Readers’ Responses to Our Question (229)

ahmed from bahrain :
Garyd :

You wrote:

"Ahmed no one including Bush wishes you or any other decent Muslim anything other than peace"

Speak for yourself. Bush says one thing and does one thing. He record during his short tenure in White House speaks volumes. You do not 'Shock and Awe' a whole country trying to punish one bully and his henchmen. Iraq today is chaos. People q for a drop of oil in a country overflown with oil, nly to be pumped out at America's will. The rest of the Iraqi assets are divided between US/UK corporates at a pittance.

This ignoring the million casualties and 3 million refugees living in Syria, Iran and Jordan. What was the cause of their misery? Your wonderful invasion and Rumsfeld/Cheney lies. The irony is that you still think Bush and Neocons want freedom for us. Where have you been? Don't you read news of The Middle East other than CNN/Fox?

Bush supported Israel bombarding Lebanon for over a month, killing thousands and leaving millions of clustered bombs that kill innocent children today. All paid for by your taxes. Israel does not want to give the location of these clustered bombs to vlunteers who risk their lives to clea acres of contaminated lands and you tell me Bush loves us! Msn, he only loves his autocracy and oil corps.

Let us start by withdrawing all your troops from all Middle East countries and becoming a non-biased supporter of Israel. Then you can be Bush's spokesperson.

As for that old dog of Mccain he wants to be in Iran for 100 years and sings to Beach Boys tune: Bom, bomb, bomb; bomb Iran, Bomb Iran. Funny how Americans can vote for such an old warmonger. Does being a war hero earns you the title of presidency? What about all the peace-loving folks? Where are they? Why don't you hear from them in your newsmedia? Ron Paul for example. Does CNN/Fox give him coverage??? Ask yourself why? Follow the money trail. Besides your whole economy is based on production of WMD and for those corps it means creating more demand for their goods. Hence more wars based on lies and slick PR machinery.

That is why AIPAC loves McCain coz he loves war and he is 70+, so chances are that he will kick the bucket in office, then they have a free ride as who to put into his place. Think about it and read a little more about your foreign policy and the power that your country has and it inflicting freely around the world. Your image is zilch outside of US. Wake up and stop blaming the troubles of Iraq and Afghanistan on muslims. Sure we are dumb but America ears heavy responsibility historically in those places and 911 is the result of those foreign policy acts.

If you want your freedom you have to give it to another.

deb chattergee:

Idol worship is No worship. Come on lets agree gee.

deb chattergee:

Idol worship is No worship. Come on lets agree gee.

deb chattergee:

Idol worship is No worship. Come on lets agree gee.

Do not blame the author when you cannot undersatnd the Book.

There are No Flaws in Holy Books, unless you have created some. The Holy Books are not meant for changes according to wish.

Whether you like it or not!!

Do not blame the author when you cannot undersatnd the Book.

There are No Flaws in Holy Books, unless you have created some. The Holy Books are not meant for changes according to wish.

Whether you like it or not!!

Do not blame the author when you cannot undersatnd the Book.

There are No Flaws in Holy Books, unless you have created some. The Holy Books are not meant for changes according to wish.

Whether you like it or not!!

All possible kind of questions asked by non Muslims about Islam answered on below web site:
http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

GHYSLAINE ROC:
Shalom!
The arrogance, hatred, racism and fanaticism displayed by some people does not allow for a civilised exchange of views and facts on any matter.
Whilst the Arab Jews (“Sephardic”), Muslims, Christians and Atheists lived harmoniously in Palestine for more than a thousand years, it is sad to see how AshkeNAZIS Talmudist Jews have corrupted the Judaic religion and made it into a uniquely racist one with its Chosen People to whom they falsely claim GOD promised the land of the Arabs.
This AshkeNAZI anti-Semitic, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism caused about 110,000 Sephardic Jewish children to be irradiated with US military equipment according to Israeli military Barry Chamish. Check on Google for the “Ringworm Children”?
“In 1951, the director general of the Israeli Health Ministry, Dr. Chaim Sheba flew to America and returned with 7 x-ray machines, supplied to him by the American army.

They were to be used in a mass atomic experiment with an entire generation of Sephardi youths to be used as guinea pigs. Every Sephardi child was to be given 35,000 times the maximum dose of x-rays through his head. For doing so, the American government paid the Israeli government 300 million Israeli liras a year. The entire Health budget was 60 million liras. The money paid by the Americans is equivalent to billions of dollars today. To fool the parents of the victims, the children were taken away on "school trips" and their parents were later told the x-rays were a treatment for the scourge of scalpal ringworm. 6,000 of the children died shortly after their doses were given, while many of the rest developed cancers that killed them over time and are still killing them now. While living, the victims suffered from disorders such as epilepsy, amnesia, Alzheimer's disease, chronic headaches and psychosis.”
So the AshkeNAZI visceral hatred for anything Arab (and Muslim) has been proven a thousand times already. After stealing the Arab SEMITIC identity, and making it an exclusively Jewish identity, they (and their friends) are now trying to say that even the Tallit is exclusively Jewish!!!!!!! Few of them really know that the Hebrew religion is as a matter of fact a Babylonian-Arab-Palestinian religion, and that Hebrew customs are in fact Arab customs. Even the “Hebrew God” is the GOD OF THE ARABS “YA HUA” (YHWH), EL, ELAH, ALAH, ELAHI, AL-LAH (THE GOD), and the GOD OF THE PALESTINIANS ADONIS!!!!!! ELOHIM is just the plural form of ELAH (or as some say, a plural form of respect). ADONAÏ ELOHIM is in fact not exclusively Jewish at all!!!!!!!
In order to understand “Jewish” customs, one should not ignore the fact that they were in fact Arab customs. Jews say SHALOM ‘ALEYKHEM and Arabs say AS SALAAMU ‘ALAYKUM meaning exactly the same thing!
“JEWS” are in fact not exclusively the real Bani Isra’il, and AshkeNAZIS are not Semitic at all. When Jewish Arthur Koestler said in his book The Thirteenth Tribe that nearly 90% of modern Jews are not Semitic at all but of a Mongolian-Turkic race, the racist AshkeNAZIS murdered him and his wife, which the Police passed as suicide!!!!!!! (The UK is run by Zionists!)
One should not mix the customs of Reformed Jews with those of Orthodox Jews, just like one cannot mix the customs of Catholics with those of Protestants. The European Christian hatred of Islam and Muslims has prevented the world from learning the truth about this great world religion, currently the fastest growing religion in the world. The very first created man, Adam, was a Muslim. All the “Jewish” Prophets were Muslims. Jesus was a Muslim. It is just a matter of meaning, because a Muslim, by definition, is just any human who submits to the Laws of GOD. When a Jew obeys the Lord’s Commandments, he or she automatically behaves like a Muslim and may well be called a Muslim if the Commandments are authentic.
The first Arab Muslims when Islam was perfected were Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Atheists, and they have imported their customs in the daily lives of Muslims. But, it is useless to explain this to racists, hate-mongers and fanatics. Muslims are allowed to marry Jewish and Christian women because in those days there was no great difference between them. For example, Jews and Christians covered their heads in prayer. They both did not eat pork, condemned adultery, polytheism, murder, false testimony, adultery, and honoured their parents.
Even to this day, Russians and Eastern Christianity and Judaism respect the HIJAAB.
Regards
Ghyslaine ROC
Saturday 16th of February 6008
FEBRUARY 16, 2008 1:30 PM

there was an extended attempt to define from a variety of sources (all verified) on eboo patel's 'our faith talk is in the gutter' post under the faithdivide

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/01/our_faith_talk_is_in_the_gutte/all_comments.html

the beginning posts are reasonable enough-
of course, predictably the isalmophobes showed up at the end- but thats par for the course here-

hope you get something out of it observer
peace

Observer12 wrote:

"I do not know what you mean by a "fictitious line." What you may see as fiction, others may see as truth. After all, who owns the oil companies? Who is in bed with the Muslim Saudis? Who brought us to Iraq? Who owns Haliburton? Who owns Microsoft? The media? The Congress? The overwhelming majority of members of Congress are Christians, confessing Christians, that is, in the House. Oddly, very mysteriously, the majority of Senate members are Catholics"

The ficticious line is that "hate speech" and "offensive speech" are in most cases blurry. As you correctly point out, calling for unprovoked violence against any human race/person is a call for "hate speech" that the US Supreme court would recognize as punishable under US laws. But how do you define "offensive speech" from "hate speech", in your perception ?

Muslims follow the Quran. The Quran is full of hate against unbelievers (i.e., one who will not submit before its barbaric dictates), if one reads the authentic English translations of the holy book of Islam by Muslim translators (Abdullah Yusuf Ali for example).

So, if you are objecting to hate speech which I would limit to speech that explicitly commands violence, I would put Quran in that category. It does call for slaughter of pagans (Hindus), or hates them with some degree of "flexibility" and hence would spare their lives if these pagans, and Jews and Christians would accept "dhimmitude" (second class status), and pay the insulting tax (Jiziya) because of their non-Muslim status. (See Quran [009:029], which reads:

YUSUFALI: "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"

Isn't that hate speech too ? So, major of the Quran should be banned in USA, no ?

Deb,

I am not speaking of offense. I am speaking of hate speech. Hate speech is violence, in and of itself. Arun Gandhi's January 7th essay is hate speech.

I am an academic. I asked a legal ethicist, also an academic, for his opinion. While he was stunned by the profound ignorance evident in Gandhi's referring to the Shoah as a "German burden," i.e., of knowing nothing about the EuropeChristian-wide participation in the slaughter, including that of that great bastion of tolerance France, not to mention England, he does not believe Gandhi's pollution qualifies as hate speech in the legal sense. As for the moral sense, he thinks it obviously does. (Not-so-incidentally, he is not Jewish.) Still, he referred me to another professor, at Harvard, whose answer regarding legality, I am advised to take as definitive. I am awaiting his reply.

I do not know what you mean by a "fictitious line." What you may see as fiction, others may see as truth. After all, who owns the oil companies? Who is in bed with the Muslim Saudis? Who brought us to Iraq? Who owns Haliburton? Who owns Microsoft? The media? The Congress? The overwhelming majority of members of Congress are Christians, confessing Christians, that is, in the House. Oddly, very mysteriously, the majority of Senate members are Catholics.

You should know that there are Muslims who are struggling, right now in Pakistan against the ignorance of a moron like Moody, academics and journalists, some of whom publish in the New York Times. They are not anti-Jewish racists, or racists of any kind, and they do not support extremism or oppression. Nor do they apologize for it, i.e., attempt to explain it. They have no sympathy for it, no patenalistic empathy. They want democracy--now.

It would be the easiest thing in the world for me, as a Jew, to write all Muslims off with one broad brush stroke. I look at the three million Jewish refugees from the Middle East, and I wonder that I have not done so. It is an achievement, purchased dearly, effortfully; a struggle I have engaged all my life. I don't want to become a Lilliputian, despite the fact that I often find myself in Lilliput.

By the way, Deb, you are right. Freedom of speech is not accepted at the WP, although hate speech is, selectively.

Deb,

I am not speaking of offense. I am speaking of hate speech. Hate speech is violence, in and of itself. Arun Gandhi's January 7th essay is hate speech.

I am an academic. I asked a legal ethicist, also an academic, for his opinion. While he was stunned by the profound ignorance evident in Gandhi's referring to the Shoah as a "German burden," i.e., of knowing nothing about the EuropeChristian-wide participation in the slaughter, including that of that great bastion of tolerance France, not to mention England, he does not believe Gandhi's pollution qualifies as hate speech in the legal sense. As for the moral sense, he thinks it obviously does. (Not-so-incidentally, he is not Jewish.) Still, he referred me to another professor, at Harvard, whose answer regarding legality, I am advised to take as definitive. I am awaiting his reply.

I do not know what you mean by a "fictitious line." What you may see as fiction, others may see as truth. After all, who owns the oil companies? Who is in bed with the Muslim Saudis? Who brought us to Iraq? Who owns Haliburton? Who owns Microsoft? The media? The Congress? The overwhelming majority of members of Congress are Christians, confessing Christians, that is, in the House. Oddly, very mysteriously, the majority of Senate members are Catholics.

You should know that there are Muslims who are struggling, right now in Pakistan against the ignorance of a moron like Moody, academics and journalists, some of whom publish in the New York Times. They are not anti-Jewish racists, or racists of any kind, and they do not support extremism or oppression. Nor do they apologize for it, i.e., attempt to explain it. They have no sympathy for it, no patenalistic empathy. They want democracy--now.

It would be the easiest thing in the world for me, as a Jew, to write all Muslims off with one broad brush stroke. I look at the three million Jewish refugees from the Middle East, and I wonder that I have not done so. It is an achievement, purchased dearly, effortfully; a struggle I have engaged all my life. I don't want to become a Lilliputian, despite the fact that I often find myself in Lilliput.

Deb blubbered again -

"hoping that this post doesn't get axed again like the last time"

Do you think there might be a reason Mister Neanderthal that your posts are getting axed????

YOU ARE AN OFFENSE TO THE HUMAN RACE!

You really believe in the junk that you write dont you? Has anyone ever told you how ugly you are inside?

America TRULY is a melting pot because if we can allow idiots like Deb to exist and speak as freely as we do - then maybe Osama should come here too? Who is stopping him? What is stopping him? Deb is a terrorist in disguise - he has no morals or manners. There is absolutely NO common sense or compassion in this man. He does not deserve to live in this country - a freak is what he is!

A terrorist is someone who ignites and spreads hateful ideas around him - most of the time through violence. The thing is, he never fights his own battles, he has others fight them for him. Deb is a true terrorist here trying to accomplish only ONE thing - HATE AND VIOLENCE.

DEB HAS CALLED FOR THE KILLING OF MUSLIMS ON THESE BLOGS.

"In USA free speech means the right to offend."

WRONG - this moronic piece of junk is exactly the problem here. YOU DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO OFFEND ANYONE DEBORAH/DEBO/DEBBY.

This shows a significant lack of education, morals, manners, upbringing, etc. In Urdu, its called JAHIL. Meaning, IGNORANT.

Go and lick your wounds somewhere else - its no one else's fault that you were kicked around as a kid. I feel sorry for you because you probably never had a decent childhood or life.

Are you married? I dont think so...no one could stand such an offensive human being. Disgusting!

"What offends you may not offend me. So, why bother creating a ficticious line ?"

You're right - we all have different sensibilities. That does NOT mean its okay to abuse other people.

If civilization was built on your theories - we would have wars EVERYDAY. You lack the common sense that normal people are born with. IF we ever listened to ignoramouses like Deb - there would be NO hope for America or any other country to see a better day. It wont happen because we will be engaged in war after war after war.

Maybe you had some common sense but got it beaten out of you - again - its that kicking around that you got as a child.

Kolkata is probably sick of you - the USA wants nothing to do with you - your family does not want you - you are a closet atheist - you dont believe in God but dont have the courage to say so out loud - you are misrably unhappy - you have no one in your life because of your repulsive attitude - you have ONLY hatred to offer anyone else.

Who gives a tail what you have to say Debo? You have enough problems on your plate - the world doesnt need you - fix your own pile of junk first.

Obviously WP blogowner doesn't respect free speech. Maybe the line between free-speech and hate-speech are arbitrarily self-regulated on this blog, and perhaps Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham answer what is the difference they perceive between the two.

Responding to Observer12, and hoping that this post doesn't get axed again like the last time, I would assert if hate speech is contemptible, then Quran promotes hate speech against those who are non-Muslims. Its call to violence against those who will not submit to Islam [Quran(047:004)] is quite unmatched. It manifests its hatred by asking its followers to engage in violence to uphold the supremacy and enforces its legitimacy by use of violence. The doctrine of Islam is thus abominable.

A recent CNN newsitem supports this assertion. The link is below:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/12/denmark.cartoon/index.html

Free speech, unless it ius submissive, is taken as hate speech. In USA free speech means the right to offend. What offends you may not offend me. So, why bother creating a ficticious line ?

Observer12 wrote -

"As I said earlier hate speech is not freedom of speech."

This has been my point on these blogs for a VERY long time to Debby. He seems to think HATE and violence are good things. He seems to think he has a right to them because of freedom of speech. Why? How?

Deb has called for the killing of Muslims on WPost blogs and DOES hate Muslims. I dont know why he is acting like coward right now and not admitting it.

He is a narrow-minded, uneducated, bigot that came to this country looking for help because he was treated like a second-class citizen in his own country. Yet he seems to think its okay to do that to other people.

***Have you ever heard of such hypocrisy?***

HE IS A WASTE OF PERFECTLY GOOD BREATHING SPACE.

Well, Deb, you have called me out of hiding. I do think, however, that Hindu fundamentalists driving out Dr. Jalal from Columbia goes to free speech.

Moreover, if you reread your posts, or better yet, preview them before posting, you will find that you have gone on about Sharia of which you know next to nothing and a dozen other things about which you do know nothing.

There are Islamic extremists, and their number is great. Nor are they limited to the members of the Muslim Student Organization as Anonymous would have it. Incidentally, I thank him/her for including Jews among those whom Muslims are enjoined not to hate. How very gracious!

As I said earlier hate speech is not freedom of speech. Yet, we permit it selectively as we see in the case of Arun Gandhi. The failure of moderators to remove the essay is unfortunate. The New York Times has removed blogs when they found their contents unaccpetable for one reason or another.

Then we have Moody with his "Zionist media," which would be hilarious if there weren't so many other fools who had bought into this ancient canard. We all know that our problems are due to the Muslim-Christian oil cartel.

If we want to protect American rights,then we have to allow persons you and I may find objectionable to speak, but not with hatred, and, ideally, not with stupidity.

I do wish you well, Deb.

Observer12:

You raise irrelevant points and then run away like the proverbial quitter.

NO one denies the faults of Hindu society, viz., widow burning, etc.

However the main thrust of this forum is "Islam vs Free Speech". On that score you sound like a rambling idiot, and I am sure you are an intelligent person in real life. This is quite unfortunate.

To relate to the topic at hand, consider the recent fiasco about Tasleema Nasreen in Kolkata, India. Muslim fundamentalists have threatended with decapitation. Yes, academic protests are happening but the voice of the "moderate and enlightened Muslims" is not doing anything. Tasleema is still in hiding. We often hear that moderate Muslims are the majority, but apparently at least in this case the moderate and enlightened have surrendered their intellect to the fundamentalism of the barbaric Islamic doctrines (Shariah). Thus regardless of whatever is being preached about Islam to brainwash the gullible, the fact remains that Free Speech and Islam are diametrically at odds with each other. Similar situation has not been seen with Christianity or the Christian values, at least in the recent times. Bringing reform in Muslim societies is the job of these "moderate and enlightened Muslims", and not that of non-Muslims.

Anyway, just have a good life.

Dear Deb,

No, "post[ing] the same message thrice" does not "emphasize my point." How or why that happened I don't know, but I doubt it would make a dfference to you if you read it 100 times. You just don't get. And you are determined not to.

I am opposed to bride-burning, female feticide, and the enslavement (literal enslavement) of tens of millions of Dalit. So are many, many Muslims and Christians. Widow self-immolation doesn't do it for me either. While it's none of my business, I could live without idol worship. And? So? Point?

Hindu fundamentalists forced the ouster of Dr. Aisha Jalal, an eminent academic, from Columbia. While she has gone on to have a predictably remarkable career, Columbia, shamefaced, mumbles when her name came up.

Extremists in any group are undesirable here and everywhere. However, this is the U.S., and we do have freedom of speech. Among other things, this right allows people like you to deny that the slaughter at Gujurat happened, thinking that no one would be able to demonstrate otherwise.

I don't know what is causing your panic. Understand the culture that you are in. Return to your ESL classes to improve your communication skills. Use this space for something other than hate.

Good luck to you, and I mean that sincerely. I won't be communicating with you again.

Deb

The MSA Muslim Student Association on most every college campus is responsible, I think, for bringing the current wave of Muslim radicalism to the US. How sad it is to see these young people preach and teach hatred of anybody, including Jews...hatred is hatred and the acid that devours one's soul.

It is the philosophy of Maududi, the Jammat Islami (JI) preacher that has instilled this poison in them. the Writings of Qutb also incite them to aggress against humanity for the sake of Allah.

Have all forgotten that religion was meant to make us better human beings. Instead these Muslim young people seem to eat up this poison at the college level when they should be learning how to think and to CHALLENGE destructive propaganda.

This is what their Muslim organizations and leaders are feeding them...the poison of the likes of Maududi and Qutb so they become haters of humanity.

I wish someone would teach these young people how to think.

They need a 70's kind of rebellion so they throw off this putrid ideology of hatred and yearn in their hearts for peace and tranquility for all people.

I understand that the wretched Saudis have funded this ideology of hatred. Too bad...they might have alleved world hunger and poverty or achieved some honorable goal.

TO ANONYMOUS:

On your post of 2-9-2008 at 6:02 PM you wrote, "Why is there so much contradiction between different versions of the same bibles?", could you give an example?

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Observer12

I do NOT hate Muslims. I hate the doctrine of Islam and Shariah.

Is that clear enough, or do I still need to help you understand my position ?

Also, does posting the same message thrice emphasize any specific point ?

In an earlier post, I wondered if it would be desirable, or even possible, for us to have a reasonable dialog, to benefit from the knowledge of experts, on the principles of the major religions.

I fear the answer is no. Moody, I am sorry, but although I am not a Muslim, I know both from reading and from my two closest friends, both Muslim academics, that what you say is not definitive. Every religion, even Catholocism, which has a central worldwide authority, has differences within it. This is also the case with Islam, Protestantism, Judaism, Hinduism. Unfortunately, not only are there those who believe that theirs is the one true faith, but that their sect is the one true sect.

You are as much an expert on Islam as I am on Judaism. What I can say with some confidence is that most Jews believe that the Lord has a covenant with all peoples, and it is not for us to question it. It is not for me to question whether or not they accept the covenant given to them or even believe it exists. That is up to them.

Most would also adhere to the words of the sage, Hillel:
If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? If not now, when?

Note the second question: If I am not for others, WHAT, not WHO, am I?

If not now, when: Now, really is the time. If we don't move toward greater understanding and acceptance, we will not be able to move at all.

And, Deb, make no mistake about it. Muslims are not my "favorites." I have no religious favorites. It's just that I don't think murdering 1200 men, women, and children was a particularly good thing to do, having had so much experience with genocide myself. I also don't think treating them as second-class citizens is all that great. I've never been fond of making victims of one's fellow humans.

There are numerous Christian web sites devoted to silencing or somehow ridding the US of Muslims, and some of the site owners have identified Hindus posing as Christians. What is going on?

What should I, as a Jew say? Should I blame every Muslim for the three million refugees from the Middle East? For the plight of my Iranian, Egyption, and Iraqi Jewish students? For the thousands of Ethopian Jews who were either airlifted out of Ethopia by Israel or got there somehow on there own, should I blame every Ethiopian gentile?

And to the Chrisitans, Dear God, what should I say? Since it is they who brought anti-Jewish racism into the world, and then exported it everywhere. An effective diversion.

What, Deb, have Muslims done to you? And how does hating them benefit you?

We are in a country that tries to reflect on racism, in a country that has a multicultural curriculum. Yet I see no interest here in anything other than intolerance.

In an earlier post, I wondered if it would be desirable, or even possible, for us to have a reasonable dialog, to benefit from the knowledge of experts, on the principles of the major religions.

I fear the answer is no. Moody, I am sorry, but although I am not a Muslim, I know both from reading and from my two closest friends, both Muslim academics, that what you say is not definitive. Every religion, even Catholocism, which has a central worldwide authority, has differences within it. This is also the case with Islam, Protestantism, Judaism, Hinduism. Unfortunately, not only are there those who believe that theirs is the one true faith, but that their sect is the one true sect.

You are as much an expert on Islam as I am on Judaism. What I can say with some confidence is that most Jews believe that the Lord has a covenant with all peoples, and it is not for us to question it. It is not for me to question whether or not they accept the covenant given to them or even believe it exists. That is up to them.

Most would also adhere to the words of the sage, Hillel:
If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? If not now, when?

Note the second question: If I am not for others, WHAT, not WHO, am I?

If not now, when: Now, really is the time. If we don't move toward greater understanding and acceptance, we will not be able to move at all.

And, Deb, make no mistake about it. Muslims are not my "favorites." I have no religious favorites. It's just that I don't think murdering 1200 men, women, and children was a particularly good thing to do, having had so much experience with genocide myself. I also don't think treating them as second-class citizens is all that great. I've never been fond of making victims of one's fellow humans.

There are numerous Christian web sites devoted to silencing or somehow ridding the US of Muslims, and some of the site owners have identified Hindus posing as Christians. What is going on?

What should I, as a Jew say? Should I blame every Muslim for the three million refugees from the Middle East? For the plight of my Iranian, Egyption, and Iraqi Jewish students? For the thousands of Ethopian Jews who were either airlifted out of Ethopia by Israel or got there somehow on there own, should I blame every Ethiopian gentile?

And to the Chrisitans, Dear God, what should I say? Since it is they who brought anti-Jewish racism into the world, and then exported it everywhere. An effective diversion.

What, Deb, have Muslims done to you? And how does hating them benefit you?

We are in a country that tries to reflect on racism, in a country that has a multicultural curriculum. Yet I see no interest here in anything other than intolerance.

In an earlier post, I wondered if it would be desirable, or even possible, for us to have a reasonable dialog, to benefit from the knowledge of experts, on the principles of the major religions.

I fear the answer is no. Moody, I am sorry, but although I am not a Muslim, I know both from reading and from my two closest friends, both Muslim academics, that what you say is not definitive. Every religion, even Catholocism, which has a central worldwide authority, has differences within it. This is also the case with Islam, Protestantism, Judaism, Hinduism. Unfortunately, not only are there those who believe that theirs is the one true faith, but that their sect is the one true sect.

You are as much an expert on Islam as I am on Judaism. What I can say with some confidence is that most Jews believe that the Lord has a covenant with all peoples, and it is not for us to question it. It is not for me to question whether or not they accept the covenant given to them or even believe it exists. That is up to them.

Most would also adhere to the words of the sage, Hillel:
If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? If not now, when?

Note the second question: If I am not for others, WHAT, not WHO, am I?

If not now, when: Now, really is the time. If we don't move toward greater understanding and acceptance, we will not be able to move at all.

And, Deb, make no mistake about it. Muslims are not my "favorites." I have no religious favorites. It's just that I don't think murdering 1200 men, women, and children was a particularly good thing to do, having had so much experience with genocide myself. I also don't think treating them as second-class citizens is all that great. I've never been fond of making victims of one's fellow humans.

There are numerous Christian web sites devoted to silencing or somehow ridding the US of Muslims, and some of the site owners have identified Hindus posing as Christians. What is going on?

What should I, as a Jew say? Should I blame every Muslim for the three million refugees from the Middle East? For the plight of my Iranian, Egyption, and Iraqi Jewish students? For the thousands of Ethopian Jews who were either airlifted out of Ethopia by Israel or got there somehow on there own, should I blame every Ethiopian gentile?

And to the Chrisitans, Dear God, what should I say? Since it is they who brought anti-Jewish racism into the world, and then exported it everywhere. An effective diversion.

What, Deb, have Muslims done to you? And how does hating them benefit you?

We are in a country that tries to reflect on racism, in a country that has a multicultural curriculum. Yet I see no interest here in anything other than intolerance.

Islam's barbaric dictates, also known in anti-Islamic circles, ugly Mohammedan behemoth, is all poised to strike to implement the putrid Shariah.

This is from Times of India (ToI):

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Arrested_LeT_militants_next_target_was_Mumbai/articleshow/2771428.cms

Islamic militantcy is not restricted to India alone. Europe is also having its share of Islamic radicalism. The following newsitem from NYT shows the picture of a bearded mullah from Pakistan planning to bomb places in Europe and spread the Islamic terrorism overseas into USA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/world/europe/10spain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Why should USA keep up its Muslim immigration ? Why the next US president not place a moratorium on Muslim immigration for a minimum 10 years, and keep a very close vigil (eavesdropping/snooping) on the Muslims already inside USA ? Why would that be a bad idea ?

All possible kind of questions asked by non muslims about Islam answered on below web site:
http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

Most Common Questions asked by Non-Muslims

POLYGAMY

Question:

Why is a man allowed to have more than one wife in Islam? i.e. why is polygamy allowed in Islam?

Answer:

Definition of Polygamy

1. Polygamy means a system of marriage whereby one person has more than one spouse. Polygamy can be of two types. One is polygyny where a man marries more than one woman, and the other is polyandry, where a woman marries more than one man. In Islam, limited polygyny is permitted; whereas polyandry is completely prohibited.

Now coming to the original question, why is a man allowed to have more than one wife?

2. The Qur’an is the only religious scripture in the world that says,"marry only one".

The Qur’an is the only religious book, on the face of this earth, that contains the phrase ‘marry only one’. There is no other religious book that instructs men to have only one wife. In none of the other religious scriptures, whether it be the Vedas, the Ramayan, the Mahabharat, the Geeta, the Talmud or the Bible does one find a restriction on the number of wives. According to these scriptures one can marry as many as one wishes. It was only later, that the Hindu priests and the Christian Church restricted the number of wives to one.

Many Hindu religious personalities, according to their scriptures, had multiple wives. King Dashrat, the father of Rama, had more than one wife. Krishna had several wives.

In earlier times, Christian men were permitted as many wives as they wished, since the Bible puts no restriction on the number of wives. It was only a few centuries ago that the Church restricted the number of wives to one.

Polygyny is permitted in Judaism. According to Talmudic law, Abraham had three wives, and Solomon had hundreds of wives. The practice of polygyny continued till Rabbi Gershom ben Yehudah (95% C.E to 1030 C.E) issued an edict against it. The Jewish Sephardic communities living in Muslim countries continued the practice till as late as 1950, until an Act of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel extended the ban on marrying more than one wife.

3. Hindus are more polygynous than Muslims

The report of the ‘Committee of The Status of Woman in Islam’, published in 1975 mentions on page numbers 66 and 67 that the percentage of polygamous marriages between the years 1951 and 1961 was 5.06% among the Hindus and only 4.31% among the Muslims. According to Indian law only Muslim men are permitted to have more than one wife. It is illegal for any non-Muslim in India to have more than one wife. Despite it being illegal, Hindus have more multiple wives as compared to Muslims. Earlier, there was no restriction even on Hindu men with respect to the number of wives allowed. It was only in 1954, when the Hindu Marriage Act was passed that it became illegal for a Hindu to have more than one wife. At present it is the Indian Law that restricts a Hindu man from having more than one wife and not the Hindu scriptures.

Let us now analyse why Islam allows a man to have more than one wife.

4. Qur’an permits limited polygyny

As I mentioned earlier, Qur’an is the only religious book on the face of the earth that says ‘marry only one’. The context of this phrase is the following verse from Surah Nisa of the Glorious Qur’an:

"Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one."

[Al-Qur’an 4:3]

Before the Qur’an was revealed, there was no upper limit for polygyny and many men had scores of wives, some even hundreds. Islam put an upper limit of four wives. Islam gives a man permission to marry two, three or four women, only on the condition that he deals justly with them.

In the same chapter i.e. Surah Nisa verse 129 says:

"Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women...."

[Al-Qur’an 4:129]

Therefore polygyny is not a rule but an exception. Many people are under the misconception that it is compulsory for a Muslim man to have more than one wife.

Broadly, Islam has five categories of Do’s and Don’ts:

‘Fard’ i.e. compulsory or obligatory

‘Mustahab’ i.e. recommended or encouraged

‘Mubah’ i.e. permissible or allowed

‘Makruh’ i.e. not recommended or discouraged

‘Haraam’ i.e. prohibited or forbidden

Polygyny falls in the middle category of things that are permissible. It cannot be said that a Muslim who has two, three or four wives is a better Muslim as compared to a Muslim who has only one wife.

5. Average life span of females is more than that of males

By nature males and females are born in approximately the same ratio. A female child has more immunity than a male child. A female child can fight the germs and diseases better than the male child. For this reason, during the pediatric age itself there are more deaths among males as compared to the females.

During wars, there are more men killed as compared to women. More men die due to accidents and diseases than women. The average life span of females is more than that of males, and at any given time one finds more widows in the world than widowers.

6. India has more male population than female due to female foeticide and infanticide

India is one of the few countries, along with the other neighbouring countries, in which the female population is less than the male population. The reason lies in the high rate of female infanticide in India, and the fact that more than one million female foetuses are aborted every year in this country, after they are identified as females. If this evil practice is stopped, then India too will have more females as compared to males.

7. World female population is more than male population

In the USA, women outnumber men by 7.8 million. New York alone has one million more females as compared to the number of males, and of the male population of New York one-third are gays i.e sodomites. The U.S.A as a whole has more than twenty-five million gays. This means that these people do not wish to marry women. Great Britain has four million more females as compared to males. Germany has five million more females as compared to males. Russia has nine million more females than males. God alone knows how many million more females there are in the whole world as compared to males.

8. Restricting each and every man to have only one wife is not practical

Even if every man got married to one woman, there would still be more than thirty million females in U.S.A who would not be able to get husbands (considering that America has twenty five million gays). There would be more than four million females in Great Britain, 5 million females in Germany and nine million females in Russia alone who would not be able to find a husband.

Suppose my sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in USA, or suppose your sister happens to be one of the unmarried women in USA. The only two options remaining for her are that she either marries a man who already has a wife or becomes public property. There is no other option. All those who are modest will opt for the first.

In Western society, it is common for a man to have mistresses and/or multiple extra-marital affairs, in which case, the woman leads a disgraceful, unprotected life. The same society, however, cannot accept a man having more than one wife, in which women retain their honourable, dignified position in society and lead a protected life.

Thus the only two options before a woman who cannot find a husband is to marry a married man or to become public property. Islam prefers giving women the honourable position by permitting the first option and disallowing the second.

There are several other reasons, why Islam has permitted limited polygyny, but it is mainly to protect the modesty of women.

Deb Chatterjee :

Below is the reply to your unjust concerns and worries:

All possible kind of questions asked by non muslims about Islam answered on below web site:
http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

Most Common Questions asked by Non-Muslims

WAS ISLAM SPREAD BY THE SWORD?

Question:

How can Islam be called the religion of peace when it was spread by the sword?

Answer:

It is a common complaint among some non-Muslims that Islam would not have millions of adherents all over the world, if it had not been spread by the use of force. The following points will make it clear, that far from being spread by the sword, it was the inherent force of truth, reason and logic that was responsible for the rapid spread of Islam.

1. Islam means peace.

Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam’, which means peace. It also means submitting one’s will to Allah (swt). Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting one’s will to the will of the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt).

2. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace.

Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peace and harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and anti-social elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.

3. Opinion of historian De Lacy O’Leary.

The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" (Page 8):

"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated."

4. Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years.

Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.

5. 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians.

Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.

6. More than 80% non-Muslims in India.

The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

7. Indonesia and Malaysia.

Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, "Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?"

8. East Coast of Africa.

Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, "Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?"

9. Thomas Carlyle.

The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book "Heroes and Hero worship", refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: "The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can."

10. No compulsion in religion.

With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur’an says in the following verse:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion:
Truth stands out clear from error"
[Al-Qur’an 2:256]

11. Sword of the Intellect.

It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125:

"Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord
with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are
best and most gracious."
[Al-Qur’an 16:125]

12. Increase in the world religions from 1934 to 1984.

An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth’ magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?

13. Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and Europe.

Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?

14. Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson.

Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson rightly says, "People who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to realize that the Islamic bomb has been dropped already, it fell the day MUHAMMED (pbuh) was born".

A. Kafir,

I have been in Britain and genetic illness there is a general public phenomena and not JUST the muslim one.

I personlly have seen all kind of NON MUSLIM genetically ill super white race(ist).

As Prof. Samuel P. Huntington observed, propagation of Islam has been through violence. It (Islam) has bloody borders.

Observing history, it appears that Islam is kept under control by use of force. Whenever there has been relaxation or more "freedom" for Islam, it has spun out of control and caused violence.

Thus, if USA wants to remain a secular, democratic Republic it must be very strict with the practice of Islam by Muslims. No Shariah laws and reduce Muslim immigration to USA. These two are good domestic policies for a start.

A. Kafir,

In Islam you cannot have out side marital sexual relations and you CANNOT MARRY:

1- Your or your wife's mother or step mothers or grand mothers, step grand mothers OR fathers.
2- Your sister or step sister.
3- Your brother or step brothers.
4- Your wife’s sister or step sister until you are married to her or until she is alive.
5- Your daughter and son OR your brothers or sisters daughter and son, including all step.
6-Your father's brothers or sisters including steps and there wife’s and husbands. But you can marry there children only preferable for first generation and more preferable is to marry out side family.(Scientifically proven that first generation marriage doesn't cause any harm, but there is a possibility of less then 1/1000 of physical harm, if you continue keep marrying with cousins generation to generation.)
7-Your mothers brothers and sisters including steps and there wife’s and husbands. But you can marry there children only preferable for first generation and more preferable is to marry out side family.(Scientifically proven that first generation marriage doesn't cause any harm, but there is a possibility of less then 1/1000 of physical harm, if you continue keep marrying with cousins generation to generation.)

All possible kind of questions asked by non muslims about Islam answered on below web site:
http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

Deb -

Welcome back big guy! LOL! Back for more? I thought so - some people just get addicted to pain...

Anyway, just what do you think you will do to Muslims if they dont follow your rules? Hunh? What are you going to do???

Deb blubbered -

"Excellent observations, Kimberly. Now, pray tell me, if Muslim population grows in USA what are the chances that we shall see the end of what we know as the 1st Amendment of the Constitution ? So, immigration should be a real issue in this election, isn't it ?"

Awwwwww - isnt that sweet? Debby has a friend now.

On a brighter note - if you are so scared of what will happen to the OUR country if Muslims live here - why dont you go back to Kolkata? Why dont you go back the little rat hole you escaped from so desperately? You hate it there dont you? Why? Because they wont accept your bigoted, racist and prejudiced views. You are a shunned outsider now and you know it. Why? Because half of the junk you write on these blogs comes from that dark little place in your heart that was probably beaten as a child or kicked around a bit.

Now - is that our problem? Do we have to pay for your troubles? Are we required to put up with bigotry? NO.

"BTW, Victoria has accused me of being a woman-hater, anti-Muslim etc. and etc. on this and other Islam blogs on WP. This is FYI."

WRONG - Ive accused you of that and much more as well. In fact, there is a post in which you have actually called for the killing of Muslims on another blog. YOU HAVE ACTUALLY CALLED FOR THE KILLING OF MUSLIMS ON ANOTHER BLOG ON WPOST.

Kimberly wrote -

"Victoria thinks

"the question itself is irresponsible journalism"

Victoria seems to be the Muslim mouthpiece here trying to blaze a new trail in America for an Islamic end of free speech.."

WRONG - She is not alone - Im here too. I want to be a Muslim mouthpiece too you know...but being a Muslim speaker has nothing to do with the end of free speech. That is exactly what we are practicing here. Did I tell you to shut up? Nope. I dont think she did either.

What she meant was - the questions reeks of prejudice. What she meant was - the question did not promote any peaceful dialogue. It simply ignited flames from all sides. What did we accomplish as a result of this question? Did a single person walk away with any more knowledge or understanding of Islam or any other religion for that matter? NO! That is her point. All of us are arguing here - no one is happy or getting anything out of it.

That is why its a stupid question.

"Victoria what do you suggest? Should Sally and Jon just be forced into silence or maybe they deserve the DEATH SENTENCE too?"

Hunh? What? Death sentence for what? Sally and Jon ask stupid questions - that is a given - but I dont think they deserve anything close to that. Maybe someone ought to talk to them and tell them to stop targeting Islam so much on their blogs.

No other topic gets as much attention as an Islamic topic. Nothing else is interesting enough to keep their blog in business - thats why Islam gets posted as a question every six months or so.

A glance at recent posts shows that none of is qualified to speak with authority about Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, etc. (Note the alphabetical listing.)

It would be useful for Sally and John to invite "mainstream" experts to do so. Ideally, they would be well-respected academics, who also have status as rabbis, priests, minsisters, imams, etc. I do not think that such open discussion will end either bigotry or racism. Then, too, the various religious groups have different sects, and within the sects, competing histories.

Still, it would be a beginning, if, and this is a big if, we are willing to great these discussions with respect.

Following, or along with this dialogue, perhaps we can consider history, ethnic identities, real and perceived greivances, etc. However, we would have to start with a willingness to listen to and respect one another's beliefs, to those of no belief, to welcome the stranger.

Would such discussions be desirable? Would they be possible?

Most Common Questions asked by Non-Muslims

MUSLIMS ARE FUNDAMENTALISTS AND TERRORISTS

Question:

Why are most of the Muslims fundamentalists and terrorists?

Answer:

This question is often hurled at Muslims, either directly or indirectly, during any discussion on religion or world affairs. Muslim stereotypes are perpetuated in every form of the media accompanied by gross misinformation about Islam and Muslims. In fact, such misinformation and false propaganda often leads to discrimination and acts of violence against Muslims. A case in point is the anti-Muslim campaign in the American media following the Oklahoma bomb blast, where the press was quick to declare a ‘Middle Eastern conspiracy’ behind the attack. The culprit was later identified as a soldier from the American Armed Forces.

Let us analyze this allegation of ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘terrorism’:

1. Definition of the word ‘fundamentalist’

A fundamentalist is a person who follows and adheres to the fundamentals of the doctrine or theory he is following. For a person to be a good doctor, he should know, follow, and practise the fundamentals of medicine. In other words, he should be a fundamentalist in the field of medicine. For a person to be a good mathematician, he should know, follow and practise the fundamentals of mathematics. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of mathematics. For a person to be a good scientist, he should know, follow and practise the fundamentals of science. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of science.

2. Not all ‘fundamentalists’ are the same

One cannot paint all fundamentalists with the same brush. One cannot categorize all fundamentalists as either good or bad. Such a categorization of any fund amentalist will depend upon the field or activity in which he is a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist robber or thief causes harm to society and is therefore undesirable. A fundamentalist doctor, on the other hand, benefits society and earns much respect.

3. I am proud to be a Muslim fundamentalist

I am a fundamentalist Muslim who, by the grace of Allah, knows, follows and strives to practise the fundamentals of Islam. A true Muslim does not shy away from being a fundamentalist. I am proud to be a fundamentalist Muslim because, I know that the fundamentals of Islam are beneficial to humanity and the whole world. There is not a single fundamental of Islam that causes harm or is against the interests of the human race as a whole. Many people harbour misconceptions about Islam and consider several teachings of Islam to be unfair or improper. This is due to insufficient and incorrect knowledge of Islam. If one critically analyzes the teachings of Islam with an open mind, one cannot escape the fact that Islam is full of benefits both at the individual and collective levels.

4. Dictionary meaning of the word ‘fundamentalist’

According to Webster’s dictionary ‘fundamentalism’ was a movement in American Protestanism that arose in the earlier part of the 20th century. It was a reaction to modernism, and stressed the infallibility of the Bible, not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record. It stressed on belief in the Bible as the literal word of God. Thus fundamentalism was a word initially used for a group of Christians who believed that the Bible was the verbatim word of God without any errors and mistakes.

According to the Oxford dictionary ‘fundamentalism’ means ‘strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion, especially Islam’.

Today the moment a person uses the word fundamentalist he thinks of a Muslim who is a terrorist.

5. Every Muslim should be a terrorist

Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes terror. The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber. Similarly every Muslim should be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists. Whenever such an anti-social element sees a Muslim, he should be terrified. It is true that the word ‘terrorist’ is generally used for a person who causes terror among the common people. But a true Muslim should only be a terrorist to selective people i.e. anti-social elements, and not to the common innocent people. In fact a Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent people.

6. Different labels given to the same individual for the same action, i.e. ‘terrorist’ and ‘patriot’

Before India achieved independence from British rule, some freedom fighters of India who did not subscribe to non-violence were labeled as terrorists by the British government. The same individuals have been lauded by Indians for the same activities and hailed as ‘patriots’. Thus two different labels have been given to the same people for the same set of actions. One is calling him a terrorist while the other is calling him a patriot. Those who believed that Britain had a right to rule over India called these people terrorists, while those who were of the view that Britain had no right to rule India called them patriots and freedom fighters.

It is therefore important that before a person is judged, he is given a fair hearing. Both sides of the argument should be heard, the situation should be analyzed, and the reason and the intention of the person should be taken into account, and then the person can be judged accordingly.

7. Islam means peace

Islam is derived from the word ‘salaam’ which means peace. It is a religion of peace whose fundamentals teach its followers to maintain and promote peace throughout the world.

Thus every Muslim should be a fundamentalist i.e. he should follow the fundamentals of the Religion of Peace: Islam. He should be a terrorist only towards the antisocial elements in order to promote peace and justice in the society.

All possible kind of questions asked by non muslims about Islam answered on below web site:
http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

Most Common Questions asked by Non-Muslims

HIJAAB FOR WOMEN

Question:

Why does Islam degrade women by keeping them behind the veil?

Answer:

The status of women in Islam is often the target of attacks in the secular media. The ‘hijaab’ or the Islamic dress is cited by many as an example of the ‘subjugation’ of women under Islamic law. Before we analyze the reasoning behind the religiously mandated ‘hijaab’, let us first study the status of women in societies before the advent of Islam

1. In the past women were degraded and used as objects of lust

The following examples from history amply illustrate the fact that the status of women in earlier civilizations was very low to the extent that they were denied basic human dignity:

Babylonian Civilization:
The women were degraded and were denied all rights under the Babylonian law. If a man murdered a woman, instead of him being punished, his wife was put to death.

Greek Civilization:
Greek Civilization is considered the most glorious of all ancient civilizations. Under this very ‘glorious’ system, women were deprived of all rights and were looked down upon. In Greek mythology, an ‘imaginary woman’ called ‘Pandora’ is the root cause of misfortune of human beings. The Greeks considered women to be subhuman and inferior to men. Though chastity of women was precious, and women were held in high esteem, the Greeks were later overwhelmed by ego and sexual perversions. Prostitution became a regular practice amongst all classes of Greek society.

Roman Civilization:
When Roman Civilization was at the zenith of its ‘glory’, a man even had the right to take the life of his wife. Prostitution and nudity were common amongst the Romans.

Egyptian Civilization:
The Egyptian considered women evil and as a sign of a devil.

Pre-Islamic Arabia:
Before Islam spread in Arabia, the Arabs looked down upon women and very often when a female child was born, she was buried alive.

2. Islam uplifted women and gave them equality and expects them to maintain their status.

Islam uplifted the status of women and granted them their just rights 1400 years ago. Islam expects women to maintain their status.

Hijaab for men

People usually only discuss ‘hijaab’ in the context of women. However, in the Glorious Qur’an, Allah (swt) first mentions ‘hijaab’ for men before ‘hijaab’ for the women. The Qur’an mentions in Surah Noor:

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do."
[Al-Qur’an 24:30]

The moment a man looks at a woman and if any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he should lower his gaze.

Hijaab for women.

The next verse of Surah Noor, says:

" And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons..."
[Al-Qur’an 24:31]

3. Six criteria for Hijaab.

According to Qur’an and Sunnah there are basically six criteria for observing hijaab:

Extent:

The first criterion is the extent of the body that should be covered. This is different for men and women. The extent of covering obligatory on the male is to cover the body at least from the navel to the knees. For women, the extent of covering obligatory is to cover the complete body except the face and the hands upto the wrist. If they wish to, they can cover even these parts of the body. Some scholars of Islam insist that the face and the hands are part of the obligatory extent of ‘hijaab’.

All the remaining five criteria are the same for men and women.

The clothes worn should be loose and should not reveal the figure.

The clothes worn should not be transparent such that one can see through them.

The clothes worn should not be so glamorous as to attract the opposite sex.

The clothes worn should not resemble that of the opposite sex.

The clothes worn should not resemble that of the unbelievers i.e. they should not wear clothes that are specifically identities or symbols of the unbelievers’ religions.

4. Hijaab includes conduct and behaviour among other things

Complete ‘hijaab’, besides the six criteria of clothing, also includes the moral conduct, behaviour, attitude and intention of the individual. A person only fulfilling the criteria of ‘hijaab’ of the clothes is observing ‘hijaab’ in a limited sense. ‘Hijaab’ of the clothes should be accompanied by ‘hijaab’ of the eyes, ‘hijaab’ of the heart, ‘hijaab’ of thought and ‘hijaab’ of intention. It also includes the way a person walks, the way a person talks, the way he behaves, etc.

5. Hijaab prevents molestation

The reason why Hijaab is prescribed for women is mentioned in the Qur’an in the following verses of Surah Al-Ahzab:

"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad); that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
[Al-Qur’an 33:59]

The Qur’an says that Hijaab has been prescribed for the women so that they are recognized as modest women and this will also prevent them from being molested.

6. Example of twin sisters

Suppose two sisters who are twins, and who are equally beautiful, walk down the street. One of them is attired in the Islamic hijaab i.e. the complete body is covered, except for the face and the hands up to the wrists. The other sister is wearing western clothes, a mini skirt or shorts. Just around the corner there is a hooligan or ruffian who is waiting for a catch, to tease a girl. Whom will he tease? The girl wearing the Islamic Hijaab or the girl wearing the skirt or the mini? Naturally he will tease the girl wearing the skirt or the mini. Such dresses are an indirect invitation to the opposite sex for teasing and molestation. The Qur’an rightly says that hijaab prevents women from being molested.

7. Capital punishment for the rapists

Under the Islamic shariah, a man convicted of having raped a woman, is given capital punishment. Many are astonished at this ‘harsh’ sentence. Some even say that Islam is a ruthless, barbaric religion! I have asked a simple question to hundreds of non-Muslim men. Suppose, God forbid, someone rapes your wife, your mother or your sister. You are made the judge and the rapist is brought in front of you. What punishment would you give him? All of them said they would put him to death. Some went to the extent of saying they would torture him to death. To them I ask, if someone rapes your wife or your mother you want to put him to death. But if the same crime is committed on somebody else’s wife or daughter you say capital punishment is barbaric. Why should there be double standards?

8. Western society falsely claims to have uplifted women

Western talk of women’s liberalization is nothing but a disguised form of exploitation of her body, degradation of her soul, and deprivation of her honour. Western society claims to have ‘uplifted’ women. On the contrary it has actually degraded them to the status of concubines, mistresses and society butterflies who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers, hidden behind the colourful screen of ‘art’ and ‘culture’.

9. USA has one of the highest rates of rape

United States of America is supposed to be one of the most advanced countries of the world. It also has one of the highest rates of rape in any country in the world. According to a FBI report, in the year 1990, every day on an average 1756 cases of rape were committed in U.S.A alone. Later another report said that on an average everyday 1900 cases of rapes are committed in USA. The year was not mentioned. May be it was 1992 or 1993. May be the Americans got ‘bolder’ in the following years.

Consider a scenario where the Islamic hijaab is followed in America. Whenever a man looks at a woman and any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he lowers his gaze. Every woman wears the Islamic hijaab, that is the complete body is covered except the face and the hands upto the wrist. After this if any man commits rape he is given capital punishment. I ask you, in such a scenario, will the rate of rape in America increase, will it remain the same, or will it decrease?

10. Implementation of Islamic Shariah will reduce the rate of rapes

Naturally as soon as Islamic Shariah is implemented positive results will be inevitable. If Islamic Shariah is implemented in any part of the world, whether it is America or Europe, society will breathe easier. Hijaab does not degrade a woman but uplifts a woman and protects her modesty and chastity.

All possible kind of questions asked by non muslims about Islam answered on below web site:
http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

Grave danger awaits USA if Muslim immigration is not stopped. In UK, the rise of parallel legislative system (Islamic Sharia) has increased, although there is no provision for such a parallel judicial system. The situation is so scary that many Britishers have resigned and acknowledged that Sharia law is inevitable in UK. (Mary Cunningham, a feel-good leftist on this blog had attested that such incidents are rare and the US media is blowing this out of proportion.)

The Telegraph (published from UK) has this news. Let Mary and her ilk tell us that Telegraph is spreading false information, maliciously. The whole news is available at the link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/29/nsharia29.xml

Why is there so much contradiction between different versions of the same bibles?

TO MOODY:

One question, how come so much in the koran is a complete contradiction with the old and new testaments of the bible?

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

INTRODUCTION TO JUDAISM
by Dr. Zakir Naik

(I) INTRODUCTION TO JUDAISM:

Judaism is one of the important Semitic religions. Its followers are known as Jews and they believe in the prophetic mission of Prophet Moses (pbuh).

(II) CONCEPT OF GOD IN JUDAISM:

(i) The following verse from the book of Deuteronomy contains an exhortation from Moses (pbuh):

"Shama Israelu Adonai Ila Hayno Adna Ikhad"

It is a Hebrew quotation which means:

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord"
[The Bible, Deuteronomy 6:4]

The following verses are from the Book of Isaiah:

(ii) "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour."
[The Bible, Isaiah 43:11]

(iii) "I am Lord, and there is none else There is no God besides me."
[The Bible, Isaiah 45 : 5]

(iv) "I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me."
[The Bible, Isaiah 46:9]

(v) Judaism condemns idol worship in the following verses:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God."
[The Bible, Exodus 20:3-5]

(iv) A similar message is repeated in the book of Deuteronomy:

"Thou shalt have none other gods before me."

"Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that in the earth beneath, or that is in the water beneath the earth."

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God."
[The Bible, Deuteronomy 5:7-9]

In Judaism too, we find the same thread of monotheism, that is seen in other religions.

(III) MUHAMMAD IN JEWISH SCRIPTURES (THE OLD TESTAMENT):

1) Muhammad (pbuh) prophesised in the book of Deuteronomy:

a) God Almighty speaks to Moses in Book of Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18:

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

b) Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is like Moses (pbuh):

i) Both had a father and a mother.

ii) Both were married and had children.

iii) Both were accepted as Prophets by their people in their lifetime.

iv) Both besides being Prophets were also kings i.e. they could inflict capital punishment.

v) Both brought new laws and new regulations for their people.

vi) Both died a natural death.

c) Muhammad (pbuh) is from among the brethren of Moses (pbuh). Arabs are brethren of Jews. Abraham (pbuh) had two sons: Ishmail and Isaac. The Arabs are the descendants of Ishmail (pbuh) and the Jews are the descendants of Isaac (pbuh).

d) Words in the mouth:

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was unlettered and whatever revelations he received from God Almighty he repeated it verbatim.

Deuteronomy (18:18):

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

2) Muhammad (pbuh) is prophesised in the book of Isaiah:

It is mentioned in the book of Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12:

"And the book is delivered to him that is not learned saying, ‘Read this, I pray thee’; and he saith, ‘I am not learned’.

"When Archangel Gabriel commanded Muhammad (pbuh) by saying ‘Iqra’, he replied "I am not learned".

3) Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon

chapter 5 verse 16:

"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehrace Bayna Jerusalem."

"His mouth is most sweet: ye, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughter of Jerusalem."

All the prophecies mentioned in the Old Testament regarding Muhammad (pbuh) besides applying to the Jews also hold good for the Christians (H Q. 61:6).

All possible kind of questions asked by non muslims about Islam answered on below web site:

http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

Observer12:

I think you should start seeing more transparently that Kashmir and Gujarat massacare have a underlying thread. Akhsardham pogrom on Hindu devotees prayng there, and attack by Muslims on Sabarmati express triggered the riots. Hindus have retaliated against such Muslim terrorism (Jihad against Hindus). I am amazed that you have chosen to ignore the roots of the Gujarat riots.

Kashmiri Pandits, whom your favorites have ethnically cleansed from the valley, were Hindus. They were hapless victims against the Muslims glorfy: Islamic Jihad. Every person (good or bad) has a right toi self defense: your false allegation of "illegal arms trading" is actually justified because of the Quran thumping bandits are costing the Hindus their life and money. Its purely out self defense, and to protect India's territorial integrity.

Taking a clue from to the arrogance in your rebuttal, I think Muslims in India need to be reminded that they should act within the confines of the law or else face the consequences. The Gujarat elections have probably sent a strong message to the Jihadists.