Fitzgerald: Muslims attacking Muslims?

Many thanks again Hugh. Sheds light where the mainstreammedia is not clear or focused.

The observation about the book dedication was great - and even though I dont necessarily agree with you about the best course of action given the Muslim threat, your insight and understanding is invaluable in my view, and much appreciated.

Yes, and it's these corrupt (or not so corrupt) leaders with their sometimes Western wives which the State Dept associates with and mistakes for Muslims or Muslim representatives.

I just read a chapter in Bostom's book on Jihad by a W.R.W. Gardner, written in 1912. He also makes the point that what matters is not what the occasional high-class, western-educated Muslim elite thinks, but the vast Muslim indoctrinated mass in the streets. Reading that chapter sounded surprisingly modern. Plus ca change, plus ca reste le meme.

My only complaint about Bostom's book is that it is a collation for scholarly use. He gives no background on the authors. Who was W.R.W. Gardner? I assume some highly educated an authoritative British historian, but I'll need to go to Google to verify this. (On the other hand, a mere British civil servant could also know what he was talking about. A lot of them were would-be historians! Back in those days, people read a lot of good books. As long as they weren't too snobbish or prejudiced towards natives, they could be quite informative.)

Actually, the bombings in Amman show that the war of terrorism goes on within Islam as well as without. It is also a warning to all who would appease that buckling under to Jihadi demands will not bring the second-class-citizenship peace of dhimmitude, but subjection to further conflict and terror--without any voice in government to boot.

Islamic history shows no monolithic Islam, but a false religion which turned on itself about as soon as the last dust was shoveled over Muhammad's cadaver in Medina. Muslims fighting each other--and appealing to their religion as they do so--is nothing new.

Is there more info about the wedding party that was attacked in the Raddison hotel in Amman?
I was wondering if it was some form of Islamic religious ceremony.

Today on Los Angeles radio, they are announcing the death of a second American from the Raddison bombing. A man died today from his injuries and heart attack - and he happens to be a famous Hollywood horror movie producer that created the "Halloween" series of movies. His daughter had died instantaneously in the bombings.

MainTour San Diego Adventure -

We are just not going to get anything like candor, something asymptotically close to the embarrassing home truth about many Muslims and about Islam (as embodied in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira -- note that Muslim organizations, so quick to mail out Qur'ans, are silent on any offers of collections of Hadith, or a version of the Sira, in the same version that Muslims read), from these people.
Robert at November 11, 2005 09:45 AM [Author: Hugh]

The English only translation of the Holy Quran by Abdullah Yusuf Ali is just $3.00 only as given in http://www.halalco.com/quran_y.html This is in print and could be read as and when desired. The ALIM CD that has the original Holy Quran in Arabic, Translations in English, the Hadith, and the Sira is priced at $95.00 as per http://www.halalco.com/software.html This CD requires a PC to read and use.

If many Muslim organizations are so quick to mail out Qurans, it is just a matter of economy. In the cost of mailing one ALIM CD we could mail 32 print versions of the Holy Quran.

The place to buy the full collection is given above. We have nothing to hide. Any who reads the full Holy Quran without malice would realize that Islam is indeed a religion of peace.

"We have nothing to hide. Any who reads the full Holy Quran without malice would realize that Islam is indeed a religion of peace."

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a satirist in the house.

"note that Muslim organizations, so quick to mail out Qur'ans, are silent on any offers of collections of Hadith, or a version of the Sira, in the same version that Muslims read...

-- quoted from the original article, by a Muslm poster above who is quick to inform us how we may most conveniently and cheaply acquire the Qur'an, but passes over in silence the Hadith and Sira

So where's the free Hadith (either al-Bukhari or Muslim or both will do nicely)? Where's the free Sira, in one of the versions that Muslims read?

You've entirely missed, and in missing proved, the point.

A palpable miss by one becomes a palpable hit by another.

Shakespeare, thou shouldst be living at this hour.

What planet are you from, Mohideen? Do you think for a minute that most of us here have not read the Koran? That's why we're here in the first place!!

Islam is anything BUT a religion of peace.

"We have nothing to hide. Any who reads the full Holy Quran without malice would realize that Islam is indeed a religion of peace."

One needs a special lexicon when reading statements by Muslims.

In this statement, "malice" means critical faculties unencumbered by PC; and "peace" means the supremacist domination, faciliated either by conversions or military attack agains those who resist that domination, of the absolute truth given by Allah to Mohammed.

Once one uses the special lexicon, one sees that Mohideen is speaking the truth, and nothing but.

An interesting footnote to the story of the American movie producer who was killed in the hotel bombing --

He was actually a naturalized citizen, and a born MUSLIM as well. He was the one who produced the film "The Message" several years ago in order to introduce non-Muslims to the history of Islam.

How's that for your "peaceful religion," Mo?

Stating that Islam is a religion of peace is like saying that AAA is an organization of sobriety.

Al Queda Attacks Palestinian Wedding Party -

File this under Oops - from Debka.com

Some Palestinians have second thoughts about indiscriminate suicide killings after 27 West Bank Palestinians died in al Qaeda’s triple hotel bombings in Amman

November 11, 2005, 6:49 PM (GMT+02:00)

The Palestinian Authority declared three days mourning. In the northern West Bank village, Silet al-Daher, the Akhran clan mourned 17 relatives who attended a family wedding – the first time Palestinians themselves have been targets of a suicide attack. Two PA officials, Maj.-Gen Bashir Nafeh and Abed A-Lon also lost their lives in the Grand Hyatt.

Palestinian newspaper commentator Hani al-Masri wrote: “I expect now a significant change in the Palestinian political culture. Fore sure the attacks will persuade Palestinians to reconsider this way of suicide bombings and I think it will reduce support for attacks that kill without differentiation between children, women, wedding parties and ordinary people.”

PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas said the perpetrators “are not Arabs, are not human.” He sent condolences to King Abdallah and the Jordanian people and ordered flags lowered to half-staff.

"He was actually a naturalized citizen, and a born MUSLIM as well. He was the one who produced the film "The Message" several years ago in order to introduce non-Muslims to the history of Islam."

And his son was interviewed before his father's body was even cold promising EARNESTLY that his father's death had nothing to do with Islam...

We've all dozed off listening to Muslims chant that Christianity has its terrorists, that the Nazis were "christians" and murdered millions, that the Oklahoma bombing and the Branch Davidians were Christians, but all of these things shouldn't be used to tar and feather all of Christianity ... And, may I ask the defendant, when did you stop beating your wife and molesting children?

These denials that Islam has anything to do with terrorism are CLEARLY a HUGE part of the problem -- Muslims are so quick to disavow it that no time passes between the atrocity and the expression of the denials -- I'm sure this man's hapless son is a splendid example of a moderate Muslim -- I'm pretty sure he hasn't engaged in violent jihad -- or personally murdered "infidels" But isn't it reasonable to begin questioning whether or not we're being aided by these so-called moderates? After all - this man's father had just been murdered, and he couldn't disavow Islam's involvement fast enough! Pretty lame! Pretty dangerous... Pretty sad... Pretty ominous...

I've posted elsewhere that these "protests" in Jordan signify NOTHING...

The "palestinian" wrote: "I think it will reduce support for attacks that kill without differentiation between children, women, wedding parties and ordinary people.”

meaning, of course,.....I think it will reduce support for attacks that kill without differentiation between muslim children, women, wedding parties and infidel children, women, wedding parties.

Al Qaeda and insurgents at each others throats too..

"Insurgents clash with al-Qaida
By Mohammed al Dulaimy

RAMADI, Iraq — Al-Qaida in Iraq, the terrorist group headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has broken with local Sunni Muslim Arab insurgent groups in central Iraq, in some cases resulting in gunbattles on the street.

On Sunday, fighting between insurgent groups started at a central intersection in Ramadi, the capital of the Sunni province of Anbar. As many as two dozen men fired automatic weapons and blasted away with shoulder-mounted rockets as al-Qaida in Iraq ambushed members of three local groups.

One al-Qaida in Iraq fighter was killed, and an unknown number on each side were injured.

