Rubin gets himself into a whale of an argument

Nice job Robert. I remember well the scene with Marshall Mcluhan in 'Annie Hall.' I'll bet you were just as devastating. I think the whole purpose of your website is to help educate us sufficiently enough on all things Islamic that we won't need our own Marshall Mcluhan to win our arguments for us.

Robert, I agree completely with your stated thesis that our society's political/cultural etiquette of ignoring the embedded intolerance in Islamic theology only serves to undercut the arguments of Muslim moderates and reformers and constrain the parameters of discussion.

I am cutious though, about your 'I told you so' reference on the 'Afghans will never agree on any secular or liberal system' thread. I'm sure you're disinclined to avail yourself to every challenge you might come across in your comments section (thank God for Hugh's inexuastible energy), and perhaps you don't want to set a precedent here by responding to me, but I remain curious about your position on Afghanistan.

What is it you object to, our initial invasion or the attempt at nation-building?

If the former, should we just have allowed Afghanistan to remain as an active base from which Al Qaeda could have prepared more 9-11s?

If the latter, what kind of post-invasion set-up should we have worked to create as an alternative to the admittedly imperfect Democracy now taking shape?

And, though neither of them had read any of his books, one bravely boasted he could refute "most or all" of Mr. Spencer's contentions about Islam.

The most recent review of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)on UK Amazon is unfavourable. According to tamagotchi_king from London the book is " shallow, misrepresented ..... a book to justify your Islamaphobic inclinations"
However as he gets Mr Spencers' name wrong (are you David to your friends?) I too doubt whether he has even seen a copy, let alone read it.

Cornelius:

Today's Globe & Mail carries an article describing the considerable support Afghan voters are expected to show for some members of the former Communist government that the Taliban drove out who are running under the flag of the National United Party. Apparently, after the Taliban years, some Afghans look back fondly to the Soviet years.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050922/AFGHAN22/TPInternational/TopStories

With all due respect to Robert and Hugh, looking at history is very insightful and may help us predict probable outcomes, but as the late Robert Heilbruner put it about economists, historians are better at telling us what happened and not what will happen.

The inability or unwillingness of this priest to consider the fact that I was not constructing the evidence myself, but merely reporting on what jihad terrorists say and how they use the Qur'an and Sunnah to recruit new terrorists, stemmed from a larger handicap that this priest shares with many others: the inability or unwillingness to consider the possibility that the problem we have today might have religious roots, and that there might be real problems within Islam that must be addressed by non-Muslims and Muslims before today's global crisis can end.
Robert at 08:34 AM September 22, 2005.

Robert Spencer is quoting the jihad terrorists but ignores evidence given by us to show the jihad terrorists are wrong. By quoting the terrorists Robert is aiding them and not confronting them. In this forum, we have given proof that ‘abrogation does not exist.’ However, such a proof is ignored by Robert. Robert, please use your site to counter the jihad terrorist and not to aid them by quoting them.

Obviously the people he was arguing with have never read the Quran and the Hadiths.

With all due respect Waterdragon, it was the decision of the Soviets to super-impose the "social revolution" on Afghanistan in April '78 that began Afghanistan's slide into anarchy and fanaticism.

The Catholic Priest errs in the assumption that all men want to live in loving, peaceful harmony with all other men. islam wants to rule over anyone not islamic...it is in their book...read it.

Deeply impressed, was he, this Going-my-way smiler -- oh the type, the type. In Bethlehem he sees only what he wants to see, and accepts the most preposterous of stories from the local Arabs, both Muslims, and terrified, or completely subservient Christians. He might want to look again at the figures: just why is it that the Christian population in the "Palestinian" Authority territories has sunk from 24% to 2%, while when the Israelis were in control there was no such drop? And why do Maronites look in the past (and possibly in the future) to Israel as their protector? And what did the Bishop of Beirut, Moubarac, write about Zionism back in 1947? And what does Father O'this or O'that --I don't know that he's Irish, with a brogue to boot, but Irish priests, raised on the anti-Israel bias of the Irish press, are those who tend to travel most to Bethlehem and be taken in. Italian Franciscans, or at least many of them, are less impressionable, and less impressed. They know too much.

Which brings me to something else. Has the priest in question in keeping up to snuff on the latest in Bethlehem, and that long article about the attacks on Christions -- "bersaglio dell'odio" (the target of hatred) from the Muslims who rape, steal from, and even kill the local Christians -- so much for wonderful Islam.

Why can I be sure that that priest has carefully avoided learning about the real treatment of Christians under Islam, either now, or in the past? Why do I suspect that he would never ever read, for example, "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam," because he just wouldn't like its drift, wouldn't like all the testimony, all the facts.

It would get in the way of Tolerance. It would get in the way of Peace. It would get in the way of Diversity.

Oh, he's got his work cut out for him now, Robert -- now that you've come not with peace, but a sword.

He wasn't expecting that. He doesn't like facts. He found your presentation "poor."

Well, perhaps his more thoughtful parishioners will do the equivalent of counting their spoons -- and watch this particular priest for signs of bias, wilful misinformation, and much else. It would not be the first time that those wrapped in a cassock have used one kind of authority to claim quite another kind.

Watch him like a hawk. Don't let him get away with it. Make him read a few books, and to find out about the charges against the Muslim treatment of Christians made by the recently-appointed Italian Franciscan, new "custode" (custodian) of the 41 Christian Holy Places, 39 of them in Israel. And come to think of it, where does the clear distaste and suspicion of Pope Benedict (just see any of his books -- say, his dialogues with Michele Pera) for Islam fit into this priest's world-view? Or is he one of those Christian religious who forced to choose between Christianity and Islam, will choose -- Islam. It's happened before. It is beyond theology. It is something else going on.

In Muslim countries the word "Communist" may simply describe one of the few, and possibly the safest because most acceptable way of being fervently secular, smuggling the secularism in under the guise of Marxism. Some of the fiercest Iranians in exile who are the fiercest critics of the Islamic Republic call themselves "Communists" (if they live in Sweden rather than the U.S.). The most secular Iraqis are those running as Communists. The same is true in Afghanistan. On the theory that Communism always shoots itself in the foot, as it must -- it will always fail as an economic system -- then forced to choose between Muslims and Communists, I choose Communists any day. Islam is a much more powerful threat, because until Islam, the doctrines and attitudes and mental habits that Islam promotes, are seen by enough Muslims and Infidels alike to fail, to fail in politics (where it encourages despotism), in economics (where it encourages inshallah-fatalism and reliance either on manna from Heaven, or jizya from the Infidels), in social affairs (the mistreatment of women and the crazed attention to sexual matters and putative misbehavior), in intellectual matters (few possibilites for artistic expression, with a ban on most forms of music and art, and the few outlets permitted mostly connected to Islam, such as Qur'anic calligraphy, and mosque architecture; no possibility of free and skeptical inquiry that the pursuit of science requires, for such a possibility is anathema to Islam and the Qur'an which already, we are told, "contains everything."

In the context of Islam, those who call themselves "Communists" tend to be a mite better than the others. Even they, however, often hold the usual views of Infidels. The late George Hawi, of Lebanon, recently dispatched by a Syrian hit squad, was a well-known Communist who nonetheless exhibited all the usual stupid nastiness about Israel. Once that kind of thing gets into the system, it is hard to remove.

