Report: Muslim cleric invited to pray over fallen SEALs damns them during service

You know there is a certain part of this story I find humorous. I'm sure it wasn't anything that the family wanted to hear.

But the idea of this guy being so self-righteous and overzealous in his theology that he would actually do this.

It's so ludicrous it's funny.

To damn someone at their funeral service.


"Infidels!! "Ptooiu!" Spits on the ground.

reply to post by nenothtu


I listened to the recording again last night and all I could pick out was this

www.urbandictionary.com...

Shows my command of the language eh...

reply to post by Spider879

She is not a Muslim she is a Catholic she have a Muslim sounding name

This is a non issue! Turk was just coming up with some retort to the idea that the Obama admin is possibly discriminating against Christian soldiers by coming up with some new regulations on it. Obama appointed some civilian guy to head up this project, a guy from an organization supposedly dedicated to religious freedom. In the Soros sense, it is so transparent that the real goal is to either eliminate religion altogether as a good secular would do, or to diminish Christian expression while promoting other religious values.
So Turk comes along with some bogus report that the woman was removed because people thought she was muslim. Does he really expect us to believe the government removed a woman because of her name? And does he think we are buying that a President with the middle name Hussein would preside over such?

That is why I don't watch that guy's reports.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

I was just giving you a perspective. To the middle east, the Americans and its allies are the biggest terrorists they've known.

If we are going to be saving Syrians from themselves, you better hope that some Syrians are really American imperialists in disguise.

More media slant to toss fuel on the 'hate muslims' bonfire. I don't see how people fall for this so much, I guess its easy to hate what you don't understand.

Everything the media feeds us is twisted or skewed up like a Picasso portrait.

Thanks for posting and keeping me aware of the current media trend... yup, it's still 'hate muslims' but no, it still isn't working on me

Originally posted by nenothtu

Avoiding imminent harm is sort of the whole idea behind fleeing.

Well, the people of Mecca had a very lucrative pilgrim trade going on with people from all over flocking in to worship their particular deity/stone.

They fell out with Muhammad when he demanded that their was no God but Allah, demanding that the people of Mecca give up their pilgrim business. This of course went down like the Titanic with the people of Mecca.

Muhammad and all of his people were allowed to leave Mecca unmolested but clearly, they were no more welcome in Mecca than a Republican is at a Democrat convention.

Interestingly, Muhammad immediately started raiding Mecca caravans, which no one really minded much as it was lawless times, except the the people of Mecca of course.

Things however got sticky when he killed some guards and also raided a caravan during a religious festival. Luckily a new verse came down from Allah absolving Muhammad and his Muslims from any wrong doing. It all blew over.

After Muhammad had exiled or killed or enslaved the Jews of Medina, and had taken over their property (including their women and kids) he was eventually strong enough to return to Mecca with a large army and occupy it.

What relevance does this all have to the thread?

Like the verse read at the funeral, their is more than one way to interpret something.

For instance, while caravan raiding, killing guards, exiling Jews, killing Jews, enslaving women and children, seizing Jewish property and storming cities may on the face of it appear somewhat aggressive, Muslims are convinced that Muhammad acted in an entirely defensive manner.

If moderate Muslims can justify such violent acts in the defense of Islam as being defensive in nature, is it any wonder that radical Muslims can find justification in their own minds for the violent jihad they carry out in 'defense' of Islam?

Originally posted by ollncasino

What relevance does this all have to the thread?

None at all, that I can think of - but then I'm not the one dragging all manner of unrelated accusations into the thread, trashing Islam simply because it's Islam, rather than focusing on the incident in the title.

Like the verse read at the funeral, their is more than one way to interpret something.

There are two different flavors of "interpretation", a straight interpretation from one language to another, and the sort that "interprets" a literary passage by imputing meaning to it. In the first case, there is really only one way to interpret a verse - substituting a word in the second language and replacing the word in the first thereby, until it can be read in the second language. Anything more than that is not interpretation at all, it's spin.

I'm entirely against the second variety, the one that imputes meaning where it may not exist. It says what it says, and there is no need to spin it to mean what you want it to mean.

For instance, while caravan raiding, killing guards, exiling Jews, killing Jews, enslaving women and children, seizing Jewish property and storming cities may on the face of it appear somewhat aggressive, Muslims are convinced that Muhammad acted in an entirely defensive manner.

If moderate Muslims can justify such violent acts in the defense of Islam as being defensive in nature, is it any wonder that radical Muslims can find justification in their own minds for the violent jihad they carry out in 'defense' of Islam?

This is more of the sort of thing whose relevance to the thread I cannot fathom. The cleric didn't raid any caravans that I know of, nor did he call for a violent jihad that I can ascertain. I fail to see what relevance either of those things has to the incident under discussion - unless, of course, one is trying to impute meaning where there is none, and color an incident to suit himself...

I havent read the entire thread but does anyone even know what was really said?

I thought the cleric was speaking arabiq?

Originally posted by grey580
I would like to point out Muslims & Christians worship the same God.
As such we are not Infidels but "Ahl-Al-Kitab" or People of the Book.

en.wikipedia.org...

I disagree. I am a Born Again Christian and we worship Jesus as God, the Son of God. Other names for God are Jehovah and I AM. Christians do not worship Allah and there isn't a prophet named Mohammad in the Bible, which is the Book to Christians. Muslims read the Koran. God created mankind but we are not all brothers. There is no hate in that only truth. I haven't read the Koran but I understand there are verses which approve violence towards "infidels." I challenge anyone to find a verse in the New Testament in which Jesus tells his followers to strap on vests filled with C4 and blow up themselves and non-Christians in order to go to heaven. Jesus didn' t tell his followers to be door mats either. But He did tell us to pray for others.

Peace.

Originally posted by clearlyme
I challenge anyone to find a verse in the New Testament in which Jesus tells his followers to strap on vests filled with C4 and blow up themselves and non-Christians in order to go to heaven.

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Mt 10:34-36

36 Then said he to them, But now, he that has a purse, let him take it, and likewise his money: and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Lk 22:36

More where that came from, but you get the idea. As a "born again Christian", you should probably make up your mind as to whether Jesus was God, or THE SON OF God. Can't be both. As a matter of fact, it's irrelevant which He was. That just distracts from what he himself said his mission here was. Don't listen to your imam - er, I mean "pastor" - read for yourself, and make up your OWN mind in the matter.

Originally posted by ollncasino

What relevance does this all have to the thread?

Originally posted by nenothtu

None at all, that I can think of - but then I'm not the one dragging all manner of unrelated accusations into the thread, trashing Islam simply because it's Islam, rather than focusing on the incident in the title.

How can I be trashing Islam when I am repeating what is written in Islam's own religious books?

Unless you are arguing that Islam trashes itself.

Perhaps you are correct. For instance, the Surah from which the prayer read at the funeral comes from is concerned with punishing Christian and Jewish hypocrites in this world and the next.

How did Muhammad deal with hypocrites?

He ordered them burnt to death.

Bukhari (11:626)

- "The Prophet said, 'No prayer is harder for the hypocrites than the Fajr and the 'Isha' prayers and if they knew the reward for these prayers at their respective times, they would certainly present themselves (in the mosques) even if they had to crawl.' The Prophet added, 'Certainly I decided to order the Mu'adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses.'"

Muhammad orders his men to burn alive those who do not present themselves at the mosque for prayer.

Bukhari (11:626)

Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Arabic: صحيح البخاري‎), is one of the six canonical hadith collections (Al-Kutub Al-Sittah) of Sunni Islam.


Islam. You just couldn't make it up.

reply to post by ollncasino


Ok, two questions.

1) Are you a Christian?

2) If not (which I suspect), why are you acting so wounded in all of this?

Couldn't just be that you like winding people up could it

There's far worse examples in the bible, hell worse examples in the Bahagva Gita (although on the whole thats the only religious book I have time for) and despite what you are trying to make out, the rapid expansion of Islam was actually quite peaceful - compare it to any other expansion of a culture and it really does live up to its name as a religion of peace.

The example you're given (and indeed most passages from religious books the world over) has a degree of alegory and does require you to be in a proper mindset and have an understanding of the Prophet rather than just jumping on google to find something damning to support your argument - you'll note however that he doesn't say burnt to death?
Also, I don't expect you to have picked up on this, but the Hadith you're using as an example is specifically directed at Muslims as they're the only ones who have to answer the call to prayer, so it doesn't actually have any relevance to the conversation

I seriously wonder if you've read any of the Torah, or indeed the bible, since you seem so shocked by that minor passage there's WAY more brutal stuff in there:
en.wikipedia.org...
but of course it's only the evil bearded Muslims who's faith is nasty isn't it?
(Seen a lot of people mocking Islam, but Judaism is just as bad - the Middle east must have been an utterely brutal place!)

Also, why no responses to my questions particularly about how you felt about manifest destiny? I know convenient blindness is all part of the noble art of trolling but it still hurts lol

To save a bit of time, here's a list of crimes which will result in being put to death under Judaism and Christianity (I would say certain extreme sects, but apparantly we don't need to make any distinctions when we're slinging mud)

Punishment by Sekila (stoning)

Intercourse between a man and his mother.
Intercourse between a man and his father's wife (not necessarily his mother).
Intercourse between a man and his daughter in law.
Intercourse with another man's wife from the first stage of marriage.
Intercourse between two men.
Bestiality.
Cursing the name of God in God's name.
Idol Worship.
Giving one's progeny to Molech. (child sacrifice)
Necromantic Sorcery.
Pythonic Sorcery.
Attempting to convince another to worship idols.
Instigating a community to worship idols.
Witchcraft.
Violating the Sabbath.
Cursing one's own parent.
A stubborn and rebellious son.

Punishment by Serefah (burning)

The daughter of a priest who completed the second stage of marriage commits adultery.
Intercourse between a man and his daughter.
Intercourse between a man and his daughter's daughter.
Intercourse between a man and his son's daughter.
Intercourse between a man and his wife's daughter (not necessarily his own daughter).
Intercourse between a man and his wife's daughter's daughter.
Intercourse between a man and his wife's son's daughter.
Intercourse between a man and his mother in law.
Intercourse between a man and his mother in law's mother.
Intercourse between a man and his father in law's mother.

Punishment by Hereg (beheading)

Unlawful premeditated murder.
Being a member of a city that has gone astray.

Punishment by Chenek (strangulation)

Committing adultery with another man's wife, where it doesn't fall under the above criteria.
Wounding one's own parent.
Kidnapping another member of Israel.
Prophesizing falsely.
Prophesizing in the name of other deities.
A sage who is guilty of insubordination in front of the grand court in the Chamber of the Hewn Stone.

By contrast, lets look at what crimes are punishable by death under Islam:

Intentional murder and Fasad fil-ardh

And that's it.

(Fasad fil-ardh is open to interpretation, but basically means causing mischief, which is, depending on the community enforcing it:
Treason / Apostacy (when one leaves the faith and joins the enemy in fighting against the Muslim community)
Terrorism
Land, sea, or air piracy
Rape
Adultery
Homosexual behavior)

I'd say a lot of that is actually quite reasonable compared to the above list, infact it's only really Adultery and Homosexuality (both of which are punishable by death in all Abrahamatic religions) which wouldn't get you the death penalty in certain states of America.

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
There's far worse examples in the bible, hell worse examples in the Bahagva Gita (although on the whole thats the only religious book I have time for) and despite what you are trying to make out, the rapid expansion of Islam was actually quite peaceful - compare it to any other expansion of a culture and it really does live up to its name as a religion of peace.

The expansion of Islam was quite peaceful was it?

Muhammad,

• Fought 8 major battles,
• Led 18 raids,
• Planned another 38 military operations where others were in command but operating under his orders and strategic direction.

HistoryNet

Timeline of Muhammad's Life (A.D)

570 - Born in Mecca
622 - Emigrates from Mecca to Medina (the Hijra)
623 - Orders raids on Meccan caravans
624 - Battle of Badr (victory)
624 - Evicts Qaynuqa Jews from Medina
624 - Orders the assassination of Abu Afak
624 - Orders the assassination of Asma bint Marwan
624 - Orders the assassination of Ka'b al-Ashraf
625 - Battle of Uhud (defeat)
625 - Evicts Nadir Jews
627 - Battle of the Trench (victory)
627 - Massacre of the Qurayza Jews
628 - Destruction and subjugation of the Khaybar Jews
629 - Orders first raid into Christian lands at Muta (defeat)
630 - Conquers Mecca by surprise (along with other tribes)
631 - Leads second raid into Christian territory at Tabuk (no battle)
632 - Dies.

That doesn't seem very peaceful to me.

Link

Underlying sources: Koran, Canonical Hadith and the first biography on Muhammad's life.

reply to post by ollncasino


Thats because you have no understanding of history, the region or the rate of expansion (despite having shown a map of it).

Also, the Jewish Massacres you will note are actually entirely in line with Judaic law, as they had broken alliances with them.

Nice evasion on all the other question guy

Originally posted by MaxSteiner

Thats because you have no understanding of history, the region or the rate of expansion (despite having shown a map of it).

Really? Then why don't you educate me then, oh wise sage?

With references or it is just the sound of an empty vessel. Thanks.

Originally posted by MaxSteiner

Nice evasion on all the other question guy

What question was that?

reply to post by ollncasino


Thats funny, you're responding to a post where you've ignored two direct questions

It's obvious you're either a complete wally or being deliberately obtuse in this matter for the LOLs, I could provide you a ton of references and all you're going to do is skim them for bits to post out of context, deliberately ignoring the fact that far worse has happened at the start of almost every empire that's ever been formed. If you were actually bothered about improving your knowledge you could have at least read a Wikipedia article or something.

Lets look at your time line removing all the non battles and all events leading up to battles:

624 - Battle of Badr where they were DEFENDING en.wikipedia.org...
625 - Battle of Uhud where they were DEFENDING en.wikipedia.org...
627 - Battle of the Trench where they were DEFENDING en.wikipedia.org...
630 - Conquers Mecca after the breaking of the peace treaty, with allied support. en.wikipedia.org...

So we have 3 battles where they were defending and 1 where they have arguably justifiable reasons giving birth to one of the largest empires the world has ever known - oooh thats so violent!
You would have known this had you bothered to read ANY of the sources you've been using, but like I say you have no understanding of history or the region, you're just here to troll aren't you

Lets assume for a moment (completely erroneously) that you do want to improve your knowledge of history or the region rather than just trolling. At that point in time 3 major world empires were in a state of decline, as were many of the old regional powers. Much of the middle east was in the hands of occupying foreign empires, causing a great deal of unrest (understandably) - so the merest fact that there was a new unifying force from somewhere in their own region was enough to bring a great many settlements to heel without the need for battle.
Indeed the Islamic invaders were welcomed with open arms by much of the local Christian and Jewish populations of Syria and Persia because they offered more religious freedoms than the current rulers.
(This according to Barbara Rosenwein in her book A Short History of the Middle Ages)

The rapid expansion was not due to some blood thirsty drive as you might think, but rather that it was occurring at an extremely fortuitous time for the expansion of a new power in the region.

Now I've answered yours, how about those other questions I asked you?

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
Now I've answered yours, how about those other questions I asked you?

But what were those questions?

I must confess that I hadn't been paying much attention to your posts in this thread. I had skim read a couple of them.

Sorry about that.

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
Ok, two questions.

1) Are you a Christian?

2) If not (which I suspect), why are you acting so wounded in all of this?

Sorry. I went back through a couple of posts. Are these your questions?

No I am not a Christian.

I am not wounded by this but certainly some of the non-Muslim relatives of the dead Christians clearly were.

If you are suggesting that I need to be a Christian or Jew to have an opinion on a Muslim preacher reading a prayer pertaining to punishing Christians and Jews in this world and the next, well following that logic, ATS can just shut up shop. 99% of the posters on ATS don't have 'a dog in the fight' but no one suggests they have no right to comment on a thread.