The groups have fallen into disputes about money and tactics, including over whether to participate in Iraq's political system. Residents think the strong support al-Qaida in Iraq has had in Anbar province is starting to fracture, if not completely break. The group is dominated by non-Iraqis.

There's no sign that the insurgents are any more tolerant than before of the American presence or more supportive of U.S. political efforts in Iraq.

Still, a split in Ramadi could blunt the influence of al-Qaida in Iraq, as the city in the so-called Sunni Triangle has been at the epicenter of fighting for the past 18 months and generally is seen as the heart of the group's power in the country. The group has claimed responsibility for many of the country's more vicious terrorist attacks.

Kamil Ahmed, 40, a resident with long-standing ties to local insurgent groups, said the break started in the summer, when al-Qaida in Iraq started killing police who showed up for work, breaking an insurgent agreement to let the officers do their jobs.

The split intensified when the group assassinated several sheiks, in mosques, for criticizing its actions. Insurgent groups also went against al-Qaida in Iraq and urged citizens to vote in the constitutional referendum in October and in the upcoming December national elections.

Ahmed said the final straw was about money. He said businesses and even some government offices around Ramadi had been paying local insurgents protection money, as much as $70,000 a month. Al-Qaida in Iraq demanded the money.

"This is the basis for all armed groups, the fight for money and glory," he said. "What we have now is a very severe split. Open warfare isn't far behind."

The posting immediately above, one assumes, will be read with grim satisfaction by many. Sunni insurgents of the two kinds -- the al-Qaeda kind and the local Ba'athist dispossessed kind -- fighting each other.

Good, you say. And so, one suspects, would General Casey, or General Abizaid, or Condoleeza Rice, or George Bush. Good when enemies fight each other.

But then they would not say -- Good, let's stop trying to make peace between this Muslim group and that Muslim group. Just today, in Iraq, Condoleeza Rice said the opposite. She declared that it was important for sectarian disputes to end, for national unity, and so on.

Important for whom? Important no doubt for those in Iraq who have gained by events, and who wish for the Americans to help them retain power. But is what is good for the Dawa or Sciri party, or even for the handful of advanced, secular Iraqis, what is best in the long term, in the war against the Jiahd, for Americans and other Infidels? In a war, even the innocents on the other side may suffer -- there were some innocents, one presumes, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and even in Dresden and Berlin. But it was not wrong for Bomber Harris to bring the war home to Germany cities, nor for the Americans to shorten the war, in their own interests, by their bombing of Japan.

This great solicitousness for Iraq, and this lack of long-range planning, not about Iraq but about the greater war of self-defense against the Jihad and all of its instruments which, it must always be repeated, are now being used so successfully and implacably throughout Western Europe, even if those who are part of that Jihad fail to fully comprehend their role and the victims of the Jihad are wilfully ignoring as best they can what is happening to them, what they are allowing to happen to them.

If Sunni-on-Sunni violence is welcome, why should internecine warfare between Sunni and Shi'a, bringing in men, materiel, money from both Iran and Saudi Arabia, and preoccupying them for a time during which, one hopes, a much larger number of Infidels can be taught about the tenets of Islam and the history of Islamic conquest -- why should that not be welcome as well? Why is it something to be deplored? Why should American soldiers be continually sent to risk their lives in order to make Sunnis and Shi'a collaborate, to set up and preseve a most unlikely nation-state? The Administration can prate all it wants about how it will "accept nothing less than complete victory" but this phrase has no meaning.

I want Rice, I want Bush, to explain clearly: how, in what way, would ending Sunni resentment at the new Shi'a masters of Iraq in any way dampen the appeal, the force, the instruments of Jihad in the most important current theatre -- Western Europe? How does spending another $100 or $200 billion in Iraq do more to protect Infidels than would spending that money on energy projects and on conservation? How does further damaging the morale of our officers and men, many of whom understand far better than Rice and Bush the attitudes of Muslims, even if they have been taught to parrot lines about the "Wahhabi-Salafists" and not taught much of anything, either before they go to Iraq, or in Iraq itself (which does not prevent them from picking up, here and there, what Islam is all about), about Islam?

These men, in the regular army, in the Reserves, in the National Guard, are in fact bearers of the truth about Islam. And they will spread out about America. And their testimony, their understanding, will be valuable. They have experienced Iraq. They may not have read Spencer or Bat Ye'or or Ibn Warraq or the writers collected in "The Legacy of Jihad," but 300,000 or more American soldiers have served in Iraq, and they cannot be fooled about Islam. And some of them will, once they have the leisure to read about Islam, read Spencer and Bat Ye'or and Ibn Warraq and "The Legacy of Jihad" and recognize the truth-telling, and they will form the solid core of those intent on teaching other Infidels about what Islam is all about, and how Muslims behave.

And when Johnny Comes Marching Home Again, and fails to re-enlist, and starts to talk to his family and his friends, and turns out not to think the war now a crock, not because he has been transformed in to an appeaser or a pacifist, not because he necessarily thinks the invasion itself, and the deposing of Saddam Hussein, was a bad or silly idea, not because he is one of those who thinks there is nothing to worry about, not becuase he thinks the war is "all about oil," but because he sees right through, has felt on his pulse,the idiocy of what Bush and Rice (and others in Washington) continue to insist, continue to make the officers and men attempt to do -- which is to create an "Iraqi" military, and therefore to ignore more than 1300 years of history, and to perform this impossible task even while smiling and pretending all's right with the policy and "we're just here to help these folks step up to the plate on their own" and and all the other crap we are force-fed, and they are force-fed, and if this is a democracy, like the one "being built" in Iraq, and 70% of us want the troops out, as we do, then -- where is the referndum? Where are the Congressmen willing to cut off the money? Where are those who will speak up offering the right reasons, the reasons given here, at this website, for more than two years, for leaving Iraq, which are clearly not the MoveOn.org reasons?

I can just imagine how I would feel, were I now in Iraq, every time I would hear of Bush prating about how we will "accept nothing less than total victory" in the "war on terror" and every time Rice, doing exactly this in Baghdad today, talks about the need for "jobs" and an end to "poverty" in Iraq -- she doesn't understand, she hasn't looked over at Saudi Arabia, she doesn't understand that "poverty" but ideology is the problem, and she cannot believe that what makes the Kurds want to become independent has nothing to do with a lack of jobs, and the reason the Sunnis will remain unconsolable about the lack of power cannot be assuaged by offering them more money (oh, they'll pocket the money, but don't expect that to change anything) as if the troubles in Iraq were simply a question of urban development, and Lyndon Johnson's Model Cities Program, with not the slightest apparent interest in what is happening in Holland and France and England and Belgium and the Philippines and Kashmir and the Sudan and... she's simply not intelligent enough, merely a good and dutiful girl who pleased her teachers and her political patrons, and never was too bold, too original -- always a Party-Line animal, as such dutiful strivers tend to be, for it is the way theyu got where they are. Both self-assured, and yet not nearly self-assured enough. And not exactly a female Hans Morgenthau or Halford Mackinder.

Then there is the party line, taught to the soldiers, about how all the Iraqis are basically good, except for those "Wahhabi-Salafist" Muslims, who are , unemployment" are the problem in Iraq, or about all the others who keep talking about the "Wahhabi-Salafist extremists" who have "perverted" a "great religion" (never is one told exactly how they have perverted it, what passages in the Qur'an and Hadith they have misunderstand, what part of the example of Muhammad have they failed singularly to emulate?).

For god's sake, tell the soldiers the truth. Tell them that in Islam Believers and Infidels are held to be in a state of permanent hostility. Tell them that some of the Iraqis may feign gratitude, and all of them will do what they can to win favors, and contracts, and money, from the Americans, but that this should be understood for what it is. Taqiyya and kitman should be explained. Then the American soldiers, who have been so uncomprehending of the ingratitude displayed to them, and the ease with which the most vicious rumors about the Americans are believed, will at least be clear. Sense will be made of their experience. Instead, the Army refuses to teach them about Islam, at any point -- except to give them a quick rundown on the Five Pillars, so they may know all abou the prayers and Ramadan, but nothing about the doctrine of "Jihad" or the concept of the "dhimmi."

Here's what is going on in Iraq: most though not all of the Sunnis hate having the Shi'a take power from them because, in their view, the Shi'a are inferior Muslims, scarcely better than Infidels and for some even worse than Western Infidels. It's not an attack on "democracy" by Sunnis, and a stout defense of "democracy" by Shi'a.

When the soldiers come home, in stagggered groups, those who are in the National Guard and Reserves are freest to speak out, and they should. And they should demonstrate that they are not criticizing from the camp of appeasers, but from the camp of those who understand both Iraq and Islam. They should express, they will express, their fury at the folly of civilian leaders too obstinate, too ignorant, too lazy to learn about Islam in full, and making others pay -- those others being those in the military -- for their own refusla to learn about Islam, their own refusal to learn about Iraq, their own obstinacy, their own blind and bleating sloganeering. And this goes for those in Congress, too, who are not speaking out, as if they cannot see the folly, or if perhaps they are Democrats, they don't care abou the folly for it will, they suspect, bring down the Republicans in the next election -- in other words, they too are willing to sacrifice men, to misallocate resources, and to shy from being truthful and penetrating about the meance of the Jihad. What does Kerry's wife, the one who sold her house at Laglio (why, it was pointed out to me just last year) to George Clooney, think of the islamization of Europe -- if she deplores it, she might get her husband to start worrying aloud. What about others in that party? Is no one able to say a word about Bush's Folly, and to couch it in terms other than the most trivial and specific -- "you mislead us about WMD" or "you revealed the name of Valerie Plame" or "Rove must go." All at that Washington Gossip Level. Not a statesamn, not a thinker, not a demi-hemi-semi Churchill or Lincoln among you? Nary a one?

They will not be forgiven, any of these people, not by the soldiers returning, not by the families and friends, not by anyone who bothers to find out about islam and why what is happening now in iraq is such an infuriating waste and misallocation of resources.

Squanderers, not husbanders, of resources not their own to squander. People "taking a leadership role," not leaders. That's what we have, and if those "leadership-role-takers" were the ones paying for their own folly, who would care? But they are not. It is others. We are those others. We are the ones.

This is not the first time that "Muslims attack Muslims." At the far east, Southeast Asia, Patani terrorist group, PULO, has killed so many Muslims in Patani City, Southern part of Thailand.

I believe that they don't even care who are Muslim or not, they just use Muslim to cover/protect themselve. What they care most are their Terrorist missions(Do what ever they could to destroy their enemies). However, when they have been attacked back, they will tell everyone that "Muslims has been attached" and ask for help from Muslims World.

Now it's a time for Muslims world to take this cancer out.

sawadi ka,thaiwatch, sabaidiroo?

Victory is not based on hope, I know, but the HOPE is that the Muslim Arabs can finally have a model which allows ire and enmity to be directed INWARDS towards their governments and its administrators rather than OUTWARDS towards the concocted "enemies of Islam" -- the old Muslim saw -- the evil loathesome "infidels"...

If this happens, the theory goes, the example will prove so irresistable that it will spread and Muslims will finally demand from their leadership the same kinds of concessions and demands they now only seem to place on generous and naive Infidels -- More rights -- more respect -- more subsidies -- more privileges -- more power ...

Iraq makes for an interesting alembic.... It roughly represents the whole Arab Muslim enchilada -- all 72 versions or so -- The major branches of Islam -- the various tribal and ethnic groups inhabiting the Arab world, etc -- This really is the best test case imaginable it seems... Equilibrium will be hard to acheive and maintain, but if they can do it in Baghdad -- they can do it anywhere --

I don't think anyone imagines this is a guaranteed end result -- despite the brave rhetoric of Bush... Arabs and Muslims may simply be irredeemable.... I certainly don't relish the expense of this project any more than anyone else does - and the ingratitude of Arabs in general, and their hypocritical lies, treachery and deceipt make it hard to stomach the idea that splendid Americans are dying to offer them something they will not do for themselves... something which they may not deserve...

And I'm not sure they deserve ANYTHING from us whatsoever -- certainly not the sacrifice of magnificent American lives dying in their Islamic Arabic shit hole... But if this works, and begins to turn their trajectory from Armageddon towards comity, then that is something...

I'm no expert -- but I still say this seems to be worth a try -- If it fails -- then we have a far worse calamity on our hands. No doubt the Jihadis will add another pretext to their bottomless well of pretexts. The shambles of a failed Iraq will warm the cockles of Imams and Jihadis the world over -- And they will have another knife with which to stab at the heart of the West (with a little help from their socialist anti-American friends...) We'll never hear the end of false constructs such as 'anti-imperialism' ''anti-crusadism' which will warm the cockles of the socialist caste... those self loathing vermin who have befriended our mortal enemy, thinking he is their friend...

Also, if it fails, then the inevitable and stupefying horrors which follow will have happened anyway... But our efforts now will allow us to do things with near impunity that otherwise may never be countenanced -- AND, we will be able to live with ourselves after doing what we must by honestly saying 'we tried to have a different outcome but the Arabs proved unworthy, incapable...'

That solace alone will be worth it, if it means we can live with ourselves after the fact...

Sawasdi "Otterfisher"

Chan yin-dee tee dai pob kun!

I think we are either being treated to a penetrating but impenetrable review of King Bhumipol's last public performance on the saxophone, the one he gave while still a student in Cambridge, Massachusetts, or to a special recipe for Pad Thai.

The MOSSAD done it conspiracy theory has already surfaced in Bilad al Braindead.

I was viewing the channel that presents Arab and Mid EAst news in English translations, and a reporter (female) "suggested" at the end of the broadcast (Nile Panorama I think) that only Israel had anything to gain from these bombings.

The Musims and Jew haters have a tactic for dissimulation: cui bono, "who benefits" and then construct every situtation, even sucide bombings in Israel, as MOSSAD false flag ops.

So I suspect, that in Bilad al Braindead, the word on the street is that it was a MOSSAD operation.

Thaiwatch,kun chuay nae-num chan dai-mhai,pa nag ngam khon gra pao Hugh, chan mai dai anti-biotics,
ouwi.

Squanderers, not husbanders, of resources not their own to squander. People "taking a leadership role," not leaders. That's what we have, and if those "leadership-role-takers" were the ones paying for their own folly, who would care? But they are not. It is others. We are those others. We are the ones.
Hugh at November 11, 2005 03:47 PM

As long as power-mongers are allowed to take positions of power, it would be the population that would lose and lose forever. I am tempted to quote 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."
===

If only the American political system would abide by the above rule, America would never be in a sorry state.

"If only the American political system would abide by the above rule, America would never be in a sorry state."

Splendid -- someone embracing the most backward religion on earth, and no doubt heralding from one of the most backward nations on earth, which no doubt practices one of the most backward forms of governance on earth, piously suggests this sharia 'solution' for America's so-called "sorry state."

I am tempted to quote Tradition numbered 233, in volume 1 of Sahih Al-Bukhari:

Narrated 'Aisha:

I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.

If only Muslims would abide by the above rule, and remove islam from the planet like a gob of Muhammad's semen, the world would never be in a sorry state.

BaddaBoom!

Mohideen Ibramsha---

Islams entire history is nothing but a bloodbath.
There is no "peace" in Islam, just liars.

Here's a FREE book for you.

http://musulmanbook.blogspot.com/

Qur’an 9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

Qur’an 8:39 “So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam.”

Ishaq:204 “‘Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man?’ ‘Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.’”

Qur’an 8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief ) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”

Mohideen Ibramsha, Why don't YOU read all Islams books, the hadith, the traditions.
And quit lying about Islam being a cult of peace.

I have read everything written by your so called scholars. Islam is Satans religion, Allah is the devil. Save yourself. Learn the truth.

I am tempted to quote Tradition numbered 233, in volume 1 of Sahih Al-Bukhari:
Narrated 'Aisha:
I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.
If only Muslims would abide by the above rule, and remove islam from the planet like a gob of Muhammad's semen, the world would never be in a sorry state.
Jsla at November 11, 2005 06:46 PM

Let us consider some more Traditions to understand 1.233 of Sahih Al-Bukhari.