"Robert, please use your site to counter the jihad terrorist and not to aid them by quoting them."
-- from a posting, from a Muslim poster, above

Robert is not "quoting them." He is quoting from the Qur'an. He is quoting from the Hadith, the "authentic" Hadith as labelled by al-Bukhari and Muslim. He is adducing details from the life of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil.

He is showing how those "jihad terrorists" are acting not against Islam, but to the letter, and in the spirit, of Islam.

The burden is on others to show that this is 1) either not true (and no one has yet done it or 2) why nonetheless we should all pretend that Islam does not contain the passages, and the teachings, that it most obviously does contain, in the hopes that a semi-mythical creature called the "moderate" Muslim can be relied on, by Infidels, in a pitch, to take their side rather than the side of those "jihad terrorists" or, for that matter, those conducting Jihad using other means, less attention-grabbing, and more effective and, in the end, deadly.

The plea not to be keep showing that the "jihad terrorists" have the teachings of Islam on their side, is ridiculous. Why should Infidels not fully inform themseelves about what Islam teaches, what the Jihad-verses of the Qur'an (see, if you will, the "Calcutta Qur'an Petition, or any number of websites where the most offensive and malevolent 100-odd verses from the Qur'an can be easily retrieved, say at www.answering-islam.org) teach Believers is the Word of God, what Muhammad said, and what he did, as recorded in the "authentic" Hadith (and even when he was silent, and what that meant), and of particular interest, what is offered up to Muslims as the greatest man, the model for all mankind, Muhammad -- what was it that he did in his life that we Infidels should all be careful to learn about, so that we can know what it is that Muslims believe constitutes uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil? Shouldn't we know? Don't we want Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists to "understand Islam"? Of course we do. So they need not to listen to a carefully-guided tour through a Potemkin-village Islam, expressly constructed for non-Muslim visitors, but to wander freely, with commentaries and scholarly guides, right through the texts.

And not merely the texts. They need to learn as much as they can about how Muslims, over 1350 years, have treated non-Muslims. Did they treat them well? Did they treat them badly? Did they treat them so-so, just as long as those non-Muslims knew their place, and their place consisted of their obeying a whole series of rules that forced them into a position that could be described as one of humiliation, degradation, and permanent physical insecurity? What is the evidence? What do we know about the treatment of Christians and Jews in the wonderful paraidse of Haroun al-Raschid's Baghdad? In Cordoba, or elsewhere in Islamic Spain, where Maimonides had such a good time -- or did he? Let's find out. Infidels are ill-informed. Let's inform them. Surely no one can object to that. Least of all any Muslim, who wishes Infidels well, and wishes them to be able to understand, and thus to distinguish between, those "bad" Muslims (the ones who throw bombs and stuff like that) and the "good" Muslims, the ones who deeply, madly, truly, believe in diversity and pluralism and civil rights and motherhood and apple pie and the loyalty owed whatever Infidel nation-state they happen to be living in. Let's find out all about it -- as much as we can, as soon as we can.

Who could object?

I once had a long conversation from a liberal-minded non-Muslim who was born and raised in that part of the world.

We had a long talk about Afghanistan. She went through all the same, tired arguments about how the US created the Taliban by our support of the Mujahaddin in the 80s, and how anything, ANYTHING, even a repressive Marxist regime imposed from outside in which the prisons were crowded with political prisoners and the torture chambers of Khad were open for business 24/7...even this was preferable to the religious fanaticism of the Taliban.

Yet, this woman - this progressive, liberal-minded woman, was vehemently opposed to the American-led action to replace the same Taliban with a Democratic system. I thought about it for a long time and came to the conclusion that there was only one explanation for such an incongruity: A psychological anti-Americanism she would never admit to.

Cornelieus:

I was not attempting to defend the Soviets' record in Afghanistan. What was interesting about the article, to me at least, is that the Afghan people are not enamored of Taliban-style government and Olomi's claim that the moderately leftist Parchami party to which he belonged wrote into its rules that Islam would be respected, but that wasn't good enough for the fundamentalists in the 1960s.

An acquaintance who spent about 6 years in Afghanistan just prior to the Soviet invasion working for a Canadian foreign aid/development agency after he graduated as an accountant, said it was a very politically unstable country then, with all sorts of factions jockeying for control.

Also potentially interesting to me -- Christopher Hitchens noted recently in Slate that Iraq's president, Jalal Talibani is an elected democratic socialist. Who knows but that we may see the democratic election of socialist/leftist candidates in Afghanistan. Yet, the anti-regime change left is so hard core and knee-jerk in its animosity toward the US and its allies, that they will denounce these elections as fraudulent and the elected representatives as US puppets as dorky Galloway did when he debated Hitchens last week at Baruch College.

Agreed Waterdragon, the mindset of the left is nothing short of pathological.

I wouldn't get too enthusiastic about the prospects of the left in Afghan. My guess is that their representation in parliament will no doubt be quite small.

… but merely reporting on what jihad terrorists say …
Robert at September 22, 2005 08:34 AM

Robert is not "quoting them."
Hugh at September 22, 2005 01:57 PM

What does ‘but merely reporting’ mean? Is it not the same as quoting?

Robert is indeed quoting the Holy Quran out of context (following the jihad terrorists) to give a meaning that is not there.

We had given proof of the falsity of the ‘principle of abrogation’ and thus we had insisted that by virtue of 2:256 of the Holy Quran, which cannot be abrogated, there could be no offensive jihad.

If this site is really interested in obstructing the recruitment of future volunteers to the ‘offensive jihad’ we must support the fact that Islam is indeed a religion of peace. There could be no better argument to deter the recruitment to ‘offensive jihad’ than to show that it is outside the fold of Islam.

>... it was the decision of the Soviets
>to super-impose the "social revolution"
>on Afghanistan in April '78 that began
>Afghanistan's slide into anarchy and
>fanaticism.

Any nation within dar al Islam is a mere slip away from sliding into anarchy and fanaticism. That's what they do.

What the most holy scriptures of Islam are really about is how to get the nations of dar al Harb to succumb to this spreading puke-puddle called Islam.

I would be upset and concerned if a religion named itself Surrender. But not to worry, Islam is not a religion. It is a nation, a self-perpetuating murder Ponzi scheme.

Islam is not a religion. It is a nation, a self-perpetuating murder Ponzi scheme.

Shaughn, exactly.. very well put.

The Mohammedan poster above seems rather concerned that the genie gets out of the bottle, that more and more infidels get to understand that Islam is a violent, murderous cult and that Jihad is the 'pinnacle' of it.

http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=843

In previous posts he peddles arabian fairy-tales like 9/11 "inside job" and the usual BS, and as with Hugh's writing above, never with a shred of evidence, but always 'out of context'.

Finally in the hope, that if enough fools parrot Bush's foolish line about the "Religion of Peace" and therefore the veil may not be lifted from the Koran, the sira and the hadith, so that the zombies may continue to infiltrate our countries instead of being interned and deported to the asylum on planet Islam, where they belong, (but where they don't want to be, for it is so much more pleasant to live a parasitic existence amongst stupid infidels,) so he does a classical Jack Straw, since "the alternative would be too terrible to contemplate..."

Mohideen:

Salaam!

