D.C. Watson discusses some implications of cartoon rage:
Congratulations to every Muslim around the world who has expressed his anger over the now famous Muhammad cartoon row by calling for the beheading of those who insult Islam, torching the embassies of the nations that published the cartoons, burning the national flags of these nations, pelting other people's property with rocks, and, of course, carrying out senseless attacks on people who had nothing to do with the publication of the cartoons.These fanatical nuts have finally assisted in accomplishing a goal. Perhaps not a goal of theirs, or of their leaders, but certainly a goal of those who advocate human rights.
For several years, Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald, Ali Sina, Oriana Fallaci, Bat Ye'or, Ibn Warraq, Rebecca Bynum, Michael Savage, and a substantial number of other writers, radio talk show hosts, and website directors have been consistent with one simple message: That Muslims who do this kind of thing are simply following what has been ordered in the Qur'an.
It is true that not all Muslims in the world want to live under the rule of a dominant Islam. Nor do they want to live under Islamic law. Many Muslims have no beef with the West and love the freedoms that Western life brings. But Muslim rioters are showing the world that what the authors and speakers above, who have had the courage and foresight to point out to anyone who would look, listen, and learn about where these violent tendencies come from, were right all along. And now it seems that much more of the world, in particular the West, is having its eyes opened for them.
If these Islamists and their dishonest leaders were attempting to intimidate everyone into respecting Islam, they have made a gross miscalculation. The reimbursement for their savagery is ridicule -- well-earned ridicule.Because of this latest Islamic outburst and the dedicated work of those who speak out against this senseless vandalism and violence, Islamic groups that have been claiming that Islam is pluralistic and benign have been knocked backward. Now they are attempting to control what could turn out to be irreparable damage.
It has become clear that these groups will be forced to switch from offense to defense. All of the personal attacks they have engaged in against those who have spoken the truth about Islam are now going to fly back at them, because what their opponents have said and predicted has all come true in front of the world.
The rioters have also sent the message that since these cartoons have been published, and continue to be re-published, that the West shouldn't blame Muslims for their actions. They appear to be indicating that they feel they have a legitimate excuse to destroy all that they survey over this issue, and that it's just not their fault.
Ridiculous as this is, this is how they think, or are told to think by their "leaders." So be it. Remarks like these are declarations of war and should be treated as such -- not only militarily, but by every citizen in the West. Has the time finally arrived for the citizens of free societies around the world to require those Muslims who have immigrated to Western countries to abide by the laws and mores of their new countries -- if they wish to stay?
These cartoon riots may well go down as one of the most self-defeating events in a long list of self-defeating events in Islamic history. What Muslims who throw rocks and commit arson over issues like the cartoon row need to understand is that protesting depictions of Islam as violent with violent, barbaric behavior is not only living up to the stereotype, it's just plain stupid. Stupid, and revealing.
These riots also stink of extensive planning and organization. After all, the cartoons of Muhammad were published months ago. Why would Muslims wait so long to go berserk, in so many areas of the world, all at the same time -- were it not for the time it takes to orchestrate the unrest we have seen?
Is it not finally time for all citizens in the West to communicate to their elected officials that the importation of people like this does nothing to improve our societies?
More importantly, is it not time for Westerners to stop blaming themselves for the Muslims who will riot over such trivial matters?
If these extremists are such a "tiny minority" of Muslims worldwide, then why hasn't the majority of Muslims taken any concrete steps against them? The Imams who are supposed to be the "voice of reason" for Muslims have all too often turned out to be nothing more than the instigators of violence. Even if that requires lying to their followers, they haven't hesitated.
Before the current cartoon row riots, and the French Muslim riots in 2005, polls taken in India, Russia, Germany, Spain, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Canada, Poland, France, and the United States, revealed that an average of 70% of citizens in those nations are concerned about Islamic extremism.
Figures about this concern after the cartoon riots are not yet available. However, it is safe to say that the concern will be much higher. The whole cartoon rage incident shows again the hollowness of accusations of "Islamophobia" and bigotry that are so regularly made against critics of Islamic violence and intimidation.
No matter how this cartoon controversy ends, the Western Muslim advocacy organizations that claim that Islam is a peaceful, vilified religion have been made fools of by the very people they have been determined to defend. While the rioting Muslims have opened many eyes, this is far from over with. The work to expose these deceivers will continue. Those deceivers are tireless and relentless; therefore, so must we be also.
Good article, DC.