===
Tradition 1.227
Narrated Asma
A woman came to the Prophet and said, "If anyone of us gets menses in her clothes then what should she do?" He replied, "She should (take hold of the soiled place), rub it and put it in the water and rub it in order to remove the traces of blood and then pour water over it. Then she can pray in it."

Tradition 1.228
Narrated Aisha
Fatima bint Abi Hubaish came to the Prophet and said, "O Allah's Apostle I get persistent bleeding from the uterus and do not become clean. Shall I give up my prayers?" Allah's Apostle replied, "No, because it is from a blood vessel and not the menses. So when your real menses begins give up your prayers and when it has finished wash off the blood (take a bath) and offer your prayers." Hisham (the sub narrator) narrated that his father had also said, (the Prophet told her): "Perform ablution for every prayer till the time of the next period comes."
===

The two Traditions above instruct the women regarding cleaning themselves for prayer. The following Traditions are for men.

===
Tradition 1.229
Narrated Aisha
I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).

Tradition 1.230
Narrated Aisha
as above (229).

Tradition 1.231
Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar
I asked 'Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible."
Tradition 1.232
Narrated Amr bin Maimun
I heard Sulaiman bin Yasar talking about the clothes soiled with semen. He said that 'Aisha had said, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Apostle and he would go for the prayers while water spots were still visible on them."

Tradition 1.233
Narrated Aisha
I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them.
===

Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, lived his life to educate his followers. Yes, washing the drops of semen from the clothes is describing the post effects of sex. By giving instructions on these matters also, the followers are taught to prepare themselves in the appropriate manner to offer the prayers.

The emphasis is on preparation for offering prayers and not on the sex.

Let us not -- you freak...

If you're at a Thanksgiving dinner, but you don't like the stuffing or the cranberry sauce or anything else, just pretend like you're eating it, but instead, put it all in your lap and form it into a big mushy ball. Then, later, when you're out back having cigars with the boys, let out a big fake cough and throw the ball to the ground. Then say, "Boy, these are good cigars!"

j. handey

Mohideen Ibramsha, Why don't YOU read all Islams books, the hadith, the traditions.
And quit lying about Islam being a cult of peace.
I have read everything written by your so called scholars.
Mullahmasher at November 11, 2005 07:39 PM

Read all books on Islam? One would need more than one life.

No one needs to read all the books on Islam. To start with, read Chapter 1 of the Holy Quran, understand it and follow it. Then read Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran, understand it and follow it. [Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran is a summary of the Holy Quran.] Then read Chapters 67 to 114 of the Holy Quran, understand them and follow them. Then, yes, read the whole of the Holy Quran and understand as much of the Holy Quran as possible and follow it.

When you need further information on any specific topic, look for the information on the Internet. If the authority gives all relevant quotes from the Holy Quran and the accepted Traditions, verify them; check the reasoning; if they are verified, and the reasoning is right follow the Internet advice. If it so happens that your doubt has not been considered by any, ask some expert; perform your own research and get guided by God Almighty.

Never, I repeat never, attempt to read all the books on Islam; you would not get time to practice Islam.

It is unfortunate that some read some authority and think that they know about Islam more than the practicing Muslims. What a pity!

note to self;

Never, I repeat never, attempt to read all the books on Islam; you would not get time to practice Islam.

Mohammed Ibramsha sez:

"This book must not be doubted..."

The Koran has nothing to do with G-d and Mohammed was no 'prophet'- he was a warlord, a robber and a pedophile rapist.
Try to do what he did and you end up dead or in Jail.

The Koran was written long after Mohammed died. By whom?
By people who were hardly more literate than himself.

Find yourself another ideology, Mohideen...

The Koran was written long after Mohammed died.
sheik yer'mami at November 11, 2005 09:53 PM

The Holy Quran was written as soon as it was revealed in stages.

The written manuscripts were collected and assembled within two years of the death of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, Allah be pleased with him.

"I'm no expert -- but I still say this [bringing "democracy" to Iraq, reconstructing Iraq, doing whatever is deemed necessary in Iraq] seems to be worth a try -- If it fails -- then we have a far worse calamity on our hands."
-- from a posting above

Two things:

1. We've already tried. We've done plenty. $350 billion or so is a lot of trying. 2,000 dead and 15,000 wounded is a lot of trying. Desert-degraded Humvees, tanks, guns, helicopters, planes is a lot of trying. Spending all one's attention, all one's energy, all one's everything not on figuring out a thousand things to do -- in black Africa, in Latin America, in Iran, in East Asia, and above all in Europe to reduce the power, and the presence, of Islam, to reduce the revenues of the Muslim oil states, to figure out ways to force the rich Muslim oil states to have to spend their unearned wealth helping the poor Muslim states while we, the Infidels, simply stop paying the disguised jizyah of foreign aid to any of them, so that the poor Muslims will make incessant demands, and resent no matter what they are given, the rich Muslims, and the rich Muslims in turn, will resent the poor Muslims and this will help to damage Muslim unity, and then ways to peal off layers of Muslims, beginning with the Iranians, Kurds, and Berbers who may find quite convincing the discussion of Arab supremacist ideology, and particularly the cultural and linguistic imperialism of the Arabs that is part of islamization, and in Turkey, focussing resentment on rejection by the E.U. not on that "Christian club" but on the murderous behavior of the "other" Muslims -- i.e. the already-despised Arabs, so that two things are achieved -- Turkish hatred of Arabs increases, and the secularists within Turkey can help to blame these unworthy representatives of Islam, and even begin to paint Islam as an "Arab" import that real Turks, the descendants of the Hittites etc. (the made-up tale was already prepared in Ataturk's day) can take or leave Islam. And there is so much more that could be worked on right now -- but is any of it being considered? No.

Why not? Because we are still trying to focus entirely on Iran, and on "good" Islam that can be rescued from the "extremist Wahabi-Salafists" (this is what they teach those big strong Marines and army men to think, to believe -- but by the end of their tours, none of them do).

We've tried in Iraq. That's it. No real gratitude. We've been snookered by the Shi'a exiles. Fine -- at least we got rid of the weapons and disrupted the weapons projects.

And completely without undrestanding, we also did th eone thing that will now ensure a low-level Shi'a-Sunni war whenever we leave, no matter when -- an end to Sunni rule, and the beginning of poermanent Shi'a dominance of Iraq, if Iraq continues to exiset at all.

That's actually quite an achievement. Completely unrecognized of course by the Bush Adminisetration, because they still have a dim idea of what it is they should wish to accomplish in Iraq.

So let's remind them once again. The only thing one wishes to accomplish in Iraq, now that the weapons dumps have been checked, and many destroyed, and weapons projects disrupted, and the Americans acquired a useful desert experience and what is even more important, 300,000 soldiers have seen Islam up close, without the makeup of the smiling diplomats at the U.N. or in Washington -- and will not forget -- the only thing one wishes to accomplish is to ensure that whatever happens in Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia, that both profited so mightily by the removal of Saddam Hussein, do not come out ahead, but are sucked into a Sunni-Shi'a conflict that will continue, one hopes, forever. And if, as a bonus, one can help the first non-Arab Muslim people, the Kurds, to throw off the yoke of Arab rule, that would also be quite an inspiration to others.

We've tried and tried, and now it's time to do everything to divide and demoralize Islam, to expose what its tenets are, and in Europe to paint the future of art, science, and individual mental freedom should Islam, out of nothing more than carelessness by the Europeans and their belief that they are not permitted to do much of anything about it (but what about that Benes Decree, what about expelling people for the sake of one's national and civiliziational security? Just not possible? Why not? Ask the shades of Tomas Masaryk and Eduard Benes if they think it is impossible?).

No, Iraq is a diversion, a misallocation, a distraction, a mess, and there is nothing further that we can gain from it --unless, paradoxically, we leave. The longer we stay, the greater the cost, and the smaller the benefit to us, to the camp of the Infidels.