Well, Mohideen, we have had posters here who have said the usual, "Say it's a religion of peace or we'll kill you." And now we have you saying, more or less, "Say its a religion of peace or we'll never be able to convince Muslims that it is a religion of peace." But, Mohideen, instead of demanding that we say it is a religion of peace, why don't you PROVE it is a religion of peace. Give us your theological verities from the Ahadith, from the Sira, from the Qur'an and PROVE to us it is a religion of peace. Mr. Spencer is constantly looking for Muslims who will provide theological counter-arguments to people like Qutb and Bin Laden but, so far, he has had no takers. YOU could be the FIRST Mohideen! Show us your theological prowess! I dare you!

Salaam, Mohideen.

http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=843
the veil may not be lifted from the Koran, the sira and the hadith
sheik yer'mami at September 22, 2005 06:27 PM
The link from MERMI TV is about the Palestine Intifada, which is a defensive jihad. The Islamic scriptures are wide open for every one to read and understand. There is no veil covering them. Those who claim Islam advocates violence twist the statements.

Mohideen:

You haven't proved anything theologically. You have simply said, "Those who claim Islam advocates violence twist the statements." Prove it Mohideen. Prove to us that "those who claim Islam advocates violence twist the statements". Here is the text from the Umdat al-salik, a Shafi manual of Sharia, regarding Jihad; please refute its theological bases, if you can:

http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/21475

Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a communal, religious obligation

pp. 599-603

O9.0 JIHAD

(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad,

“We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”
The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:

(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);

(2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);

(3) “Fight the idolaters utterly” (Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”

Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight, himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.)

THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD

09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O: the evidence for which is the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

“He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,”

and Allah Most High having said:

“Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each, Allah has promised great good” (Koran 4:95)

If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year.

The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can.

0.9.2 Jihad is personally obligatory upon all those present in the battle lines (A: and to flee is an enormity) (O: provided one is able to fight. If unable, because of illness or the death of one’s mount when not able to fight on foot, or because one no longer has a weapon, then one may leave. One may also leave if the opposing non-Muslim army is more than twice the size of the Muslim force).

0.9.3 Jihad is also (O: personally) obligatory for everyone (O: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (O: on every side, having entered our territory, even if the land consists of ruins, wilderness, or mountains, for the non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means. All of which is if conditions permit gathering (A: the above mentioned) people, provisioning them, and readying them for war, then whoever is found by a non-Muslim and knows he will be killed if captured is obliged to defend himself in whatever way is possible. But if not certain that he will be killed, meaning that he might or might not be, as when he might merely be taken captive, and he knows he will be killed if he does not surrender, then he may either surrender or fight. A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to an indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible.

WHO IS OBLIGED TO FIGHT IN JIHAD

Those called upon (O: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation) are every able-bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane.

….

THE OBJECTIVES OF JIHAD

0.9.8 The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) – which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself – while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden – who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled” (Koran 9:29),

the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

“I am the last, there will be no prophet after me.”

this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)).

0.9.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya)) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, people of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi (y21), 6.48-49)).

Mohideen:

Are you ready to kill me yet for defaming Islam?

Not yet?

Well, let's keep going then.

Mohideen:

Have I rendered you speechless already?

Oh well, another prominent Muslim theologian gone down in intellectual flames.

What did you think? That the people who post here know nothing about Islam? That the people who post here haven't wasted hours and hours and hours of time studying Islam when they could have been doing better things with their time?

Have I rendered you speechless already?
Mentat at September 22, 2005 07:14 PM

Not really. I hope to respond by Saturday September 25, if I find time to respond among my other activities.

Three items:

1) I recall hearing many years ago of studies showing that people with extreme religious beliefs rarely give them up merely because something happens that runs radically counter to what their faith had led them to expect. Instead, the unexpected is rationalized to fit in with the faith. If those studies were right, then we can't expect strong Muslim believers to become apostates through confrontations with fact and rationality. What percentage of Muslims are only nominal and tend toward apostasy via confrontation with facts and reason, I don't know.

2) No doubt Mohideen sincerely believes there is 'no abrogation' and that he can cite some verse to show it. But the problem is that even if he is right, apparently most religious Muslims disagree with him, if I have understood Robert Spencer. So that even if we were to agree with Mohideen about there being 'no abrogation,' we would still have to conclude that there is some very grave flaw in the Koran that makes it remarkably prone to a misinterpretation supporting violent offensive jihad. Pragmatically speaking, if it walks like a duck...

3) I gather that Freedom House, in classifying by civil and political rights the some 50 Muslim-majority countries in the world, lists most of them as "unfree", a smaller number as "partly free", and just 2 as "free" -- free in the sense we in the West understand that term. This was in 2003 or 2004, and both of the 'free' states in question were, I believe, in sub-Saharan Africa. (Afghanistan and Iraq being in transition.) All the arguments about Islamic theology are very necessary, but in some ways the fruits of a theology are the best demonstration of what it really is.

The fact that in 2003 or 2004 there were only two 'free' Muslim-majority states out of the 50 or so such states existing, suggests, but does not prove, what will seem obvious to many commenting here: that Islam is fairly inimical to civil and political rights. On the other hand, it might behoove those of us skeptical about Islam to look into how it is that it manages to coexist with freedom in those two states? Could the experience there be replicated? Could that freedom spread? How does it survive in those two states? That would seem to be a fairly relevant question for expert skeptics of Islam to help us all answer.

Oh my goodness. Mohideen you are going to reply?

Okay. First, let me acknowledge that if you only take the few nice verses in the Quran and ignore the doctrine of naskh (abrogation) and you discard the Ahadith and the Sira (the biography of Muhammad), you could come up with something fairly reasonable but most Muslims aren't willing to do that. Also, the Ismailis and Ahmadis have discarded the doctrines of Jihad and Dhimmitude and I don't have a problem with them but most Muslims don't consider them Muslims. So let me say that I think it is possible to be a Muslim and believe in non-violence but you have to discard so much of Islam that it is almost impossible (for most Muslims). I acknowledge, for instance, that Irshad Manji and Alia Hogben consider themselves Muslims and really do appear to believe in non-violence but do you consider those two women to be Muslims?

Finally, this debate is so ongoing that I suggest you check out the numerous debates that Ali Sina has had at faith-freedom.org before you reply to me because Sina has certainly anticipated almost everything that you could possibly say. (and I would certainly be using all the resources available to me on the web, including Sina's numerous debates).

As well, I suggest that you send your response directly to Robert Spencer instead of wasting your time on a small fry like me. Why not try and silence the big guns like Robert rather than waste time on me? I hope that you do as I suggest because I would love to see you and Robert have a debate. To that end, you should check out Robert's numerous debates with Muslims on these topics already (just so you don't waste your time on issues that have already been dealt with ad infinitum).

Well, I am looking forward to your reply.

Shall I look for it on this thread if you don't send it to Robert?

Dear Mendat,
I could open the link you have provided. At the top of the page, I find:
Hidden with code "Policy Violation."

I tried reaching the page from the "Home" of Indymedia. In
http://boston.indymedia.org/index.php?limit_start=232
I find a post dated May 7 2004 with the next post dated May 11 2004.

Excuse me, is your post hidden for "Policy Violation?" If not, can you give me the steps of navigation to reach your post from the home page?

Your O., N. are confusing. Is there an explanation?

Mohideen:

The link works just fine for me. My article is right there. Even though my article is hidden from public view because Indymedia thinks I have violated their policy, it is still there, as you can see, if you just scroll down from where you see Hidden, etc..

The O. and n., etc. I explain in the body of my article:

The following symbols within the excerpts mean as follows: A: comment by Sheikh ‘Abd al-Wakil Durubi; N: comment by Sheikh Nuh ‘Ali Salman; n: remark by the translator; and, O: excerpt from the commentary by Sheikh ‘Umar Barakat.

Presumably, you are not confused by the quotations from the Qur'an and Ahadith?

Shall I look for it on this thread if you don't send it to Robert?
Mentat at September 22, 2005 09:20 PM

Dear Mentat,
Sorry that I spelled your “name” wrongly in my post at 9.20 pm. Kindly excuse me.

Please look at my first post in this thread posted at 12.37 pm today. It is addressed to Robert Spencer, the controller of this site. When I post here, whether Robert Spencer directly responds or Hugh responds or someone else responds, the message has been conveyed.

Yes, God Almighty willing, Robert Spencer having studied so much about Islam would one day become a better believer than me. In Islam, the rewards are given even if one embraces the religion just before the start of the ‘pain of death.’ Then, if that person greets even one person, it is a good act; all his sins are erased from the record, and all his good deeds are credited to him. So, there is no urgency about Robert Spencer embracing Islam.

Incidentally, I do not claim to be a theologian; I am simply a student of Islam. The more the challenges I need to work on, the more my own understanding of Islam.

God Almighty alone tunes the hearts; hence there is no victorious debate or failure to convince the non-Muslim of the goodness of Islam.

If only I could reach the spirit of 3:20, I could consider myself lucky. Quoting 3:20, we have:
===
3:20 So if they dispute with thee say: “I have submitted my whole self to Allah and so have those who follow me.” And say to the people of the Book and to those who are unlearned: “Do ye (also) submit yourselves?” If they do they are in right guidance but if they turn back thy duty is to convey the Message; and in Allah’s sight are (all) His servants.
===

As a follower – hopefully – of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, it is the duty to convey the Message. After that, there is no victory or defeat. There is neither a big fry nor a small fry.

“We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”
Mentat at September 22, 2005 06:58 PM

We performed a search in ALIM CD on “greater jihad”, no Tradition is found; on “lesser jihad” also no Tradition is found. We repeated the search using the search engine of http://www.searchtruth.com/ also. No Tradition was found. We do not know from which source Sheikh Omar Barakat has quoted the above statement. That statement cannot be verified. We do not like to waste the time by looking at statements that cannot be verified.

We would simply state that no authority can contradict the Holy Quran, and by virtue of 2:256 there could be no compulsion in Islam. Hence, there can be no offensive jihad.

In the absence of verifiable proof for the existence of ‘offensive jihad’ on the basis of the Holy Quran and the authentic Traditions, we do not consider this as an issue.

In contrast to the absence of evidence for the offensive jihad, there is evidence to show that jihad is to defend only. We quote Tradition numbered 71A from Volume 3 of Fiqh-us-Sunnah.
===
The Preference of the Majority Opinion Over That of ash-Shaf'i
The author of ar-Rawdah an-Nadiyyah says: "Distributing all of the zakah to one group is more benefiting to the realization of the word of Allah." In brief, one may say that Allah made zakah applicable only to the eight specifically mentioned categories. Spelling out these categories does not mean that the zakah has to be distributed among them equally or even that it has to be divided among them. The intended meaning, however, is that the categories of sadaqah are similar to various groups of people who are eligible for it.
Thus, one who is obligated to pay anything to any category of sadaqah and gives it to a person in a parallel group is considered to be fulfilling what Allah commanded him to do. Contrary to this, if one divides his zakah due into the acknowledged eight categories, if all eight exist, then that would not only be contrary to the practice of the Muslims throughout history, but it would cause hardship to the payer of zakah. For example, if the collected zakah were meager, it would be of no benefit to any designated category--even if it was of one kind, to say nothing if it was of numerous kinds. To endorse such a practice would be tantamount to counter what the Prophet, upon whom be peace, did when he permitted the payment of a penance (kaffarah) from the charity collected for Salmah ibn Sakhr. Obviously, the hadith of as-Suda'i cannot be used as evidence.

There is not a single case in the entire corpus of hadith literature which could be used to make the distribution of zakah to all groups of people obligatory. Using the hadith of Mu'adh as evidence that the Prophet, upon whom be peace, instructed him to take zakah from the rich Yemenites and give it to their poor will not be of much help because it does not establish that the zakah was distributed to all the groups. Nor is the hadith of Ziyad ibn al-Harith as-Suda'i valid in this regard because in its chain of narrators is
'Abdur-Rahman ibn Ziyad al-'Afriqi, whose credibility has been questioned by many scholars. Assuming that this hadith is valid for the point under discussion, the meaning of the division of zakah into parts is its distribution according to the apparent meaning of the Qur'anic 'ayah and what the Prophet, upon whom be peace, had in mind. Assuming that the division of zakah itself is intended, the distribution has to be done according to the specified categories. In this case, any transfer of the share of one group to another, even if the group concerned was for some reason non-existent, will not be permissible. Such an approach will be contrary to the consensus of Muslim scholars. If we accept that, then the deciding factor for the sadaqah's distribution is the leader's wish rather than, and not the specific categories of eligible people. Thus, there is no evidence that makes division obligatory, and it is consequently permissible to give some sadaqah to those eligible people and some to other groups. Indeed, when the leader collects all the sadaqat from his people and all eight categories are eligible to receive them, each group has the right to claim its share. However, he does not have to divide the collected sadaqat among them equally or distribute it without any distinction, for he can give any amount to any group or groups that he wants to, or he can give some without giving the rest if he thinks it is in the interest of Islam and its people. For example, if the sadaqah was collected and then a jihad was announced, meaning that it would become necessary to defend the territory of Islam against the unbelievers, the leader can give some or all of it to the deserving warriors. This also applies to other concerns if the interest of Islam necessitates it.
===

There is no ‘offensive jihad’; jihad itself is defensive only. Proof over.

Mohideen,
According to Majid Khadduri, in his translator's introduction to The Islamic Law of Nations, John Hopkins Press, 1966,

"...jihad had for its intent the waging of war on unbelievers for their disbelief and not merely when they entered into conflict with Islam."

Majid Khadduri in that statement was representing the Shafi'i school of Sunni jurisprudence, which (at least until 2003) held sway (and probably still does) at Cairo's prestigious al-Azhar University. Sounds like an endorsement of offensive jihad to me. Do you say that the Shafi'i school is wrong about Islam?

The reference I cite and part of my wording can be found on page 231 of Spencer's Onward Muslim Soldiers.

Mohideen,
According to Majid Khadduri, in his translator's introduction to The Islamic Law of Nations, John Hopkins Press, 1966,

"...jihad had for its intent the waging of war on unbelievers for their disbelief and not merely when they entered into conflict with Islam."

Majid Khadduri in that statement was representing the Shafi'i school of Sunni jurisprudence, which (at least until 2003) held sway (and probably still does) at Cairo's prestigious al-Azhar University. Sounds like an endorsement of offensive jihad to me. Do you say that the Shafi'i school is wrong about Islam?

The reference I cite and part of my wording can be found on page 231 of Spencer's Onward Muslim Soldiers.

Mohideen,
According to Majid Khadduri, in his translator's introduction to The Islamic Law of Nations, John Hopkins Press, 1966,

"...jihad had for its intent the waging of war on unbelievers for their disbelief and not merely when they entered into conflict with Islam."

Majid Khadduri in that statement was representing the Shafi'i school of Sunni jurisprudence, which (at least until 2003) held sway (and probably still does) at Cairo's prestigious al-Azhar University. Sounds like an endorsement of offensive jihad to me. Do you say that the Shafi'i school is wrong about Islam?

The reference I cite and part of my wording can be found on page 231 of Spencer's Onward Muslim Soldiers.

Mohideen,
According to Majid Khadduri, in his translator's introduction to The Islamic Law of Nations, John Hopkins Press, 1966,

"...jihad had for its intent the waging of war on unbelievers for their disbelief and not merely when they entered into conflict with Islam."

Majid Khadduri in that statement was representing the Shafi'i school of Sunni jurisprudence, which (at least until 2003) held sway (and probably still does) at Cairo's prestigious al-Azhar University. Sounds like an endorsement of offensive jihad to me. Do you say that the Shafi'i school is wrong about Islam?

The reference I cite and part of my wording can be found on page 231 of Spencer's Onward Muslim Soldiers.

We had quoted Fiqh-us-Sunnah from the ALIM CD. By the grace of God Almighty, it can be verified in the Internet also. Open
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/law/fiqhussunnah/fus3_46.html
and in the resulting page under ‘Edit’ find ‘jihad’. The second result is:
===
For example, if the sadaqah was collected and then a jihad was announced, meaning that it would become necessary to defend the territory of Islam against the unbelievers, the leader can give some or all of it to the deserving warriors.
===
So, the proof that jihad is to defend the Muslim land alone is verified in the Internet also.

We had quoted Fiqh-us-Sunnah from the ALIM CD. By the grace of God Almighty, it can be verified in the Internet also. Open
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/law/fiqhussunnah/fus3_46.html
and in the resulting page under ‘Edit’ find ‘jihad’. The second result is:
===
For example, if the sadaqah was collected and then a jihad was announced, meaning that it would become necessary to defend the territory of Islam against the unbelievers, the leader can give some or all of it to the deserving warriors.
===
So, the proof that jihad is to defend the Muslim land alone is verified in the Internet also.

Do you say that the Shafi'i school is wrong about Islam?
eduardo odraude at September 23, 2005 03:32 AM

No Muslim is allowed to worship any other than Allah SWT. In view of 4:80, quoted below, we obey Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
===
4:80 He who obeys the Apostle obeys Allah: but if any turn away We have not sent thee to watch over their (evil deeds).
===

In view of the above, we like to trace any statement to the Holy Quran or the authentic Tradition. These are now available in a convenient form in ALIM CD. If we do not find the exact statement, we like that statement to be derived from the Holy Quran and the authentic Traditions.

There are four respected teachers in Islam: Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi’i, and Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal. For some more teachers see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhab

No teacher can be followed just because the teacher says so. Every statement of the teacher must be derived from the Holy Quran and the Sunnah. In the event the reasoning of the teacher is absent, we have to resort to our own reasoning. If a decision could be reached based on our reasoning using the Holy Quran and the Sunnah, then that decision could be followed. This is nothing but “proving theorems,” with respect to religion.

A computer scientist knows that computer programs could be generated automatically by using Second Order Predicate Logic. Natural language is decidedly higher than Second Order Predicate Logic. Thus, we expect the reasoning to be provided so that another person could verify the reasoning and decide.

In the case of the four Imams cited above, since they do not seem to have recorded their reasoning also, as and when there are differences between the four Imams, we have followed the majority opinion. This is not the best; it is acceptable as an interim measure.

So, when we show a particular result either by direct quotation or by derivation from the Holy Quran or the Sunnah, that result is indeed superior to a statement by any expert without support of proper reasoning.

We have quoted from Fiqh-us-Sunnah, and that quote clearly states that the opinion given is the majority opinion different from that of Imam Shafi’i. We accept Fiqh-us-Sunnah.

Priests don't look to the earthly future. They have no children and no grandchildren to worry about. They will NEVER get it.

Mohideen:

I am glad you think that you proved that there is no offensive jihad; now you just have to prove it to Bin Laden, etc..

However, I will have quick go at your reasoning.

You are right about Ibn Hajar's greater jihad/lesser jihad hadith. It appears to be a weak hadith, although it is much quoted and even Abu Mazen has referred to it:

Abu Mazen also said that the period of the "little Jihad [holy war] had ended, and now the big Jihad is beginning."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004598.php

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP97205#_edn1

You then quote Surah 2:256 as if this was definitive; however, in the same Surah at 2:216, Allah says: "Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. Allah knows, but you do not." And then again at 2:244; and what about 2:190-193? Allah says: Fight those that fight against you but do not attack them first. Allah does not love the agressor." Yet there is only one problem with this point of view, Muslims consider almost anything to be an attack on their religion. Muhammad himself assented to the assassination of people who he felt attacked his religion. And all the wars he fought which Muslims all consider defensive wars were, in my opinion, nothing of the sort. They were wars of conquest.

And if you punch in jihad at search engine at USC that searches the canonical ahadith, you will find much support in the Ahadith for jihad.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html

A word of caution, however, I do not think that these collections of ahadith are complete. I think that they have left some out on purpose. I have to buy my own copies of Bukhari and Muslim.

And what about all the verses in the Qur'an which support Jihad. What about Surah 8 for instance?

I do not have any more time to devote to this but the biggest problem I see is that Allah constantly says things like: "If they repent and take to prayer and pay the alms-tax, they shall become your brothers in the faith. Thus we make plain Our revelations for men of understanding.

But if, after coming to terms with you, they break their oaths and revile your faith, make war on the leaders of unbelief - for no oaths are binding with them - so that they may desist."
9:11-12.

So, the bottom line is in our society, which values free thought, inquiry and critical thinking, any criticism of anything about Islam is considered an attack on Islam. As well, anything in our society that leads people to unbelief is considered an attack on Islam. Really, the very existence of successful societies composed of unbelievers is a threat to Islam. That is why I have a problem with your view that all warfare in Islam is defensive. If almost anything can be considered an attack on Islam, then a "defensive" war can be carried out on the flimsiest pretext. For instance, would you consider the Ontario government's decision not to allow Sharia Tribunals to be an attack on Islam? Similarly, do you consider allowing people of other faiths to proselytize in Muslim countries (as Muslims are allowed to do in Western countries)to be an attack on Islam? Additionally, would you consider Singapore's Administration of Muslim Law Act to be an attack on Islam?

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?&actno=Reved-3&date=latest&method=part

As well, would you consider France or Turkey's decisions to ban Hijab in schools and public institutions to be an attack on Islam? Or, what about the Turkish government's ban on Arabic script, control of religious education and the content of Friday Khutbas? Are these attacks on Islam?

Mohi says: So, the proof that jihad is to defend the Muslim land alone is verified in the Internet also.

How exactly do you define "Muslim land"? At what stage does a land become "muslim"? Is it when the muslim population rises above 10%, 20%...? Do you consider Kashmir, from where I come, to be a "Muslim land"? Why?

