Refutation to the one of the self-called "Crusader", janelle_yap's post

[MENJ]

Greetings;

I was invited here at the behest of a Muslim brother. I have been reading "janelle_yap's" cut & paste articles, and the posts are so very easy to refute. Here is a refutation to one of her "articles" now...

The Prophet Muhammad by Frank Steven
Back to contents

He massacred and exterminated all the Jews from Arabia and instigated hatred between his followers and the Jews that has lasted for over 1400 years and has cost millions of lives. Prior to him Arabs and Jews lived in harmony and were allies.

What a gross understatement of a LIE. There was no "massacr" or "extermination" of Jews from Arabia...the reason why the Jews were expelled was because they broke the TREATY they had signed with the Prophet (peace be upon him). The treaty between the Prophet (P) and the Muslims with the Jews can be seen here:

http://menj.tripod.com/Pejuang_Bangsa/covenant.htm

He sent assassins to kill his critiques in the middle of night, who committed no other crime than composing poetries ridiculing his holiness, even if they where old or mothers of several infants.

Had "janelle_yap" actually read the reasons for these events, she would have easily found out that these so called "critiques" were war criminals. How do you take a war criminal to trial?

(*) He raped a Jewish girl 40 years younger than him whom he captured in one of his raids in the same day that he killed her husband, her father and many of her relatives.

To put it mildly: A LIE. No such event happened in the life of the Prophet (P). He (P) never "raped" anyone.

(*) He enriched himself by looting caravans, killing the men, usurping their properties and SELLING their wives and daughters as slaves.

Again: ANOTHER LIE. True, there were raids, but that was because the Muslims and the pagan Arabs were in state of war. And when the Prophet (P) died, there was _not a single cent for his family to even enjoy_ It is in fact in accordance to a saying of the Prophet (P), who said that Prophets do not inherit anything or give something for inheritance to their children.

After his affluent wife died and after he enriched himself with spoils of his wars on defenseless people, he broke the boundaries of decency and performed sex with twenty women, some only 9 years old,

Ahh...the marriage of Aishah. Anti-Islamics always like to play that drum of "paedophillism". That shall be addressed below.

He founded a religion that has brought nothing but hatred and discord between his followers (among themselves) and his followers and the rest of mankind. So much war, so many killings that took place in the name of Islam and are taking place still in various corners of the world. He heralded a misogynistic religion that has undermined the rights of women and subjected them to mistreatment and abuse.

Try reading the Books of Joshua, I & II Samuel, and I & II Kings for once, "janelle_yap", and you can easily see which religion is violent. Historically, it is the Christians who are violent, I have addressed this in an article at:

http://bismikaallahuma.faithweb.com/persecution.html

(...)

Abu Dawud's Hadith is the third most respected Hadith in Islam. Aisha said, "The Apostle of Allah (Muhammad) married me when I was seven years old." (The narrator Sulaiman said: "Or six years."). "He had intercourse with me when I was 9 years old."

This has been dealt with at:
http://bismikaallahuma.faithweb.com/aishah.html

Kind regards.

MENJ
menj@maxis.net.my

[Jake Mc Neil]

lame excuses, weak arguments. not good enough. yap's are still more believable.

[MENJ]

Originally posted by Jake Mc Neil
lame excuses, weak arguments. not good enough. yap's are still more believable.

And on what basis? Your bigoted view?

Regards.

MENJ
menj@maxis.net.my

[unified_theory]

So MENJ, you're a Muslim yourself? Good now its your chance to defend Islam. Just ignore that good for nothing simpleton above. There are really close minded people here who will make quick judgement and such act just give emphasis to their stupidity. However most people here will actually listen and judge you guys based on your's and yap's presented arguments and evidences.

Let your side be heard. We're listening!

[MENJ]

Originally posted by unified_theory
So MENJ, you're a Muslim yourself?

Yes, I am a Muslim from Malaysia.

Good now its your chance to defend Islam.

Well, I believe that was why I was originally invited here by a Brother. I didn't know the existence of this forum prior to that invitations

Just ignore that good for nothing simpleton above. There are really close minded people here who will make quick judgement and such act just give emphasis to their stupidity. However most people here will actually listen and judge you guys based on your's and yap's presented arguments and evidences.

Let your side be heard. We're listening!

Thank you for making me feel welcome.

Regards.

MENJ
menj@maxis.net.my

p.s.: btw, a nice picture of Yuri (it so happens that I'm currently playing "Yuri's Revenge"). Where did you get it?

[janelle_yap]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MENJ
Greetings;

I was invited here at the behest of a Muslim brother. I have been reading "janelle_yap's" cut & paste articles, and the posts are so very easy to refute. Here is a refutation to one of her "articles" now...

What a gross understatement of a LIE. There was no "massacr" or "extermination" of Jews from Arabia...the reason why the Jews were expelled was because they broke the TREATY they had signed with the Prophet (peace be upon him). The treaty between the Prophet (P) and the Muslims with the Jews can be seen here:

http://menj.tripod.com/Pejuang_Bangsa/covenant.htm

You see? It is an undeniable historical fact that muslims expel people based on their religion. Merely by being jewish, they merited expulsion although a good number are surely faultless. That's discrimination so you have no right to call yourself righteous. All have sinned and fell short of the glory of God.

The inquisition was against Christ's teachings. But apparently, the fanatics in Indonesia are acting in accordance with their prophet's teachings and actions. and that's probably why the muslims want to drive the people of Israel to the sea!

Had "janelle_yap" actually read the reasons for these events, she would have easily found out that these so called "critiques" were war criminals. How do you take a war criminal to trial?

they became criminals must by merely voicing their honest and forthright opinions which happenned to be contrary to Islam? Where is freedom of speech?

To put it mildly: A LIE. No such event happened in the life of the Prophet (P). He (P) never "raped" anyone.

What a convenient way to dismiss a known historical fact.

Again: ANOTHER LIE. True, there were raids, but that was because the Muslims and the pagan Arabs were in state of war. And when the Prophet (P) died, there was _not a single cent for his family to even enjoy_ It is in fact in accordance to a saying of the Prophet (P), who said that Prophets do not inherit anything or give something for inheritance to their children.

So in a so called "war" it is permissible to loot civilian caravans and sending innocent wives and daughters as slaves?

You justify it like bin laden justifies 9/11. that's typical.

Ahh...the marriage of Aishah. Anti-Islamics always like to play that drum of "paedophillism". That shall be addressed below.

Marrying and having sex with someone IN THE STATE of supposed puberty? That's deviant sexual behavior. Nowadays, it is a crime called STATUATORY RAPE no matter how hard you try to twist logic and good discernment. Not because a girl can get pregnant you should marry her. She may be phisically ready but not emotionally. That action earned muhammad the title pedophile. Congratulations!

Try reading the Books of Joshua, I & II Samuel, and I & II Kings for once, "janelle_yap", and you can easily see which religion is violent. Historically, it is the Christians who are violent, I have addressed this in an article at:

(...)

Well, muslim apologists are fond of using history as a rebuttal, but unfortunately it would be all in vain.

First of all, the books mentioned were of the old testament. Christ's Gospel of love in the New Testament overrides those teachings there.

Secondly, the behavior and mindset of Christians before and the ones TODAY are very much different. Would Christians today agree to an inquisition or physical crusade? the answer is NO. Christians go to war, but under the orders of their Government (Give to Caesar what is due to Caesar), not in the name of religion.

But muhammad the caravan raider who sells women to slavery and massacres people, is very much like his followers Osama, Arafat or Abu Sabaya who do cowardly acts like abducting civilians, brainwashing suicide bombers and WTC terrorists (with the koran of course) to do heinous crimes and burn entire towns just because "kafirs" live there. That is not war, that is clearly terrorism.

And tell us, what is the punishment if a person leaves Islam?

The punishment for leaving islam is... DEATH!

With that kind of a rule, how can you say Islam means peace? (Etymologically, it does not btw) ...

I know lots of converts to Islam who went back to Christianity but don't like the word to get out. How did I know? They are my friendsI am sure millions have already left islam but are afraid to speak out. Millions in Iran http://www.golshan.com have a secret network on the internet furthering their activities.

Islam is really, clearly and undeniable a religion of hate.

If you don't agree with that, then you would be in disagreement with very intelligent former muslims like Ali Sina, Anwar Shaikh, Zulfikar Khan or Salman Rushdie. I really admire them for being smart enough to leave Islam and exposing it's lies.

[abuGian]

As-salam-alaykum MENJ

Are you approving of Muhammad's marriage to his adopted son's (Zaid) wife?

(Sura al-Ahzab 33:38; Ghafir 40:56; Muhammad 47:21)

[DoctorNO]

AT LAST A MUSLIM! WELCOME TO REALMS OF THOUGHT MENJ!

Can you please tell us if you speak and understand Tagalog? Also, is this “Brother” you mentioned also a pexer and if he is can you say which one?

