Ignorance of the Faith, Tolerance for the Faithful

Contrary to popular belief, the end of the year is one of the best times to look for, awesome descion

Contrary to popular belief, the end of the year is one of the best times to look for, awesome descion

Taylor has a home in the Miami suburb of Palmetto Bay that he bought two years ago. The 24-year-old player is in HjJrFiZwfKpezK his fourth season with the Redskins after playing at the University of Miami, where he was an All-American in 2003

Taylor has a home in the Miami suburb of Palmetto Bay that he bought two years ago. The 24-year-old player is in HjJrFiZwfKpezK his fourth season with the Redskins after playing at the University of Miami, where he was an All-American in 2003

Taylor has a home in the Miami suburb of Palmetto Bay that he bought two years ago. The 24-year-old player is in HjJrFiZwfKpezK his fourth season with the Redskins after playing at the University of Miami, where he was an All-American in 2003

Taylor has a home in the Miami suburb of Palmetto Bay that he bought two years ago. The 24-year-old player is in HjJrFiZwfKpezK his fourth season with the Redskins after playing at the University of Miami, where he was an All-American in 2003

The comic visited the land for the first time in decades to promote his anRrpWTYnkmcou new animated movie about bees, and he was treated like royalty literally

The comic visited the land for the first time in decades to promote his anRrpWTYnkmcou new animated movie about bees, and he was treated like royalty literally

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

Gear up for grub with a tripleheader of pigskin, including a meeting of brothers in Dallas. Everybody knows it's been a rough year for her, but find out who else had issues

First time here on your site. I am delighted to find your wonderful website online. http://idisk.mac.com/asianbabecams/Public/babe/asian-babe-cams.html >asian babe cams
VZ4H4Hx8E4

Excellent! Good work! Would you please also visit my homepage? http://hotasianwomen.tripod.com/mature/hot-asian-women.html >hot asian women
P5bKf66g3s

Very well! Your site is neat! Please visit my homepage too: http://www.geocities.com/freeamateurpics/video/free-amateur-pics.html >free amateur pics
J4RQ2i5UaW

Good design. I liked this site, it's neat. Good job! Would you please also visit my site? http://www.geocities.com/thedrudgereportarchives/matt/drudge-report.html >drudge report
PS7n6u5dk2

I'm glad I found your site! It's nice! Thank you!!! Visit my sites, please: http://www.geocities.com/thedrudgereportarchives/matt/drudge-report.html >drudge report
cA62n6YW8B

I'm glad I found your site! It's nice! Thank you!!! Visit my sites, please: http://www.geocities.com/thedrudgereportarchives/matt/drudge-report.html >drudge report
cA62n6YW8B

Excellent! Good work! Would you please also visit my homepage? http://www.geocities.com/sashabrinkova/gallery/sasha-brinkova.html >sasha brinkova
t28s2dvKJw

Greetings to the author of this page. Nice site, keep up the good work http://www.geocities.com/xxxsexlife/adult/monster-video-xxx.html >monster video xxx
88Pa76Vd9

Nice design. Please add more smiles to your guestbook http://idisk.mac.com/thumbzillaporn/Public/hun/free-hun-page-pic-yellow.html >free hun page pic yellow
E93Gunu7R2

I'm glad I found your site! It's nice! Thank you!!! Visit my sites, please: http://www.geocities.com/worldwallmaps/map/map-search-direction.html >map search direction
E93Gunu7R2

I'm glad I found your site! It's nice! Thank you!!! Visit my sites, please: http://www.geocities.com/worldwallmaps/map/map-search-direction.html >map search direction
E93Gunu7R2

Thanks for the good site and usefulinfo. I found http://idisk.mac.com/directiondrivemap/Public/world/compass-cove-oceanfront-resort.html >compass cove oceanfront resort
E93Gunu7R2

First time here on your site. I am delighted to find your wonderful website online. http://idisk.mac.com/mapdirection/Public/drive/world-war-2-map.html >world war 2 map
sDw72oj52o

m531k

ive been away for a month and just came back to this-

youve just proven my point mr omar-

hit the road means to leave.

not a violent strike, as your contention that the meaning of the word means in the contested ayat-

but to leave.

another definition for the word "hit".

I wouldn't put too much store in what Christoph Luxenberg (not Lexington) said about the Syriac-Aramaic origin of the Quran. That's the same guy who thinks Muslim men would want to go to heaven and marry raisins.

You can draw too long a bow with things like this. It's an interesting thesis but one that can be quickly discounted on the basis of its evident incoherence.

Victoria,
If you bring those 9 example of daraba not meaning 'beat' we can examine the grammatical construct.

Don't forget about Arabic idioms - which still means beat. Like hit an example = provide an example. But the darab here still means beat, not provide. It's just a figure of speech like when you say 'hit on an idea'. That word still means 'hit'.

Another example - dabara fee al-ard = hit in the earth. That means to travel because you 'hit in the earth'. It's the same as the English phrase 'hit the road, jack.' That word "hit" still means "hit".

See what i mean?

I think people forget 'figures of speech' and the meaning of words.

Qasim Omar:

Thanks again for your response. Like I said before, I do not think that the methodology you used to determine the use of the word Daraba is infallible. I am not saying you are completely wrong, but that I have come across enough variables related to the codification of classical Arabic and its application to the Quran that it leaves open quite a few possibilities. I am not arguing with you at this point, just explaining the reasons for doubt in my mind, which you have clearly indicated are secondary to your reliance on the "harf al jar" to determine the meaning of the root.

1. Attempts at codification of classical Arabic at least a hundred years after Islam. This would have allowed the language to evolve and take on characteristics/changes that did not necassarily exist during Mohammed's time.

2. The evolution of Classical Arabic. Though a lot of Arab scholars deny that it has ever changed since the days of Mohammad, I have come across a few non-Arab anthropologists and linguists who have discussed the influences of the cultures and languages of the regions, that came under the control of the Arabs through conquest, spreading of Islam etc, on the Arab dialects and classical Arabic. I think its Koller who discussed this though I am not exactly sure about the name.

To digress a bit, one humorous comment I came across suggested that to determine what Arab region a person was from, just ask him which country's dialect was closest to the Arabic in the Quran and invariably the person will give his origins away.

3. Lexington talks about the Quran being written in Syriac, Aramaic and Arabic; a concept that has been almost heretical for most Muslim Scholars and especially Arab scholars. He makes a good argument in favor of exploring that possibility since Muslim scholars have always had difficulty interpreting certain sections of the Quran by trying to apply the rules of Classical Arabic only.

Lexington's theory, though interesting, has not been developed or explored enough to be considered mainstream, but it does again plant a seed of doubt wrt the grammatical rules you pointed out.

4. The fact that time and time again, whether it is the traditional Muslim scholar (who would advocate beating, chopping off of hands, a nine year old Aisha etc.) or the Modern ones (who would interpret in favor of non-violence, restrictions on capital punishment, a 17plus year old Aisha etc), there is a consensus that the Quran must be interpreted based on how the verses relate to other verses and to the general concept that is being talked about etc. rather than a literalist word by word interpretation.
Those interpretations obviously vary quite a bit.

You do not have to respond. Once again, I understand that in your and Khalid's opinion the grammatical rules are of paramount importance. Traditional Muslims scholars, ironically, are on your side in this case at least; though as I mentioned, they too advocate against a literalist interpretation.

Thanks again for pushing me to acquire some really interesting knowledge about Islam and the Arabic language. Peace to you.

hi there- ill nterject into this how many angels can dance on the head of a pin discussion-
actually mr omar, the word daraba occurs 16 times in the quran, and 9 of those times it as a meaning other than beat- but its all moot in a way-
i have a more esoteric, and hence less validly scholarly attitude-

now mr omar- i was taken aback somewhat by that farewell sermon-
i have never seen a version like that- i have seen the same consistent version many places many times- from many different sources, it seems more like a political statement than a personal farewell and last words of wisdom-

now- im american, and the only arabic i speak is my own inarticulate and possibly barely recognizable prayers-

as far a sunnah being derived from hadith, i think you have that backwards- the actions of Muhammad(pbuh)- but it is STILL moot after all-

now, unfortunately i only have a few minutes and cannot provide any substantiation- only opinions right now- so il offer my humble subjective one-

i think mr khalid said that women cannot be chauvinist or sexist-
that is a remarkably male thing to say.

i have had my most spirited conversations with WOMEN not men- who were the mostdoggedly sexist, and have spent hours and hours with women who are seemingly brainwashed that way- it reminds me of the stockholm syndrome-
and i have spent hours pondering this anomaly.

im willing to bet(and i dont0 that none of the men here have spent more than a few seconds considering it-

here is what i discovered- those in the most tenuous of social and finacial standing(i.e. women) are always the first casualties when the status quo is threatened or dismantled-
with the most to lose, they are often the most ardent and vocal of the supporters of the staus quo- whatever it may be(in this case, women being beaten)
now while they may vociferously and emotionally react to this question, they never respond with reasoned or well thought out explantations for why such a thing may be correct.

now, how could a woman who has supported herself, and traveled around the country independently understand such a thing? i am sometimes a bigger threat to their own security and social standing than the husband who beats them- but trust me- as i know from many years of dealing eith women in this situation- there are none who feel it is right in their hearts-the closest you come is someone whose self esteem is so thoroughly eroded that thier sense of right has been so illogically attacked, that they really dont have a strong center of this important moral compass.

no one, even an animal- deserves to be abused.
period period period

the prophet(swa) did not himself, strike any women. so that is that-

i wish i had more time as my statements seem so intractable and absolute and i cant get into any subtleties-which is where i do best (IMHO)

also ill leave with a quick paraphrased hadeeth from memory- so forgive if it is off at all- (its really not though)

once Muhammed(pbuh) asked his companions who was the most blessed- the man who recites qur'an with perfect intonation and inflection, or the man(or woman- hee hee- obviously my interjection) who faltered and said it imperfectly-

seems like a no-brainer, yes?

well, naturally they replied that it was the person who said it flawlessly.

they were wrong. he stated it was the person who stumbled on their words.

now theres no explanation for why this is, but i have stumbled upon my own inadequate reasons for it, as it touches me personally.

the person who seamlessly (and possibly rotely?) churns out perfect diction - is doing so with ease and no effort-

the one who stumbles- obviously is not a native arabic speaker- or possibly just uneducated- in either case its a situation of familiarity versus non-familiarity-

those non-familiar must expend so much more effort- the effort is the key.

as a blue eyed white woman, i find that other americans accept quite readily anything i share about islam- but i often encounter a sort of discrimination from arabic speaking people- and a condesending bemusement-

so i doggedly research every single assertion made to me by muslims from other countries(my own reverse discrimination?) looking for cultural corruptions or patriarchal interpretations from both men and women-

so i ask at least 5 people and still demand sources for every query, as i have a long history of studying and valdiating what i believe and know i will have to justify every word that comes out of my mouth to someone somewhere- so i do this in anticipation of some future questioner and also of course my own clarification-

so be aware of these things when worrying about the scholarly attributes of this lady from persia- her
o i really must go-
peace all
sorry thre were no meaty tidbits here or rebuttals, not the time right now
you know, ALLAH really is not male or female- i do the same thing with feminist (or any ism) view-

o ive really gone on- but the point is-

MZBH,
I see you won't let this go even though the evidence is overwhelmingly against you. You prefer to believe a person who does not even speak Arabic to real Arabic speakers. You prefer to believe someone who misinterpreted Lane's Lexicon than some people whose evidence is confirmed by Lane's Lexicon.

The fact that your source, Laleh Bakhtiar, DOES NOT EVEN SPEAK ARABIC is sufficient for me. Her own evidence, thanks to Khalid, is false. She did not even understand Lane's Lexicon.

I read your link - unfortunately you can't argue with the rules of Arabic grammar. The entries in Lane's Lexicon has the harf jarr like Khalid and I have pointed out. The debaters in your link do not much consider the Arabic grammar and the need for the harf jar. I wouldn't put much store in what they wrote.

In fact, one of the debaters, Tajmaha, got it totally wrong. This is what he wrote:

"In looking in an Arabic dictionary 'Al Mu'jamm Al Wajeez', to my surprise I couldn't find the meaning to beat or to beat up, there was a long list of several other meanings though. It seems that Arabs originally didn't use the word Dharaba to mean to hit or to beat up (someone), this is only a contemporary meaning of the word which we use all the time thinking that it is what it means originally, when it is not!
Dharaba is always linked with a preposition. If it appears solely then it means something else other than to beat up. "

Not only did Tajmaha get the preposition rule opposite to what it should be but he claimed that Arabs originally did not use Dharaba to mean beat. What nonsense - the quran uses daraba to mean beat/strike/hit/scourge (these are all the same to Arabs btw - not different words) at least 10 times.

I think this discussion is just about over. Thanks to Khalid for showing us the Lane's Lexicon entries and the need for the harf jarr for daraba to take on a secondary meaning like 'turn away from'.

Qasim Omar (and Khalid):

Here is a link to one of the discussions over the translation of the ayat 4:34:

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=7439.0

You may have to register.

Qasim Omar (and Khalid too I suppose):

“I don't see how you can say an interpretation conforming to Arabic grammar rules is an untruth.”

I thought I retracted the “untruth” part in my last post to you. I clarified (or thought I did ) that “misinterpretation” was a more appropriate word to use.

As for lanes Lexicon; it is definitely an impressive authority and attempt to codify classical Arabic. But this following statement from the study Quran website that offers a free version of Lane’s online:

“All information contained within this document is correct to the best of our (the contributors) knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should always verify information and seek knowledge when possible. This approach is recommended by The Reading (al quran) itself.”

And also:
““Which root meaning is correct?

...ALL occurrences of the root and their contexts must be examined.
Specific derivatives of a root may have to be separated and analysed.
Crucial or relevant words within these verses should be checked to make sure they have been used accurately.
Before understanding a specific word/concept, it must be checked that this word/concept is consistent, logical and does not interfere with another part of the message.
Other verses discussing the same or similar subject must be checked.
Don't draw something out that is not there. When you have to embellish on a word to make it mean what you think it means, most chances are it doesn't mean that. The connection should be clear. Get solid evidence to demonstrate that a word may not mean what many think it to mean.
After this thorough investigation, you may find that several meanings are possible/acceptable for an occurrence. Even if 2 or 3 meanings remain, if there is no reason to disregard them, we should not, but rather conclude that what must be meant is both the 2 or all three (or however more there may be) or better yet, choose the meaning that includes, and does not cancel out, all other possible meanings. A more accurate understanding of a word/concept should gradually develop as one's study increases/improves.””

There is a very interesting discussion on this very issue going on in the free-minds.org forums (which you can link to from Lanes Lexicon’s site): http://www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm. )

The translation of the verse 4:34 by free-minds:

“The men are to support the women by what God has bestowed on them over one another and for what they spend of their money. The upright women are dutiful; keeping private the personal matters for what God keeps watch over. As for those women from whom you fear desertion: advise them; and abandon them in the bedchamber; and let them go forth. If they respond to you, then do not seek a way over them; God is High, Great.”

I am going to defer to the discussion going on the free-minds.org forum since a lot of the issues I have raised, or did not even think of are/have been discussed there, and in light of those discussions, I still maintain that your method of arriving at the translation of “beat” or “hit” is not by any means infallible; neither are the rules governing classical Arabic, as they pertain to the Quran at least.

But thank you for engaging in this discussion. I discovered an interest in Islam that I don’t think I have ever had. I had started identifying myself as a deist, until I visited faithfreedom.org (Sina's version of Islam was not the one I grew up with), which led me to undertake a lot of research to clarify the accusations made and in the process discover liberal Islam. This exchange with you pushed me to educate myself even further and while I still do not believe that God would be so simple minded and petty as to require obedience to a very narrow set of beliefs, knowing (as only an almighty God would know) the human species, as full of life, freethinking and strong willed as it can be, would never adhere to one particular set of beliefs; I find modern Islam to be quite uplifting and an excellent source of values and beliefs to pass on to my children (if and when such a day comes; gotta finish school first).

P.S: You may call liberal Muslim efforts “revisionist”, I consider them to be an attempt to go back to Gods true word (As preached by Mohammed in this case, but equally applicable to liberal Christians revisiting the Church’s dogma). If the rules of grammar need to be discarded, then discarded they shall be (since the "flawed", IMO, interpretation of the Quran was a primary source for them anyway.)

So, as I said before, we can agree to disagree.

From New York Times article about Lelah Bakhtiar:

Debates over translations of the Koran — considered God’s eternal words — revolve around religious tradition and Arabic grammar. Critics fault Ms. Bakhtiar on both scores.

This is what Qasim and I have been telling you - Lelah Bakhtiar has zero knowledge of Arabic grammar. She can't even read Lane's Lexicon correctly and somehow missed the harf al jar required to change the meaning from beat to leave.

There is another entry in Lane which I missed:

ضربت عنه صفحا Darabtu ‘Anhu SafHan I turned away from him and left him.

See the عنه here too?

MZBH,
Lelah Bakhtiar does not even speak Arabic. She mistranslated idribohunna because she couldn't bring herself to translate it correctly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/us/25koran.html?ei=5088&en=835924e5b6d16c52&ex=1332475200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

“I decided it either has to have a different meaning, or I can’t keep translating,” said Ms. Bakhtiar, an Iranian-American who adopted her father’s Islamic faith as an adult and had not dwelled on the verse before. “I couldn’t believe that God would sanction harming another human being except in war.”

It's just wishful thinking on her part.

When she reached the problematic verse, Ms. Bakhtiar spent the next three months on “daraba.” SHE DOES NOT SPEAK ARABIC, but she learned to read the holy texts in Arabic while studying and working as a translator in Iran in the 1970s and ’80s.

Her eureka moment came on roughly her 10th reading of the Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane, a 3,064-page volume from the 19th century, she said. Among the six pages of definitions for “daraba” was “to go away.”

I looked up Lane's Lexicon and this is what I found:

ضرب عنه Daraba ‘Anhu He turned away a person or thing from him [or it]

also اضرب عنه IDrib ‘Anhu

Lane specifically put in an arrow to denote that one must add the "harf jar" عنه after اضرب to make this work.

Looks like Lelah Bakhtiar did not even understand what she was talking about. All she did was pick up some translation without regard to the Arabic grammar rules, nor understand Lane's Lexicon.

MZBH - see the Lane's Lexicon entries? All of them have the preposition AN عنه.

Do you see that in 4:34?

I wonder why these Arab women on the panel and the audience cannot understand that darab in 4:34 does not mean 'beat' but 'leave'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nUI3TUdFCk&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4mpwqwg2MY&mode=related&search=

Notice how none of the Arab women, who presumably can understand Arabic, never raised the possibility that darab in 4:34 does not mean 'beat' but 'leave'.

Millions and millions of Arab women watch this sort of program on TV and hear their Imams saying this sort of thing in the masjid and not a single one comes out to say that idribohunna does not mean 'beat'.

I suppose those women saying darab is beat are patriachal too.

MZBH,
I don't see how you can say an interpretation conforming to Arabic grammar rules is an untruth.

While your unevidenced opinion, contrary to centuries of Arabic grammar, is the truth.

Sorry, but I think most people would have a hard time accepting your position.

MZBH
It is clear you did not read or understand my post where I showed the proper Arabic grammar.

This is what you wrote:
I discovered that that word daraba has twenty plus different meanings, but take two; hit and leave; both verbs. You say that the pronoun is attached to the verb “idrib” it means “hit” and then “idrib o hun” would mean “hit them”. But if daraba can also mean “leave” (and twenty plus other things) then “leave them” makes perfect sense as well.

I'm sorry but you're wasting my time. I will repeat this once more:

1. Idribo (no preposition) hunna = beat them.

2. Ariboa (preposition = AN) hunna = turn away FROM them.

Do you see Idribohunna or Adribo AN hunna in 4:34?

An Arabic speaker knows Idribohunna CANNOT mean leave them. It means 'beat them'. That is why the tafsir masters all translate idribohunna to mean 'beat them' because the word is idribohunna, not AdriboANhunna.

We've going around in circles because you're just won't accept the rules of Arabic grammar as given to you. All you do is to INSIST that daraba can mean 'leave them'. Sure it can - but it requires the preposition to do so. How many times do I have to say this?

As for the farewell sermon - there are many references like this.

http://muslim-canada.org/farewell.htm

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/adab_of_islam.htm

O people: verily you owe your women their rights, and they owe you yours. They may not lay with another men in your beds, let anyone into your houses you do not want without your permission, or commit indecency. If they do, Allah has given you leave to debar them, send them from your beds, or [finally] STRIKE THEM IN A WAY THAT DOES NO HARM. But if they desist, and obey you, then you must provide for them and clothe them fittingly. The women who live with you are like captives, unable to manage for themselves: you took them as a trust from Allah, and enjoyed their sex as lawful through a word [legal ruling] from Allah. So fear Allah in respect to women, and concern yourselves with their welfare. Have I given the message? -- O Allah, be my witness.

---

PS: If you want to show that idribohunna can mean leave her you have to show the evidence - not opinions. You just made up your own opinion that is against the rules of Arabic grammar. I'm sorry but that is not enough.

Please show the rules of Arabic grammar that you used to get idribohunna to mean ‘leave her’.

MZBH
It is clear you did not read or understand my post where I showed the proper Arabic grammar.

This is what you wrote:
I discovered that that word daraba has twenty plus different meanings, but take two; hit and leave; both verbs. You say that the pronoun is attached to the verb “idrib” it means “hit” and then “idrib o hun” would mean “hit them”. But if daraba can also mean “leave” (and twenty plus other things) then “leave them” makes perfect sense as well.

I'm sorry but you're wasting my time. I will repeat this once more:

1. Idribo (no preposition) hunna = beat them.

2. Ariboa (preposition = AN) hunna = turn away FROM them.

Do you see Idribohunna or Adribo AN hunna in 4:34?

An Arabic speaker knows Idribohunna CANNOT mean leave them. It means 'beat them'. That is why the tafsir masters all translate idribohunna to mean 'beat them' because the word is idribohunna, not AdriboANhunna.

We've going around in circles because you're just won't accept the rules of Arabic grammar as given to you. All you do is to INSIST that daraba can mean 'leave them'. Sure it can - but it requires the preposition to do so. How many times do I have to say this?

As for the farewell sermon - there are many references like this.

http://muslim-canada.org/farewell.htm

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/adab_of_islam.htm

O people: verily you owe your women their rights, and they owe you yours. They may not lay with another men in your beds, let anyone into your houses you do not want without your permission, or commit indecency. If they do, Allah has given you leave to debar them, send them from your beds, or [finally] STRIKE THEM IN A WAY THAT DOES NO HARM. But if they desist, and obey you, then you must provide for them and clothe them fittingly. The women who live with you are like captives, unable to manage for themselves: you took them as a trust from Allah, and enjoyed their sex as lawful through a word [legal ruling] from Allah. So fear Allah in respect to women, and concern yourselves with their welfare. Have I given the message? -- O Allah, be my witness.

---

PS: If you want to show that idribohunna can mean leave her you have to show the evidence - not opinions. You just made up your own opinion that is against the rules of Arabic grammar. I'm sorry but that is not enough.

Qasim Omar;

I wrote in my last post:

"Like I said before; you are trying to prove an untruth by using other untruths."

I was not trying to suggest that you are lying and I apologize for how that sentence came across. If anything, it was a bit redundant given the sentence preceding it.

Qasim Omar:

“Your own prophet clarified the meaning of 4:34 in his farewell sermon - and the meaning is clear - idribohunna means beat.”

What version of the sermon are you reading? Could you post the section where this “clarification of beating women” occurred? Every version that I have come across does not contain any such reference. The fact that there are at least three versions of this sermon is a good indicator that sections, or all, of the alleged sermon should be constantly scrutinized for conflicts with the Quran (if they exist as you claim wrt to idribohunna being clarified to mean beat).

This is the reference to women I came across:

““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.””

The Hadith and sermon can be discarded if they come in conflict with the Quran. If there is an interpretation of Mohammeds final sermon that advocates “beating” then it should be discarded.

“I know it pains you to know that your prophet condoned and encouraged wife-beating. You have to get used to that.”

Thank you for your concern, but you may rest easy knowing that I have no doubts as to the veracity of the translation to mean “leave” or “go forth”. What pains me is that people still continue to propagate a misinterpretation and try to prove it by using other misinterpretations. Like I said before; you are trying to prove an untruth by using other untruths.

As far as your grammar lesson:

“When the pronoun is attached to the verb اضرب idrib it carries the original meaning of the verb which is hit.”

I discovered that that word daraba has twenty plus different meanings, but take two; hit and leave; both verbs. You say that the pronoun is attached to the verb “idrib” it means “hit” and then “idrib o hun” would mean “hit them”. But if daraba can also mean “leave” (and twenty plus other things) then “leave them” makes perfect sense as well.

Basically your entire “grammar lesson” is based on this “original meaning” of the word. You (and other classical scholars with their patriarchal, conservative cultural biases) prefer “hit” I do not see any reason why “leave them” is not a better translation, especially in light of the use of the word Daraba in the rest of the Quran.
Who determined the “original meaning” of the word daraba to be “hit”, out of twenty plus other meanings? Why pick one over the other as the “original meaning”? You say the Tafsir, Hadith and sermon validate your version, but the Tafsir and Hadith are interpreted by the same body of scholars with the same cultural biases so that is not a valid source to back up your argument.

You also haven’t answered why, if there is such a "grand and absolute" source of “rules and regulations” governing classical Arabic grammar, so many translations of the Quran (by scholars well versed enough in classical Arabic to translate daraba to the same “beat”) could not come up with identical translations for the rest of the Quran. I provided you with one example where the same word “yadribu” was translated three different ways. If the “science of classical Arabic” is so codified, where is the continuity and homogeneity in its application?

MZBH,
You can't malign the tafsir masters just because they don't agree with you. Classical Arabic grammar has not changed. It can't change. We're not talking about a modern interpretation but about what your God said. He said it only once and his meaning stands for all time - then as well as now and into the future.

Their interpretion of idribohunna is not governed by patriachy or misogyny or any perceived 'bias'. It is a straight forward issue.

Your own prophet clarified the meaning of 4:34 in his farewell sermon - and the meaning is clear - idribohunna means beat. Are you saying he was biased or that the reporting of the farewell sermon was flawed? As far as I know there were only 3 differences in the narrations and they were minor points and totally unrelated to this issue.

I know it pains you to know that your prophet condoned and encouraged wife-beating. You have to get used to that.

How can you expect anyone to believe the 'opinions' of a couple of modern women 'scholars' (no such thing in Islam actually) when what they say is against the Arabic grammar rules and the words of your own prophet?

I urge you to consult a good Classical Arabic dictionary like Lane's Lexicon to see for yourself. I'm sure you'd find I am right about the rules of Classical Arabic pertaining to this word.

MZBH,
You misunderstand me. I'm not denying Lelah Bakhtiar's right to interpret the Arabic any how she likes. However, in this case she is wrong. Her knowledge of Arabic grammar is flawed. One wonders how she came to her interpretation, other than wishful thinking.

I challenge anyone to show any of the Arabic masters pre-20th century who interprets daraba in 4:34 to mean 'leave'. All without exception (as far as I know) understand it to mean 'beat'.

Now, you've been given the evidence of the tafsir masters who presumably know Classical Arabic backwards. You have been shown the evidence of the early Arabs narrating the hadiths who also know Classical Arabic. You've been given a couple of grammar lessons.

However, you insist on believing against the rules of Arabic grammar that idribohunna means 'leave' her while it actually means 'beat' her.

I really don't understand your point about your second unnamed woman Muslim scholar who also mis-interprets idribohunna to mean 'leave' her. I think this is yet another example of wishful thinking.

All you're doing is arguing against the evidence and relying on 'less than credible' opinions. I don't care what these women scholars think. I know for sure that the rules of Arabic grammar dictates that idribohunna means 'beat' her.

Every time in the Quran, daraba is used it means 'strike' or 'beat' if the word is used without the "harf jar". When the word is used with the "harf jar" it takes on a secondary meaning. I think you should ask your women Muslim scholars to tell you where the "harf jar" is in 4:34. They are merely misleading the ignorant, in my view.

anon:

Following is a post I wrote on another board in response to a similar question from another "anon". I thought it brought across the point I was trying to make a little better:

"Many Muslim individuals have fallen under a veil of tyranny, silence, and intimidation in their own communities."

Thank you for your measured response. First let me digress a bit and tell you how I felt at reading it; actual happiness. Not because I think I convinced you or that I think you are starting to see the light or anything, but because you made that distinction between "Muslims" who are extremists and the religion itself. The video link you posted, and your own comment "To step out from under that veil is to step into the "cross hairs", I believe enforces my point. Moderate Muslims, like myself, find ourselves waging a two fold battle. Not only must we speak out against the tyranny of this violent minority, but we must also speak out against the vitriol that is sent our way by those in the West. Not only do we find ourselves in "crosshairs" but also in a "crossfire" (starting to sound like the Chrysler line up here...). I would love to talk about reform and social and cultural change, but I always find myself getting drawn into these pointless exchanges over "Muhammadans" and "Islam is a cult" blah blah blah.

There are two questions that need to be answered by non-Muslims criticizing Islam:

1. Do you believe that there are moderate Muslims ?
2. Why would an attack on Islam, and not on "extremist Muslims" specifically, not also be an attack on moderates who are fighting the same war?

When people toss slurs at Islam, they are also throwing slurs at my (moderate Muslims) faith, my upbringing and my family. The result is that most moderates end up trying to combat the negative perceptions and stereotypes amongst non-Muslims, instead of focusing their entire energies on reform.

The extremists take the slurs as just one more way to brainwash their followers into believing that non-Muslims (and specifically the West) are out to "get Islam". The West needs to get on the side of the moderates and start distinguishing between Islam and extremist Muslims.

After watching the video, I was scrolling through the comments and wanted to engage some of the Muslim posters over issues in the clip, but after reading some of the anti-Islam comments my blood was boiling and I just gave up; lest I be drawn into the vitriol. In the poisonous atmosphere that existed, no reason would have been listened to.

That is the tragedy of the moderates in Islam right now. I believe that is the point Dr. Ahmed was trying to make.

Anon:

"Why do the world's leading Islamic organisations (such as the Islamic Human Rights Commission) always fail to criticise sites such www.alminbar.com, and fail to demand that such hatred is removed from these hugely influential websites?"

Personally, I had no idea what this alminbar website was about (still don't because the address you provided doesn't work). I am not sure why these organizations have to condemn every nut case website on the internet. I am not defending their inaction, there are other human rights issues that they could approach, but this argument put forward by critics of Islam that "CAIR" or so and so should always come out and condemn acts of terrorism is ridiculous. CAIR and the IHRC (from what I read on their website) are organizations primarily devoted towards defending Muslims from discrimination and prejudice from outside the Muslim community. They (especially CAIR) exist for a very specific purpose.

