Muslims are Europeans, not Foreigners

read all the posts next time soja-

the subject wasnt sutte- the subject, (and you brought up the influence of manu smrithi's laws) was misogyny

which are the basis of racism and sexism in india

whose influence has corrupted pakistani practice of islam
which ive seen imported to america
if youre prepared to counterintuitively argue the egalitarian nature of manu's laws-

go for it-

i have no interest in trying to justify sexism or racism
if its wrong its wrong

if a muslim, hindu, or purple people eater promotes it

its not necessary to clarify anything soja-
instead, just read the posts yourself and no clarification would be necessary

Contd...

It is hard to imagine how any pocket of Indian society might have managed to legally condone Suttee, since it was abolished by the British and the ban was in place when India gained independence in 1947. How the courts might have come under pressure to bow to local hidden practice is hard to say.

Kerala for instance was influenced by Christianity from 52 AD, and as a state it had remained isolated for many centuries from the rest of India due to mountains that formed a natural barrier. I cannot imagine that Suttee was practised at any time in its history. As reports show the practice was more prevalent in some areas of the North.

One thing is certain that the practice, if it has anything even remotely to do with Hinduism or any other religion for that matter, makes a strong case for a secular government. A secular government ensures that nobody could impose an inhuman law and claim that it comes with the infallible command from God written in their holy book. Members of other religions could keep a check on the inhuman practices in any religion and introduce secular laws to ban the practice. The courts and the law enforcement agency could mete out appropriate punishment and say, "You do what is written in your holy book, and we will do what is written in our law books."

Here the Wikipedia link to information on Suttee, which provides additional info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/suttee

Dear Victoria

Thanks for clarifying that the discussion was about the influence of Hinduism in the Islamic culture of Pakistan. Whatever matter is being discussed in relation to Islam, it always helps to verify as the source the Quran, the Hadiths, Sharia Law, the practice of Islam in Mecca at the time of Mohammad's rule.

To check out if any Pakistani Islamic custom originates from Hinduism, it is also essential to verify in Muslims in India follow the same custom. It goes without saying one must verify first of all if the custom is Hindu in the first place.

Since you appreciate the information I provided about sattee, here is a little more:

1. Burning of widows is supposedly not Hindu in origin. It existed also in other ancient cultures.

2. Hindu Scripture does not advocate it; it is forbidden by the Vedas, the oldest Hindu Scripture. 'One shall not die before the span of one's life has run out.' Manu Smrithi, the oldest social code for the Hindu society, does not mention Suttee. Hinduism is a con-federation of religions, hence it is important not to put all Hindu beliefs under one umbrella.

3. Even in the worst cases, Suttee was supposed to be voluntary, NEVER forced on the woman.

4. Buddhism expressly condemns it, and India was influenced by Buddhism (Emperor Ashoka was a convert to Buddhism).

5. There was a three hundred year Muslim rule before India became a British colony. India was a collection of small kingdoms when the British came. So there could not have been a single law governing all the Indians anyway.

6. Ram Mohan Roy, a Hindu reformer from Bengal, campaigned very hard starting 1812, to stop the practice disseminating arguments that the practice was not part of Hindu Scripture.

7. The British banned the practice in India. General Sir Charles James Napier (1782-1853) had the following to say about the practice of Suttee by any Indian community:

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

actually soja- the conversation was NOT about islam or justifying social customs-
it was between ari and i about traditional misogynistic practices in INDIA that were carried over into pakistani.

youve actually jumped in and proven my case for me.

thanks-

Dear Victoria

I found an interesting link that gives more details about Sati. I do not know how reliable the information contained in it is. However as you can see there are different ways to justify an evil custom, even by distorting Scriptute. On the other hand the timeline proves that the cases you mentioned are isolated incidents. Hindu reform banning Sati occured long before India gained Independance.

http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/hindu/sati.htm

http://www.kamat.com/women/sati/timeline.htm

Best wishes
Soja

One more thing Victoria, maybe you'd like to verify if the instances you are quoting is about 'dowry deaths' rather than Sattee. Neither Sattee nor dowry in mentioned in any Hindu Scripture. They are social customs that evolved over centuries which supposedly fulfilled the narrow interest of certain groups. For instance since widow remarriage is not permitted in Hinduism, a widow would be a burden on her husband's family. Hence doing away with her might have been a very monstrous solution to the problem. Dowry for daughters was instituted because they do not have legal rights to the father's property. The dowry is meant to take care of her needs at the home of her husband and is meant as a compensation for inheritance. But as you now dowry was common even in Europe until not long ago, and the social custom has nothing to do with Christianity.

We are here discussing customs in Islam that can be directly traced to verses in the Quran. So when you do mention social customs related to other religions, please remember to substantiate it with the relevant reference from the Scripture of the said religion. Social customs are a completely different matter and should not be mistaken for religious doctrine. For instance genital mutilation of women among some African tribes is a cultural practice and has nothing to do with Islam.

Best wishes
Soja

PS Victoria:

I do enjoy the unlimited freedom the women in the West enjoy. I feel soooo grateful to be able to live as a citizen of a Western democracy.

testing

Dear Victoria

Since I left India in December 1987 and last visited in 1997, you can't imply I don't know anything about India. It might interest you to know that India gained independence sixty years ago after being a British colony for nearly 200 years and there was a three hundred year Muslim rule some time prior to that. Yes, it is possible that some isolated Hindu communities defied laws and there were probably a few isolated cases of Sattee in some remote area or the other in the North (one should compare it with homicide in any city, even in the West!). You take such instances completely out of its context and seem to imply that Sattee is a common Hindu custom. I for one don't know of a single case of Sattee in South India at any time in its long history.

Hinduism and the Indian culture based on Hinduism has its drawbacks with regard to women in society, I do not disagree. In my personal opinion the custom of dowry is the greatest evil which affect women negatively. But the freedom a woman enjoys in society depends entirely on the custom adopted by her family and her particular community. There are so many different communities that it is difficult to generalize. However it can be said for modern India that women are encouraged to get as much education as possible. The topic at hand, the one you referred to, however is Sattee, and I can say with certainty that the practice of Sattee is something that we Indians know mostly from books about the history of Hinduism.

I am a native of Kerala, a state which has a literacy rate of 100%. Surely you don't think that women are oppressed in a state if all women are literate?

As for short hair, I have always had a Western hair style with short hair! I'm now 48 years old.

Best wishes
Soja

Victoria,
A good Hindu friend told me; "We Hindus were never violent people it was the constant attacks that made some of us that way"

You said;
"you are suggesting that women in india have traditionally been free and equal self determined beings?"
Yes, I am suggesting that.

Victoria, Islam is not what you think it is. You are argumentative but not convincing. Islam only offers death. Why do you think its warriors are not afraid to die? It will for sure cause another disaster like 9/11 only bigger. Islam divides people, it destroys whole cultures. Last year I was at a funeral in Pakistan, my friend introduced me to a Muslima like yourself, all covered up. Paki women were not as covered as she was. She warned me that she hated America, she told me openly she hates her parents. She curses her own Americans to hell; what person after finding the "truth" begins to hate their own? She is well read speaks and writes Arabic.

How is it that a convert to the Buddhists, atheism, Judaism, Christianity will not hate their own people? Why does a convert to Islam turn on their own?
BTW, I know Muslims like the word revert. I however cannot wish such a curse upon the rest of mankind.

Do this, tomorrow, wake up don't pray. Have bacon and eggs for breakfast. Don’t you miss that? Don't wear that restraining scarf around your neck. Wear a nice colorful dress, let your hair loose, and go to work. Have lunch with that Christian creep you hate so much. Tell your husband to meet you at the steakhouse for dinner. Order a nice wine and celebrate LIFE. You are much smarter than Islam, life is short so live it.

A KAfir is a kafir along with all other misguiding names he uses

sorry, my mistake-

Two brave, articulate Saudi women speak-

Saudi TV Newscaster Buthayna Nasser

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH12fGYrRqQ

Saudi Author Zaynab Hifni

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=styoqNQcPTw

Anonymous:
Since you mentioned Wafa Sulan's name,I am posting a link to her interview with Al Jazeera TV.
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu7DqE51HsmQAJAZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTExY3JtOGZhBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAwRsA1dTMQ--/SIG=120enmsrj/EXP=1201562986/**http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE-ejGWTUMY

Mullah Victoria wrote: "suttee was only banned a scant 20 years ago." and when Soja call the despicable liar on it, she tries to lie out of it by making up a story and claiming: "i was discussing social customs -not british mandates-".

How stupid do you think the Kafirs are here, Mullah Victoria? Who bans "social customs"? British mandate? Indian Constitution adopted the British laws, and the law against suttee was kept intact when the Indians gained their independence in 1947, passed their constitution in 1949, and adopted it in 1950.

I have never come across anyone who lies as unashamedly as you, Mullah Victoria.

i spent alot of time at the sri venkatesvara temple in pittsburgh pennsylvania in the 80s soja.

i had many hindu friends in my circle- and many women who were from india had a vested interest in the subject.

there was a rash of suttee burnings that concerned people, and they spoke about it.

im not talking about british imperialist rules imposed on the people, but there was an outcry among indian people to end this practice once and for all-

so that is where i got my information.

i aso got alot of information and anecdotal stories about oppression of women in hinduism from hindu women who came to america, and cut their hair, and rejected many cultural misogynist impositions.

that was the discussion at hand-

you do a disservice to yourself by being so aggressive and accusatory-

i find your "best wishes" after such an accusation, somewhat odd- as i didnt feel you were wishing me the best at all.

so, even though you were pretty rude in framing your accusation, demanding proof when you have npot offered it yourself- i still try to answer to your satisfaction.

possibly, you believe that british laws are valid, but many of your countrywomen do not.

i believe the least case was in 2002, but the last really famous case was in 1987.

its not too hard to substantiate- but im not bothering- i only do homework for people when they address me civilly.

i was discussing social customs -not british mandates-

Dear Victoria

Your claim that Sati in India was banned merely twenty years ago makes me wonder where you get your information from. Would you care to explain on what basis you state something so FALSE?

Best wishes
Soja

arif, pakistan is only 60 years old-
you are saying 60 years ago (or even present times) there is no misogyny in indian culture?

suttee was only banned a scant 20 years ago.

im not getting into indian politics with you arif- but to try and revise the treatment of women as somehow free and happy is- not exactly accurate.

and to discount the extremism on both sides is, well- one-sided.
what about gujurat, and the rise to power of the hinud nationalists and nodi?

based upon the massacre of (muslim women, children, babies)

you are suggesting that women in india have traditionally been free and equal self determined beings?

RM,

Wafa Sultan, originally a Muslim from Syria, practised as a psychiatrist for nine years in her country before she came to the US. She is critical of Islam although she belonged to the better class of Muslim women who got the best that her country had to offer. But in the course of her practice as a psychiatrist, she met with many ordinary women who suffered because of the way Islam is practised by their respective families.

Wafa Sultan has been rejected by her own family out of fear for Mullahs and other Muslims in her country. A fatwa for her death has already been issued. Wafa Sultan is a marked woman who needs constant protection by body guards.

"arif- i know it is personal to you- but do you think its possible that lot of the cultural influences that exist in pakistan may have come from india?
and i know you and k hail from pakistan, and think it is the center of islamic society- but - consider the possibility that there are many misogynistic practices there that have no basis in the sunnah of our Prophet(pbuh) but have some corrupted interpretations from a society that still hasnt resolved its own inequalities?"

Victoria,
That is not at all true, how can you even think of such garbage Vicotora? What are 170 million Pakistanis, stupid? That geographical area before Islam moved in was mainly Hindu and Buddhist. They weren’t societies hostile towards their own women. When Islam came through Persia to present Afghanistan they looted and converted them by force from Buddhist/Hindu to Islam. That is when misogyny took root in present Afghanistan, the hiding of women, the chador, hijab, niquab, burka etc. Non-Muslims will never cover their heads like you do. They out of fear will wear the "dopatta", a thin cloth covering the hair. Many Zoroastrians escaped the wrath of Mohammed’s marauders engaging in Jihad and inhabited what is now India/Pakistan. India has a sizable population of Parses. They are great people who keep to themselves; they are so good that even fanatic muslims leave them alone in Pakistan. With the exception of a few incidents Pakistani mullahs have no quarrel with them. For proof of culture you only have to see a minority Hindu, Christian, Parse in Pakistan and see how free and happy their women are, they of course fear the Muslim men who rape their women with impunity because somehow they never get punished for rape of a non-muslim. Wonder why that is?

Here is another perspective of the truth.

The woman, Wafa Sultan, is an Arab-American psychologist from LA. This supposedly appeared in an Arab-financed TV in Dubai. One can only guess the price placed on her head after this was aired. Click on the link below to view/listen to what she has to say about the Muslim attitude.


http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=nul

Mullah Revert writes: "there was a worldwide consensus of muslim scholars that such an interpretation is quranically impossible."

Okay you cheap disgusting liar, prove it. Provide a reference. Show that it is "worldwide consensus". Provide a clear reference. You yourself wrote that it is still practiced in India. So the 180 million muslims disagree. It is still happening in Pakistan. That is another 160 million muslims who are not part of your world wide consensus.

Provide a reference to where this consensus took place. Why do you lie so pathetically?

Mullah Revert Victoria,

I do not accept anything you say because you are a bald faced liar. You lie easily and without any hesitation at all.

You started out with an outright lie that there is no such thing as triple Talaaq in Islam. Now you are trying to hide behind the lie that triple talaaq is "banned" in some muslim countries, and trying to paint that as what Islam is. Well you bald faced liar, there are 57 countries in the OIC and in the majority of these countries, triple talaaq is still valid and practiced. So even for Islam is, the triple talaaq is still around to debase muslim women. And try to find out why triple talaaq was banned. But you do not care. It does not matter to you, does it.

The muslims in those countries want to impose Sharia and they want triple talaaq reimposed. Pakistan is one country where triple talaaq was banned in 1961 and then it go reintroduced back under Islamic Sharia in 1980. The Mullahs in Algeria (where a tens of thousands of muslims have been killed by the mullahs because they do not want to go back under Sharia) is another country where the demand is to go back to triple Sharia.

Mullah Victoria, do you have any conscience at all? Is there even a glimmer of any humanity in you left? From you words, it seems that the answer has to be very little to none.

wikipedia is notoriously inaccurate k-
but the point is-
you are talking about what was in islam-

i am talking about what islam IS-

your concept of a triple mantra that magically dissolves a marriage is refuted by the muslim community worldwide-
in egypt several years back, there were some sheikhs arguing it was valid-
there was a worldwide consensus of muslim scholars that such an interpretation is quranically impossible.

you must have missed that memo.

it doesnt make me a liar, or patheitc or any other suc thing.

it simply makes you uninformed.

i dont se wikipedia as a study guide for my religion, or- well- anything at all.

you are an odd man k-

Mullah Revert,

You are a bald faced liar and pathetic at it.

1. You first wrote that there is no triple talaaq in Islam.

I provided the link to wikipedia showing that there is and has been in Sunni Islam for a long time.

2. Then you without batting an eye, take the same link and try to use the fact that triple talaaq is banned in some muslim counteries to show that somehow I am wrong!!!

Read what that article states. It tells you that the Sunni Madhabs allow for it. Then you yourself state that it is "banned" in the countries you list. Why is it banned? You are too ignorant to know. I told you in my previous post, but you appear incapable of understanding the simple things that show the barbarity of your death cult.
It is banned because people of that country decided that that aspect of Islamic sharia was inhuman. It is banned despite it being part of Islamic Sharia. Islam allows it, but muslims in those countries have banned it. Muslims who want Sharia back want that banning to be repealed as in your husbands country of origin, turkey!!!

here is the exact link you posted before where i got this info-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_talaq
january 22 11:56 am

k-

your statement-

" And now you have found that some muslim countries have made triple talaq illegal and not that there is no triple talaaq at all.

"Wikipedia is not an authority on Fiqh, but idiots like yourself should at least check it before you make wild claims out of total ignorance. And it is a quick way to show your utter ignorance and foolishness quickly with an easily accessible URL!!

i used the wikipedia link you provided-
the information i gave is from the link YOU POSTED

do you understand?

youre saying im making wild claims and went and "found" something

i read the link- its your link!
i did check it- did you?

you should read what you link here- apparently, this time it came to haunt you

do you understand what im SAYING HERE?
YOURE COMPLAINING ABOUT INFORMATION THAT YOU PROVIDED!

Mullah Revert victoria,

You obviously do not have any shame at being shown to be a liar again and again.

Given that you are a liar and support and defend inhuman treatment of people, anything you say has to be taken with great caution.

You are obviously a good fit for the death cult that you try to sell over the web.

What you wrote was:
"the fake muslimah and k have bizarre notions about marriage in islam-
there is no talaq talaq talaq-
and women can easily divorce if they choose-"

"THERE IS NO TALAQ TALAQ TALAQ"!! And now you have found that some muslim countries have made triple talaq illegal and not that there is no triple talaaq at all. Now try to get through to any residual humanity left in you that the states banning triple talaq are going against Islamic Sharia. They have decided that the Islamic law is not for humans in modern times.

Muslim countries still under the sway of the savagery of 7th century muhammad still use the triple talaaq laid down in sharia.

Atturk called muhammad a savage immoral beduoin and now unfortunately the islamist party in turkey is back and trying to get Islamic sharia back into the lives of the poor turks. They want triple talaaq back as well as the hijab.

Wikipedia is not an authority on Fiqh, but idiots like yourself should at least check it before you make wild claims out of total ignorance. And it is a quick way to show your utter ignorance and foolishness quickly with an easily accessible URL!!

arif- i know it is personal to you- but do you think its possible that lot of the cultural influences that exist in pakistan may have come from india?
and i know you and k hail from pakistan, and think it is the center of islamic society- but - consider the possibility that there are many misogynistic practices there that have no basis in the sunnah of our Prophet(pbuh) but have some corrupted interpretations from a society that still hasnt resolved its own inequalities?

k- wikipedia is not a source for islamic jurisprudence

but you didnt even read it-

it is as i said-
however-
as for your triple talaq inone sitting- only a few commentators say this-

The practice is banned by law in many nations, including
Turkey,
Tunisia,
Algeria,
Iraq,
Iran,
Indonesia,
and Bangladesh.

INDIA still permits it.

For the Conflict of Laws rules as they affect the talaq, see talaq (conflict)

Different Islamic views on triple talaq

JPMBAC:

How many analysis do you want to see about the status of women in Pakistan? Here is another and this is written by a Pakistani Woman:
http://www.marxist.com/Asia/women_in_pakistan.html
*******************************
Women in Pakistan - Victims of the social and economic desecration

By Sadaf Zahra

The South Asian subcontinent is the least gender sensitive region in the world. It is the only region in the world where men outnumber women. The sex ratio is 105.7 men to every 100 women. In Pakistan, women are not only subjected to financial discrimination, but they are also victims of inhuman customs and laws such as Karo Kari, Hadood ordinance, Qasas and marriage to the Quran and half witnesses according to the state law (whereby in court a female witness is only worth half a male witness).

In the rural areas, women are like slaves subject to drudgery. They are there just to obey their fathers, brothers and husbands. They do not have the right to decide about themselves because women are considered as foolish creatures according to the dominant social and cultural norms. Likewise marriage is also a sort of trade between different families both in the rural and urban areas. They are highly vulnerable to violation of their rights to life.

A woman's right to liberty is restricted in the name of modesty, protection and prevention of immoral activity. In rural areas 90% of women work in the fields. They work for the whole day with their male family members, but they still have to face their wrath. Male family members keep a strict eye on the female family members in the name of "honour". But one must understand the meaning of honour because in our society honour does not have the meaning of its true sense. Here it really means possession of women as a form of property. Not only are the restrictions of women's liberty maintained in the name of this honour (ghairat) but they also can be put to death if they lose their "honour".
.....
************************************

Tell the Kafirs if Mukhtaran Mai ever did get justice in the Islamic State of Pakistan?

I know, I know, you are now going to start whining about the filthy hindu culture that dominates pakistan and bangladesh and none of this has anything to do with real Islam ... it is all to do with the hangover of the kafir culture.

Would you like to see more write ups on the status of women in Pakistan? Do you think Indonesia is much different? Educate yourself a little bit.

JPMBAC: You probably live a sheltered life and know little. If you do not believe Arif, then read what Amenstry International writes:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/report/info/ASA33/018/1999
*************************
The right to life of women in Pakistan is conditional on their obeying social norms and traditions."

Hina Jilani, lawyer and human rights activist

Women in Pakistan live in fear. They face death by shooting, burning or killing with axes if they are deemed to have brought shame on the family. They are killed for supposed 'illicit' relationships, for marrying men of their choice, for divorcing abusive husbands. They are even murdered by their kin if they are raped as they are thereby deemed to have brought shame on their family. The truth of the suspicion does not matter -- merely the allegation is enough to bring dishonour on the family and therefore justifies the slaying.

The lives of millions of women in Pakistan are circumscribed by traditions which enforce extreme seclusion and submission to men. Male relatives virtually own them and punish contraventions of their proprietary control with violence. For the most part, women bear traditional male control over every aspect of their bodies, speech and behaviour with stoicism, as part of their fate, but exposure to media, the work of women's groups and a greater degree of mobility have seen the beginnings of women's rights awareness seep into the secluded world of women. But if women begin to assert their rights, however tentatively, the response is harsh and immediate: the curve of honour killings has risen parallel to the rise in awareness of rights.

Every year hundreds of women are known to die as a result of honour killings. Many more cases go unreported and almost all go unpunished. The isolation and fear of women living under such threats are compounded by state indifference to and complicity in women's oppression. Police almost invariably take the man's side in honour killings or domestic murders, and rarely prosecute the killers. Even when the men are convicted, the judiciary ensures that they usually receive a light sentence, reinforcing the view that men can kill their female relatives with virtual impunity. Specific laws hamper redress as they discriminate against women.

The isolation of women is completed by the almost total absence of anywhere to hide. There are few women's shelters, and any woman attempting to travel on her own is a target for abuse by police, strangers or male relatives hunting for her. For some women suicide appears the only means of escape.

*******************************

Do you think no one believes Amnestry International? What do you know of the real Pakistan? Do you come from one of the pampered families of the feudal rich? Are you the privileged few going to English Medium expensive schools? Do you know how the real pakistanis actually live and how the women are really treated?

Arif:

You are so stupid to presume that I couldn't possibly be from that part of the world. Both you and A. Kafir have such hate filled hearts that you will do anything, including lie, to malign Islam or even Christianity.

I can not recall a single case of divorce in a Muslim family among the hundreds or possibly thousands of Muslim families I knew. NOT ONE.

Your hate filled diatribe simply undermines your credibility. You failed to convince anybody here. You don't realize people like you can never gain respect from fair-minded people.

JPMBAC,
You are indeed a fool, divorce is very common in Pakistan most people like yourself look the other way at all the ills of a Muslim society. I am from Pakistan and know very well that divorce is very common and so is spousal abuse. Triple talak is the preferred/only way of divorce.

Don't compare a countries divorce rate to the religion. Are you implying that Islam is superior? Divorce happens; it is easy and painful for women in muslim countries when a divorce takes place. The women are the worst losers in Muslim societies. People marry in the family due to this reason alone. Don't fool yourselves that Muslims are better when it comes to divorce, they are NOT. The Muslim state does NOT help and women have no place else to go to other than back to their family. In most cases they loose everything. The state never helps. Have you been to a family court in Pakistan? I have, and seen the hundreds of broken families and miserable mothers languishing outside the crowded courts.

Victoria,
Woman in Islam are miserable, you are in the US and you are protected. You have not seen Islam function, for that you need to go see for yourself the plight of divorced women in Islam in any Muslim country of your choice.

Kafir is right on all counts. What you cite about the life of your Prophet has no bearing whatsoever. We also know of the women who went to the prophet and he had them stoned to death. There is no "divorce process" in Pakistan, women loose. From what Kafir and Ibrahim have been posting about your prophet Mohammed you should be ashamed of such a despicable man whom you worship. What kind of religion mandates a dress code for women? The four walls concept for females is the most restraining curse Islam wrought upon its women. Once divorced this is the biggest hurdle; no man to do their daily chores. A woman is cut off from her own society when she hasn't a male to accompany/chaperone her. How can you believe in such a religion? How do you pray five times a day to such a god?

Mullah Revert Victoria,

You only know your islam through a peephole. Be greatful to your fate that your husband does not beat the sh*t out of you as most husbands who follow Muhammad do. Getting slapped around is the usual fare.

Regarding Triple Talaaq read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_talaq

Triple Talaaq happens in many muslim communities. Since Sunnis are a majority of muslims, triple talaaq exists in a majority of muslim countries. Do a search and you will find many examples and many issues related to it available.

JPMBAC:

You are obviously not only ignorant but a fool as well.

You wrote: "You are forgetting an important part of statistics. Take any Muslim country--Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, India (has 180 million Muslims), Jordan, Egypt etc. etc., you will not find divorce to be even 2% of the general population."

Take any muslim country ... and now you snivel about take only certain muslim countries? I showed data from a muslim country. Anyone can do a search and see that the rates are comparable to SA in many muslim countries.

First get your definition of divorce rates correct. 2% of the "general population", and then you say the divorce rate is 40% of the general population in the west? You do not hae a clue how to even read data from different sites.

Let us see the marriage that you praise in pakistan:
*************
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4075421.stm

At an Islamabad women's refuge, with an address cloaked in secrecy and a perimeter guarded by barbed wire, 21-year-old Sharzia - whose name has been changed to protect her identity - broke down in tears as she described the horror of her forced marriage.

It was to a man she had never met, who physically and mentally abused her almost from the very outset.
***************

The divorce rate in pakistan, india, and bangladesh are lower but at the cost of robbing the women of all independence.

You obviously are a male and you do not have a clue the penalty that women have to pay so you can boast.

http://www.crescentlife.com/psychissues/MaritalSatisfactioninPakistan.pdf

Why don't you tell the kafirs about Vani, and child brides and honor killings in Pakistan as well?

the fake muslimah and k have bizarre notions about marriage in islam-
there is no talaq talaq talaq-
and women can easily divorce if they choose-
one woman went to the Prophet(pbuh) to divorce her husband simply because she didnt like the way he looked!

the divorce process takes, at the minimum, 3 months-
no quickie divorces
families cannot effect divorces
husbands cannot say magic words
women can divorce

however it is recommended that families from both sides artbiter in the case if a divorce is proposed

A. Kafir:

Your ignorance is appalling. Making sweepy generalizations about all Muslims based on S. Arabia alone is the height of arrogance. S. Arabia is tiny compared to other Muslim nations in population

And even the half of Saudi population is non-Muslim. They royalty there is known to be corrupt.

You need to educate yourself on the "cause and effect" relationships. Take a course in social science research methods and a course in logic.

Those who know Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. etc will tell you that divorce rate among Muslims is extremely rare. And 99% of the population is monogamous.

JPMBAC:

Polygamy and violence is the cause of the most of the divorces in Jeddah according to a study by saudi researchers themselves. 50 divorces for every 100 weddings in Mecca!!!
Do you really want to talk about the reality of the status of women under Islam? Do you really want to talk about the reality of marriages and women in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, etc. Educate yourself a little.

*******************
http://www.islamicvoice.com/november.2003/news.htm
Jeddah: Given the enormous rise in the divorce rate in the Saudi Kingdom, the second-highest in the world, the head of Jeddah’s marriage court, Sheikh Saleh Ahmad Habad, has called for urgent steps to address the issue. The court registers 40 marriages and 20 divorces a day. Sheikh Saleh stressed the high price children pay when their parents divorce, including behavioural disorders, depression, addiction and low school performance. A study conducted by Dr. Ebtisam Halawani at King Abdul Aziz University revealed that the main reason most women left their spouses was ill-treatment and violence. Most divorces occur during the first three years of marriage, the study said. Polygamy, according to Abdullah Al-Fawzan, a professor and sociologist at King Saud University in Riyadh, is responsible for up to 55 percent of divorces. He added that the loss of trust, sincerity, compassion and cooperation were also factors in the failure of marriages. According to the Ministry of Planning, 70,000 marriages and 13, 000 divorces were recorded last year. In Riyadh, there were 3, 000 divorces out of 8,500 marriages that took place in 2002. Makkah had the largest number of divorcees (3,96, 248), followed by Riyadh (3,27, 427), the Eastern Province (2,28, 093), and Asir (130, 812).
**************************

JPMBAC,

There is a cure for ignorance, and Muslimah had suggested that to you ... educate yourself. These days you do not have an excuse; information is easily accessible.

This weeks news: Divorce rates of 35 to 50% in Saudi Arabia!!! So where do you get your 2% number? Why do you insist on showing that you are just an ignorant fool?
************************
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=11293&theme=5&size=A
» 01/18/2008 15:30
SAUDI ARABIA
Divorces reach alarming levels in Riyadh; government and experts seek solutions
According to data from the ministry for social affairs, last year the number of divorces was 35 percent of the number of marriages. Other sources put the level as high as 50 percent. And men can divorce their wives without going to court.

Riyadh (AsiaNews/Agencies) - Alarming levels of divorce in Saudi Arabia: experts and authorities agree on the seriousness of the situation, if not on the numbers and the causes - lacking exact figures, the ministry for social affairs speaks of a number of divorces equal to 35 percent of the number of marriages, while other sources conjecture that the figure is around 50 percent.

Public concern was expressed by a symposium organised by the ministry for social affairs, which opened yesterday in Riyadh. The minister for social affairs, Abdul Mohsin Al Akkas, said that his agency is "responsible for finding solutions to the problem of divorce". The same agency said there were 18,765 divorces last year, compared to 90,983. Ministry undersecretary Awad Al Radadi said, "last year the divorce rate reached 35 per cent compared to only 19 per cent in 2002".

As for the causes, some maintain that the increase is due to the rapid changes brought by technological development, while others emphasise the burden of unemployment and poverty.

And it must be kept in mind that men in the country can divorce their wives without going to court, as happened last October, when a husband divorced his wife after "surprising" her alone at home watching a television programme conducted by a man: she was alone, that is, with a man not related to her, something that is absolutely prohibited.
**************************

Then there is the Amnesty International report on Pakistan stating that a woman can get killed under honor killing for asking a divorce. Is that the liberal idea that you are touting with your 2% rates? Kill them so they do not get a divorce?

http://www.amnesty.org/en/report/info/ASA33/018/1999
This report describes the different facets of the phenomenon of honour killings in Pakistan. It looks at the traditions that form the framework of such killings, particularly the commodification of women and the notion of honour. Honour killings may happen for a variety of reasons, including seeking a divorce, rape or choosing a marriage partner. The report highlights the failure of the authorities to prevent these killings by investigating and punishing the perpetrators. Both police and judges display gender bias in favour of men who have killed women or girls for alleged breaches of honour.

JPMBAC, You confuse "keeping face and honor" and killing women to enforce that rather than being honest, truthful, open and humane.

Go look at the muslim countries with open eyes before you talk about wrinkle creams like a fool.

Muslimah:

You are forgetting an important part of statistics. Take any Muslim country--Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, India (has 180 million Muslims), Jordan, Egypt etc. etc., you will not find divorce to be even 2% of the general population.

What is the divorce rate in the West? 40% and in some European countries, it is even higher. And then so many don't even bother to marry--just live together and go their own ways whenever they feel like it.

Muslim countries have not invented "pre-nuptial agreements."

I don't know what it will take for you to come to your senses.

I feel sorry for the children of such divorced men and women and the trauma they go through. This is not something anybody can be happy about. In fact, it makes all of us sad.

JPMBAC:
Divorce is not my point. Victoria will understand my point.But since you made a big deal about divorce I could not resist to respond. I have just discovered that in Islam not only the husband can divorce his wife, but any member of the wife's or husband's family can divorce the couple as described in the following article posted today on the Yahoo web page.

"RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Two years ago, a knock on Fatima and Mansour al-Timani's door shattered the life they had built together.

It was the police, delivering news that a judge had annulled their marriage in absentia after some of Fatima's relatives sought the divorce on grounds she had married beneath her........"

JPMBAC,
Before you make a fool of yourself, look up the statistics for divorce in your muslim countries. You may be in for a surprise. And then see how the value of muslim woman decreases as she needs more wrinkle cream. Talaaq, Talaaq, Talaaq!! A life time of taking care of the family and the kids is over in less than 1 minute.

Observer: How many times have you already been divorced and married younger person without wrinkles?

Do you know the divorce rate in the West? Do you know what percentage of divorcees have been divorced more than once?

Did you buy your hair color and wrinkle cream yet?

Sonja:
Re Victoria
Do not waste your time on Victoria. She is not interested in the Muslim demography that you are proposing or anything else related to Islam. Her main interest is to show her Muslim husband that she is more Muslim than any Turkish woman he might consider. This is because she knows that this Turk who came to this country as a student had to marry a US citizen to get to reside here permanently. She also knows that there is an 85% probability that he would divorce her within a year from the time she outlasts her usefulness to go back to his village in Anatolia and marry his 14 years old first cousin.

"Victoria makes an excellent point: This forum should be wide and diverse, so that we can have a dialogue and hopefully do more than confirm our own opinions."

then maybe victoria should take her own advice and quit calling other posters IDIOT, BIGOT, ISLAMOPHOBE, and PIKEY.

sheesh.."

uh oh -add YOU MOOK to the list

and victoria please read-

Muslim Apostates in Britain Threatened-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/09/nmuslim109.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox

British Imam's Daughter Under Police Protection

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=Y11OUA2WP0MDHQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/12/06/niman106.xml

PS: I wish to elaborate that four different sets of data on Muslims demographics would be ideal. In comparing notes one would be able to distinguish between how Muslims and non-Muslims, insiders of the country and outside observers view Islam. This is particularly important when assessing human rights issues.

Mullah Victoria writes: "dont just read the front page you mook-
do your own homework"

Mrs. A , you are behaving like a pathetic lying Mullah. Stop your sniveling and lying.
Why dishonor the memory of all those apostates who were butchered by the muslims for trying to be free? Do you have any residual conscience at all?

Dear Victoria

I have listed a hundred countries in my proposal to create a database with information about Islam. Please note that I have not listed Australia, Canada and the US. That is because they are countries made up of immigrants. Once the data about the 100 countries is available, it is easier to work out the adaptation of Muslims to their countries of adoption.

It would be good to get four persons working on the data from each country - one Muslim, one non-Muslim, one from inside and one from outside the country - investigative journalists, anthropologists, etc.

Maybe the UN could help in compiling the data. Maybe countries which are spending millions to counter Islamic terrorism can contribute to collecting the data, the US state department for example.

Maybe the data I referred to is already available and only needs to be posted in a way that anyone around the globe may access it easily.

The list I provided is taken from a book, not from the website you mentioned. The figure to the left represents the percentage of Muslims in the country listed. I do not want to give that figure too much weight since the book was not about listing Muslim demographics. That is why I made a proposal to collect fresh and current data.

Statistics is like a kitchen knife. We depend on it on all the time, despite its limitation. It may ocassionally be used to kill somebody.

It is great that your Turkish Muslim husband is a psychologist who does research. Maybe he could contribute to creating a good survey questionnaire about Muslims around the world?

Best wishes
Soja

dont just read the front page you mook-
do your own homework

JPMBAC writes: "So. it is established from A. Kafir and ANONYMOS's identical posts that these are the same individuals. And a. kAFIR HAD CLAIMED that he/she does not multinick. I knew that they are going to make a mistake down the line."

You must be a mullah. Must be a pain to live with a low I.Q. If anyone forgets to enter their name, while posting, the post is attributed to "Anonymous". I ended up double posting to make sure that the post was correctly attributed.

JPMBAC:
Re: Two identical posts
When a blogger forgets to sign his name the computer would automatically label him as Anonymous. That happened to me a number of times. The moral of the story is that Kafir forgot to sign his name then realized that soon after the posting and so went back and signed his name.

Kafir
Re: Victoria

When the aforementioned gave out the link to the "Amman Document" she either took a chance that neither of us read Arabic, or, if we want to give her the benefit of the doubt and knowing that she does not speak Arabic, she truly believed that “apostasy” was mentioned in that document. It would have been much more honorable, though, if in this second scenario she admitted to the screwup than try to send us on a wild goose chase.

So. it is established from A. Kafir and ANONYMOS's identical posts that these are the same individuals. And a. kAFIR HAD CLAIMED that he/she does not multinick. I knew that they are going to make a mistake down the line.

JPMBAC,

Are you trying to spam or are you just a Mullah?
You posted the same yesterday.
See JPMBAC's post at 5:00 pm on Jan. 18th at:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/01/the_alliance_of_civilizations/all_comments.html

You were replied.

You can look up info on Hirsi Ali on the web. There is a lot available on her. It is a statement on the muslim world unfortunately that there is hardly a scholar in the entire muslim Ummah. Hirsi Ali escaped and has educated herself and is now one of more articulate and thoughtful writers of Europe.

Seriously why does Islam damage the brain? Is it the cult techniques of 5 prayers a day, repetition of the quran, and an inordinate fear of Hell fire planted deep in the conciousness of the muslim children?

JPMBAC,

Are you trying to spam or are you just a Mullah?
You posted the same yesterday.
See JPMBAC's post at 5:00 pm on Jan. 18th at:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/01/the_alliance_of_civilizations/all_comments.html

You were replied.

You can look up info on Hirsi Ali on the web. There is a lot available on her. It is a statement on the muslim world unfortunately that there is hardly a scholar in the entire muslim Ummah. Hirsi Ali escaped and has educated herself and is now one of more articulate and thoughtful writers of Europe.

Seriously why does Islam damage the brain? Is it the cult techniques of 5 prayers a day, repetition of the quran, and an inordinate fear of Hell fire planted deep in the conciousness of the muslim children?

Will somebody enlighten me if it is true that Hirsi Ali was hired by AEI and this fellow and the two other paranoid individuals here are working full time in posting anti-Muslim diatribe here? Or is it just one person under different nicknames?

The rapidity with which these individuals come back to post their anti-Muslim hate makes me feel that these individuals have no other job and that they are working for some anti-Muslim outfit.

I feel that even an ex-Muslim would not make racist remarks. So, I find it hard to believe some of the claims of being ex-Muslim are just a cover up for someone who had nothing to do with Islam in the first place.

Do you think Hirsi Ali could get an equivalent of $15,000 per annum job in her native Somalia? Does she have any technical skills? Now, isn't she living a very comfortable life in the West by selling the only skill she has-- anti-Islam diatribe?

I have no idea what the conditions in Somalia are today. I heard that that country has no government.

Mullah Victoria,

You are a pathetic liar.

I have read that site.

The only thing that site talks about is that muslims should not be "Takfiris" (i.e. declare other muslims as kafirs or murtads) and there is nothing on Muslims who declare themselves to be Murtads (apostates).

Go ahead prove me wrong. Show that there is anything on that site about muslims who renounce Islam and become apostates. I challenge you.

You should be ashamed of lying and distorting, but then you have already shown your utter lack of humanity and decency. You do support and defend death by torture already. Lying must be a trivial matter for you.

it would take hours to read the whole site-
i know as i actually did that.

no, im not working for you- go do it yourself.

just because youre too lazy to find the info doesnt mean it doesnt exist- and im not wasting my time

yu actually prove yur inablilty to process information when, instead of investigating info given to you- you simply accuse the poster of being a liar.

now why would i waste my time on such a person?
do it yourself

Mullah Revert Victoria writes:

"mr mahfouz- there are countless pages of text there-
im not doing your homework for either of you-
maybe when i have time-
go find it- its there quite plainly"

LoL!! I doubt a lying flake could have said it any different. Mullah ji, you are the one who made the claim and you got called on it, and now suddenly it is countless pages!! That is funny. If it is countless pages why did you give it as a link? Honest people specify the page number when the cite a book, and the provide the URL of the particular page when citing a web site. If it is there quite plainly, then give the specific URL of the page. Really, what a Mullah!!

mr mahfouz- there are countless pages of text there-

im not doing your homework for either of you-

maybe when i have time-
go find it- its there quite plainly

Mullah Revert writes: "i would not be harmed if left islam, nor would you if you became muslim.

the penalty of death is for treason- not apostasy.

500 of the leading scholars around the world have determined that no muslim can be charged as apostates."

1. It is true that you would not be harmed if YOU left islam, because you live in USA and muslims in USA and you are barely considered a muslim by the real muslims. Reverts like you are a "prize" to be showcased but basically you are viewed as that snow is not the only thing that comes as a flake. So no one care whether you jump up and down as a muslim or not.

2. I looked through the Amman Declaration and found nothing on Apostasy. Are you lying as usual? If there is something on apostasy provide the exact reference.

3. Death for apostacy has been the Islamic Sharia for century, and it is still the law in many Islamic countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.) and in muslim countries where it is not the law, muslims usually end up taking the law into their own hands and kill the apostate anyway.

Who are you lying to? Really?

Victoria
RE: Amman Document
It is true that 500 scholars signed the Amman Document. It prohibited the takfeer( label as infidel) of another Muslim belonging to the accepted eight creeds. Thare was no mention of apostacy which is a totally different animal.
Below are the three principles that were approved.

"AMMAN DOCUMENT
1. Muslims should consider members of the eight main creeds of Islam as legitimate Muslims.
2. A Muslim who believes in the Quran as a holy book, and Mohammad as a Prophet and Allah as the only God and who furthermore believes in the Day of Judgment could NOT be considered by Muslims as infidel.
3. Edicts in any of the Muslim creeds should abide by the rules of that creed and be conducted by qualified scholars in that branch of jurisprudence."

Those rules do not deal with the subject of apostasy.They are basically rules to protect Muslims from other Muslims, and that was King Abdullah II main concern.

soja- im glad your enjoying the link on nationmasters-
but what is the point if you delete the numbers?

one of my husbands specialties is statistical analysis as a psychologist/sociologist.
(its actually his very favorite work)

statistics cant really be used to 'prove' anything, all they can do is support theorem.

weve had this coversation before- so, ill tell you yet again- i would not be harmed if left islam, nor would you if you became muslim.

the penalty of death is for treason- not apostasy.

500 of the leading scholars around the world have determined that no muslim can be charged as apostates.

i know this will greatly disappoint kafir and you, but it is what it is.

http://ammanmessage.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97
go and learn

Modest Proposal

Please create a database for the following countries based on the criteria listed in my earlier post:

? Austria
? UK
2 Denmark
2 South Africa
4 Burma
4 Germany
4 Nepal
4 Netherlands
4 Switzerland
4 Thailand
4 Timor-Leste
5 Philipines
5 Rwanda

6 Trinidad
7 France
7 Madagascaar
8 Fiji
8 Sri Lanka
10 Congo DR
10 Georgia
10 Guyana
10 Kenya
10 Swaziland

11.4 India
12 Bulgaria
13 Malawi
15 Central African Republic
16 Ghana
16 Israel
16 Uganda
17 Mauritius
18 Cyprus
18 Mozambigue
20 Benin
20 Cameroon
20 Liberia
20 Suriname
20 Togo

33 Macedonia
35 Tanzania
40 Bosnia and Herzegovina
40 Cote d'lvoire
45 Ethiopia
45 Guinea-Bissau
47 Kazakstan

50 Burkino Faso
50 Nigeria
51 Chad

60 Lebanon
60 Sierra Lione
67 Brunei

70 Sudan
75 Kyrgyzstan
75 Palestine

80 Niger
81 Bahrain
83 Bangladesh
85 Guinea
85 Kuwait
85 Oman
88 Indonesia
88 Uzbekistan
89 Turkmenistan

90 Egypt
90 Mali
90 Syria
90 The Gambia
92 Jordan
93 Azerbaija
94 Djibouti
94 Senegal
95 Qatar
97 Iraq
97 Pakistan
98 Comoros
98 Tunisia
99 Iran
100 Afghanistan
100 Algeria
100 Saudi Arabia

Muslims - =

Austria
UK
Denmark
South Africa
Burma
Germany
Nepal
Netherlands
Switzerland
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Philipines
Rwanda

Muslims =

Trinidad
France
Madagascaar
Fiji
Sri Lanka
Congo DR
Georgia
Guyana
Kenya
Swaziland

Muslims =

India
Bulgaria
Malawi
Central African Republic
Ghana
Israel
Uganda
Mauritius
Cyprus
Mozambique
Benin
Cameroon
Liberia
Suriname
Togo

Muslims 30 - 50%

Macedonia
Tanzania
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Cote d'lvoire
Ethiopia
Guinea-Bissau
Kazakstan
Burkino Faso
Nigeria

Muslims 51-70%

Chad
Lebanon
Sierra Lione
Brunei
Sudan

Muslims 71 -89%

Kyrgyzstan
Palestine
Niger
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Guinea
Kuwait
Oman
Indonesia
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan

Muslims =>90%

Egypt
Mali
Syria
The Gambia
Jordan
Azerbaija
Djibouti
Senegal
Qatar
Iraq
Pakistan
Comoros
Tunisia
Iran
Afghanistan
Algeria
Saudi Arabia

-----------------------

Country
Continent (Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe)
Percentage of Muslims
Population of Muslims
Religion of non-Muslims
Population of non-Muslims
Religion of majority
Knowledge of Arabic among Muslims
Educational level of Muslims
Practise of Islam - attendance at prayers, knowledge of Quran (through personal reading in original Arabic or translation / second hand through the Imams), obedience to Islamic laws...
Human rights of Muslims
Human rights of non-Muslims
Current form of government
Impact of Shariah Law on legal system
Pre-Islamic history - religions and culture
Mode of arrival of Islam into country

According to the above, please create a database.
The objective is to assess the impact of Islam on the society; and the human rights situation for Muslims and non-Muslims; to discern if there is a difference when Muslims are in the majority; to find out whether Muslims are denied their human rights when they live in a non-Muslim majority society; the human rights granted to non-Muslims in a society where the majority are Muslims...

Country
Continent (Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe)
Percentage of Muslims
Population of Muslims
Religion of non-Muslims
Population of non-Muslims
Religion of majority
Knowledge of Arabic among Muslims
Educational level of Muslims
Practise of Islam - attendance at prayers, knowledge of Quran (through personal reading in original Arabic or translation / second hand through the Imams), obedience to Islamic laws...
Human rights of Muslims
Human rights of non-Muslims
Current form of government
Impact of Shariah Law on legal system
Pre-Islamic history - religions and culture
Mode of arrival of Islam into country

According to the above, please create a database for the following countries:

Gabon

Malaysia

Maldives

Montenegro

Russia (PS: Muslims lived under communism until recently, so their practice of the religion was limited)

Serbia

Singapore

Zambia

Zanzibar (Tanzania)

Eritrea

Libya

Mauritiana

Mayotte

Morocco

Somalia

Tajikstan

United Arab Emirates

Western Sahara

Yemen

Reunion

--------

The objective is to assess the impact of Islam on the society; and the human rights situation for Muslims and non-Muslims; to discern if there is a difference when Muslims are in the majority; to find out whether Muslims are denied their human rights when they live in a non-Muslim majority society; the human rights granted to non-Muslims in a society where the majority are Muslims...

PaganPlace writes: "From a third-party perspective, the reactions really don't look all that different, to be honest."

Is that willful ignorance or what? How many were killed around the world and how much property damaged was caused when the Muhammad cartoons were published?

Could you please provide evidence of a single death or a single setting of fire due to the DaVinci Code?

PP, do you have habit of making claims and then disappearing? You claimed routine discrimination against pagans in custody battles. Care to support that one? And now you dismiss the death of many around the world and equate that loss to some "hissy fit" limited to a few articles and opinions in newspapers.

"Even in the "Bible belt" of USA, such as Kansas, Oaklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado, the most outrageous movie THE DAVINCI CODE was screened."

You know, Deb, ...If you cite the *failure* of Christians who *tried* to (and often succeeded at) preventing this movie from being screened, ...pardon if I'm underwhelemed.

Really.

" I did not read any incident where Christians went on a rampage fueled by their outrage over how Christ (and the foundations of Christianity) was depicted in the book."

Sure was a fine hissy-fit, though. I found the 'controversy' tedious before I even saw the movie. (Which I finally did, last year, ...apart from a random insertion of scary pseudo-Wicca ...what's the big deal? A lot of real Christians actually run around with these ideas, before and after the book, and whatever.)

Frankly, I think the objections are more about *anyone* pointing out that undercurrent to Christian belief than about any actual 'threat.'

Same as it ever was.

One thing I know is the author didn't *invent* anything, ...these conspiracies have been flying around a long time.

Another thing I know is that if it were actually based in documented fact and airtight, the reaction would have been the same.

So, what.

This is the same set that thinks Harry Potter is a Wiccan conspiracy, cause maybe they resemble the 'Muggles' a little too much for comfort.

Good.

Still just a movie.

" Can you guarantee that same could be expected of European Muslims regarding a provocative (and somewhat defamatory) film on Prophet Muhammad ?"

From a third-party perspective, the reactions really don't look all that different, to be honest.

Islam and Europe
I wish the Europeans would pay a closer look to what is being insinuated by even so-called moderate Muslims such as Mr. Patel. Remarks such as ‘’Muslims are Europeans” and “post Christian Europe”, and “Muslim immigration to Europe will not stop”. These are Freudian slips(or are they?) of what is on the minds of people with his worldview; the Islamisation of Europe. Why not? they argue, for they succeeded in the Middle East and North Africa and Eastern Asia why not Europe? Recall that they have been after Europe since the beginning of the 8th Century and have succeeded in occupying parts of it such as Spain for almost 8 centuries. They want to take by peaceful means i.e. immigration, what they could not sustain by force. They would have no qualms of pushing that continent back into the Stone Age and make it look like Afghanistan, Sudan or Pakistan. Those people might have fossilized mentalities when dealing with social, economical, political, scientific or religious issues but when it comes to the treatment of subject people they suddenly exhibit a tremendous ingenuity on how to denigrate them. Consider what was and is being done to the people of Darfur and Southern Sudan, or simply read the Omar Pact which is the original template for the treatment of minorities under Muslim rule.

Dear Victoria & HL

Since your posts require a little more than a spontaneous response, I will get back to it later.

But for now Victoria, you seem to forget that nothing stops me from converting to Islam as you did. There is no death for leaving Christianity you know. So why do you continue to imply that I choose to remain Christian because I don't really understand Islam?, understand it as you do? Two billion Christians do not understand Islam as you do!

Best wishes
Soja

Dear Mr Patel

It occured to me that Muslims should not be treated like a monolith. Muslims have a common holy book, but their practice of it varies with the country in which they live, the culture of their host country. Thus for you as an American of Indian origin, your understanding of Islam may be different to someone born in an African country.

Europe is not a country of immigrants. That makes for the difference in the attitude of the natives to Muslims. Australia, Canada and the US are a country of immigrants. In Europe, in Germany for instance there are 4% Muslims, most of the others are ethnic Germans. There are about 4% Muslims in Austria, Switzerland, and perhaps the UK. The largest group of Muslims are in France (7%). Yet no human right is denied to Muslims living in Europe. They have the right to practise their religion, pursue education and express their opinions like anybody else.

It might be a good idea to create an information base about Muslims around the world based on the following:

Country
Continent (Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe)
Percentage of Muslims
Population of Muslims
Religion of non-Muslims
Population of non-Muslims
Religion of majority
Knowledge of Arabic among Muslims
Educational level of Muslims
Practise of Islam - attendance at prayers, knowledge of Quran, obedience to Islamic laws...
Human rights of Muslims
Human rights of non-Muslims
Current form of government
Impact of Shariah Law on legal system
Pre-Islamic history and culture
Mode of arrival of Islam into country

That was just a very spontaneous classification. I encourage Muslims and non-Muslims to expand on it and collect as much data as possible. The goal is to study impact of Islam around the world in as scientific manner as possible. Knowledge always leads to clarity. Clarity is needed all around. The conflict associated with Islam is not going away any time soon, not as long as there are some Muslims acting in the name of Islam to spread hate and violence.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

thats the beauty of numbers mr mahfouz- yours are rather off though-
nationmasters is one of the most repsected sources-

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_inf_mor_rat-health-infant-mortality-rate/AFR

EGYPT- 33.9 not 40.6 (per 1,000)
KUWAIT 10.26 not 11.6
ISRAEL 7.40 not 6.6
(why underestimate israel when arabic countries are over estimated? tsk

SOUTH KOREA 7.18
HONG KONG 2.97

NEPAL 68.77
BANGLEDESH 64.32
MALDIVES 58.32
INDIA 57.92

you can also access just about any deomographic or stat you want on that site

literacy-
UZBEKISTAN 99.3%
INDONESIA 90.4
TURKEY 87.4
SAUDI 78.8
INDIA 61%

abortions are interesting too-
RUSSIA is number 1
#2 UNITED STATES
#3 INDIA

i also recommend the CIA FACT BOOK

thats the beauty of numbers mr mahfouz- yours are rather off though-
nationmasters is one of the most repsected sources-

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_inf_mor_rat-health-infant-mortality-rate/AFR

EGYPT- 33.9 not 40.6 (per 1,000)
KUWAIT 10.26 not 11.6
ISRAEL 7.40 not 6.6
(why underestimate israel when arabic countries are over estimated? tsk

SOUTH KOREA 7.18
HONG KONG 2.97

NEPAL 68.77
BANGLEDESH 64.32
MALDIVES 58.32
INDIA 57.92

you can also access just about any deomographic or stat you want on that site

literacy-
UZBEKISTAN 99.3%
INDONESIA 90.4
TURKEY 87.4
SAUDI 78.8
INDIA 61%

abortions are interesting too-
RUSSIA is number 1
#2 UNITED STATES
#3 INDIA

i also recommend the CIA FACT BOOK

That is wrong in so many ways, Muslims in Europe and in fact all over the world do not migrate to other countries to become part of their society or contribute in any way, they come in order to stablish a muslim foothold, wait until they have enough numbers to conquer the country they have moved in and forcefully convert, enslave or exterminate the native population as dictated in their own Qu'ran and Haddiths. Islam should not even be considered a religion because at the core is nothing more than a bloodthirsty, vioelent sociopolitical movement whose stated goals are total world domination by any means necesary and the forceful conversion, subyugation (enslavement) or extermination of the rest of mankind.

The only thing that mankind and civilization as a whole has in it's favor is that thankfully most muslims have never read their own scriptures (the Quran or the Haddiths) and a whole lot have in fact never even set foot inside a mosque.

Noman writes: "I don't see how any one can blame it on entire faiths of those people. The anti-Muslim blogers here appear to be similar marginal people."

Noman, the Allah in the Quran lays down the punishments for certain crimes that are codified in the Islamic Sharia. These punishments include crucifixion, cutting of limbs, 100 lashes, and stoning to death. These punishments are cruel and akin to death by torture. Do you support these punishments? Do you think they should be implemented as they are by many muslim countries at present? Muhammad is said to have burned the eyes of the Ukl tribesmen, cut of their limbs and let them bleed to death under a hot sun, and refused the dying water when they begged for it. Death for the murderers was not enough for Muhammad. He had to torture them to death to please his Allah. What do you think of Islam sadistic deity that seems to demand so much pain and misery, and who promises unspeakable horrific torture to the unbelievers in the hereafter?

Now this is not marginal to Islam, but very central to it. Tell the kafirs so they can see what lies at the core of the non-marginal followers of Muhammad.

Muslims across Europe are calling for Sharia and their own states within European countries. 2 years ago in Sweden the largest Islamic group of 70,000 called for Sharia. The latest poll from the U.K. says 65% of the Muslims there want Sharia. In Chechnya Russia they want their own state. During the France Muslim riots, after over a week of it. Muslim leaders said they can stop the riots, but they want to govern themselves. Pakistan had to be created because they did not get along with India. Across the world we see them more and more imposing their way of life on non Muslims. They do not assimilate and the West needs to end all Muslim immigration. If we do not,we will lose as their demands never end and they never stop pushing.

To see more on this subject.
www.jihadchat.com

Noman:
Tha Arab Ills

1. Health =inordinately high infant mortality rate; 40.6 per 1000 in Egypt, 11.6 per 1000 in Kuwait compared to 6.6 per thousand in Israel.
2. Education = Low educational standards; 38.5 % of the total are illiterate. 60% of Egyptian women are illiterate. Arab Internet access is 6.6%, comparable only to sub-Saharan African countries.
3. Social Services = Non-existent in most Arab communities.
4. Freedoms = whether of personal matter or the press are for all practical purposes non- existent. Women, in particular, rank around the bottom of the UN index of “Women’s power” in the World.
5. Closed Economies =
6. Rampart Corruption = Thievery, cheating bribery and nepotism are but some of the most glaring negatives.
7. Inappropriate Economical policies.

According to Mr. Waheed Abdul Majeed, the Assistant Director of the Ahram Center for Political Strategic Studies, the Arab ills are;
1. Backwardness
2. Despotism
3. Rigidity of thought
4. Fossilization of the will to change.

Recommendations of the World Economic Forum (WEF):
1. Establish rule of law. All law enforcement agencies under one command
2. Install independent judiciary.
3. Allow free press.
4. Grant equal rights to women and minorities.

My comment: The solution of each of these items was historically met by the stiff resistance from the Muslim Jurists and scholars as counter to the sharia. So Mr. Noman it is neither Hirsi Ali's fault nor my grandfather's.

A. Kafir,

I just wanted to tell you a heartfelt THANK YOU for your long posts and efforts in the anti-jihad cause. IF it were not for people like you, many of us would not know about the dangers of Islam.

You are a friend to the west and they should be grateful to you for telling the truth. INstead, people try to destroy the truth and thus you.

Please do not stop, we need more people like you.

"Trying to reinforce the kind of isolation and disempowerment that makes violence, repression and alienation the only 'identity' some Muslims feel they can *have* doesn't help anybody.
As Americans, at least, we shouldn't be making people feel *disenfranchised* Or unable to speak."

Shall I be kind to people who want to insult blacks and want apartheid in USA? Shall I be kind to the neo-nazis who want to treat all colored people, the browns, the yellows, the blacks, the reds, as genetically inferior? Do I say that they cannot say their beliefs and their agendas? Nazis are allowed to march in USA, are they not? Fools like Pat Robertson do get on TV and do say that God will destroy San Fransico because of the Gays. That is part of our heritage of free speech. I am sure that many consider Pat Robertson to be absolutely right on the mark. No one is trying to disenfranchise the muslims. But why should an ex-muslim like myself not state the facts as I know about Islam? Islam by definition hates the kafirs, and treats them as less than human. Instead of trying to tell me to be quite, would it not be better to show that I am wrong? Why don't you get Eboo to actually show that what I say about Islam is wrong. If it is not, then what is Eboo or the other muslims doing to fix it.

Once I Visited a Nirnkari temple (Nirankaris are an offshoot of Sikhism) and met a number of people who I would call "marginal people." They became Nirankaris because either they themselves did something extremely wrong (e.g. elope with some one not approved by the people of their faith) or were victimized by someone of their own faith.

A young Sikh woman beaten up by her husband many times. She eventually left him and married an already married Muslim man.

These people misplaced their blame on their own religion for all those things. Obviously, individual action or misbehavior can not be put on an entire faith. They couldn't rationalize it any other way.

I read Hirsi Ali's story. As I understand it her parents tried to arrange her marriage with a man she did not want to marry. She escaped and put the blame on an entire faith.

Arranged marriages are very common among the Hidus, Skihs, Africans, Thais etc. etc. Those are due to culturally governed traditions. I don't see how any one can blame it on entire faiths of those people.

The anti-Muslim blogers here appear to be similar marginal people. Ibrahim Mahfouz's father gave his property to his sons--and he puts the blame on Islam not on him (his father).

"I think Mr. Patel, apart from being treated with great discourtesy by certain people here, which I must again protest, ...has a *valid point* about seeking a positive identity for Muslims, one not dependent upon hurting others."

And who is denying Mr. Patel that right? How am I treating Mr. Patel with discourtesy? Mr. Patel is the one who is discourteous if anyone one. He writes his propoganda piece and then never ever bothers in the least to address any question ever on anything at all. He does not want a dialog and he has made that perfectly clear. The positive identity for Muslims needs to be based on facts and truth, and not lies and wishes. Would you like to show one clear statement of Mr. Patel in all his writings where he clearly and unambiguously states what he would reform in the Quran or the Sunnah of Muhammad? What not hurting of others is he talking about when the Quran and the Sunnah of Muhammad that Eboo finds without blemish hate the non-muslims with a passion? Eboo wrote a piece on Hajj and was telling how it reflects diversity, but he was utterly and completely blind to the fact that the same Islamic ritual excludes non-muslims because they are considered filthy and dirty. Eboo could not see that his ritual insulted his non-muslim fellow citizens. This was pointed out to him. Did he ever bother to respond to anyone on that? No. So who is insulting whom here?

"This kind of thing happens in American courts all too often when there's a custody dispute between a Pagan parent and a Christian one: I don't see any indignance from the Islam-bashing set on those cases"

Which law in the US explicitly discriminates against the Pagans as the laws based on Islamic Sharia discriminate against the religious minorities in Islamic countries? Is there a law in the US that systematically denigrates and discriminates against the Pagans? Do you know of a judgment handed against a person saying that it is because they are a pagan they are unfit to beconsidered as fully human and are filthy as feces and urine? Such laws do exist in the islamic countries for the non-muslims. Since you are a Pagan, I would assume you would be the one who would want to raise the awareness of the general populace about hatred against the pagans. Wouldn't you? Since you say that such is common for a custody dispute between a pagan parent and a christian one, could you please point me to where I can learn more. I would like to know more. The only case I know is between a hindu mother and a christian father, and the hindu mother was awarded the custody.

"But, certainly, when talking about this sort of thing, claiming one book-religion is better than another while there's injustice all around, strikes me as mere competition, not seeking justice."

Where have I claimed one book-religion is better than another? Injustice is injustice. But it is a strange requirement that says that when one points to the injustice in a religion that is being sold as Islam is by Eboo, then it is a must to indulge in comparitive religion. Why? So the stupidity and absurdity of telling women to sit at the back of the bus under judaism makes the treatment of women as legal "minors" in muslim countries any less of a discrimination? Does it make "thighing" of a two year old girl under Shia Islamic Sharia any less of a barbaric custom?

Paganplace:

Amen! God bless you!

For those interested in knowing more about the reality of status of women under Islam, please take a look at Human rights watch write up on Women in the Middle East (Other muslim countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia are not really any different because the treatment is Islamic Sharia based as the HRW points out):
******************************
http://www.hrw.org/women/overview-mena.html

Family matters in countries as diverse as Iran, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia are governed by religion-based personal status codes. Many of these laws treat women essentially as legal minors under the eternal guardianship of their male family members. They deny women equal rights with men with respect to marriage, divorce, child custody; and inheritance. Family decision making is thought to be the exclusive domain of men, who enjoy by default the legal status of "head of household." These notions are supported by family courts in the region that often reinforce the primacy of male decision-making power.

While husbands can divorce their spouses easily (often instantaneously through oral repudiation), wives' access to divorce is often extremely limited, and they frequently confront near insurmountable legal and financial obstacles. In Lebanon, battered women cannot file for divorce on the basis of abuse without the testimony of an eyewitness. A medical certificate from a doctor documenting physical abuse is simply not good enough. Although women in Egypt can now legally initiate a divorce without cause, they must agree not only to renounce all rights to the couple's finances, but must also re-pay their dowries. Essentially, they have to buy their freedom. In Bahrain, where family law is not codified, judges have complete power to deny women custody of their children for the most arbitrary reasons.
......
***************************

You know, A Kafir...

""Last year (2007) the 13-year-old Christian twins Andrew and Mario Medhat Ramsis were the talk of Egypt since they had been officially considered by their school as Muslims and were hence required to study and sit for Islamic education examinations as an automatic consequence of their father’s conversion to Islam."

This kind of thing happens in American courts all too often when there's a custody dispute between a Pagan parent and a Christian one: I don't see any indignance from the Islam-bashing set on those cases.

Not that I think these things are OK for Islamic nations to do, any more than I think it's OK for certain Orthodox Jews in Israel to demand non-orthodox women *literally sit at the back of the bus.*

But, certainly, when talking about this sort of thing, claiming one book-religion is better than another while there's injustice all around, strikes me as mere competition, not seeking justice.

I think Mr. Patel, apart from being treated with great discourtesy by certain people here, which I must again protest, ...has a *valid point* about seeking a positive identity for Muslims, one not dependent upon hurting others.

People are constantly-conflating Mr. Patel's Islam with the government of theocracies. Of course there's theological issues, but if he wants to speak for moderation and positivity, well, let's hear it, I suppose.

Trying to reinforce the kind of isolation and disempowerment that makes violence, repression and alienation the only 'identity' some Muslims feel they can *have* doesn't help anybody.

As Americans, at least, we shouldn't be making people feel *disenfranchised* Or unable to speak.

Ibrahim Mahfouz:

"America, love it or leave it" I have heard that many times before from the likes of Archie Bunker and Ibrahim Mahfouz.

We love America and have every right to praise it or criticize its shortcomings. Thank God, it works that way. Obviously, we admire America because of her strengths. That does not means it has no room for improvements.

Who did you sell your soul to?

search history-

dont worry about it- mr mahfouz sees everything through the lens of his own experience and really seems to believe what he says-

he just cannot account for muslims like myself-
average eurocentric american born revert

if theres an inferiority complex, of course theres a superiority complex-

howzbyyou i have an egalitarianism complex?

Search History
You and your like emigrate to the West from failed states with archaic cultures and failed institutions. Allah alone knows the efforts you put in getting out of the holes you were living in; many of you drown trying to get to the shores of the Infidels lands', and as soon as you get here you begin to criticize: “Their women are prostitutes and their men are drunkards etc.” I have seen few of your kind . There is a name for this in psychology; it is called inferiority complex. I tell you what I told the ones like you: “If the culture here does not work for you and insults your "superior ethics" why not you and those who feel like you go back to the hellholes you all came from?”.

"Behold! Write these Upon Your HED's, not your Hearts not Gut's"

WHEREFORE: "I" , your Holy Cosmic Eclati , COMMANDETH ye ("i"):

1) "Let there be NO Worship of JEALOUSY as a G-D.!"

2) "Let there be NO Abuse of LOVE to forgive UNCORRECTED-SIN(s)!"

3) "Let there be NO Hassling over a NAME for G-d!"

4) "Let there be NO Denial of FREEDOM OF ECLATi-ON-ity as RELIGION et al!"

5) "Let there be NO Dishonoring of HONORABLE Parents!"

6) "Let there be NO Unjustifiable HOMICIDE or HURTING!"

7) "Let there be NO Sex with Non-CONSENTERS or BEASTS!"

8) "Let there be NO Theft from NON-THIEVES or NON-USERERS!"

9) "Let there be NO False WITNESSING or Un-JUST Judging!"

10) "Let there be NO Envy of HUMATES or Folks keeping these FIATS of O.U.R. NEW-SONG!"

11) "Let there be NO Procrastination nor LAZYNESS!"

THUS , ALL these things, SAyTH The Holy No-Man:

The Holy No Man finally speaketh;

BEHOLD:

Search History writes: "The most important point to remember is that women in Islam have no economic obligation to ANYONE. Their obligation is to take care of the family."

Does she have an obligation to herself? To her self respect? She has no economic rights if she is divorced by her husband. She does not get a share in the accumulated wealth of the family at all. That all belongs to the man. Her obligation is to take care of the family, but what obligation does the family has towards her? Do not give nonsense on what ideally it should be, but show what laws are there under Islamic Sharia that protects her, that gives the man second thought whether he should slap her around to keep her in line or divorce her. She has none. So most women as they get old suffer in silence. They learn that the economic power is concentrated in the Man's hand and she will suffer being slapped around, she will suffer being the maid to him and his new wife, because she normally cannot support herself because islamic laws make sure that the woman is kept totally dependent upon the man.

Search History,

I have no idea what the heck you are talking about women rights in Islam. Anyone who has been a muslim and lived in Islam knows the exploitation of women and the absolute hate that Islam has for women. Women as a whole are only a bit better than the Kafirs in an Islamic society. Let us take a look at what Islam has done for women:

1. Quran codified polygamy, and relegated women to be one of the "current four" wives. The revolving door policy leads to women being treated as commodity.

2. Divorce was made easy for men and nearly impossible for women. A man can utter Talaaq (Divorce) three times and the divorce is accomplished. There was a recent case of woman being divorced in a mall because she accepted a phone number being thrust at her insistently by a stranger. Khullah (divorce initiated by women) is nearly impossible. The man marrying another, the man beating her, the man abusing her, etc. are not good enough reasons for Khulla in any muslim country.

3. Because muhammad married a pre-pubertal girl, and because the Quran allows sex with a pre-pubertal girl, girls in Islam ever since have had to face being "married" off to filthy old men before they have even reached puberty. That is why Imam Khomenii could write that it is preferred that the girl has her first menstruation in her husbands house. That is why he could write that it is okay to sodomize a little girl of a one or two years of age but it is not Islamic to penetrate her vagina. This is as barbaric as barbaric as you can get, but this is Islamic Sharia in the 21st century. Old Arab sheiks fly to poor countries like India, Ceylon, Indonesia, Philipines and marry little girls for a day or two and divorce them before leaving ... all courtesy of local Imam and Islamic Sharia and traditions.

4. Islam codified that a man could have only 4 wives ( Muhammad was the exception by Allah's order) but any muslim could have as many sex slaves as he could afford or have (the women that the right hand possess). That is so deeply ingrained that to this day the poor indonesians, indian, ceylonese maids that go to work in the Middle east find themselves being treated as slaves. Only a couple years ago, there was an ad in one of the middle eastern paper where a man wanted to trade his car for a "sex maid".

5. The rights of a divorced woman are pathetic to say the least. She does not get the children. They belong to the man. She does not get a penny beyond her "Mehr" agreed upon at marriage, but since that is given to her at the beginning of the marriage, it is long gone by divorce, and she usually does not even have a voice how it is spent. So after years of marriage, she has practically no economic rights at all. Most women know that and that is why they suffer in silence.

So what rights of women in Islam are you touting about?

Ibrahim Mahfouz!

Different religions have different norms of inheritance. In Islam, a woman normally inherits half of what brothers inherit. It doesn't have to be so. She can inherit equal to her brothers, if the deceased person specifies so.

Islamic societies are normally patrilineal. The girls leaves their father's home after marriage. The father meets all the expenses incurred in her marriage. He does not have any obligation to do the same for his sons. So, why why does inheritance has to be equal? The woman's husband will inherited his father's property.

You must make a distinction between what Islam says about inheritance and what your father did.

The most important point to remember is that women in Islam have no economic obligation to ANYONE. Their obligation is to take care of the family.

It appears that your father clearly violated Islamic law. That decision could be overturned in an Islamic court, if your mother or sisters decided to challenge it.

I am not saying that Muslims do not have any share of crime, distortions etc. Like any other society, they have their share of distortions or criminals.

Search History:
All what that long drawn "paste" from the internet says is that women in Islam can inherit half as much as their brothers. Notice I said "can" because fathers in the Muslim culture have over time perfected a routine to deny their daughters even that much. My mother is a case in point. Her father signed a paper before his demise declaring that "he sold all his properties to his sons". That was enough to deny my mother and all her sisters any inheritance.

"Shame on you Ibrahim Mahfouz, A. Kafir, and Arif for selling your souls to the highest bidders."

Shame? I have no shame, I'm pretty cheap, one good beer and I'm sold, no need of a high bidder for me pal. Can't speak for my brothers Kafir and Ibs.

...
"The Europeans built world empires and laid seeds of future conflicts by posing as great democrats and do-gooders."
...

"They brought death and destruction to millions of people around the globe by colonizing the world and robbing people of the countries colonized by the Europeans, usurping their rights, their sovereignty, and their natural resources."

They also gave us aspirin for my occasional headache, they made toilets, they made cars, planes that carry us for Hajj, they made the phone, TV’s, the internet, the running hot/cold water, the lovely kitchens, the array of medicines and surgery, the highways, they opened their borders for failed states to send their people to prosper, they increased communication, they made clothes available to all, and above all else they also made us question stupid religions which we are doing very well thank you. Thank you Europeans! I, a mere Kafir love all the good things you do for me in this life and all you ask from me in return is to pay my taxes (not jizziya thanks!) and vote occasionally.

Alhumdullah! Thanks Europeans for the great education you made possible for me when I came here from my failed state. Today, thanks to you'll Europeans, I'm rich and can help people in my poor failed state who blame Europeans for their failures. They want you to change your ways and accept their prophet of doom, they want you Europeans to believe that there is no god but allah and mohammed is his prophet. The same man who slept with a child, something we Kafirs find very repulsive. Also Kafirs you must provide tax paid foot washers in all colleges/universities so that Mohammedans can pray to the moon god they call allah.

Inshallah one day Muslims will too see the flaws in islam and repent.

Aamen.

Idolator;
I think, if you follow Patel's blogs regularly, or take the chance to read past articles, that the point isn't only for non-Muslim's to be tolerant of Muslims, but for us as humans, to learn, seek, inquire about these twisted actions we learn about done in the name of Islam, and be able to decipher right from wrong. Saying it is Muslims who are intolerant and violent is the equivilant of saying that Christians are intolerant and violant, because you hear about the KKK. Its for all of us to be tolerant of peace, and people, but not of wrong actions, no matter what religion it is they preach.

I read recently that the recently elected president of a major European country (shall remain nameless) divorced his wife and married a model who is pregnant with his child? Did his divorced wife develop wrinkles and was discarded like one dicards machines?

When will European and American societies wake up as to what is heppening in these societies? How long are we going to pretend that our women are "free" and Islamic women are somehow "not free" just because they want to cover their bodies?

How many our presidential candidtaes (especially the so-called conservatives) have second or third wives who look much younger than them?

Women, whether European, American, or Islamic are our sisters, daughters, mothers, and wives. All of us must feel sad to witness the plight of European and American women in the name of freedom to display their bodies, hide their wrinkles thru' make-up etc.

Ibrahim Mahfouz:

Internet search of my previous post:

Search engine title: Islamic Inheritance

Sponsored by: Muslim Women's League
September 1995

Ibrahim Mahfouz:

I found the evidence from the Internet how you are determined to distort Islam and its history. Here is copy and paste directly from the internet:

Before delving into this complicated and controversial area, one must first realize that Islam revolutionized women's inheritance rights. Prior to the Quranic injunction -- and indeed in the west until only recently -- women could not inherit from their relatives, and in the case of Arabia at least, were themselves bequeathed as if they were property to be distributed at the death of a husband, father, or brother. Thus, Islam, by clearly stating in the Quran that women have the right to inherit for themselves, changed the status of women in an unprecedented fashion. The Quran states:

"Men shall have a share in what parents and kinsfolk leave behind, and women shall have a share in what parents and kinsfolk leave behind." (Quran 4:7).

Thus, whether women can inherit at all is not the controversy. Rather, the dispute centers around the "share" that is to be inherited.

The same chapter of the Quran goes on to state in detail the division of property based on the number of relatives and the level of kinship of the inheritor. (See Quran 4:11) The injunction that a male relative receives a share equal to that of two females applies only to the inheritance of children by their parents. Parents who inherit from a deceased child, for example, each inherit one-sixth of the property if the deceased child is survived by a child of his or her own. In that instance, the division is equal between the mother and the father of the deceased. The verse then states what the mother shall receive if the deceased left no children or if the deceased left siblings. Presumably, the father and the mother inherit equally in those situations. The rationale behind a brother receiving double his sister's share, on the other hand, is based on the Islamic legal presumption that he has an obligation to provide for her support. Bearing in mind that these verses were revealed in Arabia over 1400 years ago, when women had no financial security other than what was provided by men, these verses demonstrate the care and respect given to the family unit, and ensured that women's rights would continue to be protected. Hence, brothers with sisters were given larger shares than their sisters, together with the legal obligation to spend a portion of this wealth on those sisters.

Within the field of Islamic scholarship, there is much discussion on the topic of inheritance. There are scholars who argue that these rules apply only if no will was left by the deceased and that the division can be changed by a will. Presumably, the will would be analogous to a debt and would be paid prior to any other disbursement of property. (See Quran 4:11; Fathi Osman, Muslim Women in the Family and in the Society, at 24-25.) Furthermore, a tradition of the Prophet Muhammad states that a person can will up to one-third of his or her property in any manner, thus allowing equalization of gender-based default presumptions. (It should be noted that a majority of the Sunni schools of thought state that the one-third share cannot be bequeathed to natural heirs; however, others, including the Shiite school, disagree with this limitation.) Moreover, transfers of property can be made during the life of the testator.

The majority of schools argue that the verses provide guidance as to who should be provided for and at what level. Furthermore, there are scholars who maintain that these laws are applicable only in an Islamically-based legal system and government where a woman would have recourse against a relative who was obligated to provide for her but failed to do so. One may argue that in the absence of a complete application of Islamic law, where the rights of women will have no teeth, Muslims should turn to the spirit of that law, which is justice, and find ways to accomplish this goal. This is especially true where Muslims are a minority, as in the United States. Muslim scholars, legislators, and researchers must -- and are beginning to -- boldly address this issue to focus on these challenges. The Islamic laws of inheritance are, like all issues in Islamic law, a dynamic process that must respond to the many challenges and opportunities that world changes present.

TRIVIA: Did you know that , Literally & Figuretivly , that "ZiON" or 'Zien' or 'Zye-in' or similar eponym varient,s means to acsually 'Screw something" or via sex someone! And

even more interesting, in ARABIC , not lost in translation , and in Hebrew (lots of Arabic therein & thereof, visa vis) via the the word 'ZiBBY', means a Mans (sex Part, Circumcised or not) organ! And so,

Arabs have Copy Cat the concept "KOSHER" and called it their 'HALLAL"! So Zibby & Zion is the Same Shiat! And there is nothing Sunni about them either???!

And did you know in Arabic the word 'MANIAC' or it's varient , means 'Homo-Sexual'???! But in Yidish, not Hebrew , is called a 'Fagallae'! Ya Ya!

Search History:
I heeded your advice and searched history. Here are some of what I found;
1. Women owned property in Arabia before Islam. What Islam did was in effect cancel this right when it made women wards of their male relatives.
2. In Islam a woman can with conditions have custody of her children till the age of 7, after which time their custody would be automatuically transferred to their father or father's relatives in case the father is "unavailable".
3 A Muslim man can divorce his wife for any or no reason and by simply uttering in front of two male witnesses "I divorce you thrice". Women, on the other hand, cannot divorce their husbands for any reason.
4. A muslim man can under the Sharia Law use the police powers of the State to force his wife or wives to live with him against their will.etc. etc. etc.

To Search History:
I searched history according to your advice and that is some of what I found.
1. women in Arabia had the right to own property before Islam , and Islam in effect cancelled this right when it made women as wards of men.
2. Islam give women the right for custody of their children with conditions till the age of 7, but then they revert completely to their father.
3. A man can marry up to 4 wives at the same time.
4. A muslim man can divorce his wife or wives simply by uttering "I divorce thee thrice" etc. etc. etc.

Anon,

Paul and pseudo Paul's comments on women are a bit off topic but since you brought it up, you need to consider the historic Paul as analyzed by contemporary exegetes such as Professor Bruce Chilton in his book, Rabbi Paul and Professors Crossan and Reed in their book, In Search of Paul.

Professor Chilton pulls no punches in criticizing one of the founders of Christianity. Basically Paul was a "prude". An excerpt for Chilton's book,

"He (Paul) feared the turn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any "pretty wingie talking fictional thingies" in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10). Simply add Paul's thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Christianity.

Professor Chilton btw is a Professor of Religion at Bard College and a priest at the Free Church of St. John in Barrytown, NY.

Hmmm, do you think maybe that Mohammed's scribes simply enhanced Paul's thinking about women when they wrote the koran??? Absolutely!!!!

Some wisdom from the good book:

1 Corinthians chapter 14 says:

As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says.

If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?) 1 Corinthians 14

1 Corinthians chapter 11 also says:

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ.

Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head--it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved.

For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil.

For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man.

Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man.

Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man.

For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman.
For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God.

Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled?

Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

But if anyone is disposed to be contentious--we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. 1 Corinthians 11

You can debate the meaning of the various passages of the koran until your "blue in the face". The bottom lines are the actions carried out by Muslims based on the instructions in these passages. The violent actions on a 24/7 basis are conclusive proof of what Islam teaches and what these passager really say.

To wit:

The assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

These actions plus the flaws in the founder of Islam, one hallucinating, warmongering, womanizing, illiterate, long-dead Arab and his plagiarizing scribes makes Islam a sham and shallow religion.

Victoria,

That was a good rebuttal to Soja’s usual distortions and simultaneous never ending underhanded comments. I thought I add some of my comments.

Soja,

You wrote: “I started to read the Quran with all possible openness, with the heartfelt intention to learn all that is good and beautiful in it. I must admit I was quite taken aback by some of the verses in the Quran and wondered how Muslims explain those verses to themselves, one such was about idolatory being worse than bloodshed!”

To start with, I command you for ‘starting to read the Quran’; and I don’t think you will be in danger of converting to Islam by reading the Quran. I myself read the Hebrew bible and the Christian bible all the time and you won’t see me becoming a Christian anytime soon. I study it for the purpose of educating myself about Christianity and Judaism and specifically for the history of our ancient forefathers and how the Christians and the Jews view them. Having said, I don’t think you are fooling anyone by saying you have been reading the Quran. I don’t think you have been honest about your endeavor of educating yourself about the Quran. Otherwise, how come you always have a distorted view, rendering or translation of certain verses and concepts? You keep doing the same thing over and over again. It seems to be a habit of yours. You might be confusing reading polemics by not well meaning Christians of the ‘three gods cult’ with true reading of the Quran. All those people are liars and I don’t trust them with anything. Maybe they are trying to be like their master Saul when he said: “For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews… I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel…” I guess that includes lying too. Actually permit me by saying that you become a liar like them by repeating and perpetuating the same lies they write. The least you can do is read an honest translation and not a ‘translation’ done a Christian with all the hate and contempt they have for Islam and Muslims.

You said: “… and wondered how Muslims explain those verses to themselves”. Well let me explain it to you. The word you have translated as idolatry is ‘fitna’ in Arabic. The word ‘fitna’ can have different meanings depending on the context of the sentence; it can mean: (1) persecution, (2) temptation, trial, hardship (3) causing affliction and trouble. The root with its forms has been used in the Quran as many as sixty times; and none of them has the meaning of idolatry. So my question is: where did you get your ‘Quran’ if I may ask? So please don’t write lies and smears; it only makes you look foolish to say the least; and above all it is un-Jesus like.

Here are three translations of verse 2:192; the word ‘fitna’ is translated ‘oppression’, ‘persecutoion’, ‘tumult’ and not idolatry:

YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
PICKTHAL: And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
SHAKIR: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers

If you are serious about enhancing your knowledge about the Quran you might want to check Muhammad Asad’s translation (a brother who converted to Islam from Judaism.) You can find his book on line at:

http://geocities.com/masad02/

Here are his comments about those verses:

2:190 And fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression-for, verily, God does not love aggressors.*
2:191 And slay them wherever you may come upon them, and drive them away from wherever they drove you away - for oppression is even worse than killing.** And fight not against them near the Inviolable House of Worship unless they fight against you there first;*** but if they fight against you, slay them: such shall be the recompense of those who deny the truth.

* This and the following verses lay down unequivocally that only self-defense (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims. Most of the commentators agree in that the expression la ta'tadu signifies, in this context, "do not commit aggression"; while by al=mu'tadin "those who commit aggression" are meant. The defensive character of a fight "in God's cause" - that is, in the cause of the ethical principles ordained by God - is, moreover, self-evident in the reference to "those who wage war against you", and has been still further clarified in 22: 39 - "permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged" - which, according to all available Traditions, constitutes the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Quranic reference to the question of jihad, or holy war (see Tabari and Ibn Kathir in their commentaries on 22: 39). That this early, fundamental principle of self-defense as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Quean is evident from 60: 8, as well as from the concluding sentence of 4: 91, both of which belong to a later period than the above verse.

** In view of the preceding ordinance, the injunction "slay them wherever you may come upon them" is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress (Razi), on the understanding that "those who wage war against you" are the aggressors or oppressors (a war of liberation being a war "in God's cause"). The translation, in this context, of fitnah as "oppression" is justified by the application of this term to any affliction which may cause man to go astray and to lose his faith in spiritual values (cf. Lisan al-Arab).

*** This reference to warfare in the vicinity of Mecca is due to the fact that at the time of the revelation of this verse the Holy City was still in the possession of the pagan Quraysh, who were hostile to the Muslims. However - as is always the case with historical references in the Qur'an - the above injunction has a general import, and is valid for all times and circumstances.

2:192 But if they desist-behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.

2:193 Hence, fight against them until there is no more oppression and all worship is devoted to God alone;* but if they desist, then all hostility shall cease, save against those who [willfully] do wrong.

* Lit., "and religion belongs to God [alone]" - i.e., until God can be worshipped without fear of persecution, and none is compelled to bow down in awe before another human being. (See also 22: 40.) The term din is in this context more suitably translated as "worship" inasmuch as it comprises here both the doctrinal and the moral aspects of religion: that is to say, man's faith as well as the obligations arising from that faith.

2: 194
Fight during the sacred months if you are attacked:* for a violation of sanctity is [subject to the law of] just retribution. Thus, if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him just as he has attacked you - but remain conscious of God, and know that God is with those who are conscious of Him.**

* This is a free rendering of the phrase "the sacred month for the sacred month", which is interpreted by all commentators in the sense given above. The "sacred months" during which, according to ancient Arab custom, all fighting was deemed utterly wrong, were the first, seventh, ; eleventh and twelfth months of the lunar calendar.

**Thus, although the believers are enjoined to fight back whenever they are attacked, the concluding words of the above verse make it clear that they must, when fighting, abstain from all atrocities, including the killing of non-combatants.

thishowiseeit:

You should study history and find out"

(1) When was the right to inherit property given to women in America.

(2) When was the right to inherit property given to women in Islam.

(3) When were women allowed to work for the first time outside their homes in America?

(4) What are the rights of women for the custody of children in case of divorce in Islam vs. in Europe or America.

You will perhaps be shocked. You can google search these topics.

You should also watch movies on Lifetime channel on T.V. and learn from the real stories of how horror is inflicted upon women in our culture.

You should also do your own research as to why there is so much of distrust between men and women in Europe and America and why there is such a high rate of divorce in the West. What are underlying causes? Why have we invented "pre-nuptial" and post-nuptial agreements?

We are in the habit of looking outside only and criticizing other religions and cultures without ever looking inward.

What Mr. Eboo Patel fails to admit is that Islam is not compatible with Democracy, because in Democracy we are all equal; the idea of equality between believer and nonMuslin is unacceptable to Islam. Even among the believers there is a hierarchy: man are above the women.
Non-Muslims can, and often been,treated with decency but NEVER as equals. Democracy means the rule of the common people. In Islam power belongs only to God.

On Southern Baptists Churches and its Women
It varies from church to church as to how a congregation chooses to operate.
Most will not permit a woman to preach, while some allow a Sisters message to be given under the auspices of a Preacher.
Baptist women are most definitely allowed to teach and hold positions of authority.
Actually these churches operate on the Democratic model that entitles each member to vote on church business and personnel matters and the formation of committees.
Don’t fool yourself; it’s women who do the heaviest lifting in these Churches.

Anti-akfir writes: "Shame on you Ibrahim Mahfouz, A. Kafir, and Arif for selling your souls to the highest bidders."

So much for even a pretense at assimilation. Playing the victim? It is all the big bad evil white man's fault, is it not for you? But not even an attempt at answering the issues that are really at the heart of the problem. I show you the hate that the Egyptian Copts have to live with. Coptic mothers have no say in the future of their own kids if the husband has converted. If the mother converts then the marriage automatically stands negated. A muslim cannot be the wife of a christian man. That is the only time the children will be awarded to the woman in the Islamic world. Other than that, the children go to the husband. Is that acceptable to you, anti-akafir?

The highest bidder? Tell the Kafirs here what you think was bid for my soul? What was the bid? Why don't you answer the questions on Islam directly? Why cannot you tell us why does your Allah and your Muhammad hate the non-muslims so much? Do you agree with your Allah telling that the punishment for "fighting against Allah and Muhammad" should be death by torture (crucifixion and cutting of limbs)? Instead you want to play the victim. Do you understand the Europeans have grown tired of beating themselves over your problems and they are unwilling to accept your attempts at making them feel guilty? Those days are long gone. The european kafirs are learning about Islam and Muhammad, and figuring it out. The lies that you and Eboo sell ... no one in his sane mind is ready to buy them anymore, except those who see the allure of the petro dollars. You want to see souls being sold then just follow where the petro dollars are flowing.

The Europeans built world empires and laid seeds of future conflicts by posing as great democrats and do-gooders.

They brought death and destruction to millions of people around the globe by colonizing the world and robbing people of the countries colonized by the Europeans, usurping their rights, their sovereignty, and their natural resources.

The people of the Middle East and other Muslim nations, as well as India, Sri Lanka, S. Africa,natives of Australia are very suspicious of the European claims of democracy and civilized behavior.

These colonial powers brought these Muslims more than a century ago from their native lands as cheap labor, exploited them to a full extent, kept them in ghettos and now are blaming Muslims for not integrating in those societies.

The French government took away the freedom to wear "proper attire" (the 'hijab') for Muslim girls in schools and yet Europeans claimed "freedom of the press" for publishing cartoons insulting the prophet. Isn't the European definition of "freedom" ethnocentric?

Shame on you Ibrahim Mahfouz, A. Kafir, and Arif for selling your souls to the highest bidders.

TO HUMANITY:

God is Love, Love wins.

God created everything out of nothing.

Before God created anything, God came up with a Plan and God's Plan will come to Fruition.

The first thing God created was wisdom, a little hint for those looking for the unifying part of their scientific theories.

If God was the hateful piece of garbage that so many people of all religious beliefs think that he is, then who in their right mind would even want to have anything to do with him just because he has power and you want to share in that power.

But if you are honest with yourself, it does seem to be a very human thing to seek power whether it be religious, social, economic or whatever, does it not?

God is real whether anyone believes or not and if God isn't much better than the best person and is just an egomaniac what good is that, doesn't it sometimes seem that we are a bunch of squabbling kids saying my god is better than your god.

By the way I am not saying my god is better than your god or anything like that, what I am saying is there is only one God and He, the Trinity, is God of All, a TRINITY OF PURE LOVE.

Jesus is Who He said that He is and that is God-Incarnate but calling yourself "christian" can be just another label.

I don't care what anyone thinks about it but if God created all of us and hates some of us, not in the semetic usage but in the human usage of hate, then he is much smaller than even the smallest of his creation and is deserving of only pity for being such a hate-filled being.

Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world", and even tho some have tried to turn "christianity" into a theocracy, that is not what Jesus taught.

islam is a theocracy without the Theo, I don't hold it against Mohammed that he was deceived but I would like to tell satan right here on this posting that I do not accept your claim that Jesus is your prophet since you are the god of islam.

God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

Whether anyone likes it or not, believes it or not, I have met God, Who is a Trinity, and is a Being of Pure Love.

I am just a messenger, Jesus was a messenger and The Message, True Man and True God.

God's Plan is for all of His people, and ALL people are His people, to be with Him in His Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth, a Kingdom of Love.

Be ready, night is coming but the dawning of the seventh day will surely arrive too.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Pattel:
The Muslims of Europe shall remain foreigners in Europe till they show respect for the institutions of their host countries and willingness to assimilate. This shall never happen as long as their Imams are preaching hatred and exclusion, and the replacement of their constitutions by the Sharia Laws.

If anyone is looking for the quote of Dr. Umar, it is on page 3 of his paper with a reference "9" to the bibliography given at the end which states "quoted in the Sahih Bukhari and Muslim". Now why could the good Doctor no provide the actual reference? Because the good Doctor is probably extracting that quote from his understanding of what the good Doctor thinks Muhammad is saying. Why not the actual reference so the readers can look it up for themselves?

Eboo, Dr. Umar (I have sent the good Dr. Email) please provide the reference to your claim about what Muhammad said. Let the Kafirs see the original hadiath.

Just read "The Noxious Fruits of Hate Speech Laws' on the SALON site-

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/13/hate_speech_laws/index.html

Watch the woman in the video below. She wins as the contemporary poster girl for "the banality of evil" as she alternately rolls her eyes, flares her nostrils and crosses her arms during an opening statement asserting rights of free speech.

Who is she?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVJTHIvqw8

Pagan Place,

Eboo is not here to engage in a dialog. He spreads propaganda. Has he ever tried to reply any question from anyone?

I do not know which neighborhood, you come from, but the neighborhood in this good ole USA I come from, people do encourage telling it as it is.

Here is an example of how fruitless and misleading the whole lying by Eboo and company really is for someone who studied Islam and its techniques for years.

He quotes Dr. Umar as saying:
“The essence of the religion of Islam is giving good counsel.”

Now the good Doctor, convert from Nebraska has many many misleading statements on his site about Islam, and the one above is one of them. Could Eboo or the good doctor provide any reference of where Muhammad actually said this? I would like to know, because I know enough to know that the statement is a distortion and a lie. See if you can Eboo or the Good Doctor to provide the actual reference and the full context.

You write: "Peace really isn't that far away: all we have to stop believing in is *war.*"

Peace does not get built on lies and wishful thinking. Maybe it does in your neighborhood. I have no desire for war or for confrontation. If you find that I have lied when I say that Islam spreads hate, then I suggest that you pick up the Quran and read for yourself. Allah of the Quran hates those who do not accept Muhammad as his prophet and threatens all kinds of horrible torture and pain through out the Quran. Allah of the Quran curses his own creation, the non-muslims in the quran. Allah of the Quran codifies death by torture, crucifixion and cutting of limbs, as punishment for humans. What do you want to call these acts of the deity of Islam, if not hate?

Dear Janet

** All we have to stop believing in is *war*.**
OK,lets stop.But ,who and what shall stop the most of muslims believing in *holy war* against infidels ?

You know, A Kafir:

"Fix the hate that Islam spreads, then the issue of self image will fix itself."

You know, I don't always agree with Mr. Patel, but I do think he sincerely represents things very in line with that idea... For America, at least.

Peace really isn't that far away: all we have to stop believing in is *war.*

Mostly you have Christians who want to rule everything being afraid of Muslims who want to rule everything.

But getting along just *isn't that hard,* and I think, though that may upset and disappoint a lot of people, (who want truth out of just one book, pick a book, call it 'identity,' ) ...that that's actually what we ought to be looking at right now.

I still think that, like it or not, whatever Mr. Patel speaks is hardly even *looked at* because his mere appearance turns into an attack on or defense of any Islam anywhere.

And that's not how we do it in any neighborhood of mine.

As an atheist, I see little reason to respect anyone's religion, be it Christianity, Islam or Buddhism... I certainly respect peoples right to their opinions but that doesn't mean that I have to respect the opinions themselves.

I'd much rather live in a society where the main religion was pacifistic and liberal rather than violent and conservative, but benign silliness is still no more worthy of my respect than dangerous silliness is.

With that said, the vitriol displayed towards Muslims in some of these comments is frankly disturbing.

We should be appalled by the state of civil rights in Saudi Arabia and we should blame conservative Islam for its part in the current state of affairs. But it is simply not fair to judge all Muslims by looking at Saudi Arabia. As an Icelander, I sometimes criticize the Icelandic Lutheran Church, but they're a damn sight better than conservative American Evangelicals.

Fundamentalists of any religion are undesirable in a community (yes, yes, I'm an atheist fundamentalist you say, very clever) and Islam may have more fundamentalists than most other religions, but Christianity has (mostly) moved away from dangerous silliness to somewhat benign silliness, why should that be impossible for Islam?

The COW chapter 193 *And fight them(imperative,not you may fight) until persecution/mischief is no more,and religion is for Allah(that means only islam and that means to subjugate all infidels/non-muslims).But if they desist,then let there be no hostality EXCEPT AGAINST OPPRESSION/MISCHIEF(It is important,pay attention.That means society should be islamized and that means everyone should be true believer muslims.Mischief also means apostasy)

The COW chapter(2.190) DO NOT AGRESS.Yes,what were the umayyad looting hordes in Spain and Algeria ? Did Spaniards attact to Syria(umayyad land)
What were the soldiers of Allah doing in Iraq and Iran.What were the rapist thugs doing in Central Asia,Anatolia and Sub-Continent.Did Central Asians agress the bedoins.No,no,no.

Dear Soja,

You say *Non-muslims on their part have no problem with muslims practising their faith as long as it doesnt impinge on the human rights of non-muslims*
1-First of all,you can not speak in the name of all non-muslims.
2-You are not living in Europe.You dont know european history.For example,Nazis were catholics,it is indisputable.The Civilization is based on the Human Rights and islam is not compatible with contemporary values.
3-What you say means *Let the viper live one thousand years if it doesnt bite me* This is not a contemporary idea.If the world is a *global town*,the enslaved muslim women concern everyone in the world.

Human Rights comes first.The Human Rights are above the Cult.

Mullah Revert writes:

"can you not allow muslims to have a positive image of themselves and their faith?"

The self-image of the muslims depends upon whether others tell the truth about Islam or not? If lies are being told about Islam then it should matter little to the muslims, but if truth is being told then why should that be censored?

Does Islam hate the non-muslims? Yes and with a passion.
Does Islam accord any respect to the non-muslims? No, not in the least.
Does any Muslim country at present accord even a semblance of equality to the non-muslims? No. Not at all.

Fix the hate that Islam spreads, then the issue of self image will fix itself.

i saw many valid points in the story and it did a wonderful job of illuminating misconceptions and generalities which are all 2 often used to blithely explain away simple problems that wood bee to painful in completely honest self examination terms... of the perpetuator and sometymes the victum also in social conflicts... 2 where it is easier to blame something or someone, or even somewhere 4 all problems.. or try 2 use violent means to solve a humanitarian problem thus making a cause wrong by the method of conclusion being part of the problem and esuring the actual continuation...or perhaps sometymes its like a blind man who knew what a snake looked like before he went blind trying to figure out what an ellephant looked like... he might use correctly all his analitical skills and still come up with the mind image of somekind of flying snake... never knowing unless he moved forward the megesty and true shape of the very real animamal in front of him... people with regards to knowledge often become blind by thier own misconceived knowelge of knowledge... of coarse men and women can choose to be blinded by arrogent, untrue assumptions of knowledge not acquiered in the first place or learned from incorrect sources of truth.... they say ignorance can bee cured ... stupidity is a chronic incureable and sometimes fatal self infected diseise butt eye m just an artist
please check 4 truth

soja- would it really be so hard to come to these blogs and allow muslims the same respect you seem to extend to the rest of humanity?

im not very interested in deconstructing other religions-
ive said this many many times to you-

what do you gain or how are you strengthened by attempting to defame islam at every turn?

can you not allow muslims to have a positive image of themselves and their faith?

it takes nothing away from you-

how does my own positive expression diminish your own beliefs?

my very being and reverting to islam from your own catholicism seems to be an endless source of annoyance for you-

but its not your place to be so annoyed-
i think what it does is make you question your own religion, and unsettles you- but its never my intention to unsettle your heart-

this is why ive never given you many details of my own reversion-
in doing so ill have to deconstruct catholicsm and point out a great many negatives and that is not my desire or way-
clearly - your own misunderstanding of islam has not done anything to weaken my own resolve- or faith.

why not just accept it and give respect to ALL faiths?
beyond the catholic/judaic/hindu/buddhist ones you were socialized with?

Latest peace of Islam reported on WaPo:

9 Muslims blown up in Karachi, Pak at a fruit market.

2 dead in suicide/grenade attack at a Kabul, Afghan hotel.

Also Afghan authorities are pushing for a ban on Indian TV soap operas because they depict "Hindu culture".

Ahmadiyas, ethnic Muslims, who believe in another prophet, massacred and driven out of Pakistan because Muslims say there can be no prophet after Mohammed.

Mr. Patel, why are you telling non-Muslims to be more tolerant and open towards Muslims. Has your faith blinded you to the truth? It is the Muslims who are most intolerant and violent.

actually the southern baptist charter does not allow its women to hold positions of authority, or teach, or preach.

again soja shows up with a full and open heart, and then is "shocked" and "saddened" when she discovers that, even though she hopes islam is a peaceful religion- and is looking for the beauty in it- shes always finding ugliness!

and innocently asks, how can these muslims expain these verses to themselves?

always ending up as the same passive aggressive defamations (or attempts at defamation)

actually i believe you read pickthalls?
(or the anti-muslim christian website you visited more precisely)

here is the more true translation of that verse and its full context-
oppression is worse than murder
or
persecution is worse than carnage

[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but DO NOT AGRESS. GOD DOES NOT LOVE THE AGGRESSORS.
Footnote

[2:191] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. OPPRESSION IS WORSE THAN MURDER. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers.

[2:192] If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

[2:193] You may also fight them to ELIMINATE OPPRESSION, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you SHALL NOT AGRESS; aggression is permitted ONLY AGAINST the aggressors.

not idolatry- but oppression-

and somehow in looking for the beauty- you overlooked the surrounding texts which prohibit aggression, not once not twice but three times.

so you dont really need to be "taken aback"

unless you find that muslims horror at opppression, and only fighting when one is agressing upon one to be alarming.

which is exactly what the christian st. augustine said, isnt it?
(well he had no real opinions on fighting oppression)

Eboo,

Have you written to the Egyptian Imams telling them that they do not know their Islam?
***************
"Last year (2007) the 13-year-old Christian twins Andrew and Mario Medhat Ramsis were the talk of Egypt since they had been officially considered by their school as Muslims and were hence required to study and sit for Islamic education examinations as an automatic consequence of their father’s conversion to Islam. Their Christian mother took their case to court demanding that the twins remain in her custody—which would allow them to remain as Christians if they chose to—following a preliminary court ruling that they be handed to their Muslim father. As for the twins, they insisted on remaining Christian, to the point of preferring to fail their exam and repeat the school year rather than give up their religion. Even though the Education Minister issued a decision to have them promoted to the following class, the court has delayed ruling in their case pending investigation on their father’s conversion.

Convert father

This year’s case concerns the 12-year-old Christian girl Ashraqat and her 8-year-old sister Maria whose Christian mother Amal Mounir was ordered by the Family Court to hand them over to their Muslim convert father Wafiq Gohar in order for him to bring them up as Muslims. The father had married the mother according to the Coptic Orthodox creed in 1986 and they had four children. Two of these are today young men above 18 and thus legally free to choose their religion, and the other two are Ashraqat and Maria. The court ruling declared that: “Since the two girls are more than seven years old—the age in which they are expected to understand and rationalise religion—and since the plaintiff fears that if they remain in their mother’s custody they would cherish a religion other than Islam, eat foods [pork] that are banned in Islam, and go to church, the court has ruled in favour of the father, granting him custody of the two girls.”
***********************

The christians of Europe should look forward to being treated as Najis, as filthy as feces and urine? That is what Islam has in store for them.

Have you ever spoken up against the evil in Islam? You know what the mullahs will do to you and to your family, don't you?

You call for pluralism, tolerance of Muslims in Europe but I like you to tell us the about the openness, pluralism, tolerance practised in 50 plus Islamic nations.

What is the highest percentage of non-Muslims even living in 50 Islamic nations? And do they have equal rights in all fields?

Saudi Arabia, birthplace of your prophet, is the most intolerant nation on earth.

Wherever Muslims are in majority, the non-Muslims are massacred (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir) and driven out.

It would make more sense if you call for diversity, pluralism in Islamic nations.

Eboo, Eboo, Eboo,

You still don't get it. It is all about the flaws in the founder and foundations of your warmongering religion.

With respect to your recent commentary, you noted: "Clearly, there is a problem here. The question is, what is the true nature of the problem, and how do we solve it?"

It is simple, you post the following on every pillar of every mosque:

"Unfortunately, an historical analyses of Islam, has shown without doubt that our founder Mohammed, was an illiterate, womanizing, warmongering, hallucinating Arab who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds these acts of terror?

The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

We the leaders of Islam apologize for this obvious brainwashing and resultant violence over the last 1400 years. A new "deflawed" koran is being prepared. In the meantime, please review the laws and codes of the ancients (e.g. http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/humanrights/timeline/timeline1.cfm and follow them in your normal activities and interactions with your fellow personkind. "

Eboo,

Europeans view Muslims as perpetual outsiders because there are underlying reasons. For a start can you how pluralism/tolerance and all those hyped words would work if the Danish cartoon fiasco was repeated again, say in England ? Would Muslims respect the age-old "disrespcet" that Europeans (and Westerners) have amply shown for religious icons ? Here the question of good manners, reverence etc., does not matter. What matters is that if someone exercises the right to mock Prophet Muhammad, what would probably happen ? Nuclear explosion ?

Even in the "Bible belt" of USA, such as Kansas, Oaklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado, the most outrageous movie THE DAVINCI CODE was screened. I did not read any incident where Christians went on a rampage fueled by their outrage over how Christ (and the foundations of Christianity) was depicted in the book. Can you guarantee that same could be expected of European Muslims regarding a provocative (and somewhat defamatory) film on Prophet Muhammad ? And, BTW, do you have anti-Islamic books in your personal collection ?

Obviously, Soja John has not been to the Bible Belt of the Southern United States. Here, the Christians, predominantly but not exclusively Southern Baptist, are not much different than Muslims as far as their belief that the "book" is infallible.

The difference, of course, is in the subtlety. It is never spoken that women should be subservient to men. It just is, after generations of institutionalizing and indoctrining.

I started to read the Quran with all possible openness, with the heartfelt intention to learn all that is good and beautiful in it. I must admit I was quite taken aback by some of the verses in the Quran and wondered how Muslims explain those verses to themselves, one such was about idolatory being worse than bloodshed!

Dear Mr Patel

Comparing discrimination based on the colour of one's skin and the problems associated with the destructive nature of Islamic extremism adds more to confuse the issue. There is no holy book that states that the white skin is superior to the brown or black skin. What is not written in a holy book can be tackled, even if the task of changing deep rooted prejudices based merely on conditioning is not easy. But repeated education will do the trick. Dealing with what is written in the Scripture of a religion is a completely different matter.

Islam has some problems that other religions do not have. The Quran is infallible; others have got their Scripture wrong; Mohammad is the last prophet and nobody has the right to even imagine he might have done anything that is not an advisable course of action in the 21st century; apostasy is punished with death etc. The idea of pluralism is too faint.

The onus is really on the Muslims to educate their own, as long as it takes to make a complete shift in consciousness. How this is to be done is something Muslims like you have to figure out. Non-Muslims on their part have no problems with Muslims practising their faith, as long as it doesn't impinge on the human rights of non-Muslims, including ex-Muslims. One point of education needs to be to separate religion and politics; to emphasize that political loyalty should be to the country in which Muslims live; to respect the rule of law in their countries of abode; for countries with Muslim majority to introduce laws that mandate respect for the human rights of all its citizens.

I wish you great success in everything you do to reform Shariah Law based Islam from within, although as an American born, American citizen you can hardly be expected to understand the culture of countries in which Shariah Law has the greatest influence.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia