Mark Durie, a human rights activist in Australia, recently replied to an Islamic spokesmen who discounted the deep-rooted incitements to violence in Islamic theology and law. I have many times received the same kind of brutally intemperate response that Sookhdeo receives here from Aly -- instead of a thoughtful engagement of the points raised, a dismissal of the entire piece with the viciously unfair characterization of it as a "diatribe."
Durie recounts the exchange:
In the September Melbourne Anglican, Patrick Sookhdeo published an essay on the theology of the jihad terrorists. He argued that theology was important in understanding and responding to Islamist terrorism, and that the theological aspect is not negligible or easily discounted. http://www.media.anglican.com.au/tma/2005/09_2005/terrorism_and_islam.htmlA critical response followed in October, from Islamic Council of Victoria spokesman Waleed Aly:
http://www.media.anglican.com.au/tma/2005/10_2005/waleedaly.htmlTo which I sent in the following rejoinder, which has been published as a letter in the November edition of the TMA.
==========
It is sad to see Waleed Aly, an obviously intelligent person, dismissing Dr Patrick Sookhdeo’s discussion of jihad as an anti-Islamic ‘diatribe’. In his rebuttal Aly promotes so many dubious notions, that it is hard to know where to begin in addressing them. For example, Andalusia (Islamic Spain) was never a multi-faith utopia, and it is not true that medieval jurists forbade the killing of non-combatants or the cutting down of fruit trees. One wonders, reading such claims, whether Aly has consulted any medieval Islamic jurists, including ones from Andalusia, on the subjects of jihad or the treatment of dhimmis (non-Muslims under Islam).
Such issues, and others besides, deserve a fuller treatment than is possible here, but one cannot let pass Aly’s peculiar exegesis of Sura 8:60. This verse calls upon Muslims to make ready for acts of terror against their enemies. Aly objects to Sookdheo’s use of verse 60 in connection with ‘terrorism’, and would instead interpret it in the light of verse 58 which refers to treaty breaking. However verse 60 is part of a passage which commences at verse 59, dealing with non-Muslims in general, and verse 58 it not part of its immediate context.In fact the al-Qa’ida leader Mahfouz Walad al-Walid has cited this very verse as a justification for terrorism, in an interview for Al Jazeera on November 30, 2001: “This terrorism is a divine commandment. Allah has said: 'Make ready for them whatever you can of armed strength and of mounted pickets at the frontier, whereby you may daunt the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others beyond them whom you know not' [Koran 8:60]. Striking horror, panic, and fear in the hearts of the enemies of Allah is a divine commandment, and the Muslim has in this matter two choices: Either he believes in these verses, which are clear, or he denies these verses, and [becomes] an infidel. The Muslim has no other option.”
Aly also makes the astonishing claim that the battle of Badr, which was the historical context for Sura 8, was a ‘defensive war in which the Muslims were hideously outnumbered’. In reality it was the Muslims who were the aggressors.
What were the actual circumstances? When news came to Muhammad in Medina of a Meccan trading caravan consisting of 30-40 men, he summoned the Muslims together, and addressed them saying “This is the Quraysh caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps God will give it as a prey.” The celebrated biographer of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq, comments further “The people answered his summons, some eagerly, others reluctantly, because they had not thought that the apostle would go to war”.
Yet go to war Muhammad did, taking a force of some 300 Muslims to loot a caravan of 30-40 idolators. However the Meccans, getting wind of the attack, dispatched additional forces to defend their people and their property. Despite this the Muslims continued with their attack plans. The outcome was that the Muslims achieved a great and historic victory at Badr, and did indeed make their enemies their prey.
After these events, chapter 8 of the Qur’an, entitled Al-Anfal ‘The Booty’, was ‘revealed’ to Muhammad. This chapter, far from being merely a time-bound commentary on the Badr raid, lays out principles which came to be foundational for the subsequent development of Islamic jurisprudence. An example of a rule imparted through chapter 8 is that a fifth of any plunder (the khumus) goes to “God and the apostle”, i.e. to Muhammad (later to the Islamic state). At that time Muhammad commented to his companions that, unlike all God's prophets before him, he alone had been victorious through terror; and he alone had received divine permission to take booty. Since Badr, these two marks of Muhammad's prophethood - booty and terror - were established as themes of Islamic military dogma.
No, I do not believe that “Islam is war”, and neither, I suggest, does Dr Patrick Sookhdeo. Islam is a world faith which gives solace and comfort to hundreds of millions all over the globe. My point is also not to fear or hate Islam or Muslims, nor to insult them, but simply that Islam does include a traditional militaristic theological component, deeply grounded in Muhammad’s example, backed by the Qur’an, and directed against non-Muslims. The so-called terrorists – I prefer to call them insurgents – invoke this theological component in their numerous fatwas, finding it inspirational. Discussing such matters freely and openly, without obscuring the plain evidence of history, or hiding behind narratives of Islamic victimhood, must be an essential step towards a freer, safer world.
Christians should be unashamed in calling upon moderate Muslims everywhere to engage with their own historical inheritance in a way which goes beyond misleading and arid revisionist apologetics, and allows a pathway to reconciliation through a frank and honest reconsideration of the painful legacy of “jihad in the path of Allah”.
Bravo.
Christians should be unashamed in calling upon moderate Muslims everywhere to engage with their own historical inheritance in a way which goes beyond misleading and arid revisionist apologetics, and allows a pathway to reconciliation through a frank and honest reconsideration of the painful legacy of “jihad in the path of Allah”.
The problem with this closing paragraph is that I assume Mr. Durie believe Mr. Aly to be a moderate Muslim. Now, Mr. Aly's reply is full of half-truths and distortions as stated by Mr. Durie himself. If the "moderates" can't even honestly dispute the claims by many that Islam based on the Koran is war-like and violent, what hope is there? How long are we required to keep calling on the "moderates" to mold a peaceful Islam? What if they don't answer the call of Mr. Durie and others to reform? What do we do then? What does it matter if some Muslims do attempt to honestly address the issues, but never become more than the voice of a little child in a hurricaine?
Mr. Sookhdeo's article had me chuckling when he listed the goal of one Islamic group for a reformed Islam. If Islam changed to that, it wouldn't be Islam. It's like the people who demand that Christains accept certain secular morals. If Christians did that, it wouldn't be Christianity. Such calls are really made by secular multiculturalists who believe that everyone wants the same things and all cultures can peacefully intermix and co-exist.
They must with honesty recognise the violence that has existed in their history in the same way as Christians have had to do, for Christianity has had at times a very dark past.
This is a perfect example of multi-cult thinking. Christians overcame using religion for violence, so Islam can too. The problem is that New Testament teachings and Jesus himself never advocate violence. You have to work hard to create a violent Biblical framework. The Old Testament doesn't count either since it's directives torwards violence were limited in time, geography, and legally to the Jews (They weren't directed to conquer the world and impose Jewish law). Islam however is stuck with the violent actions of its founder and the violence of the Koran and Hadiths. You try to separate Islam from them and you end up with what? Understanding the context only makes matters worse since you see the deceit and lies behind the actions. Martrydom and jihad are the only guaranteed ways of reaching paradise. You take them away and what's left?
And here is another link for Free Speech- which is a much-needed commodity these days!
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/topic/11
You want an example of anti-dhimmitude? Try this one on. Has anyone else noticed that a disproportional amount of anti-dhimmitude comes from Australia? Is it the water, wine or kangaroos?
The following quote is from Australian Treasurer Peter Costello:
"Mr Costello said Muslims who wanted to live in a country governed by sharia law, which imposes strict limitations on freedoms, would be better off living elsewhere.
"If you are somebody who wants to live in an Islamic state governed by sharia law you are not going to be happy in Australia, because Australia is not an Islamic state, will never be an Islamic state and will never be governed by sharia law," Mr Costello said.
"We are a secular state under our constitution, our law is made by parliament elected in democratic elections.
"We do not derive our laws from religious instruction."
"Mr Costello said anyone who was alienated by Australia's form of government, judicial system and civil rights and wanted something else "might be better advised to find the 'something else' somewhere else".
"There are Islamic states around the world that practise sharia law and if that's your object you may well be much more at home in such a country than trying to turn Australia into one of those countries, because it's not going to happen," he said."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17200880-36596,00.html
"Has anyone else noticed that a disproportional amount of anti-dhimmitude comes from Australia? Is it the water, wine or kangaroos?"
It's not a new phenomena either, it was evident as long ago as the first war.
Scroll this down http://www.shotatdawn.org.uk/old/canvaus.htm past the article about the Canadians (which is not un-interesting, just OT)to the article Unruly Aussies? By Rob Ruggenberg.
An example " One of the differences between Australian and other troops was that Aussie officers always explained the objectives before engaging in battle. Even ordinary soldiers knew the strategy that was behind it. If they became cut-off they still knew what the goal was and what to do. Unlike their British colleagues, common Australian soldiers were not treated like ignorant fools, but like individuals who will function better in a team when they know their collective aim.
The Australian lieutenant-General Sir John Monash, the successor of Birdwood, said
"Very much and very stupid comment has been made upon the discipline of the Australian soldier. That was because the very conception and purpose of discipline have been misunderstood. It is, after all, only a means to an end, and that end is the power to secure co-ordinated action among a large number of individuals for the achievement of a definite purpose. It does not mean lip service, nor obsequious homage to superiors, nor servile observance of forms and customs, nor a suppression of individuality... the Australian Army is a proof that individualism is the best and not the worst foundation upon which to build up collective discipline."
I don't know why this is either, I just thank the Lord for it. If I start to feel depressed here I look for a series of Australian topics and posts.
On reflection "He who drinks Australian, thinks Australian" may be a factor.
'On reflection "He who drinks Australian, thinks Australian" may be a factor.'~ GW
I see it. We have to Foster this kind of thinking.
The comments by Mohammed on how he was the only prophet to achieve the spreading of "Abrahamic" religions by violence is essentially all that is required for the debate to end.
[8:1] They consult you about the spoils of war. Say, "The spoils of war belong to GOD and the messenger." You shall observe GOD, exhort one another to be righteous, and obey GOD and His messenger, if you are believers.
Non-believers are up for the block again:
[8:57] Therefore, if you encounter them in war, you shall set them up as a deterrent example for those who come after them, that they may take heed.
"A deterrent example" is something, frankly, along the line of Nazi thinking. Let's not refrain from calling it what it is.
[8:59] Let not those who disbelieve think that they can get away with it; they can never escape.
Now at the same time the Sura does indeed contain a phrase on peace, that being:
[8:61] If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.
Regrettably, this sentiment is blanket-overwritten by Sura 5, and by the fact that the violent urgings of the Sura outnumber the non-violent ones about 20:1. The sura is essentially urgings to violence and warnings about dire divine punishment if muslims fail to answer the call.
So sayeth
Prophet Geoff
Have you ever tried having a conversation with an alcoholic whose been drinking? Don't.
To say that Islamic terrorism has nothing to with Islam is akin to saying that the alcoholic's behavior has nothing to do with alcohol.
Not everyone who drinks is a ravingly ill alcoholic. But everyone who drinks is affected by the alcohol in their system.
Chairman Mohammed's 'religion', if properly practiced, produces the social equivalent of the disease of alcoholism. Both practices are deadly. Both conditions can be redeemed by a spiritual awakening.
In my experience, the person suffering an addiction has a MUCH better chance of having a spiritual awakening than a Muslim. But that's just my opinion. Anyone else?
I love those stubborn, hard-headed aussies. i'm thinking of retiring there, though it's gonna be hard to look up at the sky and not see the same stars...
The notion that Christianity has its own dark side to answer for is mind-boggling, though it's been brought up many times by PC cultists. There's nothing in the New Testament, absolutely nothing, that invites, supports, or justifies violence, war, or murder. On the contrary, one can make the case--as it's been done-- that Christ's message is too forgiving and nonconfrontational. The Old Testament is full of blood and gore, but, in Christian theology, the New Testament both "contains" and "surpasses" the Old one. There's no other religion in the world based in love (however you interpret that word, agape, amor, etc.).
Certainly not Mohammedanism, no matter how you try to stretch it. Mohammed is no fountain of love. he exists in a perpetual state of confrontation with everything else--which he wants to control and rule over. In psychospeak, he is the ultimate power addict, and, in that, he's a more "modern" being than Christ, and easier to follow, because he gives a foundation to and excuses for our sins and shortcomings.
There is a clear seduction in a deeply flawed human being who presents himself as the ultimate transcendent model. He can justify almost anything evil yet set harsh constraints on how to wash your butt and such, because there wouldn't be a law/religion without limits, would there?
Is Iowahawk an Aussie journalist?
This article reads like one of his parodies....
A KEY Muslim leader has warned radical clerics to tone down their rhetoric and has voiced fears of a redneck backlash against his community.
President of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils Dr Ameer Ali said he planned to meet with government ministers today to seek greater protection for his community.
The Federal Government has scrambled to reassure Australia’s Islamic community that suspected terrorists, not Muslims, were not being pursued by security agencies following the arrests of 17 people in spectacular raids in Sydney and Melbourne.
Authorities said the raids had averted a “catastrophic” terrorist attack on Australian soil, claiming the group had been stockpiling chemicals that could make explosives. Only two of the suspects sought bail. Their applications were denied in a Melbourne court today.
Dr Ali was in Canberra today seeking assurances that the Government would “not allow the rednecks in this country to exploit this situation”.
A violent altercation erupted outside a Melbourne courthouse yesterday as some of the terror suspects appeared in court, when associates of the accused attacked media waiting outside.
Another Muslim organisation, the Forum on Australia’s Islamic Relations, said today the arrests were “nightmares come true” for Muslims.
Granny:
Nice link. Sir Arthur Currie (who led the Canadian forces) is a very interesting person as well.
"Currie, along with General John Monash of Australia, were both civilians who during the War came to lead their respective armies in war. It is said by many that they were not bound by British military traditions and Victorian class structures, and were able to develop organizations and tactics that reflected the colonial cultural from which they came."
"Currie was often vehemently opposed to General Douglas Haig, the senior British commander who was his superior officer and who had the overall command of the British, Canadian, and other colonial troops. Haig insisted on sending wave after wave of men into certain death; Currie did his best to win battles with minimal Canadian casualties, in opposition to this costly strategy of attrition."
"With General Julian Byng, Currie was largely responsible for the tactics and careful planning which led to an unexpected triumph by Canadian forces at the Battle of Vimy Ridge in April, 1917. One of the most useful innovations introduced at this battle was the creeping barrage, which consisted of troops walking just behind an advancing line of shell fire from Canadian artillery, shielding soldiers as they approached the Germans. In addition, constant practice and new troop organization in which each platoon member was trained to carry out all platoon responsibilities, briefing of the frontline troops, the use of counter-battery fire measures and constant patrolling of the enemy defenses all contributed to the effectiveness of the Canadian Corps at Vimy and for the rest of the War. Currie and the Canadian Corps were successful again at Passchendaele (the Third Battle of Ypres) in November, but at the cost of 16,000 men. Currie had accurately predicted these high casualty figures when Haig ordered his troops to attack.
At Canal du Nord in September of 1918, Currie flatly refused to carry out Haig's orders to attack across a canal and into a fortified German trench. With the support of General Byng, Currie had bridges quickly assembled and crossed the canal at night, surprising the Germans with an attack in the morning. This proved the effectiveness of Canadian engineers, for whom Haig had no use. Currie believed in the specialization of troops and formally organized battalions of combat engineers to move with the troops. As the war neared its end, the Canadian Corps pressed on towards Germany, strengthening their reputation as one of the most feared and respected military formations of the war in Canada's Hundred Days which included the Battle of Amiens from August 8-11, 1918."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Currie
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/youth/sub.cfm?source=teach_resources/fwwteach/sect1/fac13
granny:
Could Aussie anti-dhimmitude also arise from the fact that the original settlers were "refusniks" of a sort themselves? As I recall, the Aussies not only committed troops to the War in Vietnam, but, recognizing proximity and the looming totalitarian menace, had tight immigration laws to protect their citizens.
Its nice to see KT gone for a while. He wasn't adding much and his hatred for us was evident by his last few posts. Its too bad he used the word tolerance in his name yet he seemed the least tolerant of other peoples thoughts.
Anyway, to join in on the discussion about trying to separate Islam from its terrible roots... I agree that as it is, Islam seeks to dominate the world and drastic measures must be taken. I don't believe that the liquidation of a billion people is the answer though. Its impossible to do and its almost not worth discussing. It would be nice if there were two earths... one for them, one for the rest of us...
"Islam however is stuck with the violent actions of its founder and the violence of the Koran and Hadiths. You try to separate Islam from them and you end up with what?"
I haven't heard of many muslims that actually want to separate themselves from their roots however I have run into a new kind of thinking that sort of took me by surprise. It seems that it could be an answer at least to the american muslim problem:
www.freemuslims.org
If you read some of their beliefs, it does bring a breath of fresh air to the rotting corpse of a religion, Islam.
A few things I noticed:
1.) Their belief in secular democracy over islamic governance.
2.) Their belief in co-existing with other cultures and religions equally.
3.) Equal treatment of women finally
4.) They admit that islam in general is stuck in the dark ages(and all the problems with it) and needs to be re-born.
5.) A loose interpretation of the koran to give only general principles for personal faith rather than sharia law for all subjects of a nation.
6.) The belief of personal responsibility. Basically they stop blaming the Jews for every bad thing that happens in this world.
7.) Completely against terrorism in all its forms. No revenge, no blood, no terrorism. It 'doesn't fit with modern civilization'.
Now this could be wishful thinking and this organization could actually be planning to take over the government piece by piece and implement sharia law and dhimmitude etc. However, if there are muslims that really beleive this stuff... I can't say I really have a problem with them. After all, I just want to live in peace. I really don't care what someone believes as long as they don't KILL people because of it. Now thats a tolerance I could live with.
Thoughts? Does anyone know anythign more about this organization? Anything negative about them?
I'm just flabbergasted and infuriated by the irony of the above article.
The MUSLIMS in this case were the aggressors.
But they demand to be protected from the same people they would have happily murdered, and portray themselves as victims.
It's a nightmare come true for the MUSLIMS, not for the native Austalians who would have lost loved ones if this attack had succeeded.
The MUSLIMS in this case are ONLY WORRIED ABOUT THEMSELVES. Where is the shock and outrage about an attack directed at the country that was generous enough to let them move there in the first place?
I'm also horrendously insulted that they think we're stupid enough to fall for this.
Please, please, please Aussies, tell them to go take a flying leap off a steep cliff.
I'm begining to think Havoc was right.
No Muslims, Know Peace.
It is true that Mr. Aly is a very intelligent and well-spoken gentleman, and I can appreciate his stance on the term "moderate Muslim." It's true that those Muslims who want their faith to be compatable with democratic society need to be called something else.
As for the free Muslims that Corbin brings to our attention, I don't know what to make of it. Of course, I happily welcome the changes they suggest but I have to wonder what are these changes based on? Traditional Islam is more than 1000 years old and from the start it has been asserted that Mohammed is a prophet, or rather THE prophet, THE SEAL OF THE PROPHETS. I think we all know well enough what that means.
These free Muslims have but the evidence of the age we live in . . . I'll look into this some more. I'm quietly hopeful.
The ideal outcome would be for us to happily and peacefully coexist with Islam.
However, there's only so long we can wait for this, before such time as we have to opt for the next best thing which is for us to happily and peacefully coexist without Islam.
JohnB Thank you. I remember when I was 11 being taken to see some of the war graves in Belgium and Northern France and one cemetery in particular for Canadians laid out to lawn in the shape of a Maple leaf. Very moving.
Waterdragon
Certainly my fathers cousin and her husband who emigrated after the war showed enormous initiative in the jobs they did and the businesses they ran to make a living, taking chances which would have terrified her brothers and achieving a level of success they did not.
Corbin,
Try searching for the organization among the archives here at jihadwatch.
One article documents how Kamal Nawash, the President and Founder of FreeMuslims Coalition (FMC, also known as FMAT (Free Muslims Against Terrorism)), in personal emails rudely, childishly and irrationally called a person a "paranoid schizophrenic" and "no better than Osama", and this person had done nothing more than intelligently and politely question an FMC mission statement. Here's most of that article:
[Robert Spencer quotes from an email he received from a reader:]
"Help us send a message to radical Muslims and supporters of terrorism that we reject them and that we will defeat them."
This laudable call by freemuslims.org accompanies their invitation to join and support a public demonstration that apparently includes many Muslims against terrorism, to be held in Washington D.C. this coming May 14.
This group sponsoring the May 14th March seem to be the "good guys" -- at least from what I can tell by looking at their site.
Many of their statements on their official site are encouraging, including: "The Coalition believes that fundamentalist Islamic terror represents one of the most lethal threats to the stability of the civilized world." Finally, we see a condemnation of Islamic terror, not merely of "terrorism" in a vague and abstract formulation that could easily be used (and has often been) to condemn the supposed "terrorism" of the United States and Israel.
However, one thing on their site ought to raise some concern: while they say they reject the violent interpretation of "jihad", they seem to leave wiggle room open for it with the following comment:
"The Coalition feels that the concept of jihad should be reinterpreted for a modern day context in which holy war is obsolete. No holy war needs to be waged; there is no clear and present threat to Islam..."
This comment implies that a violent type of jihad would need to be waged if there were a clear and present threat to Islam.
The problem with this implication is two-fold:
1) It permits the basic principle of the self-defense of the Islamic Umma as a justification for violent jihad, thereby leaving the door open for those who believe a violent jihad is justified, as long as they can convince other Muslims that, in fact, Islam is being threatened.
2) It justifies the concept of defending Islam from threats, but doesn't say who will be doing the defending. In the West, we do not have a formal concept of justification for "defending" Christianity: we leave the defense of threatened groups (whoever they are, religious or non-religious) up to the secular state.
Thus, this concept that Islam has a right to defend itself is, in its very nature, in opposition to (or at least in problematic tension with) the sovereignty of secular law.
Similarly, and more directly, in their "Resolution of Condemnation" as reported by jihadwatch.org on March 25, 2005, they write:
"a) we denounce the ongoing attack on America, the West, Muslims and all innocent people of the world. This attack is not "Jihad" (Holy War) but a heinous crime and a mortal sin of Hirabah (Unholy War which is a forbidden "war against humanity");
b) we label those who are fomenting and waging this forbidden type of warfare as mufsidoon (evildoers) and muharibun (unholy warriors) and not as the mujaheddin (holy warriors) or the shahiddin (martyrs) they falsely claim to be"
By arguing that Islamic terrorism is not, in fact, a "Jihad" (even though the Islamic terrorists themselves assert it is), but rather a "Hirabah" (an "unholy war"), the freemuslims organization is again (and more clearly) protecting the theoretical justification of the concept of Jihad as holy war, which again provokes the two questions I raised above.
(Interestingly, and curiously, this articulation of a difference between "Jihad" and "Hirabah" is not to be found on the current website of freemuslims.org, which makes one wonder, have they changed their minds about this? Or are they practicing some kind of clever deception whereby they establish a loophole for Jihad in one place, but omit it in their official site?)
[Robert Spencer comments:]
Erich von Abele sent the same thing to FMAT's Kamal Nawash. This is the response he received:
Dear Erich, Paranoid schtsophrinia is a treatable disease now. Please see some one about your problems. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you are nuts. 21st century medicine has cures for just about anything. This is our official response. I hope you keep your word and have it published. FreeMuslims.org
[A second communication from Kamal Nawash to Mr. von Abele, after the latter had the temerity to politely pursue his questions and object to the tone of Nawash's previous email:]
What do you expect. We work hard at what we do and rather than supporting us, you stay up late at night dreaming up conspiracy theories. You are no different than Bin Laden and HAMAS who's basis for much of their actions are conspiracy theories that Christians and Jews are our to destroy Islam. We have no patience for Muslim conspiracy theories or your conspiracy theories.
[Spencer goes on] I have since confirmed that this response did indeed come from Kamal Nawash. For obvious reasons, I found it highly disturbing. I am used to getting abuse from Islamic apologists, but I thought von Abele's questions were entirely reasonable, and warranted a serious answer. That Nawash instead chose to respond with vituperation and insults, a la Stephen Schwartz, is more than unfortunate.
Like von Abele, I wonder what FMAT means by "terror." I would be happy to endorse the March if it were a March Against Jihad Terror. After all, everyone is against "terrorism." Even CAIR and other such groups have denounced "terror." It would be refreshing if FMAT could be more specific and host a Muslims March Against Jihad Terrorism.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2005/05/006094print.html
Granny,
This is OT on this thread, but since I see you here, I wanted to share some info on a topic from a thread that is by now dead - Prince Charles, his love for Islam and rumors of his conversion.
This past Sunday, during his recent visit to the States, he did receive communion at an Episcopal church in Inverness (California, not Scotland). You can readily find this story in the BBC news website. There is also a video presentation that opens with Charles and Camilla at this church. Continue to watch as most of the video deals with the private showing of a live comedy revue, known for its satire of politicos and celebrities, which should give you a good chuckle.
And now to really warm the cockles of your good heart, I leave you with this quote from Abdujalil Sajid, an imam from Brighton:
Terrahawk, you inadvertently equated Christianity to Islam with this statement.
Christianity is about faith and grace, not so called morals, and morals are relative, they are cultural artifacts. Female Genital Mutilation is moral in Islam, and until 1865 slavery was moral in America.
But I think I understand your idea of morals, as opposed to what you think secularism stands for.
You might be surprised, and I know you will deny, that the concept of morals as voiced and evidenced by the very obvious cultural agenda of the Christian Right is actually manifest in Islam.
You see, Islam is preoccupied with degradation of morals, male hegemony, pornography, adultery, "family values", adultery, juvenile delinquency, all of that good stuff. The only difference that would concern you is their rejection of Jesus as the son of god, and of course second class status as dhimmi's.
But you obviously don't understand your own faith how tragic.
One thing you must understand about nariz: he needs to keep the door open on the agenda he believes in. Once islam no longer threatens it, he and his will turn their sights back to Christianity.
That is the Only reason he has for continued comparisons of Christians with islam. Moral Relativism.
The ‘Other’ Threat (Christianity!):
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200505020944.asp
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17957
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17927
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17958
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20050513.shtml
treehugger, i saw the altercation on TV. I also read about a hijhabed woman being interviewed after the arrests who said that she had become a "racist" as a result of the injustice perpetrated against those Moslems. There's a freakish quality to the way these people think, something so twisted that it's hard to believe they inhabit the same world with us.
Lisa
Thanks for pointing me to that video, it was quite amusing. I especially liked the Elvis impersonator.
I am glad to hear that Price Charles is still receiving Holy Communion. I think it bodes well. It would take an almighty dose of taqyyia to be able to receive Communion while lieing about a conversion to Islam. I don't believe that he is capable of that.
Now of Gruesome Georgie Galloway I would believe anything, including that.
Two of the three articles were written by thoughtful, knowledgeable and rational adults, for an adult audience.
One was written by a Muslim 'leader'.
Which of the three will Australian Muslims believe true?
"the concept of morals as voiced and evidenced by the very obvious cultural agenda of the Christian Right is actually manifest in Islam."
Comparing the Christian Right to Islam is like comparing a campfire to the surface of the Sun: yes, both are hot and both involve fire. To ignore the gargantuan differences between the two, however, is irrational, silly, absurd, stupid, dangerous, and immoral.
Check out this photo:
http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/archivesection/0,,5001860,00.html
What's she afraid of?
Hopefully an outraged public.
Ovidius-
She probably always WAS a racist. Now she gets to be open about it and blame it on Australian society because they actually were rude enough to protect themselves.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
The motto of the Muslim world.
Thanks for the intelligent reply Dr. pepper. I did find some of the things about FMC too good to be true. I hope that president Kamal, even though he apparently doesn't respond well to criticism, will be more understanding of the fears and concerns we, as westerners, have about the history and fundamentals of Islam. He is probably hated by more muslims than westerners at this point so I feel no need to join in. He probably feels heat from many sides of the political spectrum.
I can imagine him seeing some Americans as wanting to liquidate the entire Islamic world (which I admit I have said before) which, if practiced, would probably make me the same as Bin Laden. However, the email that he responded to was of completely legitimate concerns and didn't contain any inflammatory remarks or schizophrnic indications (although I am no psychologist). It deserved a more constructive answer than P Kamal gave. I know I have emailed the president personally and received a warm response in contrast.
When I first read the statement about Jihad and holy war I didn't immediately catch the implications. having looked at it again now, its clear that by basic logic, one can conclude the same (as Erich) truthfully, when I read that statement:
http://www.freemuslims.org/issues/terrorism.php
,in the context, it seemed like the 'no clear and present threat to Islam' was talking about possibly the crusades of old and not saying that there could EVER be a clear and present threat based on the advancement of modern civiliation.
"The Free Muslims Coalition believes that there can NEVER be a justification for terrorism."
I also first concluded that he was leaving the cause of 'Justification of Defense' of Islam to respond to a grave threat. Like a nation's leader going around the world and killing every muslim he finds. In that case, he would see muslims rising up to defeat the fanatical movement to exterminate muslims. Iroinic enough, thats what many muslims beleive is happening right now with American presence in the middle east. A lie, yes, but it is some of their justification for terrorism. Its comforting to see that with all thats going on, President kamal doesn't see a threat to islam. Cause lets face it, right now the threat IS islam.
Any more thoughts? Again, Thanks Dr.
PRCS:
She's thinking: "Oh my, did I leave the bomb on the stove?"
J/K
Tolerant Geoff
No. No. Don't tell the police.
http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,17204339-5001860,00.html
Tell a Muslim 'community leader'.
TG,
And a creative mind you have, sir.
Dear all JW's/DW of the infidel kind:
This morning in one of the largest local papers in Australia today, there was a repugnant article by Halim Rane, a PHd scholar in Islam at a uni here.
I am after some comebacks - and I hope you guys can help me as I'm really busy at work at the moment.
Halim says,
"Islam equates the taking of an innocent life with killing the whole of humanity"
Can somebody please quote to me the passage where this comes from - and more importantly the bit that follows, as I know it condones killing innocent life.
He then goes on with the "Muslim victimhood" bla bla bla.
He also talks about Islamic war ethics saying how no non combatants can be harmed.
Again I know this is crap - and I would like to counter it with both the verse and others that abrogate or contradict it.
I'm after this info ASAP (today) as I want to write a letter (which I doubt they will publish - but I'm still going to try) today to counter this dribble.
Thanks
3x
You see, Islam is preoccupied with degradation of morals, male hegemony, pornography, adultery, "family values", adultery, juvenile delinquency, all of that good stuff. The only difference that would concern you is their rejection of Jesus as the son of god, and of course second class status as dhimmi's.
But you obviously don't understand your own faith how tragic.
Posted by: Nariz
You have no true understanding of Christianity. By making such a statement you degrade the peacful example that Christ set when he walked the earth. I pity you Nariz. You should really go an live in Cuba with all your other Leftists.
Boxter has made the obvious point...if the 'Land Down Under' is so anti-dhimmi, why is it the only Western country on earth where Christian ministers have been prosecuted and jailed for speaking the truth about Islam?
Geoff
I can't stop laughing!
Treehugger wrote:
I'm begining to think Havoc was right.
No Muslims, Know Peace.
I'm starting to wonder how we put that into practice. That is, isn't there some way to classify Islam as a hate group in the USA? I'd like to sue them for fomenting violence against Christians and Jews. Could any of the PC anti-hate speech laws be used for this?
Terrahawk, you inadvertently equated Christianity to Islam with this statement.
It's like the people who demand that Christains accept certain secular morals. If Christians did that, it wouldn't be Christianity
No, I rationally made the point that telling a Muslim they have to disregard certain tenants of Islam without giving some overriding Islamic evidence is pointless for the same reason it is pointless to tell a Christian, Hindu, etc. to ignore certain aspects of their faith. The reason is that that will render their religion meaningless.
Christianity is about faith and grace, not so called morals, and morals are relative, they are cultural artifacts. Female Genital Mutilation is moral in Islam, and until 1865 slavery was moral in America.
And your point is? Jesus didn't tell the woman about to be stoned for adultery, you have faith and grace so go ahead and do what you want. He told her to go sin no more. So, obviously, there is more to Christianity than faith and grace. They are the foundation but they obviously lead to a definite moral understanding. Western culture is a result of the process of trying to work out what is moral based on Biblical principles. It's failed and faltered at times, but it's resulted in an unbelievably free and dynamic culture. At least it did, until some decided that all cultures are equal, except for the West which is bad.
But I think I understand your idea of morals, as opposed to what you think secularism stands for.
Secularism stands for completely rational and non-religion thought which should be the only accepted form of ruling authority. Of course, such a goal either leads to a societal collapse or totalitrianism. In the case of France, a highly secular state, it's leading to the former. Allowing religious thought in government is not necessarily evil. Western thought developed around the concept of the City of Man and the City of God. These two spheres provide man with rights and responsibilities. A good balance leads to greatness. Absolute authority of one or the other is a recipe for disaster.
You might be surprised, and I know you will deny, that the concept of morals as voiced and evidenced by the very obvious cultural agenda of the Christian Right is actually manifest in Islam.
Of course I will deny a complete falsehood. Equating the two is absurd and the fantasy of paranoid secularists who can brook no challenge to their beliefs.
You see, Islam is preoccupied with degradation of morals, male hegemony, pornography, adultery, "family values", adultery, juvenile delinquency, all of that good stuff. The only difference that would concern you is their rejection of Jesus as the son of god, and of course second class status as dhimmi's.
Hmm, Hilter loved his dog and I'm sure Stalin liked something that was good. Therefore, according to your logic, anyone who loves dogs is allied with Hitler. Obviously, because Islam thinks that families are important and Christians think families are important, they both are dangerous. Come back when you can see the ignorance of that statement.
But you obviously don't understand your own faith how tragic.
Considering you don't know me, I find that statement to be the height of arrogance.
Boxter and Cornelius:
Good point - but I suppose it's all relative. Notwithstanding that incident, Australia seems to be closer to "getting it" than other western democracies. The possible exception is Denmark.
QUESTION ABOUT DURIE STATEMENT
In the article above, Durie says:
At that time Muhammad commented to his companions that, unlike all God's prophets before him, he alone had been victorious through terror; and he alone had received divine permission to take booty.
Does Robert or Hugh or anyone know which Sura or Hadith reports this comment by Muhammed? Where can I find it?
Johnb
Denmark has been the trail blazer for what the entire Western should do.
The recent kerfuffle over cartoons is truly bizarre, but it is an indication that Danes are now actively going out to challenge the sensitivity of muslims.
When Australia starts to do the same, there will be none of the niceties of the Danes.
DP111 writes:
"Denmark has been the trail blazer for what the entire Western should do.
The recent kerfuffle over cartoons is truly bizarre, but it is an indication that Danes are now actively going out to challenge the sensitivity of muslims.
When Australia starts to do the same, there will be none of the niceties of the Danes."
Exactly! Hit'em with humor and derison, draw pictures of the pedophile prophet, challenge this
cult at every step of the way.
I'm surprised that the English, with their quirky
humor, haven't jumped on this yet. Too PC I imagine.'
Good work Terrahawk. Bang on in all counts.
This is the Quraysh caravan containing their property. Go out to attack it, perhaps God will give it as a prey
It's just beyond me how anyone could look to a person like that for their spiritual guidance and life example. Basically, this is a robber, somebody who steals other people's stuff. He throws in a reference to "God", and that's good enough for over a billion people to think of this thieving murderer as the founder of a religion??? It makes absolutely no sense. But it gives an insight into the headspace of Muslims. If they can justify following a scumbag, then they can justify anything, and it's pointless to try to talk sense to somebody like that. Cloud Cuckooland.
Waleed Aly, is a typical smooth-talking lawyer. I find him very slimey. Very cool, perfect English, impeccably dressed, expert taqiyya-spinner. They often use him as a talking head. Helps the image, I suppose. And they need a lot of help in the image department, given some of the feral ratbags they've had spewing hate on TV. He's said that being called a moderate Muslim is offensive, the same as being called a "moderate intellect", so we know where he stands - shoulder to shoulder with his Muslim brethren, and not with us.
And yes, Peter Costello's comments re people who want sharia law, were priceless. I should have taped it because it wasn't just his words that were devastating, but his whole manner of delivery. Fantastic.
Corbin,
"in the context, it seemed like the 'no clear and present threat to Islam' was talking about possibly the crusades of old and not saying that there could EVER be a clear and present threat based on the advancement of modern civiliation."
That would be to add in thoughts Nawash never expressed. I really believe that was a loophole in the Free Muslims manifesto -- whether intentional, or whether just a reflex action through sheer force of cultural habit, it might not matter. Loopholes allowing for representatives of Islam to engage in physical violence in any form should be closed. It's not up to any religion or any sub-group (religious or non-religious) within any nation to take up arms: that is up to the secular authorities, whose job it is to defend the rights, properties and lives of all the people under their aegis (see below).
"I also first concluded that he was leaving the cause of 'Justification of Defense' of Islam to respond to a grave threat. Like a nation's leader going around the world and killing every muslim he finds. In that case, he would see muslims rising up to defeat the fanatical movement to exterminate muslims."
Again, I think this establishes a dangerous precedent, and stems from the fact that Islam is a fusion of religion and state. In the 21st century, we should not tolerate any such fusions.
Here's another post I dredged up from the jihadwatch archives that speaks to this issue (I added a comment or two inside brackets[] ):
"All humans have a right to self defence right????"
Yes, but not through the vehicle of their religion. The modern West had to learn this through many painful centuries of debate, protest, religious wars, repression, revolution, and legal reformation.
Now, in the modern West, Christians (or any other religious body or religious culture) are not allowed to take up arms and fight in defence of their particular interpretation of Christianity (there are hundreds of splinters of Christianity now). Our liberal President Clinton forcibly and with weapons stopped one such Christian, David Koresh, who had stockpiled weapons with an eye to "self-defence".
Muslims need to learn this bit of hard-won wisdom the West has learned: religion should be a private affair, one that of course can be shared among family and fellow worshippers in their house of worship and during special events and rituals -- but religion is not [or should not be] a political or legal vehicle [and certainly not a military vehicle].
If members of a religion feel threatened as members of that religion, they must hand over their self-defense to the secular authorities, whose job it is to protect all individuals and groups under their aegis, whether religious (of any and all religions) or non-religious.
Similarly, if members of a religion feel their values are not being sufficiently represented by the laws and politics of the land, they are free to enter the marketplace of ideas and try to persuade people (through books, radio, TV, speeches, lobbying, peaceful boycotts, peaceful protests, etc.) to elect representatives who promise to respect their wishes. Otherwise, members of a religion are not allowed to commandeer the institutions of law and politics [except under the extraordinary circumstances that might lead to a revolution -- but this unique exception should be kept separate from the issue at hand]. That is the wisdom the modern West has learned -- as I say, we learned it painfully, after many mistakes and many lives were lost.
Islamic culture has serious psychological hindrances to accepting this piece of Western wisdom, because of their obsession with seeing everything in life as having to be Islamic, and their psychological inability to compartmentalize different spheres of existence -- political, social, legal, and private.
A further hindrance to the Muslim changing his mentality and getting out of the Islamic Box is that he sees any wisdom coming from the West as a threat, and as automatically inferior and blasphemous.
In the meantime, while we wait around for Muslims to enter Modernity, we must defend ourselves against those particular Muslims (who can materialize out of any country, at any moment) who on the basis of that inability to compartmentalize, seek to mass-murder us.
feralee,
you're a riot! just back from work and some gloom, and I find myself cracking up over your wit and good sense. A real pleasure.
Eduardo,
Use this link:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.220
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220.
3x,
If it's not too late, give me a shout, and I'll help you out.
QUESTION ABOUT DURIE STATEMENT:
In the article above,
Durie says: At that time Muhammad commented to his companions that, unlike all God's prophets before him, he alone had been victorious through terror; and he alone had received divine permission to take booty.
Thank you PRCS for giving me the following reference. I wonder if there is anything in the Hadith or Koran still closer to Durie's statement? Closer, that is, than:
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).
Eduardo,
I'm not sure. But i would say that the reference I gave may be as close as necessary. He might respond to a polite email query.
What is your concern about his article?
PRCS -- It's just that the comment Durie attributes to Muhammed is so damning -- I was hoping to find a place where M says something closer to what Durie says, something like
"I alone of the prophets have been victorious through terror, I alone have been given permission by Allah to take booty."
But I guess if we could find such a quote it would make things a bit too easy for us.
I will try to email Durie to see if 4:52:220 of Bukhari is his source. Thanks again.
Dr. Pepper
I'm following your logic and understanding closely and I must say, I completely agree.
Thanks for posting such a complete statement to deal with this issue. Your last statement is the crux of the argument for vigilance:
"while we wait around for Muslims to enter Modernity, we must defend ourselves against those particular Muslims (who can materialize out of any country, at any moment) who on the basis of that inability to compartmentalize, seek to mass-murder us."
From Mark Durie.
References to this matter are:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.
1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.
3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.
4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).
5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.
Mark,
If you're still visiting,
What was Aly's response to your rejoinder?