Double Standards, Misinformation, and Vitriol

MESSAGE

MESSAGE

MESSAGE

hi! my name is Glock http://buyviagra.bloggcasting.com

Rajesh

I don't quite understand what giving special rights to Muslims mean and in what way Hindus are being disadvantaged. I agree that no one should be disadvantaged. But since I have no idea what exactly the special rights for Muslims and disadvantages for Hindus entails, I am unable to make any further comments.

I only think in terms of unity and peace. I attended a school for eight years in India that drilled the concept into me - patriotism and love for the diversity of Indian people - even before I met Dom Bede Griffiths who approached the issue from a spiritual perspective.

India has had 60 years to work out the "Muslim" problem but has failed. All it is doing is to hide it under the carpet by feeding the problem with gifts and sweets.

Remember that it was not the Hindus who wanted Partition but the Muslims themselves. I don't care if any particular Muslim did not want to go to Pakistan - their leaders through the Muslim League and represented by Mohammad Ali Jinnah wanted it and fought for it. In the end, they got it. So I'm only asking Muslims to fulfill their side of the bargain and leave India to go live with their Muslim brothers and sisters in Pakistan. That way, problem solved.

Many thousands of Hindus who happened to live in Nothern India before the Partition also didn't want to leave their ancestral homes but were forced to leave by the Muslims. They had to give up everything so why can't the Muslims similarly do the same.

The way Muslims sit down with Hindus to discuss problems is to demand more and more 'special rights'. We Hindus are sick of giving up more and more 'special rights' to Muslims. Everyone should be equal - no special rights for anyone - because your special rights means you have disadvantaged me.

Like I said: the Muslims always take while the Hindus give. How long is this going to go on for? Time for that to stop.

Rajesh

I do agree that the Hindus are generally a peaceful lot and that is both the secret of the origin and fruit of the rich spiritual tradition India can boast of.

But now we have a serious problem sixty years after independence. Is escalating the hatred and violence between Hindus and Muslims the solution? Gandhi said an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. Indians need to work at bringing reconciliation and harmony between Muslims and Hindus. Maybe India needs another Gandhi. India has a Muslim president. That in itself is a sign that all is not as bad as you portray it. Sending 138 million Indian Muslims to Pakistan and Bangladesh is definitely not the solution. Most Muslims who live in India wouldn't want to leave. Most of them didn't want to leave during the partition, but it was forced on them. Muslims in Kerala for instance are first of all Malayalees, very strongly attached to their culture and traditions in Kerala and they have lived in harmony with other religions for centuries. I'm sure Muslims living in other parts of India must feel the same. If any Muslim wanted to leave, who would try to stop them?

I have confidence that the problem can be tackled if Hindus and Muslims who have grievances are willing to sit down and discuss it. The great task is to encourage the Hindus and Muslims to feel the compelling need to live together in harmony for their own welfare and happiness. And I take it for granted that Indian Muslims do not want the whole country to become Muslim for such an expectation would be no more than a wild fantasy.

Victoria,
Yes I agree. When critics point out that the most authoritative Islamic sources show the behavior and character of your prophet they are aggressively misrepresenting him.

If you don't like to know that your prophet was no better than a deranged self-serving war-lord who raped and plundered all over Arabia then you claim critics are islamophobes. We didn't make up the facts about Muhammad - all these unsavory aspects of Muhammad's life are found in the Islamic records.

I don't see how you can follow such a man and believe he can be a true prophet of a true god. The behavior of Muhammad was no different to that of Hitler. In fact, Hitler was a better man because he didn't take sex slaves. Eva Braun was a willing participant in their relationship, not someone he captured and forced into a sexual relationship.

as i wrote- my point was not to argue or be questioned.

the question was answered in a previous post, take it or leave it.

i was addressing the surprisingly negative perception that soja incorrectly holds about islam.

i am willing to assume that it was not meant to be so insulting, but is purely that shes been told these falsehoods by islamophobes.

this is why we must always let the adherents speak for themselves about their own faiths.

i have strong opinions about gandhi, and hinduism- some positive and some negative observations about the actual practices of hindusim and how it manifests itself into society.

but it is not my place to criticize others- or denigrate their beliefs.

such behavior is not gracious and just bad mannered and small hearted.

i also feel compelled to address the aggressive misrepresentation of our Prophet(pbuh)

because there are others outr there who may actually believe these ugly ideas,

obviously you have a well formed hatred of islam, so i will not waste energy trying to turn your hate into reason.

if you care to be reasonable- and are truly looking for knowledge, read this link-
or not as you like.

http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=375.

Victoria wrote;

"and that Prophet Mohammad's marriages to several women including a child"

this is not true. period.and is a very insulting thing to say.

~~~~
Which part is untrue, Victoria? The part about Muhammad's marriage to several women.

Or the part about the child? You don't think Ayesha was a child even though the sahih hadiths are in total agreement that she was nine years old? Don't tell me you believe she was a teenager or older even though that sort of apologetics have been repeatedly shown to be lies?

soja- as you explained- it is for muslims to explain.
i will start by explaining that, just as i respect when other people present their religions as they know them, and dont question every single thing they say as if they are lying- i expect the same- but never recieve this reciprocal treatment-
so im not going to post a bunch of proofs but just speak as a normal person would.

"I do not deny too that there is much violence mentioned in the Quran"

there are exponentially more calls to peace in the qur'an than violence.
when reading the qur'an, personally- i dont encounter violence very often at all- sometimes there are descriptions of events in the past.

"and that Prophet Mohammad's marriages to several women including a child"

this is not true. period.and is a very insulting thing to say.

"his method of acquiring those wives, after the death of his first wife, from the age of fifty to his death twelve years later, are not very encouraging or exemplary."

this is not true. his "acquisition" of wives were specifically exemplary examples.

"But from what I understand his followers were instructed not to do as he did with regard to polygamy. but to do as he said"

you understand incorrectly.
this is a most base and hypocritical behavior for anyone to indulge in, let alone a prophet of god.

the only difference is the number.
he was happily married and monogamous for 25 years.

"and Muslims consider whatever he did as special privileges granted to a prophet but his behaviour was not to be imitated by the ordinary human being."

his behavior is TO BE COPIED AND SEEN AS AN EXAMPLE. that is what sunnah is- the actions of Muhammad(pbuh), and we are specifically instructed to follow the qur'an AND the sunnah by the Prophet(pbuh).

this false statement would be equivalent to me saying that the actions of Jesus(ata) are not to be imitated by christians.

do you see how deeply insulted you would be by such a statement?

it is the exact opposite.

im tryng to have suspicion for the best intentions from all that i encounter here until proven wrong, so ill just assume that your perceptions of muslims is from people around you who have told you these things-

i am truly hoping it wasnt a nod and a wink to your fellow desis.

even considering that such things come even close to true, implies that islam is something it is not.

stereotypes- as im sure you well know- are rampant currently about muslims- and these are some examples of the worst stereotypes that exist, and maybe even in your case innocently propogated.

to recap- the Prophet(pbuh) was the most trustworthy and honorable of men, and the ideas put forth here greatly dishonor him.

so at the minimum i ask that the same respect given to others, also be extended to muslims.

Who is talking about punishing Muslims? I'm only asking that they respect their wish to form Pakistan for Muslims only and leave India for Pakistan.

It was their wish - their plan. They refused to allow Indian independence without having a homeland of their own. The Hindus did not want to break up India but the Muslims did. The Muslims demanded Partition. They campaigned for it. They fought for it. So what's the problem?

Please read up on what the Muslim League and the Partition.

You're basically saying that the Muslims get Pakistan (and Bangladesh) for the Muslims only but still have the right to live in India.

It is not I who assert India is only for Hindus it is the Muslims themselves under Mohammad Ali Jinnah who stated this when they pressed for Partition against Hindu wishes.

I'm only saying that if that was the plan then it should have been concluded. You can't have a plan where the Muslims get satisfaction (i.e. Pakistan is 100% Muslim) while the Hindus do not.

Either you have Partition or you don't.

I actually think highly of Gandhi but believe he was wrong on this issue. He should have stood up against the Muslims on this. Having agreed to the Partition he then campaigned to stop it because of people were killed on both sides in the inter-religious violence. So in the end, he screwed India. Note how Pakistan merrily went on expelling the Hindus regardless.

I also don't believe that there is little inter-religious strife in India. It is an everyday occurrence. The only reason that it doesn't blow up more often is because the Hindus have agreed to 'turn the other cheek' and 'accomodate' the Muslims by caving in to their sectarian demands. Muslims are a state within a state - enjoying special rights and privileges. That is not sustainable in the long-run. Hindu extremism is merely a belated reaction against Muslim aggression. If you live among Muslims you will know that they are always aggressive and aggrieved because they believe as Muslims the world belongs to them via Allah.

In short - religious harmony in India is only because the Muslims take and the Hindus give. And Muslims always take.

Deb

I noticed that I forgot one important point in my response to your post. I do agree with you that violence must be resorted to in self defence if nothing else will work. Protection of national boundaries is one example. But pre-emptive invasion of another country on the grounds that it MAY attack and call it self-defence, is absolute rubbish, for such a excuse can be used to invade any country in the world because any country may theoritically attack.

I do not deny too that there is much violence mentioned in the Quran, and that Prophet Mohammad's marriages to several women including a child, his method of acquiring those wives, after the death of his first wife, from the age of fifty to his death twelve years later, are not very encouraging or exemplary. But from what I understand his followers were instructed not to do as he did with regard to polygamy, but to do as he said and Muslims consider whatever he did as special privileges granted to a prophet but his behaviour was not to be imitated by the ordinary human being. It is for Muslims to explain the context and spiritual implication and social application of everythign in this day and age.

In regard to practice of Islam in India, how many Indians do you think have actually read the Quran and know what is written in it? Even in the Catholic Church one didn't read the Bibles as part of our normal religious life until recently. Even then, not all Catholics read the Bible as a rule. They just follow the rituals and listen to what the priest has to say, the understanding being that the average person may not fully understand what is written, or may misinterpret the context or message etc. Or whatever. When one notices how many people fail to understand the cultural life of Jews and other Christians in the first century, and are unable to understand some of the social practices mentioned in that context, and mistake social customs of the day and culture for eternal truth, one can understand why Bible reading must have been restricted to the clergy (I don't agree with the practice of course), just as the average man does not read any Hindu Scripture. So by the same token the average Indian has NOT read the Quran and has lived by the social customs of the Hindu society in India. Rulers, no matter what religion they practice, use violence in many instances to gain and maintain power. Islam as political religion is something I know nothing about. To me religion is about understanding the rules of God, the God who loves all His creation equally; religion is about the life of the spirit, and applying spiritual laws that come from God appropriately in our daily lives.

Deb and Rajesh,

Since both of your addressed the same topic I will respond in one post.

I’m deeply disappointed that both of you seem to hold Mahatma Gandhi in such low esteem despite the fact that he united all Indians for a common purpose and was pivotal to achieving Indian independence by non-violent means, a method anyone familiar with the violence of political power tactics would have considered completely inappropriate to achieve such an ambitious political goal. His spiritually based political strategy has inspired political giants like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King and he has been an inspiration to millions around the world. Einstein said of him that in years to come it would be hard to believe that such a man as Gandhi ever walked the face of this earth. Let it be known that he was chosen as the greatest man of the past thousand years in a BBC poll in 2000, and came ahead of Jesus Christ!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/583427.stm

I’m quite aware of the trend that many elite Indians tend to consider it their intellectual duty to have a “problem” with Gandhi as proof of their critical thinking.

Deb, the Bhagavad Gita is a spiritual guide for the Hindu householder to attain liberation/God realisation, and is NOT a “The Art of War” manual for a ruler. So Gandhi did nothing wrong in applying the Gita as he did. Although he said that his politics was the fruit of his religion, he never called himself a spiritual leader or guru. One must consider him a pious politician and not a religious leader who clamoured for political power. He proved how one could be a householder living in the world and fight for justice by peaceful means as part of one’s spiritual goal to realise God. That is after all part of Karma Yoga in the Gita. A battle that is just as effective as bombs without causing the death and destruction that bombs do, is still a battle. The fact that one wages the battle using wisdom that stems from the spiritual world doesn’t make it less of a battle. The most important fact is the success of Gandhi’s mission and the fact that it continues to inspire many people today. One can admire him for his achievements even if one doesn't agree with everything he did, nor find some of his thoughts applicable today.

I do agree however Deb, that non-violence may not work in every case. There is a time and place for weapons. The Catholic concept of "just war" answers that need for weapons in certain circumstances, and I endorse that view. For instance Hitler could not have been stopped by Gandhian methods after the outbreak of WW II. But in this age of nuclear weapons and the nature of the war technology, any war is bound to be unjust, no matter what criterion one may use.

I will continue to assert that the partition of India was politically rather than religiously motivated. Religion was merely used as a tool and ordinary people were instigated to turn into killing machines to achieve political goals. If religion had been the basis for the partition, the desire would have been expressed by the people (and why would anyone have needed a separate country based on their religion since at no time had any Muslim been prevented from practising their faith and India had been under two hundred years of colonial rule prior to Independence and not Muslim rule), and not by a political leader who stood to gain by having a separate country which he could rule, considering his chances were smaller in a Hindu majority unified India. It is important to remember that not all Muslim politicians wanted the partition either and we have had Indian Presidents and politicians since Independence, despite Muslims being a minority group in India.

It is extremely distorted overgeneralisation to claim that perpetual Hindu-Muslim strife exists all over India. Apart from the perpetual Kashmir conflict, the Hindu-Muslim conflict is restricted to certain areas and there is a parallel fundamentalist Hindu faction that is involved in the strife as well. So we find that ordinary Hindus and ordinary Muslims are not part of the strife at all. It is horrendous if the conflict is allowed to spread, rather than attempts being made to stop it, and work towards reconciliation and harmony. The best way to make any country vulnerable to forces from without, is to have internal fights. So it is in the best interests of Indian integrity as a nation to work towards Hindu-Muslim peace rather than strive for the meaningless goal of "India only for Hindus." How would any Hindu living outside India feel if every non-Hindu nation declared that they had no right to be there, because their religion was alien to the culture, Western culture for instance?

India can never be 100% Hindu, first of all because Hinduism itself is a con-federation of religions (and in the long ago past Hinduism merely meant the culture and religions of people living in the geographical location that is India once called Hindustan), rather than a single religion and India has had traditions of other religions springing from its soil from the earliest times – Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, among others. Parsis are foreign to Indian soil too, and what about Christians of 100% Indian origin, such as I am?

To me a real Hindu is a generous soul with a universal acceptance of all religious philosophies. Many great Hindu saints and religious reformers have worked very hard to contribute to such a Hindu attitude, and the rise of Hindu fundamentalism is an insult to all of them. As far as practice of Hinduism itself goes, each Hindu family seems to worship a different God and every person in the family may have their own favourite deity. Hindu fundamentalism is to me therefore NOT real Hinduism, for Hinduism has no history of waging religious wars on anyone in its entire history spanning thousands of years.

About Muslim rule, which involved great Muslim rulers and great contribution to Indian culture, not just violent ones, where do we draw the line in passing a judgement on them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire
Do we punish innocent Muslims now based on what some Muslim rulers have done in the long ago past? Considering the Moghul Empire came to an end in 1707, and India was under colonial rule for nearly two hundred years before achieving Independence sixty years ago, do we punish innocent Muslims now for what Muslim rulers may have done over three hundred years ago, while of course ignoring all the great contribution to Indian culture? For example would it be fair to punish ordinary Germans three hundred years from now for what Hitler and his regime did to the Jews during WW II, to punish completely innocent people centuries later for crimes committed by their rulers?

So what exactly is the belated Hindu extremism trying to achieve? What good is going to come out of punishing innocent people for crimes committed by rulers in the long ago past, and whipping up hatred and sifting division? Haven’t the Muslims proved to be sons of the Indian soil, just like any Hindu, by fighting for Indian Independence? Haven’t they been part of India just like everyone else since Independence, and for centuries before that?

If achieving some kind of belated justice for what Muslim rulers did to Hindus in the long ago post, is what Hindu extremism is all about, what about the members of the Hindu lower castes who have suffered oppression for millennia? Who will avenge their cause and what can be done to make it up to them?

I do wish that both of you, Deb and Rajesh, would develop the generosity of spirit towards Muslims, the universal attitude that is the hallmark of Hinduism. And I am sure it can be done without condoning any wrong doing on anyone's part, both Hindus and Muslims.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Soja:

Rajesh is precisely right. Everybody is not Jesus Christ or his devoted follower. Gandhi, the greatest fraud in Indian political history, used Christian principles of non-violence, to formulate a political agenda for the Quit India Movement. That was using religion for ulterior motives. Christ never asserted that he came to do politics. He came to the world to rid people of ther sins so that they could attain salvation by following him (Christ). "Give Caesar what's unto Caesar, give Lord what's unto Lord".

In 1920's he sided with the Khilafat Movement (in Turkey) which has no connection with the majority sentiments (Hindus) in India. It was a movement by which he thought he could get the Muslim support to join the Quit India Movement.

His policies were based on appeasement and being a nuisance to the British. He was a total nepotist. In 1946-'47, when Muhammad Surahwahrdy had the direct action day, and about 3000 Hindus were butchered in Noakhali (now Bangladesh) and in Kolkata (Beliaghata), Gandhi appealed to his political eunuchs (members of the Congress party) to forgive Muslims. Gandhi refused to seek pardon for Bhagat Singh, who was hanged by the British. In Jalianwala Bagh, General Reginal Dyer shot at unarmed Sikh men, women and children and killed them ruthlessly. Gandhi refused to take action, and called for calm and forgiveness.

It is a shame that Hindus are asked by the leaders in the West to stoop down before others and beg forgiveness for the "Hindu fanaticism". The irony, as Rajesh points out, is that no one recognizes that this so-called Hindu extremism is a response to the Muslim extremism/radical Islam. For this double-standard of the West, the Hindus have rightfully been suspicious of the western motives. In USA, in particular, has some clueless leaders like Jesse Jackson (also Steve Jobs) and others who think Gandhi was great. The fact is that had it is quite easy and OK to formulate nice and pleasant policies that have no bearing on the reality.

MK Gandhi is dead. I wish his idiotic policies of non-violence in politics would die too. The world is not a place where daffodils and skylarks live. It also has tigers, crocs and other fierce animals against whom use of violence for self-defense is a birthright. Gandhi denied this fact.

Gandhi, for all his hypocrisy as a devoted Hindu, could not reconcile that Bhagavad Gita endorses physical violence. He was extremely uncomfortable when asked questions on this issue.

The frauds like Gandhi, need to be exposed and his policicies/strategies routinely debunked. That would bring some sense in this world.

Soja,
You say that the partition was political - that is true. However, when the politics invoke religion then it becomes religious as well. In fact, the sole criterion for Partition was religious. Division on religious lines can be nothing else but religious.

It might have been better if the Partition was allowed to continue to its logical conclusion rather than be stopped in its tracks. In a sense - the partition was half-finished. That is why Pakistan is almost 100% Muslim but India is 20% Muslim. If we wanted to have Partition then India should also be 100% Hindu.

It was Gandhi's folly to stop the Partition - this consigned India to perpetual religious strife between Hindus and Muslims.

You're right that it was a Hindu who assasinated Gandhi but that was because many Hindus felt that Gandhi had given up too much rights to the Muslims. History in fact has proven them right - Gandhi had given too much to the Muslims.

As for the good Muslim rulers - who's to say Hindu rulers would not have done just as good a job? Please don't forget that Islam came to India as a bloodthirsty conqueror - millions of Hindus died so that Islam could plant itself in India. Any Muslim saintly ruler cannot balance out the atrocities done to the Hindus. Islam is alien to India and it's about time people accepted that fact. Whatever cultural achievements Islam has made - and I agree there are many - such as the Taj Mahal, Muslim art and architecture and music - have to be weighed against the atrocious loss of Hindu lives and the enslavement of countless Hindus.

I feel that the rise of Hindu extremism is a very belated response to Islamic aggression (and continued aggression). What do you think Hindus feel when they see the 'special rights' granted to Muslims? Why should 'special rights' be granted to an alien minority whose existence was predicated on Hindu blood?

Pamela - even though commenters here brought evidence from Muslim commentators themselves that Aisha was 9 years old when her marriage was consummated, you have continually said that that is not true and that she was actually in her teens when her marriage was consummated.

However, while reading the website of ali-Sistani, it is clear to me that he considers a girl of 9 years old of marriageable age. I can only think that he is following Muhammed's example. In fact, he talks about a wife who is UNDER 9 years old. Please look at this:
http://www.sistani.org/local.php?modules=
nav&nid=2&bid=59&pid=3093

Rajesh (Ref post 5 April 2007 3:57 AM):

No, being born over a dozen years later, I wasn’t around during the time India got independence and the partition of the country that accompanied it. I am however aware of the violence that went with it. As I mentioned in my last post to you, I am convinced that the partition and the violence that went with it was politically instigated. After all it is well known how easy it is to manipulate simple people by appealing to their emotions and turn them into mindless killing machines, and that is what happened at the time. It is unfair to Indian Muslims to forget that they worked hand in hand with other Indians to fight for Indian independence and shed their blood, and sacrificed their lives willingly for the cause. I have always admired the fearlessness, and fierce loyalty of Muslims. Remember too that Gandhi was willing to fast himself to death to stop the Hindus and Muslims from killing each other. Lest we forget, it was a Hindu that assassinated Gandhi, not a Muslim.

I do not deny that the spread of Islam in India was also associated with bloodshed in some cases. Again let us not forget that there were good Muslim rulers who contributed much to Indian culture in every way. The Islamic history of India should be interpreted in fairness to Muslims, without forgetting all the wonderful things they did, without of course condoning any wrong doing.

Since I left India nineteen years ago and last visited ten years ago, I am only aware of the Hindu-Muslim communal violence from the media. I find the recent trend disheartening, especially the rise of Hindu fundamentalism and the Muslim blacklash, since it flies in the face of all the wonderful things that Hinduism means to me – a generously tolerant religion with a universal philosophy that can accommodate any religious philosophy in the world. Hindu fundamentalism is a sad contradiction, a slap in the face to all the wonderful Hindus who embodied the greatness of the religion, among others Gandhi, Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, Sri Aurobindo, Ramana Maharishi, only to name very few of the great ones down the ages. To me India is the holy land which gave birth to several religions precisely because of the universal philosophy of Hinduism and its acceptance of the fact that God manifests Himself in many ways under myriad names. Islam which came to Kerala, supposedly while Prophet Mohammed was still alive and before he left for Medina, has been a peaceful version of the religion all along. Sufism with its long history in India is likewise a peaceful manifestation of Islam. Indian Muslims are first and foremost Indians. Since they are a minority, it is important not to violate their rights to practise their religion peacefully. In India, it is useful to remember that Islam offers a sense of universal brotherhood to all Muslims and liberation from the Hindu caste system with its negative impact for the lower castes. Since India has a secular government and a Hindu majority, I don’t see how Sharia law has any bearing on the non-Muslim population of India, and how any Muslim could impose death penalty or any other kind of punishment on a fellow Muslim or any other Indian in accordance with the Quran, if it violates the rule of Indian law. One should be able to accept the peaceful practice of Islam and have faith in the peace loving Muslims in India and around the world, no matter what may be written in the Quran.

India has many problems to deal with, and the Hindus and Muslims should be working together at solving them, without fighting and killing each other based on the name of the God they worship. I continue to be convinced that apart from a small exception, all Muslims in India live in peace and harmony with their Hindu brethren.

What I was taught in school was that Mother India loves all her children equally, and her children happen to belong to different religions, speak different languages, wear different clothes, follow different customs etc, but they are all her children.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

im not seeing a contradiction-

thank you for the ayats

they are lovely and true

as you posted, ALLAH truly knows best

25:72 And [know that true servants of God are only] those who never bear witness to what is false, [54] and [who], whenever they pass by [people engaged in] frivolity, pass on with dignity;

Contradictions

"Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34).

"The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all, (6:115).

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (2:106).

When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not," (16:101).

there are no contradictions here-

they all express similar ideas-

if you think there is a contradiction you would have presented it

So you have proved that the koran is full of contradictions. Good job Victoria!

Al-Isra (The Journey by Night)

17:36 And never concern thyself with anything of which thou hast no knowledge: [45] verily, [thy] hearing and sight and heart - all of them - will be called to account for it [on Judgment Day]!

Al-Furqan (The Criterion)

25:72 And [know that true servants of God are only] those who never bear witness to what is false, [54] and [who], whenever they pass by [people engaged in] frivolity, pass on with dignity;

Al-Qasas (The Narration)

28:55 and, whenever they heard frivolous talk, [54] having turned away from it and said: “Unto us shall be accounted Our deeds, and unto you, your deeds. Peace be upon you - [but] we do not seek out such as are ignorant [of the meaning of right and wrong].”

Al-Nour (The Light)

24:12 Why do not the believing men and women, whenever such [a rumour] is heard, [15] think the best of one another and say, “This is an obvious falsehood”?

24:13 why do they not [demand of the accusers that they] [16] their allegation? [17] for, if they do not produce such wit­nesses, it is those [accusers] who, in the sight of God, are liars indeed!

24:15 when you take it up with your tongues, uttering with your mouths something of which you have no knowledge, and deeming it a light matter whereas in the sight of God it is an awful thing!

24:16 And [once again]: Why do you not say, whenever you hear such [a rumour], “It does not behoove us to speak of this, O Thou who art limitless in Thy glory: this is an awesome calumny”? [19]

Al-Hujurat (The Dwellings)

49:11 O YOU who have attained to faith! No men shall deride [other] men: it may well be that those [whom they deride] are better than themselves; and no women [shall deride other] women: it may well be that those [whom they deride] are better than them­selves. [12] And neither shall you defame one another, nor insult one another by [opprobrious] epithets: evil is all imputation of iniquity after [one has attained to] faith; [13] and they who [become guilty thereof and] do not repent - it is they, they who are evildoers!

Arguing about which religion is best is like running in the Special Olympics. even if you win you're still retarded.

John 16:2-3 "…In fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me." (Jesus is speaking)

Jeremiah 8:11-12 "They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. 'Peace, peace,' they say, when there is no peace. Are they ashamed of their loathsome conduct? No, they have no shame at all; …"

Revelation 17:5-6 "And on her forehead a name was written: MYSTERY, BABYLON the GREAT, The MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement." (NKJV)

The Pre-Eminence of Jesus

Acts 4:12 "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

Philippians 2:5-12 "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

1 Peter 3:15-16 "…Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." … (18) "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,"

1 John 5:12-13 "He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."

John 14:6 "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (NKJV, NIV)

1 John 2:22-23 "Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. (26) "These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you." (NKJV)

John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in our sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." (NKJV)

Thank you, Muhammed, for providing the specific documentation for what you are saying. I think many educated westerners think that Islam is just another religion on a par with Christianity and Buddhism(I am neither Christian or Buddhist), and Westerners do not take the time to actually look at Islam, and as you say, look at the evidence. And then people like Pamela come along and whitewash the religion, and most Westerners believe her, because she seems so knowledgeable and always has an excuse for why the violent parts of the Koran are either out of context, mistranslations, abrogated by other parts, hadith that are not agreed upon by the authorities etc etc.And when people point out the evidence, Victoria comes along and accuses them of Islamophobia in an attempt to silence people from saying that the emperor has no clothes. Luckily there is still free speech in the US, and people can speak the truth, even about someone who is worshipped by 1.5 billion people.

What would you think of a book that claimed French-Canadians were with Mohammed? It would be pretty strange, since there were no French-Canadians until the 18th century and Mohammed lived in the 7th century. Well, no book has ever said this was so, but the Qur’an contains some equally interesting statements.

Suras 9:68, 21:51-71; 29:16,17; 37:97,98 say Abraham was delivered from Nimrod’s fire. Nimrod lived soon after Noah and long before Abraham. The Fihrist p.27 also acknowledges that Abraham fled from Nimrod. This story seems to be copied from a similar Jewish fable in the Midrash Rabbah.

How could Haman, the Persian minister in Esther’s time (500 B.C.) actually work in Egypt in Moses’ time (1450 B.C.) building the Tower of Babel (before 2500 B.C.) as Suras 27:4-6, 28:38, 29:39, 40:23-24,36-37 indicate? This is another "Mohammed and French-Canadians" problem again.

The same Mary (Mariam in Hebrew and Arabic) was not the mother of Jesus and the sister of Moses (~1450 BC.) as Sura 19:28 says. In the context of the virgin birth of Christ, Sura 19:28 says "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" How could somebody mix these up?

A Muslim commentator remarks that this was because Mary and her cousin Elisabeth came from a priestly family and were thus sisters of their ancestor Aaron. However, Mary came from Judah, not Aaron, and it was Mary that was addressed here. So if the All-Knowing God did not err here, then who did?

Qur’an’s Transmitted Reliability

Most Muslims believe the Qur’an is an exact copy of a tablet of the Qur’an [in Heaven] in Sura 85:20-22. But consider the following points.
1. It is strange that even in the temporary verses in the Qur’an that Muslims agree Mohammed said were abrogated, are stored for all time in Heaven. They are still in the Qur’an today.
2. Many Muslims are not aware that the Sahih Muslim Hadiths record an extra Sura that is not in the Qur’an today. Muslim apologists claim this too was abrogated, but it is not in today’s Qur’an.
3. ‘Ubai’s early copies of the Qur’an did not contain two Suras that are in the Qur’an today.
4. ‘Abdallah ibn Mas’ud was one of the four people Mohammed said to learn the Qur’an from. Yet Al-Nuri lists verses in Ibn Mas’ud’s version that are not in the Qur’an today.
5. Satan always throws something in with a prophet’s words according to Sura 22:52, but God has to cancel it out. This might be an explanation for why four different Muslim historical sources report that Sura 53:19-20 originally said the intercession (help) of four idol goddesses was to be hoped for.
6. ‘Uthman also made changes to standardize the Qur’an, but that is the topic of the next part.

Muhammad, Rajesh, Deb Chatterjee, Qasim Omar:

Your info certainly describes the Islamic world as viewed through the world media much more accurately than the info presented by Pamela and Victoria. I found www.alminbar.com especially informative. Thanks

I am not a Christian, but it should be noted that there is not one single religious text recorded by any early or later Christian which records Jesus’s behaviour as violent in anyway whatsoever. Not one single record in all Christian history. One must conclude, therefore, that Jesus wasn’t a violent man.

When we look at the history of Muhammad, however, there are many thousands (yes thousands) of hadith texts recorded and written down by Muslims (not non-Muslims) which record Muhammad’s behaviour as being violent in the extreme. The examples quoted in this blog represent just the tip of a very large iceberg, as anyone who has studied these historical records will know.

It may be that some of the Muslim hadith text cannot be relied upon, as Victoria and Pamela constantly claim, but the truth is that the Sahih hadith (those considered to be sound and authentic by Sharia law courts, and used in making legal judgements), still contain more than 1,000 hadith which record Muhammad as being one of the most aggressive, intolerant and violent men in history.

Any objective, reasonable historian would conclude, on reading all this material written down by Muslims, that Muhammad was an extremely violent and dangerous man. People who uttered any poetry which Muhammad or his followers considered to be disrespectful of Muhammad were murdered. People who refused to submit to Muhammad (i.e. refused to convert to Islam) were murdered. Men who fought alongside Muhammad were allowed to rape any female captives they got their hands on (including little girls as young as 9). Muhammad actively encouraged them to do this in order to shame the non-believers on behalf of Allah (rape was shameful not just for the women and girls, but also for their communities).

Anyone who doubts that the above is true should be prepared to spend a few weeks of their life reading through the thousands of hadith which record the sunnah of Muhammad, which all Imams and Islamic scholars study.

Instead of denying the above, or listening to what Victoria and Pamela have to say about it, simply go to the following links and start reading the source material for yourself, be prepared to put in the time necessary, then make up your own mind, BASED ON EVIDENCE ALONE. These are the links you need, to begin studying the sahih hadith and the Qur’an for yourself:

This link provides you with a database of Sahih hadith, translated into English by Muslims:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/

This link provides you with three different translations of the Qur’an (translated by Muslims into English), which you can compare side by side:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

Also spend some time reading through the sermons of Muslim Imams posted on the internet. When you read these you will see that they always quote the Qur'an and hadith to support their teachings.

The main website for Imams on the internet is www.alminbar.com Check it out and read what Imams are saying today (across the world) about Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims. Also look up the references to specific sermons placed earlier in this blog.

Make it a project, then you will KNOW who is speaking the truth.

Muslims Have Said Islam is a Religion of Peace - But Where?

In Nigeria? In 1987 churches were set on fire in Kaduna and Kafanchan and Muslims killed hundreds of Christians.

In Algeria? Algerian Muslim students in the Houston admit that those who convert from Islam are killed in their country.

In the Sudan? Muslim are enslaving and selling women and children of the Dinka tribe according to the London Economist. The May 4, 1992 special ed. of Newsweek on slavery also reported that Muslims are still enslaving blacks as did the Austin American Statesman on 2/2/1996. Reader’s Digest 3/1996 p.77-81 "Slavery’s Shameful Return to Africa" is a heart-wrenching account of oppression today. Also, mosques are being bombed by Muslims of different groups.

In Egypt? A Muslim doctor was stabbed by a Muslim extremist. His crime? - treating a Christian stabbed by a Muslim extremist.

In Iran? On 13/3/1990 Iranian Christian pastor Rev. Hussein Soodmand was taken from his prison cell and executed because 21 years earlier he had converted from Islam to Christianity. Besides Christians, Baha’is, Sufis, and Zoroastrians have also been killed by government authorities.

In Afghanistan, the Sunni Taliban massacred about 3,000 Shi’ite Hazaris. This was probably in revenge for Hazaris massacring about 2,000 Taliban fighters earlier in the war.

In Tajikistan, there has been a brutal civil war that pitted Muslims against Muslims.

In Pakistan, a teenage girl was executed for converting from Islam to Christianity. Small Muslim sects, such as the Ahmaddiya, are by law persecuted by the authorities in Pakistan.

In the Qur’an? "Kill them, and Allah will torment them by your hands. He will humiliate them and give you victory over them…" (Sura 9:14) "Fight those who believe not… even if they be People of the book [Christians and Jews] until they have willingly agreed to pay the Jizya tribute in recognition of their submissive state." (Sura 9:29)

In Iraq, so far I have not heard of any persecution of Christians more than any other groups. Perhaps Iraq today, that pristine paragon of peace, is where Islam is most like a religion of peace.

Conclusion: Islam is the most warlike and violent major world religion today.

Thank you Victoria for your reply. However, I'm still none the wiser as to whether your prophet killed anyone or caused anyone to be killed.

Barry

barry- there are many many outright lies mixed in with some small truths here-

the body ofo material you see posted here is what is called hadeeth

the sayings of the Prophet(pbuh)

we are commanded to follow sunnah(the actions of the Prophet(pbuh) but first the Qur'an

if any thing contradicts what the Qur'an tell us- we should ignore it.

the Qur'an is our scripture- and most of the accusations you see are very ugly and of a malevolent nature are sayings transmitted by men-

we have to use our common sense too-

there are 1000s of sayings- some strongly transmitted some very questionable

our Prophet(pbuh) was a noble and trustworthy man- when asked who he would be closest to in paradise - he put his first 2 fingers together and said Jesus(ata) and i will be like this.

have a blessed holiday barry

i made a long response but its beng held by the blog owners- i hope this gets through- its the last sermon of our Prophet(peace and blessing be upon him)

islogo.gif (778 bytes)

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

The Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) Last Sermon
This sermon was delivered on the Ninth Day of Dhul Hijjah 10 A.H. in the 'Uranah valley of Mount Arafat' (in Mecca).

After praising, and thanking Allah he said:

"O People, lend me an attentive ear, for I know not whether after this year, I shall ever be amongst you again. Therefore listen to what I am saying to you very carefully and TAKE THESE WORDS TO THOSE WHO COULD NOT BE PRESENT HERE TODAY.

O People, just as you regard this month, this day, this city as Sacred, so regard the life and property of every Muslim as a sacred trust. Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your LORD, and that HE will indeed reckon your deeds. ALLAH has forbidden you to take usury (interest), therefore all interest obligation shall henceforth be waived. Your capital, however, is yours to keep. You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequity. Allah has Judged that there shall be no interest and that all the interest due to Abbas ibn 'Abd'al Muttalib (Prophet's uncle) shall henceforth be waived...

Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion. He has lost all hope that he will ever be able to lead you astray in big things, so beware of following him in small things.

O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have rights over you. Remember that you have taken them as your wives only under Allah's trust and with His permission. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers. And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste.

O People, listen to me in earnest, worship ALLAH, say your five daily prayers (Salah), fast during the month of Ramadan, and give your wealth in Zakat. Perform Hajj if you can afford to.

All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.

Remember, one day you will appear before ALLAH and answer your deeds. So beware, do not stray from the path of righteousness after I am gone.

O People, NO PROPHET OR APOSTLE WILL COME AFTER ME AND NO NEW FAITH WILL BE BORN. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the QURAN and my example, the SUNNAH and if you follow these you will never go astray.

All those who listen to me shall pass on my words to others and those to others again; and may the last ones understand my words better than those who listen to me directly. Be my witness, O ALLAH, that I have conveyed your message to your people".

barry- there are many many outright lies mixed in with some small truths here-

the body ofo material you see posted here is what is called hadeeth

the sayings of the Prophet(pbuh)

we are commanded to follow sunnah(the actions of the Prophet(pbuh) but first the Qur'an

if any thing contradicts what the Qur'an tell us- we should ignore it.

the Qur'an is our scripture- and most of the accusations you see are very ugly and of a malevolent nature are sayings transmitted by men-

we have to use our common sense too-

there are 1000s of sayings- some strongly transmitted some very questionable

our Prophet(pbuh) was a noble and trustwrothy man- when asked who he would be closest to in paradise - he put his first 2 fingers together and said Jesus(ata) and i will be like this.

have a blessed holiday barry

Dear Victoria,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by people making accusations against your prophet.

When I look at the life of my savior I don't accuse him of anything. I see that he healed the lepers, fed the poor and raised the dead but do not see these acts as accusations because according to scripture he did these things.

In contrast, I read here the shocking (at least to me) revelation that your prophet had either killed people or ordered events that caused people to die. Now, is this an accusation? Or didn't these sorts of incidents really happen - according to your scriptures?

Happy Easter
Barry

Victoria

==> it is simply not true as you assert that tere are "many" hadeeths that present the Prophet(pbuh) in an unfavorable light- but a scant few-

*
Last time I counted there were hundreds in Sahih Bukhari alone.

You want to look for the genocide of the Jews? Yup it's in Sahih bukhari.

You want to look for the rape of Safiya after Mo beheaded her husband? Yup - it's in Sahih Bukhari too.

You want to look for Mo having sex with a nine year old girl? Hey what a surprise - it's in Sahih Bukhari too.

You want to look for Mo murdering Ka'ab ibn al-Ashraf? Well blow me down if it's not in Sahih Bukhari.

You want to look for Mo attacking caravans and looting? Well what do you know - it's in Sahih Bukhari.

You want to look for Mo taking slaves from the people he attacked? Surprise, surprise - it's in Sahih Bukhari.

You want to look for Mo selling slaves in the mosque? Yes you got it - it's in Sahih Bukhari.

If that is what you claim is scant few I'm sorry to disappoint you.

Pamela:

Misleading the general reader by what you think should be Islam, resorting to media's manipulations and the concept of victimhood in Islam shows the fragility of Islamic identity that you (and Victoria) have repeatedly demonstrated at each aned every rebuttal from the knowledgeable bloggers (some of whom were former Muslims such as Muhammad and Omar Qasim).

This situation of self-denial by you, and the more clamorous Victoria, regarding refuting any empirical or anecdotal evidence to the contrary provided by Mo, Qasim, Rajesh and others, doesn't serve any purpose regardless of how good your intentions might be.

The situation is really hilarious because all you have done is to provide your viewpoint and very cleverly avoid direct confrontation with the opinions of other non-Muslims. Your touchy-feely sloppy rebuttals really don't have any essence. For example, you have not answered directly why your benign interpretation of the vicious, racist surahs of the Quran should supercede or have more eminence than the orthodox interpretations of the mullahs in the shanty madrassas in Pakistan.

Because you (and others like you) don't provide any resolving answers, the reader is rather confounded by what is right about Islam. I do view that you may not be responsible for the very violent acts of the "minority" (?) terrorists from the Islamic bloc, but because the Quran, if
read verbatim, does indeed command mindless genocide against non-Muslims it is not at all clear who is right or should be right - you or the mullah orthodoxy.

One thus concludes that Islam, given the violence, chaos, bedlam, mayhem we see committed by these "minority" (?) Muslims, is indeed a very violent religion and such can indeed be verified from the Quranic surahs. The more liberated, educated and emancipated Muslims like you, who are suppossedly in majority, appear to be held hostage by the minority (radicals), and apparently there is no end to this crisis ! Are the non-Muslims to be blamed for this internal crisis within Islam ?

The more defensive you pose, you become less credible and I might conclude that it may not matter to you. All you are doing is to deflect any cogent argument under the guise of pretense of civility/mannerisms. Perhaps such strict penchant for civility and mannerisms, that are tangential to the topic at hand, is supreme than any argument per Islamic perceptions, but that ain't gonna cut it.

You (and Muslims like you) need to do a much better job at convincing others instead of making a case for Islamic victimhood. Till I see that you can do so, I would certainly hold onto my opinion that Islam is a barbaric religion.

Happy Milad-ul-nabi to you and Victoria

anonymous-

no one is trying to convince anyone that islam is a religion of peace.

pamela responds to people who present information, some very wrong-

there isnt the compulsive need to convince others of our rightness or even defend when someone writes something wrong- (such as ansering-islam's amateurish attempt at psychoanalying our Prophet(pbuh).

She is simply a rare commodity on these boards-
a panelist that actually cares about and responds to the people who write on her blog.

For that, you are not correctly identifying the intention or mentality of muslims.

There is no backbiting allowed- it is a detestable thing- it is akin to eating the dead flesh of ones brother- that shows how repulsive it is to us to speak about others- behind their back- or in the case of the Prophet(pbuh) one who is unable to answer the charges.

you are simply misunderstanding if you think anyone here is trying to convince you of anything.

Ms Pamela is just responsible to her posters.
and this is her blog, so she can frame her points of view as she chooses.

Pamela,
You might have convinced yourself, but you have not convinced me that Islam is a religion of peace.

"The reason that Islam suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder is that its founder also suffered from this disorder. I don’t mean this to be taken literally, of course. It is only meant to describe a peculiar phenomenon that went on in Muhammad’s head. When Muhammad first began receiving his "revelations," many of his neighbors in the city of Mecca took it upon themselves to mock and persecute him. Muhammad was a threat both to their immoral lifestyles and to their source of wealth (the pagan idols of the city brought plenty of revenue), and so he had to be stopped, or at least discredited. During this period, Muhammad was humble, devout in many ways, obedient to the message handed down to him, faithful in giving to the poor, and, in general, a fine moral example. In essence, he was like the many fine examples of dedicated Muslims we see in the world today. He preached a religion of peace, and the hadiths we have from this period reflect his peaceful temperament.

Then something happened. Muhammad fled Mecca and moved to Medina, where his political power rapidly increased. Soon he and his followers began raiding caravans to support the fledgling religion,[1] and, while Muhammad’s enemies multiplied, so did his followers. What followed can only be described as a reign of terror for those who refused to submit to Islam. Both men and women were slaughtered for writing satirical poems against Muhammad, and those who left the Islamic faith were exterminated. One woman was murdered in the dark for writing a poem against Muhammad; after she was slain, Muhammad declared that "Two goats won’t butt their heads about her."[2] Hundreds of Jews were beheaded (after surrendering) for standing against Muhammad, and their wives and children were sold into slavery.[3] A blind man who was reportedly more than a hundred years old had his head split open for saying that, if he could only see, he would throw a handful of dust at Muhammad.[4] When a man named Uqba was about to be killed by Muslims and showed concern for his family by asking, "But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?" Muhammad answered by telling the doomed man that Hell would take care of them.[5] (For more on Muhammad’s violent acts, see "Murdered By Muhammad.")

There are, of course, far more examples of violence than the ones listed here, but these should be sufficient to provide a picture of Muhammad’s idea of how Muslims should treat those who refuse to submit to Islam. Was Islam a religion of peace for the 600-900 Jewish men and boys whose heads were piled into trenches after they had surrendered? Was Islam a religion of peace for the woman who was stabbed to death in the midst of her five children? Was it a religion of peace for anyone who dared to speak out against Muhammad? No, it wasn’t. When Muhammad finally had a band of dedicated followers who would obey his violent commands without question, Islam was not a religion of peace.

Notice that we have approached this question regarding the nature of Islam using a basic historical analysis. Discussions about Islam typically revolve around certain verses in the Qur’an, but such discussions are often fruitless. The reason for this is that the Qur’an is very inconsistent in its approach towards unbelievers, due in large part to Muhammad’s own inconsistency. In conversations about Islam, a Muslim may argue that, according to the Qur’an, "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256). A critic may reply with a very different passage:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection (9:29).

To this the Muslim replies, "Yes, it says to fight those who do not believe, but it is referring to unbelievers who attack Islam." Thus, according to many Muslims, Islam fights, but only in self-defense. So who’s right? The solution to the debate can be found in a historical examination of Islam. It is true that Muslims are only permitted to attack when threatened, but history shows what the early Muslims considered a threat. Anything other than complete submission to Islam was regarded as a threat to Islam, and so anything other than complete submission was met with extreme hostility. Even poetry and song lyrics, when used against Muhammad, were enough to warrant a sentence of death.[6]

Hence, the verses in the Qur’an that teach Muslims to live in peace should be examined within the historical context of Muhammad’s life, for it is this life that sheds light on an apparently ambiguous message. This historical context also sheds light on modern aspects of Islam, which ultimately derive from the life of its founder.

For instance, more than thirteen centuries ago, the relatively peaceful Muhammad fled Mecca because of intense persecution. As he fled the city, he left the path of peace farther and farther behind him. He eventually returned at the head of an army, and few were brave enough to oppose him. Islamic law was suddenly supreme, with a host of bloody tales to warn its enemies. A similar phenomenon occurs in the world today. When Muslims are in the minority (as they are in America) the message is always "Let us live in peace with one another, for Islam is a religion of tolerance and understanding." Then, once Islam has spread throughout the country,
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/
Wood/two_faces.htm

Victoria,

Good advice! Thanks again for all your help.

rajesh- while you offer no support for your statements as to how muslims viewed these things- notwithstanding - it is your opinion, we all have opinions-

and it is simply not true as you assert that tere are "many" hadeeths that present the Prophet(pbuh) in an unfavorable light- but a scant few-

however the reast is just slanderous-

but still notwithstanding-

in the last century america had no compunction about considering women unfit to own property or vote-

and african americans have only had the right to vote for barely 50 years!!!!!!!!!!!

we are not talking about what was- but what is

if we were talking about what was- we could talk about the caste system in inida that codified racism for millenilum- or women being burned alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands.

and these are NOT questionable or doubtful ideas but substantiated facts that have governed india for a looooong time

unlike your questionable conjecture and opinion on the Prophet(pbuh)
laws that have since started to be outlawed in india-

people that live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones

you know, i always try to be reasonable on this thread-

i dont go around casting ugly shadows on other people or their beliefs-

but it gets really disgusting that people think it is okay to make the most horrific accusations against the Prophet(pnuh)

its really not okay to have hate in your heart and feel justified in expressing it-

if you hate our Prophet(pbuh) so much- why would you come to a muslim blog to spread that hatred?

are you counting on the reasonable responses of muslims not to repay your venom with venom?

because that is what happens-

but our patient responses doesnt give any the right to abuse that patience with their malicious slanderous diatribes

it is what it is

danny b- if youre so inclined- ask god to send you a nice muslim to learn more about the similarities between islam and christianity, and where they differ. but follow upby going somewhere you can find one-stop by any mosque- (the smaller ones are sometimes empty between prayer times) but largwr ones usually always have a staff that can direct you.
many mosques have interfaith discussions- and come with questions-

i converted to islam from catholicism- i get very annoyed when people try to evangelize to me- and try not to do it to others- since i wasnt raised in islam there were many subtleties i wasnt aware of-
and everyone had an opinion to any question-
my way of operating is to ask 5 separate people the same question, and if i get 5 different answers i research until i get consistency.

i still have one question thats never been answered (about representational art)

if you encounter anyone that tries to tell you whats wrong with your philosophy, avoid that person. There are many who can present islam by telling you whats right with it, and its not necessary to tear something else down to do that.

i saw reza aslan (aslan is turkish for lion,but i dont think hes turkish- remeber c.s.lewis?)
debate sam harris on cspan one time recently and he was really well spoken,

as a matter of fact-

this is for PAMELA-
is there a specific translation of the qur'an that you would recommend?

peace
and thanks danny for bringing a peaceful tone to this thread

Oops...and Thanks, HL

HL,

That might be difficult through fiber optic cable, ha.

I have noted the book and will definitely seek it out. I live beetween a Borders AND a Barnes and Noble, if you can believe it.

Danny,

If you want to read a little more about Islam may suggest a book by Reza Aslan, 'no god but Gd.' I just finished reading it. It does not go into details but it will give you general idea about Islam and the different schools of thought. I have an extra copy of 'the meaning of the Quran' by Yusuf Ali that I can give to you but I don't know how that can be done...

Pamela, Victoria, and others,

Thank you so much for taking the time to share your information with me. I found it immensely interesting.

Victoria, regarding the holy water analogy, I understand and agree. I would neither expect a guest of mine, at mass, to make the sign of the cross, nor use the holy water...unless they wanted to, of course.

Pamela, regarding the scripture you provided describing The Annunciation, I was very interested to see the acknowledgement of the event in Islam. Whether or not a Muslim believes, as do we Christians, that Christ was actually the Messiah, the regard for the importance of the event is really quite a statement.

I really appreciate you helping to give the "other side" of the argument.

You know, I live in Detroit, where we have the largest concentration of Middle Eastern people outside of the Middle East. Thus, there are many Muslims here. However, I am not aquainted with any. I don't believe in judging anything I don't know anything about, but my preconcieved notions about Islam (if any) are pretty benign and allow me to be open to learning more. I mean, how could I have any opinion about people who are RIGHT THERE and don't really draw any attention to themselves?

I'll say this, local news reports about the Muslim community here are rare, but when they are included in a newscast it is usually because of what others did to them, i.e. vandalizing a mosque, etc...

When the cartoon of Mohammed caused riots around the world, the only thing I was aware of happening here wasa that a local Imam publicly stated that they found the cartoon offensive, but that there should be no rioting or even demonstrations organized over it.

I know that I have a choice, I can have uniformed opinions and generalize a whole faith based on headlines, sound bites, t-shirts and bumper stickers, OR I can look around me and observe for myself, ask questions, and seek answers for myself before making up my mind about ANYTHING.

I choose the latter, and you have all been very helpful to that end.

Just in case my statement, “It is possible to develop real respect for other religious revelations without agreeing with them,” should create any misunderstanding, I wish to clarify. As one who sees great value in learning from the wisdom of other religions, I do not wish to imply that one cannot agree on many aspects of other religious revelations, and learn from them, deepening one’s own faith. I merely meant to emphasise that one should be aware of the differences clearly as well.

Pamela,
Even in Bukhari and Muslim there are many hadiths that portray Muhammad in an unfavorable light to modern sensibilities. The fact is up until very recently Muslims were unashamed that their prophet ordered razias and ghazwats, that he ordered the beheading of the Jews and the enslavement of the women and children. Up until recently Muslims were unashamed that Muhammad sold slaves in the mosque or that he had sex with a nine year old child. Most of the modern charges against Muhammad's character can be found in the most sahih hadiths. Sahih does not mean the hadiths showed Muhammad favorably - it just means the chain of narration is considered to be unblemished (to varying degrees).

Thus I think it is wrong to suggest that the unfavorable impression critics provide of Muhammad is erroneous because their source is non-sahih. Even if we were to confine our analysis to the sahih hadiths we derive the same picture of Muhammad.

Danny,

1. Is it offensive to a Muslim for a non-Muslim to refer to Mohammed without the PBHN?

I doubt many Muslims would be offended at a non-Muslim referring to Muhammad without the peace be upon him after his name. In fact, you probably have noticed that many of the Muslims posting on this board do not use it regularly. Obviously, only a certain group of Muslims adhere to that practice. Some do take it very seriously, and strongly advocate for it, but a lot of Muslims feel that respect is better shown by listening to the Prophet's words, rather than reciting phrases which may easily become rote rather than sincere expressions of respect.

2. If the Angel Gabriel brought the word of Allah to the Prophet, how does Islam reconcile this with Gabriel's visiting Mary to tell her she will bear the son of God first?

Does Islam consider Jesus to be just another prophet?

Yes, Islam considers Jesus to be a prophet, albeit one of the most honored ones. I think the Qur'an speaks best for itself. It's a rather lengthy passage, but still, I'll quote in whole for you:

From chapter: Al-Imran (The Family of Imran)

3:45 (And remember) when the angel said, "O Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (to God).

3:46 "He will speak to mankind in his cradle and in his manhood, and he is of the righteous."

3:47 She said, "My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal has touched me?" He said, "So (it will be). God creates what He will. If He decrees a thing, He says to it only, 'Be!' and it is.

3:48 "And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel.

3:49 "And will make him a messenger unto the children of Israel, (saying), 'Lo! I come unto you with a sign from your Lord. Lo! I fashion for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and I breathe into it and it is a bird, by God's leave. I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead, by God's leave. And I announce unto you what you eat and what you store up in your houses. Lo! herein verily is a portent for you, if you are believers.

3:50 'And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you. I come to you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to God and obey me.

3:51 'Lo! God is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him. That is a straight path.'"

3:52 But when Jesus became conscious of their disbelief, he cried, "Who will be my helpers in the cause of God?" The disciples said, "We will be God's helpers. We believe in God, and bear you witness that we have surrendered (unto Him).

3:53 "Our Lord! We believe in that which You have revealed and we follow him whom You have sent. Enroll us among those who witness (to the truth)."

3:54 And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and God schemed (against them): and God is the best of schemers.

3:55 (And remember) when God said, "O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering you and causing you to ascend unto Me, and am cleansing you of those who disbelieve and am setting those who follow you above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then unto Me you will (all) return, and I shall judge between you as to that wherein ye used to differ."

Thus we see that Jesus's miracles, ascention, etc were God's blessings on Jesus, but not signs of Jesus being God (in the Qur'anic understanding). There are a couple other passages talking about the words Jesus spoke in the cradle defending his mother, but I won't quote them now as this is already a lengthy post!

An interesting sidenote, this passage amongst others, has been interpreted by various classical scholars to indicate that women can be prophets as well, pointing to Mary as an example of a woman who recieved messages from God via Gabriel, and who carried out commands from God and conveyed that message to her people.

>Is this what is meant by: "A true Mussalman must be tolerant. Islam teaches that every religion is true. Islam teaches that God has sent Prophets and religious teachers to mankind to bring them to the path of goodness, to teach them the noble things of life, to be kind, to be noble, to be merciful, to be good and to be just"?

Hmm... I would say that Islam holds that all religions have Divine beginnings, but they may not all be 100% truth as they currently stand. Just as various widely accepted interpretations of the Qur'an and legal rulings may totally miss the point and actually be a deviation from what the Qur'an intended, so to teachings which may be basic to other religions may or may not reflect the inherent truth of all religions.

Vis a vis Christianity, most Muslims would say that Jesus taught pure truth, but distortions have crept into that message over time (as has happened with pretty much every prophet). Thus the need for new prophets.

The hadith talk about there having been 100,000+ prophets, and that every people had prophets from amongst themselves. Many Muslims understand this to mean that every religion has its intial kernel of truth. But so too, every religion has diverged in it's own way, some more than others.

Nonetheless, many of us would point to the common morality, the emphasis on transcending the bounds of worldly life and on caring for your fellow human as evidence that all religions have the same basic origin.

3. In light of the above article which puts Islam in a much more favorable light, where does the context provide the ability for the above posters to pull so many seemingly hateful quotes from the scripture?

Are they all really being chopped down so much that the remaining shreds just seem terribly violent?

It just seems like so many.

This question is precisely the reason why I keep responding to those quotes...

First, you have to understand where they are coming from. Islam has two sources for guidance. One is the Qur'an which was the revelation received by Muhammad. The Qur'an was revealed piecemeal, and preserved by memorization. Literally hundreds of the early companions had memorized the Qur'an. Immediately after the Prophet's death, the first caliph, Abu Bakr had a complete copy written. This copy was kept by him, his successor Omar and then Omar's daughter Hafsa. Uthman, the third caliph, was concerned that incomplete Qur'ans were being circulated and so, in consultation with the remaining hafiz and with reference to the Abu Bakr manuscript, he sent out five Qur'ans to be circulated as authoritative. This was 19 years after the Prophet's death. Two of those Qur'ans still exist -- one is on display in Tadjikistan, the other in Turkey. So the integrity of the Qur'an is pretty well established.

The other source that is commonly accepted are the hadith (sayings of the Prophet, or things that he did). The hadith had no such rigorous collection and standardization until much later. In fact, there was some resistance to writing hadith as the Prophet had advised against mixing his own sayings with the sayings of God. Still, his sunnah (his way of doing things) was considered an example for us to follow, so his companions tried to preserve that as well. Some people obviously took the matter very seriously, but others made things up (for a variety of reasons).

As a result there were literally hundreds of thousands of hadith in circulation within 200 years of the Prophet's death, when Bukhari and the other great compilers of hadith set about their work. While Bukhari and others were fairly rigorous tracing lines of transmission back to the prophet, others were not. In fact, some wrote fanciful tales of the Prophets, or copied narrations from Jews and Christians and included them among the sayings of the Prophet.

As a result a lot of stuff has gotten mixed in which is not authentic. And scholarship of hadith, both in terms of research into the lines of narration and the content of the hadith is an ongoing project.

Anyway, it's a HUGE mass of material. My collection of Bukhari is nine volumes (and not small ones). Muslim, another considered very reliable, is four. Between them they contain well over ten thousand hadith.

Muhammad's posts included a very few quotes from the qur'an (two or three) and those were indeed snipped. And I talked about them in earlier comments.

Now -- do Muslims ever snip them? Bin Laden did. But it's as wrong when he does as when anyone else does, and Muslims need to emphatically reject that kind of cut and paste approach to the Qur'an. And we are, books have been published, articles written about it all the time, but it takes time for things to change, and currently there is a lot of political stuff going on that pushes some Muslims towards radicalism.

The vast majority of the quotes in Muhammad's (and other's posts) come from this hadith literature. When you have hundreds of thousands of hadith, 90% of which have been deemed spurious by the earliest scholarly collectors, it is not too surprising that you can pull out thirty or forty or even two hundred that are not very savory.

I can say with strong confidence that in Sunni Muslim circles Bukhari and Muslim are becoming the most accepted hadith books, with the other four of the traditional hadith cannon being viewed with far less favor.

When Muhammad quotes from Tabari, or Ishaq (or even more obscure sources), those books may have had play in classical shariah (and would perhaps go a long way to explaining why classical shariah is the way it is!), but in modern Muslim circles, at least in the west, they are hardly known beyond academic circles, let alone read, and even less read closely.

I can imagine this has to be even more true in places where literacy rates are lower, and translations from the classical arabic into the local language are not likely to be found.

Soja John Thaikattil,
I wonder if you were around during the time of the partition that you don't seem to know about the religious nature of it.

--
I do agree that there is history of violence associated with the spread of Islam in some parts of the world. But India has a long history and a large population, of which Muslims are an integral part, and after all Indian Muslims were once Hindus and shaped by the Hindu culture and religion. Hence it is important to interpret everything relative to the whole picture. That was the point I tried to make.
---
Islam was imposed on the Hindus at great cost. One only has to read the history of India, in particular Muslim rulers like Mahmud of Ghazni to know how steeped in blood Indian Islam is. In fact, the Hindu Kush was bathed in Hindu blood - the name itself means Killer of Hindus. In the 14th century Ibn Battuta, the great Muslim traveller, wrote that the mountain range was so named because slave children from India was brought over by the Muslims and died in such numbers. The entire Islamic history of India is not pretty reading - it is full of atrocities committed by the Muslims on the Hindus.

===
It is equally important to differentiate between violence that is politically rather than religiously motivated and instigated. Was the partition of India necessary on religious grounds? I doubt it.
---
I wish you were around to tell that to Mohammad Ali Jinnah who insisted on the partition of India along religious grounds. The Hindus didn't want it - only the Muslims did, and they got their wish due to Gandhi's weakness.

===
There are millions of Muslims in South India, who are an integral part of the South Indian culture and who would feel completely lost in Pakistan or Bangladesh. It must be remembered that none of the South Indian Muslims made an attempt to leave for Pakistan or Bangladesh on religious grounds; neither did the Hindus and Muslims kill each other on religious grounds in South India.
--
That does not prove the peaceful nature of Islam because there were/are too many other incidence of Islamic violence. A good does not cancel an evil.

===
How come there are 138 million Muslims in India today if Pakistan and Bangladesh was meant to accommodate all the Muslims of Indian origin?
-
The reason is that Gandhi wanted a secular non-religious nation of India and stopped the full transmigration. The population of India was at the time in the process of partitioning on religious grounds: Pakistan for the Muslims and India for the Hindus, but due to Gandhi's blindness the partition ceased. That is why today Pakistan is almost 100% Muslim but India has 20% Muslim. If we were fair we should have allowed all the Muslims to go to Pakistan, not stop the process.

===
How come the proportion of blood bath is insignificant compared to the actual population of Muslims who live in harmony with people of other religions in India?
---

What do you mean? Do you live in India? Do you know the communal violence there is in India (on religious grounds)? Do you realize the concessions the Hindus have to make to the Muslims so they don't cause trouble for everyone? India today is a state within a state - with the Muslims enjoying special rights - including their right to have their own laws - called shariah.

Disharmony on religious grounds is a daily occurrence in India - some of it makes the news when riots and killings happen, but most of the time it is below the radar.

Relationship between Hindus and Muslims have never been entirely peaceful.

danny b- you asked-

"1. Is it offensive to a Muslim for a non-Muslim to refer to Mohammed without the PBHN?"

as far as whether a muslim would be upset for a non-muslim with saying or writing Muhammad(peace be upon him), it would be ridiculous to expect a non-muslim to be aware of the inticracies of a religion not their own.

if you took a muslim to your church would it upset you if they didnt dip their fingers in the cistern and cross themsleves or genuflect before the crucifix? of course you wouldnt, neither would any other person of reason hold someone acountable for something they dont know. and even if they do know- its not their religion, so why would a muslim expect them to act as a muslim when theyre not?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i tried to find scripture from the new jerusalem bible as i assume you use that- all i could get were the standards-

ive always found the revised version to be half decent- wait- ill try douay-

http://www.internetdynamics.com/pub/vc/bibles.html

looking for a rheims douay i found this site you may like it for your own studies-
but my computer couldnt find it right now-

oops i just reread your question-

that wasnt the point at all-

"2. If the Angel Gabriel brought the word of Allah to the Prophet, how does Islam reconcile this with Gabriel's visiting Mary to tell her she will bear the son of God first?"

as to the answer-

that is Gabriels job- to be a messenger-
why would a muslim have any problem with an angel doing their job?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Does Islam consider Jesus to be just another prophet?"

Yes. when the sahaba (companions) of the Prophet(pbuh) asked who would be closest to him i heaven, he put his first two fingers together tightly and said tightly "Issa(Jesus(ata) and I will be like this in paradise.

you may have noticed that i always put (ata) besides Jesus'(ata) name also- it stands for may the blessings of ALLAH be upon him-

you see the extraordinary respect and love that mslims have for Jesus(ata)? when i was a christian i never had such respect that i always followed is name with a blessing/prayer of god!!!

this occurred strongly to me one time when i was at home in pittsburgh pa and looking at the creche there ( it is an exact replica of the one in bethlehem- one of the few in the world)

i was overwhelmed with both love for Jesus(ata) and my new profoundly respectful relationship to him.

danny, as the first commandment clearly says-

I THE LORD YOUR GOD AM A JEALOUS GOD AND THOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME

i could never reconcile putting Jesus(ata) besides god- worshiping him as god- it was always a nagging problem with me-

i went to my big old white leather bound douay- you know the one- with the big face of Jesus(ata) on the cover- it usually sits untouched on peoples coffee tables- and i went through the NT with a ighlighter , and every time Jesus(ata) called himself a man-i highlighted it- it was like over a hundred times danny-

i dont have enough time right now- but in islam somewhere (im not sure may ALLAH forgive me if i incorrectly transmit something) it says that ALLAH sent 250,000 prophet to every nation- and the qur'an says (this is a paraphrase) that ALL PROPHETS ARE TO BE REPSECTED.

this was a start on the next question-

and o yes- pamela is absolutely right about the metaphor of wine being god-intoxication- you know well that st. francis of asissi made no secret of his desire to be intoxicated by god and called himself proudly a fool for god-
many religious mystics and poets have used this analogy- the hindus favor god as a lover - and many other traditions use these poetic references-
i especially used to like basho and i think he was taoist but dont quote me on that-

“To a worldly man, a God-intoxicated person will appear mad and he will laugh at him, But to the God-intoxicated man, the worldly appear insane, foolish, misled, blind.”
Sri Sathya Sai Baba

so i also leave this link to rumi- my personal favorite -

http://www.rumionfire.com/

peace danny- insha'alla(if god wills it) i can come back tomorrow and well talk again

Muhammad --

As for your post starting... I'm glad you don't believe an apostate should be murdered ...

I think we agree on every point. My own agenda, as an individual and as an activist, is:

1)to challenge inhumane interpretations of the Qur'an and elements of the shariah so as to improve the lot of Muslims around the world. Moderate, liberal, progressive, and cultural Muslims cannot cede our religion to the fanatics. Too much is at stake, too many lives. This is why I write where ever I can, why I've been involved with various organizations that try to bring these perspectives forward. We are advocating for freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and many other human rights, civil rights, and civil liberties, as are Muslims in those countries.

I believe this task calls for a careful and deliberate approach -- with sound theology and strong basis from within the Qur'an and tradition. The most effective critiques will be those coming from a respectful position, one based upon belief and sincere devotion to Islam and the Prophet.

2)to foster open, tolerant, welcoming Muslim communities here in the states and overseas. Communities where race, gender, orientation, and creed are not used as filters as to who is welcome and who isn't.

3) to foster interfaith (and nonfaith) communication, dialogue and tolerance. Much work to be done on both sides. Fortunately, the vast majority of people I come in contact with have similar goals, and astounding levels of good faith and a strong commitment to pluralism, diveristy and multi-culturalism without cultural relevatism.

One of the goals of this dialogue is precisely to prevent WWIII!

Rajesh (Ref post 4 April 2007 9:05 AM):

You wrote: “So you think the millions of Hindus killed by Muslims was insignificant violence? What are you smoking, bro? It must be very good.”

I do agree that there is history of violence associated with the spread of Islam in some parts of the world. But India has a long history and a large population, of which Muslims are an integral part, and after all Indian Muslims were once Hindus and shaped by the Hindu culture and religion. Hence it is important to interpret everything relative to the whole picture. That was the point I tried to make. It is equally important to differentiate between violence that is politically rather than religiously motivated and instigated. Was the partition of India necessary on religious grounds? I doubt it. There are millions of Muslims in South India, who are an integral part of the South Indian culture and who would feel completely lost in Pakistan or Bangladesh. It must be remembered that none of the South Indian Muslims made an attempt to leave for Pakistan or Bangladesh on religious grounds; neither did the Hindus and Muslims kill each other on religious grounds in South India. How come there are 138 million Muslims in India today if Pakistan and Bangladesh was meant to accommodate all the Muslims of Indian origin? How come the proportion of blood bath is insignificant compared to the actual population of Muslims who live in harmony with people of other religions in India?

All religions as a rule are expressed in the context of the culture in which they are practised and take on local expressions with time. So it to the credit of Hinduism that Islam as practised in India is not ridden with violence, despite politically motivated exceptions. Islam practised in the US is likewise influenced by the prevalent American ideals and values, values which have a predominantly Christian origin. It has been proved that the best government is a secular one which guarantees human rights for all, and the right to practice any religion one chooses.

I personally feel that the attempts by Pamela and other Muslims like her who are trying very hard to emphasise the positive in Islam, and work towards peace in the world, needs to be supported and encouraged. Whatever may or may not be written in the Quran, the fact remains that there are peace loving Muslims in the world and they deserve respect. The incumbent President of India, who is loved and greatly respected by Hindus and Muslims alike, is a Muslim.

Every religion is a unique revelation and a unique path to God. On the one hand while it is essential not to hate or disrespect a person or their beliefs because they choose to reach God by a path different from our own, it is equally important to be aware that the paths are uniquely different in some very important aspects. Each human being chooses the path that appeals best to their heart and mind, and every thinking adult person should be convinced of the rationale for their choice. Sadly, on the one extreme we have religious fundamentalism that is intolerant of and hates anything that is different from its own particular belief, and on the other extreme we seen to have an inter-spirituality that finds it difficult to differentiate between the uniqueness of the different religious traditions. That need not be. It is possible to develop real respect for other religious revelations without agreeing with them. I respect Islam and Muslims although there is nothing in the Christian revelation that expects us to await the coming of another Prophet of God, although we do await the second coming of Christ, without knowing when that is going to be.

Scripture is Scripture. While it is a revelation of God at a particular time in history and contains some eternal truths, it is not to be worshipped as God and should not be made a substitute for a living relationship with God, since we all tend to interpret Scripture based on our own conditioning and fail to differentiate between cultural expressions, symbolic representation of the eternal reality and eternal truth of God that never changes with time. It is foolish then to try to defend Scripture as a history textbook or science treatise and try to practice social customs mentioned in Scripture that have no eternal relevance at all. God is not threatened by any human being who reflects and questions anything that is told to them by any religious authority or is written in Scripture – only human beings feel threatened. Once we realise that all religions teach love for God – either as a transcendent or imminent(or both)unchanging reality and truth, healthy love for ourselves and love for neighbour, and the highest level of consciousness that can be achieved is love for enemies, finding common ground is easy. Mystics in all religions have proved that.

BTW Rajesh, I’m a woman from Kerala, India (John is my father's first name, according to the Syro-Malabar Catholic tradition). I lived in Kerala until the age of eight, and left India only after I completed my university education. I have never smoked anything good or bad.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

on wine... the sufi poets used wine as a metaphor for the intoxicating Love of God. Drunkennes was seen as the state of the devotee, totally inebriated with the Divine, indifferent to his/her own worldly self. So when Omar Khayyam makes references to wine it can/should be interpreted in this manner. Similarly imagery of the lover and the beloved, sensuality, and effacment within the relationship, is a reference to the believer and God.

Not surprisingly, a lot of the less poetic, gravely serious scholars took exception to these metaphors, or did not realize they were metaphors at all, and condemned the poets as drunkards and profligates.

Danny B wrote:

"I'm supoosed to take your (or Muhammad's)word for it because you say you know what you're talking about. Why should I JUST believe YOU when you would question God himself? Why do I have the defect?

I just don't understand the hypocracy and the double standard."

There is no double standard/hypocrisy, and you don't defect to believe me. Belief, as Sam Harris has argued very compellingly, is probably the last resort and depends on the person and situation.

Yes, I am sure in this instance of what I am talking about - Islam. But, to form my opinions and state them I have provided sources which anyone can verify and see if my opinions based on those sources can be valid (but may not be unique). My opinion may not necessarily be the last word on the issue, but that again is open to debate.

Dee Chatterjee,

I will check that one out too. Thanx!

Qasim Omar:

Thanks for the quick link. Danny B. wanted to know the source for my asserting that Omar Khayyam was regarded as a heretic. I recall that I read about him in the following book:

Toby E. Huff, THE RISE OF EARLY MODERN SCIENCE: ISLAM, CHINA AND THE WEST. (title available on http://www.amazon.com )

The book is very, very interesting. It did show that while many Muslim (freethinkers) did contribute to sciences in general, beyond a certain point where their findings crossed the line or ideas clashed with traditional orthodoxy in Islamic jurisprudence (Sharia), these intelligent, freethinking Muslims were regarded as heretics.

The author argues, very persuasively, that such orthodoxies led Islam to lose out in scientific achievements, and thus its glory faded and now it is almost non-existent.

Qasim Omar,

Thanks for the links. The one is much more complete than the book I have on the shelf. The comparative translations are a great resource.

Regarding what you said about considering him a Muslim when he was, in fact, a free thinker, I always thought that this particular quatrain made him seem at least agnostic.

'Tis all a Chequer-board of Nights and Days
Where Destiny with Men for Pieces plays:
Hither and thither moves, and mates, and slays,
And one by one back in the Closet lays.

It never dawned on me that wine would be forbidden by Islam, but never over looked the fact that he wrote a lot about it.

I was apprehensive about bringing him up in the first place because it was a little off-topic, but now I am glad I did. I have gotten some good information out of it.

Thanks again Qasim Omar!

Omar Khayyam was a free-thinker who received a death fatwa for 'loving the Greeks, not Islam.'

http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/volume117issue4_more.php?id=212_0_9_0_C

It would seem strange for someone who had received a death fatwa for not loving Islam to be considered a Muslim. In fact, Omar Khayyam is generally regarded as a freethinker. He was a rationalist who disliked supernaturalism.

His Rubaiyat, even in the original Farsi, is about wine and the love of wine - which is forbidden by Islam. http://www.okonlife.com/poems/page1.htm

Allaheater,

Yeah...um...it's not enough to grow a thumb, it need to be opposable too. Consider that.

Deb Chatterjee,

"The article is good from Swami Sivananda from India. However, as a Hindu I would certainly start questioning before I can accept anyone's opinions - even if it came from God Himself. "

This is why I get so frustrated with you. You have an strong opinion that you are not willing to bend on (not that you necessarily should), but then call me "pathological" for stating what you say above.

I'm supoosed to take your (or Muhammad's)word for it because you say you know what you're talking about. Why should I JUST believe YOU when you would question God himself? Why do I have the defect?

I just don't understand the hypocracy and the double standard.

OOps! That's me above!

Anonymous,

I wouldn't put my name on that either.

Pamela and Victoria,

Thank you for your posts, they were very helpful.

Just as one cannot pull random quotes from the Bible and explain what it means to be Catholic, I knew it was likely to be the same case with Islam.

Now that I have read this information (and I also went to Pamela's MPV site), I have some questions.

1. Is it offensive to a Muslim for a non-Muslim to refer to Mohammed without the PBHN?

2. If the Angel Gabriel brought the word of Allah to the Prophet, how does Islam reconcile this with Gabriel's visiting Mary to tell her she will bear the son of God first?

Does Islam consider Jesus to be just another prophet?

Is this what is meant by: "A true Mussalman must be tolerant. Islam teaches that every religion is true. Islam teaches that God has sent Prophets and religious teachers to mankind to bring them to the path of goodness, to teach them the noble things of life, to be kind, to be noble, to be merciful, to be good and to be just"?

3. In light of the above article which puts Islam in a much more favorable light, where does the context provide the ability for the above posters to pull so many seemingly hateful quotes from the scripture?

Are they all really being chopped down so much that the remaining shreds just seem terribly violent?

It just seems like so many.

That being said, I am suspicious of the posters anyway after scrolling back to the original posts of others being quoted, and how those snips are being "used". Not to mention my own.

Victoria:

The article is good from Swami Sivananda from India. However, as a Hindu I would certainly start questioning before I can accept anyone's opinions - even if it came from God Himself. (In fact that's exactly what God (Krishna) says in the holiest of the Hindu texts, The Bhagavad Gita [chapter 18, verse 63]). So, though I am a deist, I would still argue from a Hindu perspective thus:

These are some troubling questions:

(a) I disagree with the quote from Swami Sivananda that reads:

"There is no such thing in Islam that a Muslim should fight in order that religion should live. Islam forbids fighting. Islam says: 'You shall not take up arms except in the cause of self-defence.'"

True, but this is too deviant an interpretation. Most mainstream Muslim scholars (Jamal-ud-din Afghani, Al Shafi) would disagree with this view as it contradicts Prophet's own actions (sunnah).

(b) "A Muslim is expected to treat a non-Muslim as a brother and with as much generosity and friendliness as possible. Islam is a religion of service."

In view of Quran [005:033],[009:029],[047:004] this assertion of Swami Shivananda is definitely unacceptable.

I can go on and on. These are some of the glaring omissions (or errors) that cannot be backed up by facts. Philosophical interpretations are fine and that's consistent with Swamiji's (Hindu) way of thinking.

Also, Victoria, since when did Mussalman (Muslims) started to look into what pagans scholars (Hindu swamis) have opined about Islam ? According to Islam, a pagan should be killed or forced into conversion. So, seeking glories from pagans shows the crisis of identity that has engulfed Islam.

LOL !

Victoria,

Denying reality doesn't help the debate. There are many points I could raise about your long post, but I will confine myself to just one.

You state that: "Islam teaches that every religion is true."

This may be what you want to believe, but it is not true. You have to start facing the truth, Victoria, if Islam is ever to reform and become peaceful and tolerant.

The truth is as follows:

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 17:
“In blasphemy indeed are those that say that god is Christ the son of Mary.”

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 72, 73 & 75:
“They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." They do blaspheme who say: god is one of three in a trinity: for there is no god except one Allah. If they do not desist from their word of blasphemy, verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. Christ the son of Mary was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him.”

Ishaq: 552
The Quraysh had put pictures in the Ka’aba including two of Jesus and one of Mary. Muhammad ordered that the pictures should be erased.

Qur’an Chapter 4 Verse 157:
That they (the Jews) said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.

Ishaq: 262
Some Muslims remained friends with the Jews, so Allah sent down a Qur’an forbidding them to take Jews as friends. From their mouths hatred has already shown itself and what they conceal is worse.

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 51:
O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them.

So, Victoria, the evidence clearly reveals that Muhammad considered that the religion of Christianity was not true (i.e. he considered that Jesus wasn't the son of god as Christians believe), and because of this he ordered Muslims not to take Christians to be their friends or protectors.

Muhammad taught that Christian belief was blasphemy. He taught that the penalty for blasphemy was death. You have to face up to reality. There is no point hiding your head in the sand and just believing what you want to believe. Denial doesn't help solve the problems of the world, and will not help prevent a world war.

HA HA!

So now we are being told that DESPITE the *actual actions* of Muslims all around the world (no matter what the country) and despite what the Qu'ran and the scruptures may say...Islam is peaceful and none of that has anything to do with being a Muslim?

So it seems we are being told that millions and millions of Muslims and all their holy writings are not actually anything to do with Islam!

Talk about desperation to try and cover up the facts that most Muslims are dark ages dwelling hardliners who follow (without ignoring bits you don't like and pretending so much of the religion is somehow wrongly translated or badly misunderstood) the world's most violent, oppressive, intolerant and war like religion known as Islam.

Islam is not welcome in the lands of those who have actually evolved and grown their thumbs.
Take note.

Pamela & HL,

I'm glad to hear that you don't believe apostates should be murdered, and to see your reasoning for that, but unfortunately many people are still killed by people who do hold such beliefs.

It would be a very positive step if moderate Muslims started campaigning to have the laws reformed in countries which still impose the death sentence for leaving Islam. It is these types of laws and beliefs which cause so many non-Muslims to fear Islam.

Many non-Muslims will never believe that Islam is a peaceful or tolerant faith whilst it remains a criminal offence in many Islamic countries to leave Islam and to convert a Muslim to another faith.

Religious believers of all faiths frequently demand the freedom to practice their religion, but it has to work both ways. There also has to be the right to freedom from religion. Religions cannot legitimately demand respect and tolerance when so many of their adherents are intolerant and disrespectful of other beliefs.

Islamic countries which have laws against leaving Islam cannot expect to be fully accepted and respected by the non-Muslim world until these laws are reformed, and freedom of thought and belief made a human right.

Many people do not seem to realise that there is a very real danger of world war in the future between Muslims and non-Muslims, starting between Iran and Israel/USA, then spreading throughout the multicultural world. Tensions are presently building rapidly. Terrorists have been successful in increase these tensions, and their future ‘successes’ might tip things over the edge.

Moderate people on all sides need to begin finding new ways to understand each other and to tolerate each other and adapt to each other, before tensions build beyond the point of no return. A good starting point would be for all religions to start admitting that there are both positive and negative elements to their faith, and that the negative elements have led to wars in the past and may lead to wars in the future, if something isn’t done.

The world has seen countless wars and civil wars, but if things get out of hand this time then the world could experience the most bloody conflict in world history, on a scale never seen before, because the world has never been so multicultural as it is today. If multicultural cohesion were ever to break down then the consequences would not bear thinking about.

Please do not think that it could never happen. Wars have occurred throughout human history, particularly between Muslims and non-Muslims, and we are all experiencing tensions building at the moment.

I hope that the clash of civilisations never becomes an all out war, and I hope that both Muslims and non-Muslims reading this will do what they can to help ensure that it never happens.

The believers of most faiths are not afraid to question the negative elements of their faith. You can, for example, stand up in a Christian church and question the divinity of Jesus, without fearing for your life, but the same cannot be said of Islam at present.

In many Islamic countries Muslims are arrested and imprisoned for questioning any aspect of their faith. I believe that if we are to avoid war in the future throughout the multicultural world, then all sides need to begin examining the negative elements of their belief systems, and reforming those elements to enable peace, tolerance and respect to prevail.

What I have aimed to do is to present some of those negative elements, to help start that debate.

Islam should be flushed down the crapper like the waste product of delusional minds it is.

Man...I hate you people and all that you have done to our world even in the 21st century.
Mad morons the lot of you.

here is a quick observation of islam by swami sivananda- who is NOT a muslim but still appreciates the message-

i think he captured the essence nicely

i dont want to flood the blog too much so ill just leave this

by Sri Swami Sivananda
Introduction

Islam is the name given by Mohammed, the Prophet of Arabia, to the religion which he founded. Islam is an Arabic word, which means peace. It means submission to the will of God. It means surrender, acceptance of the revelation and commands of God. The personal name of God is Allah. The aim of Mohammed's preaching was the establishment of the religion of one God, Allah. Islam is a religion of universal brotherhood like Theosophy. Firm, unswerving belief in one God is the essence of true religion according to Islamic faith. It makes no distinction between caste and caste, creed and creed.

"There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah." This is the fundamental teaching of the Prophet of Islam. This is the cardinal tenet or doctrine of Islam. The religion of Islam is expressed shortly in this short formula. Mohammed preached the unity of God. He taught the love of God, respect for parents and the aged, reverence to women and a noble standard of life. Alms-giving or charity was a religious duty. He said: "Every good act is charity. Your smiling in your brothers face is charity. Putting a wanderer in the right path is charity."

The religion taught by the Prophet of Arabia is plain, simple and direct. The beauty of this religion is marred by the un-Islamic behaviour of some of the followers of Islam. It is clearly said in Quran, "No man is a true believer unless he desireth for his brother that which he desires for himself. God will not be affectionate to that man who is not affectionate to Gods creatures. Assist any person oppressed whether he is Muslim or non-Muslim. Love your fellow-being first."

Islam recognizes brotherhood of man. A Muslim is expected to treat a non-Muslim as a brother and with as much generosity and friendliness as possible. Islam is a religion of service. The service of man and the good of humanity constitute the service and worship of God.

Prophet Mohammed taught to the people more of ethics than deep philosophy, as they had no proper culture.

A Muslim believed in God, His Angels, His books and His messengers, the Last day, the Resurrection from the dead, Predestination by God, good and evil, the Judgment, the Balance, Paradise and Hell fire, the divine inspiration of Mohammed, the origin of the Quran as divine inspiration, the future state. He is ready to enter into the religious war (Jihad) when so ordered by the divine as a religious duty.

The first principle of Islam is "God has sent messengers to mankind throughout the ages to teach them that all messengers and all holy books are true," thereby emphasizing the universality of faith.
Teachings

The five cardinal tenets of Islam are:

1. Oneness of God and the revelation of Gods will to man through a series of Prophets, the last being Mohammed,
2. Prayer (Salat),
3. Fasting,
4. Alms-giving or charity (Zakat) and
5. Haj (pilgrimage to Mecca).

These are the five pillars of Islam.

The sacred book of the Muslims is the Quran. This book deals with many different subjects, doctrines, morals, legal enactments, matters of State, manners and matters of private import. They have been collected into Surahs or chapters. To the Muslim it is the word of God eternal and uncreated conveyed by the angel Gabriel. The Holy Quran is divided into 114 chapters. The word Surah literally means eminence or high degree. The total number of verses is 6,247. The Quran was revealed bit by bit during a period of 23 years. Of the twenty-three years over which the revelation of the whole book is spread, thirteen years were passed by Mohammed at Mecca and ten years at Medina.

Islam is a religion of peace. It is submission to the will of God. A true Mussalman must be tolerant. Islam teaches that every religion is true. Islam teaches that God has sent Prophets and religious teachers to mankind to bring them to the path of goodness, to teach them the noble things of life, to be kind, to be noble, to be merciful, to be good and to be just. Islam teaches to regard not only human beings with kindness and tolerance, but also to treat animals with kindness.

Quran says: "Any man may attain liberation by his faith and good actions. The flesh and blood of the animals that are sacrificed shall never reach God, but your purity shall reach God. The flesh and blood of the animals you kill, shall not bring salvation for you. Kill this ego. Serve the suffering humanity. Sacrifice your money, time and energy in the service of the poor, the oppressed. This will give you salvation or freedom."

In Quran, the brotherhood of man and the equality of woman with man socially, economically and spiritually are emphasized. Man is a member of a great fraternity. Woman is the counterpart of man.

Selflessness and service are the ideals which a Muslim is enjoined to follow. The essence of Islam is the service of the suffering humanity. The sacred Quran says: "Woe to those who pray, who are unmindful of their prayers, who make a show and refuse to help the needy."

The Prophet of Islam also was a great lover of the doctrine of Ahimsa. Injuring people in any way or destroying any living creature is reprehensible. He taught that men would be specially judged on the day of judgment with regard to their cruel treatment of dumb creatures.

Prophet has enjoined on his followers full and broad toleration of the views and beliefs of people other than their own. Quran says: "Let there be no compulsion in religion."

There is no asceticism in Islam. The rigorous austere practices which cause torture to human body are strictly prohibited. What is wanted is a contrite heart, sincere repentance and serious continuous effort to avoid evil and practice virtue.

The great Muslim fast is that of Ramadhan. It is a fast for one month. Eating and drinking are forbidden during the day, but are allowed at night.

Jihad is exerting oneself for the cause of religion. It is not taking part in war against unbelievers. Islam strictly prohibits application of force for its observance. There is no compulsion in religion.

Islam teaches that the followers of it should acquire the manifold attributes of Allah. No on can be a Muslim and none can attain Allah without acknowledging the essential truths of all religions.

There is no such thing in Islam that a Muslim should fight in order that religion should live. Islam forbids fighting. Islam says: "You shall not take up arms except in the cause of self-defence." In every sentence of the Quran those who are tyrants have been told: "If you tyrannise over people, if you are cruel to them, you shall be punished."

The Muslims believe in the immortality of the Soul. There will be a day of resurrection when the dead will rise to receive the rewards and punishment of their deeds in life in accordance with their merits and demerits.
Conclusions

The Prophet of Islam taught the great orders of Angels who carry out Gods Will; four Archangels-Michael, the Angel who protects; Gabriel, the Angel who bears Gods messages; Azrael, the Angel of death and Israfil, the Angel of the last trumpet.

At a time when Europe was covered in ignorance and darkness, the early Mussalmans kept alive the burning torch of Science and learning. They were thinkers, philosophers and seekers of knowledge. From the eighth century till the fourteenth of our era, the children of Islam were the torch-bearers in the West. Universities were established in Cairo, Baghdad, in Cordova in Spain. Christian Europe learnt its earliest lessons in science, in astronomy, in chemistry, in mathematics from the Mussalmans.

There have been in the history of Islam many women who have contributed enormously not only to literature, but also to science. Read the history of the Arabs in Spain and Baghdad. You will be amazed to read therein that women have sat as High Court Judges, have written books and poems, have been scientists and mathematicians, have run schools and hospitals and had under their care thousands of males of every age. They had no Purdah system. The Purdah system in India is of foreign growth. It had its origin in Greece. From Greece it went to Iran and from Iran it was brought by the early Mussalman invaders into India.

Such was the splendid development of the Religion which the Prophet of Arabia founded. Its philosophical side too was very noble. It taught that all is from God, that there is no beauty in the world that is not His beauty, that there is no love in the heart of man that is not a breath of His love.

* pbuh - Peace be upon him; It is a Muslim practise to convey prayers of peace whenever the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and other prophets is taken.

Hate Hurts. Love Cures. Conjecture Fails. Truth Prevails.

here is the link- i think when one wants to show something they should always provide the source so that people can get the whole gist

http://saif_w.tripod.com/

there are many many new websites out there that pretend to be islamic, but after a minute of reading one becomes aware that they are maybe muslim bashers-

peace

In the name of ALLAH the merciful and compassionate

The Sunnah of Careful Consideration (al-Tathabbut)

Allah, the Almighty said: Do they not earnestly investigate, ponder, and study the Qur'an (for understanding of its guidance and benefits), or is it that their hearts are locked up (cannot see its illuminanting light and guidance). -Qur'an, 47:24

The Sunnah of Tathabbut is the analytical approach to taken an action or resolving a problem. It follows a method which Prophet Muhammad (p) and his household exercises ed and brought about as a Sunnah, a way of life, for his followers. When A'isha, the Prophet's wife, was asked how the Prophet (p) had conducted his affairs, she responded:

"His dead and actions were continuous and stable." -Muslim

In a different narration, she said:

When the household of the Prophet conducted an affair, athbatooh (they conducted it with careful consideration, tathabbut).

The Arabic word is a term used for a comprehensive evaluation and analysis of a matter before a judgment or a resolution is made of it. A judge, for example, will not give his verdict before he thoroughly studies, investigates, and examines the case. This process is called tathabbut. Furthermore, the Prophet (p) also said:

Cautions and careful consideration is from Allah, and haste is from Satan. -Muslim

In another tradition (hadith), the Prophet (p) cautioned against doing something without consideration of its results or impact. let us read the following hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (p).

If you are going to do something, consider carefully its consequences. (if the consequence id good, then consider doing it, but if its consequence is bad, then do not do it. Modify it, find other alternatives and or conduct further studies that would yield successful results). -Masnad Abi Ya'la

The previous three sayings of wisdom of the Prophet (p), strongly point out that the sunnah of tathabbut is elemental for every true believer. Muslims must not underestimate the underlying value that this precious sunnah will play in the construction of the various moral, social, economic, and political building blocks of the Muslim Ummah.

This quickly points out that it is necessary to use careful consideration in making judgments and decisions- also taking into account the effects of such a decision.

Muhammad... I would answer that this hadith, and any interpretations and laws that rely upon it, are invalid in light of the Qur'an which says:

Let there be no compulsion in religion. 2:256

Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe again and again reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way. 4:137

Clearly, the Qur'an does not call for capital punishment for apostasy if you can go back and forth and back and forth.

As for verse 3:17 it's very clearly talking about afterwordly punishiment.

And as for your highly snipped version of 4:89, why not show what comes after...

Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty of peace, or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people

If you quote the whole thing, it is clear it is saying if you meet former Muslims in a stituation where they are fighting against you, then you have permission to fight back. But if they are not fighting against you (either by joining a group with whom you have a treaty or as individuals of good heart) then you have no liscence to harm them.

This is precisely what I am talking about when I say you take snippets that distort the meaning of the Qur'an.

Thanks HL.

I look forward to your coming post.

MO,

You posed a question: "Let me ask you directly: Do you believe that apostates should be murdered?"
The answer is definetly not. Personal belief falls under the judgment of God and God alone. Personal means just that: personal; it is in the mind and no one should be forced or compelled to change their belief by force. The Quran aknowledges this fact and states unequivocally over and over again that no one should be forced to belief. The prophet was instructed to deliver the message to his people and he was told not to worry about who believes and who does not. He was not the judge; simply put. When I have time I will cite the numerous verses from the Quran for you, ISA.

This is further not accurate when you consider all of the different Christian denominations using the Bible. Are you saying that they are all actually exactly the same for using the same scriptures?

Except that Saudi Arabia is not a synonym for Islam.

To Danny B - You said: "A soverign nation enforcing laws based on scripture has no bearing on Pamela's claim of a "rational approach" to her PERSONAL faith."

When Pamela identifies herself as part of a large group of a particular faith, and the entire group looks to a particular group of writings on which to base their faith, then the actions of other members of the group who also base their actions on that group of writings, is relevant to Pamela. Every person who belongs to a particular faith has to deal with this, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Jews all deal with this. Pamela is not exempt.

Muhammad,

"Are you aware that under Saudi Law apostates receive the death sentence AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE ABOVE SCRIPTURES.

What is your rational view of this, Pamela? Is it moral to kill people for leaving Islam?

I think most readers will want to have your views on this, Pamela."

I'd hate to have your nerve in my tooth!

It's just like you to presume to know what "most readers" want to know. It never ends with you does it?

A soverign nation enforcing laws based on scripture has no bearing on Pamela's claim of a "rational approach" to her PERSONAL faith.

She only needs to rationalize Saudi law if she claims to be a patriotic Saudi citizen, which she has clearly stated that she is not.

HL,

Please try to understand that reporting the hatred of others is not hatred. It is just reporting.

It is a fact that apostate muslims are being murdered across the world, in accordance with the teachings of your prophet. Reporting on this is not bigotry or hatred. It is just reporting.

The key point is; why do you defend these murders?

Let me ask you directly: Do you believe that apostates should be murdered?

Pamela,

You said: "I am not approaching religion from a dogmatic perspective, but rather through a rationalist approach that includes using one's common sense, one's conscience, and one's logic to understand and relate to texts."

Please therefore state your rational approach to the following verses of the Qur'an, AND to the murders which are taking place around the world today in accordance with these teachings:

Qur’an Chapter 3 Verse 17:
Those who purchase Unbelief at the price of faith,- not the least harm will they do to Allah, but they will have a grievous punishment.

Qur’an Chapter 4 Verse 89:
…But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them…

Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:
Narrated 'Abdullah: ‘Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."’

SUNDAY TELEGRAPH (UK National Newspaper) 11th July 2004
I ONLY EVER WANTED TO KILL JEWS - by Alasdair Palmer

"Walid Shoebat is surprisingly insouciant for a man living under a death sentence. ‘There’s a reward of $10 Million for whoever kills me,’ he explains calmly. ‘I’ve had several e-mails telling me I’m going to be assassinated.’ He chuckles lightly. I assume he thinks the threat is a joke. ‘Oh no,’ he insists curtly, dark eyes blazing. ‘It most certainly isn’t a joke. And it could happen – I mean they could kill me. You see I am an apostate – an ex-Muslim. Under the fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic law, apostates deserve to be killed. The Prophet said: “Whoever leaves the faith, let him be killed.” And people like me do get killed. I have to take these people seriously.’ Walid Shoebat has indeed taken “these people” very seriously. For much of his life, he was one of them: an Islamic fundamentalist who was eager to commit acts of terrorism"

Are you aware that under Saudi Law apostates receive the death sentence AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE ABOVE SCRIPTURES.

What is your rational view of this, Pamela? Is it moral to kill people for leaving Islam?

I think most readers will want to have your views on this, Pamela.

Mo

Danny wants to learn the truth and not prejudices and he can make his own opnions based on facts and not on half as* truths and bigotry. Good for him. By the way I am Muslim with Arab background, from Tunisia to be exact, married to a nice Baptist Lady.

Pamela, HL and Victoria,

Are you not aware that Islamic Sharia Law (as it is still practiced today) is dependent on the hadith I am quoting? Try claiming that the sahih hadith are not reliable in an Islamic Sharia court. You will immediately find yourself on a charge of blasphemy, because these courts consider the sahih hadith to be as authentic as the Qur’an, and of similar importance. HL, in denouncing the sahih hadith you have labelled yourself as a blasphemer, according to your own beliefs.

Furthermore, as was revealed above, these very hadith are causing the actual murder of people in the world today. Shame on you for defending this.

Readers of this forum will draw their own conclusions about you and your beliefs.

Danny B - You continue attempting to label people who expose hatred as haters. Do you not understand that reporting the hatred of others is not hatred? It is just reporting. Do you not understand the difference? It is like accusing the BBC of terrorism for reporting on terrorism.

Pamela,

I guess my coming back was worthwhile. I would read your articles anyway, but I am so glad that you are willing to share some of what Islam has that inspires it's followers.

I just thought it was becoming ridiculous that a Muslim would have to keep defending the same old acusations repeatedly in this forum. It will be nice to actually see the other side of the debate.

Thank you for considering my request

Danny B.

Deb Chatterjee,

I said I was leaving for good, but I guess I lied.

I did some checking-up on the life of Omar Khayyam.

You said, as you always do, with such confidence and bravado:

"Do you also know that because of his later researches in physics and biology he contradicted the "Islamic traditions" and was held guilty of heresy/apostacy ?"

It would seem strange that I can't find this anywhere, isn't it?

I did find quite the opposite, however.

"Nishapur erupted with religious strife, persecuting those who espoused masha'i ideas. Khayyam, a prime target, recognized the danger and left Nishapur for Mecca. He did not return until the unrest had subsided. He lived in Nishapur until his death."

"Omar Khayyam also came to the Vizier to claim his share; but not to ask for title or office. 'The greatest boon you can confer on me,' he said, 'is to let me live in a corner under the shadow of your fortune, to spread wide the advantages of Science, and pray for your long life and prosperity.' The Vizier tells us, that when he found Omar was really sincere in his refusal, he pressed him no further, but granted him a yearly pension of 1200 mithkals of gold from the treasury of Naishapur.

"At Naishapur thus lived and died Omar Khayyam, 'busied,' adds the Vizier, 'in winning knowledge of every kind, and especially in Astronomy, wherein he attained to a very high pre-eminence. Under the Sultanate of Malik Shah, he came to Merv, and obtained great praise for his proficiency in science, and the Sultan showered favors upon him.'

Quite different from what you claim.

You know, I didn't even need this to prove to myself that you are just loud and sad. I knew that.

Anyone can run up and down this thread and see for themselves how you use information from other posters. Arguing with half-quotes and such.

If you can't use easily verifiable information like that properly, what credibilty do you have at all?

So, go ahead and keep trying to discredit me for refusing to take your side in your ignorant hate-rant based solely on YOUR scholarship and "knowledge".

Whatever.

I don't need to shout down strangers on a message board to convince MYSELF of anything. I don't have to be "right" that badly. To know the truth is really more important.

My argument is from the Quran not what Tom, Dick and Harry have to say throught out the centuries... The Collection of Hadith some biggots like to use are of little interest to me. The sayings of the prophet were collected two hundred years after his death. There are about seven hundred thousand of them. You will find in them from superstitions and sometimes outright contradictions to the Quran to wisdom and great insight and moral trachings. They may be attiributed to the prophet but there is no way to say for sure. It is well known that people fabricated some sayings and attributed them to Muhammad to justify their political ends and agenda...

Muhammad,

Some of what you quote is from people other than the Prophet, some is from unreliable sources, some is from hadith who authenticity I would challenge because they clearly contradict the Qur'an's injunctions. When you have a choice between believing the Qur'an or believing a hadith, the Qur'an must take precedence. Obviously.

I understand you (and others) would very much like me (and other Muslims) to set aside our faith. In my case, I grew up an atheist and chose to become Muslim. I studied many religions before I got to Islam. I studied Muhammad's life before I became Muslim, and I studied the Qur'an. Your quest to have me return to atheism is highly unlikely to succeed. Further, it should be obvious from my various posts that I am not approaching religion from a dogmatic perspective, but rather through a rationalist approach that includes using one's common sense, one's conscience, and one's logic to understand and relate to texts.

Danny,

I don't know if you are still reading this thread, but in response to your request I am going to begin posting on Mondays a selection from the Qur'an or Hadith that shows some of the wisdom and beautiful teaching that inspire Muslims around the world.

I don't usually agree with Dinesh Dsouza, but his article today in townhall.com is quite apropro to the tenor of comments on this and other threads on this site. An excellent analysis of the situation. A few pertinent exerpts:

The Muslim world is divided between traditional Muslims and radical Muslims. The traditional Muslims are the majority, but the radical Muslims are an influential minority and their numbers are growing.

(...)

Attacks on the Muslim religion as violent, or attacks on the Prophet Muhammad as a forerunner of Islamic terrorism, are counterproductive because they have the predictable effect of unifying traditional Muslims and radical Muslims. How can traditional Muslims be expected to show any sympathy toward assaults on their most sacred beliefs and the founder of their way of life?

(...)

Let us remember that Islam has been around since the eighth century, while Islamic terrorism is a phenomenon of the past 25 years. Consequently it is wrong to blame Muhammad, the Koran, or the Muslim religion for something that is clearly a recent phenomenon. The real question to ask is, what is it about Islam today that makes it an incubator of fanaticism and terrorism? Why is it that now, as never before, so many people are willing to kill and be killed in the name of Allah?

(...)

Unfortunately there are many people, both on the left and the right, who continue to blame Islam for the sins of Islamic radicalism. These people are not only mistaken, they are strengthening the cause of Bin Laden and his allies and making the war on terrorism harder for us to win.

Dinesh also chronicles the fact that Islamic regimes have been very tolerant of other religions -- Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Daoists, etc. were all free to practice their religions under Muslim rule.

Anyway, the entire article is well worth reading and thinking about.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/04/02/islam,_a_religion_of_violence

Actually I very bored trying to make stubborn muslimahs see that all that hatred, violence, slavery, oppression of 'others', and stupidity disqualifies Muhammad from ever being a true prophet.

One wonders if you have read the Quran at all, Victoria, or Muhammad's life story in the ahadeeth and sira. Perhaps you prefer Karen Armstrong's white-washing rather than the real Islamic sources, warts and all.

Salaam,
Ahmad

Soja John Thaikattil,
So you think the millions of Hindus killed by Muslims was insignificant violence? What are you smoking, bro? It must be very good.

Victoria,

I certainly do not hate you or any muslim. I simply report the hateful actions and speech of others.

The only hate speech on this forum is found in the quotations of your prophet muhammad and the reports of his behaviour recorded in the hadith. For example:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, No 260:
Narrated Ikrima: ‘Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271:
Narrated Abu Musa: ‘A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.’

Sahih Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4341:
Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal: ‘AbuMusa said: Mu'adh came to me when I was in the Yemen. A man who was Jew embraced Islam and then retreated from Islam. When Mu'adh came, he said: I will not come down from my mount until he is killed. He was then killed. One of them said: He was asked to repent before that.’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 630:
Narrated Abu Burda: ‘…Mu'adh came riding his mule till he reached Abu Musa and saw him sitting, and the people had gathered around him. Behold! There was a man tied with his hands behind his neck. Mu'adh said to Abu Musa, "O 'Abdullah bin Qais! What is this?" Abu Musa replied. "This man has reverted to Heathenism after embracing Islam." Mu'adh said, "I will not dismount till he is killed." Abu Musa replied, "He has been brought for this purpose, so come down." Mu'adh said, "I will not dismount till he is killed." So Abu Musa ordered that he be killed, and he was killed.’

Sahih Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4421:
Narrated Al-Lajlaj al-Amiri: ‘I was working in the market. A woman passed carrying a child. The people rushed towards her, and I also rushed along with them. I then went to the Prophet while he was asking: Who is the father of this (child) who is with you? She remained silent. A young man by her side said: I am his father, Apostle of Allah! He then turned towards her and asked: Who is the father of this child with you? The young man said: I am his father, Apostle of Allah! The Apostle of Allah then looked at some of those who were around him and asked them about him. They said: We only know good (about him). The Prophet said to him: Are you married? He said: Yes. So he gave orders regarding him and he was stoned to death. He (the narrator) said: We took him out, dug a pit for him and put him in it. We then threw stones at him until he died. A man then came asking about the man who was stoned. We brought him to the Prophet and said: This man has come asking about the wicked man. The Apostle of Allah said: He is more agreeable than the fragrance of musk in the eyes of Allah. The man was his father. We then helped him in washing, shrouding and burying him.’

CHRISTIAN PASTOR CHARGED OF APSTACY IN IRAN – 6th May 2005
www.islamreview.com/news/2005_news.htm#55

"Further to our Urgent Action e-mail of April 22, we have received the following update concerning Iranian Pastor Hamid Pourmand. Hamid Pourmand has appeared before the shari’ah court in Tehran to face charges of apostasy and proselytising Muslims. Apostasy carries the death penalty in Iran. According to news agency Compass Direct, Hamid was brought before the court every two or three days between April 13 and April 23 for hearings that lasted between one and two hours. He has refused to recant his faith despite being pressured to do so. The Pastor’s family was permitted to attend the trial, although the court did not inform them of every hearing. Hamid was afforded legal representation during the trial. Officials have since informed his lawyer that court proceedings are to be moved from Tehran to Bandar-i Bushehr, Hamid’s hometown. . No date has been given for the trial in the new location or for when he will be transferred to a local prison."

CHRISTIAN CONVERT WAITING FOR HIS APOSTASY TRIAL ASKS FOR PRAYERS - 18th May 2005
www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=3315

"Reverend Pourmand is scheduled to appear before an Islamic court on charges of proselytising and apostasy and could get the death penalty and be hanged. Tehran (AsiaNews/Compass) – Hamid Pourmand, a Protestant clergyman who was born a Muslim, was moved from Tehran’s Evin Prison in an armoured car two days ago, May 16, to his home town of Bandar-i Bushehr (southern Iran), where an Islamic court will hear charges of proselytising and apostasy against him. He could get the death penalty and be hanged."

THE SPECTATOR – CHURCH OF MARTYRS (p 13) – 26th March 2005
By Anthony Browne (Europe correspondent of The Times)
www.spectator.co.uk/article_pfv.php?id=5882

"I have spoken to dozens of former Muslims who have converted to Christianity in Britain, and who are shunned by their community, subjected to mob violence, forced out of town, threatened with death and even kidnapped. The Barnabus Trust knows of 3,000 such Christians facing persecution in this country, but the police and government do nothing."

Why do you attempt to brand people who expose the hatred of others as haters, Victoria? We don't hate you. We just wonder why you defend the hatred of Muhammad, which still causes the hatred and murder of apostates all around the world. People who leave Islam are abused and killed by Muslims, due to the above teachings of Muhammad.

Why do you defend this, Victoria?

HL,

The background to Qur'an 5:33 is as follows:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, No 261 (also: Vol 2, Book 24, No 577 & Muslim Book 016, No 4130 & 4132):
Narrated Anas bin Malik: A group of eight men from the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them. So, they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Provide us with some milk." Allah's Apostle said, "I recommend that you should join the herd of camels." So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims. When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off. Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina). They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died

Sahih Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4357:
Narrated AbuzZinad: ‘When the Apostle of Allah cut off (the hands and feet of) those who had stolen his camels and he had their eyes put out by fire (heated nails), Allah reprimanded him on that (action), and Allah, the Exalted, revealed: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution or crucifixion."’ [This became Chapter 5 Verse 33 of the Qur’an]

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 33:
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.

Truth is about evidence. The evidence reveals that your understanding is incorrect. Qur'an 5:33 came about as Muhammad's punishment for stealing his camels and renouncing Islam.

Please refrain from calling other contributors to this forum 'idiots'. Language such as that does nothing for your arguments or credibility.

I wish to emphasise too that there are 138 million Muslims in India, and Muslims have lived for centuries at peace with Hindus and people of other religions. The state of Kerala, with a population of 24.7% Muslims, is a very good example. The Hindu-Muslim violence in India one reads about is truly the exception rather than the rule. So it is vital not to get emotionally carried away and do injustice to peace loving Muslims around the world, no matter what the Quran may or may not teach, and how it may or may not be practised anywhere in the world.

---false things----

I've not read any 'false things' about Islam on here 'Victoria'.
Just the truths that Muslims refuse to accept (or do accept and don't see them as bad things anyway).

Islam has NO PLACE in The West, and never has had.

Go roast a baby.

Wake up my fellow Americans from your politically correct slumber. Below is what Islam does to Christians and Jews. If you do not wake up you will be speaking Arabic. Is this what you want for us Victoria? I have been reading your posts. What has blinded you?

In the early years of the Islamic conquest, the "tribute" (or jizya), paid as a yearly poll tax, symbolized the subordination of the dhimmi (Inferior Status). Later, the inferior status of Jews and Christians was reinforced through a series of regulations that governed the behavior of the dhimmi. Dhimmis, on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Muslims or to touch a Muslim woman (though a Muslim man could take a non¬Muslim as a wife).
Dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or camels, to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to construct houses higher than those of Muslims or to drink wine in public. They were not allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices-as that might offend the Muslims. The dhimmi had to show public deference toward Muslims-always yielding them the center of the road. The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence in court against a Muslim, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. To defend himself, the dhimmi would have to purchase Muslim witnesses at great expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal recourse when harmed by a Muslim.
Dhimmis were also forced to wear distinctive clothing. In the ninth century, for example, Baghdad's Caliph al¬Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews, setting a precedent that would be followed centuries later in Nazi Germany.

Like all peace loving people around the world, it is my earnest desire that people of all religions will find enough common ground to live at peace with each other, accepting the differences and the rights of all human beings to believe and worship God as they choose and in accordance with their personal conviction, and not use any Scripture to justify any kind of violence. Any attempt on the part of Pamela, Victoria, Jihadist and any Muslim around the world to establish that common ground is a welcome and necessary step in establishing peace in the world.

I'm not a scholar of Islam nor can I claim to have read the Quran. I'm inspired by the spirituality of the Sufi branch of Islam. At Shanthivanam, the Ashram of Dom Bede Griffiths in India ( http://www.bedegriffiths.com ), (where I spent several months over several visits in eight years), we used to read from the Quran during midday prayer. The passages were chosen by Fr Bede himself and did not include any verse which contained reference to any kind of violence, and only contained beautiful verses in praise of Allah. We also read from the Siri Guru Granth Sahib, the Scripture of the Sikhs, and from the writings of a Tamil Hindu mystic once a day. Fr Bede even requested that we omit any passage of violence in the Psalms (Old Testament) when we read them as part of worship. Most of the Christian liturgy was however focussed on incultration with Hinduism (the understanding being that had Jesus been born in India, He would have lived like a Hindu and followed the customs and preached His message in the context of Hinduism), so we chanted Sankrit verses from the Vedas three times a day and used Hindu prayers substituting it with Christian names whereever there was a specific Hindu god mentioned. The simple life and prayer life at the Ashram was a combination of a Benedictine monastery and Hindu Ashram.

In the context of discussion on this thread, however, I wish to emphasise as a Christian that it is not fair to Christianity as a religion or to Jesus Christ, its founder, who lived a perfect life and preached and lived non-violence to the highest degree, to attribute any violence committed by people who called themselves Christians to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Deb Chatterjee has merely trying to point that out. There is nothing in the life of Jesus or in the New Testament (Christianity begins with the birth of Jesus Christ)to justify violence. Please read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters 5-7) which sums up the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ lived a very public life and no one who sought to find anything to say against Him could come up with an accusation when He was put on a mock trial, not even Pilate who sought to find an excuse to appease his own conscience for condemning an innocent man to death. The only complaint that people voiced against Jesus was that He claimed to be the Messiah. It is with that justification that Jesus was handed over to be crucified, although He was a completely innocent man who had lived a pure and holy life, healing and comforting the people, and preaching the Kingdom of God.

Jesus did not permit any violence to be committed even to protect Him. I wish to highlight the incident in the Mount of Olives, when the crowd came to arrest Him: "When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him. (Luke 22:49-51)

I will leave it to the Jews to explain if they have ever used the Old Testament to justify any violence against anyone. A Christian has no excuse to use the Old Testament to justify violence because Christians are expected to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

In Hinduism, the word "Om" represents the word of God, and can be compared to the Alpha and Omega concept in Christianity. In Hinduism too the concept of Avatar (Incarnation), God taking a human form to fight the forces of darkness and evil on this earth, God taking a human form ( appearing in a simple form for He has no need to demonstrate His power and splendour by taking on the role of a worldly powerful person) so that it may be easier for Him to relate to human beings, and to enable human beings love and worship Him, can easily be equated with the role of Jesus Christ.

Earlier in the thread there had been a discussion about Trinity. Christianity is based on the faith that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, for He said so. Christianity does not seek approval from the Jews or Muslims for the basis of the Christian faith and religion.

Please refer to the Gospel of John for references to the Trinity. I provide a couple of references:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In Him was life and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness but the darkness has not understood it." (John 1:1-5) The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth... For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." (John 1:14, 17,18)

Jesus referred to Himself as being one with God, the Father, the basis for Trinity.

"If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him. Phillip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us. Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Phillip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:7-9)"If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counsellor to be with you for ever - the Spirit of Truth." (John 14:15-16)

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

i must say, that was a most elegant departure from danny b-

possibly you guys have noticed that rather than convincing others of the hatred and violence in islam- you have only succeeded in giving them a substantial experience in the islamophobic tirades of violent hate speech.

while they may have been unaware of the very real and tangible hatred and discrimination that some have for muslims- now they realize the odds that we muslims are up against sometimes.

thanks for demonstrating in such a palpable way, what i couldnt have expressed convincingly in a thousand words.

it is odd having someone who vows to hate one, prove ones point for one- but then life is strange-

peace and salaams

i see my old buddy john form texas (alias ahmed hussain) has decided to join us again.

That Allah told Muslims to kill all disbelievers who do not believe in him or the last day (i.e. Islam) or those of the People of the Book (i.e the Christians and Jews) who refuse to pay the jizyah in humiliation. This is in Chapter 9, ayat 29.

This verse was revealed after Muhammad had subjugated Arabia so don't believe it when Muslims claim it is only relevant in war. In fact, Muslims have been utilizing this verse for 14 centuries when they subjugated the Middle East and forced their non-Muslim minorities to pay Jizyah with humiliation.

If this verse was only relevant for a specific war or battle, then why did the Muslims use this verse for 14 centuries?

I am not a Muslim because I find the hate and violence in the Quran and Muhammad's biography too much to bear. My humanity and sense of morality were affronted.

Qasim

HL wrote:

"Deb,

Maybe you can tell us how you came up with your distorted, and bigoted scholarly understanding. The verses are talking about armed attacks and wars not simple defamation you idiot..."

Visit the Islamic website:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau5.html

and read the explanations that Maulana Maudoodi has provided. This explanation, according to Maulana Maudoodi, for verses 33 to 40 reads as follows:

"To achieve this object, punishments have been prescribed for those who create chaos in the Islamic State, and the Believers have been urged to exert their utmost to establish the Right Way; the sanctity of property has also been emphasized."

Here chaos in an Islamic State does not mean war or armed warfare. Its meaning includes, but is not exclusively confined to, those who will argue against supremacy of Allah's message (war against Allah) or reject the superiority of Prophet Muhammad. Its really simple to understand, and just regurgitating the entire Quran for the sake of understanding the meaning is irrelevant.

"Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals--who unceasingly claim to support human rights--have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/
editorial/feature.html?id=110009890

Deb,

Maybe you can tell us how you came up with your distorted, and bigoted scholarly understanding. The verses are talking about armed attacks and wars not simple defamation you idiot...

Deb,

You leveld accusation against the Quran by writing: "This does bear close similarities with Quran [005:033] that effectively says anyone who defames Islam must be killed." These are the verses before and after:

[5:21](Moses said to the Israelites) "O my people, enter the holy land that GOD has decreed for you, and do not rebel, lest you become losers." [5:22] They said, "O Moses, there are powerful people in it, and we will not enter it, unless they get out of it. If they get out, we are entering." [5:23] Two men who were reverent and blessed by GOD said, "Just enter the gate. If you just enter it, you will surely prevail. You must trust in GOD, if you are believers." [5:24] They said, "O Moses, we will never enter it, so long as they are in it. Therefore, go - you and your Lord - and fight. We are sitting right here." [5:25] He said, "My Lord, I can only control myself and my brother. So, allow us to part company with the wicked people." [5:26] He said, "Henceforth, it is forbidden them for forty years, during which they will roam the earth aimlessly. Do not grieve over such wicked people." [5:27] Recite for them the true history of Adam's two sons. They made an offering, and it was accepted from one of them, but not from the other. He said, "I will surely kill you." He said, "GOD accepts only from the righteous. [5:28] "If you extend your hand to kill me, I am not extending my hand to kill you. For I reverence GOD, Lord of the universe. [5:29] "I want you, not me, to bear my sin and your sin, then you end up with the dwellers of Hell. Such is the requital for the transgressors."[5:30] His ego provoked him into killing his brother. He killed him, and ended up with the losers. [5:31] GOD then sent a raven to scratch the soil, to teach him how to bury his brother's corpse. He said, "Woe to me; I failed to be as intelligent as this raven, and bury my brother's corpse." He became ridden with remorse. [5:32] Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. Our messengers went to them with clear proofs and revelations, but most of them, after all this, are still transgressing.

[5:33]. The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; [5:34]Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

[5:35] O you who believe, you shall reverence GOD and seek the ways and means to Him, and strive in His cause, that you may succeed. [5:36] certainly, those who disbelieved, if they possessed everything on earth, even twice as much, and offered it as ransom to spare them the retribution on the Day of Resurrection, it would not be accepted from them; they have incurred a painful retribution. [5:37] They will want to exit Hell, but alas, they can never exit therefrom; their retribution is eternal.

Danny B wrote:

"If Christianity is different because of the caveat you name, aren't you then being premature in denouncing Islam so loudly? Why isn't Ms. Taylor a leader ahead of her time? After all she has indicated repeatedly that she is not in agreement with so-named suicide bombers. "

There is a definite reason to suspect Ms. Taylor's efforts of reaping any harvest. Islam is a violent, barbaric religion. (Read the Quran at the website http://www.usc.edu/dept/msa/quran since you have claimed not to have read.)

In brief, Islam because of its fundamentalist nature compared to Christianity, rejected any forms of reform over the ages. The Wahabi sect of Islam, adhered to by Osama bin Laden, used violence against anyone who dared to raise voice for reform. As an glaring example, in 1994 Islamic extremists, stabbed the Egyptian Nobel Laureate (1988) Naguib Mahfooz outside his home in Cairo for his "blasphemous" writings. This does bear close similarities with Quran [005:033] that effectively says anyone who defames Islam must be killed. Prophet Muhammad had Abu Afak, Asma-bint-Marwan killed because they opposed him and hence were opposing Allah's message - which amounted to heresy/blasphemy. (Read more on Mr. Mahfooz's sordid deal at

http://www.fanoos.com/entertainment/najib_mahfouz.html )

Primarily because of this feature, no reformers have survived in Islam. Christians have no better record. But such heinous crimes committed by Christians cannot be traced back to Christ's teachings.

Given this and other similar historical details, which can be found in Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad, I am very skeptical that Ms. Taylor's efforts are of any consequence. (And, BTW, she is aware of the fundamentalist nature of Islam.)

Read up on Islam, instead of accusing Mo and others who can substantiate their "unpalatable" views.

Oh, before I go...

Victoria,

Yes!

And another of my favorites:

Ah, make the most of what we yet may spend,
Before we too into the Dust descend;
Dust into Dust, and under Dust to lie
Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer, and--sans End!

For Victoria and Danny B,
The 'Aisha was not nine years old' polemics are absolute rubbish. They are not hadiths to start with but are merely recalculations from vague or wrong information. The Islamists making those sorts of arguments are liars.

See the link below where a Sunni scholar, Shaykh Gibril Haddad, has demolished those sorts of lies. A true Sunni Muslim knows that you don't doubt the sahih ahadith on such flimsy and erroneous arguments. Muslims who believe 'Aisha was not nine' arguments are clearly desperate and are willing to throw out centuries of Sunni scholarship because the truth is unpalatable to them.

This is the link:

http://www.sunnipath.com/Resources/Questions/QA00004861.aspx

Salaam,
Ahmad

Dee,

You win.

I'm leaving. You are so sadly ignorant. I've wasted enough time reading your nasty hatred, butchering of the Constitution, high-handed lecturing without a shred of common sense, twisting of other poster's words...it's so boring.

In the "real world" I'd have written you off long before now. So really, you win, I am foolish for arguing with a fool (I laugh that you aren't even bright enough to see the hypocracy of throwing that back at me).

I apologize to both you, and Muhammad for intruding on your personal clubhouse of ignorance and nastiness.
I clearly had no business bringing an open mind here.

I am not EVEN sympathizing with Islam! I am saying I cannot have a valid opininon with no knowldege.

You've lost all credibility with me anyway, but even though I say I am very willing to give Muslims posting here the benefit of the doubt, I also wouldn't let them convince me of anything by themselves.

You want me to diregard all they say in lieu of your repetitive and wordy point.

I get it! I get it! You claim Islam is inherently evil, and indocrinates it's members and will stop at nothing to spread like cancer all over the world.

I GET IT! I always got it.

Now let someone else say something without always attcking them and forcing them to waste time defending against your tired old screaming of the same non-bullying, non-hateful stuff.

I thought I might come to this forum, and based on ideas of others, have points to ponder, interesting opinions on the subject of the original article, etc...

Instead, it is full of verbose, boring, childish tantrums.

Even leaving and trying again, I find myself having you allude to me being child molestor (and now add violence, murder, rape, and torture) sympathizer TWICE within a few posts.

Danny B.

You represent the typical pathological case of using one's reluctance to stonewall cogent arguments (from Mo).

This is so trite and used technique. Mo has presented with verifiable sources, and yet you refuse to accept his relative authority over your shallow and pedestrian knowledge of Islam. Mo is, from what we know is a "former Muslim". He shares the views like Dr. Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq as to why they have renounced Islam. If you don't know enough about islam, you can take Mo's sources and check their authenticity. If the sources are not fraud, then Mo's views (which he claims substantiation based on those sources) must be acceptable to you or any logical person, compared to some idiot mullah who is obligated (by default) to present Islam in a palatable manner.

In my view that would be a scientific approach. Because someone doesn't know much about Islam, it is just plain illogical and irrelevant to state:

"With all due respect, I cannot look to you as an authority on any subject."

At least, Mo is more authentic, genuine and authoritative on Islam than you. He has provided supportive evidence for his views.

Also you wrote:

"My statement about not knowing much about the subject is a humble way of indicating that I will not jump to conclusions, generalize, or haphazrdly judge the faith of another. If those Muslims posting here share examples of the value in Islam, I will give them the benefit of the doubt long before I consider your long winded diatribes as having any merit whatsoever."

There is a fundamental problem with this statement because how would you know that other Muslims are right and Mo is wrong ? Majority view need not necessarily be right. Also, because the posts here have apparently converged to the position that 'Islam could be interpretable', how does that make Mo's opinions less valuable over your preferred Muslim bloggers ? Or, is the function of this blog is to vote someone wrong, without having to logically prove the same ? Isn't that prostituting with the 1st Amendment ?

And finally, you also wrote:

"Like Victoria said, arguing with fools makes one foolish."

Precisely ! Now both of you should look yourselves in the mirror, since it takes two to tango.

danny- for another verson (and amply substantiated one) on the age of the much discussed aisha (the aforementioned "9 year old wife'of the prophet(pbuh)
look at the link i provided to janet above-

everyone knows this one im sure-

A Book of Verses underneath the Bough,
A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread - and Thou
--Beside me singing in the Wilderness -
O, Wilderness were Paradise enow!
(trans. by Edward FitzGerald)
peace

Danny B,

Many would argue that sympathising with avowed apologists for violence, murder, rape, torture and paedophilia makes you foolish.

That was me above.

Yeah, no edit function!

TOMMY_TSTARS,

Hey! Thanks for the info. I was aware that it is FitzGerald's translation, but had never even considered the application of English Romanticism, which makes perfect sense to me.

Of course it doesn't diminish my appreciation of the verses, but now I will have to look into the other interpretaton you refer to.

As a bilingual person (and studied a third language for 4 years) I know that translation is an art, and here's more evidence of that.

Thanks again Tommy.

Muhammad,

With all due respect, I cannot look to you as an authority on any subject. Whatever I may, or may not think of your selected references, I am not taking a "Reader's Digest" condensed summation of Islam and forming any opinion.

My statement about not knowing much about the subject is a humble way of indicating that I will not jump to conclusions, generalize, or haphazrdly judge the faith of another. If those Muslims posting here share examples of the value in Islam, I will give them the benefit of the doubt long before I consider your long winded diatribes as having any merit whatsoever.

Sorry.

You've accused me of sympathizing with child molesters in the same post where you insist you are not hateful.

Like Victoria said, arguing with fools makes one foolish.

Of course, I mean "When compared to the PERSIAN originals."

(There is no second chance on this blog. No edit function.)

Danny B:

Khayyam was a muslim.

The lines you quote are from the Edward Fitzgerald translation into English. When compared to the Arabic originals, it is clear that Fitzgerald used the original as a source of insiration for some romantic period English poetry of his own. There is very little relationship between Fitzgerald and the writting of Khayyam.

Enjoy the Fitagerald, I certainly do, but consider that Khayyam was actually much more a stoic Persian philosopher than an English romantic. For example, Dr. Mrs. Khan, head of the Persian Department at the University of Mumbai, has recently published an interpretation of the Rubbiyat as a set of examples of high morality in Persian culture.

Danny B,

I would be interested to have your comments on the sermons referenced, if you are interested in commenting.

Do they not bother you? Does it not bother you to know that many thousands of Imams are receiving these sermons for use in their mosques?

Muhammad,

That's a lot of talking, accusations, and unnecessary defensiveness to still not get it.

I never said the witness is a criminal for being a witness. I said that it does not guarantee that they are not a criminal only because they are a witness.

You said you are not a xenophobe because you were pointing out the xenophobia of Islam. That does not guarantee you are not a xenophobe.

That's all I said.

I don't know why I now deserve being accused by you of condoning paedophelia. I don't think anyone reasonable would get that from anything I have posted.

As far as me commenting on a subject I know nothing about, the only comment was that I know nothing so I won't make ridiculous claims in ignorance.

I did not attack you. So what's all that about.

Your bravado is very Cliff Clavin-esque.

Danny B,

Let me explain the logic for you, so that you can understand.

An innocent member of the public witnesses a man sexually abusing a 9 year old child. This innocent member of the public telephones the police to report the crime.

According to your logic that makes the witness a criminal. According to my logic, that just makes the witness a decent member of the public who is reporting a crime against humanity.

Why do you defend paedophilia? I am always very suspicious of men who defend this crime. I must wonder what your motives are.

Does it not bother you what influence the following teachings might have upon Muslim men, knowing that the man making this statement was held in the same reverence as the Pope, by more than 100 million Muslims:

Ayatollah Khomeini's Religious Teachings on Marriage, Divorce and Relationships
From Ayatollah Khomeini's book "Tahrir-ol-Masael":
www.homa.org/Details.asp?View=Detail&ContentID=2137352748&TOCID=2083225413 (Case Sensitive)
“A woman may legally belong to a man in one of two ways; by continuing marriage or temporary marriage. In the former, the duration of the marriage need not be specified; in the latter, it must be stipulated, for example, that it is for a period of an hour, a day, a month, a year, or more. A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual act such as foreplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed […] A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life.”

Please explain to everyone why you defend paedophilia, and xenophobia, and hatred as taught and practiced by the prophet muhammad, instead of speaking out against it.

Here is some more hatred for you. Note that all I am doing is reporting the hatred of other people, and condeming it. I, as a witnesses to the crime, do not hate anyone myself (including Muslims):

ACCURSED FOREVER AND EVER by Fatma Abdallah Mahmoud 3rd May 2002
Al-Akhbar Newspaper (EGYPTIAN GOVERNMENT DAILY)
www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP37502
“These accursed ones are a catastrophe for the human race. They are the virus of the generation, doomed to a life of humiliation and wretchedness until Judgement Day. They are also accursed because they repeatedly tried to murder the Prophet Muhammad. They threw a stone at him, but missed. Another time, they tried to mix poison in his food, but providence saved him from their treachery and their crimes. Allah cursed them when they carried out the criminal massacre of the peaceful Palestinians in Sabra and Shatilla. They are accursed, they, their fathers, and their forefathers… until Judgment Day, because they burst into Al-Aqsa Mosque with their defiled, filthy feet and violated its sanctity. Finally, they are accursed, fundamentally, because they are the plague of the generation and the bacterium of all time. Their history always was and always will be stained with treachery, falseness, and lying. Historical documents prove it. Thus, the Jews are accursed - the Jews of our time, those who preceded them and those who will come after them, if any Jews come after them. With regard to the fraud of the Holocaust… Many French studies have proven that this is no more than a fabrication, a lie, and a fraud!! That is, it is a 'scenario' the plot of which was carefully tailored, using several faked photos completely unconnected to the truth. Yes, it is a film, no more and no less. Hitler himself, whom they accuse of Nazism, is in my eyes no more than a modest 'pupil' in the world of murder and bloodshed. He is completely innocent of the charge of frying them in the hell of his false Holocaust!! The entire matter, as many French and British scientists and researchers have proven, is nothing more than a huge Israeli plot aimed at extorting the German government in particular and the European countries in general. But I, personally and in light of this imaginary tale, complain to Hitler, even saying to him from the bottom of my heart, 'If only you had done it, brother, if only it had really happened, so that the world could sigh in relief [without] their evil and sin.'”

Try to understand, Danny B, that I am reporting the hatred of others. I do not hate anyone and do not practice hatred.

I challenge you to find one single instance of hatred uttered by me towards Muslims in any of my posts. You will not find one example, because all I have done is report the hatred and violence of Muhammad. I have nothing against Muslims. I simply question them and ask them why they follow the example of a man such as Muhammad.

Take up my challenge. You won't, of course, because you have no case. Other readers will notice that it is you, Victoria and others who name-call and utter words of hatred and abuse on this forum. You will not find that type of language coming from my mouth.

You state: "I neither know the method for reading the Koran, nor the full historical context" I wonder therefore why you feel qualified to comment on a subject which you freely admit you know nothing about. Perhaps you should leave such matters to those who have many long years of study behind them.

Let me help you with your questions about Islam. There are peaceful verses in the Qur'an, but Muhammad taught that these only apply between Muslims. He taught the following towards non-Muslims:

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 51:
O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them.

Qur’an Chapter 3 Verse 28:
Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.)

Ishaq: 364
Muslims, take not Jews and Christians as friends. Whoever protects them becomes one of them, they become diseased, and will earn a similar fate.

Sahih Muslim Book 037, Number 6666:
Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Apostle said: ‘No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire’. [Muslims don’t go to hell, because Jews and Christians will be made to suffer for the evil deeds of Muslims]

Danny B, there are hundreds of such verses, and they are quoted and used in Mosques all across the world. The above quotes are not taken out of context. You can be 100% certain of that. Visit www.alminbar.com (the website for Imams where thousands of Imams from 62 different countries meet on the net to prepare their sermons), and look up these sermons:

http://www.alminbar.com/khutbaheng/819.htm
http://www.alminbar.com/khutbaheng/411.htm

Truth is about evidence. It is not about believing what you want to believe.

I would like to request your comments on the sermons referenced above (which are emailed by the site to thousands of Imams in 62 different countries, to help them prepare their sermons). Please look up these sermons and provide your comments.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/02/070402fa_fact_kramer
"In 1997, when the Pope was still Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and beginning his seventeenth year as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, otherwise known as the Holy Office, or the Inquisition, he told the German journalist Peter Seewald, “Islam has a total organization of life that is completely different from ours; it embraces simply everything. . . . One has to have a clear understanding that it is not simply a denomination that can be included in the free realm of pluralistic society.” In 2004, the year before his election to the papacy, he elaborated on that dismissive thought for the German secular philosopher Jürgen Habermas, during a long recorded conversation in Munich. Talking about the “normative elements” in human rights—rights that in the West, by consensus, are not subjected to “the vagaries of majorities”—Ratzinger brought up Islam. He said that “Islam has defined its own catalogue of human rights, which differs from the Western catalogue” and from the West’s understanding of the “self-subsistent values that flow from the essence of what it is to be a man”—values that may not be readily apparent beyond “the Christian realm” or “the Western rational tradition.” What he does seem to admire about Islam is its insistent presence at the center of most Muslims’ lives."

http://www.cathnews.com/news/504/98.php
After two decades of contact and dialogue with the Islamic world under Pope John Paul II, the Vatican is rethinking an approach that critics say has brought almost no benefits to persecuted Catholic minorities in Muslim countries.

The Washington Post reported last week that the late Pope undertook the drive as part of a broad effort to open channels to other religions. He applied a personal stamp by stepping into a mosque in Damascus and meeting with Muslim groups more than 60 times. He also visited a synagogue in Rome and Jerusalem's Western Wall.

Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, president of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, said the next pope might more emphatically demand rights for Christian minorities in Islamic countries and the freedom of all people to choose their faith..........

Ah, ah, ah Deb!

Don't try to turn me into a supporter of your generally unsavory ranting.

My response was in the spirit of frendliness, not to help you advance your "rant".

I really don't agree with you generally, and you've used up your "benefit of the doubt" with me.

I am Catholic, thus Christian, and don't believe that ALL claiming to be Christians can be painted with the same brush, nor can they all trade on the currency of anything resulting from the Age of Reason.

Besides, the Renaissance came 1600 years after Christ, and the Age of Reason came 1700 years after Christ.

Islam is 1400 years old.

If Christianity is different because of the caveat you name, aren't you then being premature in denouncing Islam so loudly? Why isn't Ms. Taylor a leader ahead of her time? After all she has indicated repeatedly that she is not in agreement with so-named suicide bombers.

"Kind of like what happened to Galileo."

Exactly. With the caveat that Christianity (and the Christian traditions) subsequently reformed itself and evolved into what we know as Age of Reason.

Islam still is being devoured by the primitive and barbaric Sharia laws with no ray of hope. Many brilliant people (Muslims) thus end up as suicide bombers. What a pity !

thats why i pop in- so the islamophobes dont completely take over and others who arent familiar come in and think their ugly accusations are unanswered or justified in some way-

janet- here is a link which elaborates on how the time was computed and what her age was and etc...

http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=375.
peace!

thanks for the reaonable injection into this post danny b-

i come here to talk about the issue presented, but always end up in a defensive posture because there is so much offense being volleyed about-

it happens every time-

it gets pretty boring, especially since many of the peope are repeating past accusations that ive tried to reason at length with time and effort only to have it ignored roundly and pop up again to discourage any discourse on the subject

as meida discrimination against muslims is a real and valid phenomenon i guess they feel doubly compelled to disrupt any meaningful or informative dialogue

its too bad but thats what some people want-
a forum to vent

its nothing new at all theres plenty of places to have dialogue here-

usually when a question is new they dont show up because rational people get repelled by it

it always happens as a thread gets long and people move on to other posts

what can you do , huh?
peace

Dee Chatterjee,

I only know the poetry. Looks like he went the way of many brilliant people, unappreciated in their own times.

Kind of like what happened to Galileo.

Danny B wrote:

"Also, Do you know, was Omar Khayyam a Muslim?

I know he was a Persian poet, astronomer, and mathemetician, but was he specifically a Muslim."

Yes that's true, Omar Khayyam was a brilliant and most gifted mathematician of his time.

Do you also know that because of his later researches in physics and biology he contradicted the "Islamic traditions" and was held guilty of heresy/apostacy ?

Janet,

"There is all sorts of things wrong with their reasoning, which I won't go into here, but I would like to have the facts, if possible, before making an argument."

I agree.

Good question!

Can't Believe ???? wrote:

""This Sharia notion is totally unacceptable under the fundamental idea contained in the Declaration of Independence, viz., all men are born equal and have inalienable rights to pursue freedom and happiness."

While I certainly agree with this, how inalienable are one's rights, how free is someone who cannot be AFFORDED the presumtion of innocence until proven guilty?"

To answer your question, anyone is free to criticize anyone including God/Allah/Yahweh/Thor/Ishwar/Rama/Krishna/ whatever and their pet self-declared prophets, including Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed who have anointed human history. This notion is particularly valid in USA, where the Declaration of Independence (DoI) was authored by Thomas Jefferson in 1776. The very foundation of USA as a idea is based on this DoI. The US Constitution (which came in 1787) is based upon this concept and the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) exist precisely because of this notion.

Thus, in USA one should have the right and should also be able to execute that right without any fear of anything/anyone/any group to draw offensive pictures of Mohammed or any other hallowed person to express his/her own view. That's 1st Amendment, as opposite to barbaric Sharia laws. It is this extent of freedom in speech and ideas that I mean in my original post which you have quoted.

Is this too difficult to understand ?

Pamela, Victoria and others,

I guess I would be at fault myself if I allowed some of these posters to shove me out. So instead of waiting for inforamtion to be presented, I will ask for myself.

I know, by following the link of one of the posters from above, that the Koran is read through a method.

I also read where Pamela provided historical context for one of the quotes being used to argue against Islam. The one used to make the "jew hating" (paraphrase) argument.

All that said, I have heard there are peace and beauty contained within Islam too.

Because I neither know the method for reading the Koran, nor the full historical context, I feel it's fair to give the benefit of the doubt that that is true.

Would any of you mind sharing some more quotes from the Koran that exemplify this aspect, and explain their context?

Also, Do you know, was Omar Khayyam a Muslim?

I know he was a Persian poet, astronomer, and mathemetician, but was he specifically a Muslim.

I love many of his verses for their matter-of-fact, and timeless observations about life.

For example:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

Thanks in advance,

Danny B.

Does anyone here have enough historical knowledge to know whether having sex with a 9 year old was a common practice back in those days and in that part of the world? Do we have any anthropologists on this forum or people with an accurate historical understanding of that culture?
I know that in many cultures that still exist, girls marry at a much younger age than we, in the West, think is appropriate, often at around 14 years old. Usually they can marry after their first menstruation. But 9 years old? Are there cultures that exist now, or used to exist, where consummation of marriage took place at that age?
I ask this not because I want to use it as an excuse for Muhammed's behavior, but because I have known people who have used that as an excuse. There is all sorts of things wrong with their reasoning, which I won't go into here, but I would like to have the facts, if possible, before making an argument.

Victoria,

Regarding your post above, I certainly agree.

I have been "popping in" here from time to time to see what's been going on. I just haven't been posting because it seems futile. I thought this might be a good place to have a productive dialogue about Islam and increase my own knowledge about it (since I am a Catholic). But sadly that doesn't seem possible.

You say: By arguing with a fool one becomes foolish.

I couldn't agree more.

That being said, I am also feeling a little bit hypocritical, so I think I will use my feeling of hypocracy to make a point about it.

Muhammad,

"It is incredible how you attempt to label people who try to highlight xenophobia within religions as xenophobes themselves. That's like calling someone a criminal for reporting a crime."

Why is this not circular reasoning?

Seriously, and I'm not arguing about who is a xenophobe or not.

I'll presume that neither you nor Victoria are xenophobes.

If Xenophobe A meets Xenophobe B, and acknowledges it, does that mean that Xenophobe A is no longer a xenophobe?

No.

If a lung cancer patient in a wheelchair, with 1/4 of a lung left, alternating between the oxygen mask and an unfiltered Lucky Strike says, "Smoking should be banned. No one should ever do it because it will kill you." Does that mean they are incorrect because they are also a hypocrite?

No.

If a criminal witnesses a crime and reports it, are they no longer a criminal? When a crime happens in front of a criminal, do they not see it? Does seeing a crime guarantee you are not a criminal yourself?

No.

"Highlighting" xenophobia in religion does not, by itself, exclude you from ever being xenophobic yourself. Not that I say you are, just that your argument against it is not valid.

Victoria,

It is incredible how you attempt to label people who try to highlight xenophobia within religions as xenophobes themselves. That's like calling someone a criminal for reporting a crime.

You are attempting to use the same manipulation psychology taught by your prophet, but it doesn't wash.

Countless Muslim leaders and websites claim that Muhammad's behaviour was perfect, and should be emulated by every human being. We are simply pointing out that sex with little preteen girls isn't perfect behaviour, and shouldn't be copied by any man, and nor is hatred of non-Muslims (xenophobia), and nor is the murder of apostates, and nor is the murder of blasphemers, etc. etc. Why do you defend this type of behaviour? Don't you know the difference between right and wrong?

We have never committed any of the above crimes (including xenophobia). We are just pointing out someone who has committed a whole range of terrible crimes (including xenophobia). We are just like an innocent member of the public telephoning the police to report a crime against humanity.

Please, don't try to twist things around and blame the witnesses to the crime for the crime.

cant believe this thread-

this happens every thread that has a muslim panelist- every time the same screamers and xenophobes show up and say the same tired and false things-
go look at any muslim panelist thread- yuoll see the same thing-
i guess people have the idea that if they are loud enough it makes what theyre saying more powerful-
as a substitute for having an intlligent conversation about the actual subject-
but i think any reasonable person could see that.

i have made many many responses that were considerate and backed up with resources countless times in many threads- only to have the haters come back with no comprehension-
by arguing with a fool- one becomes foolish

you gave it a try-

what people dont realize is that they are generating sympathy for muslims by their outpourings of vitriol-

the subject is how the media represents religion- and here is proof positive that the media is indoctrinating those who can be indoctrinated into some crazy zeal of malice-
and these posts when looked at by a reasonable person- they come to the realization that the media really has been demonizing all muslims and the responses here didnt grow out of a vacuum, but from deliberate attempts by fox news and others to foment hate and fear.

as long as the people are filled with unresonable fear, they never ask any real questions do they?

Oh yes! Lest I forget, I am aware of the hypocricy in having lost my temper out of frustration earlier.

But I can acknowledge the error of my ways too.

Yes, because there are different types of argument. Debate, and beligerance.

I cited an example above in making my point before you ever chimed in.

The point I took from YOU is that name-calling is an ad hominem argument, and not right.

This does not mean that they suddenly have intelligent and rhetorical arguments.

It doesn't matter anyway, I'm leaving out of disappointment.

YOU are as argumentative as them, and not contributing anything of value either.

I feel sorry for Pamela, trying to share ideas and getting nothing but abuse for it.

A person does not have to agree with her completely to acknowldge merit in her pursuits. It is a straw man argument to keep screaming, "Islam is hate, and nothing more", when she insists that she is a peaceful Muslim and trying to spread those values.

Disagreement can come in the form of well thought out prose that still respects the right of another to have their own differing opinion.

And if one finds that they cannot emotionally control themselves, they should be gracious enough to "agree to disagree" and bow out.

Not scream the same thing repeatedly and louder each time.

Now to you and those I named earlier, I say, "good-bye", and graciously bow out.

To Can't Believe This Thread - No, you haven't taken the point. You still say that you "can't add to anything that doesn't exist in the first place" and you put "arguments" in quotations.

Anonymous,

Point taken.

However, I can't "add" to anything that doesn't exist in the first place. Like anything intelligent written by these ones.

The "arguments" these people are putting forth are not about discourse, or debate.

When in Rome...

To Can't Believe This Thread - "are you sure you are not exactly who you claim to be against?"

This very very aptly also applies to your behavior. Calling people @33holes, referring to them as a gang, talking about them having tails, plagiarizing Encyclopedia Brit, saying all decency has been banished, calling posters "ridiculously ignorant". These are typical ad hominem attacks, and are themselves a hijack of the thread. They don't deal with any of the arguments put forth, they just call people ugly names.

Deb Chatterjee,

You are so cute, you make the idea that women are inferior actually seem plausible (<--sarcastic tongue-in-cheek at work).

Just look at what you are allowed to say:

"We cannot just assume that anyone is innocent till proven guilty. That's too expensive and costly."

Yes! Freedom IS expensive and costly. That's why our forefathers fought so hard to get it, and every subsequent generation has fought to keep it.

Then to follow that up:

"This Sharia notion is totally unacceptable under the fundamental idea contained in the Declaration of Independence, viz., all men are born equal and have inalienable rights to pursue freedom and happiness."

While I certainly agree with this, how inalienable are one's rights, how free is someone who cannot be AFFORDED the presumtion of innocence until proven guilty?

But then, you like to dispense with academia, and ACTUAL evidence. You just like to make up "evidence", keep screaming that it IS "evidence" and continue on like you are the sole person to make the determination of what "evidence" is.

You don't maintain any consistency in your own arguments, think that repetition of ignorance enhances your rhetorical diarrhea and makes it fact, have deluded others who agree with you by being taken in through cheap emotional triggers...are you sure you are not exactly who you claim to be against?

Concerned,

"Wipe your Koran clean of hate if you can and get back to us."

You know, the absolute arrogance you display in jumping to the conclusion that I am Muslim for simply naming you as the ridiculous bigot that you are, and to further presume to speak for Christianity itself, is just revolting.

I had hoped to see some intelligent discussion on this thread...to maybe learn something, other than the obvious "Double Standards, Misinformation, and Vitriol" that the article above talks about.

A special thanks to you and your "gang" for acting like you are the only ones here, and hijacking the thread with your ridiculous, "wrote my report by plagarizing the Encyclopedia Britannica like a fifth grader", style of attack and argument.

If I did not know better, I would swear that you have tails!

I pray that you really do find the love of Jesus Christ, and stop deluding yourself into thinking that you are anything short of a poseur.

Muhammad,

Point taken, and I apologize for my misnomer.

However, I have read this entire thread...again.

You are still ignorant.

You are still an @$$hole.

Shame on you!

To: Can't Believe This Thread,

Please read the thread before labelling contributors as 'Christians'.

The very concept of faith (to believe without evidence) is a con, sold to ancient, uneducated and gullible people by the political manipulators of their time. Unfortunately, their children simply followed what their parents believed, and so forth throughout the ages up until today. Fortunately, educated people of today are becoming wise to the cons of ancient political manipulation psychology, and exposing it for what it is.

Certain forms of ancient manipulation psychology were much more dangerous than others. The psychology of Christianity has a lot to answer for, but is very mild in comparison to the psychology behind Islam.

It is time for all human beings to start putting all their faith in evidence, instead of in blind faith. Why do you think that our legal justice system works on evidence, and not on faith? The reason is because truth is ALWAYS about evidence.

Victoria,

I think that you know in your heart what is right and wrong. I think that you know in your heart that men in their 50's who have sex with little children should not be admired or emulated. You only continue to follow such a man because everyone in your community tells you that this man's behaviour was perfect, and you are unable to question the beliefs of your community, due to the indoctrination you have received. You have been told that it is wrong to question your faith, and you have just accepted this, rather than think for yourself.

Your community only tell you that Muhammad was perfect because Muhammad ordered that apostates must be murdered (and they still are today). People at the time of Muhammad were too frightened to point out that he most certainly wasn't perfect, because it meant they would be killed, and the people in your community are still too frightened to say that he wasn't perfect.

You, and all Muslim women, know that if you took off your headscarf in a Mosque and said "I don't believe Muhammad's example was perfect and I don't believe the Qur'an was dictated by any god" that you would receive death threats, or be killed. This is why Islam survives and prospers. People face death threats for speaking out against Muhammad. That was the psychology Muhammad introduced to the world, and that is why Islam still survives today. It survives through fear.

Muslims are too afraid to criticise anything that Muhammad said or did, so they deceive themselves and everyone else, and proclaim that his behaviour was so perfect that every human being should spend the rest of their lives trying to follow his 'perfect' example. That is cult behaviour, Victoria. It’s cult psychology. Cults use fear to control people. Please study the psychology of cults so that you learn to recognise it.

I hope that one day you will cast off your comfort blanket, and see Muhammad for what he really was. I hope the same for all Muslims, because you (and we) are all his victims. No one deserves to spend the rest of their lives following such a man, or dying for such a man.

There can never be peace in the world whilst there are people trying to follow Muhammad’s example, because he was one of the most violent extremists in all history. Watch the videoed testimonies of the Islamic suicide bombers. They all quote from Muhammad’s book, the Qur’an, to justify their crimes against humanity. They all hold copies of the Qur’an as they speak into the camera. They all study the Qur’an, and most have learned to recite every verse from memory. They know the Qur’an better than you. They understand Muhammad much better than you. Your understanding of Islam is wrong. Their understanding is Muhammad’s original version. They understand his ideology, and are trying to implement it. They even try to dress like him.

It is sad that you choose to continue following the teachings of a man who inserted his penis into a 9 year old child, and that you turn to the book of a self-confessed paedophile for moral guidance in your life, when you could be living your life according to your own superior conscience and morality. The only reason you defend Muhammad and Islam is because the belief system has become part of your own personal identity, and it is very hard to question your own identity, and it is harder still to change your own identity. Don’t be afraid, Victoria. Set your mind free.

The psychology introduced by Muhammad aims to convince you that you need Muhammad's ideology in your life, but it is a con, Victoria. Your own conscience is vastly superior to that of any man who has sexually penetrated a child. I'm sure you know this in your heart, regardless of what you say on this forum.

From the Position Paper.

The Environment.Yes,you said well,but nearly all arab and muslim countries are still desert.What is your opinion?

Freedom of Speech.Absolutely essential.Including the right to be offensive,satirical,ironic,humorous,blasphemous....I wouldnt have published those two or three.
That is contradiction.

Hijab.It is up to the individual women to make her choice.
Completely wrong.Vast majority of muslim women put on headscarf because of fear.
How one chooses to dress is pravite matter.
Is burqa a dress?is black wrap a dress?

Intelligent Design.I firmly believe that it has no place in science classroom.
Wrong.If you are a good believer,you must accept Inteligent Design(twentyfirst century version of Father Adam).Father Adam was the first man and first muslim(whatever it means)

Slavery.I oppose all forms of slavery or child bride(for example six years old girl) who is married off to a much older man(for example 50 years old man)
Do you know how many sex-slaves did prophet have?

Women and Islam.It is my belief that Islam is inherently egalitarian in terms of gender,race,nationality.
Completely Tale.
Allah hath made the one of them to EXCEL the other 4.34 what does it mean?
Do you know meaning of Yachooch and Machooch?

Women leading Prayers.Quran makes it pretty clear that women and men are equal partners.
Completely wrong.Man can take four women,two women equals one man,you shall give one to daughter but two to son.
Woman Imam is an indianapolis fantacy.

and jacob- just say no to the electric kool-aid brother- and happy passover-

recommended movies for jacob? when do we eat?

i swear youll like it jacob

hi folks and peace and happy passover to our friends that celebrate-

well, liberated, muhammad, deb,albertadude and the newcomer serge- talk amongst yourselves -

muhammad- i wont even try- fatwas cant be issued as theres no central islamic government and you havent proven anythings so well agree to disagree-
you to your beliefs and me to mine-

anyone want to have an intelligent discusion on the topic? no? well then keep preaching to the choir-

life is too short and glorious folks -have at it

Let us learn what a dichotomy is folks....Islam is inherently evil and violent per its founder Muhammed....However, that does not mean all 1 billion muslims are evil and terrorists....Duhhhh....

Thankfully, not all muslims take every teaching of muhammed literally and apply it to today!!

This Pamela is simply playing the victim card that whiny muslims and their liberal enablers push them to do so....

And folks for the record, I realize that liberals are not the brightest people around but Timothy Mcviegh was an athiest when he committed his horrendous actions and even to his death he remained an athiest...

As for these alledged 'christian' abortion bombers, Eric Rudolph admires Nietizhe, not the Bible...

Yes some Christians have done some awful things...BUT nothing in the Greek Bible teaches them to do so...

Learn this liberals you so useful idiots...When muslims do horrible things, they HAVE muhammed teacbhing and actions to back up their evil...

It all goes back to muhammed folks..he was a murderer and an evil man...

Now i know for the liberal limited mind, the idea of right and wrong do not exist but for the rest of us who are not so intellectually challenged, that fact is that Islam is inherently brutal and evil and yes, wrong!!

Just as the Buddhists or Hindus or Catholics or Jews or Animists or Pagans or Eastern Orthodox or Protestants or secularists that have lived as minorities in ANY islamic land about the tender mercies of the teachings of Muhammed???

Open your minds people....Islam has been on a 1400 year blitzkrieg and we are entering the most dangerous part of this war ever....

That should read, "I am a Christian, freak". Meaning you and your gang, of course.

Concerned,

I am a Christian freak. I just know that you are all talking exactly like what you claim to be talking against.

So ignorant!

Can't Believe This Thread,

Wipe your Koran clean of hate if you can and get back to us.

Well, it looks like there's a clear consensus.

Deb Chatterjee
Muhhamad
Serge
Concerned Christian Now Liberated

All in agreement.

So great! Speaking of terrorism...the thread has been hijacked by ridiculously ignorant @$$holes!

Thanks for banishing any decency or idea SHARING!

“When they cook a dish in the Middle East, it is traditional to put the meat on top of the rice when they serve it. They kidnapped a woman’s baby in Baghdad, a toddler, and because the mother was unable to pay the ransom, they returned her child – beheaded, roasted and served on a mound of rice.” The infant’s crime was to be an Assyrian, but this story, reported by the Barnabus Fund, went unnoticed in the West, like so many other horrific accounts of Christian persecution in Iraq.

Since the invasion of Iraq, Muslim militants have bombed 28 churches and murdered hundreds of Christians. Last October, Islamists beheaded a priest in Mosul in revenge for the Pope’s remarks about Islam at Regensburg. But never let it be said that jihadis do not have a sense of ironic humour: that same month they crucified a 14-year-old Christian boy in Basra.

Serge,

You've hit proverbial the nail on the proverbial head. Religious faith is all about psychological comfort blankets.

Unfortunately, many people are so afraid of reality that they prefer to live their lives under a comfort blanket of shared delusion.

Life is very tough for most people. Many cannot bear to think that this existance is all there is to life. They therefore become susceptible to the dreams and delusions sold to them by psychological manipulators, which offer psychological protection from reality.

Unfortunately, for many people these blankets are so attractive and seductive that they are prepared to deceive themselves, deny reality and even kill to prevent anyone from taking their comfort blanket away from them. It is sad, and it is dangerous for all who don't share their delusions.

Religion is all about hiding from reality, denying reality and fooling the self into believing that belief itself can change reality and make it be the way the believers want it to be.

Believers of all faiths, you've got to give yourself a slap around the face, and wake up from your shared delusions. Men who sexually penetrate little children are most certainly NOT perfect. They are not people who should be emulated. They are not people who should be admired and put on a pedestal for others to follow.

It takes courage to learn to cope with life without your shared comfort blanket, but you can find that courage. Throw off your headscarf, Pamela and Victoria. That represents your comfort blanket. Free your mind. Live your life according to your own ethic. Be a freethinker. Don’t allow your thinking to be limited and controlled by an ancient psychological manipulator.

Pamela - In case you think I just pick on Muslims, let me pick on a group a little closer to home, that is, the American electorate. I would say that there is a large segment of the American people that is in deep, deep denial about Iraq. Bush's poll ratings might be the lowest ever, but that still leaves about 35-40% of the American electorate that would support him if he was running again, and thinks he is doing a dandy job in Iraq. I am not sure how that percentage translates into absolute numbers, but it still seems like there is a large chunk of Americans who can't seem to realize that the venture in Iraq is a disaster not only for the US, but for Iraq, and even the entire world, a disaster that the US might never recover from. This is what happens when reality clashes with fantasy, because only by facing up to what has happened will the US ever be able to straighten itself out. I have no idea whether this will happen, or whether the US will continue to pursue policies that are more and more destructive, and which will end in the destruction of the country as we have known it.
Here are a few more cases of denial from other parts of the world: Japan, and the rewriting of history:http://www.nytimes.com
/2007/04/01/world/asia/01japan.html
Also Nina Krushcheva, great-granddaughter of Krushchev interviewed today on the World. She talked about how when Krushchev made his famous speech about the crimes of Stalin, Russians complained that Krushchev TOOK THEIR FAITH away that Russia was a great nation. This is all reported at http://www.theworld.org/?q=node/9104, and the segment is actually about how the Chinese have not faced up to what happened during the Cultural Revolution.
So every human has a choice, are you more interested in truth or comfort? Right now, Pamela, you have chosen comfort over truth, the comfort of a belief in an almost perfect human being, and that if you just follow his example, you will have meaning in your life, and the comfort of belonging to a group that believes like you do. The "beguiling consolations" of religion,as Sam Harris says, are very seductive.

Deb,

You are right in what you say. Unfortunately, the true Islam is Muhammad's extremely violent fundamentalist version. Any reform of Islam will always revert back to the 'true' Islam, sooner or later, and that is why it is pointless trying to reform it.

The only peaceful solution is education. If all children were taught political manipulation psychology at school, then they'd all recognise a political manipulator when they saw one. Education is the only peaceful solution, but then modern politicians are never going to start teaching children to recognise psychological manipulators, so it will probably never happen. That means there’s no peaceful solution. Looks like we’re heading for a war – life’s a bit*h.

Pamela and Victoria,

As I am sure you know, Victoria, both blasphemy and apostasy are capital crimes under Sharia law (Islamic law), and that explains why so many Muslim countries have the death penalty for blasphemy, including Pakistan. Sharia law is derived from the Qur’an and hadith. Why do you try to mislead people with untruths? See the evidence below. Truth is always about evidence.

It is a step in the right direction, Pamela, that you recognise Muhammad wasn't perfect, but I hope you are aware that there are many Muslims in the world who would kill you for saying that, because they believe it is blasphemy to even suggest that Muhammad’s might have fancied a contestant in a Miss World contest, let alone suggest that he might not be perfect:

A number of news organisations, including the BBC, reported in November 2002 that a fatwa had been issued by a Nigerian state government against the journalist Isioma Daniel of the ThisDay newspaper for simply saying that the Prophet Mohammed may have approved of the Miss World contest and may have even wished to marry one of the beauty queens. The deputy governor of Zamfara state in northern Nigeria issued the fatwa, which called upon all Muslims to consider it their religious duty to kill Isioma Daniel. The BBC also reported that a Saudi cleric had issued a fatwa calling for the assassination of a Kuwaiti singer for putting the opening chapter of the Koran to music.
See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2519595.stm

On 25th March 2002, USA TODAY ran an article by Paul Wiseman about Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws titled “Words can bring death sentence in Pakistan”. The article explained that a medical lecturer working in Pakistan, Younis Sheikh, had been arrested at the behest of mullahs, under Pakistan’s draconian blasphemy laws, and sentenced by an Islamabad Judge to hang, simply for telling his students that Prophet Muhammad’s parents weren’t Muslim because they died before Allah revealed Islam to their son. The article further stated that President Musharraf had attempted to change the blasphemy laws two years earlier to prevent cases such as this but had been forced to back down by religious groups who threatened public demonstrations against the measures and had considerable support from mainstream Muslims on this particular issue. See: www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/03/26/usat-blasphemy.htm

According to the Dr. Homa Darabi Foundation, Article 513 of Iran’s blasphemy laws states that “The punishment for insulting or criticizing, Islam, the Prophet Mohammed, his entire family, or his representatives known as Imams is death by hanging in public.” See: www.homa.org/Details.asp?View=Detail&ContentID=2137352844&TOCID=2083225444 (case sensitive)

The organisation “Women Living Under Muslim Laws” operates a website reporting on injustices around the world carried out in the name of Islam. On 30th January 2002 WLUML published an article demanding the overturning of death sentences in blasphemy cases in Pakistan. The Multan Bench of Lahore High Court confirmed the death sentence of a Christian, in a blasphemy case on 24th July 2001. Ayub Masih of Arifwala, Distt. Sahiwal (Southern Punjab) was first arrested on 14th October 1996, charged with making derogatory remarks against the Prophet Muhammad. On 5th October 2000, a peace activist, Dr. Younus Shaikh, a teacher at the Capital Medical College for Homeopathy, Islamabad, and founder of the Progressive group 'Enlightenment' was arrested by the Islamabad police and charged with blasphemy under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code. All petitions for bail were rejected by the Lower and High Courts. See: www.wluml.org

Why do you continue to defend this belief system? It has led to the deaths of millions, and the suffering of many more millions. Why do you feel the need to live your life according to the teachings of such a violent politician, who used the ignorance of the people of his time to gain power over them?

You don't really believe that any creator of the universe would send a man to have sex with a child to teach human beings a new morality, do you? Don't you recognise a manipulator and a conman when you see one? Don't be taken in by a paedophile. Normal men can never consummate a marriage with any 9 year old girl, because 9 year old girls don’t give them an erection (to put it bluntly). For most men it is impossible to consumate a marriage with a 9 year old child. Think about it.

Free your mind. You don't need all this bulls**t in your lives. You've got one life. Don't spend it following the teachings of a clever political manipulator. Decide for yourself what is right and wrong. Live according to your own morals and principles. Your own morals and principles are bound to be vastly superior to those of Muhammad. Eat what you want. Dress how you want. Be free, and be happy.

Mo (Muhammad):

You have got Pamela to admit that Prophet Muhammad was not perfect. That itself is an achievement. And that Shirin Ebadi (and Wafa Sultan, Ayman Hrsi Ali) are actually heretics - guilty of blasphemy and the punishment is death by stoning. I watched a mullah say this to Wafa Sultan on MEMRI TV. (Pamela most probably knows this, but refuses to admit because of some certain backlash.)

I think Pamela is just another American blob. What she is propagating is precisely confusion and disinformation soi tyical of American Muslims.

For all her well-meaning intentions, it is true that if hers (Pamela or Shirin Ebadi or Asma Jehangir) were to openly preach against such Muslim personal conduct laws in orthodox Muslim countries, or even the mildest ones like Malaysia, they would have been killed or physically assaulted. The problem is that misleading information (such as from Pamela) is passed on as genuine heartfelt endeavor. Pamela is truly a nice human being. But her attitude is
confusing: you cannot have 1st Amendment (Free Speech) AND Quran (005:033) simultaneously enforced. You need to choose either one. I think Pamela is confused on this specific issue. She has written in response to my comments:

"Change starts somewhere.......Change can now come from Muslim America, and Muslim America certainly sees itself in that role... as applying pressure to the Muslim World to clean up their acts."

If this the type of reform that Pamela wants to happen in the barbaric Islamic cultures should happen, then the Islam as I/you/we know it would be totally non-existent. In a quixotic world such (Pamelaic) dreams are possible.

Also, Pamela could be the Joan of Ark in Islam but there have been efforts to reform Islam in the past. In my country of birth, India, there was this very benign emperor: Akbar. He tried to combine the Vedantic spirituality with Islamic Sufism and made what is known as Din-i-Ilahi. This faith is now extinct because no one recognized it as true Islam, without the bloodshed component of infidels. Another example (from India) is Sir Syed Ahmed Khan (founder of Aligarh Muslim University). He was declared as a heretic and had to eventually eat crow before the strictures of the mullahs. He revised his position on Muslim men and women receiving western education. Methinks that such reformed Islam (as Pamela wants) would exist only in USA and its propagation outside USA would not happen.
(Recall the status of democracy in the Muslim lands - which American so desperately wants to spread ?)

So, unless Pamela and her likes are recognizing the inevitable "Clash of Civilizations" (American vs. non-American Islam), I think she is clueless as to where her efforts would lead to.

Regarding Pamela's little sister, Victoria, I feel sympathy for her: she only pukes and refuses medical help. Have mercy on her.

Serge,

Well said!!!

Arabs/Muslims as 'bad guys' in films???
SO WHAT!!??

Nothing they could make up could match the real world facts anyway.

And GROW UP anyway!! All nations have been popular bad guys in films.
French, Germans...ENGLISH.

So quit you constant Islamist whining!

Oh and here's a bit of media coverage you won't have seen:

""Ed West in the 'Catholic Herald':

“When they cook a dish in the Middle East, it is traditional to put the meat on top of the rice when they serve it.
They kidnapped a woman’s baby in Baghdad, a toddler, and because the mother was unable to pay the ransom, they returned her child – beheaded, roasted and served on a mound of rice.” The infant’s crime was to be an Assyrian, but this story, reported by the Barnabus Fund, went unnoticed in the West, like so many other horrific accounts of Christian persecution in Iraq.

Since the invasion of Iraq, Muslim militants have bombed 28 churches and murdered hundreds of Christians.

Last October, Islamists beheaded a priest in Mosul in revenge for the Pope’s remarks about Islam at Regensburg.

But never let it be said that jihadis do not have a sense of ironic humour: that same month they crucified a 14-year-old Christian boy in Basra.""

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

AND TO THINK...IF THEY PUT STUFF LIKE *THAT* IN A FILM 'VICTORIA' WOULD CALL IT 'BIAS'!!

Like I said...fantasy can't compete with the barbaric reality of Arab/Muslim actions that are utterly unique in thier evil.

Only the lousy Muslims, the barabric Middle East dwellers...COULD BE-HEAD AND ROAST A CHILD AND SERVE IT TO THE MOTHER!!!

Unlike Christianity and Buddhism in which stories about their founders might be embellished or simply not true, Islam has to constantly defend itself against people who question whether the actions of Muhammed were despicable or not. Jesus and Buddha might not have been as saintly or exalted as their followers believe, but at least they were not engaging in warfare, cutting off of heads, hands and feet, and declaring war on infidels. Victoria, Pamela and other apologists for Islam continually dispute the events and sayings that people bring forward, saying that the context is wrong, or Muhammed was defending himself against attacks or that particular hadith was written by a dubious person. But generally where there is smoke there is fire, and there is a ton more smoke in Islam, than in Christianity or Buddhism. Nowhere in the core texts of Christianity or Buddhism can you find so many numerous stories of killing and cruelty and intolerance for those who are not followers.So my guess is that where there is this much smoke, there is fire, and Muhammed did do and did say a lot of what he is accused of.
There are still older people in Russia who look fondly on Stalin, like a big daddy or grandfather figure and willingly blind themselves to the gulags, executions, starvation of millions, and the number of dead in WW2, partly due to Stalin's pact with Hitler. Pamela would prefer to retreat into her fantasy life about Muhammed, than face reality. This is a psychological problem, to which all humans are susceptible, and I am not sure what can be done about it.

Muhammad- there are several answers to your assertion- and your rush to judgement that the woman was herself a blasphemer by associaton-

1)- it is a 12 year old boy
2)- he was charged with blasphemy- we dont know if he was guilty, or what degree of blashphemy -for all we know he might have been playing a video game-
3) he is a christian boy and it cannot be assumed he is knowledgable about islamic law to know if hes committing blasphemy or not-
4) the penalty for blasphemy is not death-
are you confusing blasphemy and apostasy?
5) assuming youre confusing the 2 and it is apostasy- the punishment is still not death-
hr did not give away state secrets, betray muslims, or encourage others to wage war against muslims- in other words, his apostasy (if it exists because i think youre confusing the two)
wasnt a treasonous apostasy which STILL could mercifully be adjudicated to exile!
6) HE IS TWELVE YEARS OLD!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for the woman-

1) it is not established that there were 4 witnesses to witness against the women-

A man from the tribe of Aslam came to the Messenger - peace be upon him - while he was in the mosque and said to him: 'O Messenger of God, I have committed adultery.'
The Messenger turned away from him. The man then stepped in front of the Messenger and said: 'I committed adultery.'
The Messenger again looked away. The man did the same thing four times. When he confessed four times the Messenger called upon him and asked him: 'Are you insane?'
The man said: 'No!'
The Messenger then asked him: 'Were you married (muhsan) when you committed this act?' to which he said: 'Yes!'
Only then did the Prophet order that the man be punished for zina.

In another Hadith it is reported that:

The Prophet said to Ma'iz: 'Maybe you just kissed, maybe you touched her, or looked ... ' and the man said: 'No!'
He (the Messenger) said, 'So, did you penetrate her?' and the man said: 'Yes!'
The Prophet then ordered his punishment.

In another version of the same Hadith:

The Prophet asked the man: 'Till that of yours disappeared in that of hers?'
The man said, 'Yes.'
The Prophet asked, 'Like a stick disappears in a kohl canister and a rope in a well?'
The man said, 'Yes!'
He then asked him, 'Do you know the meaning of zina?'
The man said, 'Yes! I did with her illegally what a husband does with his wife legally.'

this shows the hesitancy of the Prophet(pbuh) to carry out such a heavy punishment even when the sinner is condemning themselves eagerly-

here is a link to lawyers summation of the present laws regarding zina, rape etc. in pakistan-

where it is stated that te laws are not in accordance with the qur'an or sharia/ if you dont read it at least you know that-

http://www.karamah.org/docs/Zina_article_Final.pdf

while you seem eager to rush to condemnation without facts- this is not how islam views justice.

it is exactly these kinds of snap judgements that
propogate much of the suffering in the islamic world, especially in regards to women.

so yes- i do respect this woman- and her courageous stand for what is humane- islam is not a religion of control freaks bent on vengeance-

but people are what they are and abuse many things in their quest to control and oppress those around them to their will-

it doesnt make it islamic-

and finally of course- if we are lenient in our judgement and take the most careful and considerate merciful course-
the final judgement is up to ALLAH- so if it really bothers you that someone may slip through and escape earthly punishment, you can console your desire for revenge tat isnt yours anyway with that fact.

peace

The media needs to do a thorough review on the founders of the major religions to bring readers up to date on the latest textural and archeological findings.

For example:

1. Abraham founder of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of his sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest were embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian sects.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, possibly hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating 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.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the hallucinations of "pretty wingy thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

"Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life (Alexandra David-Neel, Buddhism: fts Doctrines and fts Methods, New York: St. Martids Press, 1977, p. 15). "

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

Muhammad,

1) I never said the Prophet was perfect. The Prophet was a human being like any other and made mistakes. Some of these are corrected in the Qur'an (see Surah Abasa) and some are not (as in the time he asked some farmers why they did not plant their crops in a certain manner, suggesting that would be better, but it turned out the farmers knew best.

2) I did say that I do not believe the Prophet was wicked or evil. And that bringing up obscure, narrations of questionable provenance was not going to help. Tabari's work, for instance, is know for being non-discriminatory, and including many, many bizarre narrations. Even the best,most reliable hadith books have to be approached with critical analysis because we know that people forged many "sayings" of the prophet either for personal gain or wishful thinking or forgetfulness or what have you.

3) The collections of hadith and Qu'ran. The Qur'an was collected in a standardized edition within the lifetimes of the Prophet's companions. The hadith were collected and standardized centuries later. The process simply was not comparable.

4) The poet Kab. Of all the incidents you have mentioned, this is the most noteworthy. I have no knowledge about the chain of narrators for this hadith and whether it is actually sound or not, so I can't comment on that.

However, if we work on the assumption that it is sound, I would classify this as one of the Prophet's mistakes. Kab did not just ridicule the Prophet, but incited the Meccans to battle and encouraged them while they were in battle. However, assasination does not seem to me to be the appropriate response to hate speech/slander, even when the situation is complicated by active warfare going on. Obviously, the issue is debateable, if a person is whipping people up to active warfare against you is it better to take out the one person than to let him continue his activities, thus resulting in the death of many? A yes answer assumes that those people would not have otherwise gone to war; a no answer stands on the principle that speech alone never justifies capital punishment. I come down on the no side.

However, does that make the Prophet evil... I don't think so. The issue is not cut and dried (as most issues are not), and human beings, even Prohets, do make mistakes.

Some one asked about my position on freedom of speech.

http://www.pktaylor.com/positions.htm

and also:

http://www.pktaylor.com/pksblog/2006/01/freedom-of-expression.html

Victoria,

You admire a woman who challenges Muhammad's teachings and the teachings of the Qur'an. Muhammad taught that the punishment for blasphemy was death, yet you hail a woman who once saved a boy from being hanged in accordance with Muhammad's teachings, for blasphemy. This woman is herself guilty of blasphemy, according to Muhammad.

You state that she saved a woman charged with adultery from being stoned to death, yet the sentence for this 'crime', according to Muhammad and his Qur'an is death.

You hail her as a heroine for fighting to stop amputations for crimes, yet these punishments are required by the Qur'an.

Sahih Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4357:
Narrated AbuzZinad: ‘When the Apostle of Allah cut off (the hands and feet of) those who had stolen his camels and he had their eyes put out by fire (heated nails), Allah reprimanded him on that (action), and Allah, the Exalted, revealed: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution or crucifixion."’ [This became Chapter 5 Verse 33 of the Qur’an]

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 33:
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.

Sahih Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4442:
Narrated Al-Bara' ibn Azib: ‘I met my uncle who was carrying a standard. I asked him: Where are you going? He said: The Apostle of Allah has sent me to a man who has married his father's wife. He has ordered me to cut off his head and take his property.’ [Teaches intolerance, murder & theft]

Sahih Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4396:
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah: ‘A thief was brought to the Prophet. He said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his hand. So his (right) hand was cut off. He was brought a second time and he said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his foot. So his (left) foot was cut off. He was brought a third time and he said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! So he said: Cut off his hand. (So his (left) hand was cut off.) He was brought a fourth time and he said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! So he said: Cut off his foot. So his (right) foot was cut off. He was brought a fifth time and he said: Kill him. So we took him away and killed him. We then dragged him and cast him into a well and threw stones over him.’

The problem, which you fail to recognise regardless of how much evidence is placed in front of you, is that the true Islam is Muhammad's Islam, and his version of Islam was fundamentally extreme, violent, abusive, full of hatred towards non-Muslims, and abusive towards women.

Why do you persist in calling this man ‘perfect’? Can you not see that you have been duped by a clever ancient politician and practitioner of cult psychology? Why don’t you start thinking for yourself, instead of blindly following the teachings of such a man? Why do you need a man such as this to tell you how you should dress, and who you can marry, and what type of food you can eat? Please consider freeing your mind from all this psychological manipulation and indoctrination.

and in case it has to be spelled out for you-

this is a muslim woman bravely standing up and defending human rights and justice against how some people abuse what they fallaciously call islam-

and there is no distinction in who she fights for- all are deserving of defense

an example of a muslim woman who fights for human rights for all-

The name of Asma Jehangir, human rights activist, commands respect, admiration and affection in the Indian sub-continent- comprising India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. She has fought numerous cases against the Pakistan government to uphold the rights of minorities like Christians and Hindus.

She once saved a Christian boy of 12, sentenced to death for blasphemy from being hanged; she has saved women charged with adultery from being stoned to death; she leads agitations against public flogging, executions and chopping off of limbs ordained by hooded ordinances promulgated during the regime of President Zia-ul Haq. Mullah elements hate her guts.

Murderous attempts to kill her and her family were made. She has had to send her children abroad for safety. She has been beaten up and jailed. Nevertheless for the vast majority of Pakistanis Asma Jehangir has become the voice of sanity in an atmosphere fouled by religious bigotry. She has been loaded with honours which include Sitara-i-lmtiaz, Martin Ennals and the Magsaysay Award for defence of human rights.

Asma Jehangir was born in Lahore to Malik Ghulam Jilani who was then a civil servant. When Field Marshall Ayub Khan seized the reigns of power in Pakistan, numerous politicians were 'ebdoed' including Mumtaz Daultana. Not caring much for the political 'etiquette' of the day, Jilani threw a dinner party in honour of Daultana. This act of defiance carried huge repercussions for Jilani and he subsequently resigned from the civil service because he found it morally unacceptable to work under a martial law set-up. This was the beginning of almost constant harassment for Jilani and his family: their land-leases were cancelled - which had become the family's sole source of income at that point - and an attempt was made on Jilani's life. His imprisonment followed soon after.

His incarceration became his daughter Asma's first tryst with the judicial establishment of the country eventually culminating in a lifetime's involvement with the law and the rights of the victimised. Asma Jehangir went on to make legal history when her case - wherein she challenged the legality of martial law - went all the way to the Supreme Court. Asma Jilani vs the State became a landmark case in the annals of Pakistan's judicial history.

THIS IS ISLAM MUHAMMAD

Pamela and Victoria,

Is this what you call the 'perfect behaviour' of Muhammad, as recorded in the Sahih (sound and authentic) hadith?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369 (Confirmed in Sahih Muslim Book 19, Number 4436):
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: ‘Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, "That man (i.e. Muhammad) demands Sadaqa (Zakat, a form of taxation) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you (to pay the tax)." On that, Kab said, "By Allah, you will get tired of him!" Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food." Kab said, "Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me (give me some security for the loan)." Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, "What do you want?" Ka'b replied, "Mortgage your women to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the 'Arabs?" Ka'b said, "Then mortgage your sons to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms (weapons) to you." Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Kab that Muhammad (bin Maslama) would return to him. He came to Kab at night along with Kab's foster brother, Abu Na'ila. Kab invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, "Where are you going at this time?" Kab replied, "None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na'ila have come." His wife said, "I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him. Ka'b said, "They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed." So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and said to them, "When Ka'b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head." Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "I have never smelt a better scent than this. " Ka'b replied, "I have got the best Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume." Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka'b "Will you allow me to smell your head?" Ka'b said, "Yes." Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka'b again, "Will you let me (smell your head)?" Ka'b said, "Yes." When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), "Get at him!" So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. Abu Rafi was killed after Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf."’ [Muhammad asked for a volunteer to assassinate Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf, and gave Muhammad bin Maslama permission to trick and deceive Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf in order to kill him]

Ishaq: 368
Their swords rained blows upon him (Kab bin Al-Ashraf), but to no avail. Muhammad bin Maslamah said, ‘When I saw that they were ineffective, I remembered a long, thin dagger which I had in my scabbard. I took hold of it. By this time the enemy of Allah had shouted so loudly lamps had been lit in the homes around us. I plunged the dagger into his breast and pressed upon it so heavily that it reached his pubic region. Allah’s enemy fell to the ground.’ Ka’b’s body was left prostrate. After his fall, all the Nadir Jews were brought low. Sword in hand we cut him down. By Muhammad’s order we were sent secretly by night. Brother killing brother. We lured him to his death with guile. Traveling by night, bold as lions, we went into his home. We made him taste death with our deadly swords. We sought victory for the religion of the Prophet.

Tabari VII: 97 / Ishaq: 368
We carried Ka’b’s head and brought it to Muhammad during the night. We saluted him as he stood praying and told him that we had slain Allah’s enemy. When he came out to us we cast Ashraf’s head before his feet. The Prophet praised Allah that the poet had been assassinated and complimented us on the good work we had done in Allah’s Cause. Our attack upon Allah’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.’ [Note that Kab was just a poet. All he did was write verses criticising Muhammad]

Tabari VII: 97 / Ishaq: 369
The next morning, the Jews were in a state of fear on account of our attack upon the enemy of Allah. After the assassination, the Prophet declared, ‘Kill every Jew.’

Sahih Abu Dawud, Book 19, No 2996:
Narrated Muhayyisah: ‘The Apostle of Allah said: If you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them. So Muhayyisah jumped over Shubaybah, a man of the Jewish merchants. He had close relations with them. He then killed him.’

Tabari VII: 97 / Ishaq: 369
Thereupon Mas’ud leapt upon Sunayna, one of the Jewish merchants with whom his family had social and commercial relations and killed him. The Muslim’s brother (a non-Muslim) complained, saying, ‘Why did you kill him? You have much fat in your belly from his charity.’ Mas’ud answered, ‘By Allah, had Muhammad ordered me to murder you, my brother, I would have cut off your head.’

Why do you think anyone should seek to emulate a man who behaved in this way? Do you think it is right for Muslims to continue trying to persuade the world that Muhammad's behaviour was perfect? Billions of non-Muslims do not understand why Muslims think that Muhammad's behaviour was perfect. Please explain why the above behaviour is perfect, so that non-Muslims can understand.

Speech to Third World Forum 2004

16th/01/2004
WSF 2004
Speech by Shirin EBADI, Nobel Peace Prize 2003

I feel very happy and honoured to be here today, and to intervene at the opening session of the Third World Social Forum.

This Forum is a symbol of hope in this changing world, torn by conflicts, violence, inequalities and injustice. This Forum gathers thousands and thousands of people who, all over the world, believe that another world is possible, where globalisation would not be synonym of inequalities and wild liberalisation, people who believe that the human being should be at the center of globalisation.

Worldwide, 54 countries are poorer than they were in 1990. In 2002, nearly 1.2 billion people lived in extreme poverty, defined as an income of less than US$1 per day. Asia bears the greatest number of people living in extreme poverty. Forty-two million people live with HIV/AIDS, and the number will surpass 100 million within a decade unless a massive response begins immediately.

Extreme poverty is a violation of human rights since people are deprived from the rights to healthcare, education, food or housing. It also results in further human rights violations since, without resources, many rights become pure theory - rights to a fair trial, freedom of expression and opinion, right to free and fair election. I believe that this situation is not ineluctable : remedy lies in a greater respect for human rights.

By reforming international institutions, including the WTO, the IFIs or the UN Security Council, and making them more democratic, the gap between those who have and those who have not could be reduced. By ensuring the justiciability, and consequently the effectiveness of economic and social rights, we can make them a reality for the majority of the planet. By making all actors responsible for the human rights violations to which they contribute, including the transnational corporations, human rights can concretise much more widely. These issues are on the top of our agenda. The FIDH, to which I belong, will devote its next Congress to the issues of accountability, justiciability of rights and civil society participation. Those elements are prerequisites for the democratisation of globalisation.

Women are the first victims of extreme poverty. In addition, they face discrimination in law and in practice in many countries in the world. We have to struggle against a patriarchal culture. Women and men should work hand in hand against that culture, which denies equal rights for women and men. In my country, Iran, patriarchal attitudes are prevalent : many women are high level graduates, but men occupy the decision-making positions. The legislation discriminates against women as well: under criminal law, a woman’s life is worth half of a man’s; the legal value of a woman’s testimony is half of a man’s testimony.

Women and children are also the first victims of today’s wars. According to the UNDP, in 2002 more than 50 countries were either recovering from or embroiled in war or natural disaster. In today’s wars, 90 percent of those who die are civilians. Conflicts are the occasion of extremely serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law. Injustice is often at their root cause.

I would like to recall here the situation of Palestine. Violations of human rights and humanitarian law are perpetrated daily in the Territories occupied illegally by Israel since 1967. The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination must be firmly reaffirmed. The situation can be solved only through a just and fair solution. There are people who want peace within the Israeli and Palestinian civil societies. In that regard, any peace initiative based on the UN resolutions should be supported. The international community should urgently send a UN interposition force, as requested by the Palestinian people, in order to provide a protection to the civilians. I deeply regret the absence of international initiative in that direction.

This year is the tenth anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda. But the Great Lakes region is still torn by conflicts. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, eight years of war led to the death of three millions people. Peace process are under way in the DRC and in Burundi, but the many human rights violations remain a source of insecurity in the region. The illegal exploitation of natural resources in the DRC has been repeatedly denounced, in vain. Child soldiers is an important phenomenon in the region : it is easier to put a weapon in their hands than to provide them with schools and books... Sustainable peace implies justice for the victims and the struggle against impunity. The International Criminal Court announced that the first case that it will examine will probably regard the situation in the DRC. And the Protocol establishing the African Court on human and peoples’ rights will enter into force by the end of this month. This is a great victory for African human rights defenders and for the people of Africa.

In Chechnya, war crimes and crimes against humanity are perpetrated on a daily basis by the Russian army, without any sanction by the international community. Since 2000, special operations have taken place, resulting in arrests, torture, extrajudicial executions and massive disappearances against civilians. Those violations are mainly perpetrated by the Russian armed forces, who benefit from a total impunity. The gap is increasing between the official position of the Russian authorities who pretend that normalisation is under way and the reality of a lengthy war. The war on terror is used by the authorities as a justification for the massive human rights violations and contributes to the absence of effective condemnation by the international community.

Colombia is the prey of a conflict since forty years which opposes the State to guerrilla groups. The paramilitaries are responsible for the majority of the violations and often act with the complicity of the army. The only solution to that lasting conflict is the struggle against impunity and a negotiated peace. In that regard, I am concerned at the draft law proposed by the Colombian government which would allow an amnesty of the authors of crimes against humanity, be they paramilitaries or members of guerrilla groups. I wish to visit Colombia soon in a gesture of solidarity with the human rights defenders of Colombia.

I would like to take the opportunity bestowed to me by the organisers of this Forum to raise the issue of the growing number of terrorist attacks, and of the subsequent measures that have been taken by some states during the past two years using September 11 and the war against terrorism as a pretext. Combating terrorist attacks is legitimate and necessary, on the condition to fully respect due process of law and the rule of law. However, under the guise of the struggle against terrorism, some States, including the United States, consider legitimate to take measures which violate international human rights law. This is notably the case for the prisoners detained in the American base of Guantanamo.

Afghanistan and Iraq are occupied, after armed interventions in violation of international law. The situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating every day, where the fanaticism is on the rise again, and where a new civil war might burst at any moment. In Iraq, the situation is dim as well. The effective power should be transferred as soon as possible to the Iraqi people. They must be allowed to take their fate in their own hands and to exploit the wealth of their country themselves, for the benefit of the population appears irrelevant to certain states.

In Iran, since about fifteen years, and notably on the occasion of the last three presidential and legislative elections, the large majority of the Iranian people, in particular youths and women, asserted its will that reforms take place in Iran in order to establish a democracy and respect for human rights.

Unfortunately, the conservatives, who detain the non-representative bodies in Iran, have put many obstacles and a serious crisis is presently in under way with regard to the electoral lists for the forthcoming legislative election, in February. I recalled several times that Islam should not be instrumentalised to deprive the people of democracy and human rights.

More generally, the present context, which emphasises excessively on security issues makes the defence of human rights more difficult. Human Rights defenders have always been harassed, repressed, and sometimes killed because they are working for the respect of universally recognised human rights. I have myself, as a lawyer and a human rights defender, been in prison in my country for my activities in favour of human rights. There are still many prisoners of opinion in the Iranian jails: they should be released.

In the present context of war against terrorism, human rights defenders are confronted to a climate where defending the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence or the prohibition of torture is considered as irrelevant by many states. The security issues bypass any other rights and principles. Their message of peace and justice is more difficult to channel in a climate of radicalisation, rising communautarism and growing repression.

Solidarity between human rights defenders throughout the world is crucial to enhance their protection. The support of regional and international NGOs is also determinant.

I wish to end this speech by recalling the universality of human rights. Contrary to what certain governments say, human rights are universal. Arbitrary detention, torture and discrimination hurt the human dignity of anybody, whatever his or her country of origin, religion, descent, or any other ground.

- Shirin Ebadi

For any interested in a history of how the Qur'an was transmitted, this link will provide scholarship


http://www.islamawareness.net/Quran/authenticity_quran.html

HERES A LINK TO A WOMANS GROUP IN NEW YORK-

THERE ARE 2 VIDEOS ON THE PAGE

I RECOMMEND THE SECOND WHICH DEALS EXCLUSIVELY WITH MUSLIM WOMEN DEFINING MUSLIM WOMEN(IN THE WEST AND THE WORLD)

WHILE DEFAMERS WILL SPEND GREAT ENERGY TRYING TO INCITE FEAR IN PEOPLE- MUSLIMS HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN THAT

MUHAMMAD- IVE TAKEN TO SKIPPING OVER YOUR POSTS- PAMELA IS MORE PATIENT THAN I

IN THE BEGINNING OF THE POST I SEE THE WORD HATRED-

AT THE END OF THE POST I SEE THE WORD HATRED

ITS LIKE RAT POISON TO ME SO I SKIP THE MIDDLE PART WHICH MUST ALSO CONTAIN HATRED

IT SEEMS TO BE CLEAR WHERE THE HATRD IS COMING FROM SO- IT IS A REPELLENT TO ME

i will continue to scan quickly your posts if you make them- but its unlikely i will continue if they are slanderous- which seems to be the intent of them

Victoria & Pamela,

Are you not aware that the same people who compiled the hadith also wrote down the Qur'an? What you are saying is that the Qur'an cannot be guaranteed to be authentic, because it was written down by the same people.

Human rights organisations across the world are documenting the hatred taught in Mosques. Here's just one example:

SAUDIS SPREAD HATE THROUGH U.S. MOSQUES - WorldNetDaily - Propaganda against Jews, Christians 'mainstreamed within our borders' 29th January 2005
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42603
“The government of Saudi Arabia is disseminating propaganda through American mosques that teaches hatred of Jews and Christians and instructs Muslims that they are on a mission behind enemy lines in a land of unbelievers, according to a year-long study by a Washington human-rights group. The 89-page report by Freedom House's Center for Religious Freedom, "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques," concludes the Saudi government propaganda examined reflects a "totalitarian ideology of hatred that can incite to violence." The report says the fact it is "being mainstreamed within our borders through the efforts of a foreign government, namely Saudi Arabia, demands our urgent attention." […] Among the key findings of the report: Various Saudi government publications gathered for the study, most of which are in Arabic, assert it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews and warn against imitating, befriending, or helping them in any way or taking part in their festivities and celebrations […] The documents stress that when Muslims are in the lands of the unbelievers, they must behave as if on a mission behind enemy lines. Either they are there to acquire new knowledge and make money to be later employed in the jihad against the infidels, or they are there to proselytize the infidels until at least some convert to Islam. […] In an authoritative religious voice, it gives detailed instructions on how to "hate" the Christian and Jew: Never greet them first. Never congratulate the infidel on his holiday. Never imitate the infidel. Do not become a naturalized citizen of the United States. Do not wear a graduation gown because this imitates the infidel; Other Muslims, especially those who advocate tolerance, are condemned as infidels. The opening fatwa in one Saudi embassy-distributed book, published by the Saudi Air Force, responds to a question about a Muslim preacher in a European mosque who taught that it is not right to condemn Jews and Christians as infidels. The Saudi state cleric's reply rebukes the Muslim cleric: "He who casts doubts about their infidelity leaves no doubt about his." Since, under Saudi law, "apostates' from Islam can be sentenced to death, this is an implied death threat against the tolerant Muslim imam, as well as an incitement to vigilante violence; Sufi and Shiite Muslims are viciously condemned; For a Muslim who fails to uphold the Saudi Wahhabi sect's sexual mores [i.e. through homosexual activity or heterosexual activity outside of marriage], the edicts published by the Saudi government's Ministry of Islamic Affairs and found in American mosques advise "it would be lawful for Muslims to spill his blood and to take his money"; Regarding those who convert out of Islam, the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs explicitly asserts, they "should be killed"; Saudi textbooks and other publications in the collection, propagate a Nazi-like hatred for Jews, treat the forged Protocols of the Elders of Zion as historical fact, and avow that the Muslim's duty is to eliminate the state of Israel; Regarding women, the Saudi publications instruct that they should be veiled, segregated from men and barred from certain employment and roles; The report states: "While the government of Saudi Arabia claims to be 'updating' or reforming its textbooks and study materials within the kingdom, its publications propagating an ideology of hatred remain plentiful in some prominent American mosques and Islamic centers, and continue to be a principal resource available to students of Islam within the United States." The Center for Religious Freedom said the research, translation and principle analysis of the materials for the report were carried out by both Muslims and non-Muslims who wish to remain anonymous for reasons of security.”

There are numerous reports such as this by many different human rights organisations across the world. They all confirm that Muhammad's ideology was one of utter hatred towards non-Muslims.

Why don't you speak out against what is going on in these Mosques, rather than defend it?

The companion of the prophet(pbuh) Abu BAkr is reputed to have destroyed 10,000 hadeeths as he was not 100% sure of their authenticity, clearly not all transmitters of hadeeth had such scrupulous standards- and were men and subject to human fallibilities-

the Qur'an, however is not subject to the same corruption and is the seminal source.

here deb- i think since youre not muslim or american it might interest you (or others) to look at this poll taken of muslim americans-

http://www.projectmaps.com/PMReport.htm

of particular interest to me were the figures on charity giving-

Deb,

Change starts somewhere. In the Islamic past, change came from the Arabs, from Persians, from Turks, from Mongols, etc, etc, etc. It does not have to emanate from Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Pakistan. (Although, in fact, much of the current nastiness is due to a major reform movement that did in fact emanate from Saudi Arabia -- Wahhabism.) Change can now come from Muslim America, and Muslim America certainly sees itself in that role... as applying pressure to the Muslim World to clean up their acts.

Of course, it is not unique to Muslim America. Women like Shirin Ebadi, Fatima Mernissa, Nawal as-Saadawi, Mahmooda Jalal, Asma Jehangir, Mukhtaran Mai, etc, etc, etc are standing up to unjust governments and unfair laws. So too countless men, the hundreds of thousands who took to the streets in Egypt to protest undemocratic elections, bloggers in Iran and Egypt. All over the Muslim world people are struggling for human rights, and a humane vision of Islam, just because you don't hear about it on CNN doesn't mean it isn't happening. Had anyone ever heard of Shirin Ebadi before she won the Nobel Peace Prize... not in the States. She wasn't deemed newsworthy here until she won a major international award.

Muhammad,

You have added in brackets that they killed the man because he abused the Prophet. This however, is not the case. They killed the man because they were in the middle of a pitched battle -- the Battle of Badr as clearly indicated in the narration. When two armed forces meet, and they engage in warfare, people get killed, and the spoils of war are meted out to the winners.

I believe that when you are attacked, you have the right, even the duty, to protect yourself. So too your family, your town, and your country. I do not subscribe to pre-emptive or agressive warfare, but neither do I believe that turn the other cheek is always the way to do. There may be many ways to defend yourself, and the surest way to win a fight is to defuse the situation before a fight can ever start. But I do believe there are times when one must fight back.

As for Bukhari... Bukhari is one of the most authentic books of hadith. However, that does not mean that everything in Bukhari is 100% infallible. Of course not. Bukhari was just a man. He did his best, and did an admirable job of it, but that does not mean his knowledge was limitless and that he did not make mistakes. We in fact know of some of them. Every hadith must be judged on a variety of standards, only one of which is the isnad, which was the prime way Bukhari and his brethren judged hadith. The second most important is to check it for consistency with the Qur'an. If the hadith negates something in the Qur'an, then clearly the hadith is inaccurate.

deb- the bbc - a couple of weeks ago-a bus coming into india through the kashmiri border

its a funny thing deb- you complain that islam is violent- and THEN you complain that i (pamela is amply eqipped to speak for herself) am too lenient, too pacific, too liberal.

and then after expressing your hatred of islam- you presume to speak FOR islam and seem to have a literalist fundamentalist interpertation of it that rivals the terrorists-

well- i reject your bizarre concept of islam, and you reject my reasonable view of islam-

when you take shahada and become muslim, i will consider your opinion on islam-

it is obvious that you want to spread a negative and vicious version of islam-
moderate and reasonable voices are rather a fly in the ointment to your agenda arent they?

you must have a low opinion of the intelligence of most people if you think it isnt obvious to most what your motives are and why you get so angry at moderate muslims-

we are disproving your biased slander campaign with truth and gentility-

it magnifies the sour intentions of your rants and discredits your claims-

so while you anxiously await the fall of islam in america- americans have been through the mccarthy era- were i the iraq debacle right now- and hating muslims is taking second place to concerns about who will be the next president, and jobs, education for our children, and health care for all.

it is funny that those who oppose islam most vociferously seem to get mad when its practitioners wont act like terrorists and prove them right-

very strange indeed

Pamela,

Your list Bukhari as authentic. Please therefore explain why the following behaviour, recorded by Bukhari, is perfect behaviour, non-hateful and non-violent:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 369:
Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman bin 'Auf: ‘While I was standing in the row on the day (of the battle) of Badr, I looked to my right and my left and saw two young Ansari boys, and I wished I had been stronger than they. One of them called my attention saying, "O Uncle! Do you know Abu Jahl?" I said, "Yes, What do you want from him, O my nephew?" He said, "I have been informed that he abuses Allah's Apostle. By Him in Whose Hands my life is, if I should see him, then my body will not leave his body till either of us meet his fate." I was astonished at that talk. Then the other boy called my attention saying the same as the other had said. After a while I saw Abu Jahl walking amongst the people. I said (to the boys), "Look! This is the man you asked me about." So, both of them attacked him with their swords and struck him to death and returned to Allah's Apostle to inform him of that. Allah's Apostle asked, "Which of you has killed him?" Each of them said, "I Have killed him." Allah's Apostle asked, "Have you cleaned your swords?" They said, "No. " He then looked at their swords and said, "No doubt, you both have killed him and the spoils of the deceased will be given to Muadh bin Amr bin Al-Jamuh." The two boys were Muadh bin 'Afra and Muadh bin Amr bin Al-Jamuh.’ [These two boys killed a man for ‘abusing’ Muhammad. Muhammad rewarded them with the deceased’s possessions]

You said: “the vast majority of us don't believe our religion is evil, wicked, false, violent, backward, hateful, etc.”

You said that you consider Bukhari's hadith to be authentic. Please therefore explain why you don’t consider the hadith quoted above to be evil, wicked, violent or hateful, and before claiming that it is taken out of context, please explain the context which makes it non-hateful and non-murderous, so that people reading this forum can understand.

Pamela,

Your list Bukhari as authentic. Please therefore explain why the following behaviour, recorded by Bukhari, is perfect behaviour, non-hateful and non-violent:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 369:
Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman bin 'Auf: ‘While I was standing in the row on the day (of the battle) of Badr, I looked to my right and my left and saw two young Ansari boys, and I wished I had been stronger than they. One of them called my attention saying, "O Uncle! Do you know Abu Jahl?" I said, "Yes, What do you want from him, O my nephew?" He said, "I have been informed that he abuses Allah's Apostle. By Him in Whose Hands my life is, if I should see him, then my body will not leave his body till either of us meet his fate." I was astonished at that talk. Then the other boy called my attention saying the same as the other had said. After a while I saw Abu Jahl walking amongst the people. I said (to the boys), "Look! This is the man you asked me about." So, both of them attacked him with their swords and struck him to death and returned to Allah's Apostle to inform him of that. Allah's Apostle asked, "Which of you has killed him?" Each of them said, "I Have killed him." Allah's Apostle asked, "Have you cleaned your swords?" They said, "No. " He then looked at their swords and said, "No doubt, you both have killed him and the spoils of the deceased will be given to Muadh bin Amr bin Al-Jamuh." The two boys were Muadh bin 'Afra and Muadh bin Amr bin Al-Jamuh.’ [These two boys killed a man for ‘abusing’ Muhammad. Muhammad rewarded them with the deceased’s possessions]

You said: “the vast majority of us don't believe our religion is evil, wicked, false, violent, backward, hateful, etc.”

You said that you consider Bukhari's hadith to be authentic. Please therefore explain why you don’t consider the hadith quoted above to be evil, wicked, violent or hateful, and before claiming that it is taken out of context, please explain the context which makes it non-hateful and non-murderous, so that people reading this forum can understand.

Victoria wrote:

"is it my fault if some hindus blow up a bus in kashmir and kill 60 muslims? (like just happened)
i dont think so"

Hindus in Kashmir blowing up a bus load of 60 Muslims ? What is the source of information (some Muslim website), or your Islamic hallucinations ?

Victoria:

It's well known that Muslims are obligated to defend Islam and Muhammad. So, your posts about Muhammad's greatness and all that blah, blah is well understood.

The apparent difficulty is that women in Islam are indeed inferior. Quran says that man and woman are unequal, and in Islamic countries women are raped by their cousion brothers/pseudo-lovers just to push them towards death. These raped women are subject to two types of killings: (a) honor killing, and (b) suicide bombers.

So, you and Pamela, no matter how much of spin you two ladies can spin, ain't any good. The Islam that you two project is intrinsically westernized and that is at total odds with the larger picture of Islam outside the realm of USA.

In response to my earlier post you haved written in a rather ignorant manner that the 1st Amendment is there to protect "....i forgot-
there IS a guarantee! its the bill of rights and the constitution!"

Well that's the actual issue. Now that Muslims are in substantial minority in USA, these types of love-talks are fine. Slowly with growth of the Muslim population, these love-talks will be hate talks and the loud claims for Sharia laws to be implemented as a parallel code of conduct for Muslims, would be heard frequently. This future vision parallels what happened in Britain, France, Denmark and in Canada. They kept their eyes wide shut and upheld rights of Muslims. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

Muslim unrest in these European countries and in Canada have been reported widely. The same is going to happen insisde USA. I do foresee a movement in future to overturn the US Constitution in favor of deleting the 1st Amendment. Given the history, this is an entirely plausible hypothesis.

I would advocate the two things:

(a) Strict immigration controls on Muslims entering USA; Khalid Sheikh Muhammad studied in USA and had confessed to masterminding the 9/11 bombing and beheading of Wall Street journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan. We cannot just assume that anyone is innocent till proven guilty. That's too expensive and costly.

(b) Declare that US Constitution shall never recognize Sharia laws (and the Communist manifesto). Sharia is a barbaric system that defines/groups humans under basis of religion.
This Sharia notion is totally unacceptable under the fundamental idea contained in the Declaration of Independence, viz., all men are born equal and have inalienable rights to pursue freedom and happiness.

i guess non-muslim men have some crazy idea that muslim women are weak and submissive- dream on boys-

maybe it brings out the abusive personality in them thinking they will come here and find easy marks of co-dependent women who will blame themselves for non-existent wrongs and then asked to be punished for those imaginary faults-

guess what fellas- it aint happening-

you all just keep on keepin on-

and ill just keep on keepin on-

i tell you - youre all watching too many fox shows or something-

you either dont respect others or women in general enough to know how to speak with respect and cordiality- but its not my problem-

the companions came to the Prophet(pbuh) and asked who should they show the most respect to?

he said- 'your mother'

' well, ok'- they said, 'after that, who?'

he replied,'your mother'.

'mmm, alright - well-- after THAT?'they still asked

you know what the Prophet said?

'your mother! Paradise is under her feet.'

3 times he said it and still they pressed him again- maybe it wasnt the answer they wanted or expected to hear- but it was the answer given by our Rasul(pbuh)

"so, after that?' they asked again

'your father', he said.

(they didnt ask a 5th time)

so - every muslim child learns this story- it illustrate the extreme respect and importance accorded to women in islam-

so is it my responsibilty if some christian kills an abortion doctor?
no
is it my fault if some hindus blow up a bus in kashmir and kill 60 muslims? (like just happened)
i dont think so

am i expected to apologize for some pakistani madman who kills his own daughter when shed been raped?
well you can hold your breath on that one too-
its not very likely

so im not very inclined to be an apologist for every hare-brained concept that some person gets from misreading the quran one time and thinking they can tell me what my religion says-

or worse yet- letting fox news tell them what it means- i mean come on!

so dont anybody worry about how i or any other ladies here conduct ourselves- its nobodys business but our own.

coming in here with this bellicose bravodo and macho bullying-

learn some manners fellows-

what nonsense deb- of course they an spew whatever hateful venom they want!

so what? i live in america! i dont care what the british do- thats their business-

theres no guarantee that it will take the same sever fundamentalist-- o wait - i forgot-
there IS a guarantee! its the bill of rights and the constitution!

there is no democracy that has muslims petitioning for it to glorify islam- that is insane

jeremy- also pamela was being gracious in explaining herself to you as neither she nor I have any explanations or justifications of ourselves to make to you.

To these Muslim-Americans or American-Muslims:

If you think that as a American you have the right to criticize media, per 1st Amendment, then would you uphold the rights of Ibn Warraq, Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes to spew their anti-Islamic vitriol ? Or, would you deny the 1st Amendment rights of these "hatemongers" (and probably others no so (in)famous included) to criticize Islam with much vitriol ?

Also, your well-meaning vision for a liberal Islam is purely ludicrous. The version of Islam that (particularly Pamela Taylor) is being advocated uniquely American. It will not be acceptable elsewhere in the Islamic countries and certainly not in Britain, where the Taabligh-i-Jammat are in majority and want to impose the Shaira laws. (In Canada a group of Muslims wanted to impose the Sharia laws and behead Stephen Harper the PM of Canada by taking hostage in the Parliament.) Well, Muslim apologists have often brushed away these allegations as hoax, or if the evidence is compelling they have stated such is a minority. History proves otherwise. There is simply no guarantee that Islam in USA will not take the severe fundamentalist turn as it is in Britain and in Netherlands, as examples.

The "touchy-feely" arguments against discrimination against Muslims, double-standards etc are a hoax. Left to its own devices the report card for Islam is far worse. The hypocrisy of these pan-Islamists is that they conveniently issue a statement of condemnation and then get back to their usual day-job of accusing the (secular) Government of not doing enough to protect Muslim rights and upholding/glorifying Islam. Well, this simply shows that Muslims want a secular government to glorify Islam over all other religious/traditional values, just because such is what Quran says.

This is sheer hypocrisy with predatory attitude. As I had emphasized, this needs to be checked because inherently Islam promotes inequity; it does not accept anything except dar-al-Islam (lan favorable to Islam) at any cost.

Islam is a barbaric religion, and must be banished from USA and other (sinful) free societies that support free speech.

I would support a Constitutional amendment to the effect that Islam and Communism be declared as opposed to free speech (1st Amendment) and hence an enemy of the social values upheld by the US Constitution.

thank you tommy tstars-

it makes me proud to see a strong and intelligent woman like pamela forging new paths- it takes a brave pathfinder to stand up for the rights of the women- and give strength and voice to muslimahs around the world-

jeremy, possibly in the face of such courage to take on the community of muslims in such a public manner-

she been there and done that it seems.
but too nice to mention it.
however im not.

does anyone remeber archie bunker?
remember when hed spout off about sending african AMERICANS back to africa?

your rant sounds hauntingly familiar in that old ugly strain-

one of the reasons i hang around this blog is to reinforce the perception tht there are americans who have freed their minds and hearts with islam-

the fact that you dont ever see practicing muslims spewing hate on these boards should alert everyone to something special happening-

so jeremy- im not going anywhere- ill retire and die here most likely but not for a long long time-
until then ill refine my soul and my voice so you should either get used to it- or go soemwhere yourself-

i realize youre angry and this may make you amgrier- but its not my responsibilty to babysit or placate those whose passions control them.

i wont repay your vinegar with honey- nor your disrespect with respect.

Jeremy asked Pamela to test her ideas with major players in the Islamic world. This url links to a picture of iman Pamela leading a group in prayer:

http://jscms.jrn.columbia.edu/cns/2006-11-28/bruning-femaleimams/bruning-femaleimams1.JPG/asset_small.jpg

The man in the middle wearing a dark suit is the former Grand Mufti of Marseilles, Sohaib BenCheikh.

Muhammad... look at your source, some obscure text with very little guarantee of authenticity. It is well documented that people fabricated hadith left and right to support their own desires... this is why a science of hadith verification arose to deal with that problem.

As for the supposed narration you quote. Its seems pretty clear it is among the fabricated ones, since it was obviously rejected by those who sought to judge which ones were more likely to be sound (Bukhari, Muslim, et al.)

Jeremy, I am an American woman. I am not Iranian, Saudi Arabian, Egyptian, Pakistani, etc. I have no responsibility to those countries, and no responsibility for their excesses. My loyalty and my responsibility is to America -- both its Muslim and non-Muslim communities -- not some foreign country or its citizens. Further, I have no power to influence anything in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. I cannot force al-jazeera to interview me, though if they call I'd be glad to talk to them.

I have spoken out against the absues of those regimes, signed petitions to save the lives of innocent women who were condemned under barbaric laws, donated to human rights organizations in those countries, etc, and will continue to do so. But it is up to the people in those countries to clean their own houses. We can advocate and apply whatever pressure we can, but ultimately, they are going to have to get their own acts together themselves.

And how dare you tell me not to critique American media. I am an American. CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, The New York Times, The Cincinnati Enquirer, the Boston Globe, The Washington Post, Yahoo.com these are my media, where I get my news. I have every right, and every responsibility, to demand fair coverage from them, regardless of whatever else I may or may not do.

another counter view

Hollywood Widens Slur Targets To Arab And Muslim Americans Since Sept. 11

Pacific News Service, Jack Shaheen, Posted: Feb 26, 2002

Shockingly, since Sept. 11 Hollywood is widening its already hateful stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims to include Arab and Muslim Americans. It is an outrageous and dangerous precedent, writes PNS commentator Jack Shaheen, on major television networks.

SAN FRANCISCO--Our country's leadership has gone out of its way to distinguish between Islam and terrorism in the aftermath of Sept. 11. Yet, Hollywood has ignored that distinction completely. Major television networks -- including NBC, Fox, ABC and CBS -- have not only gone to great lengths to vilify Arab Muslims since then, but have introduced a very dangerous new equation: Arab Americans and Muslim Americans equals terrorist.

A few weeks ago CBS televised the movie "The President's Man: A Line in the Sand," with Chuck Norris. In it, swarthy-looking Arab Muslims try to set off a nuclear bomb in Texas. Islam is vilified. Assisting the Arab Muslims from overseas are Americans of Arab heritage. Such an outrageous depiction has never before appeared on television.

The movie does have a good-guy Arab-American attorney general who interviews the Arab-Muslim terrorist. His scene lasts three minutes, then he disappears. CBS was effectively saying, "Our movie has one good Arab-American character, so it's fair." That is tokenism, a lie, a network's way of trying to protect its backside.

Also on CBS: In "JAG," Arab Muslims in the Middle East plot to blow up 30 children in an American school, and beat a female Marine who heroically blows herself up with the villains; in "The District," Arab fathers are labeled brutish to their children, and a mosque president destroys his mosque (such an incident has never happened, but vandals have destroyed more than a dozen U.S. mosques); in "The Agency," Arab Muslim terrorists blow up a London department store, killing thousands including children (since Oct. 4, CBS has run this episode three times); on "Family Law," an attorney defending an Arab American is betrayed when his client skips town on bail (you just can't trust "those people").

NBC's "The West Wing" and ABC's "Alias" have also made caricatures out of Arabs and Muslims, making them hateful.

Do Arab women even exist on television? You never see them. In the history of television, there has never been an Arab American woman in a starring or supporting role. Arab women in the Middle East are portrayed mainly as bundles of black cloth, submissive harem maidens or carrying jugs on their heads. They have no identities whatsoever. And they're always mute.

Anybody who has ever been to the Middle East knows who runs everything there -- don't think the men do. There, you know who's in charge of the home, who flies the airplane, works on the computers, serves as the nurse. But on U.S. TV, the image of Arab women is as bad as -- if not worse than -- the image of the Arab male.

Hollywood has chosen to focus on a few stock caricatures and repeat these images over and over again. These images project American Arabs, American Muslims, Arabs and Muslims as members of a lunatic fringe. We come to think all "those people" are this way. We are never allowed to see, for example, Arabs and Muslims who do what normal people do -- go out on picnics, go to work, love their children.

This has a profound impact even within our own community. It breeds anxiety and a sense of helplessness, particularly in children. You hear some say, "I'm not Arab, I'm Spanish," or I'm Italian." The pervasive negative images breed a denial of heritage, a fear, a sort of shying away. It makes some not even want to speak the language.

It is not only the Arab and Muslim communities in the United States that are affected. In more than 150 nations, American TV and movies are hugely popular. Recently, I met with a group of Middle Eastern students at Vanderbilt University, and I asked if they watched American movies. Everyone had. "When you see Islam being vilified as a faith of violence, when you see yourselves portrayed as terrorists, what do you think?" I asked.

"We ask ourselves why Hollywood hates us," they said.

Show only vilifying images of any group, incessantly, and after a while -- 100 years in the case of the Arab stereotype -- it becomes "natural" not to like certain people. It is a sin of omission -- we omit the humanity -- and of commission -- we show only hateful images that make a stereotype that injures the innocent.

One reason these images and stereotypes continue is politics. The Arab-Israeli conflict has played a paramount role in shaping these images. Many of the movies I write about in my book "Reel Bad Arabs" were shot in Israel, with the cooperation of the Israeli government. It is naïve to overlook this. Another reason is that there is no American Arab or American Muslim presence in Hollywood moviemaking.

However, the primary responsibility rests with men and women who know exactly what they're doing and continue to do it because they know they can get away with it. They do it because they are prejudiced and greedy -- these movies make money.

We've been programmed to hate "these people" they distort, and as a result, no one really cares.

Things are bad, and getting worse. Innocent Americans are being brought into the Hollywood stereotype. "Worse" isn't a strong enough word -- it's dangerous.

Dr. Shaheen is a professor of mass communications at Southern Illinois University and author of "Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People," (Interlink Books, 2001).

Pamela and Victoria,

Most Americans are not going to listen to you, because they know you have not cleaned up your own back yard, and taken the log out of your own eyes, before pointing out the splinter in everyone else's.

The same goes for you, Victoria. Go to the Middle East, appear all over TV, write letters to all the most prominent publications, publicly challenge the mainimams, and then you too can come back and let Americans know about our prejudices.

compared to how muslims are representing themselves

New Magazine in Vogue for American Muslim Girls
By Michelle S. Keller, Chicago Tribune
Chicago TribuneMarch 23, 2007

Mar. 23--The glossy pages of most teen magazines feature articles on dating, celebrities' jaunts to and from rehab, and the latest miniskirt trend--topics of little relevance to girls who grow up practicing Islam, which frowns upon such things.

But inside Muslim Girl magazine, a bimonthly that debuted in January, readers will not find headlines like "Guys: Decode His IMs" or "585 Sexy New Looks." Rather, it profiles professional women like BBC broadcast journalist Mishal Husain, shows off models sporting cute-yet-conservative clothes and offers specialized advice, such as how to deal with a crush in a culture that looks down on dating.

Started by Ausma Khan, a former lawyer who taught international human rights law at Northwestern University, Muslim Girl is aimed at 12- to 19-year-olds.

"I wanted to provide girls with an alternative to Cosmo Girl! and Seventeen, where they would see fun stories about popular culture but ... also provide guidance and information to boost their self-esteem, develop their self-confidence," said Khan, who lives in Evanston. "We wanted to tell the stories of real American Muslims."

Muslim Girl joins a growing number of publications--on and offline--catering to contemporary Muslims living in the United States. The comedy Web site Islamica News, for instance, pokes fun with satirical articles such as "Santa Myth Exposed: Muslim 2nd Grader Ruins Christmas for Entire Class."

Muslim Girl also demonstrates how women are increasingly asserting themselves as Muslim Americans. A feature on the magazine's Web site asks girls, "What's going on in your mosque? Is it girl-friendly?"--a potentially provocative question given that the topic of men and women sharing prayer space continues to be controversial.

In fact, one of the magazine's biggest challenges will be appealing to a diverse population. For example, not all young women in the magazine wear the hijab, or headscarf, which could be objectionable to some Muslims.

"We make an internal motto to be as inclusive as possible," Khan said.

Although such a broad approach might not work in other countries, the magazine is likely to thrive amid the cultural diversity and openness of American culture, said Mamoon Syed, executive director of the Nawawi Foundation, a non-profit education organization based in Burr Ridge that provides Islamic teachings to first- and second-generation Muslim Americans.

"If there's anywhere in the world where you have the opportunity to be able to agree to disagree, it's the United States," Syed said. "As they say, 'I may not agree with your voice, but I'll defend your right to say it.' You can't do that in a lot of other Muslim countries."

Muslim Girl follows in the footsteps of the Atlanta-based Azizah magazine, founded in 2002 and aimed at contemporary Muslim women. The publisher and editor-in-chief of that magazine, Tayyibah Taylor, said Muslim Girl could fill a significant void for younger Muslims.

"Being a person who is not of the dominant culture has an effect on people who are absent in the mainstream media or have negative portrayals of themselves," Taylor said. "It's a very subtle but very powerful process by which you internalize a sense of, 'Oh something's wrong.' Having your own media and being able to see a positive reflection of oneself is a very empowering thing."

The development of media directed at Muslim women is evidence of the group's growing influence in American society, said Taylor, whose magazine has a circulation of about 45,000. Muslim Girl currently claims a circulation of 50,000 and is hoping to double that number within the next few years.

Although Khan and her editorial team initially envisioned the magazine for younger teens, "what we found is that college-age girls are really interested in the magazine," she said. "The issues we cover actually have a broad appeal."

Aneesa Arshad, 21, a junior at Northwestern University, said she has heard of Muslim Girl and is excited that focuses on career and life goals rather than the latest Nicole Richie/Paris Hilton feud.

"Those are definitely the articles that I would want to read," Arshad said of the career features in Muslim Girl. "As I'm looking at what career decisions I want to make, those definitely relate to where I am in life right now, more than an article about a celebrity."

Muslim Girl doesn't ignore fashion, but the styles are conservative. It's an aspect of the new magazine that Aamna Anwer, 19, said she found appealing.

Anwer, who was raised in Galesburg and also attends Northwestern, said she used to subscribe to Allure and Vogue and loves fashion but couldn't always wear the clothes she saw on the models.

"It would be convenient if sometimes when we were looking through a fashion magazine, there would be more that would be available to Muslim women, or women who were more modest," said Anwer, whose parents were born in Pakistan.

Khan and Taylor hope that Muslim media will help change perceptions of Muslims in the United States.

"Oftentimes, because Islam and Muslims are reported on in the Middle East and politics, there is an association with terrorism and bombings," Taylor said. "It is painful to watch that and see that that's the definition of Muslims in the world. Creating our own media allows us the opportunity to say, this is who we are, this is what we've done, from our frame of reference."

REEL BAD ARABS- demonizing and vilifying of a people in the american media

http://whiletheearthburns.blogspot.com/2007/02/reel-bad-arabs-how-hollywood-vilifies.html

AFTER you have gone head to head with all the big imams in Egypt, Saudi, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran etc, and appeared on al-Jazeera about their whipping up of hatred against the Jews, Israel, the US, the West, and all non-believers in general, only then will you have earned the right to lecture Americans about their media.

I see Zionism had entered the discussion again.

The reality as it should be presented in the media:

In hindsight, UN Resolution 181, (1947) which partitioned the Palestine territories in two parts, one Israeli and one Palestinean was a mistake. The UN should have recognized that conflicts over Jerusalem, water rights and land deeds would create significant tensions and bloodshed. The territory should have remained under permanent UN control.

The solution: Israel should honor the original UN Resolution 181 and move its borders accordingly. The borders should be maintained by walls and fences and guarded by UN troops. Jerusalem should be made an international city governed by the UN and its troops. Water should be distributed based on population and water desalination plants built and maintained by the oil-rich nations of the region. Economic development and education should be funded by the same countries plus support from the likes of the USA, Russia, China, Australia and the European Union.

Separation of incompatible peoples does work as shown by the separation of Czechoslovakia and also the Balkan state breakups.

Pamela,

You said: “the vast majority of us don't believe our religion is evil, wicked, false, violent, backward, hateful, etc.”

Islam is Muhammad’s religion and Muslims believe that his example was perfect in everyway and should be emulated in everyway. Please therefore explain why you don’t consider the following to be evil, wicked, violent or hateful, and before claiming that it is taken out of context, please explain the context which makes it non-hateful and non-murderous, so that people reading this forum can understand.

Ibn Sa’d’s “Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir” (Book of the Major Classes) Volume 2, page 31:
Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. Asma was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the people against him. She composed verses (poetry). Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah (Muhammad) said to him: ‘Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?’ He said: ‘Yes. Is there something more for me to do?’ He (Muhammad) said: ‘No two goats will butt together about her.’ This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him Umayr, ‘basir’ (the seeing).

Is this what you (and all Muslims) call the perfect behaviour of Muhammad? Please explain to everyone why Muslims consider this behaviour, and sex with children, to be perfect, because billions of non-Muslims just don't get it. What are we missing?

itzhak- i can see how it would be distasteful to see a false or unequal comparison of the jewish suffering in the holocaust-
i worked with AIDS patients for years, and i would never have presumed to tell them about their own suffering- because i am not suffering from it-

nor would i try to diminish the experience of holocaust survivors- i worked in venice beach to fight for the rights of jewish survivors of the holocaust to live out their lives in a rent controlled setting.

Peoples suffering of trauma has not stopped on this planet-
we have rendering -torture- sanctions- many ways we are making peoples entire lives from cradle to grave a living hell-

we can do nothing about the holocaut now except try to prevent the sentiments from fomenting th led to it- that allowed and entire population to consider a segment less than human and deserving if death, torture or a lifetime of humiliation and poverty- (which the palestinians are currenlty experiencing).

As for you saying this-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And please don't bring up the Palestinian question unless you are armed with the facts and want to argue the case. Not only is this beside the point but I'm afraid to say if the Palestinians really want peace they can have it, but only when they agree on Israel's right of existence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

well- all i can say is- its up to me to decide what topic i want to discuss-

this kind of censorship isnt acceptable

now ive been having a discussion with a man who has little knowledge of israel and zionism on the israel question-

i was zionist- the more i learned the more i leaned to my present unapologetic stance of being anti-zionist.

if youre the kind of person who can consider a point and respond with out anger- and this is a topic youre interested in debating-go to that blog-

and i still reserve the right to bring up any topic anytime if i think its relevant-

in case you havent noticed- ive been trying to stay on topic here

Deb Chatterbox,

"One can get academic and split hairs over the divinity of Islam, but it solves nothing."

If you throw out the hair splitting you conveineintly absolve yourself of needing to back-up your ignorant claims.

To disregard the need for academia on any topic is sadly ignorant also.

"Also, in USA the religion of Islam needs to be portrayed as an enemy of western values."

That might work! We'll disregard the need to better educate ourselves, make sure not to consider finer points, or hair-splitting, and be a buch of hateful hicks. We'll have the strongest, stupidest nation on Earth!

"But, why Islam is taken as superior ?"

It's a good thing we have you to lead us in argumentative style! You might have to prove that otherwise. Whew...what a releif!

"Thus, one must be intolerant towards these predatory ideologies."

You'll have to "dumb that down" if you want the stupid to understand you!

Must hate, must hate Muslims. Like that.

"We really don't need these academic discussions. What we need is pre-emptive policies to contain the spread of Islam in the west that is all poised to destroy the freedom of speech and freethought."

Again...you have to simplify...Hate first! Thought never!

Reading these posts is very disappointing. How did the people of this nation become so ignorant? I expected a debate of issues here, not all this ridiculous display of proud ignorance.

It is one thing to be ignorant, but the obvious pride in it is astounding to me! Then pile the militance on top...wow! It hurts my heart.

Deb, I really pity you, because that is all your ignorance and sheer stupidity can leave for me to feel!

To Pamela - You said:"Before the Holocaust the media played a huge role in ramping up existant anti-semitic feelings. We should learn from that experience, and hold our own media to a higher standard when we can see it participating in the demonization of an entire people." I don't watch CNN, Fox or listen to Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter etc, and from what I hear from other people, this media does exploit people's fear and ramps up the propaganda, just like what happened in Germany pre-1939. And this right-wing media does this not only to Muslims, but to all their political opponents. It is part of their style, and I consider them dangerous to a free society. And I think you are right to call attention to this dangerous form of propaganda.
On the other hand, your words would carry more weight if in the same breath you at least acknowledged the level of propaganda against Jews and Israel in the Arab media and in the mosques, that has been going on for at least a generation or more, and which leaves people like Sean Hannity in the dust in terms of its ferocity and scope. As an American you need to help clean up your own society, but as a Muslim what are you doing to help clean up your own religion?

Perhaps also you don't hear calls to nuke Pnomh Penh or intern Hutu because Americans are not afraid of these groups because they are relatively small. But I think you underestimate how afraid Americans actually are of the 1.5 billion Muslims , whose religion explicitly states in many places that there are believers and non-believers, and that non-believers should be killed or converted. You can argue all you want about these passages, but as a non-Muslim these are the passages that stand out for me and scare me to death, especially when I look at the historical record. So you can reiterate over and over that Islam is a peaceful religion, and I will grant that you yourself probably practice it in a relatively peaceful manner, but when I look at all the other 1.5 billion Muslims I see something very different. I don't practice any religion, but I have some familiarity with all of them, and when I look at them, overall I would say that Islam is the most intolerant of them all in terms of its core doctrines. People bring up the Crusades and the Inquisition, but these were not a fulfillment of the teachings of Jesus or of his actual life. He was one man with a few followers, he had no army. The same was true for Buddha. There are also very bloody things in the OT as Patrick has noted, but very few Jews nowadays, except for the fundamentalists, actually take everything in the OT seriously. And yes, Hindus and Buddhists have also behaved abominably, but as an outsider looking at all these religions, it is only Islam that so explicitly states its intolerance of other beliefs. And as long as Muslims regard the Quran as the word of God, I don't see much hope of the religion slowly mutating over time like Judaism to the point where people can practice the loving parts of the Quran, and ignore the violent parts.
So the word of God is the word of God, and every part must be perfect since it is the word of God, so how can a mere human decide for themselves, that some parts of the Quran they will keep, and other parts they will ignore?

Pamela,

There are 1 billion plus Muslims in the world because of "sword-forced" conversion and forced procreation. Considering the contemporary Islamic truth/death squads and "koranic" rules, things have not changed. Give freedom to the Muslim masses trapped under Islamic tyranny and watch what happens.

Any idea how many Muslims have access to this discussion??

And if I lived in Iran or other Islamic states and noted that Mohammed was an illiterate, hallucinating Arab who had contemporary or future scribal henchmen writing their own "koranic" militant agendas for plundering/looting the lands of non-believers, I would be beheaded. Does that disturb you?

To be fair, Jesus was also illiterate and if you take the literal word of the NT, there was a lot of hallucinating about "wingy thingies" both pretty and ugly (Satan) in first century Palestine not only by Jesus but also his followers and parents. Fortunately, his scribal henchmen did not have a militaristic agenda. Professor Crossan and the other Jesus Seminarians have cleaned up the NT so the hallucinations have been removed to the dust bin of embellishments and myths. The Koran needs an analogous clean up!!!

Oh, I forgot Bill...

Bill, I'll ignore the tenor of your question, and address the substance. I started wearing the hijab because I believed it was required by the Qur'an. Subsequent studies have led me to the conclusion that that belief is mistaken, that it is at most something the Prophet recommended, and even there the evidence is extremely vague.

Either way, I embrace hijab out of my feminist sensibilities. I was raised with a sharp critique of the beauty industry and the devastation it wreaks upon American women -- in terms of the self-esteem of millions of women, the epidemics of anorexia and bulimia, and in terms of billions of dollars wasted on face paints. I was raised to abhor the objectification and sexualization of women's bodies by the marketing industry. I experienced men wolf-whistling when I went jogging, and felt outraged that they thought they had the right to make some comment on my body and their appreciation thereof.

I saw in the hijab a way to take control of the situation for myself. It was the strongest way to say, no thanks, I opt out of that system. I don't want to be objectified by you. I don't want you to comment, or even to think about my body. It was in your face rejection of tyranical beauty standards and abusive exploitation of women's bodies.

That is one of the reasons I continue to wear it -- because I still reject the ever intensifying objectification of women's bodies, the ever burgeoning beauty industry and the devastating effects it still has on women's psyches. The feminist movement has won many, many battles. This one we are still fighting for.

Finally, just because something was done centuries ago does not make it wrong. Is Democracy backwards because it was practiced in Athens? Uh, no. We should evaluate things on the merits they present today, not on when they may or may not have been practiced.

Itzhak,

We can and should learn from history. Before the Holocaust the media played a huge role in ramping up existant anti-semitic feelings. We should learn from that experience, and hold our own media to a higher standard when we can see it participating in the demonization of an entire people.

Even though Muslims have at times persecuted jews, they have also at times sheltered Jews and lived with them in great harmony. No matter what Muslim treatement of jews has been, we can still learn from historical processes and prevent them from happening again.

Messages like Anonymous's above scare me. Ann Coulter with her muke Mecca, or Daniel Pipes with his defense of internment scare me. People's willingness to demonize an entire religion and all its followers based on something that happened in 1300, or because a civil war is ugly, or because a certain segment is fanatical scares me.

Muslims do not have a cornerstone on being violent -- the decimation of Native Americans, the killing fields of Cambodia, Rwanda, various civil wars in South America. These were as ugly, or uglier than what is going on in Iraq. No one knows how many Native American's were slaughtered but the estimates range from 8 to 100 million. 2-3 million Cambodians killed by the Khmer. 600,000-800,000 Tustis murdered by their country men. That is far worse than the number of deaths we've seen in Iraq. Obvious, this has nothing to do with Islam, it has to do with the human condition.

I do not hear and never have heard anyone advising we nuke Pnemon Penh, or intern all Hutu, or advise that all Europeans should be wiped out.

The real question, however, is this: since there are an estimated 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. And the vast majority of us don't believe our religion is evil, wicked, false, violent, backward, hateful, etc, thus we are not likely to convert en masse to something else, what are you going to do? Do people who hate Islam really want to live in a constant state of war with the Muslim world? Would you really want to wipe out 1.5 billion Muslims, to commit genocide on that level?

If the answer to those is no, then question then becomes how are we to live together? Constant insistance that Islam is evil and only those who exploit it for their own political end are its true representatives is not likely to help us live safer, more peaceful lives. Rather, it would seem to make sense to help the majority of Muslims deal with these problem groups, and bring them under the rule of law.

Unfortunately, history does not give us a lot of example to deal with this. Rwanda pretty much died down because the killing fever had been sated. The Khmer Rouge collapsed after starting an disastrous war with Vietnam. American expansion ended when the Native Americans were finally wiped out or pushed into reservations which the Europeans did not find fertile enough for their own exploitation.

Rather than push constant confrontation and hatred, we need, for the future of our planet, and our species, to learn to live with one another in tolerance and harmony. Of course, a lot of us are already doing so. We just need to convince the rest of us -- on both sides -- to begin doing so.

----HOW THE REST OF THE PLANET VIEWS AMERICAN MEDIA TREATMENT OF MUSLIMS-----

Given what Muslims did to America I think the American media has been far too kind to Muslims.

You freaks should all crawl off and live under your supposedly 'peaceful' (LMAO!) and tolerant Islamic rule. See how long it is before you come crawling back!

But guess what? You were never welcome and you won't be again.
And take all those moronic, branwashed, brain dead, converts with you to whichever grotesque Islamic state you want to dwell in.
No one wants those traitors either.

You have no idea how much hate is building in The West against your barbaric, hateful, murderously misogynistic, murderously homophobic, murderously anti-other faith, anti-freedom, anti-evolution religious cult that is swamping the globe and spitting in the face of those who (foolishly) welcomed it into their societies (often by giving sanctuary to Muslims fleeing for their lives from their crap hole, war-torn countries) only to find the cities and people attacked by those they trusted!

Wake up calls eventually come to all though.

AbduSalaam, Victoria, Anonymous

The key point is that ALL religion was created by manipulative politicians to enable them to gain power over other people. Christianity probably wouldn’t exist today if the Emperor Constantine hadn’t created the Bible out of a pile of contradictory documents. All he was interested in was creating a shared belief throughout the divided Roman Empire that only he had the divine right to rule. He united the different Christian sects throughout the fragmented Empire through getting them to all believe in a single book (the Bible). Constantine wasn’t a Christian. He continued worshiping the Sun god even after he created the bible, but pretended to be a Christian. After creating the Bible he even murdered members of his own family (so he obviously didn’t ‘get’ the message of peace and love taught by Jesus).

Christians should study the texts which didn’t make it into the Bible if they are truly interested in understanding Christianity, and they should study all the background historical information recorded by both Christian and non-Christian sources.

Similarly, Muslims should study the prehistory, politics and historical documents of the time relating to the creation of Islam, in addition to the Qur’an and Hadith. When you do this, and are not blinded by blind faith, then you quickly realise that Muhammad was a clever politician who used the gullibility of the uneducated people of the time to his advantage. He promised war booty and sexual opportunities to men who followed him, and they were taken in. He made them all pray 5 times per day, and on each occasion they had to confirm that he was the messenger of god. Now who in this forum has ever studied cult psychology, manipulation psychology and brainwashing? If you have ever studied these subjects then you will recognise that brainwashing is all about repetition. If you can get someone to say five times per day that you are god’s messenger then you can convince them that it is true.

Muhammad used clever cult psychology to manipulate the gullible people of his time into following him. He built his religion through fear, and that is why people are still murdered all around the world today for simply questioning his teachings.

Why do you feel any need to follow anything that such a man said and taught? People on this forum should be smart enough to think for themselves. It is completely stupid to continue following the rituals and ideology of such a man.

Please, do the world a favour and start thinking for yourselves. Why do you need an ancient politician to tell you who you can marry and who you cannot marry? Why do you need an ancient politician to tell you what to wear (particularly women). Why do you need to eat only the type of food that a manipulative politician demanded that you eat? Why don’t you free yourself from all this psychological indoctrination, and start making all these decisions for yourself? You don’t need a man such as Muhammad to tell you how to live your life. You don’t need a man such as Muhammad to tell you what you are allowed to do and what you are not allowed to do.

Muhammad taught peace and brotherhood between Muslims (and that accounts for the ‘loving’ scriptures quoted by Muslims on this forum), but he taught utter hatred of non-Muslims, which led to the deaths of countless non-Muslims during his life and still leads to hatred and war today.

The following hadith tells you all you need to know about Muhammad:

Sahih Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4348:
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: ‘A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet was informed about it. He assembled the people and said: 'I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up.' Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up. He sat before the Prophet and said: 'Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her. ' Thereupon the Prophet said: 'Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.'’

Ibn Sa’d’s “Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir” (Book of the Major Classes) Volume 2, page 31:
Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. Asma was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the people against him. She composed verses (poetry). Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah (Muhammad) said to him: ‘Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?’ He said: ‘Yes. Is there something more for me to do?’ He (Muhammad) said: ‘No two goats will butt together about her.’ This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him Umayr, ‘basir’ (the seeing).

All Muslims on this forum, please tell me: Do you think it is wise to follow the teachings of such a man? Do you not think it would be better to live your life according to your own standards of morality? Do you really think that this man had a closer relationship with the forces of nature than yourself? Please think for yourself. Set your mind free.

ABDUSALAAM wrote:
Funny, you can point out a nagative, but show me where in the ancient world it was condemned? 1400 years ago was very different, and men also had more than one wife.
Solomon, according to the Torah, had thousands of wives, but thats ok right?

There is nothing positive about marry a 6 year old girl, I would not have been concerned if he had a thousand wives of suitable age. A prophet is expected to have higher standards than ordinary men, especially if they were guided 24/7 by some God !
It is unnatural for normal men to be sexually attracted to 6 year old girls the same way it would feel for a heterosexual man to look at other men.

Victoria wrote:
ross is queerly preoccupied with the sex life of our Prophet(pbuh)
it is his strange little proclivity

Your subtle response does not bother me, it is important that his paedophilia is exposed, atleast it would stop some muslim men marrying 9 year old girls "legally".

> It has been said that you love death while we love life.

Judeo/Christian/Islamic types are all death-cultists. They worship a god of death, who values our death more than our lives.

Humanity will only stop its slaughter when it starts valuing human life over the foolish imaginary 'soul'.

Abdusalaam,
Fact is you Muslim are killing each other in Iraq and you're blaming everyone else but yourselves.

It is clear to me you are not interested in Justice for Muslims, only in blaming Americans. No America forced those Muslims to lay IED by the roads or detonate car bombs in crowded markets. You Muslims do it all on your own initiative because you love killing.

It has been said that you love death while we love life. How true it seems - every day current affairs prove that axiom.

Shalom,
Itzhak Goldstein the Jew of Medinah

Victoria,
Jews are not the only ones who have suffered. However, it is distasteful to a Jew to see the Holocaust experience trivialized every time some Muslim wants to elicit sympathy about perceived or alleged bias in America. I hope you can see this.

If some people who have never persecuted Jews and have also suffered real persecution themselves want to use the Holocaust as a comparison that is fine by me. However, if a people who have in the past persecuted Jews want to use the Holocaust to score cheap points then it seems to me both distasteful and hypocritical.

If you have persecuted Jews don't use the Holocaust as a comparison to your perceived plight, particularly if it is very mild. Millions of Jews were tortured and killed in the Holocaust. Please understand that. Please don't trivilize such an horrendous episode of history.

I do sincerely hope you can see this.

And please don't bring up the Palestinian question unless you are armed with the facts and want to argue the case. Not only is this beside the point but I'm afraid to say if the Palestinians really want peace they can have it, but only when they agree on Israel's right of existence.

Shalom,
Itzhak (not Yitzhak) Goldstein the Jew of Medina

Itzhak Goldstein

A mentsh tracht und Gott lacht. Fact is, that din't happen until the invasion. Isn't that a coincidence.

Abdusalaam,
"A good point....we mourn the 3000+ that died on 9/11, and this is for good reason. Very sad. BUT, what about the 60000 - 150000 Muslims, especially in Iraq, that have died? Where are their prayer vigils? Where are there mourners here in the US, when we are the ones dropping 500 pound bombs on them??? For the blood of 3000, we shed 100X that much. And let me get this straight....we take the fight to another country, kill and maim their women and children....so they don't do it here? Damn, I should go to my neighbor and kill them because they just might play their music too loud."

Get your facts straight. Muslims don't even care about those Iraqi dead. The war was over long ago - the vast majority of the killing of Iraqis today are by Muslims.

Muslims are killing Muslims in Iraq and if you Muslims don't care, except to blame America, then why should anyone else care?

Who are setting off those IEDs and car bombs? Not Americans for sure, but Muslims.

So cry me a river about the Muslim casualty in Iraq - but first admit it is Muslim killing fellow Muslims.

Shalom,
Itzhak Goldstein the Jew of Medina

Jack Fertig,
If you're not a Jew perhaps you might want to stand aside from commenting as you are clearly unable to see things from a Jewish perspective.

I agree that all suffering are matters of degree. However, I strongly disagree with anyone using the Holocaust experience to score cheap points, especially from a group of people who have in the past been strong persecutors of Jews.

Now, I have no problem with a Tibetan comparing his people's experience with Jews. Because I see no hypocrisy in it, and the Tibetans have clearly suffered, and Tibetans have never persecuted Jews so there is no hypocrisy there.

However, by unthinkingly evoking the Holocaust (or making allusions to it) to argue against a very very minor degree of 'perceived' or alleged bias the proponent is guilty of trivializing the Jewish suffering during the Holocaust. We Jews did not just suffer 'minor' bias. As I see it, Muslims do not suffer anything like bias in America. In fact, we have laws against religious or racial discrimination in this country. European Jews suffered institutionalized discrimination - not just bias. We were forced to wear the Star of David by the Nazis. Wait a minute, we were forced to wear the Star of David by the Abbasids in Muslim lands since the 8th century as well. Caliph Harun ar-Rashid invented the 'Star of David' badge for the Jews - which was then copied by the Nazis in the 20th century. Not only that, during Muslim rule we Jews were not allowed to share the footpath with a Muslim. If a Muslim came onto the footpath the Jew had to step aside. The Jew was also not allowed to use a donkey or ass as transport but must be on foot. The Jew also had to pay a special disciminatory tax. The Jew also had no legal standing in Muslim court - in a legal dispute the Jew always lost because he or she was not allowed to question the Muslim whose evidence was always accepted instead of the Jew's.

Did you know that in some Muslim countries the Jew had to open his mouth so the Muslim tax-collector could spit in his mouth and hit him over the shoulder with a stick when the Jew came forward to pay his special discriminatory tax? How would you like it if you were forced to open your mouth so a Muslim tax-collector could ritually spit in your mouth.

So who is going to speak for these downtrodden Jews who suffered greatly at Muslim hands? It is all very well to forgive. But I don't forget. You don't persecute my people for 14 centuries and then instantly expect me to forget.

We suffered pogroms every so often in Muslim lands. Wait a minute - the first recorded pogrom against Jews were in 627AD by a certain Muhammad bin Abdallah who annihilated the Jews of Medina by genociding the B. Qurayza, B. Nadir and B. Mustaliq and ethnic-cleansing of the B. Qainuqa.

Muslims have been arch-persecutors of Jews every where. Every week Muslim clerics invoke Muhammad's curse on us as Sons of Apes and Pigs. How is that for bias?

So please, Muslims - don't use the Jewish experience to elicit sympathy or score points in your arguments. You are sure to piss of some Jew if you do so. Better that you apologize for your prophet's mistreatment of the Jews of Medinah.

Shalom,
Itzhak Goldstein the Jew of Medina

AMSTERDAM CONFERENCE AND WORLD PERCEPTION OF AMERICANMEDIA TREATMENT OF MUSLIMS
Editors Weblog -
Blogarama - The Blogs Directory
Monday, November 14, 2005
Study reveals Western media coverage contributes to negative views of Islam

A new report entitled “Western Perceptions About Islam and Muslims”, released last week at the NewsXchange conference in Amsterdam, reveals that Arab Muslims are typically portrayed in a stereotypical and negative fashion by the media in Western Europe and the United States.

The report is the result of a study, commissioned by the Kuwaiti government and undertaken by Communique Partners of San Francisco, which involved a survey and a series of interviews with media experts.

Stereotypes of Arab Muslims are reportedly most obvious in television coverage, although they also exist in the print media. The report states: "In print stereotypes are not so obvious, except in cartoon caricatures, but they still occur and anti-Muslim bias is more insidious. The terms Islamic or Muslim are linked to extremism, militant, jihads, as if they belonged together inextricably and naturally (Muslim extremist, Islamic terror, Islamic war, Muslim time bomb)." (See previous postings here and here).

The Western media has also been criticized for its misuse of the word 'jihad'. In an article entitled 'Intent of 'jihad' missed in translation as 'holy war', Faysal Ruwayha asserts:"Muslim scholars explain that jihad, literally means 'to struggle' and that the word pertains first and foremost to mastering one's passions and leading a virtuous life."

Newspaper coverage has a strong impact, second only to television coverage, on the perceptions of Arab Muslims, with 36% of Western Europeans and Americans admitting their opinions of Arab Muslims are strongly influenced by newspaper reporting.

37% of survey respondents said they were exposed to very little news coverage of Arabs and Islam, and nearly 75% stated that they think the media reports accurately on Arab Muslims and Islam 50% of the time, not often, or never.

In response to the question “What can be done to improve the perception of Arab Muslims and Islam?”, respondents from the Communique study frequently answered: an increase in positive coverage of Arab Muslims and Islam, increases in education and communication, more media balance, a decrease in the religious zealotry of radical Muslims and a reduction in terrorism.

Chris Yalounis, one of the authors of the Kuwaiti sponsored report, told the NewsXchange conference that "The image of Islam has been hijacked by extremists and it is time to take it back."

Also at the NewsXchange conference, a Reuters editor in charge of the agency's new Middle East service questioned why "if the west was serious about coming to terms with Islam and understanding what the Middle East was all about" have more Western organisations not bought this service, which provides a "very good daily view of life in the Middle East.

In addition to the Reuters Middle East service, other initiatives such as Al Jazeera International have appeared, pledging to circulate new perspectives on the Middle East and Islam. Al Jazeera is set to launch its new English language channel this spring, the channel wil have broadcasting centres in Doha, Kuala Lumpur, London and Washington, and will provide a fresh Middle Eastern view on international news and current affairs. Nigel Parsons, head of Al Jazeera International, has stated that finding American cable companies that will transmit the new Al Jazeera in English has proved difficult.

Sources: Media Guardian.co.uk (here and here), Followthemedia.com, news-press.com

Posted March 31, 2007 4:42 PM

Posted on March 31, 2007 16:42
vic:

Tuesday, March 13, 2007
MEDIA TENOR RELEASES REPORT COMPARING AL JAZEERA, EUROPEAN, AND AMERICAN TELEVISION NEWS CONTENT:

Media Tenor, a German company which specializes in global content analysis of television and print news, released a presentation the other day comparing the news content of several Arab TV channels, al-Jazeera, al-Jazeera English and other American and European TV channels. The pdf of the presentation may be found here.

Some key points from the presentation regarding news content related to both anti-Americanism and Islamophobia are:

*
"Negative news dominates the image of Islam [all facets of Islam, just not radical Islami]" on Western TV channels. According to Media Tenor, 65% of all media coverage of Islam on U.S. television is negative! NOTE - COMPARE THIS TO ARAB TV WHERE BETWEEN 20-30% OF ALL COVERAGE ABOUT U.S. IS NEGATIVE DEPENDING ON THE CHANNEL!

*
Al-Jazeera's "reporting about the U. S. government, Congress and the armed forces is marked by restrained negativity, not surpassing the amount of negative news for instance in Germany. There are only minor differences between the Arab and English versions of al-Jazeera."

*
"About 2/3 of U. S. news reports are from the U. S., 20 to 25% from Islamic countries, mainly from Iraq. The rest of the world is of little importance in U.S. TV news. Even Al-Jazeera International displays a wider horizon."

*
"Despite its layout as pan-Arab TV channel, Al-Jazeera in English dedicates a bigger share of its newscasts to U.S. domestic policy issues and U.S. domestic security than ABC, CBS or NBC."

*
"No excessive [my emphasis] criticism of Bush on Arabic TV Screens" compared to U.S. television - with "British and Italian TV most negative about U.S." even compared to Arabic channels.

*
"While U.S. TV news report about foreign countries mainly in the context of U.S. interests, Al-Jazeera deals with domestic affairs of a wider number of countries, broadcasting news from a bigger share of the world than U.S. networks."

*
"Arabic News frames Islam in political context" - about 50% of the news coverage according to Media Tenor's figures. Maybe one reason we see a resurgence of Pan-Muslim identity in the region according to Telhami/Zogby's latest poll.

Who cares about how Prophet wept, soaked the ground, or these wingy thingies in some divine thongs (Farishta) appeared and vanished ???

In today's times Islam, Stalinism, Maoism, Nazism, Pol-Potism are all equal. These ideologies promote unilateral hatred for anyone different.

One can get academic and split hairs over the divinity of Islam, but it solves nothing.

Islam and west are at diametrically opposite poles, and compromise is not possible.

To save western civilization, Muslim immigration to the West must be stopped. Also, in USA the religion of Islam needs to be portrayed as an enemy of western values.

Yes, the west is not perfect. It has waged an unfair war in Iraq and had Saddam Hussain killed under false pretexts. But, that's (unfair) foreign policy as separate from Christian religion. But, again splitting hairs over whose foreign policy is right is a bummer/non-starter.

Any government policy shall have faults. Nothing is perfect, we all know that. But, why Islam is taken as superior ? For all we know from documented history, it was what an Arab told the people he thought was divine. Islam legitimized use of bloodshed and terror to propagate ideas of Muhammad under the guise of divinity. Adolf Hitler did the same too in the Third Reich. Islam (and other ideologies) promote intolerance. Thus, one must be intolerant towards these predatory ideologies.

The west is weak because its bleeding heart liberals would want all people (including those who want to eliminate these liberals) to be happy. The inability of the west to take strong and appropriate action against Islam, is the problem. We really don't need these academic discussions. What we need is pre-emptive policies to contain the spread of Islam in the west that is all poised to destroy the freedom of speech and freethought. Look at what is happening in Britain and Europe. In no time USA shall fall prey to the Sharia laws. Is that what we want ?

Islam is a barbaric religion.

Pamela,

My comments about Islam was a response to ASDUSALAAM. Scroll up the page. He/she wanted refererences about Mohammed being illiterate and also about him being an hallucinating Arab who talked to mythical angels etc.

But did his listeners believe also in "pretty wing thingies?? Sounds a lot like the NT and what Crossan would say, "prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered". Or was it more like "big profits generated by militant scribal henchmen and their plundering/looting tribes rather than history remembered and the real truth"?? Or false prophecies turned into history to indoctrinate the uneducated? Contemporary Islamic mullahs and clerics still do that as witnessed by suicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Pamela: I want to elaborate on your sound bites.

1) After Katrina in an interview with Larry King about his statement you posted above:

"KING: When you use words though, sort of like, "God has a plan, God has a purpose," I don't assume you're trying to say that this storm happened and hit New Orleans because of any activity of its people?

GRAHAM: No, I certainly don't. I would never say that this is God's judgment on New Orleans or any other place. In the scripture Jesus mentioned some men that were killed in Jerusalem when a tower fell. And he asked the question, "Do you suppose they were worse sinners than all the others in Jerusalem because they died this way?" And he said, "No." He said, "But unless you repent, you, too, will perish."

And I believe God has a plan and purpose for everything in life. And sometimes there are storms in life. And we have to look beyond those storms and just trust God, that God will use this storm in a way that will benefit the people of New Orleans and the people of Louisiana and Mississippi in a much stronger way in the years to come.

There's some good things that can come out of this, even though we don't see it right now. I believe New Orleans will be a much stronger city in the years to come."

2) Franklin did indeed say that Islam is a very hateful/evil religion in the quote posted about, shortly after the 9/11 attacks he said:

"We're not attacking Islam but Islam has attacked us. The God of Islam is not the same God. He's not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It's a different God, and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion."

When pressed about his opinion he said:

"Do they want to indoctrinate me? Yes. I know about Islam. I don't need an education from Islam," he said. "If people think Islam is such a wonderful religion, just go to Saudi Arabia and make it your home. Just live there. If you think Islam is such a wonderful religion, I mean, go and live under the Taliban somewhere. I mean, you're free to do that."

In a subsequent Wall Street Journal piece, Graham wrote that he doesn't think Muslim believers "are evil people because of their faith. But I decry the evil that has been done in the name of Islam, or any other faith _ including Christianity."

That article said "the persecution or elimination of non-Muslims has been a cornerstone of Islamic conquests and rule for centuries." Graham said the Quran "provides ample evidence that Islam encourages violence in order to win converts and to reach the ultimate goal of an Islamic world."

Now, I guess it's up to you all to decide if that is hate speech or not.

Concerned: did you even read what I wrote. I agreed. Muhammad was unlettered. He could not read. That is irrelevant in terms of whether the Qur'an is what he said it was. Further explanation above.

Or perhaps you prefer his comments after Hurricane Katrina:

"This is one wicked city, OK? It's known for Mardi Gras, for Satan worship. It's known for sex perversion. It's known for every type of drugs and alcohol and the orgies and all of these things that go on down there in New Orleans. Reverend Graham continued, "There's been a black spiritual cloud over New Orleans for years. God is going to use that storm to bring revival. God has a plan. God has a purpose."

This when the rest of the world was in horror over the suffering going on in the stadium...

Mohammed was illiterate.

Ref.: See Karen Armstrong's books on world religions. Karen is an On-Faith Panelist.

"Karen Armstrong

Prominent author on religious history
Karen Armstrong’s books about different religions, including her highly acclaimed “A History of God,” have made her one of the most prominent authors on religious history. The London-based “On Faith” panelist also is the author of three television documentaries and took part in Bill Moyers’ television series “Genesis.”

Karen Armstrong’s books about different religions, including her highly acclaimed “A History of God,” have made her one of the most prominent authors on religious history. The London-based “On Faith” panelist also is the author of three television documentaries and took part in Bill Moyers’ television series “Genesis.” Since September 11, 2001, she has been a frequent contributor to conferences, panels, newspapers, periodicals and broadcast media on the subject of Islam. Comparative theology is a particular interest of the author, who entered a Roman Catholic convent in 1962 at age 17, but after seven years as a nun left her order to pursue English literature at Oxford University. Her books, which have been translated into 40 languages, also include “Through the Narrow Gate,” “Islam: A Short History,” “Buddha,” a spiritual memoir, “The Spiral Staircase,” and most recently “The Great Transformation.”

Mohammed hallucinated-

i.e. he talked to angels ("pretty wingy thingies). We all know angels are mythical creatures blended into the OT, NT and Koran by scribes familiar with ancient extinct religions.

Refs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel and http://www.likeacat.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=1
"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "
"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "

Mohammed's scribal henchmen with their militaristic agenda of looting/plundering the lands of non-believers.

Refs: Common sense and any world history book. Angels did not reveal god's word since angels don't exist so scribe(s) had to write the militant passages of the Koran but that might be letting ole Mohammed off the hook as a dictator of not only Arabic tribes but also of many disturbing words and ideas. The looting and plundering of the lands of non-believers is history. The history continues with the contemporary Sunni/Shiite bloodletting and the statements by Bin Laden and the leaders of Iran."

Professor JD Crossan "crossanized" the NT to bring it into the realm of the real world. He should now "crossanize" the Koran to remove its militant and anti-female rhetoric.

Concerned:

Franklin has said: "Islam is a very evil and a very wicked religion."

http://cbs2.com/topstories/topstories_story_075065149.html

That is hateful of Islam, and encouraging his followers to hate Islam.

Let us not forget that Jesus' disciples were all Jewish people who believed He was the Messiah.

AbduSalaam,

So you do not want to answer the question about the Trinity? I do not think that is fare.

Jesus was the messiah the fulfillment of the Jewish Old Testament. His coming was prophesied and He fulfilled those Old Testament prophecies concerning His genealogy, His rejection, His crucifixion, and His resurrection. His followers who were by His side for His entire ministry recorded His works in fulfillment of what the Old Testament said He would do. The Apostle Paul who was a leading Pharisee and murderer of Christians had an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus to put Christians in jail. After his encounter with Jesus and His conversion He began to preach the Gospel. Many of the followers were afraid of Paul at first because they knew what he had been doing before he had been transformed by Jesus Christ. Jesus' disciples accepted Paul and even worked together him.

Give me one way the Old Testament judges the New Testament?

Muhammad comes along 600 years later claiming to have a vision and begins to question what the Disciples recorded about Jesus. Again he attacked Christianity at its foundation. First, he said Jesus was not the Son of God. Second, he said Jesus did not die on the cross. Now if those two things are not true there is no Christianity and the Old Testament is not true either because it foretold that the Messiah would be God and that He would die and resurrect from the dead.

I know you are just being a good Muslim and believe what you have been taught but you have not given a good reason why you should listen to Muhammad. You have not refuted one thing about Christianity. All that you have done is given me questions about Paul. How do you know Muhammad was a true prophet? Why should you trust him?

Pablo

Miriam,

Interesting quote by Sam Harris. I tend to agree with him... the precepts about the end of the world taught by most religions are highly unlikely, and to me seem to be problematical in terms of morality -- how can it be justice for a person to be sent to hell for eternity for a limited number of years of evil? Even 75 or 80 years of pure evil hardly merit an eternity of suffering. Similarly, eternal heaven seems far more reward than anyone ever deserves (although far more palatable to the moral sense, as unjustified pleasure cannot compare to unjustified suffering.)

Indeed, I did not adopt the religion because I embraced its vision of the afterlife, or wanted to secure my place in Heaven, but because I was convinced of the honesty of the Prophet. I know you have a very different opinion of the Prophet than I do, but when I read his life story, I saw an inspiring individual, humble, sincere, painfully honest, committed to justice and equality. The rest of the religion came along with that belief in his sincerity and truthfulness.

Concerned: First, as to the Prophet's illiteracy. That has no bearing... the culture was an oral culture, with a distrust of writing. The Qur'an was memorized by hundreds of individuals during the Prophet's life time. He did not need to be able to read to check it's authenticity, he simply had to ask them to repeat back what they had memorized. In fact, it is well documented that the standardized written compilation of the Qur'an took place after his death, based upon the memorizations of those companions.

Second, I have already addressed the issue you raised of Aisha's age in a previous post, in response to a question from yourself. I mentioned that there is disagreement as to how old she actually was, with some hadith portraying her as a young child when she married and other painting her age more at 16-18 when she married, and referenced this website: http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=375. If you wish to ignore that response, so be it, but it doesn't say very much for the sincerity of dialogue going on...

Muhammad (or whoever it was who posted all those hadith, and honestly, I didn't read them all). It is well know that there was a period of warfare between Mecca and Medina (ie between the pagan Arabs and the Muslims). Verses and hadith from that period are indeed warlike, for obvious reasons. However, after this time of conflict, there was a time of peace, during which the Qur'an and the hadith show a peaceful Islam, one in which marriage between Muslims and non-Muslims is allowed, breaking of bread together is encouraged and so on. Does it make sense that a Muslim must kill every non-Muslim if we can marry non-Muslims? People who believe this, whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim, completely ignore these final injunctions not only to peace, but to integration and harmonious co-extistence. People like to say that Islam was peaceful in Mecca when it was a minority religion, and it was warlike in Medina when it was a majority religion, but they neglect the end of the trajectory when it went back to being peaceful after the Meccans stopped beseiging the community.

Look people, I'm a U.S. born citizen, a Muslim and I do follow my religion; not a fake. So, from an American-born Muslim, let me keep this really, really simple. I don't want to get into name calling because I feel sorry for some of you. Some of you are ignorant and make me really, really laugh.

BEFORE YOU TRY TO ACT SMART AND KNOWLEDGEABLE, I ADVISE THAT YOU READ FIRST. READ THE KORAN AS I HAVE READ THE BIBLE AND THE TORAH. READ IT AND THEN MAKE YOUR COMMENTS. DON'T PICK EXCERPTS AND PICK AT THEM. I READ NUMMMMMEROUS CONTRADICTIONS ABOVE. THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY TO LIST. WAY TOO MANY.

Islam is a peaceful and beautiful religion and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) preached both. Muslims are not violent. I find beauty in both Christianity and Judaism, including other religions. So, to all the peace-loving people who may read this, don't let some of the ignorant people above "get to you." They'll learn the hard way.

Thanks for reading.

God knows best.

Pamela

Tell us all one thing that Franklin Graham has preached that was hatred? When you make a claim like that you need some proof. How dare you make a claim like that without backing it up? You sound just like Rosie O.

Christian Citizen

I haven't had time to read through all the comments, but I did want to address one issue... of khutbahs. I saw someone has posted exerpts from "model" sermons. I have no idea if anyone actually uses these sermons, however it is true there are some imams who preach hatred. (Not that they are alone in preaching hatred, I've heard some pretty awful stuff out of the mouths of people like Franklin Graham, but that's not the point.)

I wanted to let people following this column know about an intiative to foster positive and constructive sermons. Muslims for Progressive Values has launched the al-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz (Malcolm X) Khutbah competition to promote excellence in sermon writing within the Muslim community. We plan to publish the winning sermons, so that the community can benefit from them. More information about the competition -- it's goals, submission guidelines, prize monies, judges, etc. -- can be found at www.mpvusa.org

Pablo or anyone else,

If you want to continue the conversation (sans personal attacks) that would be great. This forum is getting a bit long, so feel free to email me, but keep in mind, I might eat your children and ram a plane into your volvo. :-)

salafiyyah@gmail.com

Pablo

Isaiah 9:5 (rabbinic translation)

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government is upon his shoulder; and
his name shall be called "Wonderful counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, of the Prince of peace."

Sounds a bit different than how christians read it, doesn't it. Changes the whole meaning. The fact that Isaiah would say a man was going to come as a child and be God, is something I find very questionably. And this is how it has been understood.

Dear Pablo,

"The fact that Muhammad comes along 600 years after Jesus and questions the Bible's teaching that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died on the cross demands an explanation. Why should anyone trust Muhammad when he clearly contradicts the central doctrines of the Christian faith? Who was he to judge the word of God?"

That is really a bold statement. Why is Christianity or Jesus the benchmark for anything? Why should anyone trust Christianity? Why can't he question that jesus died on the cross, is their some law that says you can't? And why listen to Paul over Mohammed? Maybe he contradicts it because (not to mention Jesus own people contradict him) his message has been distorted and he never claimed to be more than a servent of God? Maybe whats written has been a little embelished, especially when it doesn't agree with the Torah.

Muslims don't judge the word of God as you say, the "old testament" judges the new testament just fine. Don't you ever find it funny that he was the promised Jewish messiah, yet the religion those say he founded resembles absolutely nothing of Judaism, in its present or past form? Why is that?

actually google taurobilum abdusalaam

its an interesting blood atonement story of pagan origin well know at the time of pauls travels

HOW THE REST OF THE PLANET VIEWS AMERICAN MEDIA TREATMENT OF MUSLIMS-

Editors Weblog -
Blogarama - The Blogs Directory
Monday, November 14, 2005
Study reveals Western media coverage contributes to negative views of Islam

A new report entitled “Western Perceptions About Islam and Muslims”, released last week at the NewsXchange conference in Amsterdam, reveals that Arab Muslims are typically portrayed in a stereotypical and negative fashion by the media in Western Europe and the United States.

The report is the result of a study, commissioned by the Kuwaiti government and undertaken by Communique Partners of San Francisco, which involved a survey and a series of interviews with media experts.

Stereotypes of Arab Muslims are reportedly most obvious in television coverage, although they also exist in the print media. The report states: "In print stereotypes are not so obvious, except in cartoon caricatures, but they still occur and anti-Muslim bias is more insidious. The terms Islamic or Muslim are linked to extremism, militant, jihads, as if they belonged together inextricably and naturally (Muslim extremist, Islamic terror, Islamic war, Muslim time bomb)." (See previous postings here and here).

The Western media has also been criticized for its misuse of the word 'jihad'. In an article entitled 'Intent of 'jihad' missed in translation as 'holy war', Faysal Ruwayha asserts:"Muslim scholars explain that jihad, literally means 'to struggle' and that the word pertains first and foremost to mastering one's passions and leading a virtuous life."

Newspaper coverage has a strong impact, second only to television coverage, on the perceptions of Arab Muslims, with 36% of Western Europeans and Americans admitting their opinions of Arab Muslims are strongly influenced by newspaper reporting.

37% of survey respondents said they were exposed to very little news coverage of Arabs and Islam, and nearly 75% stated that they think the media reports accurately on Arab Muslims and Islam 50% of the time, not often, or never.

In response to the question “What can be done to improve the perception of Arab Muslims and Islam?”, respondents from the Communique study frequently answered: an increase in positive coverage of Arab Muslims and Islam, increases in education and communication, more media balance, a decrease in the religious zealotry of radical Muslims and a reduction in terrorism.

Chris Yalounis, one of the authors of the Kuwaiti sponsored report, told the NewsXchange conference that "The image of Islam has been hijacked by extremists and it is time to take it back."

Also at the NewsXchange conference, a Reuters editor in charge of the agency's new Middle East service questioned why "if the west was serious about coming to terms with Islam and understanding what the Middle East was all about" have more Western organisations not bought this service, which provides a "very good daily view of life in the Middle East.

In addition to the Reuters Middle East service, other initiatives such as Al Jazeera International have appeared, pledging to circulate new perspectives on the Middle East and Islam. Al Jazeera is set to launch its new English language channel this spring, the channel wil have broadcasting centres in Doha, Kuala Lumpur, London and Washington, and will provide a fresh Middle Eastern view on international news and current affairs. Nigel Parsons, head of Al Jazeera International, has stated that finding American cable companies that will transmit the new Al Jazeera in English has proved difficult.

Sources: Media Guardian.co.uk (here and here), Followthemedia.com, news-press.com

Posted March 31, 2007 4:42 PM

Posted on March 31, 2007 16:42
vic:

Tuesday, March 13, 2007
MEDIA TENOR RELEASES REPORT COMPARING AL JAZEERA, EUROPEAN, AND AMERICAN TELEVISION NEWS CONTENT:

Media Tenor, a German company which specializes in global content analysis of television and print news, released a presentation the other day comparing the news content of several Arab TV channels, al-Jazeera, al-Jazeera English and other American and European TV channels. The pdf of the presentation may be found here.

Some key points from the presentation regarding news content related to both anti-Americanism and Islamophobia are:

*
"Negative news dominates the image of Islam [all facets of Islam, just not radical Islami]" on Western TV channels. According to Media Tenor, 65% of all media coverage of Islam on U.S. television is negative! NOTE - COMPARE THIS TO ARAB TV WHERE BETWEEN 20-30% OF ALL COVERAGE ABOUT U.S. IS NEGATIVE DEPENDING ON THE CHANNEL!

*
Al-Jazeera's "reporting about the U. S. government, Congress and the armed forces is marked by restrained negativity, not surpassing the amount of negative news for instance in Germany. There are only minor differences between the Arab and English versions of al-Jazeera."

*
"About 2/3 of U. S. news reports are from the U. S., 20 to 25% from Islamic countries, mainly from Iraq. The rest of the world is of little importance in U.S. TV news. Even Al-Jazeera International displays a wider horizon."

*
"Despite its layout as pan-Arab TV channel, Al-Jazeera in English dedicates a bigger share of its newscasts to U.S. domestic policy issues and U.S. domestic security than ABC, CBS or NBC."

*
"No excessive [my emphasis] criticism of Bush on Arabic TV Screens" compared to U.S. television - with "British and Italian TV most negative about U.S." even compared to Arabic channels.

*
"While U.S. TV news report about foreign countries mainly in the context of U.S. interests, Al-Jazeera deals with domestic affairs of a wider number of countries, broadcasting news from a bigger share of the world than U.S. networks."

*
"Arabic News frames Islam in political context" - about 50% of the news coverage according to Media Tenor's figures. Maybe one reason we see a resurgence of Pan-Muslim identity in the region according to Telhami/Zogby's latest poll.

Dear Pablo,

Hmmmmm, as I recall, it wasn't only the Muslims who questioned Jesus as God, Messiah and that he came to die to forgive their sins, I believe Jesus own people questioned him!!

So, Mohammed (saw) can't question the claims of Jesus, but you can question Mohammed's (saw) claims? A little hypocritical.

And once again, you use the same verse but have not answered my questions. The fact that Judaism (Jesus was a Jew. He said himself he came to the lost sheep of isreal) disagrees with you, that in itself puts the onus of proof on you.

How about you stop using one verse and move on to another that proves your point? The fact that you can use one verse in an obscure fasion to prove something that is so central and important as the oneness of God, that is far from any proof.

Your telling me that something so central as the first thing Moses said when we came down from receiving the law, something so central that untold amount of people died uttering, your telling me that something so central as the first commandment, is going to be buried in one verse in a way that you have to jumble around the word in a way that wasn't understood at the time, nor is still understood in the fashion amongs those who the Torah belongs too?

And even if what you say is true, and this verse has been misread for centries, and it means what you say, you honestly must have more to back yourself up than that. Thats not proof in any respect. If that was they way it was read, then why didn't all the Jews before jesus time, or here after, belive in the trinity, or some sort of Jewish Trinity???? If it was read and undestood as you say, I'm sure the Israelites would have recognised it immediatly, including Moses, who told exounded on the law and how it was applied (hence the oral law) and Moses would have told the people that God is one but in three parts, or however you read it.

But he didn't, he states clearly, and expounded to the judges, that GOD IS ONE, a unity, and not plural. That is the problem with your argument. You are pulling what you want to find out of a hat when thats not how Moses understood it, Not how any of the other prophets understood it, that not how ANYONE, outside of Christians (and it seems lately some in Chabad) read it.

The question is, why isn't it written in the Torah or said anywhere that God is one with three distinct personages? Why is it not even explicitly talked about in the new testament?

You still can't answer that, because no matter how you read it, its not read that way, its not understood that way, and was never understood that way until the later Christians had to rectify their want to continue to practice the religion of their fathers but wanted to include Christianity in it.

And a side question, why would God need to send his sone to die in the first place? Can't God do what God wants to do, or do you place limitations on God? He who created the universe can't even forgive sins?

positive muslim role models in american media

THE MUSLIM OBERVER
( a newspaper ive read for several years and have met and spoken with several of its reporters and editors always with positive and refreshing exchange)

Muslim Media Network

March 31, 2007
Introduction

The Muslim Observer began its journey into the media world in 1999 as an alternative to the corporate media on issues pertaining to Islam and Muslims. Since then it has focused on American Muslims: their issues, perspectives, and concerns. Thanks to our ever-growing readership and exchange of ideas, the Muslim Media Network (MMN) is developing an organization that will offer a wide range of media channels throughout the U.S., including such services as internet broadcast, radio broadcast, television broadcast, print publications, and research and alternative news services. The establishment of the Muslim Media News Service (MMNS) is the first step in that direction. Through a network of reporters, writers, and commentators, MMNS offers a growing Muslim alternative to existing international wire services (Reuters, UPI, AP, AFP) on matters pertaining to Islam and Muslims.

Our Mission

“Our mission is to develop a bridge between Muslims and non-Muslims in the world of media. Through promoting harmony, pluralism, human dignity and tolerance for differences of opinion, the MMN intends to achieve its goal to highlight positive stories that help people of different faiths come together for better mutual understanding.”

Our Goals

MMN offers a balanced and fearless forum to those alternative voices that find no space in the existing U.S. mass media. We intend to achieve our mission by promoting genuine and authentic dialog between emerging Muslim voices and our audiences on issues of national and international importance. MMN, Inc. intends to make its mission relevant to all people.

We seek to present the news of the world in a positive way that highlights the perspectives of Muslims in a manner completely free of the anti-Muslim bias that is commonly presented by mainstream news services.

pablo- as ive indicated before - not all christians are trinitarians

Abdulsalaam- a salaamu alaikum- dont mind this stuff-

these detractors come i here to disrupt the normal flow of intelligent conversation-

every time same nonsensical evangelizng-

concerned is on a repetitive loop and any response will just encourage a new loop-

and then it will degenerate into mindless or mean spirited attacks on your person-

you know- let them have their religion and you to yours-
you are giving quality responses but dont let yourself get dragged down-

pablo- there is also a prophecy by isaiah that speaks of the prophet who will come on a horse and be a governor of the people-

on his shoulders will rest the government i believe are the exact words-

Jesus(ata) didnt exactly fit that prophecy, did he?

anyway- insha'alla i can come back tomorrow and i hope someone somewhere decides to have a conversation about the topic-

Dear AbduSalaam,

Again "echad" is often used as a united one like in Genesis 2:24.

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one (echad) flesh.

This is very interesting considering the fact that I have already pointed out. When God made man in His own image He said “Let Us make man in our own image.” This included both male and female.

In Hebrew "yachid" always means an absolute one. If God wanted us to know that He is an absolute one then He would have used "yachid." When God speaks of a unit comprising more than one in scripture, He always uses the word “echad,” a united one. The transliteration of the Shema is as follows: Shema Yisrael: “Yahweh Elochenu Yahweh Echad.” In other words God is saying that He is a united one. Again if He wanted to let us know that He was an absolute one like Muslims assert He could have used "yachid."

The usage of "echad" in the Shema coupled with the plural personal pronouns that God used of Himself when speaking of creating man and woman in His image as one is a good argument. That coupled with the fact that both the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are called God in the scriptures makes it completely crystal clear.

The fact that Muhammad comes along 600 years after Jesus and questions the Bible's teaching that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died on the cross demands an explanation. Why should anyone trust Muhammad when he clearly contradicts the central doctrines of the Christian faith? Who was he to judge the word of God?

Pablo

“For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace”
(Isaiah the Prophet 9:6).

14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be conceited. 17Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

I wonder if when Jesus spoke these words, he stipulated that when an enemy attacks you, you should slaughter 100's of times more than they did you, bring death and destruction to several other countries who had no part in 9/11, and torture and kill those you capture, and then villify them in the media until your population write spitefull, hatefull things when they have never even met a muslim, let alone picked up a Qur'an or know what a sunnah is.

I see the essence of the Christian right in this verse. Of course, I guess its good to read but not take to heart....at least the Muslims actually practice what they beleive.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated

As I recall, Moses actually was told by God to plunder and conquer the land of canaan and to kill all its inhabitants, INCLUDING WOMEN AND CHILDREN!!!

But thats ok, right?

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated

How about instead of stupid statements, you come up with some proof?

I can say the same thing about Bush, and I would actually have some proof to back it up. DUI anyone? But, what do you actually know?

I bet nothing, just a bunch of hot air. Lets see if you can actually think beyond that of a monkey.

Pablo,

There is no biblical precendent.

A precedent would mean that the word Echad (one) would be understood in the meaning you brought up, when it is not, except by Christians trying to prove a point. Hence, THERE IS NO PRECEDENT! You twisting what the word actually means (and MANY words, even in english have more than one meaning, but that doesn't mean the word can be undertood both ways when you take the word in CONTEXT (very important) does not a precendent make.

If I had the time, and we can email if you like, we can go through the sources and actually look at how this word was undestood, or in this case, the precedent for the word.

You reading that the word means one but mutliple personalities is not the precendent, therefore the burden of proof rests on you, and I ahve yet to see it. Show me where else in the Torah where the word Echad is used to mean what you say it means?!?! You won't be able to. Oh, Echad is used, but it won't make any sense in the way you use it.

I'll make it easy for you....show me where in the gospels it (important) explicitly says the concept of the father, son and holy spirit are one. Show me where this was ever their understanding. Oh, you will find vague verse here and there, but for something SO IMPORTANT, I'm sure there must be something explicit in there that shows that understanding.

And if you want to take the even better road, show me in the Torah where that word is used in the manner you read it.

Fact is, you can't, as that word is not used in that manner.

What don't "liberal" Muslims understand about this statement??

Mohammed was an illiterate, hallucinating Arab with scribe henchmen writing their own "koranic" agendas (looting/plundering the lands of non-believers in God's name).

Until the militant agenda is removed from the Koran and from the lips of Islamic mullahs and clerics, Islam will be a sham religion.

AbduSalaam,

I did not say that there is more than one God that is the straw man that Muslim scholars erect. No, the Bible teaches that there are three persons who are one God. Thus the Shema. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one.

I did not say God was one person with three personalities either. Again this is a straw man. For example, I am one person my wife is another person and we are one.

"Fact is, the Trinity is just a way of watering down the fact that the later Christians during the council of nicea time wanted to add their pagan culture into that of Christianity, so they came up with the stupid idea of the Trinity."

This sweeping statement needs some proof. Even if the Trinity was written formally at the council of Nicea you still need to prove that the doctrine is not Biblical. I already gave you a Biblical precedence for the doctrine of the Trinity and you have yet to refute it. God said "Let us” and He included "male and female" in His creating Man in His own image. Why did He do that?

Pablo

Pablo,

So, instead of giving me a rebuttal, you go back to the tired tactic of talking about violence again.

Why are you tryinjg to change of subject?

Did I gloss over the issue Pablo?

I'm not a normal Muslim....I was an observant Jew for many many years. Fact is, that the oneness of God is THE CENTRAL point in Judaism and Islam, and coming up with a verse with a word that was never understood in that way and twisting it around to fit what you want it to say won't change a thing. Like I said earlier, I could use the same verse and say it means there are many gods.

According to even Judaism, Christianity is Idol Worship. For Muslims, Tauhid (the oneness of God) is absolute and the foundation of it.

First commandment? I am the lord your God, thou shalt have no other gods besides me. "Do not make for yourselves images of anything in heaven or on earth or in the water under the earth. Do not bow down to any idol or worship it, because I am the LORD your God and I tolerate no rivals. I bring punishment on those who hate me and on their descendants down to the third and fourth generation. But I show my love to thousands of generations of those who love me and obey my laws.

Funny, I guess the question of the Trinity, the pictures of Jesus, the necklesses of the cross and the Christians crying out to Jesus, wouldn't that qualify?

AbduSalaam,

Maybe Anonymous is afraid that he will be the next Theo van Gogh. It is something to consider. People who openly speak out against Muhammad and Islam do not live long. Those that do live do so in hiding. Maybe that is why our media will not tell the truth about Islam.

Pablo

Pablo,

To your second post, the same thing applies. Chazzal say this means that unlike animals and insects, we have free will and the ability to think, "like" God. Not that there are more than one God.

I guess by that thinking, I should have three distinct personalities, yet be one person?

Fact is, the Trinity is just a way of watering down the fact that the later Christians during the council of nicea time wanted to add their pagan culture into that of Christianity, so they came up with the stupid idea of the Trinity.

Pablo,

Let me see, and I going to trust the undestanding of the prophets, Jewish History, Great Rebbe's, and such, to someone who looked that up on the internet and uses it for a jumbled up explanation for something so ingrained in Judaism, that of the oneness of God? Don't you think that there is more written then just this one verse?

Fact is, Chazzal (the Rabbis) explained this as meaning the attributes of God, not that he is Multiple gods.

I guess a Buddhist could take that verse and say...seee, there are more than one God, it says so here. That one word is not a basis to refute thousands of years of history and understanding, as well as all the commentary in the mishnah and the understanding in the rest of the Torah of Gods oneness.

AbduSalaam,

That also includes verse 26:

26Then God said, "Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Anonymous:

Thats right, every muslim with a brain is a jihadi. Yaaa, I can now go to heaven and see my 90000 virgins (what is the number nowadays?) now that I have been deemed a jihady by an anonomous person afraid to talk. And its good to throw in that we hate you for your freedoms (yes, we don't like choices) and we eat your young.

Your free to critisise, but don't throw a fit when we do the same.

Funny, I have been having a conversation, and all you bring about is some stupid statement about not critisizing?

Post something useful, and lets see if your critisism stands, instead of just saying it anonymously.

Scared to talk?

AbduSalaam,

The word for "one" in the Shema is often used to mean a united one. This fits with Genesis where God says,

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27).

God said He created man in "our" own image. That included two people, man and female. The Bible accounts for man and woman in the image of God who speaks of Himself with plural pronouns.

You must address this issue but I do not expect that you will. I have been challenging my Muslim friends on this for weeks but none has given a thoughtful answer. The predictable response will either change the subject or gloss over this issue.

Pablo

Islam:

La ilaha il'Allah, Mohammadar Rasul'ullah.

There is no god But God, and Mohammed is his messenger.

Recited by every Muslim daily.

Judaism:

Shema Yisrael, Adonoi eloheinu Adonoi Echad

Hear Oh Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

Christianity:

Father son and holy spirit.

Hmmmmm, I wonder which one is more faithful to the prophets of the torah?

----completely free of the anti-Muslim bias ----

Because as we know we should never critize Islam and Muslims because that's just not allowed and most certainly not right!

Sounds like your typical controlling Jihadist agenda to me.

Jesus is the son of god

Anonymous was me, and I'm sorry, I don't believe in multiple gods like you do.

Jesus said

Maybe you should tell Bush, pat robertson and all the others who belive in Jesus and yet talk of nothing but nuking Iran (and how many innocent people in the process), to turn the other cheek, instead of when a few deranged individuals kill three thousand, you turn loose like a monster and slaughter only God knows how many. 60,000 - 150,000 and rising??

I see christian love knows no bounds.

Anonymous,

Repent and believe on the Son of God or you will perish.

Jesus will Judge the World

And, do you believe he is God too? Funny how even in Judaism, Islam is not Avoda Zorah (idolotry) but get an observant Jew to enter a church.

Also funny, Jesus followers were all Jewish, and even had a debate of whether to allow non jews into the group. Only once that poisonous man Saul entered the picture, did all the pagan ellements enter Christianity.

Want to talk about repenting, how about repenting for beleiving a man is God? How about repenting for being hypocritical....Christians are absolutely the worst. You take a concept that was obviously enspoused by Jesus, that of the oneness of God (I'm sure he recited the Shema daily), and at the council of nicea you turn the concept that all Jewish prophets (and the whole foundation of Islam) reiterated, that of the oneness of God, and you turned him into three. Nice.

Your so lovey dovey with Israel, all becouse you look forward to the end times where you say they will have to accept Jesus or Die. Wow, some friends.

And you say the Muslims are bad. But, I forgot, God only loves the Christians and you are going to be whisked away before all hell brakes loose, not only on us Muslims and other non-Christians, but also on the Jews you profess to love so much.

Hypocritical.

14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be conceited. 17Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Hey Mohammed, if we are so evil and hate mongerers, how about you give me all your citations of death and killing, and I'll give you all I can find of generosity, love and caring for others? I can guarantee you I'll win.

Here, I'll start with just two, one about The Prophet (salalahu aleihi wa'salam) and one abut his one of his closest companions, and indicative of the Muslims at that time.

One night, when Umar Bin Al Khattab was on his usual rounds in Madina, he saw an old woman busy cooking something while her children cried continuously. Feeling pity for them, Umar asked why they were crying and the woman sadly told him that she had no food in the house and that there was only water in the pot on the fire. She was pretending to cook something until the children fell asleep. Umar was shocked by the misery he witnessed and thought, being the Caliph, he was responsible for this tragedy..

Umar immediately hurried away with his servant to the state storehouse and came back carrying flour, butter, dates, clothes and money. He had even refused to let his servant carry anything saying that he was responsible for the welfare of his people and that his servant would not be there on the Day of Judgment to carry his sins.

Umar reached the woman?s house and started cooking the food himself. After every one had eaten, Umar started playing with the little kids and crawling around them as if he was a horse making them laugh and giggle. And he said ?I saw them crying and I hated to leave them until I saw them laugh.?

The woman replied: ?May Allah bless you. You are better than Umar Bin Al Khattab himself.?

So he said: ?And how is Umar supposed to know about you??

She said: ?He takes our welfare onto his shoulders (she is referring to him accepting the position of being Caliph) and forgets about us?

This made Umar cry and say: ?All the people are more knowledgeable than Umar.?

Source: "Glimpses From the Lives of the Sahaba and Tabi'een, Umar Ibn Al Khattab." By Dr. M. Jilani. Taiba Publishers, 2003.

When Ata and Ubaydullah ibn Umayr once asked Aisha about the nature of Prophet Muhammad's behavior with her: "Aisha started to weep and said, 'One night he stood up [intending to offer the night prayer] and said, 'O Aisha, let me be alone so that I may worship my Lord.' He stood up, purified himself and continued to pray and weep until the ground became wet. Bilal came and made the adhan.

When he saw the Prophet crying, he said, 'O Messenger of Allah [why do] you cry, when Allah has forgiven your past and future sins?' Prophet Mohammed replied, '[Then, for that] should I not be a thankful slave?'"
Related by Ibn'Hisham

Jesus Christ is the All Powerful Ruler of the world and He is coming back to judge all those who do not believe that He is God's Son. Notice I said He is going to judge the world. As a follower of God it is not my job to judge you with death in this world. That belongs to God. The Muslim world needs to repent from their sin of trying to bring judgment on the world by their own hands. They also need to renounce that false prophet muhammad and embrace the King of Glory the LORD JESUS CHRIST. The KING of kings and LORD of lords.

John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

Proverbs 30:4
Who has ascended to heaven and come down?
Who has gathered the wind in his fists?
Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and what is his son's name?
Surely you know!

I know that His Son's name is Jesus. I pray all the Muslim's would know the same. Amen!

personally i was an irish catholic novitiate destined for the convent-

i questioned plenty-

dont worry Abdulsalaam- ross is queerly preoccupied with the sex life of our Prophet(pbuh)

it is his strange little proclivity

Ross,

Funny, you can point out a nagative, but show me where in the ancient world it was condemned? 1400 years ago was very different, and men also had more than one wife.

Solomon, according to the Torah, had thousands of wives, but thats ok right?

If you take a look at some books, email me and I can cite a couple for you, since I am not at home right now, marriage and consumnation of marriage were very young in those day.

Maybe people like you should stop applying your ideas and judgements of others culture, especially when seperated over thousands of years. Fact is, in the talmud there is a discussion of marriage to a young girl. Age of which escapes me at the moment, but I can find out, and its very young. But, in a different time and world, that was ok.

You know, for people in the US who has only existed for almost 300 years, how can you really, with understanding, talk as if you know anything of what life was like back then? Can you imagine if you went back in time and let them judge our lives? Would't make any sense since there is no shared life experiences.

Mohammed

Imam of the mosque of King Fahd Defense Academy in Saudi Arabia:
“we will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.”

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, I remember hearing Pat Robertson say Christianity will take over the world. Sounds similar to me, just thats ok, but if from a Muslim that thinks good of Islam and wants to spread its message, well, thats not ok, huh?

Mohammad,

Just because you left Islam, doesn't mean you should assume others don't question. I was actually Heredi before I embraced Islam. I queustioned for years before I chose.

The Hadith from Buchari you cited, if you were as knowledgeable as you say, and I doubt it, then you would look at several of them (I looked at three that you cite) according to ibn'Kathir and they are not as evil as you try and make them out too be.

For one, what if Islam had/has expansionaist ideas at the time? 1400+ years ago, name one civilization that didn't? Maybe you should try and stop putting western concepts and applying them to the people who lived in a totally different world.

Second, if you email me (editor@salafiyyah.com) we can go over the talmud/torah and see just how much it talks about killing and conquering land. (i.e. Isaiah talkes about smashing the heads of babys, or Gods command to wipe out the canannites, including women and children).

Third, Qaradhawi isn't accepted by all Muslims. He has his ijtihad, and I dont agree with many of it.

I would love to talk to you more. Email me, or anyone else wishing to talk. I think you read the Bible, and where it says to kill and conquer, well, thats ok....but let something "strange" to you say it, and its barbaric.

But I must say, for an "educated" muslim, you lack understanding yourself.

A good point....we mourn the 3000+ that died on 9/11, and this is for good reason. Very sad. BUT, what about the 60000 - 150000 Muslims, especially in Iraq, that have died? Where are their prayer vigils? Where are there mourners here in the US, when we are the ones dropping 500 pound bombs on them??? For the blood of 3000, we shed 100X that much. And let me get this straight....we take the fight to another country, kill and maim their women and children....so they don't do it here? Damn, I should go to my neighbor and kill them because they just might play their music too loud.

Until I see some crying and hurt for the Muslims that have died, I feel no pain for those here. Its wrong what had been done...ON BOTH SIDES...but Muslim blood is just as precious as others. Muslim children are just as precious as others.

And to those who kill Muslims, then to hell with all of them...Muslim and Non-Muslim alike.

Email me and we can talk.

An exceelent publication ive been reading for years

Muslim Media Network

March 31, 2007


Introduction

The Muslim Observer began its journey into the media world in 1999 as an alternative to the corporate media on issues pertaining to Islam and Muslims. Since then it has focused on American Muslims: their issues, perspectives, and concerns. Thanks to our ever-growing readership and exchange of ideas, the Muslim Media Network (MMN) is developing an organization that will offer a wide range of media channels throughout the U.S., including such services as internet broadcast, radio broadcast, television broadcast, print publications, and research and alternative news services. The establishment of the Muslim Media News Service (MMNS) is the first step in that direction. Through a network of reporters, writers, and commentators, MMNS offers a growing Muslim alternative to existing international wire services (Reuters, UPI, AP, AFP) on matters pertaining to Islam and Muslims.

Our Mission

“Our mission is to develop a bridge between Muslims and non-Muslims in the world of media. Through promoting harmony, pluralism, human dignity and tolerance for differences of opinion, the MMN intends to achieve its goal to highlight positive stories that help people of different faiths come together for better mutual understanding.”

Our Goals

MMN offers a balanced and fearless forum to those alternative voices that find no space in the existing U.S. mass media. We intend to achieve our mission by promoting genuine and authentic dialog between emerging Muslim voices and our audiences on issues of national and international importance. MMN, Inc. intends to make its mission relevant to all people.

We seek to present the news of the world in a positive way that highlights the perspectives of Muslims in a manner completely free of the anti-Muslim bias that is commonly presented by mainstream news services.

Dr. Nakadar

The problem is this cult like every other cult brainwashes its followers they go to any lenght to justify Mo's paedophilia, here is list of the excuses we have collected over the past 3 years:

1. Marrying 6 year olds was ok in those days.
2. Girls matured sooner in those days.
3. Girls matured sooner in dry climates.
4. To teach her true islam.
5. She was a reject (had marriage proposals turned down) so he done her a favour.
6. To establish a relationship with Abu Bakr.
7. She was Allah's gift to him via the angelic dream.
8. Married her when she was 6 but consummated when she was 14.
9. I don't see what the problem is.
10. You are a "#"£$"£!$##' I'll chop your head off.
11. Allah gave him this priviledge, you are just envious.
12. Why do you only bash Mo even catholic priests perform such acts.
13. Sleeping with 9 year old by marrying her is better than raping her!
14. Aisha was in dishonour, she had been 'playful' in her youth and Muhammad was kind to her to marry her, to save her from lifetime of shame.
15. If Mo was a paedophile then why was Aisha the only minor among his wives. (This excuse was given by JAGOTI on this panel)

Amina what's your excuse ?

well carrie- its been discussed to death- but we have stalin and polpot and mao-tse-tung- none of who killed for religion but killed millions- so blaming religion isnt really so valid- without religion men still manage to make wars and kill off large ppulations of people too-

possibly religion has also stopped many deaths- we really cant say-

anyway - i came determined not to sink into the spiral of hate and im happy its subsiding-
my intention is to copy positive examples of muslims in the media-

to post the many many many negative and false depictions while valid and real- would probably attract the hater so---

uesday, September 13, 2006
Texas: Increasing readership for Muslim newspaper

Sarwat Husain, president of the San Antonio chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, began her newspaper six months after September 11. Al-Ittihaad, which means unity, publishes articles relating to Islam and the local Muslim community.

Al-Ittihaad covers local Muslim issues in Texas and prints several columns. The most popular one is the Q&A section, where Islamic scholar and imam Dr. Yusuf Z. Kavakci answers to readers’ doubts about the appropriate behavior for a Muslim living in America. The online version of the newspaper includes a prayer schedule and cultural articles.

The paper is distributed freely throughout Texas: in particular to universities, churches and mosques. Despite the increasing readership, Al-Ittihaad is not profitable, due to the fact that Sarwat Husain often refuses to run ads, which might be considered offensive to Islam.

Source: New America Media

Reading these posts reinforces my belief that the world would be better off with no religion at all. Whether or not acts of terrorism, or bombings of abortion clinics, or the crusades, had their roots in the Bible or Qur'an, they are still ultimately motivated by religion. It amazes me how one woman giving her opinion can set off so much anger and hatred.

Yitzhak --

Only as you make a lot of odd personal remarks, and doubt my bona fides:

I could only be considered a Jew in an ethnic sense. I've never claimed Judaism as a religion. My father is Jewish, his parents were German Jews, I have cousins who are Jews, some reform, some orthodox. My great-grandmother, many uncles, aunts, and cousins were killed in the holocaust. This is more than enough to get me an Israeli passport.

Since my mother was a gentile, then according traditional Jewish law, so am I. Most of my adult life I was a Christian. After a few years of learning about Islam (only to know better about it. I had no intention of converting!) it made more sense to me than Christianity. I made Shahadah and became a Muslim in June of 2003.

There are haters, bigots, and psychos in all religions. I don't support or make excuses for Saudi exclusivist official bigotry any more than I do Israel's. Jerry Falwell and the Pope didn't dictate my vision of Christianity, nor do I follow the haters in Islam. I also know from experience that there are a great many warm, loving Jews who have compassion for others and dont go around whining about how their family's suffering sets them off from the rest of humanity. Rather they learned from the suffering and degradation of anti-Semitism that nobody should be abased as our families have been. The powerful cry of "Never Again" has to be a defense of all humanity. If it is only a rallying cry for any "Us" to defend "ourselves" against "Them" with no reagard to their humanity, it makes "Us" no better than those who persecuted us to begin with.

Sure, the vilification of Muslims in the American media is as different from Nazi anti-Semitism as an acorn is from an oak tree, but that's a difference of proportion, not essence. And if the acorn is nourished and allowed to grow.....

Abdusalaam,

Firstly I'd like to say that it takes many years of study to understand Islam. I have that background.

The problem, for most Muslims, is that they are born into the belief system and are taught to believe that it is blasphemy to ever question it. Apostates are still murdered all around the world, in accordance with Muhammad's teachings (the evidence for this is in the newspaper reports) so very few Muslims ever question their faith, through fear.

When you are not afraid to question Islam then you very quickly come to understand that the whole belief system is built on the psychology of fear.

Consider the following. If a paedophile started up a new cult today, called it a religion, harnessed cult psychology to spread his ‘religion’, and then began killing anyone who opposed him, and forced people to convert by threatening them with death, and taught his followers that it was OK to rape non-believing women, in order to humiliate and shame non-believers on behalf of god, and taught his followers to murder anyone who left his faith, and taught that non of his followers would go to hell because either a Jew or a Christian or a Pagan would be made to suffer in their place, no matter what crimes his followers committed, and taught that if his followers ever gain a victory over the Jews then they should slaughter their Jewish captives, and taught that gay people should be murdered, and taught that his followers should grow beards in order to differentiate themselves from non-believers, and taught that believers should infiltrate the lands of non-believers then procreate at a faster rate than the indigenous population until his belief system dominated the territory, and actively practiced ethnic cleansing, then would you support such a belief system and defend it and help it grow? Probably not, but what is the difference between such a belief system and Islam?

If you need proof that Muhammad behaved in such ways then I can give you all the sahih hadith references that you will need to confirm it.

You are a Muslim only because you are too afraid to question Muhammad's behaviour and teachings. It is easier to go with the flow and to pretend that his behaviour was perfect in everyway than it is to risk your life. Questioning your faith would mean cutting yourself off from your community, therefore you fool yourself and pretend that he was the perfect example.

The truth is that Muhammad was a psychological manipulator who used fear and violence to achieve power and authority. Why do think that the only cartoon you cannot draw without putting your life in danger is a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad?

The psychology he used still lives on today.

Prophet Muhammad
“If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him”

BBC NEWS - SUDANESE DEMAND DEATH FOR EDITOR – 5th May 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4516539.stm
“Angry crowds have demanded the death penalty for a Sudanese newspaper editor over an article allegedly questioning the parentage of the Prophet Muhammad. Hundreds of people waving banners and chanting "God is great" protested outside a court as Mohamed Taha Mohamed Ahmed was charged over the article. His Al Wifaq newspaper is being suspended for three days from Friday. The crowds were closely monitored by riot police, who clashed with the protesters on Thursday. "Oh judges of the Sudan, defend the honour of the Prophet," read one banner. "The court must execute him - this is an insult not to any ordinary man - this is an insult to a prophet," one man said. The protesters made speeches through loudspeakers and handed out statements, demanding that the authorities hand Mr Taha over so they could kill him. Mr Taha is a prominent Islamist journalist and has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood political group. He has not yet commented on the allegations against him but a journalist from his newspaper said it was a "big misunderstanding". Those who renounce Islam face the death penalty in Sudan. Ali Shumi, the head of Sudan's Press Council, said the article insulted the Prophet Muhammad.”

Many journalists attribute Islamist terrorism to the policies of the West. Whilst I do not support many of those policies (including the war in Iraq), it should be clearly noted that the world has witnessed Islamist terrorism in America, the UK, Spain, Kashmir, Sudan, Nigeria, Israel, Chechnya, Indonesia, Iraq, Egypt, Thailand, Philippines, Balkans, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Holland (murder of filmmaker, Theo Van Gogh), Turkey, Algeria etc. etc. What most politicians, and citizens, fail to understand is that there is a common ideology behind all these atrocities. That ideology is Muhammad's ideology.

It's time for people like to you start understanding that ideology and questioning it.

Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6930:
Nafi' b. Utba reported: We were with Allah's Messenger in an expedition that there came a people to Allah's Apostle from the direction of the west. …I remember four of the words which I repeat that he (Muhammad) said: “You will attack Arabia and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you would attack Persia and He would make you to Conquer it. Then you would attack Rome and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you would attack the Dajjal [the anti-Christ] and Allah will enable you to conquer him.”

Sahih Muslim Book 042, Number 7067:
Abdullah b. Amr b. al-As reported that Allah's Messenger said: “How would you be, oh people, when Persia and Rome would be conquered for you?” Abd at-Rahman b Auf said: “We would say as Allah has commanded us and we would express our gratitude to Allah”

Sahih Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4281:
Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal: “…the great war will be at the conquest of Constantinople…”

Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6927:
Yusair b. Jabir reported: …The enemy shall muster strength against Muslims and the Muslims will muster strength against them. I said: “You mean Rome?” And he said: “Yes, and there would be a terrible fight and the Muslims would prepare a detachment which would not return but victorious. They will fight until night will intervene them; both the sides will return without being victorious and both will be wiped out. The Muslims will again prepare a detachment for fighting unto death so that they may not return but victorious. When it would be the fourth day, a new detachment out of the remnant of the Muslims would be prepared and Allah will decree that the enemy should be routed. And they would fight such a fight the like of which would not be seen, so much so that even if a bird were to pass their flanks, it would fall down dead before reaching the end of them. That when counting would be done, (only) one out of a hundred men related to one another would be found alive. So what can be the joy at the spoils of such war and what inheritance would be divided!”

Al-Jazeera Television (Qatar), 24th January 1999
Al-Qaradhawi said, to an audience of millions of regular Muslim viewers across the world, during his regular TV show: “This means that the friends of the Prophet heard that two cities would be conquered by Islam, Romiyya and Constantinople, and the Prophet said that 'Hirqil [i.e. Constantinople] would be conquered first.' Romiyya is Rome, the capital of Italy, and Constantinople was the capital of the state of Byzantine Rome, which today is Istanbul. He said that Hirqil which is Constantinople, would be conquered first and this is what happened…”

“All right, Constantinople was conquered, and the second part of the prophecy remains, that is, the conquest of Romiyya [Rome]. This means that Islam will return to Europe. Islam entered Europe twice and left it… Perhaps the next conquest, Allah willing, will be by means of preaching and ideology. The conquest need not necessarily be by the sword…”

Al-Jazeera Television (Qatar), 30th November 2000
Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi said, "The Hadith says that the city of Constantinople, the city of Heracles, will be conquered first. We conquered Constantinople and the second part of the prophecy remains - the conquest of Romiyya [Rome]. The conquest of Romiyya means that Islam will return to Europe. In one of my previous programs, I said that I think that this conquest would not be by the sword or armies, but by preaching and ideology. Europe will see that it suffers from materialistic culture, and will seek an alternative, it will seek a way out, it will seek a lifeboat. It will find no lifesaver but the message of Islam the message of the muezzin who gives it religion but does not deny it this world, brings it to Heaven, but does not uproot it from Earth. Allah willing, Islam will return to Europe and the Europeans will convert to Islam. Then they themselves will be able to be the ones to disseminate Islam in the world, more than we ancient Muslims. This is within Allah's capabilities."

Imam of the mosque of King Fahd Defense Academy in Saudi Arabia:
“we will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.”

Muhammad's ideology has led the world into previous wars, and it is rapidly leading the world towards another war. Divisions are building rapidly.

Instead of closing your mind to reality, look at the sort of person Muhammad acutally was and start studying the psychology he used to win power and to control those around him. Use that knowledge to inform other Muslims, and maybe you'll help prevent Muhammad's ideology from leading the world into yet another war.

So... let me get this straight. Whomever is mediating this forum sees fit to post the clinically psychotic rantings of JOZEVZ, but not my post citing evidence/links about Christian terrorism by anti-abortion Christian Identity movement extremists like the Olympic bomber, Eric Rudolph, etc.? Some serious censorship going on here, and I wonder if the Washington Post editors know what's going on under their banner.

So I'll say again: For information on Christian terrorist hate groups, see the Southern Poverty Law Center website.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp

For excellent analysis of the issue in general, see Jessica Stern's book, Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill. Ecco/Harper Collins, 2003

I have so much to say on some of these comments, but let me point out something....YOU CANNOT JUST READ THE QUR'AN AND UNDERSTAND WHAT ITS MEANING AND INTENTION IS!!!

Much like Gemarrah and Talmud is to Heredim, reading a quote about killing others is a vary basic quote, much like the verses in the Qur'an about praying.

Let me ask you this...do you see anywhere in the Qur'an about how to pray??? Yet, all muslims everywhere pray a certain way. That is because, my ignorant and hateful friends, you cannot understand the Qur'an without the Hadiths and the Sunnah of the Prophet(salallahu aleihi wa'salaam) and his companions.

So, when you read a verse of the Qur'an, if you don't understand the context or the meanings of what that verse means or its application, maybe instead of spreading hate (i.e. poster above saying Muslim men only shower once a month?? Reminiscent of things the nazis said about the Jews before the holocaust) you should learn something.

And let me ask another question....heredi (orthodox Judaism) women cover their hair as well. They are not forced too, but here in the US they do. Funny, I don't hear the same violent comments I hear from them.

And if you mention that they didn't slam planes into the world trade center buildings...true true....but they do use weapons give from the US to drop them on palestinian and Labanese civilian cities.

And the peaceful christians......HAAAAA, you make me laugh. Just look at the Christians who are advocating the nuking of Iran and the expelling of the palestinians....what love they teach. Falwell, Robertson and their ilk.

Yup, we have been around for 1400 years (over a thousand years longer than the US) because we are all blood thirsty hordes who hate freedom and want to do nothing but kill and mutilate, all because you have freedoms we don't. Oh, and we eat your children. (Of course its humor. We are capable of laughing!!!)

Maybe you should actually talk to an observant Muslim before you hate us.

Concerned the Christian:

I agree that the marriages are not the main issue. I was late to jump into the game but honestly, Muhammed's particular question/nitpick on the child marriage is a bit tiresome and I felt like piping in.

But I'd also argue with you that the so-called militant passages of the Quran aren't the main point, either. A great number of people have made false conclusions about Islam, based purely on subjective opinion and emotional interpretation rather than by objective analysis. These misgivings are perpetuated by biased media coverage and, more unfortunately, substantiated by Muslims who commit acts of atrocity in the name of religion.

Comments like "Let me rephrase the proven description of Mohammed: He was an illiterate, hallucinating Arab with scribal henchmen whose major "koranic" agenda was the looting and plundering of the lands of the unbelievers" are far more entertaining to read than both my dissenting opinion and historical evidence which suggests otherwise. Besides, most people who hold such views enjoy their own ability to incite far too much to listen objectively to the opposing argument.

Doesn't make for a very congenial world, does it?

Peace,
Amina

Amina,

The "marriages" of your "prophet" are not the main issues. The issue is the militant passages of the Koran.

Let me rephrase the proven description of Mohammed: He was an illiterate, hallucinating Arab with scribal henchmen whose major "koranic" agenda was the looting and plundering of the lands of the unbelievers.

Until this militaristic agenda is removed from the Koran and deleted from the sermons of Islamic mullahs and clerics, Islam will remain a sham religion.

glen colman- muslim oppression the justification for the crusades?

thats not what the popes said at the time-

also the crusaders were in europe and no one was bothering them -

they went to jerusalem and slayed jews muslims and christians without making any distinction-

how does christians from europe going 6 times to kill christians in jerusalem justified?

at one point the blood of the slain created a river in the streets of jerusalem that came up to the knees of the horses-

yitzak- what are you going on about?

do you seriously expect people to believe that jewish people are the only ones who experience suffering, and unjust acute suffering at that?

how about the palestinians who have suffered an entire lifetime- to pay for the vengeance of your ancestors?

no ones trying to diminish the suffering of your ancestors( it wasnt you- youre sitting a a computer terminal)

but to make statmentas like this-

Also, such people do not realize that by 'elevating' their very mild and inconsequential alleged suffering to be on a par with the real and great suffering by my people, they have 'denigrated' the great sacrifice and memory of all the Holocaust Jews

suffering is suffering-

welcome to life

are you suggesting that the germans dont use the jewish experience to score points?
i dont think they are- as a matter of fact they are not even allowed to have an army-

while every single israeli has to serve in the army in israel- a country of soldiers-

theyre not suffering now are they itzak-

what about the ethipian holocaust?
the homosexuals and insane in the holocaust?
the romas?
the 1 million jehovahs witnesses?

all told over 3 million people besides jews that suffered JUST THE SAME

dont you think you denigrate their suffering by calling it a jewish holocaust?

or are you going to say they dont count?

Muhammad:

Muslims should emulate the character and the behavior of the Prophet, but it's preposterous to suggest that hand-picked incidents be presented as doctrine or highly recommended acts. In 14 years as a Muslim, I've never come across anything that suggests child marriage in Islam is highly desirable. Teen marriage was and remains far more common. Not because "the younger the better", but because it's a fact that young people are interested in having sex and marriage provides the only legal framework for sexual relationships. Not too long ago this was fairly common even in predominantly Christian America. Most Muslims would argue that surely a higher teen marriage rate is preferable to a high out-of-wedlock teen pregnancy rate! Nonetheless, even teen marriage is on the decrease due to such factors as increased opportunities for girls to pursue higher education. Far fewer girls are being raised to manage the responsibilities of marriage and home compared to the number being raised to think of school and possibly career.

Overall, the West's ongoing "fascination" with and nitpicking of Muhammad's marriage to Aishah is somewhat astounding given the occurrence of child marriages in many cultures worldwide, and given the fact that Aishah was the only child bride of the Prophet. Child marriage is a cultural, not a religious, tradition. Islam neither advocates nor forbids it. Islam does, however, give a girl or woman the right to approve or refuse an offer of marriage. The Quran also refers to spouses as being "garments" to one another, and this would suggest a certain maturity for both parties.

Furthermore, if some hadith reveal the exceptionally young age of Aishah at the time of her marriage, so do others reveal the depth of compassion, love and kindness exhibited between the Prophet and Aishah as she matured into womanhood. Muhammad demonstrated the same good traits to all of his wives. It is this aspect of Muhammad's character and behavior that is worthy of our attention and focus.

As some of Muhammad's wives were older and not as inclined towards intimacy, they didn't mind giving up their time with the Prophet so he could spend more time with Aishah. But there was no special emphasis on the sexual nature of the relationship, as physical intimacy is typically only one component, and not the focus, of a marriage.

Lastly, with regard to Muhammad's marriage to Aishah, it might be helpful to remember that not all marriages are initiated because a couple falls in love or desires sex. Many marriages, throughout history and throughout the world, occurred for other strategic reasons.

Peace,
Amina

LKT:
To Itzhak

I read not only anger but pain in your response, but... I ask you this, when does forgiveness come? IF you continue to hate and to condemn all those who have come after the Holocaust, just because they are of the same nation or same belief system, or even non-involved bystanders who did nothing to save your people, when does change occur? Hatred is a hard thing which allows no forgiveness, no understanding, no admission that the 'sins of the fathers' do not always sit upon the children until eternity. At some point, in order for peace to come to the earth, hatreds will have to be put aside (despite atrocities and injuries.) Suffering is suffering. I do not see that saying "my or our suffering is greater than yours and will always be" will ever lead to empathy for those who are different from you. Isn't it time for us all to try something different?

*

I do not hate nor condemn those who come after the Holocaust. All I'm asking is for the past oppressors of Jews to not use the Jewish Experience to score points. I take this to be spitting on the graves of my ancestors.

Also, such people do not realize that by 'elevating' their very mild and inconsequential alleged suffering to be on a par with the real and great suffering by my people, they have 'denigrated' the great sacrifice and memory of all the Holocaust Jews.

I say to these people, what you may or may not have suffered is nothing like what my people suffered in the Holocaust. So do not demean their memory just to score some cheap points.

Perhaps these people might want to visit a Holocaust museum some day and discover for themselves what real suffering is.

Shalom,
Itzhak Goldstein the Jew of Medina

"I am blown away by the amount of hatred and vitriol spewed in some of these posts...my goodness...you're no better than the people you obviously feel so superior to.

Lest anyone think Tim McVeigh was not representative of what "Christianity" is capable, let me remind you of:

The Crusades
The Inquisition
The Holocaust

Those are only the most obvious ones."

My dear Cat,

The Crusades have no basis in scripture. Please show me where our Lord Jesus Christ espoused violence and not forgiveness. I believe the Crusades were a response to the Muslim invasion of the Holy Land after tolerating Muslim aggression for 400 years. Please read up on history to find out the reasons and context of the crusades. It took the Christians 4 centuries to finally say, 'enough is enough and we're going to do something about Muslim aggression.'

The Inquisition also had no scriptural basis. It actually began as a guidance against heresy but degenerated into a witchhunt. But there is nothing in what our Lord Jesus Christ taught to justify it.

The Holocaust was carried out by Nazis against Jews. The Nazis were not following Christian teachings. In fact, Hitler repudiated Christianity.

In contrast, it is a known fact that Muhammad ordered his followers to kill disbelievers and apostates.

Cat,

Christianity certainly has a lot to answer for, but the central doctrine of Christianity does not teach or advocate hatred. Christianity has been used to justify crimes, but Jesus never taught hatred. He taught against it. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about Muhammad. Muhammad killed people and ordered their assassination. Muhammad preached utter hatred of Jews and Christians. Muhammad practiced ethnic cleansing.

Please also be aware that the Crusades were simply an attempt by Christians to recover lands which had been Christian, but were then forcefully converted to Islam.

The real problem with TV is that it is too respectful of religion. It should ask hard questions and challenge the practitioners of their faith to prove their claims?

When Muslims claim that a camel driver named Muhammad went to a cave and the god Allah talked to him why does TV not challenge Muslims? It is most critical to challenge Muslims because today Islam is the only faith that imposes laws that are strict representations from the Koran and these laws are immutable. For example a man may have four wives at a time.

I am blown away by the amount of hatred and vitriol spewed in some of these posts...my goodness...you're no better than the people you obviously feel so superior to.

Lest anyone think Tim McVeigh was not representative of what "Christianity" is capable, let me remind you of:

The Crusades
The Inquisition
The Holocaust

Those are only the most obvious ones.

Victoria,

The hadith quoted can be looked up and confirmed by anyone. The references were provided.

I'd like to ask you, and all Muslims a question. That question is this: There are hundreds of hadith recorded by the earliest Muslims which state time and again that Muhammad had sexual intercourse with a little 9 year old child, and Islam teaches that it is the duty of all good Muslim men to emulate Muhammad's behaviour, so is it moral in Islam to have sex with little 9 year old girls?

It's a simple question Victoria. If you avoid answering the question then you will be stating to the world that sex with little children is moral in Islam.

Let's have a clear answer to this simple question.

Victoria does not have an answer for all this murder. She ignores time honored haddiths. Her head is in the sand.

viejita-

go look at the israel blogs-
of course its political-

it seems everyone forgot what the topic is-
on this particular blog the issue was brought up of media maligning muslims-

the point which was so obvious i didint think it needed explaining wasnt an israeli palestinian issue-
i figured most were aware that the majority of palestinians (not in israel proper) are muslims

this was a study doe in a scientific fashion- methodology supplied for your perusal-

its proof postive by those paying attention that indeed the media is quite overwhelmingly unfair to muslims (certinly in this instance)

it has everything- facts, and figures

interpertations are quite easy to make as the figures aere so disparate

now i know everyone will scream if i make a statement based on my observation (ansd i am a keenly observant news junkie)

so i proffered this very substantive study

i notice no one has commented on it that would be too on topic, logical and also what can one say?

the conclusion is obvious

so instead silly bashers show up- go at it-
some i skip over when i sniff meanness

like the malicious nonsense spewed preceding my post-

well everyone can have their say

no one ever sees me going on jewish panelist or atheists panelists or christians and offending people there-

i dont go into others arenas and hate
if people want to come here and have bad manners- well go at it kids

if i have something positve to share i come in and share
peace

This is a question for Itzhak Goldstein and Jewish people.

I have often wondered why Jewish people cannot give a fitting reply to these Muslims sympathizers regarding Israel.

The Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Hamas, Allah's Fidayeen etc., have claimed that no peace shall exist till Jews are driven out of Israel.

Well, aside many other factors, I am somewhat appalled as to why the Jewish community cannot ask that reciprocally then all Muslims presently living in Mecca and Medina must be driven out because that was where the Jewish people also lived till Muhammad drove them out. Medina happened to be the ancestral home of many Jews. There is proof of that in the Quran and hence Jews should claim back Medina, if Muslims dare to claim back Israel (or the Al Asqa Mosque).

Why, Mr. Goldstein, do you think we do not see this sort of bold statement from the Jewish people ? What's holding back ?

Dear Deb,
Most Jews are easy-going people who disdain trouble of any sort. I suppose living for centuries as persecuted minorities mean we have a non-confrontational mindset. Most of us, but not all, just want to be left alone in peace wherever we happen to live.

However, I do think Jews are giving an adequate response to Muslims regarding Israel. Every day Isreal exists is a victory for Jews everywhere.

Every day a Muslim preacher recalls Muhammad's curse that Jews are the sons of apes and pigs it shows Jews are winning the battle. After all, these 15 million sons of apes and pigs have achieved far more than 1.2 billion Muslims.

CAIR will say anything to deceive our blind media and government. They are Jihadists and should be disbanded and kicked out of our country. That includes those traitors who claim to be Americans.

Why did these Muslims kill this Christian? Does anybody care about what the Muslims are doing? When they get enough power here they will come out in full force. They will say anything to fool our sharp media and our media will listen. By the time they figure it out American evangelists will be murdered in our streets. Off course the majority of our media is anti Christian so that should not matter much to them.

WASHINGTON, Mar. 29 /Christian Newswire/ -- The Washington-DC based human rights group, International Christian Concern (ICC) has just learned that an Ethiopian evangelist named Tedase was beaten to death by militant Muslims on Monday, March 26th, as he and two young women were on a street evangelism assignment in Jimma, Ethiopia. This marks the second time in six months that Christians residing in Southeast Ethiopia have been attacked and killed by extremist (Wahabbi) Muslims.

On Monday afternoon Tedase and two female coworkers were conducting street evangelism on Merkato Street in Jimma, Southern Ethiopia. Merkato Street runs by a Wahabbi Mosque. As the team was walking by the Mosque, a group of Muslims exited the Mosque and began to run after them to confront them. Tedase's female coworkers ran away from the mob but Tedase continued on. The Muslims caught up with Tedase, pulled him into the mosque, and savagely beat him to death. Sources from Jimma reported that Tedase was beaten with a calculated intention to kill him. This was no accident or case of mob frenzy getting out of control. His body was later taken to the hospital for an autopsy and he was buried Tuesday, March 27.

Our sources also reveal that Jimma Christians were conducting an evangelism campaign, and news of the outreach was spreading among Jimma residents as well as militant Muslim groups in the area. The Muslims that belonged to the Wahabbi sect purposefully beat Tedase to death as a message to Christians that they are ready to combat evangelism.

This is True Islam

Where are you Victoria? Do you just ignor the evil in Islam and pretend it is a ggod religion?

These Hadiths demonstrate that Islam is militant and not peaceful.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 179:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Turks; people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather. The Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose shoes are made of hair."

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "

These are respected Haddiths. What do you have to say Victoria? I know you will have an excuse.

Soooo... I gather (from the essential absence of commentary upon her long-drawn-out but still simple point) that most commenters here found Ms. Taylor's observations to be uninteresting. Well, I think that I mostly agree (see my fairly boring comment above), but I'm fascinated to see that the alternative commentary has been so full of vigor (and, unfortunately, vinegar).

DEB CHAT TER JEE et al: Hello:

You wrote, "The Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Hamas, Allah's Fidayeen etc., have claimed that no peace shall exist till Jews are driven out of Israel"...

You are absolutely correct!

Suppose The ISRAELITES packed-up and high tailed it out of there [Israel} in 40 days.

So, Who could replace a Modern Israel? Those HOODLUMS mentioned above?

Yes, it is true that Mohammad, at YATHRUB, Medina, personaly killed his Wealthy "Jewish" competitors and for not "BOW DOWN" to his new organized faith.

Note: Mohammad, would then attempt to marry the surviving spouses who he widowed. if they did not marry willfully, he would thewn refer to these quasi White Slaves as "CONCUBINES."

Mohammad also took a nine year old, non Jewish girl, for his "Wife." Not shure if she boar him children?

And Yes, We Neo-Zionists know this. And you hit it right on the Historic nerve!

ATT: The Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Hamas, Allah's Fidayeen etc, all they know is how to Blame & throw rocks at Israelis. They do not know how to turn Deserts into Paradises.

They are a hot blooded, womaizing control freaks, they are Lazy and they will take what is yours if you let them! includes Wife & kids * Fortune. Ya Ya.

They are Jealous and they work for mainly "SAUDI-ARABIA" The Satanic promoter & conspirator who wnays a monopology on all your Religious sites too.

So Israel is there to stay until Earth is no more in 5 Billion more years. But ALL known religions today will also go POOF-TIME too! Ya Ya. :=)/

By the way, and this should probably be a separate thread, Muslim violent activism tends to be rooted in identity politics, not faith. It pains me that Victoria, who is so eloquent in defense of her faith, doesn't recognize that the problems of the Palestinians have much more to do with politics than with religion. What do you expect between two ancient ethnic groups with claims to the same spot of ground? Middle easterners seem to regard the Israelis as a European-style colonial power. I don't know about recent years, but back in the day the Palestinian nation also included a significant Christian minority. The original Arab-Israeli conflict wasn't between different interpretations of prophesy. It was between modernist and traditionalist ways of life.

If I accept the right of Osama Bin Laden and Islamic Jihad to speak for all Muslims, then don't I have to accept the right of Pat Robertson and Operation Rescue to speak for all Christians?
Our activists are just as vocal and insistent that they are articulating the true motives of G-d. How come we're allowed to reject our wackos and extremists and our Muslim friends aren't allowed to disavow theirs?

This is a question for Itzhak Goldstein and Jewish people.

I have often wondered why Jewish people cannot give a fitting reply to these Muslims sympathizers regarding Israel.

The Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Hamas, Allah's Fidayeen etc., have claimed that no peace shall exist till Jews are driven out of Israel.

Well, aside many other factors, I am somewhat appalled as to why the Jewish community cannot ask that reciprocally then all Muslims presently living in Mecca and Medina must be driven out because that was where the Jewish people also lived till Muhammad drove them out. Medina happened to be the ancestral home of many Jews. There is proof of that in the Quran and hence Jews should claim back Medina, if Muslims dare to claim back Israel (or the Al Asqa Mosque).

Why, Mr. Goldstein, do you think we do not see this sort of bold statement from the Jewish people ? What's holding back ?

looooooooooooooooserrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs

Poor Jack Fertig,
What a funny Jew you are. Are you a member of Jews for Allah?

How can the Jews of Medina be traitors to Muhammad? Even if they were so, do you think as a Jew that it was right of Muhammad to kill all the men and enslave the women and children?

What sort of Jew are you? What Muhammad did was nothing short of genocide.

I'm also of the opinion that the Jews of Medina were not traitors. They were minding their own business and never threatened Muhammad at all. You of course do not know the story of how Muhammad went to the Jews to ask them to accept him as their Messiah. They, of course, refused since he was no Messiah but a false prophet. At which, Muhammad became angry and cursed them and told them he would drive them out of their homes.

Which he did.

Therefore, I don't believe you are a Jew at all, but a Muslim in disguise.

I'm also unhappy the Muslims use Jews to elicit sympathy for their supposed 'plight' in America. Whatever they may or may not be experiencing is 1 million times less than what my family suffered under the hands of the Nazis and 1 million times less than what my family has suffered under the hands of the Muslims.

When I read about how my Jewish ancestors had to suffer under the Ottomans, and the many progroms under Muslim rule I find any Muslim using the Jewish Experience to elicit sympathy to be extremely distasteful. You are spitting on the graves of my forefathers when you, as the arch oppressor of Jews throughout the centuries, dare use our Jewish suffering to elicit any sympathy for yourselves.

Shalom,
Itzhak Goldstein the Jew of Medina

When people make reasoned statements, sometimes with evidence to support their statements, it is unreasonable to merely dismiss their views as 'biased'.

If you don't present your arguments to refute those statements and merely claim they are biased you have shown an inability to articulate the opposing view and are merely trying to silence critics by demonizing them as 'biased'.

To have a discussion both sides must present their views and any supporting evidence. The moment one side merely gives up and labels the other 'biased' without showing why, to me that is an admission of defeat.

Shalom

My earlier message was not posted because I see this is a very biased if you're not Muslim

We are waiting for a rebuttal with references proving that Mohammed was not an illiterate, hallucinating pedophile whose scribe hencemen wrote the Koran to establish their agenda of looting/plundering the lands of the non-believers.

And by the way, this "koranic" agenda is exactly why Islamic butchery is on the news 24/7.

patrick- well i guess the phrase 'mea culpa' is not lost on you brother-

MIRIAM- heres th hadith i was responding to woth mirth-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 179:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Turks; people with small eyes, red faces, and flat noses. Their faces will look like shields coated with leather. The Hour will not be established till you fight with people whose shoes are made of hair."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Abu Hurairah was a contemporary of the Prophet(pbuh)- as this is attributed to his transmission- although he didnt sign it it's one of the fake Muhammads posts-

Abu Hurairah is a personal favorite of mine-
it is said he wore wide bell sleeves to conceal the fact that he was always carrying around kittens and his name is synonymous with father of cats- he really loved cats-

once in chicago about 4 years ago a friend of mine stopped by an jokingly referred to me as om hurairah- (mother of cats)
the VERY NEXT DAY a brother from the mosque called me and told me they had a homeless cat, pleeeease no one would take her- he'd come get me-
so he picked me up (which was suspicious in itself, why couldnt he have dropped the kitty off?) and took me to his old apartment building and in a recently abandoned apartment was a cat - a noticeably preganat cat- which we had to cajole and capture- and i said - hey senad! this cat is pregnant! he ws like- 'o no sister, i think shes just fat-' i said 'no way shes ready to drop right now, and when she does, im beringing all her homeless little babies and sticking them in the middle of the mosque in a box'.
he said'well, if she IS, then ill buy all the cat food and litter' (and vitamins i said) so we got the stuff and the cat and ill be a monkeys uncle if a couple of days later she didnt have 7 SEVEN kittens- i called my friend khadija and said'thanks alot- dont ever call me that again!' and we laughed and laughed (some more than others)

well babies and mom all got placed- one little girl got one (they were born july 8) and that was her birthday too- and another lady i met on the bus and she had a baby and HIS birthday was july 8th and she took2!

so i came to new york almost a year ago- sans cats- and no one believed im a cat magnet- darned if my landlady isnt feeding a stray cat- i said 'that cats pregant...'
long story short i have 4 6 month old cats right now- one is the dirtiest cat who ever lived he has never cleaned himself to my knowledge worse yet hes the only white(well gray) one.
what was my point?
o yes-

JAKOB- MOVE SLOWLY AWAY-
AWAY FROM THE KOOL AID BROTHER-
JUST SAY NO!!!!!!!!!!!!

peace all

Quoting OT passages is not good religion anymore is you believe what 1.5 million Conservative Jews have concluded.

From http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

"New Torah For Modern Minds

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document. "

i.e. Just like the NT and the Koran, the OT is in significant need of a rewrite.

So much trash posted on this discussion board while the OP's point was completely missed.

I believe that the specific post is about double-standards and pre-judgement of Islam in the US media and in the US population, which is completely true. Ask yourself this:

1. How many cartoons about Muslim terrorists have you seen lately?

2. How many comments have you heard about Muslims within the last month, and how probable was it that the said comment is of a negative tone?
3. How many trash talk radio hosts have been demonizing muslims?

3. How many FOX news reports are about Arab terrorists and how the Middle East should be taught a lesson?

4. How many news reports are actually about Arabs instead of how bad the Arabs are?

5. How many news reports are actually about Palestinian/Arab losses instead of reporting ad nauseum about Isreali losses? (gross negligence by the Media, but we Americans are too stupid to read between the news casts anyways)

While you are at it and thinking about some nasty comments about how sympathetic I am to Muslims and how they do not deserve such sympathy (and or calling me an idiot or a fool or a traitor), think about this:

1. Some of the subsequent posts are completely NOT about the OP's message

2. How many self-righteous posts are written to show that SOMEHOW Christians are morally superior compared to the Muslims (despite the fact that Christians invented the Crusades and only crawled out of the Dark Ages after the Crusades - ie after "rediscovering" logic, Aristotle, etc through Muslim scrolls and library texts)

3. How many self-righteous posts are written to show that Jews disdain being compared to Muslims, despite that this has NOTHING to do with the OP (and despite the fact that the Jews weren't exactly saints when they took Palestine)

4. How many posts try to indicate that SOMEHOW Muslims are inferior to Christians because they have a clause that allows Jihad - as if Christians have a right to talk when Christians invented the Inquisition.

Hey, this is a flame post and I admit it. The subsequent posts after the OP are mostly garbage, and I am trying to actually frame the debate in a way as to flame the garbage. I do have to admit, I am curious as to how much garbage will pile up AFTER my flame post just to prove that I am one naughty stupid boy

We've covered this ground repeatedly, even exhaustively, but what the heck, I will try it again... The "MEDIA" isn't deciding to label Islamic extremists as such. The extremists DEMAND to be labelled as such. They may well be inaccurate in their self-labelling, and it may be much more proper only to discuss them in terms of their various mental illnesses and social pathologies, but it definitely is not an invention or even an unfair characterization invented by the "media".

concerned

No commnets to idiotic commments like yours. As usual you are stupid, ignorant and rude. Why don't you learn to have manners firts.

Well I think we've thrown out enough Quran quotations about violence to make this justified. I write this as a devoted, but realistic Christian who is very aware of the violent past of my own Catholic brand of worship.

From Numbers 31:

"The LORD said to Moses, "Avenge the Israelites on the Midianites, and then you shall be taken to your people." …They waged war against the Midianites, as the LORD had commanded Moses, and killed every male among them….But the Israelites kept the women of the Midianites...

"Moses became angry with the officers of the army, the clan and company commanders, who were returning from combat. "So you have spared all the women!" he exclaimed… Slay, therefore, every male child and every woman who has had intercourse with a man. But you may spare and keep for yourselves all girls who had no intercourse with a man…"

God says in Deut 31 and 32, "I will make My arrows drunk with blood, as My sword devours flesh" of the enemies of Israel

One of MANY massacres at the command of God in Joshua and Judges: "Since those in the city came out to intercept them, the men of Ai were hemmed in by Israelites on either side, who cut them down without any fugitives or survivors
except the king, whom they took alive and brought to Joshua. All the inhabitants of Ai who had pursued the Israelites into the desert were slain by the sword there in the open, down to the last man. Then all Israel returned and put to the sword those inside the city. There fell that day a total of twelve thousand men and women, the entire population of Ai."

One of many, many violent pledges God makes in Jeremiah (and all the other prophets): "But this is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, vengeance on his foes! The sword devours, is sated, drunk with their blood: for the Lord GOD of hosts holds a slaughter feast in the northland, on the Euphrates. Go up to Gilead, and take balm, O virgin daughter Egypt! No use to multiply remedies; for you there is no cure. The nations hear of your shame, your cries fill the earth. Warrior trips over warrior, both fall together."

There are SO many more examples of violence in the Bible, before, after, and during the period the "Thous Shalt Not Kill" thing was introduced. Since, there has been plenty of justified killings by Christians.

Jesus was directly at odds with all of his people's history and the history of people that have followed him since, which is why he is so remarkable.

What should be said about Mohammed in the media:

Mohammed was an illiterate, hallucinating about "pretty wingy thingies", pedophile with scribe henchmen writing their own "koranic" agendas (looting/plundering the lands of non-believers in God's name).

What no rebuttals??

The only thing I agree with from you letter, is that you didn't blame everything on the Jews. Aside from that, I think I'll listen to the guys flying airplanes into building, rather than some white women looking for an apology. Americans don't like most Muslims for a reason.(See above comment about airplanes, if your too dense to understand that)

If Muslims are not all alike, that is something you should bring up in YOUR Mosque, not in our newspapers. If you had the courage to do that, then maybe I could take you seriously.

We all need to ignore completely the same old Islam bashers and Muslim haters who regularly abuse this forum. We should stick to the Topic discussed regardless of these rabbies-infected dogs.

John D The First wrote;

"I spent time in the Middle East. Muslims are, according to my limited experience, the most hospitable folks I've ever met. Where do you see that on the news?"

That's a pretty accurate observation. But, the same hospitable folks (Muslims) would never bother to zealously cut your throat if ever you got into an argument over religion (Islam) or stated that Muhammad was not a messenger of Allah, or that all other religious traditions were at least equal to Islam. In Islamic badlands the mullahs in the madrassas have enforced the divine message in Quran [005:033]. (This verse is available at http://www.usc.edu/dept/msa/quran).

Go try these western practices in Pakistan, for example, and you shall experience first hand what happens to you.

I have no problems with what happens internally in Pakistan (or any other Islamic badland), so long as it stays there. But, when Muslims migrate into USA and bring that mindset/tradtion etc here which trounce the secular, freethinking values then the conflict begins.

I recently came to know that Somali cabdrivers in Madison, Wisconsin, USA, are refusing passengers who are carrying pork or liquor into their cabs. This is outrageous ! If this trend continues, then what is happening in Netherlands, Britain etc., shall happen here too !

With closing, I'd like to ask a question to all these self-styled bleeding heart liberal sympathizer of this Pam Taylor article.

We have seen the violence over Muhammad cartoons in Denmark. Can anyone show me anything similar regarding Christians going on a lunatic rampage over Dan Brown's fictional novel and movie, DaVinci Code, or, better still the movie The Last Temptation of Christ ? In both these movies, which had a worldwide audience it is shown that Christ married, had kids and probably did not die on the Cross. To my knowledge these are direct attacks on the very foundations of the Christian belief. How many non-Christians have the Christians killed due to the screening of the DaVinci Code ? Can you just compare what happened with the fictional novel Satanic Verses, authored by Salman Rushdie ?

If these direct comparisons cannot convince you on the nature of Islamic traditions, I am afraid that USA shall soon embrace Sharia laws, something that CAIR wants desperately. The 1st Amendment (of the US Constitution) will then be the first to be slaughtered.

Still have doubts ????

We all need to ignore completely the same old Islam bashers and Muslim heaters who regularly abuse this forum. We should stick to the Topic discussed regardless of these rabbies-infected dogs.

Pamela,
Thanks for an honest and succinct articulation of the very critical and negitive role of US media on Islam and Muslims.

Muhammad:"the imposter"

Tell Me honestly who controls MOST of the US MEDIA?

" i glanced at your hadiths and had to laugh-

THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS TURKS IN THE TIME OF THE PROPHET(PBUH)!!!!!!!!!"

Victoria,
Where does Muhammed talk about Turks? I did not see that he referenced any Turks. Please enlighten us.

Well Anonymous, looks like you get to go a round or two with Deb. Good luck!

Isn't that post just priceless?! She is so knowledgeable and compassionate, I am just beside myself!

How...how...very Christian.

I don't know very much about Islam. I would like to learn more. But I would never think I am learning anything about Islam by reading these posts.

I do learn certain disgruntled folks' faul, extremely biased version of Islam and their self rightous inflation of their own world view in relation to it. Very interesting phenomena.

I spent time in the Middle East. Muslims are, according to my limited experience, the most hospitable folks I've ever met. Where do you see that on the news?

HA HA!! Another moron who calls 'Muslim' a race!!

Tell you what...if you can describe what this 'race' looks like, comes from and speaks like I'll take back my view that you're a total idiot Anon.

Muslims are members of a religion. They are no more a 'race' than members of any club.

It's just that your fetid club is the most vile, dangerous, oppressive and barbaric club in the world.

Hey Frank:

The Bible isn't a history book. Better check it. Most of the tales in it are borrowed from other religions and cultures.

While I know little of Islam, I would like to say this: Both religions need overhauls, plain and simple. The extremist followers of both religions need to lighten up and focus more on your fellow man. You gotta find out that enlightenment comes from within, not from a book. The Bible: the world's first self-help book. Personally, I'd give it back, because it doesn't apply today.

FROM THE KORAN:
The Hadith No. 284, The Muslim, volume one, says that any Jew or Christian, who heard of Muhammad but did not convert to Islam, and died in disbelief, would rot in hell! Thus Islam withdraws from all Jews and Christians the right to believe in their faiths, and pratice them as such.
"The unbelievers of the People of the Book and the idolators shall be in the Fire of Hell therein dwelling for ever; those are the worst of creatures. But those who believe, and do righteous deeds, those are the best of creatures..." (XCVIII: The Clear Sign: 5)
Here those Jews and Christians, who spurn Islam, have been lumped together with the idolators such as the Hindus, and classified as 'the worst of creatures'. Therefore the Koran commands:
"O believers, take not as your friends those of them, who were given the Book before you, and the unbelievers, who take your religion in mockery and as a sport..." (V: The Table: 60)
"The true believers say: Has not God ordered a chapter that commands the holy war" (Sura 47:22); or elsewhere: "Kill the idolaters wherever you find them, imprison them, besiege them, ambush them" (Sura 9:5); and, "Make war on unbelievers" (Sura 9:29). "When you come upon unbelievers, massacre them, tighten the bands of the captives that you will have taken. Then you will set them free, or you will release them for a ransom" (Sura 8:57).
"To Allah, there are no animals viler than those who do not believe and remain unbelievers" (Sura 8:57). That is why it is necessary to Islamize them by force and by humiliation. And those who resist Islam and its founder must be chastised, according to the Koran: "Here is the fate of those who fight Allah and his messenger: you will put them to death or you will make them suffer the torture of the cross; you will cut their hands and their feet alternately. They will be driven from the country" (Sura 5:37).
"Do not display cowardice, and do not call the infidels to peace when you are superior to them" (Sura 47:22). THIS ALLOWS THEM TO MAKE PEACE SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE WAR AGAIN LATER.
4.89": They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
"4.90": Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.
"4.91": You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority.
AND THERE ARE LOTS MORE.

Assalamu'alaikum,

If there is no child molestation in the Middle East, then why were two of the first three criminals in Saudi Arabi after the first Gulf War put to death for child molestation?

I think you need to improve on your figures. No culture is without its murderers, rapists, etc. Nor can quantity apply to a tradegy where 1 is too many.

Wassalam

typicle of a lying islamic. you call everyone not islamic - if they happen to fight against murders that are islamic - you call them crusader dogs.
and lets not forget the bible recites historical events, the koran demands future conduct. so when the bible talks about a battle and murder - it does not command jews to murder and declare war forever on anyone not a jew.
the koran specifically demands that islamics not only refuse to take jews and christians as frriends, but that you do not work with them. it further demands that anyone not islamic be converted or killed by cutting them into parts.
we have the koran to read. you cant lie to us anymore.

Anonymous:

You wrote:

"So because of the one thousand Al qaeda terrorists that exist, we demean a whole religion?"

ABSOLUTELY ! B'coz these Al-Qaeeda terrorists have claimed to be inspired by the Quran. No one Muslim has confronted them with reason to show why they are wrong. That's why we must hate Islam - just because of the venomous message.

P.S.: Hating Islam (which is the message) is NOT synonymous with hating the people. (All Muslims are not terrorists, but 9/11 terrorists were Muslims.) It's like saying because someone hates Stalinism, by default s/he also hates those who lived under Stalinist rule. Of course dimwits can't figure out the difference.

Lol. I love the racists who always show up.Everytime one of you racists opens his or her mouth, Islam gets another 100 converts by the hour. Thanks!
I enjoyed the article very much however, I would like to add that Muslems and Middle Easterners as a group, have the lowest crime rate in America as determined by the Justice Department's last release.
If us muslems are so violent and our religion so bad, why do we have a 1% murder rate, a 1% rape rate, a 1% crime rate and no child molestations in our countries? Why America and the "western world" leads the world in violent crimes amongst its own citizens? I mean, China russia and most of the Eastern world do not have these problems. Where is the great reporters for that?
My point is not to demean anyone. America is the greatest by far. But 10% of the country is in jails lol.i guarentee you they call themselves Christians.
So because of the one thousand Al qaeda terrorists that exist, we demean a whole religion? Please do not make me copy and paste violent passages from the Bible. I will be here a week doing it. In contrast, there might be 10 verses in the Koran doing that.

Victoria:

Try understanding Miriam's views.

TALK AMONGST YOURSELVES

and if you kids dont stop fighting, I SWEAR ILL TURN THIS CAR AROUND!!

Since opinions can lack credibility if one doesnt know the source of their reasoning, here is a study by a media watch group on the san francisco chronicle-touted as one of the more liberal mainstream newspapers ( not implying liberal is synonymous with fairness, but the more conservative media has the dual motive of justifying a war on a muslim country- and has been aggressively anti-muslim)

Our findings indicate significantly inaccurate coverage by the San Francisco Chronicle of these topics. We found a vast disparity in the likelihood of a death receiving coverage based on the ethnicity of the person killed. For the first six months of the current uprising, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on 111% of Israeli deaths and only 38% of Palestinian deaths in the headlines and/or the first paragraphs of the 251 articles on the topic.

This discrepancy was even more exaggerated in the Chronicle’s coverage of the killing of children. During the six- month study period, Palestinian children were being killed at a far higher rate than Israeli children — 27 % of Palestinians killed were under 18 (93 children), while only 6 % of Israelis killed were minors (4 children). Yet Chronicle headlines and/or first paragraphs reported the killing of only 5 Palestinian children, while headlines and/or first paragraphs reported 6 Israeli children killed (one Israeli teenager’s death was reported three times).

In other words, the Chronicle covered 150 % of Israeli children's deaths and only 5 % of Palestinian children's deaths, giving readers the impression that approximately equal numbers of youths had been killed on both sides. Thus, while the death of an Israeli child was prioritized above the killing of an adult, the killing of a Palestinian child was de-prioritized, despite the abnormally high percentage Palestinian children made up of the casualties. One would expect the fact that Palestinian children constituted such a high percentage of deaths to have been considered newsworthy in itself, not the reverse.

Regarding Chronicle coverage of cumulative totals, information that would have at least somewhat ameliorated the above misimpressions, we found that only 12 stories (or 4.8 %) of 251 news stories on this topic contained cumulative totals of deaths on both sides somewhere in the article. There was not a single report on the total number injured.

Finally, only 1.2 % of stories about Israel/Palestine contained information about U.S. aid to Israel and the Palestinians, despite the fact that such aid is an integral factor in the current conflict, and that aid to Israel accounts for approximately 30 percent of total U.S. international aid expenditures.

We are providing our findings to the San Francisco Chronicle in the hope that it will help them to fulfill their goal of accurately reporting the news. We are also providing this study to readers to help them evaluate the Chronicle as a source for understanding the Israel/Palestine conflict in all of its complexities.

Introduction

Beginning in 2003, If Americans Knew began issuing a report card to major media across the country on their coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This study of the San Francisco Chronicle covers the first six months of the current uprising (September 29, 2000 through March 31, 2001). We chose this particularly significant period because it set the context within which all subsequent reporting on the conflict is viewed.

Given that the media have a desire and a responsibility to cover this topic accurately, we provide these reports in the hope that our analyses can assist them in this goal.

In addition, we are making these reports public, as a way to help readers evaluate for themselves the reliability of their sources of information on this issue.

The goal of this report is to

* Establish agreed-upon standards for assessing accuracy in reporting
* Provide, in a consistent format, an assessment of the publication’s accuracy in reporting on the Israel/Palestine conflict.

Methodology

We recognize that reporting on Israel/Palestine has been an exceptionally controversial topic. Therefore, while there are many potential yardsticks for measuring accuracy, we chose criteria that would be universally acknowledged to be highly significant and not be construed as at all subjective.

1. Coverage of Casualties
We counted the number of Israeli and Palestinian deaths the San Francisco Chronicle reported on:

* In absolute numbers, and
* As a percentage of total deaths for Israelis and Palestinians respectively. We broke these numbers down into three specific categories:
o All headlines and/or first paragraphs
o Front-page headlines and/or first paragraphs only
o Children’s deaths reported in all headlines and/or first paragraphs. (No children’s deaths were reported on the front page).
* The number of times that cumulative totals of deaths and injuries were reported

We chose this yardstick because it is simple, quantitative and relatively immune to subjective interpretation. In addition, we wanted to discover whether the San Francisco Chronicle demonstrates even-handed respect for human life, regardless of ethnic or religious origin. Finally, because headlines are often among the most prominent aspects of coverage that the reader absorbs, we believe they play a disproportionate role in generating an overall impression about the conflict and the relative consequences for Israelis and Palestinians.

Additionally, we chose to count the number of times the Chronicle provided its readers with the total number of Israelis and Palestinians killed and injured because, given the ongoing nature of daily news reporting, an understanding of the overall context may be lost without such cumulative totals being periodically reported as accurately as possible.

2. U.S. Connection
Finally, we looked at how often the specific American connection to the conflict — U. S. aid to Israel/Palestine — was covered fully and accurately. We counted the number of times such aid was mentioned, and then evaluated whether the sum reported was accurate; for example, whether aid to Israel reported both major segments of U.S. assistance — military and foreign aid — as well as additional subsidies such as loan forgiveness programs (see Appendix B).
Coverage of Casualties

For the first six months of the current uprising, 72 San Francisco Chronicle headlines and/or first paragraphs reported on Israeli deaths. During this time, there had actually been only 65 Israelis killed (the discrepancy is due to the fact that a number of Israeli deaths were reported multiple times).

During the same six-month period, 129 reported on Palestinian deaths were reported in headlines and/or first paragraphs. During this time, 343 Palestinians had actually been killed. 2

The total numbers of Israeli and Palestinian deaths were obtained from the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem.

Figure 1
Chart showing that during the first six months of the current uprising, 65 Israelis and 343 Palestinians were killed.

In other words, 111% of Israeli deaths and only 38% of Palestinian deaths were reported in San Francisco Chronicle headlines and/or the first paragraph of relevant articles.

Figure 2
Chart showing that during the first six months of the current uprising, the San Francisco Chronicle reported 111% of Israeli deaths compared to 38% of Palestinian deaths.
Front-Page Coverage of Deaths

For the first six months of the current uprising, 12 Israeli deaths were reported in the headlines and/or first paragraphs of the San Francisco Chronicle articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict. This constituted 18% of Israeli deaths.

Twenty-eight Palestinian deaths, or 8% of the total Palestinians killed, were reported in front-page headlines and/or first paragraphs.

In other words, Israeli deaths were given front-page prominence at a rate over twice that of Palestinian deaths.

Figure 3
Chart showing that during the first six months of the current uprising, the San Francisco Chronicle reported 38% of Israeli deaths compared to 8% of Palestinian deaths on the front page.
Coverage of Children’s Deaths

For the first six months of the current uprising, 6 Israeli children’s deaths were reported in the headlines and/or first paragraphs of the San Francisco Chronicle articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict, compared with 5 Palestinian children’s deaths. (Children are defined as those that are 17 and below).

Figure 4
Chart showing that during the first six months of the current uprising, the San Francisco Chronicle reported 6 Israeli children's deaths and 5 Palestinian children's deaths in headlines and lead paragraphs.

According to B’Tselem, during this time, there were actually 4 Israeli and 93 Palestinian children killed.3 Based on these totals, it is clear that, during this period, Palestinian children were being killed at a much higher rate than Israeli children. Children’s deaths accounted for 27% of the Palestinians killed, while children’s deaths accounted for only 6% of Israelis killed during this period.

Figure 5
Chart showing that during the first six months of the current uprising, 4 Israeli children and 93 Palestinian children were killed.

The next chart summarizes the reporting of children’s deaths for the whole six months. It compares the number of deaths reported in headlines and/or first paragraphs to the number of deaths omitted, for Israelis and Palestinians respectively. While only 4 Israeli children were killed during the study-period, every one received prominent coverage, and one received such coverage twice. In contrast, the killings of almost 90 of the Palestinian children merited no such headline coverage.

Figure 6
Chart showing that during the first six months of the current uprising, every Israeli child's death was reported prominently (sometimes more than once), while only 5 out of 93 Palestinian children's deaths were reported prominently.

* There were actually only 4 Israeli children killed during the first six months of the current uprising. One Israeli child’s death was reported in three different headlines.

In other words, 150% of Israeli children’s deaths and only 5% of Palestinian children’s deaths were reported by the San Francisco Chronicle in headlines and/or the first paragraph of relevant articles.

Figure 7
Chart showing that during the first six months of the current uprising, the Chronicle reported 150% of Israeli children's deaths and only 5% of Palestinian children's deaths.
Coverage of Cumulative Totals

During the first six months of the current uprising, the San Francisco Chronicle reported the total number of Israeli and Palestinian deaths in 12 out of 251 news articles (or 4.8% of news articles) on the Israel-Palestine conflict. During this period, Palestinians were being killed at a rate approximately 5.3 times greater than Israelis.

The Chronicle never reported the total number of injuries broken down by who was injured. Only once did the paper venture into this territory: in an article nine days into the conflict, paragraph 15 stated that there had been “...more than 2,000 injured, the vast majority of them Palestinian.” [Oct. 8, 2000, “Barak: ‘This is a turning point’: Israel prime minister threatens to use greater force, issues warning to Arafat”]

Figure 8
Chart showing that during the first six months of the current uprising, the Chronicle reported the cumulative number of Palestinians and Israelis killed in only 12 out of 251 articles on the issue.
Coverage of the US Connection

During the six-month study period, the San Francisco Chronicle reported partial information about U.S. aid to Israel/Palestine three times out of 251 articles (or in 1.2% of the stories) on the conflict. Never was the information provided full and accurate (see Appendix A - Tally Sheet B, and Appendix B).

Figure 9
Chart showing that during the first six months of the current uprising, the Chronicle reported on US aid to Israel and the Palestinians in only three out of 251 articles on the topic.
Conclusion

We are concerned about the results of this examination. We believe the readers of the San Francisco Chronicle, as well as all Americans, are entitled to full and accurate reporting on all issues, including the topic of Israel/Palestine.

Given that the Chronicle had ample coverage of this issue (251 stories), it is troubling that so much critical information for American readers was so minimally reported. Further, our findings suggest a pattern of distortion in San Francisco Chronicle coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict inconsistent with normal journalistic standards.

Such a pattern of distortion, in which readers were given the impression that the Israeli death rate was greater than it was, and that the Palestinian death rate was considerably smaller than its reality, may serve to misinform readers rather than inform them.

In particular, our study showed immense distortion in the coverage of children’s deaths. By covering nearly identical numbers of Israeli and Palestinian children’s deaths in headlines and/or first paragraphs, the paper suggested an equivalency in death rates for the two groups, when in actuality over twenty times more Palestinian children had been killed during this period, over 90 percent of them before the first Israeli child’s death.

Such coverage, in which virtually equal numbers of Israeli and Palestinian children’s deaths were given prominence, may give Chronicle readers an impression of balanced reporting that an examination of this six-month period does not justify.

We assume that the San Francisco Chronicle is as disturbed as we have been to find these shortfalls in its quest to provide excellent news reporting to its readers. Now that it has been alerted to these distortions in its Israel-Palestine coverage, we encourage the Chronicle to undertake whatever changes necessary to provide accurate news coverage of this vital issue. We hope that our next report will show an improvement. We will be pleased to report this to the public.
Endnotes

1. If Americans Knew is dedicated to providing full and accurate information to the American public on topics of importance that are underreported or misreported in the American media. Our primary area of focus at this time is Israel/Palestine.

2. These numbers do not include Palestinians civilians who died as a result of inability to reach medical care due to Israeli road closures, curfews, etc. The figure for Palestinian deaths is extremely conservative given that it was difficult for this organization to report on deaths in the Palestinian territories. Palestinian medical organizations report a higher number for this period. For example, the Palestine Red Crescent Society, internationally respected for its statistical rigor, reports that 409 Palestinians were killed during this time.

3. These numbers do not include Palestinians children who died as a result of inability to reach medical care due to Israeli road closures, curfews, etc. The figure for Palestinian deaths is extremely conservative given that it was difficult for this organization to report on deaths in the Palestinian territories. Palestinian medical organizations report a higher number for this period.
In other words, the Chronicle covered 150 % of Israeli children's deaths and only 5 % of Palestinian children's deaths, giving readers the impression that approximately equal numbers of youths had been killed on both sides. Thus, while the death of an Israeli child was prioritized above the killing of an adult, the killing of a Palestinian child was de-prioritized, despite the abnormally high percentage Palestinian children made up of the casualties. One would expect the fact that Palestinian children constituted such a high percentage of deaths to have been considered newsworthy in itself, not the reverse.

Regarding Chronicle coverage of cumulative totals, information that would have at least somewhat ameliorated the above misimpressions, we found that only 12 stories (or 4.8 %) of 251 news stories on this topic contained cumulative totals of deaths on both sides somewhere in the article. There was not a single report on the total number injured.

Finally, only 1.2 % of stories about Israel/Palestine contained information about U.S. aid to Israel and the Palestinians, despite the fact that such aid is an integral factor in the current conflict, and that aid to Israel accounts for approximately 30 percent of total U.S. international aid expenditures

now one might wonder- if this is a study of a liberal newspaper, what would a study of a conservative one reveal.

MUHAMMAD (although we know thats not your real name)

i glanced at your hadiths and had to laugh-

THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS TURKS IN THE TIME OF THE PROPHET(PBUH)!!!!!!!!!

are you sayng that the Prphet(pbuh) was psychic?
then such a gift of prophecy must also have come from ALLAH- but he wasnt

anyway- since people need substantiated proof of the medias treatment- a media watch group did a study- methodology included

note how the headlines treated the deaths of children

israeli children 150% (how over 100% you ask?)

palestinian children 5 %

150% to 5%

4 israeli children were killed in a 6 month period

each death given a headline
ONE DEATH REPORTED 3 SEPARATE TIMES IN THE HEADLINES GIVING THE IMPRESSION THAT ISRAELI DEATHS WERE MORE THAN PALESTINIANS

palestinian childrens deaths 93

reported 5 times

israeli 4 palestinian 93

4-93

id like to post the link, but the study has been
moved- so i have to copy the study here

Danny,

Here's the truth about Muhammad and Islam:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=20936

"The truth about Muhammad has been one of the world's best-kept secrets. For centuries, it has been virtually impossible to raise objections about the character of Muhammad in Muslim countries, for anyone who raised such objections would (following the example set by Muhammad himself) immediately be killed. Outside the Muslim world, there has been little interest in Islam, and those who have been interested have typically relied on modern Muslim reports about Muhammad, such as the above passage from Mawdudi. But things have changed. Now many people are interested in Islam, and Muslims aren't able to silence everyone. Moreover, with the advent of the Internet, it is now impossible to keep Muhammad's life a secret. The facts about the founder of Islam are spreading very rapidly, and Muslims are frantically scurrying to defend their faith. But the information superhighway is paving over the ignorance that has for centuries been the stronghold of Islamic dogma. In the end, Islam will fall, for the entire structure is built upon the belief that Muhammad was the greatest moral example in history, and this belief is demonstrably false."

If you want more then join us at
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum

Jack Fertig,

Though it took me a second...Touche!

As to the rest of your post(s), thanks for the interesting points to ponder.

Assalaamu Aleikum

This discussion is having remarkably little to do with media bias against Muslims, but sure is showing its results! What a plethora of people who claim to know so much about Islam...

It would be so easy to similarly pull out the ravings of Father Coughlin, Cotton Mather, Pat Robertson, and Adolf Hitler insisting these are the true Christians along with the witchburners, the gaybashers, the child-marrying Mormon sects, Bush's generals who go to Iraq claiming that they are working on the behalf of God and Christ....

sigh.

Thank you, Danny. But if you really think empathy is a particularly human trait, get yourself a dog.

To the guy who mocked angels as "wingy-things" making them sound like a cross between unicorns and the tooth fairy, the image is a traditional allegorical device. All the stuff in scripture about angels may be allegorical, too. If they exist the image of winged humans would surely not apply. Are there spirit beings on another level such as angels? Scientifically it sounds absurd, but today's scientific common place was "absurd" in the previous century. The continued quest for scientific knowledge is evidence that there is plenty scientists don't know or can't account for.

Poor, sad, tortured Yitzhak... Hitler told us what right-thinking Germans should think and do. Pat Roberson similarly instructs "right-thinking" Christians. I prefer to believe that people have a right to think for themselves, and that traditions of intellectual freedom, debate, and inquiry that were so long at the center of Jewish cultural life was what made Jewish culture and philosophy so incredibly rich.

As the Rabbi Hillel said, "If I am not for myself, who will be? If I am not for others, what am I?" Your insistance that others cannot compare to the Jewish condition is to deny the humanity of the Jews. (And I repreat: "to compare" is only to find some similarities which are of course limited, never ruling out the huge differences and unique qualities on either side.)

My family is German Jewish. I was raised on the Holocaust stories, too, and share a horror of religious bigotry, but not just against Jews. Others -- gays, gypsies, religious and political dissidents -- were also persecuted by the Nazis, and while the Jews got the worst of it, someone else would have been put in that place once they ran out of Jews.

When Muhammed (pbuh) was leading the defense of the then small and besieged Muslim community, they had a number of allies among neighboring tribes. One such tribe was Jewish and those particualr Jews betrayed their alliance. The texts against "the Jews" in the Qur'an are very specific alluding to a small group of traitors. Outside of this particular instance the Qur'an teaches respect for Christians and Jews.

Historically anti-Semitism is sadly common, both in the Islamic and Christian worlds. Still, for the shortcomings that did exist, Jews did far better in the Islamic world than in Christendom. Jews thrived under the Abassids, Al-Andaluz was rich in Jewish culture and philosophy. all welcome in a land where the three Abrahamite religions co-existed pretty well -- at least until "the Christian Kings" finished the conquest of Iberia, expelling Jews and Muslims in 1492. Jews fled Europe to the Ottoman Empire. Under Ottoman rule Salonika was a great Jewish center, often called "the Mother of Israel" and in Palestine Jews, Muslims, and Christians got along, if not perfectly, at least far better then in the Christian lands where evictions, pogroms and ghettoes were the rule. Only when "good Christian" Greek nationalists, under the rule of "good Christian" Nazis led the purge did Salonika/Thessaloniki lose its great Jewish population.

In Palestine, too, Jewish and Christian minorities thrived among their Muslim neighbors. (Back in the Crusades, Jews and Christians joined their Muslim neighbors in defense against the "Frankish" invaders. Even the Christians knew that the western Church would proscribe the local religion as a "heresy" and they were more respected by the local Muslim rulers.)

In Paris, under Nazi occupation, the Muslim community hid many Jews in their homes and in the Grande Mosque, and the Muslim North Africans protected the Jews far better than the more collaborative European Christians.

It was only when the Holocaust so shamed all of Europe (but only after the fact!) and with the rise of Zionism, that anti-Semitic propaganda did in fact become much greater in Muslim lands than in Christian Europe.

And this brings us back to the issue of media bias in religion. There are many Jews who oppose zionism. A minority to be sure, and perhaps a small one, but still a significant number. Ha'aretz (among diverse Israeli papers) represents different views within Israel, recording the actions and opinions of Jews who want peace and justice for all peoples in the region. The American press is unfortunately lazy and dishonest in this regard, allowing right-wing zionists to purport to represent "Jewish thought." The simple-minded media reduction of the wealth and breadth of Jewish thought into the belligerant cant of AIPAC is ultimately as demeaning to Jews as media stereotyping is to Muslims.

Aleichem Shalom!

Pamela:

I don't have cable, so I don't watch FOX or CNN. For my news I mainly read NY Times, Washington Post or NPR.

Yes, there are moderate Muslims who have signed statements against terrorism. But I don't think you can accuse the media of underreporting these things. The fact is that these moderate Muslims are few and far between and are primarily located in North America. The vast majority of Muslims, based on many polls that I have seen, believe differently. So it is no wonder that the media report what the majority think, rather than what a small minority thinks.

As for Timothy McVeigh, he might have been a Christian, but I don't think he did what he did in the name of Christianity by quoting verses from the NT. And I can guarantee you that if groups starting to blow things up by claiming authority from the NT, then they would be called Christian terrorists. So your argument is a red herring. Muslim terrorists claim the Quran as the basis for what they are doing and are rightfully called Muslim terrorists.

Your example of the ETA is another red herring. The ETA is a small group that has targets in only one small area of the world. They do not threaten or seek dominion over large swathes of the world, and as someone else pointed out, they do what they do not in the name of religion but in the name of nationalism. As for the attack in Greece, this is also a very insignificant group that did not kill anyone, so why would the media report it? Isn't more important to report the latest of many suicide bombings in Iraq that have killed and wounded thousands and terrorized millions more, and all in the name of Islam?

You forgot to mention why the Muslim voice in the media is dominated by not just Sunni Islam, but by the most intolerant and violent form of Islam, Wahabi Islam. And that is the huge influence of Saudi petrodollars, which have established mosques and centers of learning throughout the world to propagate their form of Islam.

There might be a much larger diversity within Islam than the American media understands or reports on, but on certain basic issues such as who was responsible for 911, based on polls throughout the world, Americans see the worst aspect of group think and mindless brainwashing.

As for "The last issue which our society needs to deal with is the verbal garbage heap that talk radio and talk TV has become. High rhetoric, outrageous opinions, intolerant rantings and ravings have become de rigueur for talk hosts, not just about Muslims, but about every topic".
I agree with you on this, and I think it is a very dangerous trend in this country. On the other hand, for your part, you need to differentiate between the rantings of these talk show hosts and genuine criticism of Islam. If you are unable to make that distinction, then you also become part of the problem.

I agree that "As a society we need to ask ourselves some tough questions about how we want to conduct our affairs." But you also need to ask yourself some tough questions about your adopted religion, something which I believe you have so far failed to do.

I will leave you with the words of Sam Harris, who I suspect is not your favorite writer:

"I'd now like to return to the question of whether a given religious doctrine-like the doctrine of the Resurrection-is true (or likely to be). As I've pointed out before, the truth or falsity of a proposition is one thing; the psychological/social effect of believing it is quite another. It seems to me that most religious people ignore this distinction. In fact, there is a powerful incentive to do so, because to focus on the plausibility of a doctrine, without being beguiled by its consolations, forces a person to confront just how dubious most religious propositions are. The long-range interest of maintaining one's faith (and reaping its consolations) generally overwhelms every present temptation to honestly evaluate whether or not a specific article of faith is likely to be true."

I have absolutely no idea what you just said Jacob.

Miram,

Ok, no ad hominem argument, condemning a person's faith in admitted ignorance and accusing them of being a liar is not mere "criticism" either.

I'm not implying, or accusing you there.

If one wants to further debate that it is still "criticism", it is not constuctive, so what is the point?

I think it's a fine line between blatant hate and, hateful motivation shaping speech that happens not to be blatantly hateful, anyway.

Danny B.

Criticism of Islam is not hate-talk, and accusing critics of Islam of either engaging in hate-talk or Islamphobia or of being bigots, are ad hominem attacks. You need to address the actual issues that critics have brought up, the events in Muhammed's life that were less than honorable(to say the least, otherwise you yourself are engaging in the very actions that you supposedly deplore in others.

Hey Jacob:

You got a link to that story? Sounds interesting.

I should have said, "that much more deplorable", hate talk is ALWAYS deplorable!

Miriam,

I just can't use the excuse of "limited time" and newspaper headlines to justify calling someone a liar, or presuming to know that they are not true to their faith when they claim otherwise.

I find that irresponsible, and can't really seem to excuse it in others. If that is the excuse, fine, but admitted ignorance for any reason automatically means that the accompanying hate talk is deplorable.

I have no problem admitting my ignorance, and giving my neighbor the benefit of the doubt when he tells me that he is Muslim and disagrees with the "terrorists".

Danny B said:
"What I do not understand is the presumtion that they know enough about Islam too to make the audacious claim that a Muslim using the same argument to defend Islam is not true to their faith, and/or a liar."

None of the commenters here are scholars of Islam. They have not spent the last 30 years studying the minutiae of the faith. But after 9/11, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the Bali bombings, the Spanish train bombings, the English subway bombings, the train bombings last year in India, ordinary people with only a certain amount of time to do it, have to begin somewhere. The quickest way to start is to read a biography of Muhammed, and if you read that carefully, you will see that all the horrible events that people have described are true. Then in order to be brought up to date into the present one could read The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright.
Liberal well-meaning people assume that all religions are created equal. From my limited observation that is just not true. Islam from its very beginning with Muhammed has been a violent and cruel and intolerant doctrine. There have been reformers along the way and Islam has been softened in many places, but as long as more than a billion people look to the life of Muhammed for inspiration, they will find plenty in his life to justify their worst instincts.

The problem with Muslims is the same problem with Christians. Both beleive they have God in a Box for their own exclusive blessings and agendas. Religion breeds exclusion, superiority and hatred for those different.

I totally agree with you Danny B.
Double standards just hurt progress.

I know little about Islam, and it seems all I ever hear are people saying how bad and evil Muslims are. I'd like to give them a good argument, but all I can say is, have you studied it? Have you read the Koran? Do you know a Muslim? Most of them don't. They get their information from news and hearsay. I talk with Muslims on Yahoo all the time, and from what I gather, some can be reasonable, and some can be as deluded as Right wing Christians condemnin me to hell for not believing. It goes both ways. And the old saying fits in this case : Walk a mile in my shoes before you presume to know who I am.

Ask Yourself,

Thanks for your post. I also followed your link. This emphasizes one of the points I tried to make earlier.

As a Christian, raised in a Christian tradition, I know that a non-Christian can't truly know what that means. Thus, if a non-Christian were to pick and use Biblical scripture to argue with me against Christianity I would just know that isn't enough.

Likewise, having not been raised in the Islamic faith, I know that I cannot pick parts of the Koran to argue against Islam when someone of that faith tells me that they do not believe as so-called "Muslim Terrorists" do. I cannot insist with ANY authority that they are not a TRUE Muslim, I don't know enough about what that truly means. I would have a lot of studying ahead of me to come close.

There are claims in this thread that no Christian can be a terrorist, and I see where they are coming from in a semantic sense. That behavior is not in Christ's teaching, therefore the claim of being a Christian is actually false.

What I do not understand is the presumtion that they know enough about Islam too to make the audacious claim that a Muslim using the same argument to defend Islam is not true to their faith, and/or a liar.

Then to use the double standard as an excuse to be hateful, and refuse to consider any other viewpoint just appalls me.

The lack of humility in claiming unposessed knowledge, and the condemnation of one's neighbor tell me that these individuals not only don't know much about Islam, they don't know their own Christianity that well either.

I like the thought that in these forums, we of different faiths can learn about one another and through understanding (not conversions) possibly find some peace.

Thanks again for the information.

The prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) life is an open book for all to see. I can easily say he has the most complete Biography of any person that has ever lived. Muslims know every single detail of his life. It has been recorded and authenticated.
It is more an evidence of it's authencity that you find all sorts of Hadith(saying) of the prophet but there is a system to it we don't just quote say "well the prophet said or did this and said or did that" there is actually a science to it.
MOre info here
http://www.sunnipath.com/Resources/Questions/QA00002867.aspx

If these issues alot of people bring up about the prophet's life were an issue or are an issue why are Muslims (the same ones that know the biography better than most of the people) soooo adamant and loyal to the way of life he preached and showed?

One should remember that everything that is recorded is not per se the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Our scholars have recorded everything—they did not burn the evidence. But at the same time they were very careful to scrutinize hadiths. They established the criteria for scrutinizing the evidence in order to sift the authentic ones from those that were false or spurious. Hundreds of scholars gave their lives to this noble task.

Victoria,

I notice that you haven't answered my question concerning sex with children in Islam. Please answer. Do Muslims believe that sex with little girls of 9 years of age is moral, considering that the Prophet Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old child, and considering that all Muslims believe that Muhammad's behaviour was perfect in everyway and should be emulated in everyway? What is your view on this? Should Muslim men seek to emulate this behaviour?

Furthermore, do you also consider the following to be the behaviour of a 'perfect' man?

Tabari VII: 94
The Prophet said, ‘Who will rid me of Ashraf?’ Muhammad bin Maslamah, said, ‘I will rid you of him, Messenger of Allah. I will kill him.’ ‘Do it then,’ he (Muhammad) said, ‘if you can.’

Ishaq: 365 / Tabari VII: 94
Muhammad bin Maslamah said, ‘O Messenger, we shall have to tell lies.’ ‘Say what you like,’ Muhammad replied. ‘You are absolved, free to say whatever you must.’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369 (Confirmed in Sahih Muslim Book 19, Number 4436):
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: ‘Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, "That man (i.e. Muhammad) demands Sadaqa (Zakat, a form of taxation) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you (to pay the tax)." On that, Kab said, "By Allah, you will get tired of him!" Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food." Kab said, "Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me (give me some security for the loan)." Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, "What do you want?" Ka'b replied, "Mortgage your women to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the 'Arabs?" Ka'b said, "Then mortgage your sons to me." They said, "How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms (weapons) to you." Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Kab that Muhammad (bin Maslama) would return to him. He came to Kab at night along with Kab's foster brother, Abu Na'ila. Kab invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, "Where are you going at this time?" Kab replied, "None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na'ila have come." His wife said, "I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him. Ka'b said, "They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed." So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and said to them, "When Ka'b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head." Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "I have never smelt a better scent than this. " Ka'b replied, "I have got the best Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume." Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka'b "Will you allow me to smell your head?" Ka'b said, "Yes." Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka'b again, "Will you let me (smell your head)?" Ka'b said, "Yes." When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), "Get at him!" So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. Abu Rafi was killed after Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf."’ [Muhammad asked for a volunteer to assassinate Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf, and gave Muhammad bin Maslama permission to trick and deceive Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf in order to kill him]

Ishaq: 368
Their swords rained blows upon him (Kab bin Al-Ashraf), but to no avail. Muhammad bin Maslamah said, ‘When I saw that they were ineffective, I remembered a long, thin dagger which I had in my scabbard. I took hold of it. By this time the enemy of Allah had shouted so loudly lamps had been lit in the homes around us. I plunged the dagger into his breast and pressed upon it so heavily that it reached his pubic region. Allah’s enemy fell to the ground.’ Ka’b’s body was left prostrate. After his fall, all the Nadir Jews were brought low. Sword in hand we cut him down. By Muhammad’s order we were sent secretly by night. Brother killing brother. We lured him to his death with guile. Traveling by night, bold as lions, we went into his home. We made him taste death with our deadly swords. We sought victory for the religion of the Prophet.

Tabari VII: 97 / Ishaq: 368
We carried Ka’b’s head and brought it to Muhammad during the night. We saluted him as he stood praying and told him that we had slain Allah’s enemy. When he came out to us we cast Ashraf’s head before his feet. The Prophet praised Allah that the poet had been assassinated and complimented us on the good work we had done in Allah’s Cause. Our attack upon Allah’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.’ [Note that Kab was just a poet. All he did was write verses criticising Muhammad]

Tabari VII: 97 / Ishaq: 369
The next morning, the Jews were in a state of fear on account of our attack upon the enemy of Allah. After the assassination, the Prophet declared, ‘Kill every Jew.’

Sahih Abu Dawud, Book 19, No 2996:
Narrated Muhayyisah: ‘The Apostle of Allah said: If you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them. So Muhayyisah jumped over Shubaybah, a man of the Jewish merchants. He had close relations with them. He then killed him.’

Tabari VII: 97 / Ishaq: 369
Thereupon Mas’ud leapt upon Suna