Posted by: mystic444 | September 30, 2017

Netanyahu recommends the Bible

One of the most amusing (as well as both sad and sickening, unfortunately) things I have read recently is an article about Benjamin Netanyahu castigating the United Nations for the supposedly poor way they have been treating ‘Israel’. According to Netanyahu, the U.N.’s problem is that they are promoting ‘fake history’!


Referring to the decision of UNESCO (United Nations Education, Science, and Cultural Organization) to name Hebron a Palestinian Heritage Site he said (from the article):


“That’s worse than fake news; that’s fake history,” Netanyahu said. “Mind you, it’s true that Abraham, the father of both Ishmael and Isaac, is buried there, but so too are Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca – Sarah’s a Jewish name, by the way – Sarah, Rebecca and Leah, who just happened to be patriarchs and matriarchs of the Jewish people.”

“Well, you won’t read about that in the latest UNESCO report. But if you want to, you can read about it in a somewhat weightier publication. It’s called the Bible,” he said. “I highly recommend it. I hear it even got four-and-a-half out of five stars on Amazon. And it’s a great read. I read it every week.”


One of the amusingly absurd things about that statement is the idea that Hebron (and all of Palestine by extension) should not be considered a Palestinian Heritage Site despite the fact that non-Jewish Palestinians have been living there (and dying and being buried there) continuously for hundreds (probably thousands) of years; but it should be considered a Jewish Heritage Site because alleged ancestors of the Jewish people lived, died, and were buried there 3000 to 4000 years ago!


Even more ridiculous, however, is calling Palestinian Heritage “fake history” while promoting the Bible as true history! Archeologists and historians (yes, even ‘Israeli’ archeologists and historians) know that the Biblical stories are myths and fables – at best, historical fiction. (See here and here for instance.) Abraham and Sarah never existed; Isaac and Rebecca never existed; Jacob and Leah never existed; Kings David and Solomon never existed. Yet their alleged reality (and the alleged promises of the Jewish God to them) is pretty much the entire basis for the Jewish claim to ‘the land of Israel’!


It’s true that Jewish people will argue that the atrocities of the ‘Holocaust’ are grounds for their nationhood in ‘Israel’; but what the ‘Nazis’ allegedly did to Jewish people could not by any stretch of the imagination provide grounds for the Jews to forcibly eject Palestinians from their homes and lands and claim them for themselves (Jews) – without the (fictitious) ‘Biblical History’ as a foundation. When it is understood that ‘Biblical History’ is pure fabrication of Jewish priests beginning around the 7th  century B.C.E., all claims the Jews might have to a nation in ‘Israel’/Palestine are nullified. ‘Israel’ has no legitimacy as a nation – at least not in Palestine!


So it is both amusing and sad to see so many from both Jews and Christians so sincerely believing in the veracity of Biblical falsehoods, and seriously claiming those falsehoods to be ‘Divine truth’ and the basis for the existence of ‘Israel’ and its atrocious behavior. It is the Bible (not Palestinian heritage) which is ‘fake history’!




  1. Hi, l’m sorry for posting off topic, but I just wanted to wish you a Happy New Year. I hope 2018 brings you and your loved ones peace and blessings, and all good things. 🙂



    • Lenna – Thank you very much for the good wishes; and I wish the same for you and yours. Being ‘off topic’ is definitely not a problem for that type of comment! 🙂

  2. Just to show you how allah is no more kinder or just than yahwah of the old testament and using your analogy of David and why his child was killed by god when he comitted adultery..

    Why did allah tell the bani israel to cross the border and fight the canaanites and when the israleis refused, allah banished them in the desert for 4o years till they were battle ready?
    this is no different to your David analogy, it was the Firon (pharoh) who was oppressing the jews. Why were the canaanites targeted? Do you think allah is bigoted, greedy genocidal maniac who hated the canaanites because they rejected him and chose not to believe in him? Did this justify someone coming to usurp their land when it was someone else who was their enemy?

    if you read the quran it says allah ‘chose’ the bani israel and favoured them.

    So you have no case against the old testament or the new testament if you belive in the quran narrative.

    Why havn’t you spoken out against the modern caliphate? Would you like to live in a muslim country and say what you said to me?

    Go to any muslim country and say what you did about the old testament and your sympathy in satan. You will be killed.

  3. The promise of the land to the children of Israel was never abrogated.

    The Quran only mentions a double period of mischief and a double punishment with exile from the Land (the two destruction of the Temple of Sulayman) and then Allah will bring them back before the end times. It is in Surah 17.

    This is what the quran says. But the modern day muslims juxtapose themselves with the children of Israel and think they are the chosen ones. Not all of them, but certainly the jihadis do. The ones who would cut your throat for sympathising with Satan. That is why they have trouble accepting israel. Israel proves their religion is false.

    Before 1948, no muslim claimed to be ‘israel’. Now their religious leaders claim they are Israel. It is pathetic. This is the honor shame culture which is why muslims are so backward. Christians and jews must always be low not enjoying power because if they do it means islam is false.

    Allah/mohamed says:

    And We conveyed to the Children of Israel in the Scripture that, “You will surely cause corruption on the earth twice, and you will surely reach [a degree of] great haughtiness.


    And We said after Pharaoh to the Children of Israel, “Dwell in the land, and when there comes the promise of the Hereafter, We will bring you forth in [one] gathering.”

    So yes, the land belongs to the bani Israel. The modern day conquest was no more brutal than any other conquest . Even the first conquest was meant to be done by fighting the natives for which the bani Israel were punished when they refused. Eventulally they did conquer it. And twice their temple was destroyed. i think both Christian and old testament says this too? So does Quran. quran in the same verse says after period of exile the bani israel will be brought back to the land. It was always theirs.

    the only way the modern day muslims can claim it on religous grounds is by pretending they are the new israel which is what some sheikhs and imams (my ones taught me this too) teach. But it is a lie historically and religously. The ‘righteous caliphs’ never called muslims ‘bani israel’.

    Surely, you don’t believe that the old testament and new testament are muslims? When I was growing up and going to masjid, I used to believe all the prophets were muslims, not jews or Christians. Eid al Adha celebrates Ismail as the son of Abraham the sacrificial son. But the quran does not mention him.

    When I started to learn myself about Judaism and chiristianity I was so shocked at the lies I was taught as a kid in masjid. I gave up Islam. It is all lies. All about steealing the Christian and Jewish history and pretending it is muslim.

    Here is another big lie in Islam. Ismaeel is the sacrifical son but the quran doesn’t say his name.

    Do you believe ismaeel is the sacrificial son evne tho the quran doesn’t say it? How could the quran omit such an important detail?

    Why doesn’t the quran say the Muslims inheritied the promised land but instead says the bani Israel did and will be brought back after exile?

    It is all lies.

    • Habeel – I’ll once again use just one comment to reply to you. First, thanks for your clarifications about some of your remarks. No offense taken – I figured it just amounted to either misunderstanding or miscommunication (or perhaps a bit of both).

      What I believe about the Jewish narrative in the “Old Testament” is that it is all ‘fake history’ up through the reign of Solomon. After that it becomes a confused mixture of truth and falsehood. This means, of course that to the extent that the “New Testament” and the Qur’an are based on some version of those fake stories they also are ‘fake histories’.

      When I suggest that those who simply can’t give up monotheism (which to all practical purposes means “Abrahamic” monotheism) should consider Islam rather than Judaism or Christianity, I do so because I consider Islam to be the best (least violent, for instance) of the three.

      Let me illustrate this from the passage from Sura 5 of the Qur’an to which you referred. (Incidentally, you left out 3 verses, and what you labelled as v.23 is actually v.26.) I’m going to give the whole passage using the Abdel Haleem version:

      “(5:20) Moses said to his people, ‘My people, remember God’s blessing on you; how He raised prophets among you and appointed kings for you and gave you what He had not given to any other people.

      (5:21) My people, go into the holy land which God has ordained for you-do not turn back or you will be the losers.’

      (5:22) They said, ‘Moses, there is a fearsome people in this land. We will not go there until they leave. If they leave, then we will enter.’

      (5:23) Yet two men whom God had blessed among those who were afraid said, ‘Go in to them through the gate and when you go in you will overcome them. If you are true believers, put your trust in God.’

      (5:24) They said, ‘Moses, we will never enter while they are still there, so you and your Lord go in and fight, and we will stay here.’

      (5:25) He said, ‘Lord, I have authority over no one except myself and my brother: judge between the two of us and these disobedient people.’

      (5:26) God said, ‘The land is forbidden to them for forty years: they will wander the earth aimlessly. Do not grieve over those who disobey.'”

      First, notice that the phrase in your version of verse 21, “from fighting in Allah’s cause”, is in brackets – meaning it is an interpolation by the translator. The ‘command’ of God/Allah was simply “enter … and do not turn back…” Fighting was not part of the ‘command’.

      The people, though, were afraid of the ‘fearsome’ people of the land and figured that if (as was highly likely – and rightly so in my estimation) those ‘fearsome people’ resisted, the Israelites wouldn’t stand a chance against them. The ‘two men’ responded that the Israelites ought to trust in God, and He would give them victory in any ensuing battle. The Israelites weren’t having it, though, and said God and Moses could do the fighting. Afterward they would enter.

      Compare this command to enter the land and not turn back out of fear – knowing God will give them victory in battle – with the commands in the ‘Old Testament’ Torah to go utterly destroy everything and everyone that breathes, showing no mercy. Men, women, children, and even the cattle are to be mercilessly slaughtered for God’s pleasure. And if one or two of the Israelites ‘sins’, God will go on a rampage slaughtering multiple thousands until the Israelites deal with the ‘sinners’.

      Which of those two versions seems to you to be more violent? Frankly, I believe both to be somewhat absurd, and that it never happened. The Jews were never slaves in Egypt and therefore never escaped Egyptian bondage; they never wandered 40 years in Sinai, and never ‘conquered’ the ‘promised land’ (it was never promised them in the first place). The Jews were never ‘chosen by God’, and the very concept of such a ‘choice’ is an absurdity. But of the two versions of the fake history, I consider the Qur’an to be so much better as to be beyond any comparison. That’s why I suggest Islam as an alternative for those who feel they must stick to (Abrahamic) monotheism.

      The Christian (“New Testament”) version of Israel as God’s chosen nation is that it used to be true but it’s not any longer. Because of the rejection of the messengers of God (especially the “son”, Jesus the Christ/Messiah) and the message, God would destroy that wicked people and give the kingdom to another nation which would ‘bring forth fruit’ to God. Christianity interprets that ‘nation’ to be the ‘Church’ among all nations (including those Jews who believe in Jesus Christ, of course). The “middle wall of partition” between Jew and Gentile has been destroyed so that “Israel” is no longer a special and chosen people (and never will be). Many Christians today completely ignore this very clear teaching of their “New Testament” – especially among those known as “dispensationalists” – but it has been the traditional understanding in both Protestant and Catholic Christianity, and remains so in ‘mainline’ and ‘Reformed’ churches.

      The idea in Christianity is that although the Jews as a whole failed miserably in their ‘chosen’ mission to be ‘a light to the nations’, this mission was in fact fulfilled by Jesus and his disciples. The light has come to the nations (starting with the Jewish Jesus and his Jewish apostles), the mission is complete, and the need for a special (chosen) nation is past. Now all believers throughout the world are “God’s elect”. The “promised land” is now believed to be a ‘heavenly inheritance’ rather than a material piece of real estate.

      The Qur’an also falls for the Jewish hubris that they were God’s chosen people, but its teaching is that only those who truly believe among the Jews are God’s chosen. Islam would echo the Christian apostle Paul’s statement that “they are not all ‘Israel’ who are OF Israel”, and physical descent from Abraham does not necessarily make a person “Abraham’s seed”. In other words, the true “children of Abraham” are those who follow in Abraham’s FAITH. Those physical descendants who are not truly of Abraham’s faith are not Abraham’s children (nor “children of Israel”). So when the vast majority of “Israelites” depart from Abrahamic faith, they are kicked out of the ‘holy land’. They are not God’s ‘chosen’, so the land does not belong to them. They have no right to ‘claim’ it through ‘jihad’!

      The Qur’an does not promise that God will restore the Jews to the land. Sura 17:8 says that God may yet ‘have mercy’ on them; “but if you do the same again, so shall We: We have made Hell a prison for those who defy [Our warning].” Any restoration which may possibly happen is an act of “mercy”, not a “divine right. And any restoration would certainly not result in Jews having some right or obligation to accomplish it by displacing or killing others whom the Qur’an would consider to be Abraham’s seed who are submitted to God!

      17:104 does not in any way indicate that God will restore Israel to the “holy land”. Let me give Muhammad Asad’s rendering of the verse and his footnote on it:

      “And after that We said unto the children of Israel: ‘Dwell now securely on earth – but [remember that] when the promise of the last day shall come to pass, We will bring you forth as [parts of] a motley crowd”.

      His footnote says: “According to Razi, the expression lafif denotes a human crowd composed of innumerable heterogeneous elements, good and bad, strong and weak, fortunate and unfortunate: in short, it characterizes mankind in all its aspects. It is obviously used here to refute, once again, the idea that the children of Israel are a ‘chosen people’ by virtue of their Abrahamic descent and, therefore, a priori and invariably destined for God’s grace. The Qur’an rejects this claim by stating that on Resurrection Day all mankind will be judged, and none will have a privileged position.”

      As to whether I believe Isaac or Ishmael was the sacrificial son, of course I believe Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael are fictional characters and therefore the whole argument is really irrelevant to me. Nevertheless I believe that the Qur’an itself teaches that it was Ishmael (even though the son’s name is not mentioned). I wrote about this in an article entitled Abraham’s Near Sacrifice of His Only Son. I pointed out that the Biblical story is self-contradictory in that it says it was Isaac, yet it also says it was Abrahams’s only son – which was never true of Isaac. Isaac was the second born son (13 or 14 years later than Ishmael, according to the myth), so it had to be either Isaac or Abraham’s only son. If it was the “only son” it had to be Ishmael, who was the “only son” for at least 13 years (according to the myth).

      That the Qur’an ‘corrects’ the contradiction by coming down in favor of the “only son” is evident in that the promise to Abraham that he would have a son named Isaac (37:112) is made after the account is given of the attempted sacrifice of a son (37:99-111). This is in keeping with the previous verses in which the Qur’an moves from one character to another. Verses 77-82 speak of Noah; then 83-98 speak of Abraham; 99-111 introduce the (firstborn) son – which would be Ishmael; 112-113 then introduce another son (Isaac); 114-122 Moses and Aaron; 123-131 Elijah,etc. It would not make sense to introduce Isaac in one set of verses, then reintroduce him in another set of verses immediately following.