Mentat:

"Similarly, do you consider allowing people of other faiths to proselytize in Muslim countries (as Muslims are allowed to do in Western countries)to be an attack on Islam? "

Chances that you go to jail or get killed for proselytizing in Muslim countries are rather 'good'- as we all know.

The Muhammedans generally take liberty to build mosques and aggressively promote their faith in the countries of the infidels, while they are thoroughly resentful that other faith's should be allowed to flourish in the Dar al Islam.

Our freedom is not god-given, it has been fought for over many centuries. We have to learn to defend it, and to teach our children to value it, for once Mohammedanism takes hold, as it does, by coercion and bombing terror, we see our 'leaders' sell out for less than a song...

How exactly do you define "Muslim land"?
Razdan at September 23, 2005 01:23 PM

By Tradition of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, the Arabian Peninsula is a Muslim land. Any land outside the Arabian Peninsula is a Muslim land as long as the Islamic Shariah is the law of the land. Remember that the people of a Muslim land engaging in jihad to defend their land does not automatically imply that the jihad would be a success in terms of preserving territory. If that were so, the Ottoman Empire would not have vanished.

As regards Kashmir is concerned, it is a disputed territory. The dispute is between three parties: those desirous of integrating with India; those desirous of integrating with Pakistan; and those desirous of becoming an independent nation. Only when the dispute is resolved, can the status of Kashmir be decided.

Mohideen:

Why didn't you answer my questions?

Dear Mentat,
I need to perform analysis to answer your questions. Give me some time.

That priest should be reminded of the causes of the first crusade. Back then when fellow Catholic clerics who were going on pilgrimage to the holy land, they were captured, tortured and gang raped by Muslims. A few lived to return to tell their harrowing tales of this unspeakable brutality. Cathloic Christians were forced to dispatch forces to confront such evil. All Catholic bashing and pervert clergy jokes aside, that Priest takes the cake.

That priest should be reminded of the causes of the first crusade. Back then when fellow Catholic clerics who were going on pilgrimage to the holy land, they were captured, tortured and gang raped by Muslims. A few lived to return to tell their harrowing tales of this unspeakable brutality. Cathloic Christians were forced to dispatch forces to confront such evil. All Catholic bashing and pervert clergy jokes aside, that Priest takes the cake.

That priest should be reminded of the causes of the first crusade. Back then when fellow Catholic clerics who were going on pilgrimage to the holy land, they were captured, tortured and gang raped by Muslims. A few lived to return to tell their harrowing tales of this unspeakable brutality. Cathloic Christians were forced to dispatch forces to confront such evil. All Catholic bashing and pervert clergy jokes aside, that Priest takes the cake.

And all the wars he fought which Muslims all consider defensive wars were, in my opinion, nothing of the sort. They were wars of conquest.
Mentat at September 23, 2005 10:52 AM

Dear Mentat,
Discussion is possible if and only if the parties agree to consider the opinion of the other party sincerely and are willing to evaluate their own positions also. If you are inflexible and if you are rejecting the feelings of the Muslims completely, any argument that I might provide would never convince you. If it be so, I would rather spend my time doing some other research. Please let me know whether you are willing to give an honest consideration of my explanations. On hearing from you that you agree, I hope to consider the issues raised by you.

First of all, Mohideen, I understand that you were, at least during the 2002-2003 undergraduate year, an associate professor at Framingham State College. Consequently, I would expect a relatively high level of debate with you.

In your reply to me you simply focus one aspect of response to you, i.e. "And all the wars he fought which Muslims all consider defensive wars were, in my opinion, nothing of the sort." and use it to dismiss the rest of my questions because you think that I am too close-minded to consider any of your opinions with objectivity. Well, I'll grant you that maybe three of the battle's fought during Muhammad's time were defensive but that's about it. I take it then that you'll agree with me that the rest were offensive?

Actually, you know what Mohideen? I can see that this will be a waste of time for you and for me.

So ... you continue your efforts at Dawa and Jihad. I will continue my efforts at educating people about Islam and putting a stop to all further Muslim immigration. Eventually, we will meet personally on the battlefield or our descendants will. Too bad. I am afraid there is no possibility of peaceful co-existence.

Mohideen:

I am sorry. Please do not misconstrue my last post as a personal threat against you as it was not. You are very brave to post under your own name and I respect that. My post was simply referring to my belief that Islamic and Western civilizations are doomed to clash violently and we being part of those respective civilizations will be part of that clash. I am afraid that I just don't see any hope at all. How can you have a dialogue when one group thinks that they have the "truth" and the other does not?

So ... you continue your efforts at Dawa and Jihad. I will continue my efforts at educating people about Islam and putting a stop to all further Muslim immigration. Eventually, we will meet personally on the battlefield or our descendants will. Too bad. I am afraid there is no possibility of peaceful co-existence.
Mentat at September 26, 2005 06:53 PM

I used to visit the mosque twice a year – for the two Id festivals. That was my faith until a number of crises arose in my life and their resolution brought faith to me. Today, yes, I try to educate myself and others about Islam. Still I do not know what is in store for me tomorrow. I fervently hope that I die a Muslim; I do not know. God willing I plan to post some more after this post. Quoting Tradition numbered 430 from volume 4 of Sahih Al-Bukhari, we have:
===
Narrated Abdullah bin Musud
Allah's Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, "(The matter of the Creation of) a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days, and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period, and then a piece of flesh for a similar period. Then Allah sends an angel who is ordered to write four things. He is ordered to write down his (i.e. the new creature's) deeds, his livelihood, his (date of) death, and whether he will be blessed or wretched (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into him. So, a man amongst you may do (good deeds till there is only a cubit between him and Paradise and then what has been written for him decides his behavior and he starts doing (evil) deeds characteristic of the people of the (Hell) Fire. And similarly a man amongst you may do (evil) deeds till there is only a cubit between him and the (Hell) Fire, and then what has been written for him decides his behavior, and he starts doing deeds characteristic of the people of Paradise."
===

So, it is quite possible that we might end up reversing our roles as death approaches. I could only hope that I die a Muslim. As a good wish, I do wish that you would embrace the truth soon.

Lest some feel that their destiny is pre-decided with regard to Hell and Heaven, let me hasten to add that God Almighty is the Most Just and thus His justice would ensure that if any reaches Hell just because of His Word, that soul would be retrieved by Him from the Hell and would become a member of the most elevated community in Heaven, called “The People of Fire.”

So, let us continue to do what we can in anticipation of good for all.

Well, I'll grant you that may be three of the battle's fought during Muhammad's time were defensive but that's about it.
Mentat at September 26, 2005 06:53 PM
Dear Mentat,
Quite often confusion arises because the same word evokes different response from different people. I believe our concept of ‘defense’ might not be same. So, could you kindly indicate the three battles accepted by you as defensive? Once I know which battles are defensive from your (that is, Western) perspective, I might be in a position to look at the other battles as per your perspective, as far as possible.

Additionally, would you consider Singapore's Administration of Muslim Law Act to be an attack on Islam?
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?&actno=Reved-3&date=latest&method=part
Mentat at September 23, 2005 10:52 AM

The link above gives the definitions of the words used in the law along with other links. These definitions are acceptable as understood by a lay person like me.

From http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_getdata.pl?&actno=1999-REVED-3&date=latest&method=part&segid=934446909-000589#934446910-001249
We find:
===
Jurisdiction
35. —(1) The Court shall have jurisdiction throughout Singapore.

(2) The Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine all actions and proceedings in which all the parties are Muslims or where the parties were married under the provisions of the Muslim law and which involve disputes relating to —
(a) marriage;
(b) divorces known in the Muslim law as fasakh, cerai taklik, khuluk and talak;
(c) betrothal, nullity of marriage or judicial separation;
(d) the disposition or division of property on divorce or nullification of marriage; or
(e) the payment of emas kahwin, maintenance and consolatory gifts or mutaah.

(3) In all questions regarding betrothal, marriage, dissolution of marriage, including talak, cerai taklik, khuluk and fasakh, nullity of marriage or judicial separation, the appointment of hakam, the disposition or division of property on divorce or nullification of marriage, the payment of emas kahwin and consolatory gifts or mutaah and the payment of maintenance on divorce, the rule of decision where the parties are Muslims or were married under the provisions of the Muslim law shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be the Muslim law, as varied where applicable by Malay custom.
===

The above is acceptable. In our opinion, it would be perfect if the jurisdiction was:
===
The court would decide all matters involving all disputes as long as the parties to the dispute are Muslims, whether alive now or deceased as Muslims after the start of the dispute.
===

Such a jurisdiction would have meant full ‘freedom of faith.’ The existing jurisdiction is ‘partial freedom of faith.’ The ‘freedom of faith’ seems to be with respect to civil affairs only, and not with respect to criminal affairs. For instance, as per the Holy Quran and Sunnah, if a Muslim murders another Muslim, the heir to the murdered has the authority to decide on one of two results:
1. The murderer is killed as per the ‘Law of Equality.’
2. The murderer is charged the ‘blood money’ which is given to the heir, and the murderer is released as a free person as soon as the ‘blood money’ is paid.
The Singapore Government has not given the above and similar criminal jurisdiction to the Islamic Court.

The Singapore Government needs to be commended for establishing an ‘Islamic Court’ and giving it the full jurisdiction on those matters assigned. Even though it is not complete, it is a move in the right direction.

Mohideen:

I do not think that our discussion is helping either of our objectives. You want to do Dawa and spread Islam. I want people to abandon Islam and spread Western civilization.

We are just wasting each other's time.

You do what you need to do and I will do what I need to do.

I will make no further responses to you.

As well, would you consider France or Turkey's decisions to ban Hijab in schools and public institutions to be an attack on Islam?
Mentat at September 23, 2005 10:52 AM

The action to ban the hijab is to be seen based on the reasons. If the reason is uniformity in appearance, it is the worst form of dictatorship. In that case it is more an affront to freedom than to Islam.

Islam recommends the hijab for the following reason:
===
The Holy Quran 33:59 O prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient that they should be known (as such) and not molested: and Allah is Oft – Forgiving Most Merciful.
===

Who has the responsibility to ensure that a Muslim woman would not be molested? At the time the above Verse was revealed, the responsibility was given to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, in his capacity as the ruler of Medina. It is well known that the molesting of a female is a crime. So, the Muslim women were asked to wear the veil so that they are safe from the mischievous individuals. Such an individual would leave every female wearing the hijab untouched as any attempt to molest such a woman would invite severe punishment from the ruler. If France and Turkey have banned the hijab because they cannot protect their women, it is a reflection on their government and its capability.

It is indeed very interesting to read the following opinion on the French action given in http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/commentary/20040216_teitel.html

I want people to abandon Islam and spread Western civilization.
Mentat at September 27, 2005 10:42 AM

The Americans entered Iraq with the intention of bringing “Democracy” to them. What is the root of democracy? Is it not the voting right given to every adult, male or female? The female of the species gained the voting rights very recently. Before that, the males alone had the voting rights. The principle of voting was introduced by the Muslims on the day Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him died. Quoting Tradition numbered 817 in volume 8 of Sahih Al-Bukhari, we have:
===
Narrated Ibn Abbas
I used to teach (the Qur'an to) some people of the Muhajirin (emigrants), among whom there was 'Abdur Rahman bin 'Auf. While I was in his house at Mina, and he was with
'Umar bin Al-Khattab during 'Umar's last Hajj, Abdur-Rahman came to me and said,
"Would that you had seen the man who came today to the Chief of the Believers ('Umar), saying, 'O Chief of the Believers! What do you think about so-and-so who says, 'If 'Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person, as by Allah, the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was nothing but a prompt sudden action which got established afterwards.' 'Umar became angry and then said, 'Allah willing, I will stand before the people tonight and warn them against those people who want to deprive the others of their rights (the question of rulership).' "

'Abdur-Rahman said, "I said, 'O Chief of the believers! Do not do that, for the season of Hajj gathers the riff-raff and the rubble, and it will be they who will gather around you when you stand to address the people. And I am afraid that you will get up and say something, and some people will spread your statement and may not say what you have actually said and may not understand its meaning, and may interpret it incorrectly, so you should wait till you reach Medina, as it is the place of emigration and the place of Prophet's Traditions, and there you can come in touch with the learned and noble people, and tell them your ideas with confidence; and the learned people will understand your statement and put it in its proper place.' On that, 'Umar said, 'By Allah! Allah willing, I will do this in the first speech I will deliver before the people in Medina.' "

Ibn Abbas added: We reached Medina by the end of the month of Dhul-Hijja, and when it was Friday, we went quickly (to the mosque) as soon as the sun had declined, and I saw
Sa'id bin Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail sitting at the corner of the pulpit, and I too sat close to him so that my knee was touching his knee, and after a short while 'Umar bin Al-Khattab came out, and when I saw him coming towards us, I said to Said bin Zaid bin 'Amr bin
Nufail, "Today 'Umar will say such a thing as he has never said since he was chosen as Caliph." Said denied my statement with astonishment and said, "What thing do you expect 'Umar to say the like of which he has never said before?"

In the meantime, 'Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, 'Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, "Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam the stoning of married person (male &

I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male &

And no doubt after the death of the Prophet we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa'da. 'Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr. I said to Abu Bakr, 'Let's go to these Ansari brothers of ours.' So we set out seeking them, and when we approached them, two pious men of theirs met us and informed us of the final decision of the Ansar, and said, 'O group of Muhajirin (emigrants)! Where are you going?' We replied, 'We are going to these Ansari brothers of ours.' They said to us, 'You shouldn't go near them. Carry out whatever we have already decided.' I said, 'By Allah, we will go to them.' And so we proceeded until we reached them at the shed of Bani Sa'da. Behold! There was a man sitting amongst them and wrapped in something. I asked, 'Who is that man?' They said, 'He is Sa'd bin 'Ubada.' I asked, 'What is wrong with him?' They said, 'He is sick.' After we sat for a while, the Ansar's speaker said, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and praising Allah as He deserved, he added, 'To proceed, we are Allah's Ansar (helpers) and the majority of the Muslim army, while you, the emigrants, are a small group and some people among you came with the intention of preventing us from practicing this matter (of caliphate) and depriving us of it.'