That said, I agree with you that in a lot of Islamic countries moderates are afraid to speak out against intolerance and violations of basic human rights and dignities because of the very real threat of a violent backlash by extremists. This danger exists not because the countries are Islamic, but because socio economic conditions and a nexus between the ruling elite and the extremists, provide the conditions for riots, and other violence to suppress a dissenting view. Look at Saudi Arabia and the free hand given to the Wahabi extremists by the royal family, while the U.S media (and Govt.) is going overboard trying to portray them as moderates and the need to continue to support and prop them up. Same thing in Egypt with Mubarak and his dictatorship.

But anyway, even if what you said, about Islamic organizations, was correct, it is no justification for an attack on Islam. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims who do not subscribe to those views, but are trapped due to circumstances not of their choosing. You do all us moderates great harm in our struggle against extremism when you lump us in with the extremists when you criticize "Islam" instead of "extremist interpretations of Islam".

Qasim Omar:

Regarding Laleh Bakhtiar:

You keep trying to bring her “Iranian American” heritage into the debate as if that automatically disqualifies her from doing anything with Arabic or the Quran. If we follow your reasoning, then the research or work of anyone who does/did not have English (for example) as a first language should be ignored. It is not her nationality that counts, but the quality of her research and the methodology she (and other modern Muslim scholars) have used.

Following is an abbreviated description of her research methodology and some other reasoning why the traditional interpretation is incorrect:

““Another women scholar from Iran Laleh Bakhtiar who has translated the Qur’an from feminist point of view and has spent 40 years on this work also disagrees with translation of daraba as chastisement. She says, “ After 40 years studying and translating books related to the Qur’an, I realized that something was missing: an objective universal and inclusive translation of the Qur’an from its classical Arabic into contemporary English. Most of the 17 English translations I had seen included some interpretation of the verse making a direct comparison between the English and Arabic extremely difficult. Plus, many of the English translations continue to use Arabic words and names such as Allah for God, which can be confusing or even off-putting to new readers.”

Two things she says about the method she followed is quite striking: she has looked at all different uses of the word in the text in context before determining the appropriate meaning in English. She used computer to create database of 40,000 nouns and verbs of the Qur’an 50,000 particles of speech. This method is most appropriate as then alone one can understand the significance of a word, both as verb and noun. The methodology of understanding the Qur’an which I have discovered is also collating all the verses of the Qur’an on one subject and then inferring most appropriate meaning.
Also, one should always remember no ‘alim (scholar) can avoid being influenced by his/her circumstances, both cultural and political, for understanding the scriptural text. There is no surprise, if the commentators of early Islam understood chastisement by the word daraba in their own cultural and political milieu.
Also, Prophet’s Sunna plays an important role in evolving shari’ah laws. No one, even the most conservative ‘alim or jurist, has ever referred to the holy Prophet ever chastising any of his wife even when they made unreasonable demands on him. The Qur’an itself refers to an incident in which the Prophet’s wives made demand for more worldly goods which the Prophet could not afford. Let alone chastising them, he did not even utter harsh words against them.
He simply withdrew into a room and did not speak to his wives for a month and then, as per the Allah’s instruction, explained to his wives that either they should opt for this worldly goods and separate from him or live with him and expect their reward from Allah. This incident has been referred to in the Qur’anic verses 33:28-29 and also in 66:1-3 and we find in Sahih Bukhari reference to this incident that Holy Prophet temporarily separated from his wives for a month and then reconciled to them.””

Qasim Omar:

“I'm not sure the word 'apologetics' is an ad hominem or even an insult.”

In its colloquial use, the term is used in a negative sense, but I’ll take your word that you used it in the context of its classical definition.

“Reference to my dad's arabic grammar is not an ad verecundiam because I can back it up with tafsirs. All the tafsir masters pre-20th century understand daraba in 4:34 to mean beat. Are you saying nobody, not a single Islamic scholar who presumably know Classical Arabic better than most people today, failed to understand Arabic grammar?”

Just because all the Tafsir masters pre-20th century followed one path of interpretation is no excuse to not revisit the interpretations. I am not surprised that they interpreted the Quran in the way they did for so long because social inertia can be a tremendous obstacle to change. For a long time scholars and philosophers thought that the world was flat, it was probably considered “heretical” to reason otherwise, but where would we be if that particular theory had not been challenged?

It is not matter of not understanding Arabic grammar, but misinterpreting the ayat because of whatever cultural, social influences that those authors were exposed to. As far as backing up the argument with tafsirs is concerned, the problem with that approach is that it is pretty much the same body of scholars, from the same background and under the same cultural influences as the rest of the classical scholars. It’s like trying to defend/prove the virulent homophobic interpretations of the Bible by some Christian Scholars by using the “explanations” provided by other scholars with similar homophobic biases.

“Whether I believe the hadiths is irrelevant. The aim is to show that the classical Arabic understanding of 4:34 is exactly the same as mine, i.e. daraba = beat. You don't have to be a genius to understand that you cannot make the meaning 'leave her' work with Muhammad's farewell sermon.”

You keep making the same argument. You can back up traditional interpretations of the Quran with more traditional interpretations of the Hadith. I repeat; it’s the same body of scholars with the same patriarchal cultural influences. You cannot show me your translation of the word Daraba is an absolute because the same scholars who translate it to mean “beat” cannot provide identical translations of the Quran, which shows that the “process” of translating from classical Arabic is not an exact science and open to continuous interpretation.

One of the methods used by modern Islamic scholars has been to investigate the usage of certain words throughout the rest of the Quran and guess what, for some reason this is the only place where “yadirabu” or “darab” has been translated to mean “beat”.

From 13:17
(Yusuf Ali):
“…Thus doth Allah (by parables) SHOW FORTH Truth and Vanity….”
(Pickthall):
“…thus Allah COINETH(the similitude of) the true and the false….”
(Shakir):
“…thus does Allah COMPARE truth and falsehood;…”

In all of these translations the word “yadribu” has been translated not only three separate ways, but also no where even close to any sort of “physical action”. Here we have three “respected” scholars of Islam, who I am sure were masters of classical Arabic, who cannot offer a single identical interpretation of the same verse.

MZBH,

You said: "You have also presented the sermons of Imams. I would condemn those vociferously and I agree with you that they are unacceptable, but you need to make that distinction between Islam and those people who would interpret Islam to allow such vitriol. Criticizing Islam encompasses 1.5 billion people, including such gracious Muslims such as Victoria, as well as those who would spout such vile hatred. Criticizing an “extremist interpretation of Islam” makes for a more correct accusation."

Why do the world's leading Islamic organisations (such as the Islamic Human Rights Commission) always fail to criticise sites such www.alminbar.com, and fail to demand that such hatred is removed from these hugely influential websites?

I belive the reason why they do nothing is because they are aware that your 'moderate' views are in the minority in many Islamic countries, and they are also aware that they could be accused of blasphemy for criticising the literal interpretation of the Qur'an.

Qasim is right.
I think the issue here is the difference between Arabic and English and a confusion of what is being translated. It is difficult to translate many Arabic words because they have slightly difference nuance in their meaning than the English word used to denote their meaning, i.e. English translations are but approximations and not exact.

Darab does not mean 'leave' but 'turn away' (in the intransitive form). "Turn away from" = "leave". When some people say darab can mean leave they are being inexact.

The Arabic word "darab" when it means turn away/shun/avoid is a secondary meaning that requires the preposition or "harf al jar". You need a proposition to make this sense. In this case it is darab AN to mean turn from.

Some people translated 'turn away from' to mean 'leave'. However, without the 'from' you can't get the meaning 'leave'.

This difference is illustrated by the following point:

1. Darab al-ard = strike the earth. If you take a stick and hit the earth with it, you daraba al-ard.

2. Daraba fee al-ard = travel on the earth. If you want to go on a journey you daraba fee al-ard. The "fee" is the harf al jar.

It is the same with the woman.

If you want to hit her you darabohunna.
If you want to leave her (i.e. turn away from her) you daraboAnhunna.

Therefore the confusion lies with the translation of the Arabic word daraba to mean leave. It does not. The closest approximation is that it means 'turn away'. {Note: the Arabic cannot mean turning away the object - the Arabic means turning oneself away FROM someone}

Hope this helps.

I'm not sure the word 'apologetics' is an ad hominem or even an insult. It comes from the Greek word apologia and means 'defense' or 'answer'. In theology, the word apologetics is used all the time - and not with negative connotations. For example, the Christians themselves write 'apologetics' against criticism of Christianity.

Reference to my dad's arabic grammar is not an ad verecundiam because I can back it up with tafsirs. All the tafsir masters pre-20th century understand daraba in 4:34 to mean beat. Are you saying nobody, not a single Islamic scholar who presumably know Classical Arabic better than most people today, failed to understand Arabic grammar? Are you saying that all the Classical Arabic scholars for the past 14 centuries were wrong and a modern Iranian woman is right? How did Allah make such a fundamental misjudgment to use a word that was so badly understood for 14 centuries? How many million Muslim women were beaten because Allah did not clarify the word daraba in 4:34?

Whether I believe the hadiths is irrelevant. The aim is to show that the classical Arabic understanding of 4:34 is exactly the same as mine, i.e. daraba = beat. You don't have to be a genius to understand that you cannot make the meaning 'leave her' work with Muhammad's farewell sermon.

Re: your last paragraph - I have answered that already. Arabic speakers know daraba in 4:34 mean beat her, not leave her due to the grammatical construction. All the classical arabic speakers for the past 14 centuries know it means beat her - presumably they know classical arabic pretty well. All the tafsir masters say it means 'beat' her - presumably they too know classical arabic. Nobody understood it to mean 'leave her' until the 20th century when it became shameful for men to beat their wives.

You can argue the point all you want but I'm afraid you cannot argue with the evidence. There is no hadith that says 4:34 means 'leave her'. I don't know whether too many Muslims will accept your implication that the tafsir masters do not understand Classical Arabic.

The word daraba has not changed. The command from Muhammad has not changed. What has changed is the perspective of some Muslims who have become contaminated with Western sensibilities and now come to view wife-beating as something shameful and reprehensible. In the past, it was not a problem at all. I don't think it was a problem in Muhammad's time as well.

Qasim Omar:

“Your daraba = leave apologetics is a modern one - only emerging in the 20th century. All the tafsirs pre-20th century say daraba in 4;34 = beat”

Come now, “apologetics”; I thought we were done with ad hominem statements. Just because you do not agree with the interpretation of Laleh Bakhtiar is no need to call her argument “apologetics”. What is to stop someone subscribing to your viewpoint of Islam as “apologetics” for the inequality of women, intolerance for difference of opinion and violence? In your second sentence, you have rolled in an argumentum ad antiquitatem and an argumentum ad numerum (yes, I tried to read up on my Latin list of “logical fallacies”). Just because an interpretation has continued to be propagated for so long and by so many people, does not mean that it is correct and should not be challenged.

“I think my dad understands Classical Arabic quite well. He was from a generation that had to learn it. Real arabic speakers know it means beat from the grammar.”

No here you are using an argumentum ad verecundiam. I really see no reason to just accept the word of traditional Islamic Scholars or (no offence) your father on this. If what you claim is correct, then with the plethora of scholars and linguists, trained in classical Arabic, there should be absolutely no difference of opinion, or differences in translation and interpretation, over what the Quran says. Yet those differences exist and if anything are growing not narrowing. There is no reason why Laleh Bakhtiar’s research on the subject, with a mind open to alternate interpretations, void of most traditional and patriarchal views, could not have yielded a correct translation.

“Your assertion is also counter to the hadiths and Muhammad's last sermon where he explicitly told his followers to beat their wives. He must have grown soft in his old age.”

As far as Mohammed’s final sermon is concerned; where and in what manner were the accounts of this “sermon” retrieved? Oh, the same way as the hadith. You keep using Hadith to support the interpretations of the Quran and Islam that you believe (or don’t believe), but the hadith themselves are a hodgepodge of sometimes conflicting literature, and from what I can tell, you agree. The Shia and Sunni schools of thought cannot agree on what Hadith are authentic, within the Shia there are even more schools of thought that have their own lists and modern historians, both Western and progressive/liberal Islamic (whom you consider “heretical”) consider the whole process of authentication to be obsolete and replete with errors; but you have no qualms in using the hadith as more proof to support your argument that Islam is flawed. Are you not using a fallacy to prove the fallacies in Islam (as you see them)?

“All the evidence points to daraba = beat in 4;34 but you seem to have chosen to believe something else.”

All the evidence is the same old “hodgepodge” of an age old translation by conservative scholars from conservative patriarchal backgrounds, backed up by literature (hadith) that is considered to be completely unreliable by modern historians (and lets not forget the last rule of the “science of hadith”; we are to use our own heads to determine what is accurate or not. You already have an idea of what hadith “my head” considers relevant).

MZBH,
Your daraba = leave apologetics is a modern one - only emerging in the 20th century. All the tafsirs pre-20th century say daraba in 4;34 = beat.

I think my dad understands Classical Arabic quite well. He was from a generation that had to learn it. Real arabic speakers know it means beat from the grammar. Now, if you want to believe that daraba = leave from an Iranian (i.e. non-Arab) then that's your prerogative. If it came to believing the tafsirs from the Arab masters or an Iranian lady I know I will believe the former.

Your assertion is also counter to the hadiths and Muhammad's last sermon where he explicitly told his followers to beat their wives. He must have grown soft in his old age.

Here he says, "If they do, Allah has given you leave to debar them, send them from your beds, or [finally] strike them in a way that does no harm."

This is the exact wording of 4:34 except he clarified what daraba means.

All the evidence points to daraba = beat in 4;34 but you seem to have chosen to believe something else.

Oh, by the way to Pamela and Victoria. You might be interested in what Muhammad said about women in the farewell sermon.

The women who live with you are like captives, unable to manage for themselves: you took them as a trust from Allah, and enjoyed their sex as lawful through a word [legal ruling] from Allah.

You are unable to manage for yourselves and are like captives to your husbands.

Anon:

“Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.”

“And when We took a promise from you and lifted the mountain over you: Take hold of the law (Tavrat) We have given you with firmness and bear in mind what is in it, so that you may guard (against evil).”

“Then you turned back after that; so were it not for the grace of Allah and His mercy on you, you would certainly have been among the losers.”

“And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated.” - 2:62-65

I am not sure how you can take the four surah above (note the first one refers to “those who believe, Muslims I assume, Christians, Jews and Sabians) and just say that it is a condemnation of ALL Jews. Even if you only read 2:65 alone, it specifically states “those among you EXCEEDED the limits of the Sabbath”. That would apply to all of the aforementioned religious groups.

The complete verse 5:41

“O Messenger! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places: they say, "If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!" If any one's trial is intended by Allah, thou hast no authority in the least for him against Allah. For such - it is not Allah's will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment.”

The beginning of the verse tells Mohammed not to be grieved by “those who say “we believe”” or those from “among the Jews” (note not ALL Jews again). The part of the verse after that I would interpret as defining the "qualities" of SOME people from BOTH of the above mentioned groups who would “grieve” Mohammed.

I will grant you that the way the translation is structured could allow for the phrase “men who will listen to any lie” to be applied only to the Jews (and judging by the attitudes of some Muslims, it has). But such problems arise in translating anything.

You have also presented the sermons of Imams. I would condemn those vociferously and I agree with you that they are unacceptable, but you need to make that distinction between Islam and those people who would interpret Islam to allow such vitriol. Criticizing Islam encompasses 1.5 billion people, including such gracious Muslims such as Victoria, as well as those who would spout such vile hatred. Criticizing an “extremist interpretation of Islam” makes for a more correct accusation.

The rest later…

P.S: Knowing your modus operandi, can we discuss my interpretation of these verses you posted (you can offer your rebuttal), before you cut and paste more lengthy posts? It would make for a much more organized discussion and actually allow for some common understanding and ground to be gained.

Qasim Omar:

"My friend Ahmed already showed that daraba means beat and not leave in 4:34."

I must have missed Ahmed's post. Are you sure that was on this forum? You (and your father, and I believe other Muslims scholars) believe that the word translates to beat. That is fine, it is as I said based on "your interpretation" of the Quran and its grammatical structure. I however subscribe to the Iranian American Scholar's interpretation, and I believe other Muslims should too. If you insist that only YOUR translation is correct then you are suggesting that it is only possible to translate the Quran ONE way. If that were the case, we would not have the differences in pinion over what the Quran says. Whether there has been no difference of opinion over this particular surah before is irrelevant. The existing definition probably fit in quite well with the patriarchal attitudes of the Scholars and the cultures they hailed from.
Widespread acceptance should not be taken for absolute certainty. We have now one (that I know of) dissenting voice over the interpretation of that particular surah. I believe its enough to start revisiting other sections as well.

With all due respect to your father, he was not alive and speaking the form of Arabic that existed during Mohammed's (pbuh) time. His translation is based on his interpretation and study of the Quran and its language. Laleh Bakhtiar has come to her own. We can agree to disagree on this.

Anon:

I am taking exception to the "type" of argument you made. Just because "so many" people stigmatize/d, deride/d Jews does not make that characterization of them correct. Similarly your argument that this debate over Islam is occurring so "frequently" does not prove anything one way or the other either.

Mzbh,

You said "Sort of how the 'evil money grubbing Jews' were once derided in several societies? Do you think that that stigmatization was correct because 'so many' people believed it/talked about it?"

What do you mean "were once derided"?

Qur’an Chapter 2 Verse 65:
And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath (Jews): We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."

Ishaq: 250
The bestial transformation occurred when Allah turned Jews into apes, despised.

Tabari VIII: 28
When the Messenger approached the Jews, he said, ‘You brothers of apes! Allah shamed you and cursed you.’

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 41:
…Jews, - men who will listen to any lie…For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment.

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 82:
Strongest among men in enmity (hatred) to the believers (Muslims) wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans.

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.

SERMONS READ BY OVER 3,000 IMAMS IN 62 DIFFERENT COUNTRIES

WEB SITE FOR IMAMS – www.alminbar.com – [Alminbar means “pulpit” in Arabic. “Imam” means “Teacher & leader of Muslim prayer”]

(Home Page): “Welcome to the Alminbar.com - …Here you will find a variety of material to help you prepare for your sermons.” (About Us page): “We welcome you all to the site where Imaams and Du'aat meet on the internet.” (Introduction page): “Even I as the most optimistic member of the team never expected to reach about three thousand Imaams on weekly basis. Our server counter is informative and accurate, these Imaams represent sixty two countries and territories. With the advent of the English site's launch, we expect the number to increase greatly if not double.”

Khutbah [Sermon] No. 411
“O Muslims! The Jews are notorious for their betrayal and treachery. They incurred Allaah’s curse and are deserving of His wrath. They made lawful what Allaah prohibited through stratagem and cunning. This is why Allaah cursed them and transmuted them into monkeys and pigs. Shame is pitched over them like a tent wherever they are found, except when under a covenant of protection from Allaah and from men.” (www.alminbar.com/khutbaheng/411.htm)

Khutbah [Sermon] No. 819
“The Jews, who are the nation of pigs and monkeys, are nothing but a source of evil, corruption, tribulation and war. Hatred against the Muslims is inherited by every generation of Jews who in turn teach it to their children. Our enmity and hostility against them is based on our faith.” (www.alminbar.com/khutbaheng/819.htm)

Khutbah [Sermon] No. 9022
“Why do we hate the Jews? We hate them for the sake of our Lord, we hate them for the sake of Allaah because they slandered Allaah and they killed and slandered His Prophets.” […] “Finally, we ask Allaah to save the weak and oppressed believers (Muslims) and to humiliate the Jews and polytheists and grant victory to the people of Tawheed (meaning the people who believe in Allah, i.e. Muslims). May He expel the Jews from Bayt Al-Maqdis (Jerusalem), humiliated and defeated.” (www.alminbar.com/khutbaheng/9022.htm)

You seem to be arguing that just because many people believe in the Qur'an and follow it doesn't mean it's true. If that's what you mean then I would agree with you.

The reason why Jews have been stigmatized in Islamic societies, and still are today, is because of what Muhammad wrote in his Qur'an.

Made a mistake:

Last para should be

daraba = hit is intransitive
daraba = leave is transitive and you have to use the preposition "AN". The letters "ﻉ ayn and ﻥ nun" is the preposition "from". Without this, the verb means 'hit'. With this, the verb means 'leave'.

Dear MZBH
It is a known fact that some Muslims (i.e. the Ahmediyyas and the Submitters) deny the hadiths. They are also called 'Quran-only Muslims' or heretics.

Some other Muslims deny inconvenient hadiths claiming without evidence that such and such hadith is 'unreliable' and such and such hadith is 'reliable'. Lo and behold the reliable ones are the ones they agree with and the unreliable ones are the inconvenient ones.

There are MANY sahih hadiths that tell of Muhammad ordering apostates to be stoned. These, like I said, are SAHIH - meaning the chain of narration is considered sound and authentic.

Their authenticity is no different from those hadiths that advocate punishment for rape. The point I'm making is that since there is NO difference between the authenticities of the 'stone apostates' hadiths and the 'punish rapists' hadiths why do you say that the former is unreliable and the latter is reliable?

On another note, the Quran is incomplete because it does not cover every situation. This of course is not a negative point by itself since I don't claim it should be complete. However, some Muslims, especially the hadith-deniers, claim that it is complete and sufficient for governing Muslim lives. Other scriptures from other religions also do not cover every aspects of everyone's lives but since their adherents don't make that claim the issue does not arise. It only arises for the "Quran-only Muslims " aka "Hadith-deniers" because it is a claim they have pinned their hopes on. They are saying that one does not need the hadiths - and this proposition is not only impractical but against their own scripture (which they have to twist to conform to their heretical view).

Third note: My friend Ahmed already showed that daraba means beat and not leave in 4:34.

If you turn away (i.e. leave) a person you ضرب عنه daraba ANhu or اضرب عنه Idrib AnHu.

When you say 'turn away and leave him' you ضربت عنه صفحا Darabtu ‘Anhu SafHan.

This is proven from the usage in the Quran 43:5

az-Zukhruf 43:5
‏افنضرب عنكم الذكر صفحا ان كنتم قوما مسرفين
Afanadribu AAankumu alththikra safhan an kuntum qawman musrifeena

Do We disregard/move from you the reminder/remembrance forgiveness/ condonation ? That (E) you were a nation (of) spoilers/neglecters.

I asked my dad about this:

When the pronoun is attached to the verb اضرب idrib it carries the original meaning of the verb which is hit. However, if the pronoun is not attached to the verb it becomes muta’adi or transitive verb. In this case you have to use the preposition ta’adi or “from”. Therefore, in arabic if you say you “idribohun” اضربوهن you ‘hit’ someone’. If you say you “adrabo AN hun” ضرب عنه you leave FROM him.

In summary when you daraba someone you are using the transitive verb.

But when you daraba AN someone you are using the intransitive verb.

daraba = hit is transitive
daraba = leave is intransitive and you have to use the preposition "AN". The letters "ﻉ ayn and ﻥ nun" is the preposition "from". Without this, the verb means 'hit'. With this, the verb means 'leave'.

Anon:

"Doesn't that make you think that there is a very powerful overiding issue here - that there is a serious problem with Islam?"

Sort of how the "evil money grubbing Jews" were once derided in several societies? Do you think that that stigmatization was correct because "so many" people believed it/talked about it?

Rueben:

This is a quote from an Islamicity.com forum:

""Hadith do not take precedence over the Quran in law, since you are clearly stating a black and white manner this is the black and white answer if you like. What may occur is that the verse in the Quran my not be addressing specifics of an Issue while the hadith is more clear on the matter hence one is taken over the other. You can not take Hadith over Quran if the Quran is specific and clear this is a principle of Islamic law.
The Quran is said to be perfect. Hadith are used to clarify. But what if they come into conflict.
The scholar should then investigate the reason for the contradiction but if no reason can be found and in some rare cases this has occurred, in matters of law the Quran takes precedence.""

For me the problem in the above statement is where the "scholar's investigation" comes in.
Something that you should keep in mind while reading the Quran:

""Note that any translation of the Qur'an immediately ceases to be the literal word of Allah, and hence cannot be equated with the Qur'an in its original Arabic form. In fact, each of the translations on this site is ACTUALLY AN INTERPRETATION WHICH HAS BEEN TRANSLATED.""

(sorry about the caps, but I do not believe bold type is supported on the forum)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

I believe the issue of interpretation of the Quran is going to become of paramount importance for moderate Muslims. For example one of the more indefensible verses in the Quran, in my opinion, was the one that related to the "beating" of a wife by her husband if she disobeyed him. A recent translation of the Quran by Laleh Bakhtiar, an Iranian American woman, interpreted the word "daraba" in the said verse, till now translated as "beat", to mean "go away".

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/illinois/chi-ap-il-womanqurantransla,1,3768305.story

I believe that as (and if) moderates gain the upper hand in Muslim societies, we may over time see a larger emphasis on exploring possible interpretations that are even more in sync with modern progressive values.

Victoria,

You said: "no matter how unrelated the topic- ends up being about what is wrong with islam"

Doesn't that make you think that there is a very powerful overiding issue here - that there is a serious problem with Islam?

Haven't you noticed that this issue is being debated all over the world, not just on this site? It should make you think something, Victoria. It should make you think "If so many people think there's a serious problem with Islam then maybe there's a serious problem with Islam."

One question...
When in conflict, does the quran always supercede the hadith, so to say? What is the law/rule/recommendation regarding such a situation?

Qasim Omar:

“In denying apostasy laws made according to the hadiths would you also deny the sharia laws against rape? Following your reasoning you must say that Allah did not punish apostasy, so he also did not punish rape {as we all know rape is not even mentioned once in the Quran}.”

I am not sure why you insist upon this absolute acceptance or rejection of the Hadith. Victoria and others have pointed out several times that all the Hadith are not necessarily reliable. In determining what should be followed I’ll quote her argument again:

“the veracity and reputation of the transmitter
the reputation of the memory of the transmitter
whether the transmitter is relating directly hearing from the mouth of the prophet(pbuh)
(or in your case 2nd or 3rd party transmission)
and finally, if it is in contradiction to what is written in the qur'an, or the sunnah (recorded and verified actions of the prophet(pbuh)
we have to use our own brains and say,this is obviously in direct conflict”

There is this need for “using our own brains” to analyze (and reanalyze) if certain hadith, that have been accepted by scholars for so long, should be rejected by moderate Muslims because they do represent intolerance and injustice for certain sections of society. I would put the punishment for apostasy (not considering treason) in that category; a hadith that needs to be rejected.

As far as rape, bestiality etc. etc. are concerned, if there are certain Hadith that do offer sensible, humane, and socially equitable solutions to those problems, I am all for accepting them. If not, then the Quran offers us several commandments that require us “to do justice”:

“God commands justice and fair dealing.” (Quran 16:90)
“O you who believe, be upright for God, and (be) bearers of witness with justice!” (Quran 5:8)
“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even if it be against yourselves, your parents, and your relatives, or whether it is against the rich or the poor.” (Quran 4:135)
“Let not the hatred of a people swerve you away from justice. Be just, for this is closest to righteousness.” (Quran 5:8)
“God does not forbid you from doing good and being just to those who have neither fought you over your faith nor evicted you from your homes.” (Quran 60:8)
“If you judge, judge between them with justice.” (Quran 5:42)
“Be just, for it is closest to God-consciousness.” (Quran 5:8)

I think that the Quran makes it pretty clear that Muslims should always strive for justice. I would interpret this as applying to every aspect of society; whether it is rape, murder or cybercrime.

So your comment about the Quran being “incomplete” is subjective and depends upon the context you are using the word “incomplete” in. Does the Quran contain a description of every single possible crime ever committed or to be committed and its punishment? It does not, but the above verses, commanding Muslims to do “justice”, would cover everything from cattle theft to white collar crime. So from my perspective, the Quran DOES provide for justice to be done in ANY situation. The problem is that we have scholars in patriarchal cultures, beset with all kinds of socio-economic problems, interpreting this command for justice in an extremely intolerant and prejudicial manner. Again, even if most Islamic Scholars interpret this call to justice in the ludicrous way the apostasy punishment has been, that does not make their interpretation correct.

Victoria,
That's what I mean. How do you know the Sunnah? From the ahadith and the sira. You won't be able to find the Sunnah in the Quran.

There are 11 verses where Muslims are commanded to obey Allah and Muhammad.

eg.

Surah Muhammad 47:33
ياايها الذين امنوا اطيعوا الله واطيعوا الرسول ولاتبطلوا اعمالكم
Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo ateeAAoo Allaha waateeAAoo alrrasoola wala tubtiloo aAAmalakum

You, you those who believed, obey God and obey the messenger and do not waste/annul your deeds.

Surah al-Imran 3:32
قل اطيعوا الله والرسول فان تولوا فان الله لايحب الكافرين
Qul ateeAAoo Allaha waalrrasoola fa-in tawallaw fa-inna Allaha la yuhibbu alkafireena
Say: "Obey God, and the messenger." So if they turned away , so then God does not love/like the disbelievers.

اطيعوا ateeAAoo = obey
الرسول alrrasoola = the messenger = Muhammad

The same word ateeAAoo is used for both Allah and Muhammad.

obey muhammad(pbuh)?

just a quick comment- mzbh- if youll notice, pretty much every single panelist blog who is muslim, no matter how unrelated the topic- ends up being about what is wrong with islam (in the eyes of some) this one is a very civil one- to go to the arsenic laced minefield of that question- may possibly invite those with less than noble intentions to hijack this nice exchange.

ill get back to this insha'alla tomorrow- but - mr omar, what about sunnah? the actions of the prophet(salalahu alaihi wasalaam) (swa for short rueben- or peace be upon him or-pbuh)

mr omar, what country are you living in?
if its not too personal, if it is, justblithely ignore the question and ill know i overstepped my bounds.

peace

MZBH
This merely proves the Quran is incomplete and cannot be the sole guide to humanity as some Muslims assert.

I know some Muslims like the Submitters deny the hadiths. However, these people have never been in power anywhere and have the luxury of merely snapping from the sidelines and never take the responsibility of regulating Muslim lives - in other words they don't have the burden and responsibility in formulating sharia.

Everywhere sharia has been practised Muslim scholars have grappled with issues like this. Therefore, both Shias and Sunnis have their own hadiths from which they derive Islamic laws - and not the Quran in isolation. Because it is impossible to regulate Muslim law by the Quran alone.

There are verses in the Quran that tell muslims to obey Muhammad which cannot be true unless you take into account the hadiths. This is because Muslims believe the Quran is the word of Allah. To obey Muhammad you have to use the hadiths, not the Quran (which is obeying Allah, not Muhammad).

In denying apostasy laws made according to the hadiths would you also deny the sharia laws against rape? Following your reasoning you must say that Allah did not punish apostasy, so he also did not punish rape {as we all know rape is not even mentioned once in the Quran}.

What about bestiality? That is also not mentioned in the Quran? Or cannabalism? And we know that punishment for homosexuality is not explicit in the Quran.

By the same reason as you consider the hadiths describing punishment for adultery 'unreliable' you have to also consider the same for rape and bestiality.

Hence, most orthodox Muslims would find your type of argument (used by heretical sects like the Submitters) to be impractical, not to mention heretical.

On a different note; since this discussion has not gone anywhere near Mormonism, did you folk want to just move it to the main, poorly worded, "Do you think Islam is a violent religion" forum? It is a bit easier to link to. Just a thought.

Qasim Omar:

I am skipping over our discussion over abrogation (sorry about that) for a few days, while I adjust to the craziness of work and summer classes, and responding to your comment about the Pakistani apostasy law:

"The Pakistanis parliament is in the process of passing a bill that makes apostasy punishable by death. Previously it was part of the Huddud (i.e. sharia) laws but now it's to be part of the general criminal law as well. But I suppose these crazy Pakistani Islamic scholars don't know what they're talking about."

The Pakistani Islamic Scholars, who are supporting this law, do not know what they are talking about (or perhaps the actually do, but drunk with the power they wield, they forge on with these acts that are an insult to the religion); most of them never seem to have.

There is no punishment for apostasy in the Quran, only in the Hadith and since they can be unreliable, I (and many moderate Muslims) do not consider any punishment for apostasy to be valid. I won’t deny that there might be a majority (of “scholars”) who subscribe to the interpretation that apostasy deserves death as punishment, but I support the school of thought that interprets it otherwise. Just because a majority of scholars believes it, does not make their interpretation correct. It is up to us moderate Muslims to convince others and bring about an acceptance for tolerance towards free choice of whatever ideology a person wants to subscribe to (as long as that ideology itself is not intolerant I suppose).

I am originally from Pakistan by the way, with a Sunni mother and a Shia father, and I condemn this attempt by our government of “enlightened moderation” to deny people such a basic right.

BTW, the above post to Victoria and Omar was by me (Rueben).
One question Victoria:
What does "swa" stand for? You have written this following the prophet's name...

Enjoyed your discussion very much. For a change, there was no exchange of vitriol (though Victoria IS sensible most of the times; haven't read much from Qasim but he seems like a level-headed bloke too). There actually was a productive argument, where other poster could learn something.
And very well said Victoria: "because men are not all high natured but a mix of good and bad every one-".
I would have to say (and I paraphrase some poster I read a few days ago): no religion is inherently violent, but it is only some selfish/crazy/maniacal few who give religion a bad name. So though how it is practised today by SOME people may a different story, I am sure Islam is not a violent/crazy religion. And if people say that is how most muslims think, that is entirely wrong because how would you hear about a muslim disagree with some act of violence (that WILL not make a story for the newsmedia). On the other hand, acts of violence make good headline news and sell!
Peace and cheers people...

For MZBH
You know that most Muslim scholars say that Mu'tah (pleasure) marriages was once allowed by Muhammad according to verse 4:24

http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter6a/1.html

However, Sunnis believe Umar later prohibited it.

Umar said, while on the pulpit: "O folk! Three were (allowed) during the time of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF), and I forbid them, and make them Haraam, and punish on them. They were: Mut'a of women, Mut'a of Hajj (pilgrimage), and saying 'Hayya Ala Khair al-Amal'."

So this yet another strange case where a hadith (from Umar, not from Muhammad) has abrogated the Quran.

Of course, Shias don't believe this hadith and hence still deem Mu'tah marriages (which is nothing more than prostitution) to be allowed.

For the non-Muslim readers: Mu'tah or pleasure marriage is a practise whereby a Muslim man contracts a type of temporary 'marriage' with a woman for a short time, at the end of which he pays her an agreed settlement (i.e. money) and they have no more ties. The children if any are no his responsibility and no inheritance or other legal ties between them will exist. In other words, it is prostitution by another name.

Mu'tah marriages are still practised by the Shias and also in Egypt (strangely enough for a Sunni country).

Some modern apologists deny that Muhammad allowed Mu'tah marriages in the Quran despite the historical evidence from the hadiths.

This has always seem to me to be a very strange case where a ruling from a Caliph has been used to abrogate the Quran. Strange but true.

Randy, Sydney:

Uh yeah, thanks...you know we get the news here in the U.S. too? That was the top headline yesterday...you had to pass it to get to these threads.

Victoria,

You want Islam to be a tolerant and peaceful religion (as we all do), but because you have wedded yourself to this faith you are now prepared to ignore any evidence which contradicts what you want to believe, and hail any evidence which appears to support what you want to believe.

You cannot make Islam into a peaceful and tolerant faith just by believing what you want to believe, Victoria. If the evidence reveals Muhammad as a violent and hateful man, then that's what he was, and you need to face up to that. It's not good for you to live your life in denial.

but the real islam, the islam practiced by our prophet(swa) (and i dont find the same inconsistencies or quixotic behavior tendencies as you, but that is my prerogative) is an islam of aspiration, of reaching for and accomplishing the highest caliber of behavior, and forgiveness is the supreme rule, not the exception to the rule.

Sorry Victoria but I disagree. For every incident where Muhammad forgave there are many others in which he killed. How many adulteresses did he pardon?

Come to think of it, you may be wrong about that incident. My recollection is that he did order the adultress to be stoned but only after she has given birth to her child.

Narrated Imran ibn Husayn: Book 38, Number 4426:
A woman belonging to the tribe of Juhaynah (according to the version of Aban) came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said that she had committed fornication and that she was pregnant. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) called her guardian. Then the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said to him: Be good to her, and when she bears a child, bring her (to me). When she gave birth to the child, he brought her (to him). The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) gave orders regarding her, and her clothes were tied to her. He then commanded regarding her and she was STONED TO DEATH.

Is this the incident you were referring to?

you're right victoria, we should be look out not only for ayrabs but also for Turks, kosovar, albanians and bosnians as well.

6 men charged in plot to attack Fort Dix By WAYNE PARRY, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 12 minutes ago

Six foreign-born Muslims were arrested and accused Tuesday of plotting to attack Fort Dix and slaughter scores of U.S. soldiers — a scheme the FBI says was foiled when the men asked a store clerk to copy a video of them firing assault weapons and screaming about jihad.

The defendants, all men in their 20s from the former Yugoslavia and the Middle East, include a pizza deliveryman suspected of using his job to scout out the military base.

Their goal was "to kill as many American soldiers as possible" with mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and guns, prosecutors said.

"Today we dodged a bullet. In fact, when you look at the type of weapons that this group was trying to purchase, we may have dodged a lot of bullets," said FBI agent J.P. Weis.

"We had a group that was forming a platoon to take on an army. They identified their target, they did their reconnaissance. They had maps. And they were in the process of buying weapons. Luckily, we were able to stop that."

Authorities said there was no direct evidence connecting the men to any international terror organizations such as al-Qaida. But several of them said they were ready to kill and die "in the name of Allah," according to court papers.

Investigators said they infiltrated the group with two informants well over a year ago and bided their time while they secretly recorded the defendants, four of whom lived in Cherry Hill, a Philadelphia suburb about 20 miles from Fort Dix.

"This is what law enforcement is supposed to do in the post-9/11 era — stay one step ahead of those who are attempting to cause harm to innocent American citizens," U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie said.

Weis saluted the unidentified New Jersey store clerk who noticed the suspicious video as the "unsung hero" of the case. "That's why we're here today — because of the courage and heroism of that individual," the FBI agent said.

In addition to plotting the attack on Fort Dix, the defendants spoke of assaulting a Navy installation in Philadelphia during the annual Army-Navy football game and conducted surveillance at other military installations in the region, prosecutors said.

One defendant, Eljvir Duka, was recorded as saying: "In the end, when it comes to defending your religion, when someone ... attacks your religion, your way of life, then you go jihad."

The six were arrested Monday night trying to buy AK-47 assault weapons, M-16s and other weapons from an FBI informant, authorities said.

They appeared in federal court Tuesday in Camden and were ordered held without bail for a hearing Friday. Five were charged with conspiracy to kill U.S. military personnel; the sixth was charged with aiding and abetting illegal immigrants in obtaining weapons.

Four of the men were born in the former Yugoslavia, one was born in Jordan and one came from Turkey, authorities said. All had lived in the United States for years. Three were in the United States illegally; two had green cards allowing them to stay in this country permanently; and the sixth is a U.S. citizen.

One defendant, Mohamad Ibrahim Shnewer, spoke of using rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons to kill at least 100 soldiers, according to court documents.

"My intent is to hit a heavy concentration of soldiers," he was quoted as saying. "You hit four, five or six Humvees and light the whole place (up) and retreat completely without any losses."

"It doesn't matter to me whether I get locked up, arrested or get taken away," another defendant, Serdar Tatar, was alleged to have said. "Or I die, it doesn't matter. I'm doing it in the name of Allah."

The men trained by playing paintball in the woods in New Jersey and taking target practice at a firing range in Pennsylvania's Pocono Mountains, where they had rented a house, authorities said.

They often watched terror training videos, clips featuring Osama bin Laden, a tape containing the last will and testament of some of the Sept. 11 hijackers, and tapes of armed attacks on U.S. military personnel, erupting in laughter when one plotter noted that a Marine's arm was blown off in an ambush, authorities said.

Asked if those arrested had any links to al-Qaida, White House spokesman Tony Snow said it appears "there is no direct evidence of a foreign terrorist tie."

The FBI's Weis said the U.S. is seeing a "brand-new form of terrorism," involving smaller, more loosely defined groups that may not be connected to al-Qaida but are inspired by its ideology.

"These homegrown terrorists can prove to be as dangerous as any known group, if not more so. They operate under the radar," Weis said.

In court documents, prosecutors said the suspects came to the attention of authorities in January 2006 when a Mount Laurel, N.J., shopkeeper alerted the FBI to a "disturbing" video he had been asked to copy onto a DVD.

The video showed 10 young men "shooting assault weapons at a firing range ... while calling for jihad and shouting in Arabic 'Allah Akbar' (God is great)," the complaint said. The 10 included six of those arrested, authorities said.

Within months, the FBI had managed to infiltrate the group with two informants, according to court documents.

One of the suspects, Tatar, worked at his father's pizzeria and made deliveries to the base, using the opportunity to scout out Fort Dix for an attack, authorities said. "Clearly, one of the guys had an intimate knowledge of the base from having been there delivering pizzas," Christie said.

The men also allegedly conducted surveillance at other area military installations, including Fort Monmouth in New Jersey, Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, and a Philadelphia Coast Guard station.

Besides Shnewer, Tatar and Duka, the other three men were identified in court papers as Dritan Duka, Shain Duka and Agron Abdullahu.

Fort Dix is used to train soldiers, particularly reservists. It also housed refugees from Kosovo in 1999.

The arrests renewed worries among New Jersey's Muslim community. Hundreds of Muslim men from New Jersey were rounded up and detained in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks, but none were connected to that plot.

"If these people did something, then they deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law," said Sohail Mohammed, a lawyer who represented scores of detainees after the 2001 attacks. "But when the government says `Islamic militants,' it sends a message to the public that Islam and militancy are synonymous."

"Don't equate actions with religion," he said.

___

Associated Press Writers Matt Apuzzo and Ben Feller in Washington, Geoff Mulvihill in Mount Laurel, Tom Hester Jr. in Trenton and Jeffrey Gold in Newark contributed to this story.

well, the one thing about a good historian is they try to be objective, so as far as it being a good source of history, id say there were defintitleyl subjective motives that can be attributed to the narrators -

actually, there are some really wild and crazy pakistani scholars.
i dont look to pakistani culture as a source of moderation, as in living with them, i find them to be highly excitable and emotional people.
as i am often excitable and highly emotional we get on quite well.

as for the pakistani government passing into law making apostasy punishable by death- well thats just psycho.

didnt a bunch of pakistani lawyers just protest en masse over the dismissal of one of the most prominent judges there/
and couldnt that be a backlash of the right trying to coalesce their power base?

as for pakistani cultural interpolations into islam- there seems to be alot of hindu flavored mentality melded into it-
many of the womens issues are positively draconian-
i just spent 5 years at muslim community center mosque in chicago, and it is indo-pak central.

and i have many many times had to endure some real village nonsense masquerading as islam -

but i always consider the source- some people have no control over their own lives so find it necessary to exert it in other areas.

but i had the greatest blessing and fortun to live 2 blocks from a scholar repsected around america named dr amir ali. hes from karachi.
he married an american woman 50 years ago and in that time they had to go to washington dc because that was the only legal place a muslim could marry!
his wife, mary ai, is one of the contributors to pbs on womens issues.
i have to say, pakistanis are alternately some of my very and least favorite people.

its a culture of extremes, and since i have a tendency to go to extremes in my life- (situational not philisophically) i like to experience all the extreme ends and end up in the middle.

dr ali was an incredible mind, and i spent many many hours of my life engaged in arguments with him. because i was polite and respectful, but relentlessly tenacious with a point- we would actually argue and shock everyone around us but we had our own boundaries which only we knew, and i never ever crossed the boundary of taking liberties or being disrespectful.

but he answered my questions! he died over a year ago and i sure miss him.
he was a character. he ran the triple I and e center- ISLAMIC INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION & EDUCATION- III & E. which was a thorn in the side of MCC (muslim community center) for over 30 years. he had some crazy 100 year lease and was connected to the MCC- they were pretty conservative (my mosque) and he was definitely on the liberal side. but what a scholar.

why dont muslims similarly pardon instead of punish?
ill tell you why.
because they have fearful tiny little vengeful hearts and are msising what the qur'n tells them.

because men are not all high natured but a mix of good and bad every one- islam is easy in relation to what is bearable for people.
so, if a person wants to go on their lowest and basest instincts- yes- they can get revenge, its not good its not great its not preferable, but its a religion for human beings, not saints.

it has realistic and attainable rules- not lofty impossible to reach goals that only te most evolved can enact with any consisitency.

so technically, it is islam to seek earthly "justice" or vengeance. but it is the least one can do.
and its not preferable at all, only tolerated as the allowance for the baser less forgiving who insist on their own unsavory satisfactions.

but the real islam, the islam practiced by our prophet(swa) (and i dont find the same inconsistencies or quixotic behavior tendencies as you, but that is my prerogative) is an islam of aspiration, of reaching for and accomplishing the highest caliber of behavior, and forgiveness is the supreme rule, not the exception to the rule.

and mob rule and the general consensus generally fall to the lowest common denominator, dont you think?

several pakistani men in my life have been crazy to take me to pakistan and marry me and keep me sequestered somewhere, but i explained to them that if such an action were to occur, i would immediately cause chaos in the local mosques, thereby causing the wrath of the mobs to tear their families and likely myself asunder.

so i respectfully declined. put in those terms i think they realized that whatwas exciting in the united states, could well be life threatening in their hometowns.

i hope that you dont think i am being too critical of pakistani culture or tradition- because out of that extreme social environment some superlative women scholars have arisen, and they wouldnt be who they are if they hadnt overcome monumental obstacles.

as for your dad, well, god bless him-

as my grandmother used to say, give me a man whose vices i can see(like mild ones, smoking or drinking or such) it is the man whose vices are deeply embedded in his heart that i must be wary of.

peace mr omar

Victoria,
I don't think my dad came home to pray after a heavy lunch. He is not Muslim after all. The point is that he recovered from being in an intoxicated state within a matter of a couple of hours. I don't think he ever got blind drunk though, but his words were slurred and he couldn't walk quite straight. It helps when you own your own business.

I don't believe in Muhammad's prophet but I do believe the hadiths are a good historical source of the historical Muhammad - what he said and did. There is a difference between believing someone's word and believing historical accounts of what he did.

Muhammad was often quite quixotic, changing his mind all the time - sometimes vengeful sometime merciful. It is up to the Muslims to sort him out. If he did indeed pardon the adultress, as you say, and I believe that he may have done so, why don't Muslims similarly pardon adulterers instead of punishing them? You tell me.

BTW: The Pakistanis parliament is in the process of passing a bill that makes apostasy punishable by death. Previously it was part of the Huddud (i.e. sharia) laws but now it's to be part of the general criminal law as well. But I suppose these crazy Pakistani Islamic scholars don't know what they're talking about.

randy - what?
you should be writing for the new york post-

ayrabs beware? ill be on the lookout for a man of maybe italian (or greek- or arab) descent

how is someone getting stabbed in sydney at 1 in the morning in a macdonalds parking lot in july of 2006 by someone who witnesses say are of arab or mediterranean background of even the remotest significance to the price of tea in china?

are you bored, or what?

mr omar- it honestly didnt occur to me to get tipsy after witr prayer-

its nice your dad has the kind of job that he can nap in the afternoon- but if we wnat to be really specific and picky about it- by the time he gets home he would have missed asr prayer- still the same short window of time, 2 1/2-3 1/2 hours. (and pretty sloshed is definitely a different category than tipsy)
but its entirely his business.
so you probably also know the story about the couple drinking in their kitchen, and the neighbor hops over the fence, peeks in their window, and runs off like a rat to tell on them to the prophet(swa)
the response was, that he had to committ 3 separate sins to report on the one sin of his neighbors, and since it was hearsay and the information was gotten through committing the sins of approaching a home from the back door, and then spying- (not to mention backbiting) that it was their business and between them and ALLAH.

so, you said this-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Victoria,
The thing about Muhammad was that he was quixotic and wholly inconsistent. Sometimes he would pardon people for no reason - depending on his mood. However, you can't make laws on such inconsistency."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

well, using that reasoning- and that reasoning alone, how can you cite ANY hadeeth as representative of muhammad(swa) if , he is as inconsistent as you say?

wouldnt common sense dictate that if you believe this, and then you post hadeeth as proof of this or that- that you yourself are not even beieving the proofs you are giving?

but we know that people in cyberland may not necessarily have any savvy or experience with hadeeth and mistake it as somekind of scriptural law that all muslims accept.

so it can go two ways-

either you believe what you post as representative of islam (not necessarily your own personal beliefs mind you)
(nor actually what i believe)

in which case you are claiming to speak for what many many many muslims may not adhere to-

OR

you have no belief in the veracity of the hadeeth you post, yet still use them as some kind of fundamental and simplistic reasoning process that, im sure, some dull wits somewhere may also use as reasoning- but- again, not really representative of what many many many muslims believe.

it seems islam has crystallized in many societies into some rigid and inflexible concrete laws claimed as sharia-
now islam is not the catholic church-
reformers show up every 100 years or so to redirect people back to a purer form-

and its not supposed to be a religion that will brook no questioning of authority figures-

each of us having our own intelligence and exhorted to read the qur'an ourselves and divine our own interpretations.

this would seem like it would keep it fresh and in a state of renewing itself-
doesnt always work that way though does it?

well, bbc is calling.

peace now

Qasim Omar:

First an apology. I must admit that I actually committed the infraction that I accused you of; not properly reading the others post, and you did in fact provide a bit more than the one argument that I attributed to you and for that I apologize. I read your post, and answered, in a bit of a rush as I was between classes and quite frankly your first comment (about not being a Muslim; not that being one should have bearing on a discussion)got me a bit riled up.

This time I read through your posts a bit more carefully, and while I still stand by my opinion about abrogation, I will attempt to counter some of the other points you raised.

I was hoping to get this in before you read my last post, but better late than never.

BEWARE of The Ayrabs!

Throat slash victim 'very lucky'
David Braithwaite
July 21, 2006 - 7:40AM

An 18-year-old man is in hospital with a 10 centimetre cut to the throat after being slashed with a knife in Sydney's east this morning, police say.

The man had been out on the town and was walking with a friend down Middle Lane near the Kingsford McDonald's restaurant about 12.45am, police said.

It appeared the pair were in the middle of the road and obstructed a white van driving down the lane, Randwick police duty officer Inspector John O'Reilly said.

"The van stopped and two men got out - the passenger produced a folding-type knife and opened it," he said.

"The driver was yelling abuse at the two men on foot, and then there may have been some kind of altercation.

"The victim went into the McDonald's where he realised he'd been slashed across the neck."

The man was taken to Prince of Wales Hospital and was in a stable condition, police said.

He was "very lucky" the knife seemed to have missed vital areas of his neck, Inspector O'Reilly said.

Witnesses described the men in the van as of Mediterranean or Middle Eastern appearance, police said.

Anyone with information is asked to contact Maroubra police on 9349 9299 or Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.

August 24, 2006

Kuala Lumpur Journal
Once Muslim, Now Christian and Caught in the Courts

By JANE PERLEZ

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Aug. 19 — From the scant personal details
that can
be pieced together about Lina Joy, she converted from Islam to
Christianity eight years ago and since then has endured extraordinary
hurdles in her desire to marry the man in her life.

Her name is a household word in this majority Muslim country. But she
is
now in hiding after death threats from Islamic extremists, who accuse
her
of being an apostate.

Five years ago she started proceedings in the civil courts to seek the
right to marry her Christian fiancé and have children. Because she had
renounced her Muslim faith, Ms. Joy, 42, argued, Malaysia’s Islamic
Shariah courts, which control such matters as marriage, property and
divorce, did not have jurisdiction over her.

In a series of decisions, the civil courts ruled against her. Then,
last
month, her lawyer, Benjamin Dawson, appeared before Malaysia’s
highest
court, the Court of Appeals, to argue that Ms. Joy’s conversion be
considered a right protected under the Constitution, not a religious
matter for the Shariah courts.

“She’s trying to live her life with someone she loves,” Mr.
Dawson said in
an interview.

Threats against Ms. Joy had become so insistent, and the passions over
her
conversion so inflamed, he had concluded there was no room for her and
her
fiancé in Malaysia. The most likely solution, he said, was for her to
emigrate.

For Malaysia, which considers itself a moderate and modern Muslim
country
with a tolerance for its multiple religions and ethnic groups of
Malays,
Indians and Chinese, the case has kicked up a firestorm that goes to
the
very heart of who is a Malay, and what is Malaysia.

Her case has heightened a searing battle that has included street
protests
and death threats between groups advocating a secular interpretation of
the Constitution, and Islamic groups that contend the Shariah courts
should have supremacy in many matters.

Some see the rulings against Ms. Joy as a sign of increasing
Islamization,
and of the pressures felt by the government of Prime Minister Abdullah
Badawi as it tries to respond to the opposition Islamic party, Parti
Islam
Semalaysia.

About 60 percent of Malaysia’s 26 million people are Muslim, 20
percent
are Buddhist, nearly 10 percent are Christian and 6 percent Hindu.

Malaysia has powerful Islamic Affairs Departments in its 13 states and
in
the capital district around Kuala Lumpur. The departments, a kind of
parallel bureaucracy to the state apparatus that were strengthened
during
the 22-year rule of former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, run the
Shariah courts.

“Malaysia is at a crossroads,” Mr. Dawson said. “Do we go down
the Islamic
road, or do we maintain the secular character of the federal
constitution
that has been eroding in the last 10 years?”

In rulings in her case, civil courts said Malays could not renounce
Islam
because the Constitution defined Malays to be Muslims.

They also ruled that a request to change her identity card from Muslim
to
Christian had to be decided by the Shariah courts. There she would be
considered an apostate, and if she did not repent she surely would be
sentenced to several years in an Islamic center for rehabilitation.

Mr. Dawson said Ms. Joy had been interested in Roman Catholicism since
1990 and was baptized in 1998 at Our Lady of Fatima Church in Kuala
Lumpur. Because she considered herself a Christian, Ms. Joy did not
believe the Shariah courts applied to her. In an affidavit to a lower
civil court in 2000, she said she felt “more peace in my spirit and
soul
after having become a Christian.”

Because of the death threats, including some calls to hunt her down,
Mr.
Dawson said, he could not say where she was, and could not make her
available for an interview, even by telephone.

Similarly, her fiancé, whom Mr. Dawson referred to as Johnson, a
Christian
of ethnic Indian background whom Ms. Joy met in 1990, had received
death
threats and was not prepared to be interviewed.

Last month, Prime Minister Badawi appeared to side with the Islamists
when
he ordered that forums organized around the country to discuss
religious
freedom must stop. The forums, run by a group called Article 11, named
after the section of the Constitution that says Malaysians are free to
choose their religion, were disrupted on several occasions by Islamic
protesters.

The chief organizer of the Article 11 forums, a well-known human rights
lawyer, Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, a Muslim, received a death threat this
month
that was widely circulated by e-mail.

With the heading “Wanted Dead,” the message featured a photograph
of Mr.
Malik and said: “This is the face of the traitorous lawyer to Islam
who
supports the Lina Joy apostasy case. Distribute to our friends so they
can
recognize this traitor. If you find him dead by the side of the road,
do
not help.”

Mr. Malik, 36, who presented a brief in support of Ms. Joy to the
Appeals
Court, said he was seeking police protection. “We must not confuse
the
crucial distinction between a country in which the majority are
Muslims,
and is thus an Islamic country, and a country in which the supreme law
is
the Shariah, an Islamic state,” Mr. Malik said.

Conversions of Muslims to Christianity are not common in Malaysia,
though
most converts do not seek official approval for marriage and therefore
do
not run into the obstacles Ms. Joy confronted. One 38-year-old convert,
who said in an interview at a Roman Catholic parish that he would
provide
only his Christian names, Paul Michael, and not his surname, for fear
of
retribution, described how he led a double life.

“Church members know us as who we are, and the outside world knows us
as
we were,” he said. He was fearful, he said, that if his conversion
became
public the religious authorities would come after him, and he could be
sentenced to a religious rehabilitation camp.

One such place, hidden in the forest at Ulu Yam Baru, 20 miles outside
the
capital, is ringed like a prison by barbed wire, with dormitories
protected by a second ring of barbed wire. Outside a sign says,
“House of
Faith,” and inside the inmates spend much of their time studying
Islam.

Paul Michael said he and other former Muslims moved from church to
church
for services to avoid detection. They call themselves “M.M.B.B.,”
for
Malay Muslim Background Believers. “It’s a group of Malays who are
no
longer Muslims,” he said.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Help the assyrians, Copt, Maronite and other minorities in the middle east!

The assault on Assyrian Christians
By Paul Isaac

Tuesday, May 8, 2007
WASHINGTON:

A militant Islamic group in Iraq recently issued a fatwa, or religious edict, to the Assyrian Christian residents of the Baghdad suburb of Dora: Convert to Islam within 24 hours, or face death. At the same time, Muslim neighbors were instructed, over the loudspeakers of local mosques, to confiscate the property of Christians and enforce the edict.

The response was as swift: The majority of Assyrians remaining in Dora immediately gathered whatever they could carry and fled the city.

Iraq's Assyrian Christians know quite well that these latest threats are not empty promises. Since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, over 25 churches across Iraq have been bombed, in highly symbolic and coordinated manners. The Islamic group claiming responsibility for the bombing of four churches in August 2004 issued a warning. "To the people of the crosses: Return to your senses and be aware that God's soldiers are ready for you. You wanted a crusade and these are its results

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/08/opinion/edisaac.php

Qasim Omar's refutation of al-Ghazali.

1. al-Ghazali claims that this verse "And if we substitute one sign for another -- and Allah knows best what He reveals in stages -- they say, thou art but a forger . . . (Q16:101)." is a Meccan verse. No Meccan verse exists that has been abrogated by another.

The verse is very clear in saying that the Meccan pagans accused Muhammad of being a forger because he revealed in stages. To claim that there was no abrogation is:

a. to claim that the verse is lying. The part, 'they say thou art but a forger', can only be true if Muhammad did abrogate previous verses.

b. no abrogated verse has been found from the Meccan period. = is untrue. While there are no abrogated verses from that surah (an-nahl), there are the famous Satanic Verses that were expunged from the Quran (according to historical accounts).

2. Permission based on circumstances is not considered abrogation.

This is not the only example. I don't use this as an example of abrogation. There are others I use that are clear examples where older verses are not followed but are replaced by newer verses.

as for the adulteresses, you know well im sure the story of the pregnant woman who went to the prophet(swa) and confessed her zinna.
he told her 3 separate times to go, give birth, suckle her baby and di not come after her.

Victoria,
The thing about Muhammad was that he was quixotic and wholly inconsistent. Sometimes he would pardon people for no reason - depending on his mood. However, you can't make laws on such inconsistency.

It is in the Quran that Muhammad said an adulteress should be locked up until death (in an early verse) or flogged 100x (in a later verse). It is in the sahih hadith that he said to stone adulterers to death.

Muslims generally take Muhammad's inconsistent acts of mercy as a prophetic prerogative. He could pardon people because of who he was - the ruler and prophet. But since this is inconsistent with his many other teachings/examples Muslims don't apply this pardon to adulterers. I wish they do but they don't.

PS: On some days my dad get pretty sloshed at lunch meetings but he takes a nap in the office and comes home fine. It all depends on one's liver, I guess.

Qasim Omar:

“MZBH
It is obvious you are not a Muslim and/or do not understand the process of abrogation so please spare us your ad hominems.”

Would you mind explaining where I made this so called “appeal to personal considerations”? Or did you just want to use the phrase because it sounded “fancy” and would make you look like you knew what you were talking about? They only thing you could come up with is that “Abrogation applies only to ayats and not surahs”. How are the ayats “targeted for abrogation determined”? Funny how the ayats that support the concept of abrogation in a Surah (that is abrogated) are left standing while others are not. Using the article YOU provided, with the “event” narrated in it, I reasoned why the argument for abrogation was invalid. Instead of rebutting my argument properly by presenting your own, you just tell me that I am not a Muslim if I do not believe in it; wow great debating there Omar.

**
Calling people dimwits is surely an ad hominem.

No – I think I have fully supported my arguments against ‘abrogation denials’. Islam is not a monolith – there are scholars for and against abrogation. However, in Sunni Islam the former vastly outnumber the latter – why is that? Because the evidence supports it.

In the examples I gave of abrogation – the alcohol prohibition and the punishment for adultery – how do you explain them if not for abrogation? You can’t. All you do is to provide an opinion from ONE Muslim scholar and you take it as proof. How do you know he’s making sense? You don’t because all you do is commit an ad verecundiam.

“Hence, please refrain from telling us the Islamic scholars do not understand abrogation or that the process of abrogation is flawed.”

Perhaps you “Islamic Scholars” should actually make a counterargument to my own, or even one to that of Muhammad Al-Ghazali; or do you not consider him an Islamic Scholar because he does not agree with you? “Scholars” like you tell Muslims to hate; tell Muslims in Somalia that female circumcision is an “Islamic” practice; tell Muslims that blowing up thousands of years old Buddhist statues is an “act dear to God”. Forgive me if I do not take “scholars” like you at their word when you try to poison people’s minds.

I especially like the part where you (and others of your ilk) tell Muslims who deny and condemn violence, deny (and present evidence) of no punishment for “apostasy” (unless it involves treason), that they are not Muslims. You sound exactly like the extremist leaders of Al Qaeda and Taliban, who cast out (or kill) anyone who criticizes their (incorrect) interpretation of Islam. Are you sure you are not “their agents” sent here to “guide” us to the “right path”; one of violence and intolerance? It sure seems like you are because I see almost every single Muslim here denying violence, death for apostasy, shariah Law, providing proper context for verses that talk about violence and have you “mush” tell us that “no, no, no, the true Islam requires you to be violent!!!” Seems to me that YOUR interpretation of Islam, that you continue to “promote”, fits right in with Al Qaeda’s. So perhaps you should move to Afghanistan or Iraq and spread your bigotry there.

So since you are such an “Islamic Scholar”, please counter the argument against abrogation that I raised (unlike you, I will actually read your argument and try and respond to the points you raise), as well as that of Muhammad Al-Ghazali, if you only prefer to deal with “scholars”.

Here is the link again so kindly provided by HL

http://www.geocities.com/forpeoplewhothink/Topics/Abrogation_in_the_Quran.html

**
The counter argument is simple and explicit. Look at the verses that have been abrogated – like the alcohol prohibition and the punishment for adultery.

The Sharia law punishes adultery not according to the Quranic verses – why is that? Because the verses have been abrogated.

People like al-Ghazali merely spout impractical nonsense. They merely claim that there is no abrogation – they never tell you why the sharia laws favor some verses in place of others – i.e. abrogation.

As for apostasy – please don’t insult my intelligence. I come from a Muslim country where apostasy is punished. It has been that way for more than a thousand years. The Abbassids beheaded people for apostasy. Now you tell me they are wrong?

Muslims deem apostasy to be treason against Muhammad and Islam. That is what they think. But treason is something else – it is an act against the state – not merely a change of religious affiliation. You can deem apostasy as treason all you want but that does not change the fact that religious freedom is a human right, not a crime.

Today, if you go to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan and change your religion from Islam – see if they behead you (in SA) or imprison you (in Pakistan) or not? Recently a Muslim converted to Christianity and was sentenced to death in Pakistan. Are you telling us you know Islam better than the Saudis and the Pakistanis?

Islam is as Islam acts. FGM is in the hadiths – Muhammad condoned it. If you didn’t know that then you’re not a Muslim. Impugning my knowledge of Islam gets you nowhere because I know it a whole lot better than you. The reason why many countries still practice FGM is because Muhammad condoned it in Sahih Bukhari. Look it up, bud.

The Taliban blowing up Buddhist statues is just another manifestation of the Islamic intolerance against other religions. Nowhere in the world does Islam hold other religions as equals – Muslims always want to subjugate or humiliate or obliterate other religions. This stems from the behavior of your prophet and the hatred he espoused against other religions in the Quran and his life example.

AsiaNews.it
03/21/2007 12:02

INDONESIA
Lenient sentence for those who beheaded three Christian girls

The three Islamist militants who masterminded and carried out the three murders in 2005 could have received the death penalty. Instead, they will spend between 14 and 20 years in prison. Hasanuddin, the brain behind the gruesome act, also wrote the notes left near the bodies in which he promised more Christian deaths.

Jakarta (AsiaNews) – Central Jakarta District Court Wednesday sentenced a Muslim militant to 20 years in prison for masterminding the gruesome murder of three Christian schoolgirls in the Central Sulawesi's town of Poso in 2005. The two men who killed the three girls and beheaded them were sentenced instead to 14 years in prison. Given the fact that all three Islamists could have received the death sentence the court’s decision is very lenient. The Indonesian press noted that the sentences corresponded to the demands of the prosecution.

Hasanuddin, who is linked to the terrorist network Jemaah Islamiyah, was found guilty of organising the crime, buying the machetes used in the beheading, and writing the notes left near the bodies threatening additional murders.

According to the prosecutor Payaman SH, Hasanuddin had asked his men to get “at least a hundred Christian heads in Poso” as compensation for the Muslims who died in the violent sectarian clashes that had occurred between 1999 and 2001 in Poso itself. Clashes between Muslims and Christians had left more than a thousand dead and driven even more out of their homes. What triggered the violence has not been fully elucidated.

For Judge Udar Siregar, Hasanuddin’s actions have to be categorised as terrorist crimes which might have reignited sectarian violence in the area where a peace deal was worked out in 2001. However, tensions between the two religious communities flared up again in September 2006 when three Catholics were summarily sentenced to death and executed for an attack against an Islamic school in 2000 in which 70 people died.

Hasanuddin was captured by Indonesian security forces last January with his two accomplices, Lilik Purnomo and Irwanto Irano. All three confessed to their role in the crime and were forgiven by the victims’ relatives.

The decapitation of the three girls had triggered worldwide condemnation, including by both Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Pope Benedict XVI, who called the deed “a barbaric murder.”

Jemaah Islamiyah’s network operates in South-East Asia and is linked to al-Qaeda. It has been held responsible for several attacks, including the 2002 Bali bombings that killed 202 people.

Today Indonesia’s National Police confirmed that it captured various Jemaah Islamiyah militants in a vast anti-terrorism operation in Yogyakarta (Central Java). However, it failed to arrest Abu Dujana, a leading suspect in the attack against the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, who was able to get away during the gun battle.




Copyright © 2003 AsiaNews C.F. 00889190153 All rights reserved.

Funnny things to read..... I guarantee it will tickle your funiest bone.

The Jakarta Post -- 7 May 2007

Muslims don't trust U.S., but they must follow it

Mohammad Yazid, Jakarta

Owing to his anti-U.S. stance, the grade II student at Assafiiyah Islamic Senior High School No. 02 in Jatiwaringin, Bekasi, preferred to sit at the rear of the class with his back facing the blackboard while a promotion girl explained to the class the benefit of a popular energy drink. He simply ignored the promotion girl's words.

Only after the promotion girl had offered the students in the class a chance to try the isotonic drink did this particular student join his classmates. "Is this made in America?" he inquired, with a suspicious tone. "Oh, no. This is made in Japan," said the promotion girl, trying to give an explanation.

Knowing that it was not made in the U.S., this particular student took one bottle after reading the label that said it was halal. Then he put it into his bag, which carried the symbol of the Prosperous Justice Party.

mr omar- i had to laugh when you said its possible to get tipsy after fajr.

as i said, it takes a very determined and disciplined inebriate to accomplish that-
also it requires a great disciplining of will to realize the point tipsiness occurs, stop drinking, and work toward sobriety.

i ususally respect your reasoning process and the fact that you provide sources to back up your point.

while i dont agree with your usage of sources, or your conclusions- i still respect your scholarly approach.

and this is from a woman who never had the benefit of college education.

(i hope im not opening myself up to further criticism for this,but it will probably happen)

no, i wasnt raised in an islamic country, i was raised in america, and witnessed the excesses of the baby boomers, and also first hand many of their failed social experiments.
also their locust like consumption of every resource this country had to offer.

their words and actions didnt match, but that is human natureisnt it?

the words and actions of many muslims in the world dont match-

it doesnt neceesitate that i will condone them either.

but at the forefront of my consciousness is my own death, and the culpability of my actions that i will be callled to account for at some future date.

for this reason, i have to act on my conscience in the present.

as for the adulteresses, you know well im sure the story of the pregnant woman who went to the prophet(swa) and confessed her zinna.
he told her 3 separate times to go, give birth, suckle her baby and di not come after her.

it was her repeated insistence on an earthly punishment that forced him to deal with her - when he was trying to give her a way out.

it was her desire to rid herself of this crime from her souls record that compelled her to keep going back. i can understand that.

i like to get things out of the way too.

the difference was her accusation was self accusatory- she willingly and consciously seeked her own punishment out.

i dont know what country you live in.
so i dont know how the islam in your country is practiced. but in the cases you8 are relating, it sounds like the people are being accused and against their will being punished and judged.
judged by those who seem not to have the compassion and wisdom to take the highest ethical path.

there are alot of control freaks in islam, as in anywhere else.
control freaks through their own inclinations, seem not satisfied with controlling those around them, but often desire the ability to control as many people as possible.

often these kinds of people abuse their status, while ostensibly claming to be protecting the goodof all society, in reality they are just calescing their own power base and control.

as you wel know. muhammad(swa) was protecting a fledgling community.
some of the sayings, like 5:51 were in that aspect-
i cant copy and paste right now _new computer, ineptitude on my part- and im itching to do so.

i do believe that long copies dont get read anyway and get lost in the shuffle, so i think form now on ill just do one ayat at a time-

o, and btw- as far as malcom x being the martin luther of thiese times-

that was an answer to a miss polinski who was saying martin luther king reformed the catholic church, and was asking where are the modern islamic reformers-

(yes, i know martin luther king, jr was the 60s activist) obviously she meant martin luther- but i couldnt help myself.

peace and salaams

o, as far as hadith, well yes, bukhari often did repeat hadeeth sometimes 6 times in a row.

i dont recall anywhere that muhammad(swa) called for muslims to follow hadeeth, as a matter of fact ive been told that he called for people not to write his wirds down in fear they would be corrupted- however, the person who gave me that information could not supply a source for me so i do not file it as valid in my brain yet.

Pamela et al:

Will you please post your condemnation of the acts of the Fort Dix Six?

Qasim Omar:

“MZBH
It is obvious you are not a Muslim and/or do not understand the process of abrogation so please spare us your ad hominems.”

Would you mind explaining where I made this so called “appeal to personal considerations”? Or did you just want to use the phrase because it sounded “fancy” and would make you look like you knew what you were talking about? They only thing you could come up with is that “Abrogation applies only to ayats and not surahs”. How are the ayats “targeted for abrogation determined”? Funny how the ayats that support the concept of abrogation in a Surah (that is abrogated) are left standing while others are not. Using the article YOU provided, with the “event” narrated in it, I reasoned why the argument for abrogation was invalid. Instead of rebutting my argument properly by presenting your own, you just tell me that I am not a Muslim if I do not believe in it; wow great debating there Omar.

“Hence, please refrain from telling us the Islamic scholars do not understand abrogation or that the process of abrogation is flawed.”

Perhaps you “Islamic Scholars” should actually make a counterargument to my own, or even one to that of Muhammad Al-Ghazali; or do you not consider him an Islamic Scholar because he does not agree with you? “Scholars” like you tell Muslims to hate; tell Muslims in Somalia that female circumcision is an “Islamic” practice; tell Muslims that blowing up thousands of years old Buddhist statues is an “act dear to God”. Forgive me if I do not take “scholars” like you at their word when you try to poison people’s minds.

I especially like the part where you (and others of your ilk) tell Muslims who deny and condemn violence, deny (and present evidence) of no punishment for “apostasy” (unless it involves treason), that they are not Muslims. You sound exactly like the extremist leaders of Al Qaeda and Taliban, who cast out (or kill) anyone who criticizes their (incorrect) interpretation of Islam. Are you sure you are not “their agents” sent here to “guide” us to the “right path”; one of violence and intolerance? It sure seems like you are because I see almost every single Muslim here denying violence, death for apostasy, shariah Law, providing proper context for verses that talk about violence and have you “mush” tell us that “no, no, no, the true Islam requires you to be violent!!!” Seems to me that YOUR interpretation of Islam, that you continue to “promote”, fits right in with Al Qaeda’s. So perhaps you should move to Afghanistan or Iraq and spread your bigotry there.

So since you are such an “Islamic Scholar”, please counter the argument against abrogation that I raised (unlike you, I will actually read your argument and try and respond to the points you raise), as well as that of Muhammad Al-Ghazali, if you only prefer to deal with “scholars”.

Here is the link again so kindly provided by HL

http://www.geocities.com/forpeoplewhothink/Topics/Abrogation_in_the_Quran.html

Is this the same Victoria who told me Islam was the "Religion of Peace" when I posted that Muslim on Muslim violence is a problem in Darfur?

Victoria, you sound like you drank the koolaid.

Victoria
I don't know about you but it is possible to get intoxicated between the Isha (night prayer) and the Fajr (pre-dawn prayer).

You don't have to get blind drunk, just tipsy will do.

Victoria,

Why do you follow this belief system, knowing the sort of man that Muhammad was? Don't you ever stop to think that Muhammad built an organization on the policy of "You can join but you can never leave, because if you leave we'll kill you."?

Doesn't that policy make you stop and think "Hang on a minute, the only organizations that have that policy are criminal organizations?" You know that he attacked and raided caravans before he became powerful. Think about it, Victoria. Don't just believe what you want to believe or what you've been told to believe. Think for yourself.

Victoria,
I know you're a convert and not born into Islam but one of the purposes of abrogation claimed by Muslims is because of the need to make gradual change in the behavior of Muslims - which is what you call adaptation.

But it is still termed abrogation which is the process. Adaptation as you say is merely the reason.

From the top of my head 3 reasons have been given for abrogation:
1. Circumstances changed during Muhammad's lifetime.

2. clarification of a previous revelation.

3. Step-wise change in Muslim behavior needed (i.e. adaptation according to you).

Please understand the difference between the process and the reason.

well vickie - its good that you have renounced the evil parts of islam, now when will we seee you do it in public? say outside of a mosque in a populated area? or in a book published around the world.
or, maybe on a tv show.
i dont think i will hold my breath to wait for that to happen. because if you did that, all those peaceful islamics would hunt you down and kill you.

Victoria,
I know you're a convert and hence not born to Islam. The only way an adulteress can be stoned is if the hadith abrogates the quran. Please re-read the quran and tell me where the verse of stoning is in the quran.

I know it is a strange case - hardly believable if you think about it, but there it is. Here is a reference that may help you clarify how this came about.

http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Farooq_Ibrahim/abrogation.htm

Hence we see here that existing Muslim Law is based on the Sunnah and not on the Quran. Therefore, as some Muslim scholars correctly say, the SUNNAH ABROGATES THE QURAN – which in the case of the offense for adultery is true. Of course, there is a small possibility that an ayah was revealed, but is not in our current edition of the Quran. Note this tradition from the Sahih Bukhari Hadith on it.

Here is another reference that states that according to some scholars the sunnah (i.e. based on the hadiths) can abrogate the quran.
http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Quran/abrogatedverses.html

Strange but true.

Don't shoot the messenger (i.e. me - I didn't make up the punishment for stoning adulterers).

i posted this elsewhere and just rediscovered it-
i kind of liked its flow so ill repost here

ive been pretty vociferous AND articulate in my condemnation of hatred or violence espoused in the name of islam-
if someone wants to hate- they will-
no amount of reason will change that-
its also pretty silly to find examples of haters from any religion as post them as representative-
so i dont do that-
i can post links(as ive done) you wont read them-
i can speak eloquently and articulately and reasonably,but if the tone is anathema to what you want to believe to justify your hatred, your heart will make you try to deconstruct it to prove your own hatred-

so theres no point to arguing-
Islam is overwhelmingly a system that trumps negative behavior before it can be undertaken-

islam is a religion that proposes peace, and ways to live peacefully-

the real issues are never discussed- how it applies in society-
what is the christian or atheist deterrant to violence?
they havent even gotten to the point where they have postulated on these things-

what do you do with a murderer or rapist or thief?
how do you conduct yourself in war?
the geneva convention, while its borrowed a myriad of points from islam, still falls far short of the codes of war in islam- in islam a combatant, if they cry peace- is not to be molested in any way- they are to be fed as the soldiers are- treated humanely- even released if they give only their WORD that they will cease hostilities-

there are many comprehensive concepts in islam for the protection of society and its weakest members-
while western philosophy is saying everyone is free to do whatever they want- the freedom of the individual eclipses the good of society in many instances-
there is no recognition of human nature in this concept- if you want something- take it-

how is that superior to the philosophy of taking into consideration how ones selfsih actions will impact their society as a whole?
its all a cleanup mentality- when something happens that is truly heinous to its members, THEN there is a short lived attention given to the problem- and quickly conceived short term solutions it make it APPEAR that it has been rectified-
how about this- our creator is already aware of our weaknesses and abilities to corrupt any good thing- and has given us a guide to deter bad behaviors- and a balance of good for individual and for society at large-

there is no extremism allowed in islam-
a man who spent all his time worshiping in the mosque was asked by Muhammad(peace be upon him)how his family was getting along with him being in the mosque all the time, and was chided for his extreme worship! and told his wife has rights over his time and energies and he must fulfil them-

balance and moderation even in worship

reason is supposed to prevail- one is not exhorted to blindly follow ones angers or passions (or even parents religion)at all-
those who do this, are not practicing the precepts of islam- which calls for moderation in all things-

man has subjected man (and especially women) to their detriment throughout history-

1400 years before my grandmother could own property muslim women had a right to their own protected property-
1400 years before african americans could even vote or be considered more than 3/5 of a human being- islam demanded that all humans be as equal as the teeth of a comb-
why do you think african american men in prison flocked to islam in the 20th century?

because it gave them license to kill the white man? NO
because it recognized their god-given status as fully worthy members of the human race-

do we see militant islamist coming from the ranks of the nation of islam today?
NO- warith deen, the son of its founder elijah extols a movement away from the extremism of NOI, towards mainstream and egalitarian islam-
a call to TRUE islam that appeals to the sense of rightness in peoples hearts.
certainly there are political and social misfits who try to justify their own wrong actions with their religion- but the core of their ambitions lies with their own disenfranchisement- not with their study of islam and its application-

in islam we have 2 exhortations to peace in our lives- one is as an individual to be forebearing and patient and hold our peace even in the face of aggression-
the other is as a society there is no allowance for aggression towards our neighbors- the pre-emptive strike being a peculiar and non-islamic idea-
only in the defensive mode is one allowed to protect ones home or faMILY, AND THEN WHEN THE AGGRESSOR CEASES- WE MUST IMMEDIATELY CEASE-

THESE ARE THE PRECEPTS OF ISLAM- IF ONE TRANSCENDS THEM- HE OR SHE IS NOT ACTING ISLAMICALLY-
oops= caps-
well, thats enough for now-
as for your contention that i must surely repay your hatred with more hatred, that would be inerrant and unislamic behavior on my part-

i must instead bear with patience any misinformation or slander and counter it with information and gentleness

i am really really not of the same philosophy that evil cannot be recounted with kindness-
as i have quelled many a savage breast with a kind word in my life-
when people are in extreme situations, they enact extreme responses-

suicide is completely and unequivocally against the precepts of islam-
it is a 20th century phenomenon and was actually invented by the irishman collins-
the real question is, what are the infringements upon those who feel compelled to take such desperate actions-
remove the impetus for the actions-
concentrate on the rights of all humans-not just those with heavy pockets-
islam already calls for this to be the path-
hatred of the other is the problem here- not in any way a solution-
it is a self perpetuating cycle that has not had any success in history and a foolish way to conduct oneself
also, such a call to hatred denudes one of the right to criticize anyone else who hates.

so, as a muslim, i have to denounce both the abuse of islam by the proponents of violence-
and the verbal and emotional abuse compounding the problem by reciprocating hatred.
peace

anonymous, youre not especially getting any points for intelligence here-

one- that post you thought was mustafa khalil was me-

two- didnt you notice the long accidental post of list of subjects?

that was a copy of an article

why in the world would any sane person sit and write all those topics for no purpose?

three- you obviously mised the part where mustafa quit writing and it switched into lowercase sans punctuation
four- i often end with "PEACE"
five- your powers of observation are dismal
SIX as i expressed, i gave you the benefit of the doubt, and had suspicions that your intent and query was pure and sincere-

you proved otherwise- i do not feel compelled to respond.

you are a glass that is full- there is no possibility of engaging

since you already have a fully formed prejudged opinion-
since you hide behind cowardly anonymity

i am afraid i will have to view all anonymous posters here with suspicion for the bad intentions which became apparent after your question was respctfully answered

mr omar-
1) hadeeth NEVER abrogates qur'an

i am becoming unconvinced that you were ever a muslim

your first "contradiction" is flawed for many reasons-
some of the precepts of islam, such as drinking,
were not easy for the people to give up completely at first-

id say it is a mercy from ALLAH that it was slowly inculcated into societal norms.
that is not abrogation, but slow adaptation

well, it doesnt matter anyway

i strongly think you must surely have never prayed 5 times a day-

your mentality suggests a christian based approach- not a muslim praying at intemittant periods throughout the day

from about 1 in the afternoon til 9-10ish (it varies with the length of day) we are praying the 4 prayers with about 2 hours in between prayers

these are guesstimates (in winter the times are condensed as the daylight is shorter)

it is not physically possible to get drunk, and then sober up in this time frame.

unless youre drinking after fajr(sunruse) prayer at maybe 5-5:30 in the morning, then you have a few hours to spare til afternoon prayer-

it would still be difficult to get drunk and sober in that time-

you would have to be a very dedicated and disciplined drunk to accomplish this- (a trait that is not generally associated with drunks)

there is no implication that it would be okay other times except in your own incorrect supposition

well, youve eaten up enough of my energy

here is something for others who may happen upon this site to consider

the information and sources such as they are provided by anonymous are not valid

since anonymous fails to identify themself through cowardice - as a poster there is no credibility in them at all

It might be nice if the Muslims attempted to disprove the claims by the non-Muslims. The evidence stream seem to be flowing one way IMHO.

Don't be shy Muslims. Tell us why Muhammad was not an evil man and hence disqualified from being a moral guide to humanity. Tell us why we should believe a homicidal maniac's word that he is the prophet of God. And tell why there is so much hatred and violence in your holy book. Surely a true god who claims to be the law giver and eternal source of morality would not condone polygamy, slavery and banditry?

Why must your god fight disbelievers to the extent of killing them, thieving from them and enslaving them?

What's the point of all this violence and hatred? That, I don't understand.

Your gracious help in this matter is most appreciated.

Greg Colman
Princeton University

i know HL, but theres always the off chance that they may be sincere

Many people in the west don't know the real life in moslems majority country where the non-moslems and other minorities must refrain from celbrating religious holiday other than moslems holiday such as christmas and easter. While the people whose convert to islam in the west can celebrate publicly, in moslems countries, if you leave islam you must go into hiding or lose your head.

"Yet, according to social workers, Islamic clerics and women's advocates, women from Muslim-majority cultures face extra pressure to submit to violent husbands and intense social ostracism if they muster the courage to file charges or flee."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article
/2007/05/07/AR2007050701936.html?hpid=topnews

When Caliph Uthman collected the Quran as we supposedly know it today, he claimed to have ignored some verses on the grounds that they have been abrogated. But the funny thing is that he left some abrogated verses in as well.

Some people like MZBH deny the quran has been abrogated. Ahmediyyas and Submitters (those Muslims who deny the hadiths) also believe there is no abrogation - since Allah would have made everyone forget the abrogated verses before Uthman collected the verses.

While the list of abrogated and abrogator verses is not fixed - there is much confusion and discussion among Muslim scholars about which ones are which - it is clear that the Quran must contain some abrogated verses - otherwise it would be impossible to reconcile the seemingly contradictory verses to derive a practical sharia.

Some people also try to make apologetics to reconcile the contradictory verses. Their twisting logic is quite amusing at times.

A dumb question:
I have just "stumbled across" this site and read some of the posts here. A dumb question: what exactly is abrogation and what is it to do with Quran? Can someone please clarify/explain? Thanks in advance...

In short, abrogation is the device Muhammad thought up to explain why his verses were sometimes contradictory. It means to replace either an entire verse or ignoring a verse (or part thereof) because another newer verse was revealed that takes its place.

This is mentioned in the Quran. However, many Muslims deny the concept of abrogation since it would imply a flawed situational god - who changes his mind from time to time.

An example of abrogation are the verses that prohibit alcohol. In the beginning, Allah was quite lukewarm about prohibiting alcohol - saying that it is a major sin but also has some benefit to man. Later, Muhammad (I mean Allah) said that a Muslim should not go near prayer while intoxicated - meaning it is okay at other times. Lastly Allah asked Muslims to refrain from alcohol.

So Muslims today refrain from alcohol altogether because the earlier verses are abrogated by the one totally prohibiting it.

Another example is the punishment for the adulteress. The earlier one was very harsh - prescribing imprisoning an adulteress in her house until she died (i.e. life imprisonment). This was probably impractical and a later one says that the adultress should be whipped 100 times.

However, strangely enough this is one of the strange cases where the hadith (i.e. traditions or sayings) abrogate the Quran. Many hadiths considered authentic has Muhammad punishing adultery by stoning. Hence most Muslims punish adultery by stoning - which abrogates the Quran altogether.

Likewise, many authoritative Muslims consider the Verses of the Sword to abrogate more than 100 'peaceful' or 'semi-peaceful' verses since it was the last revealed. In this example, surah 9:5 the infamous verse of the sword is said to abrogate a semi-peaceful one like 2:190-4.

Interestingly 2:194 is also abrogated because it says that Muslims must observe the sanctity of the sacred months - i.e. prohibit from fighting non-believers during these months if the non-believers do not fight them first.

However, shortly thereafter, the sanctity of the sacred months was abolished altogether because a Muslim killed someone on a sacred month in violation of the old Arab custom. Muhammad made up a convenient verse excusing this saying that 'disbelief' is greater than killing. 2:217

HL:)

"Same mush of brains"? That's a new one.

What else is new? It is the usual suspects, some coming in now with different names or as Anynomous. One can easily know them as everyone has their own distinctive writing styles.

I don't lose sleep over them. Their priorities are not mine. Their interests are not mine.

Mustafa Khalil,

Thanks for making an attempt at a response, however, here is a more complete account, which utterly destroys your arguments:

Qur’an Chapter 2 Verse 65:
And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath (Jews): We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."

Ishaq: 250
The bestial transformation occurred when Allah turned Jews into apes, despised.

Tabari VIII: 28
When the Messenger approached the Jews, he said, ‘You brothers of apes! Allah shamed you and cursed you.’

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 14:
From those too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the Message that was sent to them: so We estranged them, with enmity and hatred between one and the other, to the Day of Judgment. And soon will Allah show them what they have done.

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 41:
…Jews, - men who will listen to any lie…For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment.

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 82:
Strongest among men in enmity (hatred) to the believers (Muslims) wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans.

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.

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.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

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.

Ishaq: 364
‘I fear this change of circumstance may end up overtaking us.’ So Allah replied, ‘He will be sorry for his thoughts. True believers perform prostrations, they pay the tax, they bow in homage, and renounce their agreements with the Jews. They are Hezbollah—Allah’s Party.’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 2, Book 23, Number 457:
Narrated Abi Aiyub: Once the Prophet went out after sunset and heard a dreadful voice, and said, "The Jews are being punished in their graves."

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 56, Number 679:
Narrated Usama bin Zaid: Allah's Apostle said, “Plague was a means of torture sent on a group of Israelis”

Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6981:
…You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: ‘Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me) ; kill him.’

Sahih Muslim Book 037, Number 6665:
Abu Musa' reported that Allah's Messenger said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire. [All Muslims are saved from Hell because a Jew or a Christian will go to hell in their place]

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]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288:
…The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them." I forgot the third (order)" Ya'qub bin Muhammad said…

Malik’s Muwatta Book 45, Number 45.5.17:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ismail ibn Abi Hakim that he heard Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz say, "One of the last things that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said was, 'May Allah fight the Jews and the Christians. They took the graves of their Prophets as places of prostration . Two deens shall not co-exist in the land of the Arabs.' "

Malik’s Muwatta Book 45, Number 45.5.18:
…the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, ‘Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,’ and he therefore expelled the Jews from Khaybar.… [Muhammad carried out ethnic cleansing]

Tabari VII: 158
Call Muhammad bin Maslamah to me.’ When Muhammad came, he was told to go to the Jews and say, ‘Leave my country. You have intended treachery.’ He went and said, ‘The Messenger orders you to depart from his country.’ They replied, ‘We never thought that an Aws (a former ally) would come with such a message.’ ‘Hearts have changed,’ Muhammad said. ‘Islam has wiped out our old covenants.’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 524:
The Prophet said, “A group of Israelites were lost. Nobody knows what they did. But I do not see them except that they were cursed and changed into rats…” [Muslims believe Muhammad was god’s messenger. If god’s messenger curses Jews and considers them rats, then is it surprising that many Muslims adopt the same attitude?]

Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol.2, p.37
When it was morning, he (Muhammad) said: ‘Kill every Jew whom you come across.’ The Jews were frightened, so none of them came out, nor did they speak. They were afraid that they would be suddenly attacked as Ibn Ashraf was attacked in the night.

Sahih Abu Dawud Book 41, Number 5186:
Narrated AbuHurayrah: ‘Suhayl ibn AbuSalih said: I went out with my father to Syria. The people passed by the cloisters in which there were Christians and began to salute them. My father said: Do not give them salutation first, for AbuHurayrah reported the Apostle of Allah as saying: Do not salute them (Christians) first, and when you meet them on the road, force them to go to the narrowest part of it.’ [Teaches hatred of Christians]

Sahih Muslim Book 039, Number 6711:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger as saying: If ten scholars of the Jews would follow me, no Jew would be left upon the surface of the earth who would not embrace Islam. [Muhammad’s main goal in life was to replace Judaism with Islam, either through slaughtering every Jew or converting the Jewish Rabbis to Islam. It was the refusal of the Jews to follow his teaching which infuriated him more than anything else. He expressed his frustration through hatred of Jews, and instructed his followers to do the opposite of everything the Jews did]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 72, Number 786:
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Jews and Christians do not dye their hair so you should do the opposite of what they do."

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 72, Number 780:
Narrated Nafi': Ibn Umar said, The Prophet said, 'Do the opposite of what the pagans do. Keep the beards and cut the moustaches short.' [This shows that the Imam’s and the Ayatollah’s follow the teachings of the hadith religiously]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 30, Number 92:
Narrated Anas: ‘The Prophet came to Medina and ordered a mosque to be built and said, "O Bani Najjar! Suggest to me the price (of your land)." They said, "We do not want its price except from Allah" (they feared Muhammad and just gave him the land). So, the Prophet ordered the graves of the pagans to be dug out and the land to be levelled, and the date-palm trees to be cut down. The cut date-palms were fixed in the direction of the Qibla of the mosque.’ [Muhammad deliberately desecrated the pagan graves to send a clear message of hatred and intolerance to pagans]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 392:
Narrated Abu Huraira: ‘While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."’

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 17:
“In blasphemy indeed are those that say that god is Christ the son of Mary.” [The penalty for blasphemy, taught by Muhammad, was death]

SERMONS READ BY OVER 3,000 IMAMS IN 62 DIFFERENT COUNTRIES

WEB SITE FOR IMAMS – www.alminbar.com – [Alminbar means “pulpit” in Arabic. “Imam” means “Teacher & leader of Muslim prayer”]

As viewed August 2006
(Home Page): “Welcome to the Alminbar.com - …Here you will find a variety of material to help you prepare for your sermons.” (About Us page): “We welcome you all to the site where Imaams and Du'aat meet on the internet.” (Introduction page): “Even I as the most optimistic member of the team never expected to reach about three thousand Imaams on weekly basis. Our server counter is informative and accurate, these Imaams represent sixty two countries and territories. With the advent of the English site's launch, we expect the number to increase greatly if not double.”

Khutbah [Sermon] No. 411
“O Muslims! The Jews are notorious for their betrayal and treachery. They incurred Allaah’s curse and are deserving of His wrath. They made lawful what Allaah prohibited through stratagem and cunning. This is why Allaah cursed them and transmuted them into monkeys and pigs. Shame is pitched over them like a tent wherever they are found, except when under a covenant of protection from Allaah and from men.” (www.alminbar.com/khutbaheng/411.htm)

Khutbah [Sermon] No. 819
“The Jews, who are the nation of pigs and monkeys, are nothing but a source of evil, corruption, tribulation and war. Hatred against the Muslims is inherited by every generation of Jews who in turn teach it to their children. Our enmity and hostility against them is based on our faith.” (www.alminbar.com/khutbaheng/819.htm)

Khutbah [Sermon] No. 9022
“Why do we hate the Jews? We hate them for the sake of our Lord, we hate them for the sake of Allaah because they slandered Allaah and they killed and slandered His Prophets.” […] “Finally, we ask Allaah to save the weak and oppressed believers (Muslims) and to humiliate the Jews and polytheists and grant victory to the people of Tawheed (meaning the people who believe in Allah, i.e. Muslims). May He expel the Jews from Bayt Al-Maqdis (Jerusalem), humiliated and defeated.” (www.alminbar.com/khutbaheng/9022.htm)

[COMMENT: These sermons are downloaded and studied by thousands of Imams in 62 different countries. These sermons are NOT the teachings and prayers of extremists. The extremists pray for the death of the Jews, the enslavement and rape of Jewish women and the annihilation of Israel. The above sermons are at the ‘moderate’ end of the scale. These quotes are just a small taste of Islamic teaching and prayer across the world. Please note that no Muslim or Muslim organisation publicly criticises this extremely influential web site, or calls for other Muslims to boycott it. Such organisations that fail to criticise Alminbar.com include the Muslim Council of Britain and the so called “Islamic Human Rights Commission”]

Khutbah [Sermon] No. 68
“This Sharee’ah [alternative spelling of “Sharia”] is the straight and correct way, which is the way of those on whom Allaah has bestowed His Grace such as His Prophets, the sincere, the martyrs, and the righteous. Anything other than this is the way of those who have earned the wrath of Allaah such as the Jews, the Christians and the polytheists.”

[…] “the Qur’aan and the Sunnah are replete with evidences that command the Muslims to differ from the disbelievers and forbid imitating them in order to keep the Muslims away from all harmful matters. This is because the actions of the unbelievers are false and only for show, their endeavours are misleading and their end is certain destruction.”

[…] “some Muslims will deviate to the doctrines of the religion of the Jews or that of the Christians. Such deviation is made alluring by Satan. That is why a servant of Allaah is commanded to ask Allaah to guide him to the straight path, which is far away from Christianity and Judaism.” [Christianity and Judaism are satanic, according to this sermon]

[…] “O servants of Allaah! The wisdom behind the prohibition of imitating the disbelievers and commanding us differ from them is so clear. This is because imitating them outwardly leads to imitating them inwardly which in turn results in resembling them in their morals and actions. However, being different from them outwardly leads to differing from them inwardly, which in turn leads to being so completely distinct from them that one is rescued from the causes of Allaah’s wrath. Being distinguished also saves one from going astray and leads to being directed to the way of guidance and Allaah’s pleasure.” [This teaches Muslims to be completely distinct from non-Muslims, in every way possible, and to look down on non-Muslims]

[…] “We must know that clipping the moustache and growing the beard are among the characteristics of Fitrah, or human-nature and from the guidance of the Prophets, peace be upon them all. It is a symbol of being distinct from the enemies of Allaah and His Messenger.” [This teaches that non-Muslims are enemies of Allah, therefore Muslims must not imitate non-Muslims, they must try to be different in every way possible. It is this type of teaching that creates divisions, tensions and suspicions between cultures, and will lead to the polarisation of Western societies in the future, because it teaches Muslims to mistrust all non-Muslims and disrespect all non-Muslims, and aims to create an entirely separate sense of identity. No one should underestimate the dangers of teaching separatism]

[…] “The disbelievers are also imitated in certain acts of worship, such as building up the areas around graves and making them places of visitation and worship. Allaah’s Messenger sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said: “May Allaah’s curse be on the Jews and the Christians, for they build places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.” He sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam also said: “If any righteous man dies amongst them, they would build a place of worship at his grave and make pictures of him to place therein; they are the worst creatures in the sight of Allaah.”” (www.alminbar.com/khutbaheng/68.htm) [This teaches that Allah has cursed the Jews and the Christians, because they are “the worst of creatures”. It simply confirms that “moderate” Muslims do follow the teachings of the Qur’an and hadith. It is this type of teaching which will eventually create divided societies and mistrust between the different parts of society. The lessons of history, and Islamic history, show very clearly that peace between the different cultures can quickly evaporate under such circumstances]

So there you have it, Mustafa Khalil. Muslims are commanded to hate Jews & Christians, and at least 3,000 Imams believe in these teachings and teach hatred of Jews & Christians as a direct result.

Why do you defend all this hatred? Are you still in denial??

HL, the only hatred on this board is in your scriptures. We don't hate you. We just ask why you follow these teachings and ask you the question: Do you believe in these teachings? Do you believe what Muhammad taught about hating Jews & Christians? Do you think these scriptures should continue to be taught to children in Muslims schools?

The same mush of brains keep asking the same questions over and over again eventhough the questions have been answered many times but because the answers do not fit its ridiculous and biggotted point of view that mush keeps asking the same stupid questions over and over again.

heres another one-
http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/000519/study.shtml
now as to your other assertion-

Welcome to Submission

Your best source for ISLAM (SUBMISSION) on the Internet

Click on any topic--

GOD

ISLAM
(SUBMISSION)

MUHAMMED

QURAN

HADITH & SUNNA

MATHEMATICAL
MIRACLE
OF THE QURAN

MESSENGER
OF THE
COVENANT

WOMEN IN ISLAM

JESUS

CHRISTIANS

FAQs

JEWS

SATAN

HAPPINESS &
SUCCESS

PETS & ANIMALS
IN ISLAM

MUSIC &
SINGING

DRUGS, SEX &
VIOLENCE

RAMADAN,
FASTING

BAHAIIS

SUBMITTERS
PERSPECTIVE

JIHAD &
TERRORISM

DOWNLOAD
STATIONS

HAJJ
(PILGRIMAGE)

IMPLORE GOD

SALAT (PRAYER)

IMPORTANT
TOPICS

WHAT IS NEW?

THE ELITE

OUR CATALOG
books, audios, videos and publications.
Click here.

Befriending the CHRISTIANS and JEWS according to the Quran

Many people who are not familiar with the Quran or did not make a good effort to study it are confused about the issue of befriending people from other religions. Many of them make grave judgment on this matter.

Quran is a complete book that occasionally presents a law or commandment over several chapters or several verses in the same chapter and the practical part of this commandment can be achieved by understanding the whole issue as presented over all the verses and chapters and not by upholding only part of the Quran. God specifically warn us against doing just that, upholding part of the Quran while disregarding the rest.

[2:85] ?. Do you believe in part of the scripture and disbelieve in part? What should be the retribution for those among you who do this?..

To understand the issue of befriending the Jews and Christians , we have to study all the concerned verses together in light of the whole Quran.

I heard many people mention 5:51 with no referral to the rest of the verses that discuss this important issue.

[5:51] O you who believe, do not take [certain] Jews and Christians as allies; these are allies of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them. GOD does not guide the transgressors.

Now, let's look at some other verses about befriending the Jews and the Christians, or anyone not Muslim (Submitter) for that matter. These two verses are regulating relations with any people, regardless of faith;

[60:8] GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable.

[60:9] GOD enjoins you only from befriending those who fight you because of religion, evict you from your homes, and band together with others to banish you. You shall not befriend them. Those who befriend them are the transgressors.

Thus, we learn that we are only enjoined from befriending those who fight us because of religion. Let's go back to the verse immediately after 5:51, to see if it now sheds some more light on the issue.

[5:52] You will see those who harbor doubt in their hearts hasten to join them, saying, "We fear lest we may be defeated." May GOD bring victory, or a command from Him, that causes them to regret their secret thoughts.

Thus, it is clear that this is a situation when there is a division and an overhanging conflict between the believers and the others. Otherwise, what would be the logic behind the statement. "We fear lest we may be defeated."

In these situations those with doubts in their hearts will ally themselves with the enemy.

5:57 makes it clear again, who are not to be taken as friends;

[5:57] O you who believe, do not befriend those among the recipients of previous scripture who mock and ridicule your religion, nor shall you befriend the disbelievers. You shall reverence GOD, if you are really believers.

God teaches us throughout the Quran that there are righteous Jews and Christians. So, if we think we are righteous, and they are righteous, what could possibly be the problem between us, or obstacle for us to be friends?

[7:159] Among the followers of Moses there are those who guide in accordance with the truth, and the truth renders them righteous.

[5:46] Subsequent to them, we sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the previous scripture, the Torah. We gave him the Gospel, containing guidance and light, and confirming the previous scriptures, the Torah, and augmenting its guidance and light, and to enlighten the righteous.

[5:47] The people of the Gospel shall rule in accordance with GOD's revelations therein. Those who do not rule in accordance with GOD's revelations are the wicked.

[2:62 & 5:69] Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

[3:113-114]. They are not all the same; among the followers of the scripture, there are those who are righteous. They recite GOD's revelations through the night, and they fall prostrate.

They believe in GOD and the Last Day, they advocate righteousness and forbid evil, and they hasten to do righteous works. These are the righteous.

[3:199] Surely, some followers of the previous scriptures do believe in GOD, and in what was revealed to you, and in what was revealed to them. They reverence GOD, and they never trade away GOD's revelations for a cheap price. These will receive their recompense from their Lord. GOD is the most efficient in reckoning.

We learn, however, from the Quran that the Christians are closer to the believers (submitters-Muslims) than the Jews. This is just a statement of fact by God almighty, that we can still witness during our time. God is the best knower of the emotional structure of His creations and therefore was this statement of fact in 5:82. We can witness from the conflict in the Middle East for example , how very emotional the Jews get and how they react to conflicts with their friends, their enemies or even among themselves inside Israel.

[5:82] You will find that the worst enemies of the believers are the Jews and the idol worshipers. And you will find that the closest people in friendship to the believers are those who say, "We are Christian." This is because they have priests and monks among them, and they are not arrogant.

This verse should not be used by any mean to negate the fact that among the Jews (and Christians) will be righteous people who can be good friends as explained in the above verses, they do not fight us in our religion or our homes. They can be our neighbors, colleagues, friends, co-workers...etc We will be good to them as they are good to us. We, all the righteous people of all religions ,can make the difference and make this world better by respecting each other, respecting the freedom of choice of each other, and remember that we all have the One and the same God.

May God bless you

Mustafa Khalil

there you go- it pretty much illustrates exactly what i said about taking things out of context-

chronological or linear organization has nothing to do with your point-

the SURAS (or books) are not compiled in chronological timeline

but the AYATS (verses) in the suras obviously are a complete body-

for instance- you quoted 5:51-while conveniently ignoring 5:52!

or 5:46, 5:47, 5:48, 5:69, 60:8, and 60:9.

possibly the reason for this is you copied it from an anti-muslim site, so you werent aware of the others.

ill have suspicion for your good intentions unless you prove otherwise.

and of course, the first sura cited- 2:85-
which instructs us to believe the ENTIRE writings in the qur'an.

so there you go, i hope your fears are allayed about this issue which confuses many when they read one sentence out of the quran, when so many more sentences explain in depth the truth

peace

Wednesday, 10 May, 2000, 06:54 GMT 07:54 UK
Jews and Arabs are 'genetic brothers'

Jewish heritage has been maintained

They may have their differences but Jews and Arabs share a common genetic heritage that stretches back thousands of years.
The striking similarities in their biology have just been revealed in a study of over 1,300 men in almost 30 countries worldwide.

Scientists compared the men's Y chromosomes, the tiny structures within cells that carry the genetic instructions that tell a developing foetus to become a boy.

The comparison also showed that Jews have successfully resisted having their gene pool diluted, despite having lived among non-Jews for thousands of years in what is commonly known as the Diaspora - the time since 556 BC when Jews migrated out of Palestine.

Genetic signatures

Throughout human history, alterations have occurred in the sequence of chemical bases that make up the DNA in the Y chromosome, leaving variations that can be pinpointed with modern genetic techniques.

Related populations carry the same specific variations. In this way, scientists can track descendants of large populations and determine their common ancestors.

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that Jewish men shared a common set of genetic signatures with non-Jews from the Middle East, including Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese.

These signatures were significantly different from non-Jewish men outside of the Middle East. This means Jews and Arabs have more in common with each other, genetically speaking, than they do with any of the wider communities in which they might live.

Good opportunity

Dr Mark Jobling of Leicester University, UK, one of the authors of the new study, told the BBC: "The kind of DNA we have used to analyse this question is the human Y chromosome. This represents only 2% of our genetic material and it is passed down from father to son.

"This makes it particularly interesting to use in a study of Jewish populations because Jewishness is passed down from the mother to children - it is maternally inherited. So using a paternally inherited piece of DNA gives us a good opportunity to see the signal of mixture with other populations if this has occurred.

"The fact that we don't see it suggests that after the Diaspora these populations really have managed to maintain their Jewish heritage.

Dr Jobling dismissed the idea that the study could have any political implications. "It seems that in many of these situations where groups are in conflict with each other they are likely to be pretty much genetically indistinguishable, and this factor, to the peoples involved in these conflicts, clearly isn't the point and isn't likely to change their behaviour very much."

Search BBC News Online

heres another link
http://members.aol.com/mfuprojects/sacrifice.html

it is a fascinating thing when science validates the truth of what is contained in the quran

this has happened often

hey hl you are behind the times. moho the child rapist said that he was in a direct line from abraham. so if that is true then that line believes in original sin. so how can moho the child rapist claim to be from the line of abraham and then deny a basic tenant of that line? as a matter of fact current islamic scum try to tell us that they are abrahamatc people - meaning from the line of abraham. so now you deny that line? oups - you just lost you claim of the land of the jews.
damn this is to easy.

Still waiting for an answer to the following:

Muslims,

I want to ask you a question. Please give your answer. Do you believe the following?

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 14:
From those too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the Message that was sent to them: so We estranged them, with enmity and hatred between one and the other, to the Day of Judgment. And soon will Allah show them what they have done.

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.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

The above verses command you to hate Jews and Christians, so the question is: Do you believe these teachings to be true? Do you believe that you should follow these teachings?

Victoria, please don't start with the "out of context" argument. We all know that the koran wasn't written down in chronological order. It was written down in verse length. Just answer the question, and tell Jews and Christians what the correct context of these verses is.

It's a simple question. The koran commands Muslims to hate Jews & Christians, and not to take them to be their friends and protectors. Do you believe these teachings to be true and do you think Muslims should follow these teachings?

What is your answer?

HL,

There are also people on this board who find it incredible that anyone can believe in ANY organized faith when it was constructed by clever ancient politicians. You've been duped into following the teachings of a man who had sex with a child, and who had people assassinated, and who killed people with his own hand. You've been conned, HL, and it appears that you are not able to see that.

All religion is a con HL, but at least Jesus was a good man, and following his teachings will not lead you to hate other people or commit crimes against other people. When Christians commit crimes they are going against the teachings of Jesus, whereas when Muslims commit crimes such as killing people who leave their faith, or hating Jews & Christians, they are simply carrying out "god's work" according to Muhammad. The koran orders Muslims to hate Jews and Christians, as has been pointed out in the posts above.

If you really believe that the creator of the universe would send a child abuser and murderer to teach you how to live your life then you need help. Use your brain, HL. Just because 1 billion people have been duped by a clever conman doesn't mean that you have to follow them like a sheep, unable to think for yourself.

You are a follower, HL. But you don’t have to remain a follower. You could choose to start thinking for yourself, and free your mind from the brainwashing.

Man HL, that is some pent up hatred for a particular group of people you have deep down. Scary to say the least! Not good for you either... it could give you hypertension man! Take a chill pill, buddy. Put your feet up, have a nice cold beer and RELAX!

This same 'mush' of brains tells us that a man born to a woman some two thousand years ago is equal to God himself. This same mush says that little babies are born in sin and depraved and therefore need the death of this 'god' to atone for some imaginary original sin. The same mush says if we don't believe their story of blood sacrifice we are doomed to hell for enterniy. The same mush that justifies the genocides committed during the crusades which caused the death of twenty million innocent people. The same mush that justifies and defends the wars of the last one hundred years which resulted in the death of over one hundred million people all over the world. The same mush that defends the holocaust that resulted in the death of six miilion Jews. The same mush that defends the exterminations of the native Americans and the aboriginies in Australia; and the list goes on and on...

I have just "stumbled across" this site and read some of the posts here. A dumb question: what exactly is abrogation and what is it to do with Quran? Can someone please clarify/explain? Thanks in advance...

HL
I think you make a supposition that the Quran is perfect. There is no evidence that it is so. Otherwise, Muslim scholars wouldn't find the need to come up with the theory of abrogation to account for the obvious discrepancies and contradictions.

Besides, a perfect book need not be so hateful and violent. That, my friend, is not perfection.

Victoria,

I really liked the analogy to Mozhart you made in one of your posts.
In the film, the Emperor Joseph II's makes his famous comment on one of Mozart’s new pieces:

"Your work is ingenious. It’s quality work. But there are simply too many notes, that’s all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect."

In the context of the film, this appeal for brevity is patently ridiculous; The emperor has a tin ear for music. In some of these posts some folks seem to have 'mush' for brains to sugest removing certain parts from the perfect text of the Quran.

MZBH,

I am sorry to say that I don't know much on that subject. When I read some of their comments, I just shake my head and wonder if I really share the same faith with those guys.

BREAKING NEWS - islamic scum are now using a mickey mouse character in a childs program to get little children involved in the murder of jews and other non isamics. and i mean 5 year olds. lets here it for the religion of peace - boooooo.

MZBH
It is obvious you are not a Muslim and/or do not understand the process of abrogation so please spare us your ad hominems.

Abrogation applies only to ayats and not surahs. The list of Surahs is only as a guide to tell us which surahs were affected by various types of abrogation - words or applications.

It doesn't mean that the entire surah 2 was abrogated. You need to look at the ayats affected. In the reference you'd see 2:190-192 were abrogated by 9:5.

Hence, please refrain from telling us the Islamic scholars do not understand abrogation or that the process of abrogation is flawed.

Your first post is actually meaningless. The fact that surah 9:5 does not require the 'fight only those who fight you first' clause IS the contradiction.

Do you find 'fight only those who fight you first' clause in any part of surah 9? No. I don't think so. Hence that is a contradiction.

Your claim that everything in the Quran stands because the abrogated has been made forgotten by Allah is ludicrous. An example of why you are wrong is the 3 verses of alcohol prohibition in the Quran which would contradict one another if the abrogated verses were made forgotten by Allah.

The first alcohol prohibition verse says that Allah dislikes alcohol. The second prohibits Muslims from praying while intoxicated (meaning consumption of alcohol was permitted so long as the Muslim was not praying). The third prohibited alcohol entirely. Thus proving your contention false.

Do you even realize that you're saying the Islamic scholars have got the abrogation verses all wrong and only you got it right.

I don't think so, buddy.

Reading through Ghazali's view on abrogation I had to laugh when I read this sentence:

"The allegation that 120 verses on the invitation to Islam were abrogated by the verse of the sword4, is in fact one of crassest stupidity and only serves to show that the great number of Muslims are in a stage of regression of either knowledge or intelligence in our time, and have become ignorant of the Qur'an."

A bit more powerful and direct than my own, but similar in message:

"I think that anyone with half a wit would see that the process is completely flawed and based on contradicting and flawed premises."

HL:

I would like to digress a bit from this pointless exercise of defending Islam (and pointing out the obvious) from sometimes nonsensical, hate and prejudice based attacks, to ask you if you know of any Muslim groups in the UK who are combating the messages of people like the Imam in the London Mosque? I know that there is a Muslim group in Canada that quite vociferously protested the attempt by some conservative Muslims to have Shariah used as Law for Canadian Muslims. Any fight back against the extremist Wahabi's?

Thank you for the link HL.

My own interpretation of the verses presented in that highly flawed review is very similar to what Ghazali states. Of course his knowledge of Arabic, the Quran and Islamic history by far exceeds mine so he builds a much better case.

Qasim Omar:

I'll still be interested in hearing your rebuttal to the points raised against abrogation of any of the commandments in the Quran.

I had previously stated that I did not want to consider the hadith at all, but I like Victoria’s explanation better and I’ll reproduce it (If you don’t mind Victoria):

“and finally, if it is in contradiction to what is written in the qur'an, or the sunnah (recorded and verified actions of the prophet(pbuh)
we have to use our own brains and say, this is obviously in direct conflict”

So based on Surah 2, any Hadith that makes any mention of violence, without explicitly making it an exception in the case of self-defense, would be in direct contradiction to the Quran. Honestly those "learned Islamic scholars" who compiled these hadith could have done a little bit of Quranic reading before including some of these hadith. Makes me wonder how "learned" they actually were. Of course it could be a pretty deliberate attempt to insert their own prejudices and views as I suggested earlier (and did Victoria with respect to the Hadith about Aisha's age when married).

MZBH,

Please refer to this link for an analysis of Nasakh according to AlGazali,

Muhammad Al-Ghazali's View on Abrogation in the Qur'an, by Khaleel Mohammed

http://www.geocities.com/forpeoplewhothink/Topics/Abrogation_in_the_Quran.html

MZBH,

Please refer to this link for an analysis of Nasakh according to AlGazali,

Muhammad Al-Ghazali's View on Abrogation in the Qur'an, by Khaleel Mohammed

http://www.geocities.com/forpeoplewhothink/Topics/Abrogation_in_the_Quran.html

Qasim Oamr:

2. In the list of Surah that the author lists under:
““Surahs that had their wording abrogated/nullified, but maintained their authority for applications. (40 Surahs)
Surahs 6, 7 10, 11, 13, 15 16 17, 18, 20, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 53, 54, 60, 68, 70, 74, 75, 76, 77, 86, 80, 88, and 109
Surahs that have had both their authority for applications and their wording abrogated. (24 Surahs)

Surahs 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34, 40, 42, 51, 52, 56, 58, 73, 103, and 108””
Notice that Surah 2 and Surah 16 (verses from which are used as the basis of “abrogation”) appear in the two lists above. This throws the whole basis of this process of “abrogation” into a quandary does it not? I mean the two Verses that this whole process is based on are from those two Surah that should be "abrogated". So the author is suggesting that certain revelations need to be “abrogated” based on verses from Surah that are “abrogated”. I think that anyone with half a wit would see that the process is completely flawed and based on contradicting and flawed premises.

Qasim Omar:

“Evidence that 2:190-4 have been abrogated.”

Before I get into an exchange with you over why I believe that Even Surah 9 does not contradict Surah 2, could you explain some of the contradictions of this process of “abrogation” that is described:

1. It is suggested that the process derives from two Surah in the Quran:

“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?" Surah 2: 106

“Something better or similar”, this phrase would imply that everything Surah 2 commanded would stay in place or be replaced with “something better” which I would take as even more stringent adherence to non violence unless threatened (given the context of the first Surah of non-violence till attacked). But more importantly, this verse clearly commands that NONE of the revelations are to be abrogated or forgotten (I will use this as further clarification to the rules of engagement as pertaining to Surah 9).

"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." Surah 16:101

A cursory reading would indicate a contradiction with the first verse, but it actually supports it. The support for my interpretation of this Surah actually comes from the events narrated by the author of the review:

"“There is an example of this found in a narration by Ans Ibn Abdel Malik. He said that during the life of Mohammed, they used to read a Surah that was equal in size to that of Surah 9 (the repentance). He further stated that he only remembered one verse from that Surah/chapter. - “If the son of Adam has two valleys of gold he would covet to have a third one, if he has three he would covet to have a fourth one. Nothing would fill the belly of the son of Adam except dirt, and Allah would accept the repentance of those who repent.”
“Another example is the narration of Ibn Abdullah Ibn Massoud. He said that Mohammed recited a verse for him that he memorized and wrote in his Quran. When he checked his Quran the following day, he discovered that the verse had disappeared. Mohammed explained what had happened to ibn Massoud. He told him that the verse had been lifted during the previous day.”"

In both of those events a Surrah (or part of it) was either miraculously forgotten or “lifted” (erased). The “substitution of revelations” in Surah 16:101 refers to this process of Allah erasing from mind and material any revelations that were “abrogated”. By this process everything in the Quran today stands since what was abrogated by Allah does not exist.

I’ll post my other concerns for how this “abrogation” process came to be applied in a second post.

P.S: Victoria, I still stand unwavering and unbowed in the defense of our faith. :-)

It should be clearly noted that the world has witnessed Islamist terrorism in America, the UK, Spain, Kashmir, Sudan, Chad, Nigeria, Israel, Chechnya, Indonesia, Iraq, Egypt, Thailand, Philippines, Balkans, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Holland (murder of filmmaker, Theo Van Gogh), Turkey, Algeria etc. etc. all within the last few years and all in the name of Islam.

What most politicians, and citizens, fail to understand is that there is a common ideology behind all these atrocities: The ideology of Muhammad.

ISLAM IS AN ANTI-CHRIST RELIGION! It is also a threat to Western Civilization! Mormons are not the enemy!Moderate Muslims? HA! What a joke!They talk "moderate" here in the West. But if you go to thier countries, look out! You will be persecuted!
Hell, they are getting bold here in the West. Remember those stupid cartoons on Mohammed?How about that guy that was slain in Europe because of a program he wrote about Muslims? And, lets not forget Simon Rushdie.There is still a hit contract out on him by the Muslims.And don't kid yourself that it is the "radical" muslims. Good ole Cat Stevens supports the hit contract on Rushdie as well.

The next time that you hear some Muslim say,"Not all Muslims are terrorists." Remember, that ALL THE TERRORISTS HAVE BEEN MUSLIMS!! I will never trust them! NEVER!

Mafia: You can join but you can never leave, because if you leave we'll kill you.

Nazism: You can join but you can never leave, because if you leave we'll kill you.

Islam: You can join but you can never leave, because if you leave we'll kill you.

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."

Still waiting for an answer to the following:

Muslims,

I want to ask you a question. Please give your answer. Do you believe the following?

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 14:
From those too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the Message that was sent to them: so We estranged them, with enmity and hatred between one and the other, to the Day of Judgment. And soon will Allah show them what they have done.

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.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

The above verses command you to hate Jews and Christians, so the question is: Do you believe these teachings to be true? Do you believe that you should follow these teachings?

Victoria, please don't start with the "out of context" argument. We all know that the koran wasn't written down in chronological order. It was written down in verse length. Just answer the question, and tell Jews and Christians what the correct context of these verses is.

It's a simple question. The koran commands Muslims to hate Jews & Christians, and not to take them to be their friends and protectors. Do you believe these teachings to be true and do you think Muslims should follow these teachings?

What is your answer?

anonymous #101

I am not Christian so I don't pretend to be an authority on the Spanish Inquisition.

All I know is that the Spanish Inquisition is no excuse for Muslims to oppress apostates.

Victoria:
If you knew what you were talking about you'd know that hadiths are often repeated. The four hadiths I quoted are different, though similar. They might be the same hadith but narrated multiple times by Bukhari. This is what you need to take up with Imam Bukhari himself, not me. The four hadiths are:
9:84:57
9:83:17
4:52:260
9:89:271

So now you're arguing against the sahih hadiths, Victoria. This shows us you are not following the real Islam that most Muslims follow - you know - the real Islam that persecutes apostates.

I wonder why you think punishing someone for the sole reason that he or she decides to change religion is a reasonable and moral thing to do? Did anyone punished you when you changed religion?

To MZBH,
Evidence that 2:190-4 have been abrogated.

http://www.islamreview.com/articles/quransdoctrine.shtml

The evidence comes from al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh" (The Abrogator and the Abrogated) and was authored by the revered Muslim scholar Abil-Kasim Hibat-Allah Ibn-Salama Abi-Nasr.

Some of the verses abrogated by the verse of the Sword:

...

9) “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors” (Surah 2:190)

10) “But fight them at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there” (Surah 2:191)

11) “But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving Most Merciful” (Surah 2:192).

QASIM - you need a lesson the the inquisition. yes there was a catholic office of the holy inquisition and it delt with doctrinal matters. but it was not run by the church. these matters were the province of the local kings and queens. so the king would say someone should be on the holy inquisition and the appointment was granted. so the person was not bound to the pope, they were bound to their king.
now i know you will find this hard to belive - but some monarchs were not as concerned with holy matters as they were with money and power, THEIR MONEY AND POWER. hard to belive isn't it?
the spanish inquisition had nothing to do with faith, it had to do with the spanish monarchs needing money and deciding that those who had it were bad christians and they needed help, help in admitting their sins, but even more help if riding themselves of the source of those sins, their money. so like any good monarch, who was looking out for the welfare of their people, the spanish kings releaved those poor soles of the source of their sin, their money.
this had a double benefit for the spanish crown. first it got very rich and second - well their subjects were forgiven their sins, usually just seconds before they died.
so you see the holy spanish inquisition had nothing to do with faith, but it had a lot to do with making spanish kings rich.
so if you are reading this - google "the holy inquisition" of the catholic church and look to see how it was run, how control was in the hands of the locak kings, and that the church finally went against the spanish kings and ended it.
but it is to the shame of the catholic church that it allowed it to go on after they knew about it, but the conduct was contrary to the teaching of jesus not in conformity with christs message.
but if it was islamics doing it - they would have been doing it just like islam demanded.

QUEBEC - be specific. the issue is truth. has anyone quoted the bible or the koran incorrectly. yes i hear islamics deny what the koran says, is that what you are talking about?

It is surprising to see so many posts here from people who think they know about religion and yet they have nothing but venom coming out of their mouths (or keyboards in this case) against others. If this is what happens when one becomes too religious then I better stay away from any of them.

what a strange and embarrasing thing you say-

stop that- as an ex-muslim you know how offensive that is-

number one- you posted the same hadith twice and tried to pass it off as 2 separate ones (i guess to build the body of your scant argument)

number 2- the one posted twice dealt with ali, not muhammad(pbuh)

number 3- how far away from the priginal are you getting?

one guy tells another that he heard the prophet(pbuh) say something?

if you tried that in court it would be dismissed as hearsay-
it doesnt pass muster here either-

thats the whole point of hadith-
the farther away it gets from the source the weaker it is considered valid

there are many things that enter into the science of hadith-

the veracity and reputation of the transmitter
the reputation of the memory of the transmitter
whether the transmitter is relating directly hearing from the mouth of the prophet(pbuh)
(or in your case 2nd or 3rd party transmission)

and finally, if it is in contradiction to what is written in the qur'an, or the sunnah (recorded and verified actions of the prophet(pbuh)
we have to use our own brains and say,this is obviously in direct conflict

well, probably you know this

but you also know most of the people here DONT know this
so youre relying on their lack of experience

it is a sneaky and unscholarly approach to make a point

theres too many interesting and timely things happening to waste any more time with this archaic nonsense

Apostasy is human right. Freedom of religion is human right, not crime. Only Muslims think apostasy is treason. Muslims punish apostates - no human right to change religion in Islam.

Prophet said anyone change religion kill him. Victoria say prophet don't know what he is talking about. Victoria bigger than prophet.

Victoria (pbuh).

Opinion of an Arab of Saudi descent about Islam:

"I am of Saudi descent, but born and brought up in Europe and then later in North Africa… I had left Islam in my mind but didn't realise it and was still not ready to accept any criticism of Mohammed. It took me a while to understand what a monster of a man he was, whom generations of my people have been following like sheep. With all due respect to the victims of Islam, I believe that we Arabs are the worst victims. We were once great traders, mathematicians and chemists, and have now been turned into dogmatic weasels, spreading murder, rape, torture and violence. Will we ever recover any of our past glory? I don't know. I have no hope to be honest.

I find the non-Arab Muslims to be especially hilarious. Arabs of the past, under the influence of Islam, raped and mauled the ancestors of these non-Arabs and today they are all in a race to become more Arab than us. I remember that as a teenager we used to laugh like bohemians discussing these Filipinos, Pakistianies, Indonesians and Malaysians trying to act like us. I have noticed that some have referred to Islam as Arab Imperialism which I wholly agree with."

Is in it amassing that centuries after man crawl out of the caves there are still those that actually believe in Myths and Fables, wear Middle Ages tribal costumes and profess to know what occurs after death although none has ever experienced the after-life nor can prove that such paradise exist?

MZBH:
"Anyone can criticise Christianity or Judasim without fearing for their lives, but if you say a word against Islam you're on a hit list. Islam is a mafia-type organisation. You can join but you can never leave."

I am sure the people killed in the Inquisition; the Native Americans killed by the colonizers, to mention a few, would appreciate your viewpoint...

Qasim:
So what? You're committing tu quoque. You can't defend your religion. Instead, you attack others.

The Spanish inquisition does not give the right of Muslims today to kill or punish apostates. The North American colonization does not give the right to Muslims to kill or punish apostates.

Why don't you tell that to the apostates who are under sentence of imprisonment or death that it is all right for Islam to punish them because of the Spanish inquisition?

What faulty reasoning Muslims employ to justify their cruelty.

MZBH wrote:
Still waiting....

"Fight in the way of Allah AGAINST THOSE WHO FIGHT AGAINST YOU, BUT BEGIN NOT HOSTILITIES. Lo! ALLAH LOVETH NOT AGRESSORS. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places WHENCE THEY DROVE YOU OUT, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And FIGHT NOT WITH THEM at the Inviolable Place of Worship UNTIL THEY FIRST ATTACK YOU THERE, but IF THEY ATTACK YOU (there) then slay them."

Surah 2:190-194

As I have already explained Surah 2 was revealed in the early Medinan period - probably within the first two years - when Muhammad was weak.

Anyway, Muhammad's definition of 'defense' is pathetic. He attacked the caravans of the Meccans and when they retaliated, he claimed they 'attacked' him.

Why did he start raiding their caravans? Can you even see that the Meccans were well within their legal rights to defend themselves against the Muslim bandits?

Yes - the early Muslims were all savage blood-thirsty bandits. Good show - Muslims - the origin of your religion is banditry.

But when he became stronger his message became harsher until he controlled the entire Arabian peninsula whereupon he revealed the more hateful Surah 9 which made no stipulation on fighting only those who attacked Muslim.

He unilaterally cancelled all treaties with pagans and told his followers to fight all those who disbelieved in him or refuse to pay Jizyah (if they were people of the book). For pagans - it was convert or die (at that time, Jizyah was not an option for pagans).

Victoria wrote:
APOSTASY IS NOT PUNISHABLE BYDEATH
TREASONOUS ACTS BY APOSTATES IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH OR THE MORE LENIENT EXILE

So Muhammad was lying?

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his (Islamic) religion, then kill him.'
(Sahih Bukhariy, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57)

"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." Bukhari 9:83:17

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 [Muhammad] said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for [Muhammad] said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'" Bukhari 4:52:260

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." Bukhari 9:89:271

While it is true most Muslim countries today don't kill apostates - some do - such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Iran.

Most others merely punish by imprisonment - which is bad enough. Do you think being imprisoned and forced to divorce your wife because you're an apostate is fair and just?

You are either ignorant of the real situation in Muslim countries or are trying to hoodwink the kafirs. Those of us who have lived under Islam know the truth.

Read the situation in Malaysia - how did the Hindu woman commit treason? She was a housewife with a 15 month old baby, for heaven's sake.

How did the Hindu rubber tapper's wife commit treason? Do rubber tappers get access to state secrets?

How did the Egyptian writer get access to state secrets? All he did was criticize Islam in a newspaper.

Read this link which lists the historical and present punishments for apostasy.

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

Christians, Muslims, Jews? It doesn't matter. The massacres of the 1945-until now are systemically being brought about to sustain the hegemony of the US Empire. Its citizens find all the excuses possible because they have only one ideology: Money. Unite this with any type of religion and use the words "God Bless You" and alas you are in the USA. As seen on this posts they "make their peaceful" points with hate, which is what they showed at the prisons in Iraq: "Ordinary" US citizens. No pity, no love, no empathy and they claim they "are making Iraq a better place to live for the Iraqis." Yah sure. with people like you see posting here "doing the job."

Reposting to give others a chance to respond.

Pamela et al:

You face suspicions and accusations because:

YOU ARE SILENT.

Are you silent because you tacitly agree or because you fear retribution?

Will no one reading here spend a few minutes looking at the video from England and condemn the words spoken in it?

Dispatches: Undercover Mosque (1 of 6)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo&mode=related&search=

Att: C O N C E R N E D The Eclati-on now Liberated, et al;

Hello Cyber Friends & Beyond;

"Shilo" The PHOTON/LIGHT BRINGER is now upon ALL ISLAM et al.

"The "M.A.H.D.I." is now come via the Eclati-On and from the JOKTAN People via the "Sholoh" Mohammad/Allah MELCHIZEDIK PEACE BLESSING and thus annuling Mohammads War Blessing from GABRIEL et al, as of NOW. Yes. here in Cyber Space the Gospel is open to ALL for the taking.

Remember he had a vision and "Melchizedik" is who visited him in jail around 1968/69. He also could identify a person, if they said, "E C L A T "i"" the "JOKTAN" way or the "PELIG" way.

important: Moses, Jesus, & Mohammad ALL come from the "Pelig" life line of cults of tribes. And the "JAKTON" people are like him. And I believe you, now, then many out there who know but need to find EMELCHIZEDEK:

http://www.smiths-bible-dictionary.com/definition/melchizedek.aspx

Jihadist,

But what kind of Muslim are you? Sunni or Shiite? Liberal/Conservative? Believer in "demons of the demented"? Islamic control of the world by any means ? Mohammed, the hallucinating, illiterate profiteer or a real prophet? Male domination of women? Final resurrection? Terror as an instrument to spread Islam? Destruction of Israel? Allah also known as and called God, Zeus, Yahweh, Mother Nature? The omniscient God? Religion in Heaven, yes or no? Muslims only allowed in Heaven?

I mean "not" possible for all to have to have a common view on anything.

We can't even agree with our own spouses on which road or way to take to a desination.

We don't even share the same views with our family on politics.

You are all too smart to be naive. The United Nations did not exactly succeeded in bringing peace and prosperity.

Esperanto as a universal language never took off.

Surely by now everyone would see that it is possible for all to have a common view on anything. People want people to agree with them and goes nuts if there is a disagreement.

Even adherents of the same faiths, be they Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists, have different takes on their religion.

Even liberals have different levels of liberalism.

Even atheists have different shades on non-belief or suspension of belief in God - agnostics, freethinkers, secular humanists etc.

Some atheists calls for all religions be be purged from the face of the earth as belief in God, to their mind, is a delusion.

Some atheists only wants seperation of church and state and for everyone the right to belief or not to belief in God and religion.

And for all those who are seeking to dispel Muslims of their faith and beliefs,in both civil and rude ways, by quoting Suras, Hadiths and instances of Muslims' bad behaviour throughout history and up to now, I thank you for your time and effort. I am still a Muslim.

God, the author and speaker in the Quran, declared that some among the Jews and Christians were hypocrtites, up to no good and therefore the minority Muslim community should be mindful of them.

5:57 O you who attained to faith! take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport,- whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear you God, if you have faith (indeed).

"When you proclaim your call to prayer they take it (but) as mockery and sport; that is because they are a people without understanding."

Say: "O people of the Book! Do you disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in God, and the revelation that has come to us and that which came before (us), and (perhaps) that most of you are rebellious and disobedient?"

"If only they had stood fast by the Law(Torah), the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: but many of them follow a course that is evil."

"A section of the People of the Book say: "Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they(the Muslims) may (themselves) Turn back"

Muhammad(pbuh) must have been out of his mind to say these nice things about his supposed 'enemies, the Jews'!!!

"O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favor which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all other nations."

"Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God has chosen you and purified you- chosen you above the women of all nations."

At least be thankful Jacob has decided to follow the cultist Harry Theriault. He only lost his common sense and some dignity. If he had followed the cultist Roch Theriault he might be missing significant body parts. : )

jacob- im having a hard enough time traversing the 3rd dimension
what is your concept of the 4th?
like ouspensky?

apparently youre on here now-

islamic is an adjective
i am not an adjective describing a noun, i am a person- a noun is a person place or thing

the word muslim describes a noun
also, islamist is a brand new word invented by the media in america during this war

i am also not an islamist
nor a mohammedan

we are muslims, adherents to islam

simple english

unless youre just copying and pasting from faithfreedom or some other site-

im not sure why you arent copying the entire text- you skipped about 14 ayats (verses) there

and youre all over the place with those ayats-
jumping from one disjointed verse to another-
also you insert personal comments without making distinctions, if i didnt know the qur'an, i would assume your comments are part of the verse cited-

anyway- its a very messy way to approach any kind of scholarship-

now i have a new computer, and my old bookmarks are in the other one- also im moving so i dont know when ill get around to switching them-

and i dont care enough right now to re-research it-
so take my word, or dont.
i have had this discussion so many times on these boards because its always the same faithfreedom copy and paste-
first- clean up your scholarship-

nobody is being killed because of what MZBH or victoria believe-

people are being killed because some nuts out there with murder in their heart are trying to justify their murderous impulses

anecdotal incidences are hardly addressing the tenets of the religion

by such subjective reasoning- we could say that the evangelicals in america (of which bush IS representative) are a warlike aggressive bloodthirsty bunch-

pre-emptive war is NOT INFLICTING PUNISHMENT FOR PERCEIVED PAST WRONGS (which werent against us anyway)

but are SUPPOSED TO BE in anticipation of preventing future wrongs from being committed-

which we have woefully fallen short of- in fact we have exacerbated the violence

in other words weve made the problem worse than when we entered

in islam, there is no attacking of innocents
only DEFENSIVE posture adopted, nd when the hostilities stop, so does the violence

the islamic codes and rules of engagement far supercede the current geneva convention in their humane treatment in war

APOSTASY IS NOT PUNISHABLE BYDEATH
TREASONOUS ACTS BY APOSTATES IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH OR THE MORE LENIENT EXILE

america just punishes treason by death, no exile option exists

okay? got it?

i keep osting the same links and copies over and over again-

i cant copy right now as i dont have foxfire here now, and i plain havent figured out navigating this new program

in islam we are exhorted by Muhammad(pbuh) to follow first the quran then his sunnah- (which are his actions)

hadith is a concept that sprang up after

we are not compelled to follow hadeeth as it is the words of men- and sometimes the fallacious interjections og men with HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE MOTIVES
(for instance the slanderous hadeeths about the pre-pubescent age of aisha when her marriage to our prophet(pbuh) took place.

which came out of iran WHERE THE SHIA (which means party of ali) sprang from-
the shia hated aisha because they went to war with her over the who would continue the caliphate- the desendants of our prophet(pbuh) or his companinons _(who were the first 4 after his death)

get it?

alrighty then- i have things to do
peace anonymous-
i doubt youll pay attention to this-
im not writing to you, but any who may wander in here and take your personal inarticulate and propoganda based misinformation as fact
which its not

so youve worn mzbh out- but anyone here will tell you-

im tireless and patient

Muslims,

I want to ask you a question. Please give your answer. Do you believe the following?

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 14:
From those too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the Message that was sent to them: so We estranged them, with enmity and hatred between one and the other, to the Day of Judgment. And soon will Allah show them what they have done.

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.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

The above verses command you to hate Jews and Christians, so the question is: Do you believe these teachings to be true? Do you believe that you should follow these teachings?

mzb is an islamic and in the full fever of islam there is nothing which he will not do or say to spread the faith. he will lie, torture, murder, anything. so ignoring a question or facts is rather minor when it comes to islam.
notice how he said the koran matters and not the hadith but when you quote the commands of the koran to murder and torture and convert by force he is silent?
this goes with the islamics now calling themselves abrahambic? like they are really followers of abraham. that is one of the islamic lies. moho the child rapist decided without any proof to anyone that he was in a direct line from abraham through ishmael, abrahams son through his wifes maid servant. of course there is not one bit of proof of this, and in the 3,000 years from the time of abraham to the birth of moho no one ever said there was a connection.
why this lie? to pretend that the wh*re god of islam is the same god revered by jews and christians. of course it isn't, but if they say it then they can take the lands of jews and christians by force and say that they had a right to it from the begining, which is another lie.

Mzbh,

You said: "This is getting tiresome."

You simply dismiss the fact that people are being murdered all around the world for doing nothing other than leaving Islam, as quoted in newspaper reports, in accordance with the teachings of Islam. You call criticism of this "tiresome"??

What sort of person are you? It just doesn't bother you that people are being killed because of your beliefs? That tells me all I need to know about you.

Mzbh,

Let me ask you a straight question. Do you believe that Muslims who leave the faith of Islam and convert to another faith should be murdered in accordance with the teachings of Islam?

Please be aware that it would be blasphemy in Islam for you to deny this, because you would be contradicting the koran.

MZB you have to get into these things early, most of what you argue have already been addressed but for your benefit i will give you a thumbnail of all your points.
christian conduct vs islamic conduct. when a christian hates and kills, or even gets involved in forcing conversions - they are violating the tenants of being a christian and the new testament. when an islamic does it he is following his religion. i will quote the koran - which you say is the only book that counts - to those issues. strangly enough we agree on that one - the koran commands and islamics must follow and obey.
stealing islamic lands. that is a good one - since islam did not exist until about 620 ad and therefore islam had to steal the lands to get them. i will site the conquests of islam that caused the crusades to take place, including the sacking of rome - the seat of the christian church at time. for it to be really equal the christians should of sacked mecca, islams seat.
and then you give us this peaceful islam crap, when we saw hundreds of millions of islamics riot over cartoons - thereby trying to force their religious laws on the rest of the world. or demanding the murder of the pope for siting an 11th century pope who said that the command in the koran to spread islam by violents, that it was an evil. and millions of islamics marched to enforce their right to kill to force conversions. and why is islam at war with the entire world - right now? here is a professor of islamics who says its just an accident and has nothing to do with islam and then wants the west to tell all the islamics that the west does not want to injure islam, when its islam that wants and is engaged in the wars.
first the professor:
We know that for the first time in history, due to a unique geopolitical conjunction of factors, Islam is in confrontation with all of the major world religions: Judaism in the Middle East, Christianity in the Balkans, Chechnya, Nigeria, Sudan, the Philippines and Indonesia; Hinduism in South Asia, and, Buddhism—after the Taliban blew up their statues—in Bamiyan. And, Islam is on a collision course in the western province of China, where culture represents an amalgam of the philosophy of Confucius, Tao, and Communist ideology.
It is this historic conjunction that both singles out Islam and creates the global argument that the 21st century will be a time of war between Islam and the other world civilizations. Of course, this neat concept is challenged because so many Muslim countries are clearly allied to non-Muslim ones. Besides, so many Muslims now live in non-Muslim nations. But it is true to say that the major world civilizations are experiencing problems in accommodating or even understanding Islam, both within their borders and outside them.

If we are to prevent the world from lurching toward one crisis after another, one flashpoint to another, then we all need to radically rethink the relationship between our religion and other religions; a radical reassessment of one another. The West must send serious signals to the ordinary Muslim people - via the media, through seminars, conferences, meetings - that it does not consider Islam to be the enemy, however much it may disagree with certain aspects of Muslim behavior.

http://www.akbarahmed.org/id67.html

now the crusades:
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

now the koran: with a forward by the hadith, for flavor:

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."

It is simply not possible to be be civilised and follow the teachings of such a man at the same time. Either you believe that people who leave Islam must be murdered or you don't. If you don't believe that people who leave Islam must be murdered THEN YOU CANNOT CALL YOURSELF A MUSLIM, because you are required by your faith to believe this.

tada ya'll,
Off to work to support my schooling. I am sure to your dismay anon(who should take Confucius's advice). Maybe I'll see you at a protest someday.

This is getting tiresome. I would have thought the WaPo would draw a more intellectually driven crowd interested in having discourse and learning. Instead we have non-Muslims telling Muslims what the Muslims religion is about, even when the Muslims present evidence to the contrary and deny the hate. None but a bunch of rabble with predetermined opinions, stereotypes and bigotry to offer. I am heartened, however by the restraint shown by most Muslims on these forums in responding to such vitriol.

Oh and anon with the u-tube link:

I found one part of that Imam's sermon quite ironic. he said something to the effect of "all non-believers lie" or are "taught to lie" or something. Reminds me of those posters who keep spouting the same thing about Muslims. Now I know what category to put them in; with said Imam.

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."’

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 Muslim Book 016, Number 4152:
'Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) reported Allah's Messenger as saying: It is not permissible to take the life of a Muslim who bears testimony (states belief that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad was the messenger of Allah), but in one of three cases: the married adulterer, a life for life, and the deserter of his Din (Islam), abandoning the community.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 558:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The Prophet said, "I have been made victorious with As-Saba (an easterly wind) and the people of 'Ad were destroyed by Ad-Dabur (a westerly wind)." Narrated Abu Said: Ali sent a piece of gold to the Prophet who distributed it among four persons: Al-Aqra' bin Habis Al-Hanzali from the tribe of Mujashi, 'Uyaina bin Badr Al-Fazari, Zaid At-Ta'i who belonged to (the tribe of) Bani Nahban, and 'Alqama bin Ulatha Al-'Amir who belonged to (the tribe of) Bani Kilab. So the Quraish and the Ansar became angry and said, "He (i.e. Muhammad) gives the chief of Najd and does not give us." The Prophet said, "I give them so as to attract their hearts (to Islam)." Then a man with sunken eyes, prominent checks, a raised forehead, a thick beard and a shaven head, came (to Muhammad) and said, "Be afraid of Allah, O Muhammad!" The Prophet ' said "Who would obey Allah if I disobeyed Him? (Is it fair that) Allah has trusted all the people of the earth to me while, you do not trust me?" Somebody who, I think was Khalid bin Al-Walid, requested the Prophet to let him chop that man's head off, but he prevented him. When the man left, the Prophet said, "Among the off-spring of this man will be some who will recite the Qur'an but the Qur'an will not reach beyond their throats (i.e. they will recite like parrots and will not understand it nor act on it), and they will renegade from the religion as an arrow goes through the game's body. They will kill the Muslims but will not disturb the idolaters. If I should live up to their time I will kill them as the people of 'Ad were killed (i.e. I will kill all of them)."

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 577:
Narrated 'Ali: ‘I heard the Prophet saying, "In the last days (of the world) there will appear young people with foolish thoughts and ideas. They will give good talks, but they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes out of its game, their faith will not exceed their throats. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for there will be a reward for their killers on the Day of Resurrection."’

CONVERT LOCKED INTO MENTAL HOSPITAL – PATIENT MUST RETURN TO ISLAM TO BE DISCHARGED – 13th May 2005
www.compassdirect.org/en/newslongen.php?idelement=3816

An Egyptian convert from Islam to Christianity is being held against his will in a Cairo mental hospital, where supervising doctors have told him he must stay unless he recants his faith and returns to Islam. Gaser Mohammed Mahmoud, 30, was committed to the El-Khanka Hospital for Mental and Neurological Health in early January by his adoptive parents, after they learned he had become a Christian two years earlier. Since his forced confinement, he reportedly has been beaten, whipped and given potentially fatal injections by hospital personnel.

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.

Still waiting....

"Fight in the way of Allah AGAINST THOSE WHO FIGHT AGAINST YOU, BUT BEGIN NOT HOSTILITIES. Lo! ALLAH LOVETH NOT AGRESSORS. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places WHENCE THEY DROVE YOU OUT, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And FIGHT NOT WITH THEM at the Inviolable Place of Worship UNTIL THEY FIRST ATTACK YOU THERE, but IF THEY ATTACK YOU (there) then slay them."

Surah 2:190-194

Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6981:
…You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: ‘Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me) ; kill him.’

Sahih Muslim Book 037, Number 6665:
Abu Musa' reported that Allah's Messenger said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire. [All Muslims are saved from Hell because a Jew or a Christian will go to hell in their place]

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]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288:
…The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them." I forgot the third (order)" Ya'qub bin Muhammad said…

Malik’s Muwatta Book 45, Number 45.5.17:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ismail ibn Abi Hakim that he heard Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz say, "One of the last things that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said was, 'May Allah fight the Jews and the Christians. They took the graves of their Prophets as places of prostration . Two deens shall not co-exist in the land of the Arabs.' "

Malik’s Muwatta Book 45, Number 45.5.18:
…the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, ‘Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,’ and he therefore expelled the Jews from Khaybar.… [Muhammad carried out ethnic cleansing]

Tabari VII: 158
Call Muhammad bin Maslamah to me.’ When Muhammad came, he was told to go to the Jews and say, ‘Leave my country. You have intended treachery.’ He went and said, ‘The Messenger orders you to depart from his country.’ They replied, ‘We never thought that an Aws (a former ally) would come with such a message.’ ‘Hearts have changed,’ Muhammad said. ‘Islam has wiped out our old covenants.’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 524:
The Prophet said, “A group of Israelites were lost. Nobody knows what they did. But I do not see them except that they were cursed and changed into rats…” [Muslims believe Muhammad was god’s messenger. If god’s messenger curses Jews and considers them rats, then is it surprising that many Muslims adopt the same attitude?]

Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol.2, p.37
When it was morning, he (Muhammad) said: ‘Kill every Jew whom you come across.’ The Jews were frightened, so none of them came out, nor did they speak. They were afraid that they would be suddenly attacked as Ibn Ashraf was attacked in the night.

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 82:
Strongest among men in enmity (hatred) to the believers (Muslims) wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans.

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.

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.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah. [This verse teaches Muslims not to make friends with unbelievers, but allows them to feign friendship with unbelievers in order to prevent harm befalling themselves]

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.

"Anyone can criticise Christianity or Judasim without fearing for their lives, but if you say a word against Islam you're on a hit list. Islam is a mafia-type organisation. You can join but you can never leave."

I am sure the people killed in the Inquisition; the Native Americans killed by the colonizers, to mention a few, would appreciate your viewpoint...

Qur’an Chapter 5 Verse 14:
From those too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the Message that was sent to them: so We estranged them, with enmity and hatred between one and the other, to the Day of Judgment. And soon will Allah show them what they have done.

Ahh anon...

Let me repeat what i said to you before:

"when you have to resort to such childish polemics and inane comments, I would say that it is you who does not either have the intellectual capacity to engage in discourse, or the answers to the questions I raised for the "other anon".

A bunch of rablle getting together and yelling slurs and epithets at a smaller group of "non rabble" does not make the rabble any smarter or "right". More noisy and irritating perhaps, but no more."

Let me know when that guy is speaking in the U.S, or when you decide to go protest yourself.

"What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." - Confucius

So let me know "when you wish upon yourself" to protest against someone like that Imam in the U.S.

What is the only cartoon you cannot draw without getting a death threat? We all know the answer to that.

Anyone can criticise Christianity or Judasim without fearing for their lives, but if you say a word against Islam you're on a hit list. Islam is a mafia-type organisation. You can join but you can never leave.

Anon:

"You can't just ignore the hadith, because you find that convienient. Sharia law depends on the hadith and all the Islamic terrorists draw their inspiration from the hadith, which records the behavior of your prophet."

Yes I can. Like I said before, in Islam only the Quran is guaranteed by God to be his word and therefore unchanging.

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

"A hadith was originally an oral tradition relevant to the actions and customs of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Starting with the first Fitna of the 7th century, those receiving the hadith started to question the sources of the saying [1]. This resulted in a list of transmitters, for example "A TOLD ME THAT B TOLD HIM THAT MUHAMMED SAID". This list of the chain of testimony by which a hadith was transmitted is called an Isnad. The text itself came to be known as Matn."

"A told me that B told him that Muhammad said.."??

Come on. This is exactly why I said that the hadith need to be reinterpreted and analyzed in a modern light using only the Quran as guidance. However, just like the Catholic Church is rigidly resisting any change to established doctrine of celibacy, no female priests etc. so are the Muslim scholars. Change will come over time.

"The hadith are prone to error and often misinterpreted. They are meant to be a secondary source of Islam with the primary source being the Quran."

And the above confirms my assertion.

So do you have a rebuttal to the content of the Surah I posted yet?

"Fight in the way of Allah AGAINST THOSE WHO FIGHT AGAINST YOU, BUT BEGIN NOT HOSTILITIES. Lo! ALLAH LOVETH NOT AGRESSORS. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places WHENCE THEY DROVE YOU OUT, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And FIGHT NOT WITH THEM at the Inviolable Place of Worship UNTIL THEY FIRST ATTACK YOU THERE, but IF THEY ATTACK YOU (there) then slay them."

Surah 2:190-194

mzb fails the test - like all islamics do when they have to actually do something.
and now he is worried about school - but i bet if cair was asking for a march school would be the last thing on his mind as he found his mask and his "i hate racist america" t-shirt.
and actually hving to support the true rights of jews in isreal - well if he really did that - his fellow peace loving islamics would give him the big dirt nap.
and my conditions have never changed, i say the same thing all the time when i ask, and islamic scum always have an excuse not to do it.

Mzbh,

The reason there are so many anons on this board is because your prophet taught that critics of his cult must be murdered by the cult members.

Countless authors, journalists and other critics have been murdered by Muslims in accordance with these teachings (many recently).

The question is "Why do you remain part of such a cult? Why don't you leave, and help others to also leave?"

Probably you are too afraid to ever consider leaving, because you know what might happen to you if you did. It's easier to just delude yourself and remain in the cult, and that's why it continues to survive. People are too afraid to criticize it in public and people in the cult are too afraid to leave.

Muhammad build the cult of Islam on fear. That is why the non-Muslim world has always feared Islam and still fears Islam today. What other religion (or other organisation) issues death warrants on a daily basis?

Anon:

"hey MZB instead of condemning it on this board lets see you marching outside of those mosques and demanding that they reject those comments and tell their people that they lied to them."

You asked someone to condemn and I did. Now you want to move the goal posts? I do not live in Britain and I am not going to buy a ticket to fly there just to protest. Are you protesting outside that mosque? Why ask me to do it if you are not? Just because I am Muslim does not make me responsible for the actions of the hate monger in that video. Let me know if someone like that is preaching in a mosque in the U.S and if I get time off from classes I'll go protest (I'm not about to flunk school over it).

Mzbh,

You can't just ignore the hadith, because you find that convienient. Sharia law depends on the hadith and all the Islamic terrorists draw their inspiration from the hadith, which records the behavior of your prophet.

As I am sure you know, the context to the koran is not in the koran, because the verses were written down according to verse length not context. The context can only be found in the hadith and that is why the koran cannot be understood without the hadith, as any Islamic scholar knows.

The hadith reveals Muhammad to be one of the most violent men in history who attacked tribe after tribe, forcing them to submit to Islam.

Six years after the Hijra from Mecca to Medina, in the year 628 CE, Muhammad sent letters to various kings across Arabia, including the Emperor Heraclius (Christian), ruler of the Byzantine Empire, inviting them to submit to Islam. In his typical style, Muhammad warned him "I invite you to Islam, and if you become a Muslim you will be safe" meaning that Muhammad wouldn’t attack the Byzantines if they submitted to Islam:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 1, Number 6:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas (reporting what was said by Abu Sufyan): ‘…Heraclius then asked for the letter addressed by Allah's Apostle which was delivered by Dihya to the Governor of Busra, who forwarded it to Heraclius to read. The contents of the letter were as follows: "In the name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful from Muhammad the slave of Allah and His Apostle to Heraclius the ruler of Byzantine. Peace be upon him who follows the right path. Furthermore I invite you to Islam, and if you become a Muslim you will be safe, and Allah will double your reward, and if you reject this invitation of Islam you will be committing a sin by misguiding your Arisiyin (peasants). […] Abu Sufyan then added, "When Heraclius had finished his speech and had read the letter, there was a great hue and cry in the Royal Court. So we were turned out of the court. I told my companions that the question of Ibn-Abi-Kabsha (the Prophet Muhammad) has become so prominent that even the King of Bani Al-Asfar (Byzantine) is afraid of him." […] Heraclius invited all the heads of the Byzantines to assemble in his palace at Homs. When they assembled, he ordered that all the doors of his palace be closed. Then he came out and said, 'O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give a pledge of allegiance to this Prophet (i.e. embrace Islam).' (On hearing the views of Heraclius) the people ran towards the gates of the palace like onagers (wild asses) but found the doors closed. Heraclius realized their hatred towards Islam and when he lost the hope of their embracing Islam, he ordered that they should be brought back in audience. (When they returned) he said, 'What already said was just to test the strength of your conviction and I have seen it.'’ [This reveals that Heraclius was afraid of Muhammad, and believed at the time that the safest option, for himself and his people, was to become Muslim. His people, however, were horrified at the prospect of submitting to Muhammad, and refused]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 595:
Narrated 'Amr bin Salama: ‘…when Mecca was conquered, then every tribe rushed to embrace Islam, and my father hurried to embrace Islam before (the other members of) my tribe…’ [They hurried because they knew that after Muhammad had conquered Mecca he had become so powerful that they would be massacred and their women raped, unless they immediately submitted to Muhammad and became Muslim. Becoming Muslim was the only ‘safe’ option]

hey MZB instead of condemning it on this board lets see you marching outside of those mosques and demanding that they reject those comments and tell their people that they lied to them.
lets see you - in public where we can see your face and those of your supporters, condemn the killing of jews in israel. not that islamic speak crap - we condemn the taking of all innocent lives stuff. in islam speak that does not include jews becasue you consider the jews oppressors and therefore them and their children are not innocent and may be killed.
but lets see you go even further. admit that islam attacked and by force took over what is now israel, and that even after theybecame free you attacked and took it back time and again.
lets see islam say that the land was originally the land of the jews and they have a right, both morally and legally, to that land and that from this time on islam will no longer accept attacks against the jews and will punish those islamics that do it.
lets see it happen - but it will not happen - you are a liar like all islamics.
you will continue to give us - you stole the land from the pal people and all jews must leave and returen it back to islam. we all know you stole it - the jews had it for 3,000 years before moho even started islam. so your claim that it was stolen from you is just crap.

Anon:

"Pamela, Mzbh, Mo, Suzi,

Your ass is being whipped on this board. It doesn't look like you have any answers.
"

Oh but anon, when you have to resort to such childish polemics and inane comments, I would say that it is you who does not either have the intellectual capacity to engage in discourse, or the answers to the questions I raised for the "other anon".

A bunch of rablle getting together and yelling slurs and epithets at a smaller group of "non rabble" does not make the rabble any smarter or "right". More noisy and irritating perhaps, but no more.

Here it is again if your scroll up buttons have been replaced with "copy/ paste"

"Fight in the way of Allah AGAINST THOSE WHO FIGHT AGAINST YOU, BUT BEGIN NOT HOSTILITIES. Lo! ALLAH LOVETH NOT AGRESSORS. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places WHENCE THEY DROVE YOU OUT, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And FIGHT NOT WITH THEM at the Inviolable Place of Worship UNTIL THEY FIRST ATTACK YOU THERE, but IF THEY ATTACK YOU (there) then slay them."

Surah 2:190-194

By the way, with so many anons floating around, would you mind even putting X in the "name" section? just so I can differentiate between ya'll.

Pamela, Mzbh, Mo, Suzi,

Your ass is being whipped on this board. It doesn't look like you have any answers.

MZBH
We know Surah 2 was written in the early Medinan phase when Mo was still relatively peaceful - only half peaceful - but by the time he made up surah 9 he was 0% peaceful and 100% aggressive.

So don't tell us about how Muslims were commanded to fight only in self-defense. Surah 9 tells us otherwise.

ANON:

Did you even read my last post? Your hand must be stuck to the "copy and paste" button.

"If you want to actually engage in a discussion, respond to the points I have raised first. If you agree, that here the Quran specifically says that violence shall only be initiated in self defense, than we can move on to other Surahs (NOT HADITH; for reasons I have articulated already) you think are inconsistent with my statement. If you do not agree that the Surah above does what I stated, why?"

I quoted the Surah to defend my statement; what in that Surah is contrary to what I stated?

Oh and "support from the Saudi religious establishment", well that is something I have always condemned, and the United States has supported this country and helped the Saud's stay in power and now the analysts are out in force praising Saudi Arabia as a "moderate" just because the U.S and Israel want to "get at" and isolate Iran. The Saudi religious establishment makes the Iranian regime look secular.

Mzbh,

You said: "the Quran specifically says that violence shall only be initiated in self defense"

These verses prove that this is not true:

Qur’an Chapter 33 Verses 26 & 27:
And those of the People of the Book (the Jewish Banu Qurayza) who aided them (the Quraish) - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts (so that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners. And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented before (captured land). And Allah has power over all things. [Note that the Muslims captured land which they 'had not frequented before', therefore they invaded this land]

Qur’an Chapter 22 Verse 45:
How many populations have We destroyed, which were given to wrong-doing? They tumbled down on their roofs. And how many wells are lying idle and neglected, and castles lofty and well-built?

Qur’an Chapter 4 Verse 75:
And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4294:
…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhajirs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' (land conquered without war, due to the people fleeing out of fear before being attacked) except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya (tax on non-Muslims). If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them… [Accept Islam or be evicted from your land, or agree to pay an extortion tax, or be killed. Not much of a choice]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891:
Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama and Marwan: ‘…Abu Jandal bin Suhail got himself released from them (i.e. infidels) and joined Abu Basir. So, whenever a man from Quraish embraced Islam he would follow Abu Basir till they formed a strong group. By Allah, whenever they heard about a caravan of Quraish heading towards Sham, they stopped it and attacked and killed them (infidels) and took their properties…’ [Muhammad forced many tribes to submit to Islam through attacking all their trade routes. These tribes either starved to death, or were forced off their land, allowing Muslims to conquer their land without war, or they agreed to submit to Islam and became Muslim]

Muhammad used these and other ‘revelations’ to justify attacking other tribes (Jewish, Christian and Pagan). He taught that the people of these tribes and villages were oppressed by their leaders and needed to be “freed”. His tactics were to surround a town or village, cut off their trade routes through attacking all caravans in and out, threaten the attack and rape of the population and thereby force the people to submit to Islam. This is how Islam was spread “peacefully” across the world. Most submitted without a fight, through fear and intimidation. There are countless Islamic texts that support this as being the truth, and this ideology lives on today in the minds of fundamentalist Muslims. The unfortunate truth is that Muhammad was a gangster godfather character, concerned only with power, sex and war booty. The Janjeweed continue in the same way today, in Sudan, accurately emulating Muhammad "in defence" of Islam, as they rape, pillage and ethnic cleanse.

Anon with the u-tube link:

In defense of Ms. Taylor, very few columnists actually respond to the comments on the message boards. In the time I have spent on the WP forums, I have only found Mahmoud Sabit (post Global) and Jefferson Morley (World Opinion Roundup, now defunct I think) to be active respondents to some of the more pointed, non "foaming at the mouth" questions raised in their forums. Unfortunately, with the amount of hateful, pointless comments posted on this board, I do not blame her for not responding.

As to your U-Tube link, I completely condemn that garbage and hate that preacher is spouting, as will most Muslims, and as you have. That kind of hate speech should be banned, but then would Christian pastors and Jewish Rabbis also be punished for condemning homosexuals and non Christians/Jews as going to hell? How would some of the posters throwing slurs and commentators like Ann Coulter, James Dobson etc. be treated? They would have to be punished for their "hate speech as well" correct? Personally I would have no problem with that. But the task of defining what constitutes "hate speech" is going to be extremely tricky.

Anon:

"The Quran specifically says that Muslims should not begin the hostilities and that violence is only allowed when violence is instigated against you.

"Fight in the way of Allah AGAINST THOSE WHO FIGHT AGAINST YOU, BUT BEGIN NOT HOSTILITIES. Lo! ALLAH LOVETH NOT AGRESSORS. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places WHENCE THEY DROVE YOU OUT, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And FIGHT NOT WITH THEM at the Inviolable Place of Worship UNTIL THEY FIRST ATTACK YOU THERE, but IF THEY ATTACK YOU (there) then slay them."

Surah 2:190-194

What about the above Surah do you not understand? Does it not say "begin not hostilities"?
Does it not say "Allah loveth not aggressors"?
Does it not say that Muslims should find them and drive them out from the places "whence they drove you out"?
Does it not say "Fight not with them...until they first attack you there"?

If you want to actually engage in a discussion, respond to the points I have raised first. If you agree, that here the Quran specifically says that violence shall only be initiated in self defense, than we can move on to other Surahs (not Hadith; for reasons I have articulated already) you think are inconsistent with my statement. If you do not agree that the Surah above does what I stated, why?

Glen (and others):

12. “should the Koran be taken literally and if so, then does a literal interpretation not lead to terror”

I believe that I responded to his comment somewhat in the second question. Context is very important, especially considering the form of writing the Quran takes (poetical?) and if I am not mistaken, the use of an extremely old form of Arabic.

Recently an Iranian American from Chicago translated the Quran. She discovered that the word “Daraba” (used in the Surah about a husband beating his wife) has multiple meanings, and the one that she thought fit best was, “go away” not “beat”.

There has been resistance to her translation from Muslim scholars and I am sure some of you will jump up and start shouting about how this proves Islam is intolerant, but a distinction needs to be made between the scholars INETRPRETATION of Islam due to their patriarchal backgrounds and conservative culture, and Islam. Also the piece has no mention of any moderate scholars who are supporting the translation. Moderates just don’t sell news as well….

Glen:(and others)

8. “do you agree with the practice in Saudi Arabia of religious police making sure that business are closed for 5 times a day for the call to prayer”

I do not agree with forcing anyone to do anything, and almost all the Muslims I have come in contact with have expressed similar sentiments. Religion cannot be forced or mandated upon people and the Quran supports that point of view. This is again a result of the Saud and Wahabi Mullah nexus.

9. “do you believe that the Islamic martyrs go straight to heaven and get all those virgins and that being a martyr is the only sure way to please Allah and get into heaven”

I must confess that I do not know much about this subject so I’ll leave it to one of the other knowledgeable Muslims to respond to.

10. “many Muslim women believe that Islam is to co-exists without offending anyone and that to wear Islamic gear in a non-Islamic country is being pushy - or do you think the in-your-face method of dressing in a tolerant western country is the more appropriate conduct”

That last question is a bit of gibberish and full of contradictions. First, a “tolerant Western Country” would “tolerate” and “accept” Muslim women who chose to wear a veil. A lack of acceptance would indicate an intolerant country. Why does it offend you? I do not get offended when co workers or friends or strangers in the street I come across are wearing dangling crosses, Turbans (Sikhs), or the Kippah (Jews). Do you get offended when you see those expressions of faith? Or are you only offended by Muslims? Either way, I would consider your getting “offended” a sign of intolerance. Are these people proselytizing to you without your consent? Now that might be something to get offended about.

As far as the dress is concerned, what about the Amish? What about African American women who dress in the bright prints of Africa? What about Orthodox Jews? When did America become a giant “Catholic School” with a mandatory dress code? The diversity, the differences are what make this country dynamic and so colorful.

11. “what about the Hadith - can you talk about that;”

I would love to hear Ms. Taylor talk about the hadith. Personally I believe that they should be junked or thoroughly reinterpreted. In Islam, only the Quran is guaranteed to be unchanged. Some hadith are quite problematic and I believe they represent the views and prejudices of the individuals who wrote them as well as those of the society/culture that those individuals belonged to.

MZBH,

You said: "The Quran specifically says that Muslims should not begin the hostilities and that violence is only allowed when violence is instigated against you."

The following makes you look very silly indeed:

Qur’an Chapter 8 Verse 67:
It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. [The following texts and verses reveal the meaning of this verse: Captive men were executed until foreign land was conquered. Keeping male prisoners of war tied up resources. Killing them removed a potential threat and freed up Muhammad’s fighters to kill more infidels, and ‘punish’ more infidel women. This verse of the Qur’an gave Muhammad permission from Allah to commit genocide in the cause of Islam]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 448:
Narrated 'Aisha (Muhammad’s child bride): ‘…So Allah's Apostle went to them (i.e. Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe). They then surrendered to the Prophet's judgment but he directed them to Sad to give his verdict concerning them. Sad said, "I give my judgment that their warriors should be killed, their women and children should be taken as captives, and their properties distributed."’ [Note that these Jews had surrendered to Muhammad]

Sahih Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4390:
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: ‘I was among the captives of Banu Qurayza. They (the Companions of Muhammad) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (reached puberty) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.’

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4364 & 4368 & 4370:
…Then he (Muhammad) killed their men, and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims…

Ishaq: 464 (& Tabari VIII:35) (The Sirat Rasulallah – The earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad)
The Jews were made to come down, and Allah’s Messenger imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went out into the marketplace of Medina (it is still its marketplace today), and he had trenches dug in it. He sent for the Jewish men and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in batches. They numbered 800 to 900 boys and men. As they were being taken in small groups to the Prophet, they said to one another, ‘What do you think will be done to us?’ Someone said, ‘Do you not understand. On each occasion do you not see that the summoner never stops? He does not discharge anyone. And that those who are taken away do not come back. By god, it is death!’ The affair continued until the Messenger of Allah had finished with them all.

Tabari VIII: 40
Allah’s Apostle commanded that furrows should be dug in the ground for the Qurayza. Then he sat down. Ali and Zubayr began cutting off their heads in his presence.

Tabari VIII: 35 / Ishaq: 464
Huyayy, the enemy of Allah, was brought out. He was wearing a rose-colored suit of clothes that he had torn all over with fingertip-sized holes so that it would not be taken as booty. His hands were bound to his neck with a rope. When he looked at Muhammad he said, ‘I do not regret opposing you. Whoever forsakes god will be damned.’ He sat down and was beheaded.

Ishaq: 464 / Tabari VIII: 36
According to Aisha, one Jewish woman was killed. “She was by my side, talking with me while Allah’s Messenger was killing her men in the marketplace.”

Tabari VIII: 38
The Messenger of Allah commanded that all of the Jewish men and boys who had reached puberty should be beheaded. Then the Prophet divided the wealth, wives, and children of the Qurayza Jews among the Muslims.

Ishaq: 465
When their wrists were bound with cords, the Apostle was a sea of generosity to us. [Meaning that after all the fighting men had been tied up, ready for beheading, Muhammad gave the women and children as slaves to the Muslims]

Ishaq: 465
Then the Apostle divided the property, wives, and children of the Qurayza among the Muslims. Allah’s Messenger took his fifth of the booty. He made known on that day the extra shares for horses and their riders—giving the horse two shares and the rider one. It was the first booty in which lots were cast.

Tabari VIII: 38
According to this example (Sunnah), the procedure of the Messenger of Allah in the divisions of booty became a precedent which was followed in subsequent raids. [Booty included women and children]

Tabari VIII: 39
Then the Messenger of Allah sent Zayd with some of the Qurayza captives to Najd, and in exchange for them he purchased horses and arms. [Sold the women and children into slavery, including both domestic and sexual slavery]

Tabari VIII:38
The Prophet selected for himself from among the Jewish women of the Qurayza, Rayhanah. She became his concubine. When he predeceased her, she was still in his possession. When the Messenger of Allah took her as a captive, she showed herself averse to Islam and insisted on Judaism. [Not surprising she was adverse to Islam, Muhammad had just slaughtered her husband and sold her friends into slavery]

Ishaq: 466
The Apostle chose one of the Jewish women for himself. Her name was Rayhanah. She remained with him until she died, in his power. The Apostle proposed to marry her and put the veil on her but she said, ‘Leave me under your power, for that will be easier.’ She showed a repugnance towards Islam when she was captured. [Note that she was made to wear the veil - she had no choice in the matter]

Ishaq: 466
Allah sent down (a surah, or verse) concerning the Trench and Qurayza raid. The account is found in the Allied Troops. In it He mentions their trial and His kindness to the Muslims.

Ishaq: 468
Allah brought down the People of the Scripture Book (Jews). ‘I forced the Qurayza from their homes and cast terror into their hearts. Some you slew, and some you took captive. You killed their men and enslaved their women and children. And I caused you to inherit their land, their dwellings, and their property. Allah can do all things.’

Qur’an Chapter 33 Verses 26 & 27:
And those of the People of the Book (the Jewish Banu Qurayza) who aided them (the Quraish) - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts (so that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners. And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented before (captured land). And Allah has power over all things.

Ishaq: 480
The Qurayza met their misfortune (some understatement). In humiliation they found no helper. A calamity worse than that which fell upon the Nadir (another Jewish tribe which Muhammad had driven off their land) befell them. On that day Allah’s Apostle came to them like a brilliant moon. We left them with blood upon them like a pool. They lay prostrate with the vultures circling round.

Qur’an Chapter 8 Verse 17:
It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah… [Muhammad had previously taught that Allah uses Muslims as his instruments to carry out his punishment of unbelievers, therefore Muslims should feel no guilt in slaying unbelievers, because “it was not ye who slew them, it was Allah.” The same was applied to rape of female captives, as the following texts reveal]

Qur’an Chapter 4 Verse 102:
…For the Unbelievers, Allah has prepared a humiliating punishment.

Qur’an Chapter 9 Verse 52:
… Allah will send His punishment from Himself or by our hands. [Meaning by Muslim hands - The ‘humiliating punishment’ was rape of female captives, as revealed below. Rape of women and young girls was humiliating not only for the victims, but also for their husbands, fathers and brothers who were unable to prevent it]

Qur’an Chapter 9 Verse 14:
Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you to victory over them, heal the breasts of the Believers. [The shame referred to is the shame of their women being raped, as revealed below]

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3432:
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married (are prohibited), except those whom your right hands possess (meaning slaves or captives)" (This became Qur’an Chapter 4 Verse 24) [Teaches that Muslim men may have intercourse with captive women, even if those women are married. i.e. they can rape female captives with Allah’s blessing. Muhammad had this ‘revelation’ to overcome the conscience of some of his men. Some were reluctant to rape married captives, but Muhammad wanted to punish the unbelievers with humiliation. Rape was the most humiliating form of punishment, therefore he had a ‘revelation’ to persuade his men that it was lawful in the eyes of Allah]

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3371:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri: “O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger mentioning al-'azl (withdrawing the penis before emission of semen to avoid conception)?” He said: “Yes,” and added: “We went out with Allah's Messenger on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them (wanted to sell them as slaves). So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl. But we said: “We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him?” So we asked Allah's Messenger, and he said: “It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.” [Don’t worry about withdrawal before ejaculation because Allah determines who will be born]

Definition of the word 'azl
www.wordiq.com/definition/List_of_Islamic_terms_in_Arabic (Case Sensitive)
'azl - coitus interruptus, intercourse characterized by withdrawal of the penis before ejaculation

Sahih Abu Dawud Book 34, Number 4210:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Mas'ud: The Prophet of Allah disliked ten things: Yellow colouring, meaning khaluq, dyeing grey hair, trailing the lower garment, wearing a gold signet-ring, a woman decking herself before people who are not within the prohibited degrees, throwing dice, using spells except with the Mu'awwidhatan, wearing amulets, withdrawing the penis before the semen is discharged, in the case of a woman who is wife or not a wife, and having intercourse with a woman who is suckling a child; but he did not declare them to be prohibited.

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3373:
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported: We took women captives, and we wanted to do 'azl with them (have intercourse with them using the withdrawal method to avoid conception). We then asked Allah's Messenger about it, and he said to us: Verily you do it, verily you do it, verily you do it, but the soul which has to be born until the Day of judgment must be born.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 77, Number 600:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: ‘That while he was sitting with the Prophet a man from the Ansar came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get slave girls from the war captives and we love property; what do you think about coitus interruptus?" Allah's Apostle said, "Do you do that? It is better for you not to do it, for there is no soul which Allah has ordained to come into existence but will be created."’

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3381:
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported that Allah's Messenger was asked about 'azl, whereupon he said: The child does not come from all the liquid (semen) and when Allah intends to create anything nothing can prevent it (from coming into existence).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: ‘We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."’ [Muhammad didn’t approve of the withdrawal method and taught that it had no bearing on pregnancy. His only concern about raping female captives was that his men should ejaculate inside their women prisoners and not withdraw before ejaculation]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: ‘that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it (withdraw before ejaculation). No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.’

Ishaq: 593
From the captives of Hunayn, Allah’s Messenger gave Ali (his son-in-law) a slave girl called Baytab and he gave Uthman (a future Caliph) a slave girl called Zaynab and Umar (a future Caliph) another (slave girl).

Malik’s Muwatta Book 29, Number 29.32.100:
A man does not practise coitus interruptus (withdrawal before ejaculation) with a free woman unless she gives her permission. There is no harm in practising coitus interruptus with a slave-girl without her permission. Someone who has someone else's slave-girl as a wife, does not practise coitus interruptus with her unless her people give him permission. [This confirms that the body of a slave woman or female captive belongs to her owner, and that her consent is not required; i.e. she can be raped]

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.”

Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol.2, p.37
When it was morning, he (Muhammad) said: ‘Kill every Jew whom you come across.’ The Jews were frightened, so none of them came out, nor did they speak. They were afraid that they would be suddenly attacked as Ibn Ashraf was attacked in the night.

Pamela et al:

You face suspicions and accusations because:

YOU ARE SILENT.

Are you silent because you tacitly agree or because you fear retribution?

Will no one reading here spend a few minutes looking at the video from England and condemn the words spoken in it?

Dispatches: Undercover Mosque (1 of 6)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo&mode=related&search=

Glen:

3. "do you want to see sharia law implemented some day in the USA"

I am sure there are certain Muslims who would like to see Sharia law implemented where they live, just as certain Christians do not believe that the founders of the U.S really wanted a separation of Church and State. To take the views of such fringe elements and then parade them around as if they confirm the viewpoint of the majority of the Muslims in the U.S is intellectually dishonest and ludicrous. Do you have any reputable and independent surveys showing a majority of U.S Muslims supporting Sharia? For the record, I, and all the Muslims I know, do not.

4. “ do you believe it would be a good thing to have loud speakers blasting out the call to prayer here in the USA”

If church bells can ring, and the prayer call is not unnecessarily loud or disruptive; does not violate any local ordinances (I would suggest that Churches in the area, if they ring their bells, also be subject to a review if such an ordinance deems prayer calls in violation) then there should be no reason to have the prayer call stopeed.

5. “do you believe that Mecca should be kept pure as well as all of Saudi Arabia”

I completely disagree with that policy. Makkah should be open to all faiths (perhaps some restrictions during the Hajj due to already out of control overcrowding and lack of housing). It would be an excellent way to illustrate Islamic history. I believe the current Saudi policy is driven by the Saud’s acquiescence to the ultra orthodox Wahabi Mullahs (creators of Moral police and spreaders of hate) to help them stay in power. Considering the relationship, I always have to laugh when listening to analysts on the MSM call the Saudi’s “moderates”. By the way, I believe only Makkah and Medina are off limits (and I do not believe they should), not all of Saudi Arabia.

6. “do you believe that the law in Indonesia against a Muslim owning a Bible is a good law”

Heavens no! I have one, as do quite a few very religious people I know. The law is not Islamic and has no basis in Islam. It is a manifestation of culture and hate triumphing over religion.

7. “do you believe women should be arrested on the streets of Iran for not dressing properly”

Arrests them? No I would not agree. But just as the US had to go through a development phase, so does Iranian society and they have to decide for themselves what is or is not OK for them. This process would happen a lot faster if the US chose to engage with the Iranians instead of passing resolutions calling for the removal of the Iranian regime (and did not overthrow their secular democratic government in the fifties to impose a dictatorship). But I do not believe the arrests are mandated in Islam either.

To Glen (and other rabble rousers):

1. "1. do you agree with the ultimate goal of Islam to set up a worldwide theocracy like they have in Iran"

That might be the political aim of some groups (similar I suppose to this grand project of spreading democracy and the free market that neo-cons have) but there is nothing in the Quran I believe that talks about creating a worldwide theocratic Islamic State.

2. "how do you interpret the Koran when it tells you to kill unbelievers;"

The Quran specifically says that Muslims should not begin the hostilities and that violence is only allowed when violence is instigated against you.

"Fight in the way of Allah AGAINST THOSE WHO FIGHT AGAINST YOU, BUT BEGIN NOT HOSTILITIES. Lo! ALLAH LOVETH NOT AGRESSORS. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places WHENCE THEY DROVE YOU OUT, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And FIGHT NOT WITH THEM at the Inviolable Place of Worship UNTIL THEY FIRST ATTACK YOU THERE, but IF THEY ATTACK YOU (there) then slay them.

So do the emphasized portions clarify the context for ya’ll or do you have you all been beaten with the stupid stick?

Mo, you wrote "they are blindy jealous of islam let them bring better guidance"

So let's get this right. In your view people are jealous of people such as you who live their lives according to the teachings of a murderer, rapist, child abuser and terrorist?

In your dreams! No, we pity you, and hope that one day you will see your prophet for what he is - a cult leader, a criminal, a terrorist and a deluded narcisist. You've been brainwashed, Mo.

Go and study brainwashing, then you'll understand why no one here is jealous of you. Praying 5 times per day is brainwashing, Mo. Every time you pray you are required to confirm to yourself that Mohammed was a messenger sent from god. That psychology stops you from ever questioning your faith, because every few hours you have to confirm to yourself again that he is a prophet sent from god. Clever psychology, huh?

You've been duped by a clever psychological manipulator. Every time you pray you are brainwashing yourself, just as Mohammed intended.

Go and study cult psychology and brainwashing, then you'll understand that your 'religion' was built on dangerous cult psychology. You are part of a cult, Mo. Your cult leader commanded you to kill anyone who leaves the cult. There's only one type of organisation which requires the death of anyone who leaves the organisation, and that is a criminal organisation. Wake up, Mo.

suzie and mo:
you got your clocks cleaned on those lies.

If Jesus ever played one-on-one against Mohammed, there's no doubt about it: Mohammad would crucify him, but then Jesus would make a comeback to claim victory.

In the news today:

UNHOLY ROW AT CLERGY SOCCER GAME
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6628929.stm

A friendship-building football match between Muslim and Christian clergy in Norway was called off after a row over the participation of women players.

Muslim Imams had refused to play against women because it went against their beliefs about close physical contact with the opposite sex.

But when the church decided to drop its women players, the priests' team captain walked out in protest.

The game was meant to be an enjoyable end to a day-long conference in Oslo.

Members of the two faiths had been discussing ways of encouraging greater inter-faith dialogue at the "Shoulder to Shoulder" event.

===================

Muslims, it is because of events such as this that the world considers your belief system to be backward. You need to throw off your burkas and let your hair down, and stop being so medieval. Stop getting yourselves so overheated over cartoons, and learn how to laugh at yourselves, like the rest of us.

The reason you guys always get so angry and upset is because you take yourselves too seriously. For example, if a journalist suggested a competition to draw the funniest cartoon of Jesus playing one-on-one against Mohammed, you guys would start issuing death threats, whilst Christians would all be getting their pencils out and having a laugh. If we could all laugh together then the world would be a much better place.

Suzie,

You wrote: "There is no directive for Muslims to kill anyone, as some ignorant souls wish to believe"

Don't make me laugh. Just read the post above about the journalists in Azerbaijan. You are completely deluded.

Also, read your own scriptures. The koran commands Muslims to murder apostates, blasphemers and non-believers (amongst others). That is why fatwas are still issued today and that is why people are murdered all around the world in the name of the cult.

Mo & Suzie,

Truth is about evidence. Check this out:

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/14316/51/

A court in Azerbaijan has jailed two journalists for writing and printing a newspaper article that was critical of the Islamic religion and its founder, Muhammad.

Samir Sadagatoglu, chief editor of the Senet weekly newspaper, was sentenced to four years in prison on Friday, while Rafik Tagi, a journalist at the paper, was given three years.

The court ruled that their article 'Europe and us' was insulting to Islam and Muslims for saying that European societies were more successful than Muslim ones because Christian teachings were based on peace and tolerance while Islamic values, based on the teachings and actions of Muhammad, were not.

"It was announced during sentencing that ... the article contained ideas charged with hatred for Islam and the Prophet Mohammad and these actions of the paper were directed towards inciting religious hatred and enmity," the court's spokesman said after the guilty verdict was announced.

The newspaper article provoked widespread anger in Azerbaijan, a secular but predominantly Shia Muslim country, and elsewhere in the region when it was first published on November 9, 2006.

Soon after the article appeared, an Iranian cleric - angered by its depiction of Islam as a violent religion - offered his house to anyone who killed the journalists, Reuters reported on Friday.

The two journalists - both of whom are Muslims - have said that the trial in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, was an attack on their right to freedom of speech.

"A person can't be condemned for their opinions," Sadagatogli told the court.

Isakhan Ashurov, the lawyer for the two Azeri journalists, said the trial had violated articles of the European Convention on Human Rights which protect freedom of expression.

Reporters Without Borders, a Paris-based media watchdog, criticised the court's decision.

"While it is understandable that some members of the public may have been shocked by the article's content and tone, the imposition of prison sentences and fatwas is outrageous," the organisation said in a statement posted on its website.

"It should be remembered that these are not criminals but two journalists who were just expressing their views."

At the court's final session in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, fighting broke out in the courtroom as Muslims who were watching the proceedings tried to kill the two journalists, the AFP newsagency reported.

Last November, Grand Ayatollah Sheikh Muhammad Fazel Lankarani, a senior Shia scholar from Tabriz, a mainly Azeri city in northern Iran, ruled that the two journalists should be killed for writing and publishing the article.

"Such a person is an apostate in view of his confessions, if he is a Muslim," Lankarani ruled in a fatwa - or religious ruling - published on his website.

"If he had been an unbeliever (Kafir), he is considered as someone who has insulted the Prophet and in any case, given his confessions, it is necessary for every individual who has an access to him to kill him.

"The person in charge of the said newspaper, who published such thoughts and beliefs consciously and knowingly, should be dealt with in the same manner. We pray to Almighty Allah to grant Muslims and Islam protection from the evils of their enemies."

_____

The line which reveals the truth about Islam (repeated) is: "Soon after the article appeared, an Iranian cleric - angered by its depiction of Islam as a violent religion - offered his house to anyone who killed the journalists, Reuters reported on Friday."

So there you have it! People are imprisoned in Islamic countries just for speaking the truth, and fatwas are issued ordering Muslims to kill anyone who insults their mafia boss!!! There is only one type of organisation which has a policy of "You can join but you can never leave because if you leave we'll kill you" and that is a criminal organisation. Muhammad was a crime boss and a terrorist, and that is why you cannot leave his organisation without putting your life at risk.

To Suzie,
The Myth of Andalusia

Muslims were intolerant of minorities even in Andalusia. You have been lied to.

http://muslim-responses.com/Fighting_those_who_dont_Believe_/Fighting_those_who_dont_Believe_

Victoria,
Malcolm X is not the Martin Luther of Islam. He is an apostate since his brand of Islam, "Nation of Islam" is not regarded as real Islam. No reformation came from Nation of Islam.

Suzie,
What are you talking about? Read surah 9:29

Malik Fight those people of the Book (Jews and Christians) who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, do not refrain from what has been prohibited by Allah and His Messenger and do not embrace the religion of truth (Al-Islam), until they pay Jizya (protection tax) with their own hands and feel themselves subdued.

The reason why there are Christians and Jews is because they are second class citizens. Muslims need them to pay the Jizyah.

Don't tell us lies about how Muslim countries don't practise sharia. We are not gullible.

hey pam - tell us what a progressive islamic is and how they are different from your every day islamics. and lets have some examples. its your name on this board and you cant seem to defend anything you say.

Mormonism will slowly fade from society as will contemporary Christianity and Islam because of the obvious problems with the founders of these religions especially their angelic/satanic hallucinations and related prophecies. "Pretty and ugly wingie thingies" simply do/did not exist. Associating the Singularity with these mythical assistants and opponents mocks the concept of God the Almighty.

The Good Word was articulated by the ancients using reasoning and common sense. These Words of Wisdom were simply repeated with each major race and religion. Unfortunately the Words were attibuted to embellished men in most cases as a means of profiteering as noted by the contemporary billions of dollars owned and controlled by the Mormon, Christian, Jewish and Moslem religions. It is time to get our money back!!!!!

the smasher.

ignorance heads are worse than W M D ,please vote for mass dismantling of ignorance heads.

there is no better book than the QURAN in smashing and dismantling ignorance,1428 years in the bussiness of dismantling ignorance, and ,still, rolling ,crushing ,and challegeing.

please continue read the last divine revelation,QURAN,mercey and cure to mankind diseases .

jacob- thanks for the article- its a shame but there are some con men and women in prison whove tried to abuse the system (i personally declined going to mens prisons in chicago to visit for that reason, although i did visit inmates for 9 months in calif)

i googled ECLATi, and no kidding 2 of the articles were for on faith, and the third was about the death of an author-

i was reading te comments thinking it was the author, and thinking, o i guess all ECLATis(?) speak like this- but nooo- it was good old jacob spreading the love- you sure do get around

Katakaha -- "Daveb writes, "We don't need to reform religion. We need to expose it, repudiate it, and purge it from the earth." How would he feel if a Muslim wrote on this site, "We don't need to reform democracy. We need to expose it, repudiate it, and purge it from the earth."

I will tell you how I would not feel. I would not feel insulted or indignant. I would not say that people should not speak their minds because others might be offended.

If you want to get into specifics, democracy has let us down badly over the last few years, in the United States and in Iraq. That deserves discussion. I can make the case that a democracy with a religious electorate is very dangerous. I would make the case that religion is more to blame than democracy per se. I would be quite willing to discuss it.

I hope that answers your question.

suzie,
people like you are highly needed in this world ,please write often.

suzie - you talk before you read what has been written. you aer either a fool or a liar. a fool for thinking we will just believe you when we have been quoting the koran and the current wars and past wars started by islam, or a liar knowing that the koran demands hate, kidnapping, torture, holding for ransom, and the unique command of the islamic god to force conversion.
here is what you failed to read.
here is what an islamic professor just wrote:
"We know that for the first time in history, due to a unique geopolitical conjunction of factors, Islam is in confrontation with all of the major world religions: Judaism in the Middle East, Christianity in the Balkans, Chechnya, Nigeria, Sudan, the Philippines and Indonesia; Hinduism in South Asia, and, Buddhism—after the Taliban blew up their statues—in Bamiyan. And, Islam is on a collision course in the western province of China, where culture represents an amalgam of the philosophy of Confucius, Tao, and Communist ideology. see akbarahmed.org/id67.html.
this article decrying negative views about islam. now that is a joke. its like a member of the kkk being upset becasue someone calls them anti black. or a member of the SS complaining that people say they are anti-jew. and if you want to know about islam the only place to start is the koran and the history of islam.
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."
or the islamics crying over the crusades when they started them. here is a little short history about that:
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

There is no directive for Muslims to kill anyone, as some ignorant souls wish to believe, but there is clear permission giving anyone the right to protect themselves, their families, their homes. God prohibits unjustified violence, including suicide. God tells us he made people of different tribes and races, that we should work together.

The reason Muslim countries are "a mess" is NOT because of the religion of Islam; rather they are "a mess" due to the LACK of practicing Islam. There is not a single country in the world today which properly follows Islam or Islamic law (sharia). No matter the culture, there is not much Islam left in governing any country.

Islam is a tolerant religion, despite what some Muslims may do. Look at the history of Andalusia, Spain. When the Muslims ruled for hundreds of years, people of all religions co-existed peacefully. There were amazing gains in science, astronomy, the arts... many of these advances were passed on to the Europeans to help bring them out of the Dark Ages.

Almost all the Muslim countries STILL have their historical Christian churches and Jewish synagogues (Egypt, Iran, Yemen, Syria, Indonesia, etc) because when the Muslims became leaders in these lands, the people living there were free to practice their faiths. Their churches and other houses of worships were left for them, and there are many thriving non-Muslim communities still today.

Compare that to the the Spanish Inquisition, when Muslims (and Jews, and the other minorities) were force to convert or leave the region, and some were even executed.

Again, not the fault of religion, but of people twisting their religion for their own agendas.

There are many anti-peace ignoramuses whose sole objectives seem to be to divide and create enmity amongst people of different religions, different beliefs, different cultures.

At least we know that only the truly ignorant speak with anger / hatred against "others"; only the truly ignorant distort the truth and/or allow such a divide to take place.

Victoria,

I see you still are "wishy washing" Islam by refusing to address the major issues of Islam, i.e. the hallucinations of your illiterate "prophet" (profiteer), his visions of "pretty wingie thingies" and his militant, plagiarizing scribes. Get back to us with specific commentary on these issues asap.

Pamela,

I'd like your explanation of this video where a hidden camera is taken into mosques in England:

Dispatches: Undercover Mosque (1 of 6)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo&mode=related&search=

For those interested in the latest information on the historical Jesus, see the books written by Professor JD Crossan, Professor Marcus Borg and Professor Paula Fredriksen, On Faith Panelists.

There books can be found via amazon.com.

The following books are highly recommended:

The Historical Jesus by Crossan,

Excavating Jesus by Crossan and Professor Jonathan L. Reed , one of the best contemporary NT/OT archeologists.

In Search of Paul by Crossan and Reed

Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings by Marcus Borg and Jack Kornfield

Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity by Paula Fredriksen

After reading these books, you will question much of what is in the NT. e.g. miracles, devil visitations, "pretty wingie thingie" visitations, resurrections, assumptions etc.

With respect to the current thinking about the OT, see http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/conservativebible.htm

An excerpt:

"There was no Abraham, no Isaac, no Jacob, no Moses, no flood (forget Noah), no Exodus, no glorious King David. The Walls of Jericho never came tumbling down. In other words, there was nothing. It's all made up. It's all a bunch of fables, myths, fairy tales, bedtime stories.

Who are these Bible deniers? Yasser Arafat? Osama bin Laden? No, not this time around. What we have here is the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. If you don't believe this, check out the New York Times, which broke the story (SEE BELOW) last Saturday. Conservative Judaism has introduced a new Bible that nullifies the Bible.

Soon, all 760 Conservative synagogues (and their 1.5 million members) across the nation will be "praying" from a Bible that is not a Bible. Commentaries in this new edition -- ironically named "The Tree of Life" -- charge that there is no scientific proof to support the Bible. Contributors include rabbis and Hebrew professors from Los Angeles to Jerusalem. Some are famous, like Rabbi Harold Kushner, who wrote the best seller "When Bad Things Happen to Good People."

The clincher comes from Rabbi David Wolpe of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles, who says, "That the Bible is not literally true is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis."

Well, now, if it is true that the Bible is false, what a ripple effect! First, no more Judaism, since Judaism is based exclusively upon the Torah. Second, no more rabbis. (A rabbi of what? A work of fiction?) Third, no more Christianity, since that religion is founded upon Jesus and his Jewish teachings, and Jesus' lineage is traced back to King David, whom these experts dismiss as no great king but as a mere tribal leader. Fourth, no more Islam, which traces itself to Abraham."

Hopefully, Paris Hilton likes chicken.

She was sentenced Friday to 45 days at the Century Regional Detention Center, Los Angeles County's jailhouse for women just south of downtown in Lynwood.

Inmates there get three low-sodium meals a day, with dinner the only hot meal. Beef and pork aren't permitted _ "it's all poultry-based," said Capt. Alice Scott, who oversees the 2,200-inmate facility she describes as "a very nice place."

Like other high-profile Los Angeles County inmates _ O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake, Robert Mitchum, Sirhan Sirhan and Charles Manson _ Hilton will be segregated from the general population for her own safety, living in a one- or two-person cell.

(((((((((( VOTE: Peace-Love-Rock M., ROMNEY, For Prez. Honoring Tax Payers Pledges & More )))))))))))

btw, malcom x would clearly be the martin luther king jr of islam.

as for calling for reform-
how can you call to reform something when you have no idea what it says in the first place?

dont worry about the mote in the eyes of muslims
concern yourselves with the beams in your own

once we humans start on that process, we have far too much about ourselves to criticize-
whe you start on that road to self analysis- you are much less likely to rail against others soul and heart conditions

when youve perfected it- come on back and share with us

Katakaha
What you've gone and done is commit an ad hominem against Churchill. This is a typical Muslim tactic. Play the man instead of the ball. The issue here is Islam, not Churchill, although it can be argued that Churchill's opinion against Islam is merely his personal observation. As a statesmen, it was within his remit to warn his fellows against threats - and that includes Islam. I'm sure you are happy that he warned against nazism and communism, but you have a problem when he also warned against Islam.

Tell it to the millions of victims of Islam that Churchill was shouldn't be believed.

There is no good Muslim country because islam is a stiffling ideology stuck in the past and hell-bent on converting the world to Islam or oppressing it. You only have to look at the Muslim country today - few are worth living in and those that are have substantial non-Muslim minorities that do all the work and make all the money (oil $ excepted).

You can't get human progress if half the population is excluded from participation, the men have to pray 5 times a day and a month is lost through 'fasting' and you don't value any scientific/technological learning but only the Quran.

You can't get human progress if they riot and kill at the drop of a hat. Muslim countries are generally horrible places to live if you're not a Muslim.

take the truth from the alltruth.
islam is sailing and digging its way since adam and eve,till the last day.
allmighty creator is pleased to announce to the humanity that he created, that islam is the religion, its the way and the straight path to him, allglory goes to him.
noah is muslim,abraham is muslim,moses is muslim,jesus son of marry and his chaste mother are muslims,mohamed the final and last messenger to mankind is muslim.

those who they are blindy jealous of islam let them bring better guidance.

islam(Quran and sunna) is the final and last divine revelation to mankind ,divine revelation doesnot need reformation,it contain all the truth ,it is perfect,it will remain so till the last day.

to cure ignorance and arrogance and jealousy and the rest of mankind heart disease ,i have no better book to offer you than, QURAN ,so be happy.
those who they are extremely jealous ,be aware that extream jealousy can cause heart busting and still wouldnot change any thing.

Miss Taylor,

An excellent article. But I have one major disagreement.

Yes. It is true that many people including myself are ignorant with regards to all the religions. But I think that you can break the ignorant group down into subgroups as well.
One group of people may be ignorant of a religion, but still do not hate religion as a whole. People in this group know they are responsible for educating themselves on topics of which they are ignorant, and not just religion either.
The other sub group will continue to hate religion even when confronted with facts that prove their own belief systems wrong. In most cases no amount of education will change a hateful belief that a person may hold towards religion, and or anything else.

I can honestly say that I don't know much about the Mormon religion. I have heard many negative remarks, and very few positive ones. But that goes with most religions in my opinion. I have recently read many articles on this site from Mormons that give a brief discription of their Faith, and how they live it. And then I have also read all the sterotypical stories as well. All negative of course. I have done a little research too. But for myself, I really don't care what religion a politican is, or is not.

Thanks for the interesting article.

Ms. Taylor,

Although I appreciate your discussion and sentiment, you err on one major point. MORMONS DO NOT PRACTICE POLYGAMY!!

This may be the most frustrating misunderstanding for those of us who belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka Mormon Church). Although for a time during the 19th century, some Mormons practiced polygamy, this is not accepted in Mormon culture today. In fact, Mormons who are found to be practicing plural marriage, or polygamy, are asked to either give it up or to be ex-communicated from the Mormon church.

Polygamists in the media, like Warren Jeffs, are break-off groups from the Mormon faith. When the church ended the practice of polygamy, some groups refused to give up the practice and broke away from the main body of the church. I have been to Mormon services in all parts of the world, London, Mexico, Spain, Utah, and currently in Chicago, Illinois where I live. Never in any meeting have I met a Mormon who is practicing or has ever practiced polygamy, and I never expect to. Today, this is not an accepted practice in our faith!

BEWARE THE LATEST ISLAMIC LIE.
the first lie is that moho is a decendent of abraham, through his wifes maid servant. that bastard was named ishmael. now this event took place around 2500 bc. moho created this lie around 620 ad - 3,000 + years later. of course there is no proof of this, none at all.
the next lie is that allah is the real name of the god of israel and jesus. again there is no proof of this. the god of israel lead his people out of bondage and their history is in the old testament. god rode them hard and put them away wet, but he finally gave them the promised land.
and then he pretended that it was the same god of jesus - which is the same god of the jews.
now why would a child molesting murderer do that? to lay claim on the land of others. afterall, moho was just a bandit.
but the last lie is the claim that islamics now be called being part of the Abrahamic faiths.
akbar ahmed, a coward of a panelist on this panel even talks about it.
the lie is a development of the modern islamic thieves. they want to pretend that they have the same god, and same beginings and therefore they are entitled to the same wealth.
see it just dawned on the brain surgeons of the islamic faith that we have documented their theiving ways and since they want to talk about giving islamic lands back, we might say ok, by that standard we want our stuff back too and since you did not exist until 620 ad, what you have now you stole.
oups - they forgot that one and did not even see it coming.
but now we can use the standard they have set, give it all back.
so now they have a new name. they are the

Abrahamic faiths.

do these people ever tell the truth? NEVER!

where are the good ones? what makes them good? do they reject the murder and hate verses in the koran and do they publically say so?
like pam - what is a progressive islamic? what makes them progressive vs a murdering piece of crap that says they follow the koran?
the fact is it is just islamic speak. lie and let them relax so that they can kill us as they smile.

Well now thanks to an extremely long history of Muslims attacking people in buildings, people on subways, people in public markets, the world has got a really clear message from the Muslim/Islammic community of what they are really about.... the ''so-called good ones'' do nothing in word or deed to stop the ''bad ones'' so one could only think they are cowards of their own religion, which seems to state: Be us or die! But even becoming a Muslim/Islam whatever -- what's so wonderfully great about that? Denial of education, setback for women, men corralled into tight groups of heirarchy -- oh whoopee! What a grand idea! The more I see of Islam/Muslim the more I see of a sad, joyless, angry people -- Let's all shout: COMPLAIN ABOUT EVERYTHING AND BLAME THE USA AND CHRISTIANS AND JEWS -- AND WIPE OUT EVERY BODY WHO IS NOT LIKE US. Wow! Good thing that is not the nature of the God I know and love. My God breathes life, love, kindness, sharing, and gives us a choice to believe or not. My God is so great he does not need my love, he wants my love, he chases me for my love. My God is so great he loved me as a sinner and gave me complete forgiveness when I looked up and saw his truth. My God does not say strap some bombs on and blow up some people and then get the sex of 70 virgins, give me a break! When I look at the profile list of the world for attacks on innocent people, I ask you, why are Muslim/Islammic groups dominating that list? What is there not to understand?

Kat,

You said: "You seem determined to hate Islam and Muslims."

I personally do not hate anyone, muslim or non-muslim. I do, however, hate any belief system which teaches its adherents to hate non-believers and to kill anyone who leaves the faith. It seems obvious to me that any such belief system will inevitably lead to war.

I hope, of course, that war will be avoided, but if history is anything to go by that seems highly unlikely.

I'm certain that your understanding of Islam may not be the same as Muhammad's but that is where the problem lies, because the terrorists don't subscribe to your 'moderate' Islam. They subscribe to Muhammad's version and that is the violent terror version.

The moderates don't control Islam. All it takes is a couple of bombs and the extremists succeed in dividing multicultural communities along muslim / non-muslim lines. It is the terrorists who control Islam and that is why there will be a war in the future, unless something is done to change the mentality and education of Muslim children growing up in the West.

Allowing Islam to grow in the West is like allowing Nazism to grow, because both are extreme ideologies. The result, in both cases, will inevitably be conflict and war, unless the children of today are given the education they need to stop that from happening.

it looks like islam does not mind talking about murdering and killing everyone not islamic but you sure back off when you find out you might just get the war you have been demanding.
now go back and kill each other and stay the hell out of telling the rest of us what we can and cannot do.

kat - we can see what islam really means - so yes, when you lie to us and engage in 1400 years of war against us - we can tell you that you are full of crap and we can see what islam means. here is what islam did to get the wests attention the first time. and you deserved it.
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.
and what caused the conduct of islam: well here is your koran demands:
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 the result today it, as stated by a current islamic professor:
We know that for the first time in history, due to a unique geopolitical conjunction of factors, Islam is in confrontation with all of the major world religions: Judaism in the Middle East, Christianity in the Balkans, Chechnya, Nigeria, Sudan, the Philippines and Indonesia; Hinduism in South Asia, and, Buddhism—after the Taliban blew up their statues—in Bamiyan. And, Islam is on a collision course in the western province of China, where culture represents an amalgam of the philosophy of Confucius, Tao, and Communist ideology.
It is this historic conjunction that both singles out Islam and creates the global argument that the 21st century will be a time of war between Islam and the other world civilizations. Of course, this neat concept is challenged because so many Muslim countries are clearly allied to non-Muslim ones. Besides, so many Muslims now live in non-Muslim nations. But it is true to say that the major world civilizations are experiencing problems in accommodating or even understanding Islam, both within their borders and outside them.

If we are to prevent the world from lurching toward one crisis after another, one flashpoint to another, then we all need to radically rethink the relationship between our religion and other religions; a radical reassessment of one another. The West must send serious signals to the ordinary Muslim people - via the media, through seminars, conferences, meetings - that it does not consider Islam to be the enemy, however much it may disagree with certain aspects of Muslim behavior.

http://www.akbarahmed.org/id67.html

and look at his conclusion:

The West must send serious signals to the ordinary Muslim people - via the media, through seminars, conferences, meetings - that it does not consider Islam to be the enemy, however much it may disagree with certain aspects of Muslim behavior.

you just dont get it - we are not going to apologize, we are not going to be bound by your religion - we are not going to follow your religion as you demand - and we are not going to be converted by force becasue we will kill every islamic on the planet before that happens - all one billion + of you.
now do you get it?

Punishment of Apostasy in islam.

Those who turn back as apostates after the guidance was clearly shown to them,satan has seduced them 47.25
That means 'mischief'(feetne).

O you who believe,if any from among you turn back from his religion,then Allah will bring a people....lowly before believer,might against the unbelievers,they shall strive hard in Allah's way and shall not fear the blame of any blamer 5.54
That means apostasy is rebellion and means wage war against Allah.

Mischief(feetne) is gravery/worse than slaughter.Cow chapter 217

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger,and MAIN FOR MISCHIEF THROUGH THE LAND is Execution or Cutting Off of hands and feet 5.33

If you interpret all of them,
Apostasy is Mischief and Rebellion that means wage war against Allah.

Conclusion,
Punishment of Apostasy is absolutely striking off their heads.

I am sure,one day you shall listen to voice of your conscience.Please...

And now you're telling Muslims what their religion really means?

You seem determined to hate Islam and Muslims. That is your right, of course. Honestly, I don't hate you. Hatred and prejudice against "the other" is common as sand. For all I know, you are otherwise a fine upstanding citizen and kind to animals. But haters, whether it's you or some overzealous Wahabi, do get us into unnecessary wars and make life miserable for multitudes during times of peace between nations. Forgive me for hoping that you do not live in the U.S. If you are American, then to all the Muslims out there, I'm sorry about my fellow citizen. We're not all like that. And maybe, they'll decide to give up their hatred one day, God willing. I'm out of here. Salaam.

((((((((((((( Peace-Love-Rock and ROMNEY! )))))))))))

Please note, Churchill didn't claim to be a prophet sent from god to teach humanity a new morality. Nor did he claim that his behaviour was perfect in every way and must be emulated in every way.

He simply identified major threats to the Western way of life, and was proven to be correct on more than one occasion.

Muhammad, on the other hand, taught that his example and behaviour was perfect and must be emulated by every Muslim. This mentality has caused wars between Islam and the non-Islamic world, and will eventually lead to a massive civil war in the future throughout the multicultural world, on a scale never seen before, unless Muslims start receiving the education they need to bring them out of the cult mentality and world domination ideology indoctrinated by Muhammad.

The choice is this: Education or war. I hope that Muslims choose education, otherwise the future could be very bloody.

kata - your finding things about chruchill does not change the fact that islam is a terrorist organization and nothing more.

Katakaha,

I strongly suspect that your friends are fine people in spite of Islam, not because of it. I strongly suspect that they are, in fact, bad Muslims, because if they were good Muslims they would be doing as Muhammad commanded them to do, such as issuing death threats to anyone they knew who left the faith.

Anonymous pulls out a racist rant by Churchill, prefacing it with:
"Churchill is considered the West's greatest defender of freedom and one of the wisest men who ever lived. He worked and lived in Islamic countries before becoming Prime Minister. He won a Nobel Prize for his scholarship. He was voted The Greatest Briton of All Time in a nationwide BBC poll in 2002."

OK. You brought it up. Churchill was a great wartime leader. But he was also a bigot.

(from zmag)
History Forgave Churchill Why Not Blair And Bush?
by Mickey Z

July 19, 2003

On July 17, 2003, U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair addressed a joint meeting of the U.S. House and Senate. The subject of WMD, of course, was on the front burner.

"If we are wrong, then we will have destroyed a threat that was at its least responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering,' Blair said. "I am confident history will forgive.'

Blair's confidence is justified. History has forgiven U.K. leaders for plenty. How else, for example, could U.S. News and World Report have dubbed Winston Churchill "The Last Hero" in a 2000 cover story? In that article, Churchill was said to believe in "liberty, the rule of law, and the rights of the individual."

As Sir Winston himself declared: "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

This is precisely why so few of us ever discuss Churchill as a war criminal or racist. In 1910, in the capacity of Home Secretary, he put forth a proposal to sterilize roughly 100,000 "mental degenerates" and dispatch several thousand others to state-run labor camps. These actions were to take place in the name of saving the British race from inevitable decline as its inferior members bred.

History has forgiven Churchill for his role in the Allied invasion of the Soviet Union in 1917. England's Minister for War and Air during the time, Churchill described the mission as seeking to "strangle at its birth" the Bolshevik state. In 1929, he wrote: "Were [the Allies] at war with Soviet Russia? Certainly not; but they shot Soviet Russians at sight. They stood as invaders on Russian soil. They armed the enemies of the Soviet Government. They blockaded its ports, and sunk its battleships. They earnestly desired and schemed its downfall."

Two years later, Churchill was secretary of state at the war office when the Royal Air Force asked him for permission to use chemical weapons against "recalcitrant Arabs" as an experiment. Winston promptly consented (Yes, Churchill's gassing of Kurds pre-dated Hussein's by nearly 70 years).

"I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes," he explained, a policy he espoused yet again in July 1944 when he asked his chiefs of staff to consider using poison gas on the Germans "or any other method of warfare we have hitherto refrained from using." Unlike in 1919, his proposal was denied...not that history would not have forgiven him anyway.

In language later appropriated by the Israelis, Winston Churchill had this to say about the Palestinians in 1937: "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

When not scheming a Bolshevik downfall, gassing the uncivilized, or comparing Palestinians to dogs, Churchill found time to write soulmate Benito Mussolini. In January 1927, Sir Winston gushed to Il Duce, "if I had been an Italian, I am sure I would have been entirely with you from the beginning to the end of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism." Even after the advent of WWII, Churchill found room in his heart for the Italian dictator, explaining to Parliament in 1940:"I do not deny that he is a very great man but he became a criminal when he attacked England."

Mussolini's criminality aside, Churchill certainly took note of Axis tactics...cavalierly observing that "everyone" was bombing civilians. "It's simply a question of fashion," he explained, "similar to that of whether short or long dresses are in."

Sir Winston must have been a slave to fashion because he soon ordered a fire-bombing raid on Hamburg in July 1943 that killed at least 48,000 civilians, after which he enlisted the aid of British scientists to cook up "a new kind of weather" for larger German city.

In his wartime memoirs, Winston Churchill forgave himself for the countless civilians slaughtered in Dresden. "We made a heavy raid in the latter month on Dresden," he wrote benignly, "then a centre of communication of Germany's Eastern Front."

Surely the Nazis were hiding WMD there, right?

Mickey Z. is the author of The Murdering of My Years: Artists and Activists Making Ends Meet (www.murderingofmyyears.com) and an editor at Wide Angle (www.wideangleny.com). He can be reached at: mzx2@earthlink.net.

katakaha,

You said: "It is their religion that inspires them to be such fine people."

The problem is this. Muhammad taught brotherhood between Muslims, which teaches Muslims to respect and care for each other. Some Muslims only study these peaceful and tolerant verses, they do not study the verses which apply to non-Muslims, therefore they treat all human beings as if they were Muslims. Unfortunately it is they who missunderstand Islam.

The terrorists study the verses which teach Muslims how to behave towards non-Muslims. These verses demand utter hatred, contempt and murder of non-believers.

Your friends do not follow Muhammad's version of Islam. They follow a distorted version. The terrorists follow Muhammad's version. No one wants that to be true, but that is the truth and it can be proved through mountains of evidence.

I don't think Islam teaches Muslims to be fine people. How does oppressing minorities make fine people? How does punishing apostates make fine people? How does forcing non-believers into second-class citizenship make fine people?

You have no idea what 'fine people' mean, do you?

Why don't you try visiting Mecca and proclaim you're a non-Muslim and see what those 'fine people' do to you? They would tear you limb from limb.

Fine people indeed.

Victoria always plays the victim (just as she was taught to do by her prophet) when she cannot answer the points raised.

The only hatred on this forum, Victoria, is the hatred of your prophet towards non-believers. All that we are asking is why do you follow such an evil man? Do you not understand that sex with little children is evil? Do you not understand that mass murder of people who have surrendered is evil? Do you not understand that robbing people of their possessions is evil?

Muhammad taught people to view evil things as good, just as Nazism persuaded people to believe that killing Jews was doing good. That is why Churchill said what he said about Muhammad.

You don't need the cult in your life Victoria. You don't need to follow such a man. You have the choice to listen to your own conscience and live your life according to your own principles which are no doubt vastly superior to those of Muhammad. Think for yourself, Victoria. Come out of denial. All religion is a con.

Please read my last post again. It is their religion that inspires them to be such fine people. Naziism did not teach kindness and forbearance.

The analogy is apt because not every Nazi killed people, Katakana. Some Nazis killed, while many others were 'peaceful' but gave support to the murderers. The core tenets of Nazism are hatred and violence. Hitler was an odious hateful bigotted man.

Let us do a substitution.

Not every Muslim killed people, Katakana. Some Muslims kill, while many others are 'peaceful' but give support to the murderers. The core tenets of Islam are hatred and violence. Muhammad was an odious hateful bigotted man.

In response to: "Why are you comparing Islam to Naziism, fascism, and communism? This is plain bigotry. Have you really never had friends who were devout Muslims? If you had, you would realize that this is nonsense."

You wrote: "I've had friends both German and Muslim. Having friends with a German before the 2nd World War didn't mean that Nazism wasn't a dangerous ideology. It is you who talk nonsense."

Maybe I should have made myself more clear. These were "devout Muslims" whose characters were informed by their faith. The proper comparison would not be to any German before World War II, but a Nazi believer. The Nazi believers really did kill gypsies, jews, communists, and others. They hated Jews. You realize that a large number of Germans, even in the army, were not Nazi Party members. These Muslim neighbors of mine never spoke violently of anyone. Even when a rabidly bigotted non-Muslim neighbor railed on them, all foreign students or immigrants, for making noise at 10 pm on a Friday night at the first birthday party of my neighbors son, they held their peace and meekly tried their best to avoid conflict. I, on the other hand, was hopping mad. No American would have so quietly borne the abuse they received. But these Muslims from Egypt, Lebanon, and Pakistan did so. I was completely blown away by their forbearance. This is also Islam in action. For most Muslims, this is Islam, not crashing planes into buildings, not killing Jews, not hating the unbelievers.

Can you really tell me that you have German friends who are current Nazi believers and that they are kind, tolerant people as a result?

So Islamic punishment for apostasy is untrue?

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

Here the Muslims freely admit that they punish apostates. Sorry, but I'd much rather believe them, Victoria.

Are claims that Islam punishes apostates bigotry? Tell it to the victims. I'm too busy weeping for you.

Victoria
I must admit I already had some misgivings about Islam when I came here. Therefore I asked some questions after reading this blog. Some of the evidence posted by critics were truly eye-opening. You gave me a link to a site that did not answer my questions. I looked around and read up on Islam. What I found was that Muhammad did indeed kill people. He did indeed rape. He did indeed rob. He did indeed make people into slaves.

I can't see how a man like that can possibly be the source of morality and spiritual guidance.

I can't see how you can continue to follow him knowing full well what sort of man he was.

It would help if you can provide me evidence that the reports that Muhammad killed, raped, robbed and enslaved are untrue.

ok i forgot this part:
It is this historic conjunction that both singles out Islam and creates the global argument that the 21st century will be a time of war between Islam and the other world civilizations. Of course, this neat concept is challenged because so many Muslim countries are clearly allied to non-Muslim ones. Besides, so many Muslims now live in non-Muslim nations. But it is true to say that the major world civilizations are experiencing problems in accommodating or even understanding Islam, both within their borders and outside them.

If we are to prevent the world from lurching toward one crisis after another, one flashpoint to another, then we all need to radically rethink the relationship between our religion and other religions; a radical reassessment of one another. The West must send serious signals to the ordinary Muslim people - via the media, through seminars, conferences, meetings - that it does not consider Islam to be the enemy, however much it may disagree with certain aspects of Muslim behavior.

NOTICE HOW THE WEST MUST SEND OUT INFORMATION THAT WE DO NOT CONSIDER ISLAM THE ENEMY, and not the other way around.

its the darn one armed lesiban eskimo's that are the problem around the world - why did we think it was islamics. silly us.

anna- we were having this conversation before- while you started by asking questions, and a solid link was provided to you, you complained that it contained "islamic things".

i can ususally tell when people post questions only as a way to insult our prophet(pbuh) and keep the hate going.

as for apostasy, it comes up on alost every single post, not because its a valid question bu because people are looking for populAR misconceptions to spread their own bigotry against islam.

i imagine there are hateful and ignorant people on the othr side of the world saying ridiculous things about america and contending nonesensical ideas as facts

who would gamble on churchill being wrong?
he didnt even know what muslims are called- he couldnt even have the most basic repsect or intelligence to call muslims by their correct appellation-

these blogs are not here for the purpose of letting some phobics vent their fears, but are supposed to be for dialogue to foster understanding

sadly, many abuse them and feel comfortable expressing bigotry that would be unacceptable if