Mohideen Ibramsha writes;
"It is unfortunate that some read some authority and think that they know about Islam more than the practicing Muslims. What a pity!"

It's unfortunate that you can lie without suffering consequences.

I don't need to read the koran to know that muslims are largely violent people. Look at any
mohammadan nation. Do nonmuslims want to move there? Flip that question around. What does that
tell you? That whenever muslims make a "nation",
it's a hell hole.

Where do you live? In a mohammadan place, or in the West?

I forgot how to count to two. So here is point #2.

We would not have a "greater calamity" on our hands, as you suggest. Leaving Iraq would leave Iraq rather confused, with both sectarian and ethnic hostilities in esse or in posse. But no calamity. Iraq would have no major weaponry. The Iranians would try to make trouble, helping to subdue the Sunnis (and, no doubt, the more nationalistic Iraqi Shi'a). But would they succeed? Would the Sunni Arabs in the region allow the Sunni Arabs of Iraq to be crushed? And could they be crushed, given that they were much of the army and other security forcdes under Saddam, and have proven themselves more ruthless than the Shi'a? And would the Shi'a, no longer supported by, but also no longer inhibited in their means by, the Americans, hold back from retaliating if bombs continue to kill Shi'a? Isn't it perfectly possible that they would retaliate i nkind until the Sunnis learn to stop it, or if not use suicide bombs (it may be against their religion, for all I know), then possibly wipe out whole Sunni communities as a way of teaching lessons that the Americans would never have employed.

Whatever happens, there is no reason to think of it as a "calamity." Money saved could go to energy projects, including in its solar energy component an effort to build and install solar collectors across the country. In addition to boosting that industry, and possibly allowing for prices to come down, or at least supplying the capital for further improvements, installation of solar collectors is a task that must be performed in situ, that cannot be farmed out to cheaper labor in India and China. So it would be good for the economy. And other amounts could go for nuclear plants, wind energy, much more conservation, and mass transit and especially trains, which the Adminstration seems to have no affection for -- but should.

And the morale of the army would improve, and recruitment go up, and the lessening of standards stopped.

Oh, there will be a "calamity" all right -- a "calamity" for Arab Islam, if and when the Americans pull out, and leave Shi'a controlling a country important to Arab Sunni self-esteem, as we all like to call it, and yet now, it seems, permanently in the hands not only of Shi'a, but some of those Shi'a -- my god -- are actually Persians, like Sistani himself. What could be worse? And here the despised Shi'a, unlike in Pakistan or Hasa province, or Bahrain, are right next door to the most powerful, and indeed so far the only, Shi'a-run state -- Iran. If the Islamic Republic of iran gets even more invovled in Iraq, that could use up the remaining fanatical believers in the regime, distract the government of Ahmadinejad, and provide a boost to the anti-regime forces who might see their moment.

A "calamity" but not for the American government. Not at all.

As for my poor power to add or subtract, blame it on my swan pan. It's been acting up recently -- I've got to take it in to be examined by a specialist. Haven't been able to contact technical support.

Help is so hard to find these days. Ain't it the truth.

Mohideen,

you wrote: "The Holy Quran was written as soon as it was revealed in stages.
The written manuscripts were collected and assembled within two years of the death of... Muhammad"

What is the basis for your assertions about when the quran was written (evidence)? As far as you know, when did arabic first become a written language, and what evidence do you have to support your answer? Was arabic a written language when your prophet was alive? If it was a written language, why wasn't he literate? What is the oldest surviving written arabic document, and when was it written? What do you think happened to the first-written copy of the quran?

Thank you for your assistance with these questions.

jsla, Otterfisher,

Thanks for the grins.

Mohideen,

Everything you wrote proves Muhammed was mentally incapacitated. You keep saying that Islam is a religion of peace, it seems as if you are trying to convince yourself that Islam means peace. Keep following Muhammed and you too will become mentally incapacitated!

Mohideen sez:

"...The written manuscripts were collected and assembled within two years of the death of ..." (may he "he" rot in hell)

You don't know that, Mohideen. You weren't there. That is what you want to believe.

But you know that if you do (or try to do) what Mohammed did, that you will end up in Jail or dead.

Why do you follow a criminal warlord pedophile rapist who was insane?

Can you answer that? If you can't, fine! But just ask yourself the question: What could possibly make you follow such an evil crime-boss if not Satan himself?

"...The written manuscripts were collected and assembled within two years of the death of ..." (may he "he" rot in hell)
You don't know that, Mohideen. You weren't there. That is what you want to believe.
sheik yer'mami at November 12, 2005 04:34 AM

The curse of a non-believer has absolutely no effect. Notwithstanding your – (may he “he” rot in hell) – if the ‘he’ refers to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, he is in Heaven in the company of Allah SWT and all Prophets, peace be upon them. If the ‘he’ refers to God Almighty, after all Hell is His creation; and how does the Creator rot in His creation? May God Almighty cure you of your anger and give you peace.

Tradition numbered 509 in Volume 6 of Sahih Al-Bukhari is quoted below:
===
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit
Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found 'Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), "Umar has come to me and said: 'Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected." I said to 'Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" 'Umar said, "By Allah, that is a good project." 'Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which 'Umar had realized." Then Abu Bakr said (to me). 'You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it in one book)." By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur'an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" Abu Bakr replied, "By Allah, it is a good project." Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is:

"Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It
grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty...(till the end of Surat-Baraa'
(At-Tauba). (9.128-129) Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with 'Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of 'Umar.
===

The above justifies my statement regarding the collection of the Holy Quran, and the fact that the Holy Quran was recorded in writing as it was revealed at the time of its revelation.

Can anyone imagine Christ or Buddha giving helpful laundry advice for those pesky below the waist mishaps? Didn't think so.

I think sometimes we get so caught up in the evil wrought by Islam that we forget the truly idiotic, unbelievably comedic parts of the Koran and hadith.

What a guy, that Mo!

Was arabic a written language when your prophet was alive? If it was a written language, why wasn't he literate?
del at November 12, 2005 01:18 AM

Please see my post at 7.28 am today above in answer to Arabic being a written language. One of the proofs of divinity of the Holy Quran is the fact that it was revealed to an illiterate so that there could be no doubt whatsoever that the Holy Quran is the work of a mortal.

But you know that if you do (or try to do) what Mohammed did, that you will end up in Jail or dead.
sheik yer'mami at November 12, 2005 04:34 AM

Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was first and foremost a teacher. He taught all mankind the right way to live. God willing, I like to be teacher. I was a salaried teacher from 1972 to 2002; I believe I am a teacher now.

Goodness gracious, would I be jailed or killed just because I like to teach?

Leaving Iraq would leave Iraq rather confused, with both sectarian and ethnic hostilities in esse or in posse. But no calamity.
Hugh at November 12, 2005 12:55 AM

Dear Hugh,

In your capacity as the Vice President of the Jihadwatch Board you might be privy to special knowledge. I believe the Commander-in-Chief might know lot more than any of us. Is it not possible that based on his knowledge, he is right in insisting that the Iraq war continue?

Mohideen:

"...Goodness gracious, would I be jailed or killed just because I like to teach?..."

If you teach what Mohammed did, which is rape, plunder, murder, lie and deceive and any other crime he committed, that makes you equally guilty if some of your students actually follow these "teachings"- you instigate it, you agree with it and you are therefore not far from doing what he did yourself.

To follow Mohammeds criminal career you would go to jail or end up dead. You know what the punishment for crime is.

Do you deny that?

Mohammed Ibramsha:

In all seriousness, and I do mean this from one human being to another:

Are you a bandit, a rapist, a terrorist, a murderer, a torturer, an arsonist, a slave-master and a child-molester?

You, as a human being, you know that it is wrong. That your "propfit" did it, does that make it right? You know you will be punished for doing these things, in this world and even as a believing Muslim, in the next as well.

Just what makes you think "Mohammed did it - so it can't be wrong?"