When the speaker had finished, I intended to speak as I had prepared a speech which I liked and which I wanted to deliver in the presence of Abu Bakr, and I used to avoid provoking him. So, when I wanted to speak, Abu Bakr said, 'Wait a while.' I disliked to make him angry. So Abu Bakr himself gave a speech, and he was wiser and more patient than I. By Allah, he never missed a sentence that I liked in my own prepared speech, but he said the like of it or better than it spontaneously. After a pause he said, 'O Ansar! You deserve all (the qualities) that you have attributed to yourselves, but this question (of Caliphate) is only for the Quraish as they are the best of the Arabs as regards descent and home, and I am pleased to suggest that you choose either of these two men, so take the oath of allegiance to either of them as you wish. And then Abu Bakr held my hand and Abu Ubada bin Abdullah's hand who was sitting amongst us. I hated nothing of what he had said except that proposal, for by Allah, I would rather have my neck chopped off as expiator for a sin than become the ruler of a nation, one of whose members is Abu Bakr, unless at the time of my death my own self suggests something I don't feel at present.'

And then one of the Ansar said, 'I am the pillar on which the camel with a skin disease (eczema) rubs itself to satisfy the itching (i.e., I am a noble), and I am as a high class palm tree! O Quraish. There should be one ruler from us and one from you.'

Then there was a hue and cry among the gathering and their voices rose so that I was afraid there might be great disagreement, so I said, 'O Abu Bakr! Hold your hand out.' He held his hand out and I pledged allegiance to him, and then all the emigrants gave the
Pledge of allegiance and so did the Ansar afterwards. And so we became victorious over
Sa'd bin Ubada (whom Al-Ansar wanted to make a ruler). One of the Ansar said, 'You have killed Sa'd bin Ubada.' I replied, 'Allah has killed Sa'd bin Ubada.' Umar added, "By Allah, apart from the great tragedy that had happened to us (i.e. the death of the Prophet), there was no greater problem than the allegiance pledged to Abu Bakr because we were afraid that if we left the people, they might give the Pledge of allegiance after us to one of their men, in which case we would have given them our consent for something against our real wish, or would have opposed them and caused great trouble. So if any person gives the Pledge of allegiance to somebody (to become a Caliph) without consulting the other Muslims, then the one he has selected should not be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be killed."
===

So consultation with every one was ordained by Caliph Umar, Allah be pleased with him, and was first practiced by the Muslims during the selection of Caliph Abu Bakr, Allah be pleased with him.

Let us try to understand Islam as it is understood by the Muslims and evaluate it. If we really desire to spread the virtues of the Western Civilization, we should understand Islam.

Why should Quraysh alone have the Caliphate? The evidence is found in Tradition numbered 2003 of Sunan Abu Dawood:
===
Narrated Jabir ibn Samurah
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The religion will continue to be established till there are twelve caliphs over you, and the whole community will agree on each of them. I then heard from the Prophet (peace be upon him) some remarks which I could not understand. I asked my father: What is he saying: He said: all of them will belong to Quraysh.
===

What is the authority of a Caliph?

Does the Caliph have powers to legislate? When the Muslims accept a Caliph, what are the terms? The answers are found in Tradition numbered 314 of volume 9 of Sahih Al-Bukhari. Quoting the Tradition, we have:
===
Narrated Al Miswar bin Makhrama
The group of people whom 'Umar had selected as candidates for the Caliphate gathered and consulted each other. Abdur-Rahman said to them, "I am not going to compete with you in this matter, but if you wish, I would select for you a caliph from among you." So all of them agreed to let 'Abdur-Rahman decide the case. So when the candidates placed the case in the hands of 'Abdur-Rahman, the people went towards him and nobody followed the rest of the group nor obeyed any after him. So the people followed 'Abdur-Rahman and consulted him all those nights till there came the night we gave the oath of allegiance to 'Uthman. Al-Miswar (bin Makhrama) added: 'Abdur-Rahman called on me after a portion of the night had passed and knocked on my door till I got up, and he said to me, "I see you have been sleeping! By Allah, during the last three nights I have not slept enough. Go and call Az-Zubair and Sa'd." So I called them for him and he consulted them and then called me saying, "Call 'Ali for me." I called 'Ali and he held a private talk with him till very late at night, and then 'Ali got up to leave having had much hope (to be chosen as a Caliph) but 'Abdur-Rahman was afraid of something concerning 'Ali. 'Abdur-Rahman then said to me, "Call 'Uthman for me." I called him and he kept on speaking to him privately till the Mu'adhdhin put an end to their talk by announcing the Adhan for the Fajr prayer. When the people finished their morning prayer and that (six men) group gathered near the pulpit, 'Abdur-Rahman sent for all the Muhajirin (emigrants) and the Ansar present there and sent for the army chief who had performed the Hajj with 'Umar that year. When all of them had gathered, 'Abdur-Rahman said, "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah," and added, "Now then, O 'Ali, I have looked at the people's tendencies and noticed that they do not consider anybody equal to 'Uthman, so you should not incur blame (by disagreeing)." Then 'Abdur-Rahman said (to 'Uthman), "I gave the oath of allegiance to you on condition that you will follow Allah's Laws and the traditions of Allah's Apostle and the traditions of the two Caliphs after him." So 'Abdur-Rahman gave the oath of allegiance to him, and so did the people including the Muhajirin (emigrants) and the Ansar and the chiefs of the army staff and all the Muslims.
===

So, the Caliph has no authority except to follow the Holy Quran and the Sunnah. This Tradition and Tradition numbered 817 in volume 8 of Sahih Al-Bukhari quoted at September 27, 2005 01:24 pm above establish the fact that the first three Caliphs did not seek the Caliphate. This is as per the following Tradition.
===
Tradition numbered 263 in volume 9 of Sahih Al-Bukhari:
Narrated Abu Musa
Two men from my tribe and I entered upon the Prophet. One of the two men said to the
Prophet, "O Allah's Apostle! Appoint me as a governor," and so did the second. The
Prophet said, "We do not assign the authority of ruling to those who ask for it, nor to those who are keen to have it."
===

The above Tradition shows the major difference between the democracy practiced now in USA and other countries and the Islamic Democracy. The current democracy by insisting on the filing of the nomination papers by the candidates ensures that every person becoming the ruler asks for it. In Islam, the authority is given to the one who does not ask for it and who is not keen to have it. If only the current democracy would select the rulers instead of electing them, we would have been spared the debacles of the 2000 and 2004 elections of USA.

Some of the Muslim rulers, including Mubarak of Egypt, offered themselves as the only candidate in the elections conducted by them. This is because, a Caliph is selected for life, and not any fixed number of years.

When the ruler of an Islamic country conducts an election offering himself alone as a candidate, he is simply getting the feedback from the population regarding the quality of his governance. That is, he is offering an opportunity to the population to impeach him.

what about the Turkish government's ban on Arabic script …?
Mentat at September 23, 2005 10:52 AM

While trying to verify the above statement, we came across
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35488.htm
In the above US State department document, we find:
===
Tajikistan
International Religious Freedom Report 2004
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respects this right in practice; however, there are some restrictions. …
Restrictions on Religious Freedom
…
An executive decree generally prohibits Government publishing houses from publishing anything in Arabic script, but they have done so in special cases. They generally do not publish religious literature, but have done so on occasion, including copies of the Koran using Arabic script. The "ban" on printing in Arabic script is thought to be an attempt to prevent the publication of extremist literature, such as flyers circulated by Hizb ut-Tahrir.
===

So, following the above decision of the US State Department, we are constrained to state that if Turkey has indeed imposed a ban on the Arabic script, it is a restriction on the freedom of faith guaranteed by 2:256 of the Holy Quran.