      So Genesis couldn’t get its story straight, but the Qur’an straightens things out. Of course it’s all fake history anyway.

      Finally, concerning whether or not Jewish and Christian prophets are “muslims”, according to the Qur’an they are. This does not mean that they are not Jews and Chrisitians; it means they are Jewish muslims and Christian muslims (“muslim” simply meaning “submitted to God”). Note this concerning Abraham and Ishmael in 2:127-128 (Yusuf Ali version):

      “And remember Abraham and Isma’il raised the foundations of the House (With this prayer): “Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us: For Thou art the All-Hearing, the All-knowing. Our Lord! make of us Muslims, bowing to Thy (Will), and of our progeny a people Muslim, bowing to Thy (will); and show us our place for the celebration of (due) rites; and turn unto us (in Mercy); for Thou art the Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.”

      Then there are these verses concerning the disciples of Jesus: ” 3:52 – When Jesus found unbelief on their part He said: “Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah [God]?” Said the disciples: “We are Allah’s [God’s] helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.” 5:111 – “And behold! I inspired the disciples to have faith in Me and Mine Messenger: they said, ‘We have faith, and do thou bear witness that we bow to Allah [God] as Muslims’”.

      I think that answers the main points of your comments. It’s certainly a long enough comment at any rate! 🙂

      • Hi Mystic

        Jesus was a Jew. The early Christians were Jews, that is a historical fact. Just pick up any history book even if you don’t believe the Bible religiously. So you cannot say you bleieve in the narrative after Soloman when Jesus himself as the New Testment (even after Paul and others tried to erase the law of Moses) testifies. Jesus kept the Jewish laws, he ate Kosher, he wore Jewish clothes, and obersved festivals in the temple. He was a pharisee because he argued with pharisees. He wouldn’t be arguing with pharisees otherwise, you only argue with your own type.

        The 1st century Jews who bleieved in Jesus (early Chrisians) were Jewish in every sense and they were not rejected by Jews who did not bleieve in Jesus. There are many messiahs in Jewish history.

        Christianity only became a separate religioun centuries after Paul of Tarsus changed the belief and put words in Jesus mouth. The resurrections and trinity came much later and it was a response to roman persecution and an attempt to separate from Judaism.

        If Jesus were here today, he would recognise Judiasm but not Christianity or Islam.

        Muslims don’t believe in paul and in any case trinitarian christians are condemend and cursed inquran. Christians for muslims are those who were the early christians, the ones who follow the law of Musa and were Jewish in those days although now they are called ‘muslims’ in Islam.

        3 centures after Jesus death, the early christians were perseucated by the Romans.

        In Islam, the son of a concubine which Hagar was does not inherit. According to Islamic law a man can have 4 wives at any one time, and divorce them at will. This is a kind of prostitution which even mohammed and his companions practiced. Marry at will and divorce. However if there are slaves, (women) it is legal to have sex with them too. A man is obligated to look after the children but they do not inherit. In terms of inheritance only sons of wives (and daughters) count.

        So the Quran saying ‘take your son, your only son’ only means the son by Sara which was Issac. Ismael’s mother was Abraham’s concubine. In Islam and i think in Judiasm this is not a problem. In Islam the Ismaels would not inherit.
        You probably are confused about this Ishmael business, because in Christiantiy a man cannot have legal children with anyone but his wife. If a man has a female slave in Christianity, the children are not legitimate. In Islam they are legitimate but they do not inherit. I think this same law exists in Judaism too.

        In Islam Sara was Abrahams’s wife. Ishmael the first son was not illegitimate (hagar was a concubine) but he was not a legal heir. In terms on inheritance, it would apply to Sara’s children , cuz she was his wife.

        The quran doesn’t mention Ishmael and if you apply islamic law which mohammed himself set, then it means Isaac.

        The irony is, the Quran affirms the Jewish narrative. Historically,muslims have gotton on better with Jews rather than Christians.

        • Just to re-iterate,

          Ishmael is not mentioned as the sacrificial son, no matter what later Islamic jurists say.

          Sons of concubines do not inherit in Islam.

          The quran is not a historical narrative, just because the Joshua account (conquest of canaan) is not mentioned doesn’t necessarily mean the account in the torah is not true, especially given that the quran says they bani israel were punished for not fighting. Therefore, the genocidee you describe would be jihad and permitted. What do you think jihadi’s do today , do you think they think it is murder when they kill kafirs?

          Jihad is sanctioned in the quran, its the hightest form of good deed, to sacrifice yourself in battle. That is what the bani Israel were expected to do.

          In any case, the quran wouldn’t contain that because it is not a compilation of history. But that doesn’ t matter that the Jews would be condemned for that.

          But even if one believes that Ishmael is the sacrificial son (which the quran doesn’t say, the islamic jurists interpret it as such) then it is laughable that his descendents fell into paganism in arabia, and were not able to preserve his religion when the children of Isaac (the bani israel) were able to do so without land and losing soverignty. only in 700AD a certain mohammed, (there is no proof he is decended from ishmael) claims to be abraham’s descendent when his own parents were kafir. Ishmael was not the sacrifical son, the muslims who wanted to legitimise their religion and save face. Otherwise the logical conclusion is why follow mohammed’s religion?

          Finally, the jewish conqueset of modern day ottoman/british land was tame compared to Czech/german, and pakistan genocide of bengalis and the india/pakistan transfer/explusion/genocide. They had a plan of genocide. So your picking out Israel and saying it is specially bad does not stand. any land conqured by a muslim even if genocide is involved is lauded. when the euro settlers came to indian land which they call america they called it a holy conquest, the chosen nation. European kings calls themselves ‘divine right’ rulers and comitted many genocides in the name of Jesus.

          In terms of genocide, Islam and Christianity take the cake.

          • Habeel – Let me reiterate, then that it doesn’t matter that Ishmael’s name is not mentioned in the ‘sacrificial son’ account in the Qur’an (37:99-111). Verses 75-148 give a running account of several different characters in Jewish ‘history’; each group of verses (or paragraph) in succeeding order introduces a different character. Verses 99-11 tell of one son, introducing him in this way (verse 101): “so We gave him [Abraham] the good news that he would have a patient son”. This son grows older, and then the ‘sacrifice’ story is told concerning the ‘grown up’ boy. After the story of this son is finished, another paragraph begins with another announcement of ‘good news’ concerning the birth of a son – Isaac by name. This is not a continuation of the previous story about a ‘patient son’, but an entirely new story – very obviously concerning a different son. Since both the ‘Old Testament’ and the Qur’an acknowledge two major sons of Abraham, with Ishmael being the first and Isaac the second, it is quite reasonable and logical to see the two succeeding paragraphs announcing two succeeding births to be about those two different sons – with the firstborn Ishmael occurring first, and the second born Isaac coming second. The lack of an identifying name in the first account (it doesn’t name Isaac in the first paragraph either) simply doesn’t matter.

            The ‘Torah’ is not a historical narrative either (although it pretends to be), and just because an event is mentioned in that ‘Torah’ does not mean that it really happened. In fact it most certainly didn’t happen. It’s ‘fake history’ (as is the Qur’an’s account also, of course).

            In the Qur’an, the “Israelites” were punished for ‘turning back’ – refusing to enter the land as ‘God’ allegedly commanded them – out of fear of the inhabitants. If there were any truth to the story, fighting may well have ensued if the “Israelites” had obeyed the command to enter the land; but maybe not, also. You yourself mentioned the instance of Umar’s non-violent conquest of Jerusalem; so theoretically the same could have occurred with the “Israelites” entrance into Canaan. Since the land was not densely populated, they could perhaps have avoided the towns and settled where no one else was; or they could have perhaps intermingled non-violently with the inhabitants already there. ‘God’ could have ‘turned the hearts’ of the inhabitants to peacefully accept the people. So military ‘jihad’ could feasibly not even have been necessary, if the “Israelites” had ‘trusted God’ rather than ‘turning back’ out of fear!

            But even if the inhabitants resisted militarily and the “Israelites” had to fight, fighting against armed combatants is nowhere near the same as the vicious genocide mentioned in the Bible. You, wahhabis, and ‘Islamophobes’ always seem to get the two things confused. Many wars have been fought in which armed soldiers fought and killed each other, without indiscriminate killing of the unarmed and noncombatants. This is the fighting enjoined in the Qur’an; and the Qur’an insists that the other side must initiate the fighting. The fighting stops when the other side ceases to fight; it doesn’t continue into slaughter of “everything that breathes”. There is nothing ‘Islamic’ about that kind of slaughter, even though ISIS and al Qaeda (and Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer) may say differently.

            In Islam, ‘jihad’ is a much wider concept than military fighting. It simply means ‘struggle’, and as you surely know military fighting is considered to be “the lesser jihad” in Islam. The ‘greater jihad’ is the inward struggle with one’s own ‘sinful’ thoughts, inclinations, and actions. ‘Struggle’ by means of speech, writing and political action is also ‘jihad’. Wherever the English word ‘struggle’ can be used, one could substitute ‘jihad’.

            Again, everything we’re discussing is myth; it never happened. Of course Muhammad did not descend from Ishmael, because Ishmael is a fable. Neither did the Jews descend from Isaac and Jacob, because they are also fables. The Arabs were always polytheists prior to Muhammad (except those who converted to Judaism or Christianity); and the so-called ‘Jews’ were always polytheists prior to the ‘return’ from Babylonian captivity. What the alleged ‘prophets’ called ‘apostasy’ in Israel and Judea was not ‘apostasy’ at all. The stories of preexisting monotheism from which those tribes supposedly frequently departed (for which they were consequently ‘judged’ by Yahweh by means of Assyrians and Babylonians) were invented by priests in order to establish monotheism (for the first time) by means of guilt and fear. The Jews have maintained their monotheistic faith since it was bludgeoned into them using guilt – and – fear producing stories; but Muslims have maintained their monotheistic faith just as tenaciously since Muhammad.

            Finally, bringing up other instances of genocide does not at all negate the evil of the “Israeli” genocide and apartheid in Palestine. An event does not have to be unique, or the worst of its kind, in order to be reprehensible. I did not say the situation with “Israel” is “specially bad” – though I did say I find Netanyahu’s reprimand of the UN for ‘fake history’ to be one of the most amusingly absurd things I have come across. I did say that Judaism/Christianity is much worse than Islam, because their Bible calls for mass murder by the Israelites (and glorifies mass murder by God) whereas Islam’s Qur’an does not. Whatever some muslims may have done in that regard, their Qur’an does not sanction or approve it. Fighting against armed combatants who initiated the battle, yes; mass slaughter of unarmed non-combatants (including women and children), no.

        • Habeel – There are so many things incorrect and even absurd in your last 3 comments that it’s difficult to reply to them all. I will respond to each comment separately this time in order to try to include everything. However, after I have responded to the last comment, I will not be replying to any further comments from you (on this particular article at any rate). If you reply to me, I’ll have to decide at that time whether or not to post it (or them).

          To begin, then: that Jesus and his original disciples and apostles were Jewish (according to the ‘New Testament Gospels’ accounts) was never a question in my articles or comments. There were other early versions of ‘Christianity’ which did not view Jesus even as a real man (he was just a ‘spirit’ appearing to be a man), much less a Jewish man fulfilling Jewish messianic prophesies. However, those versions pretty much died out with the traditional ‘orthodox’ version becoming dominant and ‘conquering’ the so-called ‘heretical’ versions. Some people today insist that the ‘spiritual’ (gnostic) versions were ‘original’, and the ‘Jewish man’ version was a later ‘perversion’.

          Nevertheless, I have always written my articles based on the ‘New Testament’ presentation of a Jewish messiah fulfilling Jewish prophesies in the ‘Old Testament’. That’s why I wrote in one of my comments that the Christian viewpoint of ‘Israel’ as a chosen nation includes the idea that the Jewish Jesus and his Jewish disciples fulfilled the chosen mission of ‘Israel’ when the nation as a whole failed miserably. They fulfilled ‘Israel’s’ mission to be a light to the nations, and now believers in all nations (including believing Jews, of course) are God’s ‘chosen people’.

          However, the point of this article was that Jewish history is ‘fake history’; the great ‘heroes’ of the ‘Old Testament’ never existed, so of course the events attributed to them never happened. This means that the ‘New Testament’ stories about ‘Jesus Christ’ are also ‘fake history’, and all of the references to those Jewish heroes (including Jesus and his disciples) in the Qur’an are also ‘fake history’. Since Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Solomon never existed, they could not have had a descendant named ‘Jesus son of Mary’. There could not be a ‘seed of David’ to inherit his kingdom, so the stories of Jesus as the seed/son of David, heir to his throne, are falsehoods. There was no first century conflict between Christians and Jews, because Jesus was unheard of. There are no first century historical accounts of Jesus and Christianity; even the supposed “Gospels” and “epistles” (letters) were written later than the first century. “Paul” was probably as much a figment of someone’s imagination as “King David” and “Jesus Christ”.

          Giving the ‘benefit of the doubt’ to the “New Testament” stories of Jesus, though, your contention that Jesus was a Pharisee because he argued with Pharisees has to be among the most absurd arguments ever made! The idea that “you only argue with your own type” is ridiculous! Are you trying to tell me that Democrats don’t argue with Republicans? Sunnis don’t argue with Shia? Christians don’t argue with Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus? Protestants and Catholics don’t argue with each other? If you’re so deluded as to think that, I feel sorry for you.

          I, at least, am pretty confidant that anyone who went around proclaiming “Woe unto you, Catholics – you hypocrites! Your destiny is the fires of hell!” would not be identifying him/herself as a Catholic! No person who accused Shia Muslims of departing from, and perverting, the faith would be identifying him/herself as a Shia. Just so, the Jesus Christ of the “New Testament” Gospels would certainly not have identified as a Pharisee. But believe what you want; it doesn’t really matter since it’s ‘fake history’ anyhow.

          Moving on, whether or not the son of a concubine could legally inherit is completely irrelevant to the discussion of the ‘sacrificial son’ myth. (1) The accounts do not say that God told Abraham to “take now thine heir, thine only heir Isaac…” God allegedly told Abraham to take his only son. Both the “Old Testament” and the Qur’an (and your own argument also) acknowledge that Ishmael was very legitimately Abraham’s son and ‘seed’. Isaac was never Abraham’s only son, whether or not he was his only legitimate heir. Any ‘confusion’ on this issue is yours, not mine.

          But (2) the idea that the ‘slave woman’ Hagar was Abraham’s concubine rather than wife is a (very common) misconception. Although it is generally overlooked, Genesis 16:3 says Hagar became Abraham’s wife! “So, after Abraham had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abraham’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her maid, and gave her to Abram her husband as a WIFE”! This would make Ishmael Abraham’s legal heir (according to Islamic law also I imagine), not just his son. This explains Sarah’s comment (Genesis 21:10) “Cast out this slave woman with her son; for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.” She knew that Ishmael was legally Abraham’s heir, but she wouldn’t accept it. Hagar is frequently referred to as a “slave woman”, but I don’t believe the Old Testament account ever called her a ‘concubine’. But it DOES call her Abraham’s WIFE at least that once.

          In a previous comment I have given my reasons for believing that the Qur’an account of the ‘sacrificial son’ referred to Ishmael even though he is not specifically named. I don’t need to go into it again here.

      • Hi Mystic

        Sorry I missed what you said about 5.21. No I didnt’ omit to post any verse, that is why I posted the url.

        For some reason you seem to be rejecting what the Quran says and what Muslim (jurists) translate and insist on interpreting it without understanding what it means.

        ‘enter the land’ needs to be understood in the context, and it comes after the verse which says Allah gave them the land it is their inheritance. For an inheriticance you do jihad where fighting to death and killing the enemy is obligatory.

        ‘enter’ in this case doesn’t mean knock on the door and enter. And what you think the Canaanaites should have done is not the issue.

        The issue here is Allah telling the Bani Israel that they are given the land and when something is yours in Islam you have the right to do jihad for it. Thus their refusal to fight for their land is why they were punished.

        REad and understand the ARabic original instead of pretending it means something it does not.

        The reason the wordss in the Surah’s are in brackets is because there is not a corresponding English word. It is not the interpretation of the Jurists since they don’t differ on translation. They only differ on how to interpret what the words means.

        The differeing interpretations are compiled separately, and they in the Hadeeth’s. Not in the QUran.

        Ibn Kathir, one of the most important jurists in Islam. This is his tafsir, and it is not the make believe scenario you wrote above.

        Note the interpreation ‘assault’ for enter. That is how Muslims have traditionally understood it, not the way your evangelical non Arabic speaking/understanding eyes see it.
        . And (remember) when Musa said to his people: “O my people! Remember the favor of Allah to you: when He made Prophets among you, made you kings and gave you what He had not given to any other among the nations (Al-`Alamin).”) (21. “O my people! Enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you and turn not back; for then you will be returned as losers.”) (22. They said: “O Musa! In it are a people of great strength, and we shall never enter it, till they leave it; when they leave, then we will enter.”) (23. Two men of those who feared (Allah and) on whom Allah had bestowed His grace said: “Assault them through the gate; for when you are in, victory will be yours. And put your trust in Allah if you are believers indeed.”) (24. They said: “O Musa! We shall never enter it as long as they are there. So go, you and your Lord, and fight you two, we are sitting right here.”) (25. He ﴿Musa﴾ said: “O my Lord! I have power only over myself and my brother, so Ifruq us from the rebellious people!”) (26. (Allah) said: “Therefore it is forbidden to them for forty years; in distraction they will wander through the land. So do not greive for the rebellious people.”)

        This is called Jihad.

        This is what Caliph Umar practiced when he took the land from the Christian Byzantium empire. The Christian patriarch, quietly handed over the land when Omar wanted it, because otherwise there would have been Jihad.

        Understand Islam for what it is, not for what you think it is.

        Jihad is for the whole world, muslims are supposed to tell the kafir peacefully to surrender their land and become muslims or pay Jizya. If they refuse, they will face jihad. That is what the caliphates were about, that is why mohamed fought his pagan acestors in mecca, and that is what ISIS is doing today, and what muslims will do in future.

        The quran tells muslims all of the earth is theirs.

        • Habeel — You have confused the issue by conflating ‘Jurists’ with ‘translators’. They are two different functions – although it is possible that in some instances one person has served in both capacities.

          I will grant that Jurists’ differences in interpretation are not reflected in their translations – because Jurists (acting in that capacity) do not do translations. Their job as Jurists is to interpret the Qur’an (and hadith) for the purpose of legal decisions, and their differences are reflected in different schools of law and perhaps in commentaries (tasfir).

          Translators, though, have the sometimes difficult job of rendering the meaning of the Qur’an into another language (English, for instance). In doing so, the differing ideas on interpretation are reflected in the wording of the translations. These differences are expressed both in the direct translations of the Arabic words, and in the bracketed interpolations designed to further clarify the translator’s understanding of the meaning of the text. All you have to do to realize that different translations represent different interpretations of the Qur’an is do some comparisons between two or more versions of the Qur’an.

          The text in Sura 5 which we have been discussing is a good example. Your original quotation of the passage said this in 5:21 – “O my people, enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you and do not turn back [from fighting in Allah ‘s cause] and [thus] become losers.” I replied that the bracketed phrase “from fighting in Allah’s cause” was an interpretive interpolation by the translator (Sahih International in this case), and gave another version of the text (Abdel Haleem) which did not include any such interpolation:

          “My people, go into the holy land which God has ordained for you-do not turn back or you will be the losers.”

          I was pointing out that fighting was not part of the actual ‘command’ of ‘God/Allah’ in the Qur’an. It was the translator’s interpretive interpolation. However, you responded by stating that the bracketed phrases are not interpolations – yet gave a different English rendering of 5:21 which (like Abdel Haleem) does not have any bracketed phrase following “turn not back”:

          “O my people! Enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you and turn not back; for then you will be returned as losers.” That in itself (Haleem plus the second rendering you used) should be enough to prove that “from fighting in Allah’s cause” was a translator’s interpretive interpolation which was not actually in the Qur’an text. However, to further prove my point, here are a couple of other renderings which do interpolate something following “do not turn back”:

          Muhammad Asad renders it this way: “O my people! Enter the holy land which God has promised you; but do not turn back [on your faith], for then you will be lost!”

          Notice that it is a bracketed phrase, but it is entirely different from the “from fighting in Allah’s cause” found in the Sahih International version.

          Yusuf Ali’s version has this to say: “O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.”

          Here it is only one word which is interpolated (“ignominiously”), and it is not bracketed. So here we have 3 English versions containing 3 entirely different word/phrases following “do not turn back” – and I submit that they could not possibly all be legitimate renderings of some Arabic word or phrase in the Qur’an itself. In fact, since several English versions agree in not putting any word or phrase between “do not turn back” and “for then you will be lost”, I conclude that it is obvious that those added phrases are not in the Qur’an itself, but are supposedly clarifying additions by the various translators.

          Now let’s look at verse 23 (which you did not include in your original comment containing this passage; you mislabeled verse 26 as verse 23 though). Verse 23 in the Sahih International version which you originally used and linked to reads this way:

          “Said two men from those who feared [to disobey] upon whom Allah had bestowed favor, “Enter upon them through the gate, for when you have entered it, you will be predominant. And upon Allah rely, if you should be believers.”

          In this most recent comment of yours, replying to me, you substitute another version which renders the phrase “enter upon them” as “assault them“. You rightly comment that this is an interpretation of the Arabic, not an actual ‘translation’. Yusuf Ali agrees with this ‘interpretation’:

          “(But) among (their) God-fearing men were two on whom Allah had bestowed His grace: they said: “Assault them at the (proper) Gate: when once ye are in, victory will be yours. but on Allah put your trust if ye have faith.””

          However, the actual ‘translation’ (as opposed to ‘interpretation’) seems to be “enter on” or something similar, just as the Sahih International version to which you originally referred has it. Here are some others:

          Muhammad Asad: “[Whereupon] two men from among those who feared [God, and] whom God had blessed, said: “Enter upon them through the gate – for as soon as you enter it, behold, you shall be victorious! And in God you must place your trust if you are [truly] believers!””

          (Mr. Asad agreed with the ‘interpretation’ that this meant a ‘frontal attack’, but he placed that interpretation in a footnote rather than in the text.)

          M. H. Shakir: “Two men of those who feared, upon both of whom Allah had bestowed a favor, said: Enter upon them by the gate, for when you have entered it you shall surely be victorious, and on Allah should you rely if you are believers.”

          Pickthal: “Then outspoke two of those who feared (their Lord, men) unto whom Allah had been gracious: Enter in upon them by the gate, for if ye enter by it, lo! ye will be victorious. So put your trust (in Allah) if ye are indeed believers.”

          Some/many/most (whatever) Muslims may indeed interpret “enter upon them” to mean “attack/assault them”, as a result of placing too much confidence in the Jewish fables in the ‘Old Testament’; but the Qur’an does not actually say “attack/assault”. If the Qur’an were read without reference to the ‘Old Testament’ accounts, this interpretation would no doubt not exist.

          The idea of fighting in the Qur’an is defensive, not aggressive. Whatever the ‘Caliphs’ who followed Muhammad may have done and said, the Qur’an itself doesn’t sanction aggressive assaults. However, the very example you gave of Umar taking ‘the land’ from the Byzantine empire repudiates the idea that ‘jihad’ necessitates fighting and killing – since Umar ‘captured’ the land without fighting. Umar gave the Byzantines the option of simply surrendering, according to your own account; and they took the offer.

          The Jewish fables, however, don’t give the Canaanites even the opportunity to peacefully surrender; the ‘Israelites’ are simply commanded to commit genocide and slaughter every thing that breathes (something nowhere to be found in the Qur’an) – or in some cases enslave the original inhabitants. I wish that more Muslims would use some critical thinking with regard to the atrocious nonsense in the ‘Old Testament’, and simply disregard it as the myth and fable it is.

          Actually, I fault the Qur’an itself for giving any credence to anything in the Jewish ‘Scriptures’, including the very existence of the Jewish ‘heroes’ such as Abraham and Moses. However I don’t attribute to the Qur’an that which is not actually there, and I certainly don’t attack it for things it doesn’t teach.

          As I said in a previous comment, this will end my correspondence with you so far as this article is concerned. I figure we have each said enough about the article and any tangents into which we may have wandered. Other articles are another matter – but I won’t just keep going back and forth indefinitely with comments on any article.

  4. Hi mystic,

    Thank you for your reply. Yes I meant former muslim, now atheist or agnostic maybe I should say. Like your questions on Chrisitanity i too questioned Islam and found it badly lacking. But i don’t side or sympathise with Satan lol

    I apologise for saying that u said people should convert to islam. I get what you mean. I also apologise if i said something to offend u.

    With respect, your interpretation of islam is wrong. It is not what muslims belive and again everything u are condemning jews for SOEMTHING WHICH IS ALSO in the quran.

    If the quran says the new testament is fiddled and the old testament is fiddled you cannot use the new testament to show it harmonizes with the quran on the old testament because the quran says both are fiddled and corrupt. You are using the quran to justify what you think is your belief that chritaintiy/Judaism is corrupt.

    How u know it is what mohammed said? History is written by the victor. I don’t believe the arab muslim history regarding mohammed. If mohamed was decended from Abraham why where his people and own tribe pagans? Mohammed did not write the quran. It was compiled after his death by the ‘righteous caliphs’. It is not a primary source any more than the bible or old testament is. Mohamed was illiterate and a disgruntled jew or Christian could have helped him write the quran and claim a new religion and lineage from Abraham. How come the jews managed to keep their religion from Abraham even when persecuted by romans but the muslims became pagan? Did u know mohamed ancestors were pagan yet he claims ancestry from Abraham? This is bullshit. Something his followers probably composed.

    But in any case, this is what muslims believe below.

    Muslims believe the quran is the word of god not the word of mohammed. The word of mohammed is the hadith for the Sunni and for the Shia they follow their imams who they believe are descended from mohammed and guided by god.


    If the quran says the old testament is fiddled then what you are saying about the Jews and Christains is wrong, it was corrupted texts and they didn’t really do what you said the old testament says they did because the text is corrupt. The Quran condems trinitarian Christian belief but not Jewish belief. Jews are condemned when they don’t do jihad (to capture Israel) or when they don’t keep Sabbath or when they break their oath of dhimma. But Christians are condemned if they belief jesus is god, this is why Christians suffer in muslim countries, but u don’t seem to care. Nor u care than ISIS is only doing what qurna says. Jihad against kafir.

    Moreover, the old testament cannot be all wrong like said because allah says muslims can eat with Jews. Muslims eat Kosher but they won’t eat with Chrisitans cuz christens reject the law of Moses. islam has more in common with Judaism than Christianity and in any case Musa not mohamed or jesus is the most mentioned prophet in the quran.

    What is the muslim belief of Israel? You are condemning jews for their ancient conequest of Israel, but allah says he condemned them for 40 years in the desert when they refused to fight (jihad) the inhabitants. The giants. This is why muslims laugh at jews and call them cowards cuz it took them 40 years to build courage to take their land from the giants.

    so with respect, the allah of the quran is no different to the yahwah of the old testament. allah wanted the Jews to fight the giants and take the land of Israel because the giant inhabitants were kafirs. In other words the Jews did not comit an ISIS like genocide against the cannaanites. Read the whole of Surah al maidah, somewhere along the verses below, allah tells the Jews that they cannot kill except for those in the land who rebel against allah. In other words those who disobey the old testament or those liek the giants who allah wants them to fight.

    Surah al Maidah

    5.20 And [mention, O Muhammad], when Moses said to his people, “O my people, remember the favor of Allah upon you when He appointed among you prophets and made you possessors and gave you that which He had not given anyone among the worlds.

    5.21 O my people, enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you and do not turn back [from fighting in Allah ‘s cause] and [thus] become losers.”

    5.22 They said, “O Moses, indeed within it is a people of tyrannical strength, and indeed, we will never enter it until they leave it; but if they leave it, then we will enter.”

    5.23 [ Allah ] said, “Then indeed, it is forbidden to them for forty years [in which] they will wander throughout the land. So do not grieve over the defiantly disobedient people.”

  5. Well, given that the Quran gives the right to Muslims to claim Allah gave them the Hijaz and they successfully killed and expelled Jews and Christians and the atheist pagan Arabs who were in Mecca, it is a bit rich for Muslims to cry when the Jews in Israel or the Christian Crusaders attempt to reclaim Spain.

    A fragment from an unknown work by al-ṬabarĪ on the tradition ‘Expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula (and the lands of Islam)’

    Islamic tradition records many precedents for expulsion of Jews and other non-Muslims. The authors of the two most important collections of ḥadīths, al-Bukhārī and Muslim, have chapters entitled ‘On exiling the Jews from Arabia’ or ‘On exiling the Jews from the Ḥijāz’. Similar chapters exist in other collections of traditions. These statements testify to Muḥammad’s expulsion of ‘the Jews of Medina—all of them’, or report his will to expel the Jews—or in variants, the Jews and Christians or the Polytheists—from the Arabian Peninsula. Clearly, the traditions are interpreted with the widest possible reference regarding who is to be exiled: no non-Muslim is allowed to remain. But the geographical extent of the area from which non-Muslims are to be exiled is interpreted in narrow fashion: ‘What is meant by ‘the Arabian Peninsula” in this tradition is the Ḥijāz, not the entire Arabian Peninsula.’ This is so despite ample potential for broad interpretation in the language of the texts. In a tradition which supports a projected exile of the Jews of Medina, Muhammad tells the Jews, ‘Know that the land is the Lord’s and his Apostle’s.’ The word arḍ ‘land’ in the ḥadīth is understood to refer specifically to the plots of land the Jews had owned, now considered lo be held by them in tenancy. This could easily have been taken out of context by some interpreters and applied to all lands. A tradition used to support the prohibition of dhimmī residence in Ḥijāz reads, in some versions, ‘two religions (sometimes using the term qiblas—directions faced in prayer) may not exist in one land,’ in others, ‘two qiblas may not exist in Arabia’. In practice, this tradition was applied only to Ḥijāz and was not extended to all of Arabia or any other ‘land’. Chapter headings are often our only indication of how traditions were understood by those who collected them; Mālik’s chapter heading has this tradition refer only to the expulsion of Jews from Medina.

    • Jamila – I don’t know for sure where you got the information in your first paragraph (though I could make a guess), but it’s way off base.

      There is nothing in the Qur’an which says that God (Allah) gave Muslims the Hijaz – and most definitely nothing to say they had the right to kill and expel non-muslims. The only non-Muslims killed or expelled (during the lifetime of Muhammad at any rate) were those who attacked and sought to kill the Muslims. And surely you won’t deny a people the right to defend themselves against violent attack!

      The only verse in the Qur’an which bears any possible resemblance to what you claim is 9:28, which says this: “Believers, those who ascribe partners to God are truly unclean: do not let them come near the Sacred Mosque after this year…”. The strict (and in my estimation proper) understanding of this verse would be that only Muslim believers would be allowed use of the Kaba (“the Sacred Mosque”) from then on. “Near” was (unfortunately in my view) later interpreted to include all of Mecca, and that does appear to be the generally received understanding of the verse – at least among Sunnis (the majority ‘sect’ of Muslims). I did some searching to see if Shia Muslims differ from Sunnis on this, but was unable to find anything.

      The 9th chapter (Sura) of the Qur’an was given between 1 and 2 years prior to Muhammad’s death, and I am not aware of any attempt by “the Prophet” to expel any ‘unbelievers’ from Mecca prior to his death.

      The first expulsions from anywhere in the Hijaz – to the best of my knowledge – came approximately 3 years after Muhammad died, during the rule of the 2nd of “the Four Rightly-Guided Caliphs”: Umar (or Omar). He had some Jews moved elsewhere in Arabia, but no one was killed and no property was destroyed – and those Jews were not put into virtual concentration camps. That was decidedly different from the actions of the Zionist Jews in Palestine. While I do not agree with such relocations as Umar carried out, what the Zionists did in modern Palestine (and what their fake history says they did 3000 years ago) was much worse.

      Chapter (Sura) 5 of the Qur’an was given very shortly before Muhammad’s death – it is believed to be the last of the major Suras ‘revealed’ – and in it you will see that Jews and Christians were still present. Not only so, but many of those “people of the book” were mocking and ridiculing the Muslims; yet the Muslim believers were only exhorted not to take such mockers as allies and supporters! There was no exhortation to kill or expel them!

      So much for what the Qur’an has to say on the matter. What remains are the ‘hadith’ to which you referred. These are statements – outside of the Qur’an – attributed to “the Prophet”. Hadith, though, present a problem inasmuch as there are so many of them, the overwhelming majority of which are acknowledged by all (or almost all) Muslim scholars to be inauthentic. Many of them directly contradict the instructions of the Qur’an. Only a relative ‘handful’ are considered to be of unquestionable authenticity.

      A few years ago when I was thinking of visiting a Mosque, I looked up the web page of a local Sunni Mosque, and found an article by one of the leaders exhorting the readers (aimed at the youth) not to get involved in disputations about hadith. They should leave the hadith alone since it takes many years of intense study before one can acquire the necessary expertise to discern true from false hadith, and rightly interpret the true ones. And even ‘experts’ disagree among themselves about the hadith.

      Nevertheless I admit that it appears to be generally accepted that those ‘expel the Jews and Christians’ hadith are authentic. Admitting that, however, it is nevertheless true that when expulsions took place they were carried out nonviolently. No one was killed and no property was destroyed. As I said, totally different from the situation in Palestine.

      To recap: the Qur’an, when strictly (and properly, in my viewpoint) interpreted, only requires that the Kaba in Mecca be used by Muslim believers only. It does not call for expulsion of non-Muslims from any city or region.

      When the Qur’an calls for fighting and killing ‘unbelievers’, it is ‘unbelievers’ who have attacked the Muslims such as the polytheists from Mecca and Jews and Christians in Medina who broke their oath of allegiance and traitorously aided and abetted the Meccans. No one was to be killed simply for being an ‘unbeliever’.

      When Jews and Christians were expelled from cities in the Hijaz (wrongly in my view), the expulsion was done without violence. They were provided with other decent places to live – not ghettos and concentration camps.

      Also, the Muslims of the Hijaz were not foreign invaders, as were the mostly European Jews who came into “Israel” and violently displaced the Palestinians.
      The Hijaz Muslims were long time residents who had willingly embraced Islam; and by the time they expelled non-Muslims the Muslims were overwhelmingly in the majority – another difference from the situation in Palestine. It doesn’t in my estimation vindicate the expulsion, but it was a vastly superior situation compared to Palestine (whether modern history, or ancient fake history).

  6. palestine is not mentioned in the quran, but israel is.

  7. hi mystic
    mecca and medina were ethnically cleansed from chrsitans and jews since oever 1400 years. Do you know police every 10 metres prevent kafirs from entering? did you know jews and christians lived in medina ?

    did you know the islamic system of rule means chrisitans and jews remain low and pay jizya and ahteists/polytheists/pagan have to be converted or die?

    now my question to u is this

    If the USA and the rest of the world do not care about muslim apartheid they won’t care about jewish apartheid either. in fact msulim apartheid is worse but you cannot see that. Seems like u hate christians because u live in the usa and cuz of your wife beliefs. But please consider fate of christains in muslims countries.

    just a thought.

  8. hi mystic, I am an atheist muslim arab. I’m surpised to hear this from you.

    you said people should convert to Islam because christianity and judaism have a god that is violent. But you are not making sense.

    1. If you said what you said above in a Jewish or Christian country, you won’t be shot or beheaded by the state. You would not be be able to sympathise with satan as being misunderstood and not charged with blasphemy in a muslim country. this applies not just today, but in the 1400 yr caliphates, whether arab, turkish or ISIS. Try saying this in saudi, egypt, brunei, pakistan, afghanistan, uae, malaysia, jordan or any other islamic country.
    they try saying it in israel or in any christian country. Where do u think you will live or not have to hide yourself from mobs?

    2. the quran says allah gave israel to the bani israel. now traditionally, muslims have understood this to mean that they are the new bani israel. Not christians and not Jews. I know Christians think they replaced Jews but Muslim think they replaced jews and christians in allahs favour. So if you reject the old testament why you tell people to be muslims?

    3. what isis did to non muslims, christians and other ‘kafir’ is what the caliphs did to christians and jews. Why were Christians ethnically cleansed from mecca and medina? they were not fighting the muslims?

    4. Christians in the arab worlds have been there longer, yet the muslimarabs deny christians a state in egypt. Copts.

    5. the biggest problem with your post is the ignorance. I quit Islam because it MANDATES Christand and Jews to be 2nd class, pay jizya and be low. The atheist and people like you who sypathise with satan do not enjoy even that. You will have to convert or face death if you were in a muslim country. what isis were doing were no different to what caliphs did. What is yoru comment on what they did to christians and yazidis and others? how is it different to what the caliphs did?

    Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

    6. why are christians perseucted in muslim countries?

    • Habeel – I will try to give one comment in reply to all your comments. I will probably wind up overlooking a point or two, but hopefully they’ll be relatively minor.

      You began this comment by calling yourself an “atheist muslim arab”. Since atheist and muslim are mutually exclusive terms, I’ll presume you meant “atheist former-muslim arab.” You can be an atheist Arab, Muslim Arab, Christian Arab, Buddhist Arab, etc; but you can’t be an atheist muslim.

      I did not say that my readers should convert to Islam. I did make a qualified statement: “But if one wishes to stick with “God” and commit to a monotheistic religion, perhaps he/she should consider Islam.” (This was in the next to last paragraph of The LORD (Yahweh) a Merciful God) I made this suggestion to those who can’t imagine giving up on monotheism because in my reading and study of the Qur’an I have found it to be much less violent and much more tolerant than the Bible. I began ‘researching’ Islam almost 8 years ago in response to e-mails and news commentaries explaining how violent and ‘evil’ Islam allegedly is. I decided to go to the Qur’an itself, and whatever ‘moderate’ Muslim sites I could find, to see if the anti-Islam reports were really true. I quickly discovered they were definitely NOT true, and on March 1, 2010, I wrote my first article on the subject of Islam: Does Islam Proclaim That All Infidels Should Be Killed? I believe that has been my most read article.

      Certainly the stories in the Qur’an about the Jewish “prophets” and the history of the “children of Israel” do not contain the violence found in the “Old Testament” narratives. It does not contain stories of God commanding the Israelites to slaughter non-Jews who had the misfortune to inhabit the land that God was allegedly giving to the Jews; nor does it contain stories of God slaughtering multiple thousands of people for the ‘sins’ of one or two people.

      The Qur’an explicitly accepts other monotheistic religions (especially Judaism and Christianity), saying that it is up to God to judge between the various beliefs wherein they differ from the ‘Muhammadan’ revelation – and “He” will in fact reward those who remain true to the ‘former revelations’. Followers of Muhammad are exhorted numerous times to do their best to live in peace with followers of previous ‘revelation’, not resorting to violence unless those others (Jews and Christians specifically) first violently attacked the Muslim believers. If the “people of the book” mock and ridicule Muslims, the believers are exhorted not to seek to be ‘friends and allies’ with them – which makes sense – but not to act with violence toward them.

      Nowhere in the Qur’an, to my knowledge, is there an exhortation to expel Jews and/or Christians from the hijaz or anywhere else – unless it was those factions who traitorously broke their covenant oaths and aided and abetted those (such as the Meccan polytheists) who attacked Medina and the Muslims. I know of no evidence that such expulsions were attempted prior to the death of “the Prophet”. Because of this, I am very leery (to say the least) of alleged ‘hadith’ of Muhammad which attribute to him commands to drive out all non-Muslims from Arabia (interpreted to mean the Hijaz area, not all of Arabia).

      With reference to the ‘jizya’ tax, you state that Islam mandates it, and that is what led you to leave Islam. I find this to be almost as hard to understand as your reference to yourself as an “atheist muslim”, since no Muslim nation today practices ‘jizya’ – and they have not during either your lifetime or mine. The Ottoman caliphate did away with jizya in the mid 1850s – I believe the exact year was 1856 – and non-Ottoman Islamic countries have all discarded the practice since.

      The only reference to ‘jizya’ in the Qur’an is 9:29. I won’t attempt to explain that verse in a comment; I’ll just direct you to a couple of articles in which I did offer an explanation:

      “Fight Christians and Jews Because of What They Believe”; and “The People of the Book” and “Shirk”.

      I’ll just mention one point that I don’t think I made in those articles (though I may have): the exemptions with regard to who had to pay this ‘jizya’ tax were many, including priests and monks. That in itself shows that it was not intended (at least originally, under Muhammad) as a ‘punishment’ for not being Muslim, and the only way (apart from conversion) to avoid being killed!

      Where Christians and/or Jews are actually ‘persecuted’ in Muslim countries, it is being done in direct violation of explicit directives in the Qur’an – and is therefore not only non-Islamic, but anti-Islamic! Even when Jews, Christians, polytheists, atheists, or ‘satanists’ actually insult and mock Muslims or “the Prophet”, the Qur’an consistently says to leave them alone and don’t seek their support or friendship. While I don’t feel much compassion for anyone who would go into a Muslim country and deliberately say or do something which would be considered insulting to Islam or its “Prophet”, the teaching of the Qur’an is clear and explicit. Legal action against such people (whether capital punishment or something less) is completely contrary to both the spirit and letter of the Qur’an. Any alleged ‘hadith’ of Muhammad which say otherwise I would have to consider spurious.

      In one of your comments you said, “Seems like u hate christians because u live in the usa and cuz of your wife beliefs.” While I may ‘hate’ Judaism and traditional Christianity (whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant), I most certainly do not hate Christians! I do not hate my wife, my sons, my grandchildren, nor the people who attend their churches, though I despise their religious beliefs. I was an evangelical/Reformed Christian until I was around 36 or 37 years old. Things I used to believe I now despise; but I don’t hate people who still hold those beliefs (no matter how ‘deluded’ I consider those people to be).

      Finally, I tried to find where in the Qur’an the “holy land” is called “Israel” but was unsuccessful. “Israel” is used as the name of Isaac’s son Jacob, and his alleged descendants are called “the children of Israel”. Perhaps somewhere the land is called “Israel” and I just couldn’t find it. Regardless, although God is said to have chosen the “children of Israel” and given them “the holy land”, he is also said to have rejected them and to have removed them from the land because they “spread corruption” in the land (17:4-7). The Qur’an does not consider God’s choice and gift to be unconditional; ‘the land’ is not theirs regardless of their actions. From the perspective of the Qur’an, the actions by which modern Jews obtained “Israel” and their actions since could only be considered “corruption”. As I pointed out earlier, the Islamic Scriptures do not contain stories of Israel’s slaughter of the non-Jewish inhabitants of “the land” – particularly at God’s command!

      Obviously, since I now see the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Moses, David, Solomon, etc. to be ‘fake history’, I consider it to be the same with the stories in the Qur’an. Nevertheless, the fake stories in the Qur’an are much better than those in the Bible.

      I hope I’ve covered everything. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: