context your book lacks. > > In peace, > 'SL Yada's response' Quote:SL,
There is almost nothing in your reply which is consistent with your initial letter, accurate, which is germane to our discussion, or which effectively addresses any of my responses. You have simply ignored the fact that I took the time to demonstrate that much of what you wrote was untrue.
SL, when you make a charge against someone and they show it to be inaccurate, to be credible you either have to acknowledge that you wrote was wrong or cite evidence to the contrary. You did neither, and in most cases, simply changed the subject.
You may now have read a little of Prophet of Doom but you are still well shy of being informed. Worse, you don't appear to have the capacity for being reasonable or for accurately assessing yourself or your views. You are awash in conflicting and unsubstantiated opinions and yet you present yourself as if you were informed, reasonable, and consistent.
Save the Prologue, there are no material conclusions in Prophet of Doom which are unsupported by copious amounts of irrefutable evidence. Eighty percent of the pertinent, non-repetitive material from each of Islam's five oldest sources (Qur'an, Ishaq's Sira/Biography, Tabari's Tarikh/History, Bukhari's & Muslim's Hadith/Oral Reports) was compiled, documented, and arranged chronologically to paint the most accurate contextual picture of Muhammad, his Koran, and his creation of Islam possible. When ordered chronologically and put into context, each of the five Islamic sources which were written within 200 years of Muhammad's death, paint the same perverted, vicious, covetous, and immoral picture. There is no way to justify Muhammad's acts of incest, rape, pedophilia, adultery, womanizing, assassinations, mass murders, persistent armed robberies, consistent participation in the slave trade, political and religious deceit, or ruthless acts of terrorism. With each page, with each citation from Islam's oldest and most reliable sources, a mountain of evidence emerges which completely destroys Muhammad's character, motivations, trustworthiness, god, scripture, and religion. The only way to view this man and his creation favorably is to be ignorant of what is known about him, to be irrational and thus unable to process that information reasonably, morally, and judgmentally, or both.
By way of example, there were no battles during the first 12 years of "Muhammad's mission," the time when Muhammad lived in Mecca. None. There were however, 75 raids conducted in the first 10 years of the Islamic Era, the time Muhammad lived in Yathrib. Only 2 of those raids were defensive, so your justification is invalid. Moreover, the Hadith consistently reveal the actual nature and motive for each of Muhammad's ruthless terrorist raids against civilians, so the truth is not only known, it requires no speculation or interpretation.
Prior to Muhammad's arrival, the Jews in Yathrib had lived for centuries in harmony with Arabs. Muslims, however, we conditioned by their wannabe prophet and wannabe god to hate them. The result was exile, rape, robbery, enslavement, and mass murder. Medina became a model for Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. The evidence for this fills several chapters of Prophet of Doom.
It matters not why Muhammad married Khadija. While some of her statements are germane to understanding Muhammad's motives for creating Islam, his motives for marrying her are irrelevant. So why did you bother to express your opinions on this topic? We not only don't have sufficient evidence to form a valid conclusion, even if we did, it wouldn't resolve any of the material conclusions which are so damning to his immoral character, deceitful words, violent behavior, or foolish religion. Hypocritically, you did the very thing you falsely accused me of doing.
The gist of your initial letter was that I was wrong to connect the religion of Islam to the acts of Islamic terrorists. Over six hundred pages of Prophet of Doom cite evidence to the contrary, and yet when challenged to invalidate this evidence and subsequent conclusions you offered nothing but another unsubstantiated opinion. The facts known to us from the earliest sources prove that Muhammad was a ruthless terrorist and that he and his god ordered Muslims to follow his example. Therefore, all good Muslims are terrorists. Only bad Muslims are peaceful. (This isn't my opinion, it is precisely what the 9th surah reveals.)
You are obviously unaware of Yahweh's testimony. If you understood it, you like He would be condemning Islam, not supporting it. If you knew it, you wouldn't refer to Muhammad as the last of many prophets, all of which he contradicted. If you knew what Yahweh revealed, you would know that the Qur'an's message is the opposite of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. This known, any rational person would know that a religion which claims to confirm that which it consistently contradicts cannot be true. This known, any moral person would do their utmot to expose and condemn the lie before more innocent people were killed in the name of its false god.
In your first letter, you said that I was wrong in attributing Islamic terrorism to Islam, as opposed to seeing the problem in the context of race: "You site Hamas and Fatah as two prominent examples of the violence inherent in Islam, however you don't give their entire history in the context of the Arab/Israeli conflict." This was followed by: "A suicide bomber is a freedom fighter from the perspective of many Palestinians and Muslims and a terrorist from the Israeli and most Western perspectives. You have squarely placed yourself on the Israeli/Western side, which is your prerogative, but you have done so in a way that leaves no room for constructive debate/discussion. By characterizing Islam, the religion of over 1 billion people, as doomsday-bringing, terrorist-supporting, anti-freedom, cultic, zealotry, you are alienating Islamic, educated voices and have closed your mind."
Neither Jews nor Israel created this problem. In fact, the Muslims living in Israel prior to their terrorist onslaught were the best educated, most free, and most prosperous Muslims in the Middle East. The simple truth is that Islam is anti-Semitic and that people like you who try to define the problem in racial terms and blame the victims, rather than the religious source for the rage, are following in the footsteps of Hitler. And it is the similarities between Mein Kampf and the Qur'an/Hadith that prompted me to dedicate 77 pages of Prophet of Doom to a side by side comparison.
I didn't respond to you, SL, because I thought you could be enlightened. In fact, I didn't reply on your behalf. I responded because your letter will be posted along with my response, so that others, better informed and more reasonable than you, will learn from it and benefit.
Should I be wrong about you, should there be any chance that you are capable of rejecting your invalid opinions and embracing the truth, or "Truth," as you call it, Yada Yahweh is a 1500-page amplification of Yahweh's prophetic Scriptures from the oldest manuscripts. There you will find "a truth that makes sense to me" because what Yahweh has to say "makes sense." If there is a better, more reasonable or rational way to evaluate evidence and render a conclusion, I am unaware of it.
Lastly, there are many cases in which there are perpetrators and victims, and where the victims aren't responsible for their affliction. These are the cases worth exposing. Islam's ruthless onslaught on the world from India to Africa following Muhammad's death, and continuing today, is a prime illustration. Muhammad's terrorist raids against Arabian Jews, Hitler's war against Europe, Japan's attack on China, Stalin's assault on his own people, the Islamic genocide in the Sudan, are all examples. To dismiss such brutality as "it takes at least two to create a conflict" blames the victims for what has befallen them. Understanding the context of these attacks and the motivation for them, especially as it relates to Islamic terrorism, is what your letters lack.
When it comes to war and terrorism, many people understand what, some understand who, but very few know why.
Yada |