Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

- avoid judging a thing with differences (in this case, Islam) on it's own merits

- avoid discussing evidence of violence in Islams name

- avoid discussing matching texts from Islams holy books

And the avoidance of such wouldn't result in:
- multiple cases of terrible logic

- multiple attempts to misre present others positions.

- multiple attempts to divert the topic onto irrelevant subjects

I see rather than discussing Islam you have decided to simply attack me.

Your Daily Muslim #632: Muhammad Yousuf Gujjar
Posted by Your Daily Muslim on November 6, 2014 in Anti-Christian, Men, Misc Islam-Related Homicide, Pakistan, Violence Against Women

muhammad yousuf gujjar

Islam does not tolerate blasphemy, with it being punishable by death under sharia. Of course, this has resulted in an extreme form of vigilantism on the part of many Muslims, who are chomping at the bit to satiate their bloodlust. One such Muslim is 50-year-old Pakistani kiln owner Muhammad Yousuf Gujjar. When two of his employees, a married Christian couple, wanted to quit because he was not paying them, Gujjar demanded they pay him 500,000 rupees. Uhh, your employer should pay you, not the other way around… but aside from being a terrible boss, Gujjar is also a terrible human being.

When local Muslims had seen the woman burning some of a dead father-in-law’s old belongings, they started a rumor she had been burning the Qur’an because it was known she and her husband were Christians. This led Gujjar to take her and her husband hostage in a back room at his facility. Gujjar told many area residents where he was keeping the couple, and why. The local Muslims demanded more justice than the two being held captive against their will, so they swarmed Gujjar’s facility. The woman, who was pregnant, was shown no mercy; the angry mob of 100 or so Muslims broke her legs so she could not get away. The crowd screamed “Allahu akbar,” “death to blasphemers,” and “death to the infidel Christians.”

Then, Gujjar and the mob beat the couple before dragging them into the kiln, burning them alive. Many local police were present – as part of the savage horde. Investigators who heard of the crime only found shards of bone and small clumps of hair remaining at the scene. Whether or not any of the Muslims involved in this heinous act will face justice remains to be seen.

Another fact about the language: Muslims like to boast of how elegant Arab is used in the Quran - they even claim it is so elegant that it must be made by the god! (There exists no proofs for Allah, and they try to find such ones wherever there is a possibility.) And thank you very much for a nice language - it was polished for some 250 years (from ca. 650 AD to ca. 900 AD) by some of the best brains Islam had. But the elegance of the language just is the wrapping - it does not help very much with an elegant and exquisite wrapping paper, if the contents are low quality and/or invalid. (A holy book clearly not backed by a god, is invalid as a basis for a true religion. Such a book at best is a collection of legends or fairy tales and a basis for superstition - and for power for the leaders - or at worst a tool for dark forces.)

Obama passes on noble Jewish Talmudic teaching as Islamic

Now I will examine the full story behind that verse. Recall that the verse commenced with “On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel”. Now the questions are:

On what account?

Was it really ordained for the Children of Israel by God? Was it there in the Torah?

For this, we need to examine verses 5.27-5.31 of the Quran, which narrate the story of two sons of Adam:

Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! they each presented a sacrifice (to God): It was accepted from one, but not from the other. Said the latter: "Be sure I will slay thee." "Surely," said the former, "God doth accept of the sacrifice of those who are righteous. If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear God, the cherisher of the worlds. For me, I intend to let thee draw on thyself my sin as well as thine, for thou wilt be among the companions of the fire, and that is the reward of those who do wrong. The (selfish) soul of the other led him to the murder of his brother: he murdered him, and became (himself) one of the lost ones. Then God sent a raven, who scratched the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of his brother. "Woe is me!" said he; "Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the shame of my brother?" then he became full of regrets.

“Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! they each presented a sacrifice (to God): It was accepted from one, but not from the other”… Nothing is very clear in these verses unless we refer the Torah, where the story of Abel and Cain, the sons of Adam, is narrated. Now Quran does not even contain the names of the two sons of Adam and their sacrifices to God. So what is the purpose of repeating the incomplete story in the Quran, when the complete one is already narrated in the Torah as this:

...And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto HaShem. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And HaShem had respect unto Abel and to his offering; but unto Cain and to his offering He had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

The rejection of Cain’s offering made him jealous and he killed Abel. Now what has this got to do with verse 5.32? Only one individual was murdered. There was no intent/action on part of Cain to commit mass murders. Secondly, this verse 5.32 said to be ordained for Jews is not found in Torah at all. It is found in Talmud. Let us see what Talmud says in Mishnah Sanhedrin:

You may also be aware of the fact that there is no similarity between civil and criminal cases. In civil cases one may repay the money damage and he is atoned; but in criminal cases the blood of the person executed, and of his descendants to the end of all generations, clings to the originator of his execution. So do we find in the case of Cain, who slew his brother. It reads [Gen. iv. 10]: "The voice of the 'bloods' of thy brother are crying unto me from the ground." It does not read "blood," but "bloods," which means his blood and the blood of his descendants. [According to others it reads "bloods" in the plural, because his blood was scattered all over the trees and stones.] Therefore the man was created singly, to teach that he who destroys one soul of a human being, the Scripture considers him as if he should destroy a whole world, and him who saves one soul of Israel, the Scripture considers him as if he should save a whole world. And also because of peace among creatures, so that one should not say: My grandfather was greater than yours; and also that the heretic shall not say: There are many creators in heaven; and also to proclaim the glory of the Holy One, blessed be He. For a human being stamps many coins with one stamp, and all of them are alike; but the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, has stamped every man with the stamp of Adam the First, and nevertheless not one of them is like the other. Therefore every man may say: The world was created for my sake, hence I must be upright, just, etc.

Thus, the verse—“he who destroys one soul of a human being, the Scripture considers him as if he should destroy a whole world, and him who saves one soul of Israel, the Scripture considers him as if he should save a whole world”—is not there in the sacred Torah. Actually, it was the commentary or interpretation of Jewish scholars/Rabbis of the Torah. The above commentary explains Genesis 4:10 and also the spiritual significance of the Adam and Eve story. It explains why only one Adam was created and not multiple of Adams. Muhammad, from his patchy knowledge, failed to figure out that this was a commentary on Genesis 4.10 and the significance of the creation of Adam story, and mistook it to be a revealed text. He distorted the sublime teachings of Talmud to this:

On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

In fact, many Muslims do not quote the full text of verse 5.32, because it is a badly messed up and distorted version of the original from the Talmud, and that quoting the full verse will cause them embarrassment. In this context, it is worth examining Maulana Maududi’s comments:

It is a pity that the precious words which embody God's ordinance are to be found nowhere in the Bible today. The Talmud, however, does mention this subject…… The Talmud also mentions that in trials for murder, the Israelite judges used to address the witnesses as follows: Whoever kills one person, merits punishment as if he had slain all the men in the world.

Maududi acknowledges that the verse 5.32, said to be revealed by God to the Jews, are not there in Torah but in the Talmud. But he cleverly conceals the full context, in which these words are found in the Talmud.

Conclusion

Muhammad, aka Allah, erroneously mistook Quran 5:32 to be a revealed verse of the Torah. He didn’t know that it was in the Talmud and couldn’t figure out how “Whoever kills one person, merits punishment as if he had slain all the men in the world” was connected to the Abel and Cain story.

And President Obama, out of his ignorance or deception, obviously passed on the noble Jewish teaching as Islamic to placate Muslims.

Involving up to 1200 devout Muslims whipped into a rage by an
Islamic cleric, the torture and burning of this Christian couple
was barbaric even by Religion of Peace standards. Yet, while
finding the time to denounce the Washington Redskins,
CAIR steadfastly refused to condemn the killing this week.
In the Islamic religion, burning Qurans is a far more serious
matter than burning people accused of burning Qurans.

As I said in a previous article, I would ordinarily think that such a horribly inaccurate defense of Islam was the result of ignorance. However, even when I send Corbin the sources that prove that she is wrong, she conceals them, which means that her inaccuracies aren't merely the result of ignorance. She is actively covering up the reality of Islam in order to deceive her readers.

Self-proclaimed "Muslim feminist" Theresa Corbin has given us her list of the "Most Misinterpreted Verses" of the Qur'an. Today we'll take a look at Corbin's attempt to rewrite Islamic history. In defense of Surah 8, verse 12, Corbin gives us this bit of outright deception: