Sharia & Talmud Compared: A Muslim Reply
June 28, 2013
(left, Mosque)
"To compare the Shariah to Talmudic Law is a great insult,"
says Mohammed Ash
(Editor's Note: I gauge religions not by what they "teach" but by how their followers behave. Generally speaking, I have great respect for Muslims because of their strong family values.)
by Mohammed Ash
(henrymakow.com)
Had I read the article "Talmud & Shariah Law" by John Kunkle on any other website, I would not have bothered to write in. But I read it on Henry Makow's website which I respect and have learned a lot from his books. If you search the web for information about Islam, you will notice that the NSA search engine otherwise known as Google, comes up with many negative search results, its usually websites that are claiming to "debunk" or "expose" Islam. I sometimes wonder: Is this Obama's Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein's idea at work i.e. to nudge people towards certain information in order to control the conclusions they come to. After all Albert Pike predicted World War Three would be caused between Muslims and Christians, where the two would mutually wipe each other out.
To compare the Shariah to Talmudic Law is a great insult. Islam forbids the system of usury for all people regardless of faith. Talmudic law forbids the lending at interest to fellow Jews but allows it for the Goyim (cattle). Non-Muslims in the Islamic law pay an additional tax, but in return they do not have to fight in wars or pay the compulsory charity on their savings at 2.5%. Many people twist the truth to deliberately portray Islam in a negative light.
One important principle that people need to understand. In Islam our primary source of law is the Quran which we believe is a direct revelation from God to mankind via the Prophet Muhammed. Muslims also accept that God sent guidance to humanity through the ages, through Prophets Abraham, Moses, Jesus etc etc. Thus we accept the Torah, Injil , Psalms of David and Bible to all contain truths but sadly there has been tampering of the scriptures to suit the interests of the corrupt class of the time.
I would refer readers to "Who Wrote the Bible" by Richard Elliot Friedman. This is not to say the Bible cannot be replied upon, but that the contradictions are not from God but from the people who manipulated the scripture to suit their own objectives. That's why the message was sent again via Muhammed, who Muslims believe to be the "comforter" who Jesus referred to when he said "if I do not go then the comforter will not come."
The secondary source of law in Islam are the sayings of the Prophet Muhammed. These are referred to as Hadith [where Sharia originates] and are known by the compilers names. Two of the most authentic are Bukhari and Muslim, named after the scholars of Hadith who compiled them. But general Scholars of Islam do not give these Hadith the same weight as the Quran which we consider the word of God. It is well known that despite the best effort of these Hadith scholars, some false and other "weak" sayings have slipped through into their compilations. The final check of a Hadith is that if it contradicts the Quran it is rejected or viewed as suspicious at the very least. Nowhere does the Quran allow lying to one's wife; therefore the authenticity of the narration that you can lie to your wife has to be questioned. On the issue of war, we all know that the first casualty of war is the truth; war is indeed about deception. The Prophet himself always preferred peace over war, and there are many sayings that encourage genuine peace over war.
On the issue of lying when your life is at risk. There is a spectrum of faith for individuals. At the weak end Muslims can indeed lie if their life is in danger, as the situation is not about truth but about violence. But at the other end of the spectrum the Prophet said, "the best word is the word of truth spoken to the tyrant" and many pious Muslims died at the hands of tyrants for speaking the truth. The treaty that John claims the Muslims broke was actually broken by the Quraysh (non-muslim tribes) as they attacked a Muslim convoy and thus broke the treaty.
ISLAM UNDER ATTACK
Scholars are human beings and they can make mistakes, but this should not tarnish an entire faith. The Muslim world is widely acknowledged to have greatly contributed to the renaissance in Europe. It was only when they went away from the teachings of their faith and accepted usury that their countries went into decline. Many Muslims countries are being bombed at present to install private central banks as has been done in Libya.
We have our problems namely our own "Protestant" movement, the Wahabi Islam installed by the British Empire. The very same Wahabi's who fought alongside the British against the Islamic Ottoman Empire. Thanks to the Saudi oil money this movement has been promoted around the world. Traditional Islam was slow to wake up to the threat but now these fanatics are being challenged far more often and a movement is afoot to get back to the real Islam.The Prophet Muhammed said "whoever harms a non-Muslim in the Islamic state it is as if he has harmed me" To this day you will find ancient Christian and Jewish communities in Muslim lands. If there was any truth to the lie that Muslims force conversion or kill people for not becoming Muslim then you would not find these communities. Modern Muslim scholars say the verses that are referring to Jews AND Christians are referring to the modern Zionist Alliance between sections of these faiths.
In the Muslim lands, the institution of marriage and family is still intact, and western friends who visit these countries often comment how it reminds them of their grand parent's generation. This before the evil of Zionism laid waste to the family and marriage.
The Prophet Muhammed speaking of the Coptic Christians said "take care of the Christians, they are your kith and kin". He also spoke of sects arising in all faiths including Islam and that all religions would contain a truthful sect.
----------------
John Kunkle Replies:
Mohammed did not deny point by point any of the statements made in my article about specific Shariah laws with regard to non Muslims. Mohammed brought up usury. I never mentioned usury. If he is looking for differences between the Talmud and Shariah, he can find many. I was talking about the similarities between the two ecclesiastic laws as they are practiced (which is what the hadiths and tasfirs are about), particularly about dealings with people outside their culture.
Despite what Mohammed says, non-Moslems are second-class citizens in Moslem countries. I have been in Saudi Arabia. They will not admit Jews. They will admit Christians. However, you are not allowed to bring any religious books with you. While I was there, an Indian doctor, who was a Christian was arrested for having a private bible study in his own home. I used his medical services so I know the situation first hand.
As Mohammed well knows, you cannot celebrate a non-Moslem baptism, wedding, religious service, or burial in public in a Moslem country. You cannot ring church bells or display the Cross outside your church. You cannot put up a sign outside the church about services or even the name of the church. You cannot wear a cross. This does not even cover all the laws regarding non-Moslems I mentioned in my article that Mohammed did not address or deny.
I will agree with Mohammed that the Scriptures were compiled into the Christian bible by St. Jerome as directed by Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicea. That is why the Prophet had to come according to Mohammed. When the Moslems took over land, they did so by the sword. The lands of the Middle East and Northern Africa were Christian lands at the time. They were given the option to convert or they were killed. The Prophet advocated spreading his religion from the east to the west by the sword. That does not sound like a religion of peace.
These places are now considered Dar-Islam - land of Islam, even though they were once Christian, and in the case of Israel and Judah, once Jewish lands. A religion spread by the sword is not a religion of peace. I am well aware of the Christians who spilled Moslem blood and continue to do so today. However, you cannot make the statement that this is only because Christians violated Dar-Islam.
The Moslems invaded France and they were only kept out of the rest of Europe by their defeat by Pepin the Short, Charlemagne's grandfather. Moslems also took nearly seven hundred years before conquering Constantinople (the center of the Christian Orthodox church) and were laying siege to Vienna before being pushed back into the Balkan countries.
Lastly, I will mention that Moslems are rapidly moving into European countries and America and are demanding Shariah law even though these countries are not Dar Islam -- at least not yet. As for images of Moslem terror, it is only necessary to peruse YouTube for any length of time to see radical Moslems in action. Yes, the vast majority of Moslems are not violent, but they are doing nothing to stop the fanatics or speak out about it (probably for fear of retribution), which is a tacit endorsement of their actions.
P.S. I am not trying to start a war on your site, but I consider Mohammed's comments completely inadequate as a response to my article. He is practicing Tafiqqa by trying to take the moral high road instead of dealing with the comparison of the Talmud and Shariah discriminating against people outside their culture. He knows he can't win that battle because it's true.
----
That's it folks! The Illuminati (Masonic) Jewish agenda is to pit Christians against Muslims. The mandate of this site is to expose the danger represented by the (Masonic Jewish) central banking cartel. I will not be sidetracked by posting more divisive anti-Muslim or anti-Christian articles or comments.
John Kunkle Replies:
Mohammed did not deny point by point any of the statements made in my article about specific Shariah laws with regard to non Muslims. Mohammed brought up usury. I never mentioned usury. If he is looking for differences between the Talmud and Shariah, he can find many. I was talking about the similarities between the two ecclesiastic laws as they are practiced (which is what the hadiths and tasfirs are about), particularly about dealings with people outside their culture.
Despite what Mohammed says, non-Moslems are second-class citizens in Moslem countries. I have been in Saudi Arabia. They will not admit Jews. They will admit Christians. However, you are not allowed to bring any religious books with you. While I was there, an Indian doctor, who was a Christian was arrested for having a private bible study in his own home. I used his medical services so I know the situation first hand.
As Mohammed well knows, you cannot celebrate a non-Moslem baptism, wedding, religious service, or burial in public in a Moslem country. You cannot ring church bells or display the Cross outside your church. You cannot put up a sign outside the church about services or even the name of the church. You cannot wear a cross. This does not even cover all the laws regarding non-Moslems I mentioned in my article that Mohammed did not address or deny.
I will agree with Mohammed that the Scriptures were compiled into the Christian bible by St. Jerome as directed by Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicea. That is why the Prophet had to come according to Mohammed. When the Moslems took over land, they did so by the sword. The lands of the Middle East and Northern Africa were Christian lands at the time. They were given the option to convert or they were killed. The Prophet advocated spreading his religion from the east to the west by the sword. That does not sound like a religion of peace.
These places are now considered Dar-Islam - land of Islam, even though they were once Christian, and in the case of Israel and Judah, once Jewish lands. A religion spread by the sword is not a religion of peace. I am well aware of the Christians who spilled Moslem blood and continue to do so today. However, you cannot make the statement that this is only because Christians violated Dar-Islam.
The Moslems invaded France and they were only kept out of the rest of Europe by their defeat by Pepin the Short, Charlemagne's grandfather. Moslems also took nearly seven hundred years before conquering Constantinople (the center of the Christian Orthodox church) and were laying siege to Vienna before being pushed back into the Balkan countries.
Lastly, I will mention that Moslems are rapidly moving into European countries and America and are demanding Shariah law even though these countries are not Dar Islam -- at least not yet. As for images of Moslem terror, it is only necessary to peruse YouTube for any length of time to see radical Moslems in action. Yes, the vast majority of Moslems are not violent, but they are doing nothing to stop the fanatics or speak out about it (probably for fear of retribution), which is a tacit endorsement of their actions.
P.S. I am not trying to start a war on your site, but I consider Mohammed's comments completely inadequate as a response to my article. He is practicing Tafiqqa by trying to take the moral high road instead of dealing with the comparison of the Talmud and Shariah discriminating against people outside their culture. He knows he can't win that battle because it's true.
----
That's it folks! The Illuminati (Masonic) Jewish agenda is to pit Christians against Muslims. The mandate of this site is to expose the danger represented by the (Masonic Jewish) central banking cartel. I will not be sidetracked by posting more divisive anti-Muslim or anti-Christian articles or comments.
David said (June 30, 2013):
To mistake Wahhabism for Islam is greatly misleading.
I know full well and many Muslim I came across are also well aware, that the kind of religious fanaticism controlling the holy places have got nothing to do with the true traditional teaching of Islam. In fact this overzealous way of practicing religion is equivalent to the puritans movement that spread across Christianity following the take over of England by Cromwell.
This is merely a way to exert an iron grip over the people, cleverly using religion as a facade to force upon them total submission toward their rulers... Anybody that studied Islam, even randomly knows that. Religious intolerance is something very recent in most Muslim countries. I've been to Jakarta in Indonesia many times, and I can't recall where on earth you can meet people more civilized !!!
All in all, judging traditional sharia law principles through their modern expression inside Wahhabism, is somewhat dishonest and completely inaccurate. I know you already aware of that, but I thought it was worth mentioning...