Looking forward to a great discussion with you…

[A_OK]

MENJ, I'm looking forward to your posts. A new viewpoint is always refreshing

[DoctorNO]

Originally posted by MENJ

What a gross understatement of a LIE. There was no "massacr" or "extermination" of Jews from Arabia...the reason why the Jews were expelled was because they broke the TREATY they had signed with the Prophet (peace be upon him). The treaty between the Prophet (P) and the Muslims with the Jews can be seen here:

Perhaps youre right. In my study of world history Ive never encountered any so called “massacre” of ALL jews in Arabia. Shame on you Janelle if this is indeed a lie. Please avoid exaggerating.

Originally posted by MENJ

Had "janelle_yap" actually read the reasons for these events, she would have easily found out that these so called "critiques" were war criminals. How do you take a war criminal to trial?

Not good enough. We do know for a fact that people in Muslim countries have been branded criminals simply for carrying non-muslim religious items or for voicing opinions contrary to Islam.

Originally posted by MENJ

Again: ANOTHER LIE. True, there were raids, but that was because the Muslims and the pagan Arabs were in state of war. And when the Prophet (P) died, there was _not a single cent for his family to even enjoy_ It is in fact in accordance to a saying of the Prophet (P), who said that Prophets do not inherit anything or give something for inheritance to their children.

On the contrary none of the good biblical prophets ever behaved like that. By moral standards those actions are not very “godly” especially for a self proclaimed prophet. Today we call those kind of acts as “war crimes”. Mohammed, if he is truly a prophet of God should know the future “moral” consequences of his actions.

Originally posted by MENJ

Try reading the Books of Joshua, I & II Samuel, and I & II Kings for once, "janelle_yap", and you can easily see which religion is violent. Historically, it is the Christians who are violent, I have addressed this in an article at:

That was a one-time judgement of God in ancient history. He judged and cleared the area of evil in order to establish His righteous foundation for man’s salvation through Israel. He never ordered Christians & Jews to destroy pagans “where ever you may find them”. On the contrary He commanded us to "love your enemies".

Also, most of the violence associated with the book of kings are mostly purely political in nature.

The context of the whole bible is love: (1) Love God with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your strength; (2) Love your neighbor as your self.

[tazbivr]

I too welcome you MENJ. I am a christian but I welcome you nonetheless.
I am interested in your posts on Islam.

[MENJ]

Greetings;


I will respond to the self-confessed "Crusader", Ms. Yap, but if she were smart, she would already recognise that she cannot fool around with me. I have been facing polemics like her writings for the past four years and I have encountered every single Christian argument you can name and refuted it successfully. The fact that she has produced nothing new for me is no surprise, as Christian missionaries have the tendency to argue ad nauseam (repetitive argument). I do not wish to humiliate her, but she set herself for it so many times that I feel that someone must teach her a lesson.

Now...

Earlier I wrote:

What a gross understatement of a LIE. There was no "massacr" or "extermination" of Jews from Arabia...the reason why the Jews were expelled was because they broke the TREATY they had signed with the Prophet (peace be upon him). The treaty between the Prophet (P) and the Muslims with the Jews can be seen here:

http://menj.tripod.com/Pejuang_Bangsa/covenant.htm

Ms. Yap says:

You see? It is an undeniable historical fact that muslims expel people based on their religion. Merely by being jewish, they merited expulsion although a good number are surely faultless.

Exactly, Ms. Yap. What actually do you see? The expulsion of the Jews from Arabia was not on religious grounds, it was on the basis that they have broken a treaty. I provided you a link to that treaty the Jews signed with the Prophet Muhammad (P), and you casually avoid it. So what is your excuse for avoiding this simple fact, other than it is because of your bigotry and unjustified hatred of Islam? By the conditions of the treaty, the Muslims were the allies of the Jews, and the Jews empower them to act as necessary if they betray the Muslims. Karen Armstrong states the following:

"...the Muslims had just narrowly escaped extermination, and had Muhammad simply exiled the Qurayzah they would have swelled the Jewish opposition in Khaybar and brought another war upon the Ummah. In seventh century Arabia an Arab chief was not expected to show mercy to traitors like Qurayzah. The executions sent a grim message to Khaybar and helped to quell the pagan opposition in Medina, since the pagan leaders had been the allies of the rebellious Jews. This was a fight to the death, and everybody had always known that the stakes were high. The struggle did not indicate any hostility towards Jews in general, but only towards the three rebel tribes. The Quran continued to revere Jewish prophets and to urge Muslims to respect the people of the Book." (Karen Armstrong. "Islam A Short History", p. 18)


So there you have it! Now I can see Ms. Yap beginning to sweat. But don't worry, Ms. Yap, the humiliation for you is just beginning.....

The inquisition was against Christ's teachings. But apparently, the fanatics in Indonesia are acting in accordance with their prophet's teachings and actions. and that's probably why the muslims want to drive the people of Israel to the sea!

Ms. Yap has introduced a strawman, but I wish to correct a misinformation she has been fed with. Contrary to the claims of the Zionists that the Arabs (read: Muslims) want to drive the Jews into the sea, it was in fact Palestinian Arabs who were forced into the sea! And to prove my claim, here is a url that shows the Palestinian in boats as they were driven into the sea by the Zionists:







Moving on.....


Earlier on, I commented that:

Had "janelle_yap" actually read the reasons for these events, she would have easily found out that these so called "critiques" were war criminals. How do you take a war criminal to trial?

Ms. Yap replied by stating that

they became criminals must by merely voicing their honest and forthright opinions which happenned to be contrary to Islam? Where is freedom of speech?

Here proves the ignorance of Ms. Yap regarding the war criminals. Far from being "honest and forthright" in their opinion, they were actually mocking and revilling the Muslims, an action that can cause disharmony in Muslim ranks. Has any evidence been presented by Ms. Yap to the contrary?



Earlier I wrote:

To put it mildly: A LIE. No such event happened in the life of the Prophet (P). He (P) never "raped" anyone.

Ms. Yap states:

What a convenient way to dismiss a known historical fact.

What a convienient way of Ms. Yap to charge me with lying. Did you see Ms. Yap furnishing any evidence? I don't. You want to know why, my dear readers? That is because she cannot provide any, since such an incident has never happened!


Again, I wrote:

Again: ANOTHER LIE. True, there were raids, but that was because the Muslims and the pagan Arabs were in state of war. And when the Prophet (P) died, there was _not a single cent for his family to even enjoy_ It is in fact in accordance to a saying of the Prophet (P), who said that Prophets do not inherit anything or give something for inheritance to their children.

Ms. Yap states:

So in a so called "war" it is permissible to loot civilian caravans and sending innocent wives and daughters as slaves?

You justify it like bin laden justifies 9/11. that's typical.

What is actualy "typical" is Ms. Yap's dodging of the facts. As I had said earlier, it was a declared WAR between the pagan Arabs and Muslims. War is not encouraged in Islam but it necessary if it comes to that to have to defend one's faith. What happened on 9/11 in the United States was not a justifiable war, it was terrorism. Ms. Yap unfortunately, with her intense bigotry is unable to distinguish the difference.


Ms. Yap:

Marrying and having sex with someone IN THE STATE of supposed puberty? That's deviant sexual behavior. Nowadays, it is a crime called STATUATORY RAPE no matter how hard you try to twist logic and good discernment. Not because a girl can get pregnant you should marry her. She may be phisically ready but not emotionally. That action earned muhammad the title pedophile. Congratulations!

Then Ms. Yap should also congratulate Joseph the Carpenter, the husband of the "mother of God", who married her at a tender age of 12!!! That's "paedophillism" in the Bible for you, Ms. Yap!

More follows...


I wrote:

Try reading the Books of Joshua, I & II Samuel, and I & II Kings for once, "janelle_yap", and you can easily see which religion is violent. Historically, it is the Christians who are violent, I have addressed this in an article at:

(...)

Ms. Yap:

Well, muslim apologists are fond of using history as a rebuttal, but unfortunately it would be all in vain.

We shall see who is actually the one in vain!

First of all, the books mentioned were of the old testament. Christ's Gospel of love in the New Testament overrides those teachings there.

Very nice, for Ms. Yap has actually contradicted her "God-man". Let us read Matthew 5:17-18:-

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

So Christians must not only follow the NT but also the OT.

Secondly, the behavior and mindset of Christians before and the ones TODAY are very much different. Would Christians today agree to an inquisition or physical crusade? the answer is NO. Christians go to war, but under the orders of their Government (Give to Caesar what is due to Caesar), not in the name of religion.

How ignorant one can get. Has Ms. Yap forgotten the Bosnian conflict, the onging Chechen conflict, and the fightings in southern Mindanao and Moluccas Islands? All started by Christians against Muslisms in the name of the "prince of peace"!

Ms. Yap:

But muhammad the caravan raider

This is called "ad hominem", but if Ms. Yap wants to be petty, how about her "god-man" who rode on a DONKEY. Maybe I should call Jesus (P) a "donkey-rider"!

is very much like his followers Osama, Arafat or Abu Sabaya who do cowardly acts like abducting civilians, brainwashing suicide bombers and WTC terrorists (with the koran of course) to do heinous crimes and burn entire towns just because "kafirs" live there. That is not war, that is clearly terrorism.

Refer to:

http://menj.tripod.com/Pejuang_Bangs...001attacks.htm

Ms. Yap:

And tell us, what is the punishment if a person leaves Islam?

The punishment for leaving islam is... DEATH!

Its not that simple as Ms. Yap presumes to put someone to death if he/she leaves Islam. That law is only applied to apostates who actively act treacherously against Muslims. If a person leaves Islam peacefully, that law is unapplicable to him/her. As the Qur'an states:

"There is no compulsion in religion...." (Holy Qur'an, 2:256)


Ms. Yap:

With that kind of a rule, how can you say Islam means peace? (Etymologically, it does not btw) ...

Read above, and I do not know why Ms. Yap put in that snide remark about etymology. The root word of "Islam" DOES mean 'peace', the word "peace" iin Arabic (SaLaaM) share the same root with "iSLaM". So we can see Ms. Yap talk nonsense.

Ms. Yap:

I know lots of converts to Islam who went back to Christianity but don't like the word to get out. How did I know? They are my friendsI am sure millions have already left islam but are afraid to speak out. Millions in Iran http://www.golshan.com have a secret network on the internet furthering their activities.

Did Ms. Yap cut & pasted this from somewhere? I have a good idea where her source is.


Ms. Yap:

Islam is really, clearly and undeniable a religion of hate.

Keep on beating that drum ad nauseam, it won't get you anywhere.

If you don't agree with that, then you would be in disagreement with very intelligent former muslims like Ali Sina, Anwar Shaikh, Zulfikar Khan or Salman Rushdie. I really admire them for being smart enough to leave Islam and exposing it's lies.

You have got to be joking! All these so-called "Muslims" are either atheists or Hindus. None of them are Christian. So now you are actually appealing to those who would actually attack your faith as well! That is because of your bankrupt ideas on how to deal with Islam, the perfect religion of mankind, so you have no choice but to use anti-religious elements. Neat....


Kind regards,

MENJ
menj@maxis.net.my
http://bismikaallahuma.faithweb.com

[MENJ]

Originally posted by DoctorNO
AT LAST A MUSLIM! WELCOME TO REALMS OF THOUGHT MENJ!

Thank you. It is nice to feel welcome. We are both, after all, South-East Asians. You are in the Philippines and I am in Malaysia

Can you please tell us if you speak and understand Tagalog?

No, I'm afraid I can't. Can you understand Malay, btw (a variant of the Indonesian language)? It has always been my wish to learn a bit of Tagalog, so I hope you can teach me a few words or two. In return, I can teach you Malay if you like.

Also, is this “Brother” you mentioned also a pexer and if he is can you say which one?

He goes by the name "bangsamoro" or something like that. He's from Mindanao.

Looking forward to a great discussion with you…

Likewise.


Regards.

MENJ
menj@maxis.net.my

[MENJ]

Originally posted by abuGian
Are you approving of Muhammad's marriage to his adopted son's (Zaid) wife?

(Sura al-Ahzab 33:38; Ghafir 40:56; Muhammad 47:21)

What is it about the marriage which you find morally objecting? Of course I have no problems with the marriage, unless if you think that contacts out of wedlock is morally acceptable.

Regards.

MENJ
menj@maxis.net.my

[MENJ]

Originally posted by tazbivr
I too welcome you MENJ. I am a christian but I welcome you nonetheless.
I am interested in your posts on Islam.

Thank you. Your comments are appreciated, I assure you.

Regards.

MENJ
menj@maxis.net.my

[abuGian]

I will repeat my question MENJ (emphasis added):

Are you approving of Muhammad's marriage to his adopted son's (Zaid) wife?

(Sura al-Ahzab 33:38; Ghafir 40:56; Muhammad 47:21)

[MENJ]

Originally posted by abuGian
I will repeat my question MENJ (emphasis added):

Are you approving of Muhammad's marriage to his adopted son's (Zaid) wife?

(Sura al-Ahzab 33:38; Ghafir 40:56; Muhammad 47:21)

Why are you repeating your question over and over again? I will repeat:

What do you find about the marriage morally objectionable?

Regards.


MENJ
menj@maxis.net.my

[abuGian]

I see that you can't see the "context" of my question even as i emphasized the word "wife" (of Zaid).

[MENJ]

Originally posted by abuGian
I see that you can't see the "context" of my question even as i emphasized the word "wife" (of Zaid).

The "wife" of Zayd was divorced from her husband (Zayd), leaving the Prophet Muhammad (P) legally able to marry the "wife" (who is of course no longer the "wife" of Zayd once divorced).

Regards.

MENJ
menj@maxis.net.my

[abuGian]

I would like to see a proof.