Pointing Fingers, or Pointing Forward

Israel's neighbors want nukes because ISRAEL ITSELF HAS NUKES!

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Hypocrites!

“We will have a world government wether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” (Jewish Banker Paul Warburg, February 17, 1950, as he testified before the U.S. Senate).

Maier Amschel Rothschild said:
"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who writes its laws"

MODERN ASHKENAZI JEWS ARE FROM KHAZARIA...BUT DO YOU EVER LEARN THAT IN SCHOOL???????? THEY REWRITE HISTORY!

"We shall drive the Christians into war by exploiting
their national vanity and stupidity. They will then massacre
each other, thus giving room for our own people."
(Rabbi Reichorn, July 1, 1880)

"Zionism was willing to sacrifice the whole of
European Jewry for a Zionist State. Everything was done to
create a state of Israel and that was only possible through a
world war. Wall Street and Jewish large bankers aided the war
effort on both sides. Zionists are also to blame for provoking
the growing hatred for Jews in 1988."
(Joseph Burg, The Toronto Star, March 31, 1988).

"Israel won the war [WWI]; we made it; we thrived on it;
we profited from it. It was our supreme revenge on Christianity."
(The Jewish Ambassador from Austria to London, Count Mensdorf, 1918)

"History, Sir, will tell lies as usual"
- George Bernard Shaw, The Devil's Disciple

smile

Wisdom from Islam

While I am not a Muslim, I have incorporated many of Islam's tools to use for peace generation within myself and others. Psychologist William James once said, "A great many people believe they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." Much wisdom for 'living right' irrespective of religious beliefs are available to us from the world religions and spiritual paths if we are open and non prejudicial in our thinking. As James Allen wrote in As a man Thinketh:

"To think well of all, to be cheerful with all, to patiently learn to find the good in all - such unselfish thoughts are the very portals of heaven; and to dwell day by day in thoughts of peace toward every creature will bring abounding peace to their possessor."

James Allen's words do not mean we have to not be concerned with danger to our well being by another, but, it also reminds us we will never be at peace by fostering hatred for another. The problem with the wisdom that the worlds spiritual paths is that it is not the wisdom that is defective. the problem lies with religious practitioners who are defective in their practice of this wisdom. The wisdom works - we don't work the wisdom.

As one Gnostic critic replied to a post I submitted on the Golden Rule as mentioned in the New Testament, he wrote: ... looking at history shows us that the Golden Rule hasn't made Christians especially peaceful..."

V writes:

Yes, this is true that many Christians do not practice what they preach. But this phenomena is not limited to the Christians. It just proves the point that 'knowledge without application is useless' and this applies to every religion known to mankind. Each religion contains perfection's as well as imperfections. It is up to the practitioner or end user to use the tools in the right way. This also confirms the 'eightfold path of Buddhism' that reminds us of the right and wrong ways to peace.

1. Right View
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration

I find a useful tool to avoid prejudice is to apply the 'law of opposites' to any questions I have. For instance, if the choice is 'thoughts of goodwill' towards another or 'thoughts oh hatred' - which thoughts will produce inner peace within me and which thoughts would destroy my peace? Always apply the opposite direction or path to the one in question to see the entire picture. Sounds simplistic? Yet how few of us do it and continue on the path of peace destruction when all it takes is that first step in the 'opposite' direction of the path we have been headed down for so long. There are many other tools that we can apply to seek universal truth. I discussed this in an earlier post "Deciphering Scriptures"

The Muslims have a practice of praying five times a day to Allah. For those that do not know, Allah is the same God of the Jews and of the Old Testament that the Christians worship. The Muslims pray at sun up, when the sun is at its zenith at noon, when the sun is part way down in the afternoon, when the sun sets and when they go to bed. Even though I am a Christian / Buddhist and not a Muslim, I borrowed from the Muslim's prayer schedule to use as a reminder for an informal pray schedule and a 5 times a day mindfulness bell to bring my thoughts back to the present moment and practice gratitude.

What did the Gnostic citric have to say about the preceding 'borrowing' of Islam's prayer schedule to use a reminder for gratitude or to guide us in prayer?

Gnostic critic writes: "...or you can tell the universe to go f... itself for all the evil it does to us all."

V writes:

Well, by applying the law of opposites, I prefer to develop peace within by practicing gratitude instead of ingratitude, but I give you the right as well as the freedom to practice as you please my friend. Accepting others right to exist and subscribing to the policy of 'live and let live' has helped me out with rage sickness. Rage stems from control. relinquish control and you can let go of rage. When we spend our time trying to change others it is a signpost of our own disease. This especially goes for trying to change the universe. Accepting what is beyond our control is the way to peace. It is a common fault with humans that they look for an enemy to blame their problems on as the Gnostic critic does. We must always remember that all problems are created in the mind and our problems are individual as well. Sometimes there is someone to blame for these problems which is usually us. Other times it is just how things are and no one is to blame. When you stop looking for an enemy to blame for your problems on you have made a big breakthrough with finding acceptance and peace. The universe does not discriminate against us...we do the discriminating.

Here are the guidelines for living a life as written in the Qur'an. See if anything is of use to you.

1. Respect and honour all human beings irrespective of their religion,
colour, race, sex, language, status, property, birth, profession/job
and so on [Qur'an17/70]

2. Talk straight, to the point, without any ambiguity or deception
[Qur'an33/70]

3. Choose best words to speak and say them in the best possible way
[Qur'an17/53, 2/83]

4. Do not shout. Speak politely keeping your voice low. [Qur'an31/19]

5. Always speak the truth. Shun words that are deceitful and
ostentatious [Qur'an22/30]

6. Do not confound truth with falsehood [Qur'an2/42]

7. Say with your mouth what is in your heart [Qur'an3/167]

8. Speak in a civilised manner in a language that is recognised by the
society and is commonly used [Qur'an4/5]

9. When you voice an opinion, be just, even if it is against a
relative [Qur'an6/152]

10. Do not be a bragging boaster [Qur'an31/18]

11. Do not talk, listen or do anything vain [Qur'an23/3, 28/55]

12. Do not participate in any paltry. If you pass near a futile play,
then pass by with dignity [Qur'an25/72]

13. Do not verge upon any immodesty or lewdness whether surreptitious
or overt [Qur'an6/151]

14. If, unintentionally, any misconduct occurs by you, then correct
yourself expeditiously [Qur'an3/134]

15. Do not be contemptuous or arrogant with people [Qur'an31/18]

16. Do not walk haughtily or with conceit [Qur'an17/37, 31/18]

17. Be moderate in thy pace [Qur'an31/19]

18. Walk with humility and sedateness [Qur'an25/63]

19. Keep your gazes lowered devoid of any lecherous leers and
salacious stares [Qur'an24/30-31, 40/19]

20. If you do not have complete knowledge about anything, it is better
to keep silent. You might think that speaking about something without
full knowledge is a trivial matter. But it might have grave
consequences
[Qur'an24/15-16]

21. When you hear something malicious about someone, keep a favourable
view about him/her until you attain full knowledge about the matter.
Consider others innocent until they are proven guilty with solid and
truthful evidence [Qur'an24/12-13]

22. Ascertain the truth of any news, lest you smite someone in
ignorance and afterwards repent of what you did [Qur'an49/6]

23. Do not follow blindly any information of which you have no direct
knowledge. (Using your faculties of perception and conception) you
must verify it for yourself. In the Court of your Lord, you will be
held
accountable for your hearing, sight, and the faculty of reasoning
[Qur'an17/36]

24. Never think that you have reached the final stage of knowledge and
nobody knows more than yourself. Remember! Above everyone endowed with
knowledge is another endowed with more knowledge [Qur'an12/76]. Even
the Prophet [p.b.u.h] was asked to keep praying, "O My sustainer!
Advance
me in knowledge." [Qur'an20:114]