It only took a day or so, but now some Jordanians are blaming the attacks on the Israelis. In an excellent article in today's Times, "Many in Jordan See Old Enemy in Attack: Israel," the author, Michael Slackman, also mentions the attacks in Egypt also being linked to Israelis (as mentioned by Egyptian authorities) perhaps because Arabs aren't smart enough. Read it.

What losers Moslems are! What a religion of hate Islam is! They hate each other, hate everyone else. Who's left?

BASHIR: Are you the Iraqi Islamic Front?

RASHID: F@#$ off!

BASHIR: What?

RASHID: Iraqi Islamic Front. We're the Islamic Front of Iraq! Iraqi Islamic Front!

BASHIR: Can I...join your group?

RASHID: No, p@#$ off.

BASHIR: I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Americans as much as anybody!

ALL: Shh. Shh. Shh.

YASMIN: Are you sure?

BASHIR: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Americans already.

RASHID: Listen. If you wanted to join the I.F.I., you'd have to really hate the Americans.

BASHIR: I do!

RASHID: Yeah? How much?

BASHIR: A lot.

RASHID: 'Right, you're in. Listen. The only people we hate worse than the Americans are the f@#$ing Iraqi Islamic Front!

ALL: Splitters...

FAREED: And the Iraqi Jihadist Islamic Front!

ALL: Yeah, splitters...

LAILA: And the Islamic Front of Iraq!

ALL: What?

LAILA: The Islamic Front of Iraq, splitters!

RASHID: We're the Islamic Front of Iraq!

LAILA: ...Oh. I thought we were the Jihadist Front.

RASHID: Islamic Front!

YASMIN: Whatever happened to the Jihadist Front?

RASHID: He's over there.

....

ALL: SPLITTER!

Muslims attack Muslims to bend those to the will of the more aggressive among them. Muslims support the attackers because of the Koranic mandates and out of fear of appearing non-Muslims, a fate worse than death for Muslims. These core principles were created by Mohammed and have been carried out by the followers of Islam since the man first swung a sword in the name of Islam. The faces, names, and weapons have changed -- these core principles and the others of hate, discrimination have not. And, if Islam does become predominate, these principles will still be in force as Islam is a high-maintenance ideology. If this weren't so, Muslims wouldn't need to be killing other Muslims to maintain and reinforce their religious principles.

"Goodness gracious, would I be jailed or killed just because I like to teach?"

Interesting question... We're working on this matter as we speak... but in the meantime...

1.) Thanks for teaching us that the Koran & co. is a cleaning manual -- many helpful hints on removing semen, urine, and blood from the garments! Seems necessary since Muhammad spent most of his time banging, raping, and stealing. These things tend to spread a lot of bodily fluids around -- so that's handy...

2.) Thanks for teaching us that the Koran & co. is a sex manual (see 1. above) many helpful hints on when to have sex, what to do before, during, and after having sex. Even how to clean up after pesky accidents and such...

3.) Thanks for teaching us that the Koran & co. is a primitive hygiene manual and "how to...' manual (see 1 & 2 above) -- many interesting anecdotes describing the ways Muhammad urinated -- standing up usually -- but not always -- how to clean away his urine, or how to clean dog urine and human urine from garments and mosque floors -- Strangely, this was happening CONSTANTLY in those early days -- (BTW, I'm not making this stuff up, folks! The "teacher" himself above quotes some ahadith describing these very things... couldn't make it up if I tried -- it would seem too preposterous -- too much like I was just trying to defame Islam -- too much like I was trying to paint it as some kind of wierdo crackpot insanity-posing-as-religion kind of thing -- all the urine stories, feces stories, how-to-clip-you-fingernails stories, the when-to-cut-your-hair stories, the what-do-I-do-with-my-fingernails,scabs,cut-hair,plucked-pubic-hair after I scrape, pluck, cut, clip, rip stories --- It is FILLED with this kind of CRAP -- and persons like "Mohideen" call it a "religion," but I digress...)

4.) Thanks for teaching us that the Koran & co. is a primitive medical manual and cosmetics guide -- (Camel urine is VERY popular btw...) Endless stories about sundry scabrous sores, sickening smells coming from various body parts, infected wounds treated with camel urine and straw -- Oh and facial creams made out of camel urine and plant extracts (useful stuff that camel urine -- by the way -- the treatments also sometimes included DRINKING camel urine -- not sure if this was to beautify or what, but they seemed to relish the stuff -- I was so nauseous while reading that it was hard to concentrate...)

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

Anyway, it's no wonder Muslims are so defensive about hearing any criticism about Islam -- it's a pretty hard to defend it, or to call this INSANE accretion of barbarisms, potions, cheap magic, and peurile preoccupations a "religion."

Leaving Iraq would leave Iraq rather confused, with both sectarian and ethnic hostilities in esse or in posse. But no calamity.
Hugh at November 12, 2005 12:55 AM

"Dear Hugh,

In your capacity as the Vice President of the Jihadwatch Board you might be privy to special knowledge. I believe the Commander-in-Chief might know lot more than any of us. Is it not possible that based on his knowledge, he is right in insisting that the Iraq war continue?

Posted by: Mohideen Ibramsha"

A poster above thinks that I harbor the same kind of respect for Authority that he does, and so that my constant repetition of the argument that Americans and other Infidels have far more to gain by leaving Iraq then by remaining and continuing to misallocate resources there, in an attempt to prevent exactly the situation we should, as Infidels, welcome: sectarian and ethnic conflict that would result, ideally, in the formation of a non-Arab state, Kurdistan, in the north, and incessant warfare, ideally as well involving Iran and Saudi Arabia in a proxy hot war, between the dispossessed Sunnis and the newly-triumphant Shi'a.

Apparently the poster above, who has chosen to identify himself as a Muslim, finds my idea distasteful, and urges me to consider the wisdom of that Higher Authority -- the President as Commander-in-Chief.

Such a friendly bit of advice is more than telling. I don't need anyone to convince me that the Americans have a lot more to gain by leaving Iraq than by staying, but possibly there are still some who come to JW who remain unconvinced, or not quite convinced.

Well, if I can't convince you, I'd like to introduce you to an eager poster, a stout defender of Islam, who regards my suggestion with apparent horror.

I wonder why.

Provocative point Hugh -- but I think you have fallen into a trap set by the Muslim lurker... It is far more likely that he is simply putting into practice the same ideas you're promoting above against Muslims in Iraq... He's obviously exploiting fissures between one set of infidels and another as evidenced in these threads...

Isn't it interesting that this pious Muslim entered the fray by attaching himself to your phrase: "Squanderers, not husbanders, of resources not their own..." As if he cares what happens to American resources... As if he doesn't delight in the wasting of American blood and treasure... I know that's your point, but...

This filled him with glee -- he was thrilled to espouse sharia as the "solution" for the plight as you see it -- Needless to say this is a hollow but incendiary suggestion being made with a completely deadpan post -- made with the intent of fomenting an argument and diverting the thread ( I KNOW -- I am guilty as charged, but I can never resist paying the Jiz its proper due...) -- then, later, he's gleeful to espouse the continuation of Bush's war in Iraq. Again, deadpan. Again dissembling. I don't need to ponder whether he or any Muslim really believes what they're saying or appear to be saying... It is sufficient for me to know he's a Muslim, and therefore can't be reliably trusted. This even includes when he APPEARS to agree with my opinions. It is best to assume a Muslim is an enemy, this is the safest route for all non-Muslims.

My truck with your position is simply a matter of timing, though the issue itself is central... Is Islam remedial or is it not. Can Arabs redeem themselves and lift their culture out of the sewer in which it now wallows or not? Will the Iraq war have a salutary effect on Islam, Arabs, and the region or will it prove the opposite? Is Islam a sewer, or is it stuck in a sewer from which it can extract itself. All important questions. But whereas I see the same urgency you do about ringing the alarm of the Muslim Menace to all quarters of the planet, I see no corollary need to rush this particular Iraqi project -- In fact, even if there's a sliver of hope that it can succeed, then we should attempt it. If it succeeds it will have saved so much blood and material downstream. If it fails, it is simply proof of your conviction (and mine too most of the time) that Islam is irredeemable....

Finally, I would be extremely vary wary of using the arguments of ANY BELIEVING MUSLIM to support an argument I was trying to make, even through reverse logic. First, you do a good enough job on your own of explaining your positions! Second you shouldn't require a Muslim's opinion, which may be sincere or totally bogus, to form part of the basis of your own foundational position... It is building an argument on the sand of Islam -- and that's never a good idea!

Mohideen,

you wrote: "...The above justifies my statement regarding the collection of the Holy Quran, and the fact that the Holy Quran was recorded in writing as it was revealed at the time of its revelation."

No. Your assertions in response to my questions do not demonstrate the truth of your claims. But thank you for answering the first question (the basis for your claim is apparently the traditions included in the bukhari hadith)

But to continue:

As far as you know, when did arabic first become a written language, and what evidence do you have to support your answer? (Please continue to explore these questions)

Was arabic a written language when your prophet was alive? (I see you implicitly assert yes to this question)

If it was a written language, why wasn't he literate? (Implicitly you seem to claim that your prophet's acknowledged illiteracy was part of a divine plan to prove the truth of his message. This claim is contorted and un-credible, and strikes me as a too-clever, after-the-fact, inversion-rationalization. But thank you for the implicit response. I apologize if my attempt at parsing your response is inaccurate).

What is the oldest surviving written arabic document, and when was it written? (Please continue to explore these two related questions. If, as you assert, arabic was already written when your prophet lived, what other evidence, independent of the claimed traditions of the hadiths of islam, exists?)

What do you think happened to the first-written copy of the quran? (Please continue to examine this question, using your imagination, if necessary).

Thank you.

Poor Mohideen,
It seems Ernest Renan was right saying -"Muslims are the first victims of Islam. Many times I have observed in my travels in the Orient, that fanaticism comes from a small number of dangerous men who maintain the others in the practice of religion by terror. To liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service that one can render him."

What do you think happened to the first-written copy of the quran?
del at November 12, 2005 04:49 PM

We do not worry to locate the first copy, the second copy and so on. The Holy Quran specifies a test to verify its divinity. That test is satisfied by the Holy Quran. We have the same Holy Quran that was given to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. We simply like to understand the Holy Quran and live our lives as far as possible as indicated in the Holy Quran.

If you are seeking that we should indulge in archeology, we have no intention whatsoever.

To del, yes, it seems Arabic was a written language some time before Muhammad.

To Mohideen: You say, "The Holy Quran specifies a test to verify its divinity. That test is satisfied by the Holy Quran." Perhaps you'd like to point out this test, and then explain how it is met?

The claim that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved over the centuries is, to some extent, scientifically testable. One should be able to compare the oldest extant Qur'ans with the common, ordinary Qur'an that you can buy in downtown Cairo. You may not be interested in doing archaeology, but we infidels need rather more convincing proof than just somebody's word.

If the Qur'an has indeed been perfectly preserved, that would speak very well of the craftsmanship of Arab scribes; but it is still something that could, in principle, have been accomplished by human means alone.

And even if the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved, there's still a significant problem. The provenance of the Qur'an ends with Muhammad. No one ever saw Muhammad with Gabriel. We have only Muhammad's word that the Qur'an was dictated to him by Gabriel or anyone else, or that it comes from God.

Ibn Warraq's two books on this subject, "The Origins of the Koran" and "What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, & Commentary" need to be read by anyone wishing to comment on when the Koran became finally more-or-less accepted in the form it is known today. Contrary to the enthusiast and Believer above, there is no evidence for this Koran (I will stick in this posting with this spelling) having jelled during the time of Muhammad (i.e., in the period when Believers think Muhammad existed), but very likely much later.

What was the role played in the making of the Koran by, for example, the Umayyad Caliph in Damascus (the same one who placed the "farthest mosque" in Jerusalem)?

And as for "one Koran" -- what shall we say about Hafs and Warsh variants of the Koran, and their differences?

Ibn Warraq traces the history of Western Koranic scholarship (Muslim scholarship is of course identical to the received standard version of Islamic belief, and one cna adjust that version only in very tiny ways, at the edges, or face the obvious consequences if one is a Muslim or still claims to be) in an essay in the recently-published collection -- the name escapes me at the moment, that also contains the important article on the Dome of the Rock's supposed "Muslimness" by the scholar Christoph Luxenberg.

Ibn Warraq is also completing his latest book, entitled "Which Koran?" He holds no academic position. No Middle Eastern Department will touch him. He has been invited to speak at a few places, but he is not recognized by the apologists of MESA Nostra, both the Muslims who now make up a majority of its membership and are fiercely protective of Islam and will not brook real scholarship about it, and the others, the get-along non-Muslim apologists who fear their Muslim colleagues, or have a sympathy for Islam that possibly led them to such specialization in the first place.

But it is Ibn Warraq, and not they, who had done the most to gather material, his and that of other scholars, and with his own brilliant essays explained that corpus of schoalrship, and its history.

It is he who will enter history, and not a single one of his detractors or those so carefully ignoring him.

They should be embarrassed. Of course they are not. Not in the slightest.

Mohideen-"We simply like to understand the Holy Quran and live our lives as far as possible as indicated in the Holy Quran."

No amount of mental gymnastics and intellectual dishonesty is going to make unpalatable, unacceptable and barbaric aspects of Islam disappear.The treatment of women, non-Muslims,unbelievers, heretics has been appaling both in theory and practice. Islamic law is a totalitarian theoretical construct, intended to control every aspect of an individual's life from birth to death.

Mohideen:

Please answer me. You, as a teacher, are held responsible for what you teach your students.

If you teach what Mohammed did, which is rape, plunder, murder, lie and deceive and any other crime he committed, that makes you equally guilty if some of your students actually follow these "teachings"- you instigate it, you agree with it and you are therefore not far from doing what he did yourself.

To follow Mohammeds criminal career you would go to jail or end up dead. You know what the punishment for crime is.

Do you deny that?

Please answer me. You, as a teacher, are held responsible for what you teach your students.
If you teach what Mohammed did, which is rape, plunder, murder, lie and deceive and any other crime he committed, that makes you equally guilty
sheik yer'mami at November 13, 2005 04:39 AM

This is possibly the third time you have accused that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, did rape, plunder, murder, lie and deceive. No defense could be made against an unspecific accusation. Please be specific. Give instances of the so called crimes committed, so that we could take up each one on its merits.

We would like to record that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, taught the best way to live happily during this life and the Hereafter. His teachings benefit life in both the worlds: the current earthly life, and the Hereafter.

Mohideen:

I don't believe this: You are asking me about Mohammeds bandit-and crime-career that makes Al Capone a saint and Pol Pot a humanist?

Its all very well documented in the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith.
Most of it has been posted here many times over and you DENY that it happened?

The caravan-attacks, the torture for booty, the killing of the Qureiza Jews, YOU KNOW VERY WELL that crime is crime and Mohammed was a crime boss more than anything else...

I suggest we continue this on another thread because this one is getting dated. But to deny it you must be totally deluded, excuse me, but robbery and rape and murder to you is "the best way to live happily during his life and the hereafter"...

You are asking me about Mohammeds bandit-and crime-career …
Its all very well documented in the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith.
sheik yer'mami at November 13, 2005 05:27 AM

At this point, it is very clear that you are accusing Islam itself as a crime. The only defense is to make every visitor – every concerned visitor – to buy a copy of the ALIM CD and explore the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

Mohideen,
you deny that Mohammed was a crime-boss who was using "religion" to justify his perversion.

We have hadithes that show Muhammad invaded innocent people just for the lust of their wealth, lands, and women. We have hadithes that count how he tortured a Jew who had hidden the treasures of the Khaibar with red iron rod to make him reveal the whereabouts of that hidden treasure until he died. We have hadithes that say Muhammad’s army raided cities killed the men and he raped the women whom they captured in those raids after killing their loved ones. Safiyha and Rayhana were the women who he raped after killing their male relatives. So stop lying to yourself about the virtues of Muhammad. That man you call a prophet was no prophet at all but a shameless conman of no moral values. He was a narcissist. His morality was as much developed as the morality of a five years old child. He had no conscience whatsoever. He could kill so heartlessly, because he had no conscience. He was as evil as Hitler or other famous narcissists.

Everything that Mohammed concocted is based on greed, sex, power, fear of hellfire and hatred for infidels and Jews.

Mohammeds "teachings" cause death and destruction all over the world since 1400 years. How can you live with yourself following such a perversion!

More of the same Mohideen:

http://rds.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ah1yLcqdFBrT990kAk4mP9ZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE3OGtjaWNkBGNvbG8DdwRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMTQEc2VjA3NyBHZ0aWQDQzIzN183Mg--/SIG=12iui3u9v/EXP=1131968283/**http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flex.com%2F%7Ejai%2Fsatyamevajayate%2Floot.html

"Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, did rape, plunder, murder, lie and deceive. No defense could be made against an unspecific accusation. Please be specific. Give instances of the so called crimes committed, so that we could take up each one on its merits."

Here some these:

1) Massacre of unarmed merchants during sacred month
Date: Late January(Rejeb), 623 A.D.
Place: Nakhla
Victims: 4 Merchants from Quraysh tribe of Mecca, the Tribe to which Mohammed himself belonged
2) Slaughter of Meccans who came to defend their caravans
Date: March (Ramadan) 17, 623 A.D
Place: The well of Badr
Victims: 70 merchants from Quraysh Tribe of Mecca, The Quraysh army which came to defend them
3) Assasination of poets who criticised Mohammed's murderous ways
Date: Late March-April, 623 A.D
Place: Medinah
Victims: Two of the most famous poets of Medinah, Abu 'Afak and Asma bint Marwan, who had the courage to criticise the murderous actions of Mohammed and his gang
4) The Siege of the Banu Qaynuqa
Date: April, 623 A.D
Place: Medinah
Victims: The Jewish Tribe of Banu Qaynuqa
5) Murder of a Jewish poet
Date: Late March 625 A.D.
Place: Fortress of Banu-N-Nadir, outside Medinah
Victims: Kaab Ibn Al' Ashraf
6) Invasion of Banu-N-Nadir
Date: May-June 625 A.D
Place: Fortress of Banu-N-Nadir, outside Medinah
Victims: The entire Jewish tribe of Banu-N-Nadir
7) Murder of a Jewish Elder from Khaybar
Date: Late April 626 A.D.
Place: The Jewish Oasis of Khyber
Victims: Abu Rafi
8) Massacre, Rape and Plunder of Banu-L-Mustaliq
Date: December 626 A.D.
Place: The well of Muraysi near Red Sea
Victims: The Tribe of Banu-L-Mustaliq
9) Massacre of the Banu -Qurayza
Date: April-May 627 A.D.
Place: Medinah
Victims: The Last Jewish Tribe left in Medinah The Banu-Qurayza.
10) Massacre of Jewish Tribesmen
Date: February 628 A.D
Place: Outskirts of Medinah
Victims: Banu Sa'd Tribe, Thirty Jews from Khaybar
11) Murder of Bedouins in and Meccans on the road to Syria
Date: January- February 628 A.D.
Place: Dumat-Al-Jandal, a trading center enroute to Syria, The Well of Qarda atNejed
Victims: Bedouin women, Meccan Caravan
12) Slaughter of all Jews in Khaybar
Date: September 628 A.D
Place: Khaybar and surrounding areas
Victims: Over 500 Jews of Khaybar

Not mentioning Mo's pedophilia,among his many other wives Mohammed also married a 9 year old baby, Ayesha.

More of the same Mohideen:
sheik yer'mami at November 13, 2005 06:42 AM

Yes, it is indeed more of the same: quoting out of context and twisting facts. We repeat, every concerned reader may please read the original in ALIM CD and decide.

Mohideen:

Did you wash the Jinn's out of your nose this morning?

".... quoting out of context and twisting facts..."

Just how would a Mohammedan "understand" the "context" and which facts are "twisted?"

Don't you think you are lying through your teeth to defend the indefensible?

It is he who will enter history, and not a single one of his detractors or those so carefully ignoring him.
They should be embarrassed. Of course they are not. Not in the slightest.
Hugh at November 13, 2005 12:54 AM

It is my understanding that history is the record of past events as seen by the victor; invariably the loser is painted as a villain. In that sense, Ibn Warraq and his like have no chance of entering the final history; the history that would be written by Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, after his descent.

Currently, the calendar followed by Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them, the lunar calendar, was replaced by the victorious Romans after the ascension of Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them with the current solar calendar. That is the nature of history.

According to the FBI, the definition of terrorism is:

"Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

The religion of Islam fulfills each and every criteria of the above-mentioned definition of terrorism. Ever since Islam was founded it has left behind a legacy of violent atrocities and horrible crimes. The holy book of the Muslims, the Quran, contains specific instructions on how to loot, pillage, plunder, rape, torture and murder in order to further the interests of Islam . It can clearly be called a specific instruction manual of terrorism.

Mohideen:

You wrote:

"...Give instances of the so called crimes committed, so that we could take up each one on its merits..."

I did. So did Humanist above. You, a learned scholar, a teacher of Islam, has chosen to weasel out and to hide behind a CD.

Com'on, you can do better than that: Tell us how those crimes recorded in great detail are "quoted out of context and the facts twisted"- I mean you are really losing it here.

Your lines on history in your last post are not very original either and they do nothing to detract from Islamic fanaticism and Mohammeds life of crime, sex and atrocities,

Enlighten me. You like to teach. I am willing to learn. But please continue on another thread above since this one is gone by the time I get back to it...

Not mentioning Mo's pedophilia,among his many other wives Mohammed also married a 9 year old baby, Ayesha.
Humanist at November 13, 2005 07:02 AM
===
I did. So did Humanist above. You, a learned scholar, a teacher of Islam, has chosen to weasel out and to hide behind a CD.
sheik yer'mami at November 13, 2005 10:42 AM

Mother Aisha, Allah be pleased with her, was married at the age of six, and her marriage was consummated at the age of nine on her attaining puberty. Islam defines marriage ability based on biological developments which occur at different ages for different individuals. By majority opinion (the so called democratic opinion), the West has arbitrarily defined an age to qualify for marriage resulting in pre-marital sex among many teenagers. To have sex with a female when she is ready for sex after making her a wife is much more honorable than indulging in pre-marital sex.

As regards the rest, in the next thread if they are raised, God willing, they would be considered. We do not desire to violate the norm of this site and initiate a discussion that is unrelated to the topic of a particular thread.

Dear Humanist and sheik yer'mami,

After my post at 7.58pm, I read http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10005045/ in which we find:
====
Hazleton: Right. Because at [that time], at puberty, you got married. That’s it.
Amy Jill Levine, Jewish scholar of the New Testament: Legally, she could get married some time around the age of 12. She could be betrothed even earlier than that, but there wouldn’t be consummation of the relationship.
====
See, what Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, did was the norm of that day. Why is Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, being vilified now?

Dear Hugh,

There is a small correction to my post above made at 8.37 am on November 13, 2005.

I just finished reading http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9994612 and the associated http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10005045/ and the subsequent 5 web pages linked sequentially with this page as the first page.

It seems the saints Luke and Mathews wrote the story of the birth of Jesus some 70 or 80 years after the birth of Jesus and they have made the story to conform to the Roman Empire’s wishes. The saints seem to have developed the story of Prophet Jesus to be similar to that of Prophet Moses.

In contrast, the Holy Quran shows Prophet Moses, peace be upon him, to be brought up by his enemy Pharaoh in his own house; Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon him, to be brought up by his own mother and a father who accepts him even though the child is not born to him. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, becomes an orphan and grows as an orphan. The gradation is from royal upbringing, simple upbringing, and finally a very hard upbringing.

Of course, if I say that, the treatment in the Holy Quran is possibly the truth, it would be contested just because I am a Muslim. I do hope that all those who desire to locate the truth would at least read the Holy Quran and arrive at their conclusions.

We repeat, history as recorded by mankind is not important; logical analysis and consistency are important.