25. The believers are but a single Brotherhood. Live like members of
one family, brothers and sisters unto one another [Qur'an49/10]

26. Do not make mockery of others or ridicule others [Qur'an49/11]

27. Do not defame others [Qur'an49/11]

28. Do not insult others by nicknames [Qur'an49/11]

29. Avoid suspicion and guesswork. Suspicion and guesswork might
deplete your communal energy [Qur'an49/12]

30. Spy not upon one another [Qur'an49/12]

31. Do not backbite one another [Qur'an49/12]

32. When you meet each other, offer good wishes and blessings for
safety. One who conveys to you a message of safety and security and
also when a courteous greeting is offered to you, meet it with a
greeting
still more courteous or (at least) of equal courtesy [Qur'an4/86]

33. When you enter your own home or the home of somebody else,
compliment the inmates [Qur'an24/61]

34. Do not enter houses other than your own until you have sought
permission; and then greet the inmates and wish them a life of
blessing,purity and pleasure [Qur'an24/27]

35. Treat kindly: Your parents; Relatives; The orphans; And those who
have been left alone in the society [Qur'an4/36]

36. Take care of: The needy, The disabled, Those whose hard earned
income is insufficient to meet their needs; And those whose
businesses have stalled ; And those who have lost their jobs.
[Qur'an4/36]

37. Treat kindly: Your related neighbours, and unrelated neighbours;
Companions by your side in public gatherings, or public
transportation.[Qur'an4/36]

38. Be generous to the needy wayfarer, the homeless son of the
street,and the one who reaches you in a destitute condition
[Qur'an4/36]

39. Be nice to people who work under your care. [Qur'an4/36]

40. Do not follow up what you have given to others to afflict them
with reminders of your generosity [Qur'an2/262]

41. Do not expect a return for your good behaviour, not even thanks
[Qur'an76/9]

42. Cooperate with one another in good deeds and do not cooperate with
others in evil and bad matters [Qur'an5/2]

43. Do no try to impress people on account of self-proclaimed virtues
[Qur'an53/32]

44. You should enjoin right conduct on others but mend your own ways
first. Actions speak louder than words. You must first practice good
deeds yourself, then preach [Qur'an2/44]

45. Correct yourself and your families first [before trying to correct
others] [Qur'an66/6]

46. Pardon gracefully if anyone among you who commits a bad deed out
of ignorance, and then repents and amends [Qur'an6/54, 3/134]

47. Divert and sublimate your anger and potentially virulent emotions
to creative energy, and become a source of tranquillity and comfort to
people [Qur'an3/134]

48. Call people to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful
exhortation. Reason with them most decently [Qur'an16/125]

49. Leave to themselves those who do not give any importance to the
Divine code and have adopted and consider it as mere play and
amusement [Qur'an6/70]

50. Sit not in the company of those who ridicule Divine Law unless
they engage in some other conversation [Qur'an4/140]

51. Do not be jealous of those who are blessed [Qur'an4/54]

52. In your collective life, make rooms for others [Qur'an58/11]

53. When invited to dine, Go at the appointed time. Do not arrive too
early to wait for the preparation of meal or linger after eating to
engage in bootless babble. Such things may cause inconvenience to the
host [Qur'an33/53]

54. Eat and drink [what is lawful] in moderation [Qur'an7/31]

55. Do not squander your wealth senselessly [Qur'an17/26]

56. Fulfil your promises and commitments [Qur'an17/34]

57. Keep yourself clean, pure [Qur'an9/108, 4/43, 5/6]

58. Dress-up in agreeable attire and adorn yourself with exquisite
character from inside out [Qur'an7/26]

59. Seek your provision only by fair endeavour [Qur'an29/17, 2/188]

60. Do not devour the wealth and property of others unjustly, nor
bribe the officials or the judges to deprive others of their
possessions
[Qur'an2/188]

Take Care,

V (Male)

Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher

The below may be useful for clarity. Islam is well worthy of respect. The Muslims in Israel and India are by and large nice people.

"I said almost all terrorists are Muslims!

Posted March 2, 2007 4:33 AM

Posted on March 2, 2007 04:33

Dave Marshak:
Which is truly nonsense!

Posted March 3, 2007 12:33 PM"

absolutely- i just moved from chicago and mr patels work with youth there is well publicized and respected- i remember the tribune had a very postive and constructive article on mr patel and i remember that inclusion of differing religious views were so overt- that it wasnt until i was at the end that i realized he was a muslim at all!

thank MAH for pointing out what is important-

----Which is truly nonsense!----

Which is truly a fact. Apologist cvnt!

Is any one else curious to know whether those two prominent leaders from Islam and Judaism were able to write some constructive criticism for the Chicago Tribune? Because that is a tough thing to do. But I believe it is possible. and important.
It is important because there are things in the world worthy of criticism. And if the subject of your criticism is also part of your audience then to make it constructive you have to do exactly what eboo was describing: fulfill the highest principles of your own tradition. Perhaps criticize self-reflexively first. and then sandwhich your criticism within sincere praise and admiration for the good in their tradition.
If I have just attempted to draw up rules for how to point fingers, then so be it. I believe it's important. And I believe that how you can criticize another is determined by how well you can get along with them and understand them on a personal level.

Which is truly nonsense!

---But I appreicate that you don't think all Muslims are terrorists. And I disagree with a majority as well----

Again I never said almost all Muslims are terrorists.
I said almost all terrorists are Muslims!

arlington-thanks for being reasonable- actually concerned was harassing me for quite a long time with a post demanding that i denounce sunni-shia violence against each other-
he posted the same post for a month every time i make a psot he follows it with that-

before that it was demanding that muslims renounce terrorism-
that was for a bout a month too- but he was very abusive and rude so i told him i wouldnt respond until he changed his tone to one more respectful- which he did for a bit but is slidng back to his old ways-

ive given many many answers to him- so i dont feel compelled to reward rude behavior with repsonsiveness-

nowhe has a new tack of saying my husband beats me which is too personal and rude so i guess hell be coming up with a new question soon-

the reason he follows me is i respond to him- with patience ususally- but he knows im mad about the post on my husband-
so theres an undercurrent- also
actually theres a guest question where a stranger read his remarks- saw my non-response- and started calling me a terrorist just from concerns word!

everyone knows he harrasses me- but they see i talk back sometimes with humor sometimes exasperation- but i do give him attention-
so i guess hes formulating a new annoyance for me now as he recognizes this is a dead end- well see-
peace

Hi Dave (I assume that was you),
Thanks for showing about the exception, but you can see how easy it is for people take it as if you didn't use the exception per the rest of your posting. But I appreicate that you don't think all Muslims are terrorists. And I disagree with a majority as well - otherwise I think a lot more people would be dead. :) I'm keeping this light, but perhaps you more are trying to say that a majority of terrorist GROUPS are Islamic-based? Based on the US list this would be hard to deny, but you can't say a majority of people within a religion are terrorists. It's rather silly and based on impression instead of any kind of fact.
We see the extreem Islamists as so bad because it affects us so close to home. The Spanish would say that the recent ETA bombings are just as bad as might other Europeans and their own internal groups (you're right - I have to go back to some more, but I wanted to respond right away). So, I can't see your proof as being solid enough to change my mind, but I have not changed yours yet. I will look into things a bit and i hope you do the same.
Cheers!

Alington:

I never said *ALL* terrorists are Muslims though did I?
No I did not.

I said *almost* all.

And as for the other terrorist groups...name me ONE that has in the past 5 years carried out anything even remotely on the scale of the Muslim terror acts or are a big a threat to the world as Islamic terrorists?

And of course it is a big fact that none of those other terrorist groups have a GLOBAL cause against literally EVERYONE (even fellow Muslims) around the world...OR have such a wide ranging, impossible to negotiate with, cause.

Their members are also not normally in the habit of purposely killing themselves in the attack, do not normally aim to kill as many civilians as possible and many even give warnings.
NONE of that applies to Islamic terrorists though..which makes them SO much harder to fight and stop.

As such...no other terrorist threat, now and before, has been as dangerous (GLOBALLY dangerous at that) as Islam.

I thank you.

Hi Victoria,
I feel like I'm a bit in between you guys now! :)
Going through different postings I read from Concerned, I felt that I misunderstood what he was asking. I have no doubt that it began to get more and more direct and therefore a bit more attacking, but I think I understand some of the (?earlier?) points more.
Concerned likes to post passages that come across out of context as militant. You like to quote passages that show the why or exceptions. What I would like more is for people to have a whole/complete understanding of the passages. I think Pamela said this a bit clearer in her response than I have. It's such a difficult line to follow, especially against charges that come across as so strong and insulting. You have been in this debate longer than I have, so as I read through other responses I understood original posting from Concerned to be more along the line of acknowledgement of the ‘militant’ passages. I don’t mean before or now for anyone to renounce any part of the Qur’an. I don’t, I don’t expect you to, but I started to understand Concern as asking more for acknowledgement. I didn't see some of the other attacks and those are completely unnecessary/hurtful.
But, I think we have proved enough on how debilitating to a debate certain things can be. This argument is about if people can criticize a state without being anti-religious. (in this case Israel) We see a similar thing recently in Western democracies. As people inflame passions with religious wording, those persons identify their government with religion. Then, if you go against the government, you go against religion and are a bad xxxxxxxxxxx. I think we can all recognize the importance of religion within society and ourselves. Even those in these postings who deny the validity of the Abrahamic religions, must acknowledge that our societies’ laws come from the lessons within those Holy books. But, to make our societies and governments better, criticism is very important. Again, we see how this is important in our Holy Books.
Well, I suppose we are about done with this debate, but I have enjoyed it!
Cheers!

"I love my country but I fear my government." "Honor the warrior not the war." "Keep the US out of Ocean Beach." These slogans are not mere levity. They are a reflection of mistrust and disappointment. They are also call for change and a challenge for everyone to not be docile doormats but to flesh out these problems and then find their voices.

The ability to criticize and poke fun of our leaders and government is accepted behavior in our American culture today. We find enjoyment and entertainment in caricatures of our present and past President's foibles, mishaps and blunders. What has also become an accepted norm is that criticism of our government does not make us unpatriotic but rather concerned citizens. This attitude is so prevalent that to gain validation all one needs are strong convictions and coherent arguments. We gain a sense of self-importance by criticizing and discrediting our leaders and government. We truly become important when we decide to embrace the problems and become entrenched in finding the hope of an answer. "Criticism is always easier than craftsmanship."

If we have formed opinions about the policies of Israel and do not agree then as responsible global citizens we must address these issues. The approach that will be most effective will not have the rhetoric of blame and hate. Instead it will focus on the needs of all people and the hope that everyone deserves.

So continue to assess, judge and examine. Just don't forget to jump into the fray and become part of the solution.

ARLINGTON- do not apologize- i have responded countless times to concerned and given multiple links and statements to him-

he also called upon pamela taylor to renounce the quran-

now he is adding to his diatribes that my husband is beating me-

you are not the first to commnet on his behavior

i have told him i will not and cannot renounce my holy book-

and have given repeated proofs of islam and its nature to him

i hav also asked him repeatedly to post such passages-

he never does but keeps up his relentless harrassment-

your initial instinct was right on-

this is the response of pamela to concerned-

Pamela:

Concerned/Liberated wrote: In the age of atomic weapons, we do not have time to wait for Muslims to renounce their militaristic ways.

What other choice do you have? Especially if you renounce militaristic ways?

Miriam, I would disagree about what it means to believe that a book is Divine Revelation. Historically, Muslims have accepted that certain sections of the Qur'an abrogate other sections, that certain parts apply to specific situations in the Prophet's community, and so on. The Qur'an itself tells us that some of its verses are allegorical and others are not. Given that, I think there is much more leeway in interpreting and implementing a text that one understands as Divine revelation.

Yes, I am going to defend my religion from bigoted attacks that distort the meaning of the text. No, I'm not going to defend every interpretation of the Qur'an, and very clearly said that Muslims can be and have been guilty of distorting the text as well.

Posted February 25, 2007 10:47 PM

the same response stands for me-

Ah, Concerned - I do appoligize for my posting. In reading through the postings, it came across as harsh, but reading what you wrote now and some other past posts, I understand what you are saying. I'm sorry I misundertood that earlier.
Reglion wise, I find it hard to argue for proofs, so I won't argue that and I'm glad that you are hear to argue and challenge viewpoints. It makes some stronger in faith and other question. I don't consider either action to be bad. :)

Dave, I have to respond to your post about all terrorits being Muslim. It's such a broad statement and I assume you don't mean this unless you think that the KKK actions, skinhead actions, the Oklahoma bombing, Japanese subway bombing, etc were done by Muslims. :) Also, the US Department of State lists foreign organizations that they consider terrorist organizations. Of this, a majority do consider themselves Islamic, however you also have:
Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
Real IRA
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
Revolutionary Nuclei (formerly ELA)
Revolutionary Organization 17 November
Revolutionary People’s Liberation Army/Front (DHKP/C)
Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC)
Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)
United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)
Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/NPA)
Also, it's good to consider what 'terrorist' means. For the DOS, they list ONLY foreign organziations and those must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)),* or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2)),** or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism. (there are several parts to that, so I won't list them here)
There has not been a universal definition for terrorism defined (ie, by the UN or another large organization), and so far the only STATE to be found guilty of an act of terriorism was the US by the UN in the 1980s. (this either means there should be more states guilty or that we need to define terrorism better on a worldwide level)
I like you notes on Scientology. :) And I'm glad that we can say that for the most part our societies do not encourage terrorism, however we see terroism from individuals within our societ who burn churches, drag gays to their death, bomb transportations for independence (Spain/Ireland), and commit acts of genocide (Bosnian Serbs against Bosnian Muslims). I hope this would help to stop again any broad statements against religions like this.
Cheers!

It just so happens almost all the terrorists ARE Muslims!!
FACT!

---I could argue the same thing for the Bible in terms of militaristic and demeaning passages,---

Yeah, but the thing is MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of Christians around the world, and in fact entire Governments and political/social strutures, do not adhere to these passages as gospel anymore.

Devout Catholics and Baptists may be stuck in the stone-age in many ways...but compared to even your average Islamist they are nothing like as fanatical in their love of even the most vile and crazy of passages.
Hell, there are plenty of Homophobic 'Godly' people in American churches but guess what?? Homosexuals are not strung up in the streets as they are in Iran.

You see?
It's called evolution.
It's called enlightenment in the way we run our societies.
It's called embracing basic Human rights and goodness before the so called ancient words of SH!T supposedly spouted by some supposed supernatural being and his supposed 'Prophets' (all human and all with personal agendas!).

That, in 2007, we are even having this laughable debate between *REALITY* and UNPROVEN, CONTRADICTORY, BIZARRE AND DOWNRIGHT ABSURD MYTHS is sad indeed!

FACT TIME...Despite all the heat and disdain Scientologists get (often from 'other' Religious sorts) you have to face the truth that their beliefs (and indeed other far out minority beliefs) are just as routed in proven fact and proof as Christianity and Islam!!!
YOU ARE ALL ON THE SAME LEVEL!

But at least Scientologists don't strap bombs to themselves, hang Homosexuals, blow up buildings, hack off heads, forbid women and education and call for 'Holy War'.
Which I guess means that Scientology is actually far more welcome than other 'repsectable' religions! Especially Islam!

Oh for the time when all these barmy beliefs never set foot outsoide the homes of those that have them, so the rest of us can live our lives in peace as evolved, rational, human beings without some fanatasist with a big cheque and/or a machine gun TELLING us how we should be living according to the whims of some mythical being!!!

President Bush and the American people have declared war on terror not Muslims. If that were the case, the millions of Muslims in the USA would all be in jail and/or expelled from the country.

Dear Halozcel:

Thenagain you prove the point, fingering and evaluating in therms of good/bad. The Bible, Torah or Coran are just books that nobody has the exact proof that one of them is real or that it comes from God. I don't even have the exact proof that there is just one God.

Faith is just that, Faith... You believe what you choose to believe.

You can not simply evaluate someone based on a book that was written only on Faith and that contradicts itself so many times, because you would be critizicing yourself. It would be like spitting upwards...

If you read Coran and the Bible, you will end up asking yourself how could a boock that speaks about Love make you kill? Well, it doesn't... It is not about a book it is about how pepople interpret it.

For now the US president declared war against Islam based on his beliefs and what's good for his interests. That is not a good reason for all to hate that religion, because that would be like doing what you critizice de most...

Peace!
Alex.

Arlington,

I have no dislike for Victoria or her fellow Muslims per se. What I abhor is their refusal to admit that their illiterate prophet's "good book" preaches the killing of nonbelievers and the demeaning of females. Both issues strike at the heart of world peace as evidenced by the daily suicide bombings. Until Victoria et al can renounce and condemn these passages, they pose a threat to the safety of the globe. And I will continue to insist that this be rectified on these blog commentaries. All Victoria et al have to do is type, "Yes, I renounce and condemn the militant and demeaning passages of the Koran."

Again review the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam as reiterated below:

And what has history, scriptural text reviews and archeology taught us about the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

1. Abraham is the reported founder of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Based on all we know now, Abraham was at best a combination of three separate individuals with 1.5 million Conservative Jews no longer believing he existed at all. (ditto for all the characters in the OT).
references: National Georgraphic review on Abraham and http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0401torah.asp

2. The founders of Christianity and Islam were both illiterate. i.e. neither one proofread or approved the NT or the Koran so we are taking the word of scribes and embellishers with their own agendas.
references: NT exegetes from the last two hundred years, Karen Armstrong's reviews of Islam and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

3. Christianity is based on the gossip about the words and actions of Jesus, the whim of Pilate, the false prophecy of the imminent second coming, and the sword of Constantine.
references: NT exegetes and their conclusions/books from the last two hundred years.

Conclusion: Judaism, Christianity and Islam have very little foundation to rely on so never accept the literal word from any of their "good books".

Mullahs, rabbis and priests are hardly going to verify the above since they would be unemployed but it is about time we give them their pink slips.

So where do we go from here?

Well, for those interested in joining a scholarly, insightful and civil discourse exploring the interpretation of the sacred texts of the three Abrahamic faith traditions (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) -- including their respective "calls to violence" -- I would highly recommend Week Six of the Chautauqua Institution's 2007 season, titled "Sacred Texts in Context: Literalism and Interpretation".

(visit http://www.ciweb.org/theme_weeks2007.html)

The theme of the week -- July 30-August 3, 2007 -- is presented as follows:

"Sacred texts exert great influence over humankind, whether interpreted literally or metaphorically. Texts are, for many, the primary source of faith and ethics, and as such have the power not only to impact, but also to change the course of human events. During this week, we will look objectively and respectfully at the sacred texts of the Abrahamic Faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam."

Chautauqua has devoted considerable time, energy and resources to expanding the dialogue of understanding among these three faith communities over the past decade, and the conversations this week promise to be challenging and enlightening.

Being able to disagree without being disagreeable is an important first step in engaging difficult issues. They walk the talk at Chautauqua. It gives me hope.

Concerned,
I have become very concerned from you postings here and in other places in regard to Victoria. You seem to have a particular vengeful attitude toward her that comes across as rule and overbearing. Any points I may have thought you made that were good are being discredited due to your behavior.
You also are very stuck on militant passages of the Koran. You have brought it up several times in several essays to Victoria such as on Feb. 25 at 6:33 where you asking Victoria: “Do really know how to say "I renounce and condemn the militaristic and demeaning passages of the Koran"? Simply say Yes and you will finally reach religious maturity.” Posted February 25, 2007 6:33 PM
I will copy here what I wrote in another blog – it may not be the best response for you, but I hope it will help to encourage you to see from other angles or perhaps to move to other parts of the Koran that you don’t like :)

I could argue the same thing for the Bible in terms of militaristic and demeaning passages, but we learn how to understand our religious texts and true meanings through self-discovery and organized help. "Militaristic and demeaning" passages in the Koran are often taken out of context and so the reasons behind rules are not seen. (Victoria has been good to post other passages concerning these reasons and rules, but I encourage all to read complete passage as there are more words in between what she quotes and what Concerned may quote) The best example I can address for now is about conversion within Islam. We know from our past of Christianity expansion that people will do forced conversions and the Ottomans probably have the worst history of this within in the Islamic world (of course if it was so bad, half of Europe would be Muslim today). But, in Islamic history, there are territories that have been given up because reggae generals did forced conversions on occupied persons and this is not within their rules of religious war. We too often look at translated passages without giving it an honest evaluation. Societies always take religion and religious texts to justify actions that are hardly just; however those actions usually do not follow religion as it should. So, our considerations of the failings of religion should be above our perceptions and societal understandings.

You ask Victoria for her personal interpretation of militant passages of the Koran. I would instead encourage you to talk with a local sheikh about how they these would explain to a person with your background these passages. I feel that Victoria’s words may not be taken well by you, no matter what she says, so perhaps a leader within the religious community would be a better individual to explain the translated text to you.

Victoria,

And your interpretations/translations of the militant and demeaning passages of the Koran are??

Victoria writes:

"Quranic translation is like any translating is truly an art- and of course there are good and bad-"

I think this is a wise statement, and a pertinent point. Determining what any of the several writers of these ancient texts, including the OT and NT, the Gita, Upanishads, etc., actually had in mind at the time of their writing is unavoidably subjective, as is any "art." Even those literalists who believe that such works are the unvarnished words of their particular deity rely on interpretations of interprations for their view. When such works are taken as an authoritative basis for determining things like who owns the rights to which lands, we see the results.

This is one of the dangers of basing one's worldview, and the behaviors that stem from it, on such works.

CTCNL:

The hinges on which the gates of western civilization swing come from a conversation, Exodus 3, Moses had with a being that lives in fire. That's the headwaters of all three great faiths. It's the sky hook from which all the rest of sacred scriptures hangs.

Refernece: http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul leaves them in place, only interprets what is said. That's why so many who now have faith their books are bogus didn't want that left out of the hoax busting presentation.

Can there ever be peace when the three great faiths worship Devil calling Him God? Devil is beyond criticism, dealing harshly with it through His multitude of people agents. Martyrs are guaranteed entry into His kingdom.

Noble Quran,and slay them(infidels)wherever you find them....such is the reward of disbelievers 2.191.And fight them(infidels) until MISCHIEF IS NO MORE and religion is for Allah.But if they desist(if they give up)then let there be no hostality EXCEPT AGAINST WRONG DOERS(INFIDELS)Noble Quran 2.193.Lets suppose,lets assume that 5.32 means what written by the SPECIALISTS on Islam,even then 5.32 doesnt RULE OUT 2.191 and 2.193.PEACE ALL,this is a wrong salute as well.If you live in HOUSE OF WAR,peace is impossible.

Putting things in perspective:

And what has history, scriptural text reviews and archeology taught us about the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

1. Abraham is the reported founder of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Based on all we know now, Abraham was at best a combination of three separate individuals with 1.5 million Conservative Jews no longer believing he existed at all. (ditto for all the characters in the OT).
references: National Georgraphic review on Abraham and http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0401torah.asp

2. The founders of Christianity and Islam were both illiterate. i.e. neither one proofread or approved the NT or the Koran so we are taking the word of scribes and embellishers with their own agendas.
references: NT exegetes from the last two hundred years, Karen Armstrong's reviews of Islam and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

3. Christianity is based on the gossip about the words and actions of Jesus, the whim of Pilate, the false prophecy of the imminent second coming, and the sword of Constantine.
references: NT exegetes and their conclusions/books from the last two hundred years.

Conclusion: Judaism, Christianity and Islam have very little foundation to rely on so never accept the literal word from any of their "good books".

Quranic translation is like any translating is truly an art- and of course there are good and bad-
the ise of the word 'mischief' has been highly contested as valid by scholars of classical arabic

"If anyone slew an innocent person it would be as if he slew the whole mankind and if anyone saved a life it would be as if he saved the life of the whole mankind"
[Al-Qur’an 5:32]
YUSUF ALI (one of the most widely known and used)

You shall not kill any person - for God has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. If one is killed unjustly, then we give his heir authority to enforce justice. Thus, he shall not exceed the limits in avenging the murder, he will be helped."(17:33) similar and dr khalifa
[5:32] Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people.
translated by Dr Khalifa

5:32: "For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.
PICKTHALL

For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our apostles came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act extravagantly in the land. S. 5:32 Shakir

"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. (The Noble Quran, 5:32)"

obviously this is the opinion of hazel- we try not to insert opinions mixed with scripture but let it stand on its own (in the interest of scholarship and being clear)

that means you shall not kill WITHOUT CAUSE but there are at least five causes to kill someones,for example infidels,converts,adulterers,homosexuals even secular muslims should be killed so ninty per cent of world populations must be slain.

Jesus(ata) is credited with saying-
first remove the beam from your own eye before you attempt to remove the splinter from the eye of your brother-

peace all

troubledgoodangel:

"The problem with Islam is that it is very undiplomatic! Those who have a difference of opinion, face jihad."

Just so it's clear, many Muslims do not take jihad to mean what the media has made it. Jihad, I believe, literally means "struggle". Many Muslims, including myself, take this to mean inner struggle, the struggle with our spirituality daily. The difference of opinions happens in our own minds, not in the outside world.

And I agree with you very much, Center. This finger pointing is only a small scale of what's happening worldwide.

the thread turned into Victoria bashing, instead of debating Eboo's point.

finger pointing, it goes to prove the point of the post.

to Alex and David.Healthy relationship and solution can not be based on hypocrisy,lie,sophistry empty words and demagogism.KEY word is CORRECT not respect.I shall not respect Timothy 2.11 or 4.34,they shall correct their wrongness.They shoudnt expect to respect from me for their Stone Age Mentality or Desert Rules.First of all everybody shall unconditionally commit two plus two makes four not two equals one.You shall correct your wrongness Alex you.You shall correct your wrongness David you.They shall correct their wrongness,they,they.I shall not accept two plus two makes five,I shall not go back to Stone Age,they shall come to twentyfirst century.

Trailblaizers 73 Supersonics 97,I am very upset but correct idom should be Indıana Muslim Pacers.Dear Irish woman who became a specialist on Islam within eight years writes,If anyone kill a person it would be as if he kill the whole people...5.32.This is unfortunately odd and manipulative.Correct translation 5.32 We decreed to the children of Israel that whoever kills a human being UNLESS IT BE FOR MANSLAUGHTER OR FOR MISCHIEF IN THE LAND,...that means you shall not kill WITHOUT CAUSE but there are at least five causes to kill someones,for example infidels,converts,adulterers,homosexuals even secular muslims should be killed so ninty per cent of world populations must be slain.

Dear People:

First of all we must understand that we should not criticize each other without understating the history behind the fact. And sometimes we don't want to take the time so it sure is bad to criticize at all.

Now it is a fact that the majority of people opposed to this article were thinking "this guy is right" until they red the word "Muslim", then started to think about all the things they're tought to hate about it and started complaining about his religion rather than his article, proving that he is just completly right.

I believe that both Mohamed and Jesus were two great prophets and tryed to show us a way of love. But the fact that I consider one of them Holly doesn't change Mr. Patel's point, we're just fingering each other without thinking that we could also be part of the problem.

Why not be part of the solution and from this thay further we practice Tolerance?

We may not agree in everything but who does?

It's disturbing - although sadly not surprising - that people would respond to a blog with such malice towards other commentors when Eboo speaks against hate speech and making monoliths of any faith tradition.

As Eboo states, it's so easy to condemn the 'other' as "evil" and "the enemy." The preceding line of comments seems transfixed on the gendered components of Islamic worship and cultural values conflated with Islam itself. I think that in some instances, e.g. Anonymous, DEBS, etc., folks are assuming that Western, American feminist values are a litmus test for the subjugation of women when feminism itself is not monolithic. I know multiple American Muslim women who grew up not wearing the "hijab" and have chosen to do so in young adulthood and adulthood as a sign of faith. These women are not oppressed or afraid to speak their mind. Instead, they live unashamedly as who they are.

Yet, this is not a perfect world and not all Muslim women have the choice to wear the hijab of their own volition - even in the USA. I think it is important to recognize at this point, however, that Islam is not alone in its struggle to define the role of women or confront their subjugation. Many Christian women remain subject to their husbands based on Pauline epistles. Again, I think it's easier to criticize Islam without honestly looking at Christianity, its state in the world, its unholy (in my opinion) union with Capitalism, and the history of so-called Christian nations imperializing the majority of the world, including the Middle East where we are now embroiled in war.

Like Eboo says, we spend too much time finger pointing when there's more at stake. I don't think we can afford to continue framing the world solely in terms of Good and Evil, although they do both exist. We need to start taking time to understand each other and each other's value systems. We can't do this without honest dialogue and the building of inter-faith relationships. We need to actually take the time to go out into our neighborhoods and meet the proverbial Other and stop making assumptions about individuals and communities without having even met them.

Peace.

thanks pam! good observation anne here a balance to that other post whatever it is-

NOTE- PEOPLE OF THE BOOK ARE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS

"If it had been the Lord's Will, they would all have believed- all who are on earth: will you then (Muhammad) compel mankind, against their will, to believe?" Qur'an, 10: 99.

Another Qur'anic verse states:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion, truth stands out clear from error." Qur'an, 2: 256.

"Say O people of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you that we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, lords and patrons other than God. If then they turn back, say: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to God's Will)." Qur'an, 3:64.

"Say: We believe in God, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another." Qur'an, 3:84.

"O humankind! We created you from a single pair of a male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know and deal with each other in kindness (not that you may despise each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God (is he who is) the most righteous of you, and God is Knower, Aware." Qur'an, 49:13.

"Invite (all) to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and discuss with them in ways that are best and most gracious." Qur'an, 16:25.

"And dispute not with People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong and injury." Qur'an, 29:46.

The Prophet (p) also said:

"Let it be known, if any one (Muslim) commits injustice, insults, aggravates, mistreats or abuses a person of the People of the Book (protected, by the state or an agreement), he will have to answer me (for his immoral action) on the Day of Judgment." Izzeddin Blaque, Minhaj Alsaliheen, Page 106.

Thus, the lack of tolerance towards the non-Muslims under Islamic rule is a grave offense.

"If any one kill a person, it would be as if he kill the whole people, and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the whole people." Qur'an, 5:32.

"Whoever fights under an erratic irrational banner, buffs up angry for a particular (irrational) group or promotes (irrational) group, or supports (irrational) group and died in that cause, he died as a disbeliever, and whoever indiscriminately attacks my people killing the righteous and the wicked of them, sparing not (even) those with whom is a covenant (such as Jews and Christians "People of Book" and other ), and not fulfilling the promises made with those who have been given a pledge of a security--he belongs not to me and I belong not to him." Muslim, Tradition # 3436.

"Whoever kills a person of the People of Covenant (such as Jews, and Christian or people of others creeds or philosophy) with whom there is a covenant between them and Muslims, he or she will not enter Paradise." Bukhari, Tradition # 2930.

i removed commentary to just leave a few examples-all quran or hadeeth- (sayings of the prophet(pbuh)

heres the link and accompanying commentary

just thought youd l ike it anne o
peace

http://www.islamic-study.org/Islam%20Denounces%20Violence.htm

Michael I liked your question to Victoria about women looking at men's backsides. I like your sense of humor about it all Victoria.

Let me tell you I live in a small beach town and many of the women I know love to look at those men's backsides. Especially on the beach. I am not sure about the religion part as I am a non-believer but I know that women talk about men and sex just as much as men do. Now I said talk!!! I am probably going to get a lot of nasty posts saying it is because I am an atheist. Not true because I am the only atheist in my crowd of women. One of these women is 82 and still likes to look!!!! I figure when I stop looking I might as well be dead.

Good night!!

BILL tells us: One poster quoted Qur'anic commands regarding negative relations with people of the Book, but he never quotes passages that recognize and extol the people of the Book. The Qur'anic verses have to do with specific behaviors of Christians and Jews (positive and negative). Because most readers do not understand the treaties and responsibilites that certain non-Muslim groups had made with the Medinan state where Muhammad was leader, they do not therefore understand the Qur'anic condemnations of those who had broken their treaties.

ANN O. asks: Could you tell us more about this historical matter, Bill?

The more I read the posts on this blog the more I think that our disputes seem to be most often about historical events and interpreting them. Behaviors are the main problem, not our basic religious assumptions. Disagreements about dogmas/ teachings don't arise nearly as often as I would expect them to.

Ann O.

Thank you for your answers. . . and for keeping a sense of humor about the whole thing.

Michael- that is what so funny about the statements and preoccupations with the 'view' from islamic prayer-

i imagine people are tempted to look at backsides if that is their proclivity no matter what their gender- i think western social sciences and their studies on human sexual behavior have indicated that men are more visually stimulated than women-

i remember one study done where men and women were shown a variety of photos and their physical responses were monitored-

there were photos of both sexes in various alluring stages of dress and undress and photos of babies- the mens responses were most dramatic when viewing unclad women- and the womens repsonses were most dramatic when viewing picutes of babies-

its a whole science in itself- (there is the current mythi that men think of sex every 4 minutes i think it is- whether this is scientifically based or not i couldnt say)

these are just uneducated observations and wholly inapplicable to the question-

the fact is- that there is a few second delay in the rising from the sajda(prostating with the forehead to the floor) position form the owmen and the men- the women rise up a few seconds after the men after they are in a sitting or standing position-

and it is physicially impossible to see anything one way or another when ones forehead is on the floor- also inprayer there is a focal point of concentration in front of us-

there are times when i as a woman cannot pray and i have personally watched people in prayer and ive never seen anyone looking anywhere else during prayer- its not to say it doesnt happen-

so it is really physically impossible to see anything anyway- (assuming everyone is actively praying) since were in such close proximity to each other anyone swiveling their head around would be felt becasue of the relative stillness-

one movement can have a ripple effect-
were not statues by any means- but focused in an active meditation with our eyes open and conscious-

so the whole discussion is actually completely moot-

NOW having said all that- i responded to - well here it is:

Anonymous:

----When the buses were finally desegregated----

HA!! And your wonderful Islam (in 2007) has not even desegregated your places of worship as far as men and women are concerned!

Your example is a good one though...it shows how Western/Christian/Secular countries and cultures evolve whereas Islam, at most, stays rooted in the dark-ages!

Posted February 23, 2007 3:25 PM

i should know better by now than to respond to agressively negatively framed statements by anonymous posters- but its a much maligned issue

I was offering a PRACTICAL REASON for this- not the fact that we are simply following the example of Muhammad(pbuh)

NOW- having said THAT!
there is a movement within islam right now where muslims are worshipping in unsegregated prayer-

ms pamela taylor (who i wholeheartedly support) is a trailblazer in that are and i recommend anyone to see what she has to say as shes much more well spoken than i-
(i am irish and lets just say we are not known for our temperate expression)

now having said all that again-

no one sees fit to criticize orthodox jews who are segregated by sexes in THEIR prayer services where they are comfortably seated in chairs-

we men and women distract each other- its a fact- prayer is subsuming our concentrations and attentions to a higher attention and focus- away from the distractions of the world and onto god-

DISCLAIMER- the above is the opinion of victoria and is in no way intended to represent the opinions of all muslims everywhere

also the quran in no way tells people that it takes precedence over humans

peace

The problem with Islam is that it is very undiplomatic! Those who have a difference of opinion, face jihad. There is no chance of a civilized debate, and no "difference of opinion" is tolerated. The only response is the shedding of Blood! In Christianity, the Bible serves the people, not the people the Bible ... and the taking of human life is strictly forbidden in the Gospels! The only jihad the Christians practice, is the jihad called charity for all human beings! It's called love! Christians believe that God (Allah) can have a Son, for nothing can be denied to a Deity. Muhammad, however, has said in the Qu'ran, "far it be from Allah that He have a son"! To compound the problem, in Islam, the Qu'ran is more important than the believers, and this means that Islam neither values the human life, nor the right of Allah to have a Son! No wonder that Islam has been called "violent" by many commentators throughout history, who have argued that Islam does violence to God and to man!

A favorite quote of mine seems applicable to many posts on here "If you want to change the world, start by changing yourself." If you dislike the hatred in the hearts of many muslims, start by dealing with the hatred in your own heart.

Some non-rhetorical questions for you, Victoria. Aren't any of your fellow women tempted to look at the men's backsides during prayer? If the answer to that is yes, then is it any better for the men to be in front than for the women? Is separating the men and women really the best option?

Mr. Patel, I think you understand the spiritual values on which true Islam and Christianity are based. Some of the commenters prove your point. They have convinced themselves that Islam only represents evil and backwardness, so no counter-evidence is permissible in their world. Although my Baha'i co-religionists have been horribly persecuted in most Muslim countries, we Baha'is understand and embrace the divine origin of Islam, and we defend its fundamental truth despite the failure of many Muslims to express it poperly.
It is easy to take individual Qur'anic verses and make them appear malevolent, just as one can do with passages of the Bible. One poster quoted Qur'anic commands regarding negative relations with people of the Book, but he never quotes passages that recognize and extol the people of the Book. The Qur'anic verses have to do with specific behaviors of Christians and Jews (positive and negative). Because most readers do not understand the treaties and responsibilites that certain non-Muslim groups had made with the Medinan state where Muhammad was leader, they do not therefore understand the Qur'anic condemnations of those who had broken their treaties.
May you have continued success in your efforts to keep fingers pointed toward a brighter future, rather than pointed at each other. "Choose thou for thy neighbor, that which thou choosest for thyself."

actually- it is amazing to me how preoccupied people become with the most inane superficialities-

alright- let us just say that an inherent ism is revealed- but it is really a moot and side point- personally i amnot so interested in what people have on the outside-

but its interesting that although people always call for egalitarianism that when its expressed in dress- somehow it offends people whose lives are not touched one bit by it- we make judgements on social and economic status by labels now- it used to be hats that defined a persons station (men especially)

it is why many schools are calling for uniforms - the reasons are all pretty valid- it doesnt mean we are raising a society of clones(ever notice how even new science fiction movies always portray completely equal socieites dressed in the same boring uniforms?) clearly someone somewhere equates the removal of economic indicators such as clothing somewhat equvalent to egalistarianism- in whatever sophomoric artistic vision-

as for the repressed victorians straining to catch a glimpse of ankle- and constructing fetishist fantasies about said ankles-
islam has exhorted sexual fulfillment and mutual satisfaction and expression within the protection of marriage-
there is no doctrine of original sin- no sex=temptation fruit- no blaming of eve-
we are born into a state of original grace and bypass the whole issue (look at any islamophobic christian right site and see their morbid fascination with the sex lives of muslims)
i would venture that a few of those victorian fetishists werent being satisfied at home-

if someone is determined to peek through ones shower curtain attire- well- i wouldnt be too impressed with their fashion sense to begin with-

now (excluding pakistani women who have some beautful colors and garb) i would say that alot of fashion in islam is non-existent or as boring as - say- Anne Klein-

it is interesting to not e the fluctuations of fashion in different periods of history-

when the economic situation is poor- the fashion gets wilder and more colorful- when the economic indicators are up- fashion suffers- its an interesting history but i dont have alink but if youre bored sometimes peruse it a little pagan-

PAUL all of the issues youve raised are valid and atrocious and unconscienable acts- the fact that some villagers are allowed to continue these practices under the false banner of islam is one of the great problems muslim face and are addressing and changing every day-

i dress i pretty normal issue western attire- nobody here could pick me out of a crowd-

but i reserve the right to defend anyones choice as to how they dress- without prejudgement or bias-

now= as for paganplace- ill defend her right to run like a sprite through the forests in her twigs and leaves too- (smile)

arent stereotypes fun!!!!
peace all

Pagan Place writes:

"Ever been to Catholic school, Paul? They were afraid of *the imagined reflective qualities of patent leather shoes* when my Ma went to school."

First of all, I would not consider catholicism any healthier when it comes to its attitudes towards gender equity, or the sexual prohibitions that flow from it. But, the actions it encourages stemming from those attitudes is far more benign than Islam. At least they do not attempt to punish women for claiming they were raped (4 witnesses or not), they do not suborn female circumcision, and they do not stone women to death for fornication.

Perhaps it is most horrifying to say that Catholicism looks positively enlightened in this area when compared to Islam.

Ok, I got distracted by my own joke.

The point is that you *can't* 'remove sexuality from the equation entirely.' You could demand people walk around in *shower curtains and ghille suits* and someone'd still be looking for the gaps or shapes or getting turned on by your style of twigs and rags.

"while bare skin clearly reoves barriers- it also creates a new ism- the fair or unfair treatment of one based on their physical attributes- its human nature-"

Then it doesn't *create* the ism. Frankly, cultural ideas of what constitutes a beautiful body, never mind a beautiful *person* are nowhere near as fixed as we tend to presume.

Not that I'm advocating nudism as liberation or anything: I like clothes too much. There's a difference between fashion, expression, and taboo. (not that I have Anne Klein on speed-dial or anything. Just that for such an affluent society, we have *really boring clothes.* Why is that, I wonder? )

"what we call modest dress is removing the element of sexuality from the equation entirely-"

Not if you do it right. :)

Yes, Victoria, I think that women who remain in anything as misogynistic as Islam have come to identify with the oppressor. Your ptitiful attempts at rationalizing the irrational become increasingly obvious with each such post.

Of course, I am certain that you will come back with more apologetics.

ANONYMOUS
surely youre not suggesting that i amn being held hostage and my keepers let me use their computer?

o! i should make a plea for help! why didnt i think of that before!

paganplace- the remarks here are driven by a response to someone who made a caricature comment about segregation and i ws explaining the practical reason for it-

however- the image seems to have tittilated the imaginations of some here who have gotten stuck in its clearly sexy aura-

while bare skin clearly reoves barriers- it also creates a new ism- the fair or unfair treatment of one based on their physical attributes- its human nature- what we call modest dress is removing the element of sexuality from the equation entirely-

(people in nudist communities quicly stop seeing the body- but it stilll doesnt remove the criteria)

without the distractions or false biases or favors in the equaton of social interaction- we have to deal with each other as intellectual and social and spiritual creatures-

people generally dont respect even steel barriers and locks and bolts- so i think cloth is a mild barrier at best.

well i guess now the detractors can start tearing up islamic clothes and no one will talk about the issues anymore-
peace

To tie those posts together, I don't think that segregation or excessive cultural modesty is particularly liberating or divine, but there really are some practical and non-abstract things about it: When women had to wear floor-length skirts, men would fetishize *ankles.*

I'm not exactly about bare midriffs and mini-skirts, myself, not cause I think there's anything shameful about it, but because I don't want to be looked at that way in a pretty repressed society that still tends to see clothing as some kind of *fence around sex.* (However high or low that fence may be seen to be.) To me, all that (and the body-shame it is based on) can do is substitute artifice (laws and garments) for human interaction, restraint, and respect.

Men from cultures that see modesty in this way also tend to believe that bare skin *entitles* them to something. Cause someone displaced their self control and human respect onto a *barrier* someone made.

Whether that's a garment or a law or an idea. Watch what happens when those barriers go away, if you're raised to think 'Bare skin=sex.'

There's also a practical reality to the current situation, and it's not up to me to prioritize for Muslim women.

Paul:

"wow, Victoria, Muslim men must really be sex fiends! You cannot even trust them not to "molest (you) with their eyes" when they are praying. "

Ever been to Catholic school, Paul? They were afraid of *the imagined reflective qualities of patent leather shoes* when my Ma went to school.

For the exact same reason. 'Adultery in the heart' or some kind of thing.

You could call it 'repressive,' but I wouldn't call it a good reason for xenophobia.

"""this leaves our posteriors in a vulnerable and potentially embarrassing position."""

Fair enough, but from a point of view of human body language and instinct, ....that's why that is a posture of submission in the first place. For males *or* females.

i would say that some are strangely preoccupied with the prayer of women- i invite all concerned togo to their local mosque and let the women there speak for themsleves.

if such misconceptions still abound in the imaginations of some then the fault is mine for not presenting the matter in a clear and cohesive fashion- so i apologize for any defamation i may have brought upon muslim women by my poor attempt.

peace

Paul, Kate, etc:

You should be more understanding where Victoria is concerned. After all, were she to be in an Islamic country, praying with the men, and one of them was overcome by the view of her "posterior" and took indecent liberties with her, she could be subject to honor killing or, if she did not have 4 witnesses to her violation, she could be stoned.

I think that segregation is a better alternative.

wow, Victoria, Muslim men must really be sex fiends! You cannot even trust them not to "molest (you) with their eyes" when they are praying.

I guess that is why the 72 dark-eyed virgins are such an effective inducement to suicide.

Anonymous, you write:

"Your example is a good one though...it shows how Western/Christian/Secular countries and cultures evolve whereas Islam, at most, stays rooted in the dark-ages!"

Allow me to add to your point that the reason that western societies have evolved beyond the christianity-driven cruelty and ignorance of medievel times was the steady encroachment of science upon the realm of the supernatural. Sad to say, the Islamic world once led the way in scientific advances, practicing an openness that the Pope would not allow. Thus, we see that moral progress is not necessarily uni-directional, in that the ISlamic world has regressed to a startling extent.

This should serve as a warning for westerners of what can happen if we do not make sure that religion remains in its place.

victoria: You write:

"e muslim ladies dont really want to be segregated when we are practicing our prayer-here is why- when we are actively praying we put our foreheads to the floor at different points- and this leaves our posteriors ina vulnerable and potentially embarrassing position-
we welcome the opportunity to pray and focus solely on our prayer without anxiety that we may be even fleetingly and unintentionally molested by male eyes while in this most precarious of stances-
we enjoy our own female company where we can relax and do what we came for- pray and worship ALLAH-
we stand in rows behind the men willingly because we dont want them looking at us -
its a matter of modesty ask any muslim woman
its a practical solution that needs no reform as it stands perfectly well as it is"

How pathetic your atempts to excuse Islam for its backwardness! How presumptuous your attempt to speak for "muslim ladies."

i have read so many of your other posts, much like this one. You may have found whatever it is YOU were looking for in this "throwback to the middle ages" belief system, but that does not mean it is friendly to women on anywhere other than the absolute fringes where the Koran is not considered inerrant in its entirety and sharia is not the law of the land.

go look up "Stockholm Syndrome."

The "peace" with which you sign off is not what the mass of your co-religionists offer the world, and especially the female 51% of it!

Hi Pam! Excellent article- i remember well the dialogue this instituted- Amina Wadud has become synonymous with truly equal rights in islam-

her books are a beacon of light- she is not an easy read at all but well worth it-

also asma baslan a pakistani doctor has written a book called unreading the patriarchal texts which has extraordinary resources for us less intellectually endowed to refer to-

i would say with absolute certainty that pamela taylor would respect mine or any sisters right to worship as we see fit-

how silly the assumptions of people can be-

my last act before i left my mosque in chicago (im in new york 10 months now) was to stage a pray in with 2 count them 2 other sisters-

we objected to curtain that was put up to separate the men and women-

so we prayd in front of the curtain on the mens side and met with extreme hostility-

it was an issue that i and 2 other sisters fought for over the years and hasd i removed-

it was a pakistani mosque also- and they have a notoriously misogynist air to them-

it is very very hard to break through peoples mindsets and traditions-

the tradition of the prophet(pbuh) was standing in rows women behind the men- but islam isnt a crystallized entity- but evolving and growing spiritually-

i applaud and support pamelas efforts as well as amina wadud- ive taken much heat for my outspoken and intractable agrrement with ms wadud-

and mr chatterjee (debs) if you think it is brainwashed to stand up to a couple of hundred angry men then i suggest you go into a mosque sometimes and spout your islamaphobia and see how you fare-

i mean- if you really believe you are right you wouild have no problem standing up for it right?

like i i did.

LKT- the point wasnt how we FEEL about the issue- but WHY it is so-

i cant imagine how ms taylor would disagree with that as its a matter of practice-

i put my own anecdotal feelings in to give it a personal perspective for anonymous-

not as a criteria for all of womankind-

and again- im sure she would respect the views of her sister as well as i respect her views as my sister- and all of my sisters- the ones who have prayed that way all their life and its al they know- and the ones who stick their necks out to effect change-

peace bye pam!

Matthew,

I am with Mr. Patel. Have faith. You are not alone. One stone, one step at a time, change can occur.

VICTORIA:
You're a tragic, brainwashed figure and your post put women's equality back a thousand years.

You truly are a fine example though of a woman living under the shadow is Islam.

Well done...you prove my point much better than I ever could.

Eboo - Your call for the difficult, the challenging, the hard to articulate middle course heartens me every time I encounter it. Some of the comments your posts elicit, on the contrary, confirm my darkest suspicions about ingrained opinions, closed minds, closed souls. You suggest that pointing fingers and fighting about the details of what are allowable kinds of pointing and what are not is to, well, umm, miss the point.

The key to your thoughts in this post come here, "How do we speak and act in a way that promotes the freedom, safety and dignity of all people?” A script where people express admiration for the highest principles in other traditions, and commit to living out the highest principles in their own." The first part, I agree, is an absolute imperative that we ask of ourselves and others. It's the latter part, the commitment to living out the highest principles, where I think we, in our human fragility, fail. And fail even to aspire to the highest ideals, as they're too much work, too distant, too unobtainable. My apologies for a dark post on a dark night. Your message is, and has always been, both an obvious necessity and forcefully convincing. Your faith that others seek to do the good that you do has never quite persuaded me. Again, my own weakness on a dark night.

Hey,shouldnt we have rules for how we criticize?Fine I understand that rules are necessery.Yes,of course there are rules,Divine Rules.First rule,Take not The Jews and The Christians for friends 5.51.Second rule,O Prophet strive hard against the unbelievers(non muslims) and Be harsh with them 9.73.Third rules,and Fight them until persecution is no more and religion is for Allah.2.193.Peaceful return to Mecca.Ten people were ordered to be killed,however Ikrimah lived to adopt Islam.Lets suppose murdered nine not so important,but what about Medina.Qurayza tribe was besieged by Muslims commanded by Prophet,taken captive and all man,apart from a few converted to Islam,were beheaded.There were 600 or 700 in all,some put the figures as high as 800 or 900.

Hi Victoria,

I would be interested in your comments and feelings towards this article by Pamela Taylor. I found it quite interesting.

Thanks ahead of time!

http://www.pmuna.org/archives/2005/04/pamela_taylors.php

Victoria,
Regarding segregation...
"its a matter of modesty ask any muslim woman..."

I wonder if Pamela Taylor would agree with you. She is a Muslim woman. Wonder how she feels about segregation of Muslim women from Muslim men at prayers -- "this leaves our posteriors ina vulnerable and potentially embarrassing position."

You should not assume that what you believe is what all Muslim women believe.... Perhaps you should speak only for yourself.

MrPatel brings up the excellent points that 2 wrongs arent making anything righter-

anonymous- we muslim ladies dont really want to be segregated when we are practicing our prayer-

here is why- when we are actively praying we put our foreheads to the floor at different points- and this leaves our posteriors ina vulnerable and potentially embarrassing position-

we welcome the opportunity to pray and focus solely on our prayer without anxiety that we may be even fleetingly and unintentionally molested by male eyes while in this most precarious of stances-

we enjoy our own female company where we can relax and do what we came for- pray and worship ALLAH-

we stand in rows behind the men willingly because we dont want them looking at us -

its a matter of modesty ask any muslim woman

its a practical solution that needs no reform as it stands perfectly well as it is

also orhtodox jewish people segregate themselves and they are comfortably seated and there is no opportunity for any untoward views

but we go to temple and mosque to give that time to god- and we men and women are a great distraction to each other-
we want our concentration wholeheartedly focused

so you can see the neccesity of the segregation

salaams

You demonstrate his point, quite nicely, Anonymous.

----When the buses were finally desegregated----

HA!! And your wonderful Islam (in 2007) has not even desegregated your places of worship as far as men and women are concerned!

Your example is a good one though...it shows how Western/Christian/Secular countries and cultures evolve whereas Islam, at most, stays rooted in the dark-ages!

That's a really good question, 'how do we speak and and in a way that promotes the freedom, safety, and dignity of all people.' I think the answer to that is, *making that the priority.*

I think it's that 'fundamentalism' dynamic of seeing things in terms of war, and of really, I think, lacking the faith that things can turn out all right *without* controlling the thoughts and beliefs of the rest of the world. Once people engage *that* sort of need for control, then repression and conflict and atrocities and indignities become pretty much inevitable.

I think, a start to at least speaking in ways that don't promote this, is to *control ourselves,* and be *responsible for our own perceptions.*

I find that many Fundamentalists need *enemies* precisely because they fear that *they* are losing, or need, not respect and dignity and freedom, but *control* over these things. It's easy to create enemies by convincing someone to smack someone else... I think they fear they're losing some necessary control precisely because the world's at one of those critical points where it's time to, and *possible to* grow out of that perceived need.

These wars, and 'wars' have taken on mythic lives of their own to many people. I think the answer might well be for those who can to take the question you've posed, and *make that a priority.* Then work together to enact a mythic *ending* to these conflicts that suits these priorities. We're a little short in the world on heroes and *stories* of peace. At least ones that aren't drowned out by shouting and explosions.

As a world, we *have* all the pieces that peace needs. Putting them together will be another story entirely. May as well start dreaming up *that* story.