One indication the awareness tide is still coming in is that the usual islamopologists have gone into crickets chirping mode. First they did try to mumble about how 'offensive' the cartoons were etc but events have overtaken everybody as it gradually becomes clear that the cartoons are 5 months old in Denmark, were published in Egypt in Oct'05, in Jordon in jan'06 and that Danish imams stirred outrage using lies and deceit (cartoons that were never publsihed -but probably are true - get miraculuosly circulated around!).
The ominous ilence from the left is about all the proof one needs that the muzlims have again gone off the deep end on this one. Their actions have become indefensible.
Another home run from Watson. The tide is certainly turning. It is hard for even the most liberal of liberals to condone this kind of behaviour or even understand it.
What the Islamic world does not realize is that the West values freedom of speech as much as they "value" their "religion". We will not compromise in that regard...
'Remarks like these are declarations of war and should be treated as such -- not only militarily, but by every citizen in the West. Has the time finally arrived for the citizens of free societies around the world to require those Muslims who have immigrated to Western countries to abide by the laws and mores of their new countries -- if they wish to stay?"
Bravo so true D.C. Watson, thanks to the wise words of the anti-Jidhadi & anti-Da'wa vanguard, many are understanding where the danger is.
Thanks to the cartoons many have come to be puzzled and alarmed and I have directed them to JW and your site for answers.
Thank you for your important work!
I empathize with the plight of peace-loving Muslims everywhere. You see, I am a peace-loving member of the Ku Klux Klan. I have never burned a cross or lynched a negro, yet my beloved organization and peaceful Klansmen like myself are constantly tarred with the same brush as the radical Klansmen who do those things.
From http://www.france-echos.com/
This from France's peaceful demonstration. France really has a problem. I'm surprised these guys got out with their heads.
http://www.dailymotion.com/search/islamistes/video/46200
can anyone imagine having the task of trying to stand up for people like this? you'd have to be one fantasic liar.
One of the advantages of living in the West is the freedom of speech and expression - it is also one of the disadvantages. I totally support freedom of speech and expression - including mocking religion - ANY religion and ANY aspect of any religion - including MY OWN. If I disagree with what has been said or expressed via a work of art (or even a cartoon) I express my dismay via a letter to the editor, to the artist, to the advertisers supporting the person/artist, etc....but under no circumstances are violence and destruction of property /person permissible.
If those from non-Western traditions do not understand this, they need to either resettle in a country where they will not be insulted (Iran, Saudia Arabia) due to the long-fought for Western Tradition of Free Speech and Artistic Expression or learn to live and let live in the West.
The idea of "I believe in free speech, but not when it comes to disrespect for Islam or the Prophet. One must respect Islam and the Prophet!" Sorry - that is NOT free speech - that is censored speech - and that was the exact reason the Danish newspaper published the Muhammed cartoons - to see whether or not there was self-censorship due to Islam. Golly gee - that is exactly what the Danes discovered! Free speech is fine EXCEPT for when a Muslim's feelings are hurt.
Many of the Muslim demonstrators in London and throughout the world held up signs saying "Behead those who insult the Prophet/Islam" and other such violent, hatefilled placards. Where are all of the people - Muslims and non-Muslims - who are insulted/had their feelings hurt by such hate-filled speech threatening to burn the embassies of Jordan, Lebanon, etc.?
My feelings are hurt when I read about/see videos of beheadings, honor killing, child marriage, but I do not take to the streets burning Pakistani, Saudi, etc flags, or torching their embassies!
I have several questions I wish would be addressed:
1. why didn't the publication of the exact same cartoons during Ramadan (October 2005) in an Egyptian newspaper result in violence towards the Egyptian newspaper's offices and editors?
2. if such demonstrations were spontaneous where did all of those Danish and Norwegian flags come from? How common are such flags in people's homes? Due to the "zionist" plots having US and Israeli flags at home areof course understandable...but Danish and Norwegian?
3. why were three additional cartoons shown when these three were not in the original twelve? Where did these additional cartoons come from? Whose idea was it to add these to the original cartoons? And these additional three were worse than any of the original twelve!
4. if depicting Mohammed is against Islam, why are there so many depictions of Mohammed by Muslim artists - see examples listed below - in existence? Why were such paintings allowed then, but not now? The examples listed below are in Western Museums today. Would they be destroyed if in Iran, Saudi Arabia today?
Miniature of Mohammed re-dedicating the Black Stone at the Kaaba. From Jami Al-Tawarikh ("The Universal History" written by Rashid Al-Din), a manuscript in the Library of the University of Edinburgh; illustrated in Tabriz, Persia, c. 1315.
The Night Journey of Muhammad on His Steed, Buraq; leaf from a copy of the Bustan of Sacdi, dated 1514. From Bukhara, Uzbekistan. In The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Muhammad's Call to Prophecy and the First Revelation; leaf from a copy of the Majmac al-tawarikh (Compendium of Histories), ca. 1425; Timurid. From Herat, Afghanistan. In The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Journey of the Prophet Muhammad; leaf from a copy of the Majmac al-tawarikh (Compendium of Histories), ca. 1425; Timurid. Herat, Afghanistan. In The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
5. In the EU there are laws against hate speech - why aren't these demonstrators in the EU with placards saying "Behead those who insult Islam" arrested for inciting violence against non-Muslims?
Any insight from anyone out there?
Images banned in the Koran? Really?
Where? This is disinformation plain and simple. Either that or there are some past old timer Muslims rotting in Islam hell. (Is that an oxymoron?)
Question - if you martyr in hell how many burnt virgins does one get?
With the latest rash of events it becomes clear that mooslem extremists revere oppression, they wish to keep even they're own in dhimitude because if they dont the truth would be known throughout Islam that they are being cheated and used as propaganda devices.
If they were able to know the truth and be given choices they would probably ditch islam and convert to Christianity but since they are kept in oppression by the likes of the Imans who preach the hate with every sermon.
As Rodney King stated after the L.A. riots "Cant we all just get along" caught on quickly in America and it made people take a deeper look at themselves but with the mooslems they dont want to get along with anybody they want rule everyone.
I do believe that the koran ( I finally received mine from CAIRE) spews forth all the hate and discontent we are subjected to on a daily basis and that it does command those followers to awful things.
D.C. Watson-
Exactly right.
By the Islamic over-reaction to these mostly mild-mannered Danish cartoons, the Muslims continue to draw attention to one thing they should wish were kept away from the consciousness of the average Westerner: Mohammad.
They have shot themselves in the eschatological foot.
Once Mohammad comes out of the shadows, and his Hadithic history is revealed, who will ever take their staged "outrage" seriously again?
When Western people start saying:
The Muslims are so upset over a cartoon- when the real guy, Mohammad, was a pedophile, a thief, an assassin, an intolerant, despotic warlord, and a liar who plagiarized the entire Koran from the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, wholecloth...?
-then Mohammedans are going to wish they had let this whole Cartoon Jihad float by without a peep.
As long as people in the West were ignorant of Mohammad's true character, Muslims could have kept up the endless victimization b.s. campaign about his "peaceful" nature and the "prophet" status of their Atilla.
So, I congratulate their Imperialistic incontinence.
And say:
More cartoons!
More riots! !
More Mohammad!!!
D.C. Watson-
Exactly right.
By the Islamic over-reaction to these mostly mild-mannered Danish cartoons, the Muslims continue to draw attention to one thing they should wish were kept away from the consciousness of the average Westerner: Mohammad.
They have shot themselves in the eschatological foot.
Once Mohammad comes out of the shadows, and his Hadithic history is revealed, who will ever take their staged "outrage" seriously again?
When Western people start saying:
The Muslims are so upset over a cartoon?- when the real guy, Mohammad, was a practicing pedophile, a self-declared thief, an approver of assassinating women, an intolerant, despotic warlord, and a liar who plagiarized the entire Koran from the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, wholecloth...?
-then Mohammedans are going to wish they had let this whole Cartoon Jihad float by without a peep.
As long as people in the West were ignorant of Mohammad's true character, Muslims could have kept up the endless victimization b.s. campaign about his "peaceful" nature and the "prophet" status of their Atilla.
So, I congratulate their Imperialistic incontinence.
And say:
More cartoons!
More riots! !
More Mohammad!!!
Type Key, cloning again.
???
Hey idiots!
The Danish newspaper which published the cartoons apologized on the first day for publishing the cartoons, BUT HE IS SUCH A BIG LIAR!!!!!!! The other newspapers can only publish the cartoons, if they have been given copyright by him????!!!!!
YOU SEE THIS IS OPEN LYING. You insulted our Prophet SAW, you insulted the Koran, you insulted us? Why?
You ask Freedom of Expression... In London, recently a Imam of a mosque was given 7 years imprisonment by the British court. Why? Because he had written books containing so-called "Hatred" media. When someone unveils the reality of US & Israel, then you call it hatred media. WHERE O WHERE IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH????!!!!
I sent an invitation to Robert Spencer for discussion at a forum, but, he clearly refused. I sent him two mails containing my detailed views, but, he didn't took the dam courage to reply to any of them...
Here is one of the mails... If anyone wants reply to it!!!
___
Hello!
Sorry for this late reply... I was not at home. Btw, I have seen that you try to portray on your website that Jihad is an evil and should be discredited. You also try to link terrorism with Jihad. I want to give you a correct concept of Jihad; it is based on a lecture given by Mufti Rafi Usmani (Grand Mufti of Pakistan).
Jihad is of two types:
(1) Defensive (Defa`i)
(2) Offensive (Iqdami)
If a non-muslim state attacks a muslim state, then it is obligatory on the muslims of that state, to do Jihad against that state and defend themselves. It will be obligatory on as much muslims of the state as are required. If they are insufficient, then the obligation extends to the neighbouring Islamic countries. Even if they are insufficient, it expands to their neighbours and if required, it extends to the whole Muslim Ummah. He also said: "Two wrongs don't make a right. If innocent muslims are killed by non-muslims of another state, this does not make it permissible for the muslims to kill innocent non-muslims of that state also."
The second type of Jihad is Offensive Jihad. Before stating the conditions under which it can be launched, I would like to enumerate the four conditions under which offensive Jihad is impermissible:-
(i) If the non-muslims have signed a peace treaty with the muslims, it is prohibited to launch Jihad against them.
(ii) If a non-muslim comes to a muslim state after taking permission (VISA now-a-days), then it is prohibited to kill him, rather, the Islamic state is responsible for his security of wealth, life, etc.
(iii) If the non-muslims live in a muslim state, but, pay tribute i.e. "Jezyah" (a low tax), then it is also prohibited to fight him. (Unless, he himself starts fighting)
(iv) If a non-muslim accepts Islam, Jihad against him/them is prohibited.
Some ulema hold the opinion that Offensive Jihad during the four "forbidden" Islamic months is also impermissible, but, all of them agree that Defensive Jihad (for self-defence) is permissible.
As for those non-muslim states, who don't have a peace treaty signed with us, then it is not permissible to fight them, unless, they start fighting us, or if they are preparing to attack us, then it is permissible to attack them before they can harm us. Lastly, if a non-muslim state or non-muslim stops the PEACEFUL spreading and preaching of Islam, then Jihad can be launched against it.
This is because we spread the message of the True Religion to everyone. We try to guide him towards the right path. We want to take him out of the fire of hell; if he himself does not want to come out, then it is his own fault, but, if someone tries to stop us from doing this, then this is also wrong. What should be the punishment of a guy who stops the fire brigade from extinguishing fire?
Lastly, I wanted to know your opinion/answer on the following issues.
(1) Who are the terrorists and why? Israel / Palestine
(2) Who was involved in 9/11 and what proof is there to prove it?
(3) After 9/11, America attacked Afghanistan? Was it Right or Wrong?
(4) According to Robert Gates, America's first aid to Mujahideen was dispatched 6 months before Russia's attack. Jihad was therefore not obligatory before Soviet Union's attack. (a) From where did the Jihadis came when Jihad was not obligatory? (b) To whom (so-called) Jihadis, was this aid given, when Jihad was not obligatory? (c) Why America was so keen in this affair that it sent an aid even before Jihad was obligatory?
(5) American fighters struck Bajore Agency in Pakistan? Was it Right or Wrong?
(6) Someone was involved in 9/11; If he/she came up with an excuse, that some terrorists was sitting there, then what will you say about it? What will you say if he says that He has solid proof, but, he whispered into his friend's ear?
(7) Not even a single Israeli died in 9/11. Is it not an evidence that some Israeli planned 9/11?
Take your time to answer these... I will be happy to know your opinion on these issues, Sir!
Take care... Good bye.
___
I wrote a complete answer to Robert's article "Quran and Jihadism" which I sent him by mail.
I will soon post it somewhere in the comments...
Hang on for now.
Here is another mail which I sent to Robert Spencer.
___
Hello!
I sent you one mail before in which I gave you a correct concept of Jihad; I will be waiting for your reply...
Btw, I have started taking critical reviews of each of your articles. I recently read your article "Qur`an and Jihadism". It was the first article of yours which I read, but, I must say that you are really ignorant of Islam. Your ignorance clearly showed up when you wrote this:-
>>> There are over a hundred verses in the Qur’an that exhort believers to wage jihad against unbelievers. “O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed” (Sura 9:73). “Strive hard” in Arabic is jahidi, a verbal form of the noun jihad. This striving was to be on the battlefield...
You are really ignorant of Islam, because, you don't even know that the Prophet Sallahu Alaihe Wassalam never fought against the hypocrites in battlefield! Btw, I am now taking a critical review of that article.
You wrote:-
>>> As Ibn Warraq has said, "There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." In other words, there are manifestly peaceful people who have no intention of working by violent or subversive means to impose Sharia on the West, and who identify themselves as Muslims.
I don't know about Ibn Warraq, but, I know what (so-called) "modern" and "moderate" muslims mean. These words refer to those muslims who accept Secularism, which is clearly against Islam. It also refers to those muslims who, due to Inferiority Complex, think that the law of Islam is (God Forbid) worn out and we need to "make a new interpretation of the Qur`an." It is abundantly clear that these two views are completely anti-Islamic. However, you derived an incorrect conclusion by saying, "In other words..." This is completely wrong. Moderate or modern has nothing to do with "imposing Sharia on the West". I gave you a correct concept of Jihad. Islam does not want to forcefully convert non-muslims to muslims. Infact, doing so is quite stupidity, because, if God really wanted to convert everyone to Islam by force, he could do that in no time; But, he has made this world as a trial, as an examination. He sent messengers with clear signs to guide people towards the right path and will ask people for an account of actions.
The Holy Qur`an is abundantly clear on this issue, as it says in Surah al-Baqarah, ayat 256: "Let there be no compulsion in religion!". Muslims reigned in Spain for hundreds of years; if they wanted, they could have compelled people to become muslims, but, they did n't do that. Muslims also reigned South Asia for hundreds of years, but, they did not force the Hindus to become muslims.
Then, you wrote:-
>>> There are over a hundred verses in the Qur’an that exhort believers to wage jihad against unbelievers.... This warfare was to be directed against both those who rejected Islam and those who professed to be Muslims but did not hold to the fullness of the faith: “Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate” (Qur’an 9:73). This warfare was only part of the larger spiritual conflict between Allah and Satan: “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan” (Qur’an 4:76). “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful” (Qur’an 9:5). The “poor-due” in this verse is zakat, which is a central obligation for Muslims. Thus the verse is saying that if the “idolaters” become Muslims, leave them alone.
This again shows your complete ignorance regarding Islam. The Prophet Sallahu Alaihe Wassalam said: "Whoever says anything about the Qur'an without knowledge, then he should make his abode in Hell." [Abu Dawud, al-ltqan 2/179] He also said: "Whoever talks about the Qur'an on the basis of his opinion, and even if says something true in it, still he made a mistake." [Abu Daw'ud, Nasa'i]
The tafseer (interpretation) of Qur`an was described by Allah SWT himself:-
"Then it is for Us (Allah) to explain it to you (Muhammad SAW)..." [75:19]
Even the Prophet Sallahu Alaihe Wassalam had no authority to change the tafseer of the Holy Qur`an. He (May Peace Be Upon Him) described the tafseer to the Companions (May Allah Be Pleased With Them), as the Qur`an says:-
"And We have also sent down unto you (O Muhammad SAW) the reminder and the advice (the Qur`an), that you may explain clearly to men what is sent down to them..." [16:44]
Thus the knowledge of tafseer was described by the Prophet SAW to the companions RAA, from the companions to the followers (Tab`ieen), from the followers to the followers of the followers (Tab`i Tab`ieen) and this chain continues until this knowledge reached us. Thus we can say securely that the tafseer of the Qur`an is also preserved. This tafseer has six sources; there is a whole science known as "Usul-e-Tafseer" (The Science of Interpretation of the Holy Qur`an) devoted to tafseer. An introduction to Usul-e-Tafseer is beautifully described by this article of Mufti Muhammad Shafi Usmani (who used to be Grand Mufti of Pakistan):-
http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/Quran_Majid/intro_to_tafsir.html
READ THIS ARTICLE COMPLETELY AND THEN COME BACK HERE TO READ FURTHER!
As you must have understood now: you have violated the very first rule of tafseer. You cited the following ayats: [9:73], [47:4], [9:123], [4:76], [9:5] and YOU derived a ruling that Islam wants to kill everyone unless he/she accepts Islam, establishes Salat and pays Zakat. But, you have shattered all principles of interpretation. What you have done can rightly be explained by this example:-
Qur`an says in 700 places to establish Salat. But, an idiot gets up and says, 'Look the Qur`an itself tells Muslims to stay away from Salat! Look here: "O ye who believe! Approach not Salat..." [4:43] A person who has no knowledge of the Qur`an may get driven by such a trick, but, anyone who has knowledge of the Qur`an will say: 'Look the whole ayat is: "O ye who believe! Approach not Salat when you are in a drunken state..." [4:43] So, the one who was driven by the idiot will come to the right path.
I already gave you a correct concept of Jihad, but, here I want to answer your arguments. The very first rule of interpretation is to look in the Qur`an itself for its explanation. When we look in the Qur`an, we find the following ayats:-
"There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path." [2:256]
"Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity. [60:8]
It is only as regards those who fought against you on account of religion, and have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that Allah forbids you to befriend them. And whosoever will befriend them, then such are the wrong-doers." [60:9]
"But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in Allah. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower." [8:61]
Thus these ayats are speaking the truth themselves!
You also cited another ayat i.e. [9:5] which reads as follows:-
"Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform Salat and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
This instruction is only for Makkah and Medina; it does not apply to all areas of the world. Some people say: 'Why are non-muslims not allowed in Makkah and Medina?' I ask them a similar question: 'Why aren't nuclear reactors and associated areas and bases of the Army are open for the public?' Certainly, because, these are restricted areas and are private and nobody objects this. Then, why is Islam to be objected? Makkah and Medina are restricted areas and centers of Islam and non-muslims are, therefore, not allowed in them.
You cited yet another ayat i.e. [9:29]. You explained this ayat incorrectly, because, you violated the principles of interpretation. One must search for the tafseer of any ayat in the first four sources, before, proceeding to understand the ayat from its apparent Arabic. The concerned ayat i.e. [9:29] reads as follows:-
"Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with 'Yadeh', and become 'Zaghirun'."
I have retained some words in Arabic, because, the first four principles must be kept in mind before translating them, according to their literal meanings. When we search the first four principles, we find that we cannot translate them literally. Imam Shafi`i, who was of the followers (Tab`ieen), said regarding this ayat that in this ayat, 'Yadeh' is in the meaning of power and 'Zaghi' means that the non-muslims start obeying the common law (not any Personal law). This quote of Imam Shafi`i is also cited in Tafseer Ma`ariful Qur`an by Mufti Muhammad Shafi. Thus the ayat, if correctly explained, means that they pay Jezyah and obey the General law of that Muslim country. Also, I have explained in my previous mail, in detail the four conditions, under which fighting the non-muslims is prohibited.
You also wrote:-
>>> Jihad is the highest duty of Muslims...
You are gone mad mister... Jihad is not the highest duty of muslims; it becomes obligatory on everyone, only under certain conditions which I explained in my previous mail.
>>> Paradise is guaranteed to those who “slay and are slain” for Allah...
Paradise is guaranteed to several others, e.g. take a look at [55:46], [79:40], [98:8], [35:32-33], etc.
>>> One may attempt to spiritualize such verses, but there is no doubt from the historical record that Muhammad meant them literally. They are also backed up by numerous passages of Islamic tradition and law. Nonetheless, the fact that warfare against unbelievers is not a twisting of Islam, but the Islamic mainstream, and is repeatedly affirmed in the Qur’an, Hadith, example of Muhammad, and rulings of every school of Islamic jurisprudence, still does not make every Muslim a terrorist.
You are completely ignorant of everything. You don't know a single word about Usul-e-Tafseer, but, claim to understand the Holy Qur`an. I am 1000000000% sure that you will be completely ignorant of Usul-e-Hadith, Usul-e-Fiqh, Fiqh, Hadith literature, etc. You are just making flimsy claims and thats it!
>>> One is that because the Qur’an is in difficult, classical Arabic, and must be read and recited during Muslim prayers in that language only, a surprisingly large number of those who identify themselves as Muslims actually have scant acquaintance with what it actually says.
Look at your face in the mirror. You are also in one of them. Also, please read the section "Misconceptions about Tafseer" in this article:-
http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/Quran_Majid/intro_to_tafsir.html
>>> A Pakistani Muslim once proudly told me that he had memorized large sections of the Qur’an, and planned one day to buy a translation so that he could find out exactly what it was saying. Such instances are common to a degree that may surprise most non-Muslims.
You are right, but, this is because understanding the Holy Qur`an is not very easy. Firstly, it is a collective obligation and everyone does not need to understand it; a sufficient number of scholars of Qur`an in an area can perform this duty. Secondly, tafseer of Qur`an is not such a joke, which you have made it. Firstly, there are 6666 ayats; then, there are thousands and thousands of hadith and for them, there are several rules; hadith themselves are classified into many types on four different basis; then, there a lot of sayings of the companions and the successors; then, Arabic is not such an easy language. If everyone has to understand this amount of knowledge, he will be over-burdened, therefore, a sufficient number of scholars understand the Qur`an. They usually spread this knowledge through madrassas. If anyone has a problem, he can ask those scholars and they will give an edict (fatwa).
>>> The challenge for genuinely peaceful Muslims today is to confront this fact, rather then deny it as Islamic apologists in the West so often do, and try to formulate strategies for a large-scale rejection of literalism in the Islamic community in America and worldwide, so that Muslims can coexist peacefully as equals with non-Muslims without the continuing recrudescence of this supremacist impulse.
This shows your hatred for muslims and Islam. You are ignorant of Islam; you don't understand Islam yourself and spreading misconceptions. Your main argument is citing ayats from the Qur`an, when you don't know the rules to understand them. You are a misguided, ignorant, guy who neither understands Islam, nor anything related to it.
Below the article I found this:-
>>> Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law...
Do you even know who is a scholar? There are several pre-requesities for someone to be a scholar:-
(1) He must have Isnad (chain of teaching) going back to the Prophet SAW... do you have Isnad? If yes, can you state it please?
(2) He must get Ijazah (permission) from existing Mustanad (with Isnad) scholars... do you have been given Ijazah by some scholar?
(3) He must fear Allah... you are not even a muslim.
(4) He must act upon his teachings... you don't do this also.
(5) He must have obtained knowledge from the mouth of scholars and not from books; lest, he may misinterpret the words... which scholar taught you?
Suffice to say that you are not a scholar, but, a misguided and ignorant lay-man, who claims to be a scholar.
Take care...
Good bye.
___
Reply to it, rather than making baseless claims...
Well, if no one else will do it, I'll take a crack at our clueless friend Abdul.
In short, Sir, your entire argument does not deserve the compliment of rational discussion.
Here is another mail which I sent to Robert Spencer.
___
Hello!
I sent you one mail before in which I gave you a correct concept of Jihad; I will be waiting for your reply...
Btw, I have started taking critical reviews of each of your articles. I recently read your article "Qur`an and Jihadism". It was the first article of yours which I read, but, I must say that you are really ignorant of Islam. Your ignorance clearly showed up when you wrote this:-
>>> There are over a hundred verses in the Qur’an that exhort believers to wage jihad against unbelievers. “O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed” (Sura 9:73). “Strive hard” in Arabic is jahidi, a verbal form of the noun jihad. This striving was to be on the battlefield...
You are really ignorant of Islam, because, you don't even know that the Prophet Sallahu Alaihe Wassalam never fought against the hypocrites in battlefield! Btw, I am now taking a critical review of that article.
You wrote:-
>>> As Ibn Warraq has said, "There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate." In other words, there are manifestly peaceful people who have no intention of working by violent or subversive means to impose Sharia on the West, and who identify themselves as Muslims.
I don't know about Ibn Warraq, but, I know what (so-called) "modern" and "moderate" muslims mean. These words refer to those muslims who accept Secularism, which is clearly against Islam. It also refers to those muslims who, due to Inferiority Complex, think that the law of Islam is (God Forbid) worn out and we need to "make a new interpretation of the Qur`an." It is abundantly clear that these two views are completely anti-Islamic. However, you derived an incorrect conclusion by saying, "In other words..." This is completely wrong. Moderate or modern has nothing to do with "imposing Sharia on the West". I gave you a correct concept of Jihad. Islam does not want to forcefully convert non-muslims to muslims. Infact, doing so is quite stupidity, because, if God really wanted to convert everyone to Islam by force, he could do that in no time; But, he has made this world as a trial, as an examination. He sent messengers with clear signs to guide people towards the right path and will ask people for an account of actions.
The Holy Qur`an is abundantly clear on this issue, as it says in Surah al-Baqarah, ayat 256: "Let there be no compulsion in religion!". Muslims reigned in Spain for hundreds of years; if they wanted, they could have compelled people to become muslims, but, they did n't do that. Muslims also reigned South Asia for hundreds of years, but, they did not force the Hindus to become muslims.
Then, you wrote:-
>>> There are over a hundred verses in the Qur’an that exhort believers to wage jihad against unbelievers.... This warfare was to be directed against both those who rejected Islam and those who professed to be Muslims but did not hold to the fullness of the faith: “Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate” (Qur’an 9:73). This warfare was only part of the larger spiritual conflict between Allah and Satan: “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan” (Qur’an 4:76). “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful” (Qur’an 9:5). The “poor-due” in this verse is zakat, which is a central obligation for Muslims. Thus the verse is saying that if the “idolaters” become Muslims, leave them alone.
This again shows your complete ignorance regarding Islam. The Prophet Sallahu Alaihe Wassalam said: "Whoever says anything about the Qur'an without knowledge, then he should make his abode in Hell." [Abu Dawud, al-ltqan 2/179] He also said: "Whoever talks about the Qur'an on the basis of his opinion, and even if says something true in it, still he made a mistake." [Abu Daw'ud, Nasa'i]
The tafseer (interpretation) of Qur`an was described by Allah SWT himself:-
"Then it is for Us (Allah) to explain it to you (Muhammad SAW)..." [75:19]
Even the Prophet Sallahu Alaihe Wassalam had no authority to change the tafseer of the Holy Qur`an. He (May Peace Be Upon Him) described the tafseer to the Companions (May Allah Be Pleased With Them), as the Qur`an says:-
"And We have also sent down unto you (O Muhammad SAW) the reminder and the advice (the Qur`an), that you may explain clearly to men what is sent down to them..." [16:44]
Thus the knowledge of tafseer was described by the Prophet SAW to the companions RAA, from the companions to the followers (Tab`ieen), from the followers to the followers of the followers (Tab`i Tab`ieen) and this chain continues until this knowledge reached us. Thus we can say securely that the tafseer of the Qur`an is also preserved. This tafseer has six sources; there is a whole science known as "Usul-e-Tafseer" (The Science of Interpretation of the Holy Qur`an) devoted to tafseer. An introduction to Usul-e-Tafseer is beautifully described by this article of Mufti Muhammad Shafi Usmani (who used to be Grand Mufti of Pakistan):-
http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/Quran_Majid/intro_to_tafsir.html
READ THIS ARTICLE COMPLETELY AND THEN COME BACK HERE TO READ FURTHER!
As you must have understood now: you have violated the very first rule of tafseer. You cited the following ayats: [9:73], [47:4], [9:123], [4:76], [9:5] and YOU derived a ruling that Islam wants to kill everyone unless he/she accepts Islam, establishes Salat and pays Zakat. But, you have shattered all principles of interpretation. What you have done can rightly be explained by this example:-
Qur`an says in 700 places to establish Salat. But, an idiot gets up and says, 'Look the Qur`an itself tells Muslims to stay away from Salat! Look here: "O ye who believe! Approach not Salat..." [4:43] A person who has no knowledge of the Qur`an may get driven by such a trick, but, anyone who has knowledge of the Qur`an will say: 'Look the whole ayat is: "O ye who believe! Approach not Salat when you are in a drunken state..." [4:43] So, the one who was driven by the idiot will come to the right path.
I already gave you a correct concept of Jihad, but, here I want to answer your arguments. The very first rule of interpretation is to look in the Qur`an itself for its explanation. When we look in the Qur`an, we find the following ayats:-
"There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path." [2:256]
"Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity. [60:8]
It is only as regards those who fought against you on account of religion, and have driven you out of your homes, and helped to drive you out, that Allah forbids you to befriend them. And whosoever will befriend them, then such are the wrong-doers." [60:9]
"But if they incline to peace, you also incline to it, and (put your) trust in Allah. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower." [8:61]
Thus these ayats are speaking the truth themselves!
You also cited another ayat i.e. [9:5] which reads as follows:-
"Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform Salat and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
This instruction is only for Makkah and Medina; it does not apply to all areas of the world. Some people say: 'Why are non-muslims not allowed in Makkah and Medina?' I ask them a similar question: 'Why aren't nuclear reactors and associated areas and bases of the Army are open for the public?' Certainly, because, these are restricted areas and are private and nobody objects this. Then, why is Islam to be objected? Makkah and Medina are restricted areas and centers of Islam and non-muslims are, therefore, not allowed in them.
You cited yet another ayat i.e. [9:29]. You explained this ayat incorrectly, because, you violated the principles of interpretation. One must search for the tafseer of any ayat in the first four sources, before, proceeding to understand the ayat from its apparent Arabic. The concerned ayat i.e. [9:29] reads as follows:-
"Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with 'Yadeh', and become 'Zaghirun'."
I have retained some words in Arabic, because, the first four principles must be kept in mind before translating them, according to their literal meanings. When we search the first four principles, we find that we cannot translate them literally. Imam Shafi`i, who was of the followers (Tab`ieen), said regarding this ayat that in this ayat, 'Yadeh' is in the meaning of power and 'Zaghi' means that the non-muslims start obeying the common law (not any Personal law). This quote of Imam Shafi`i is also cited in Tafseer Ma`ariful Qur`an by Mufti Muhammad Shafi. Thus the ayat, if correctly explained, means that they pay Jezyah and obey the General law of that Muslim country. Also, I have explained in my previous mail, in detail the four conditions, under which fighting the non-muslims is prohibited.
You also wrote:-
>>> Jihad is the highest duty of Muslims...
You are gone mad mister... Jihad is not the highest duty of muslims; it becomes obligatory on everyone, only under certain conditions which I explained in my previous mail.
>>> Paradise is guaranteed to those who “slay and are slain” for Allah...
Paradise is guaranteed to several others, e.g. take a look at [55:46], [79:40], [98:8], [35:32-33], etc.
>>> One may attempt to spiritualize such verses, but there is no doubt from the historical record that Muhammad meant them literally. They are also backed up by numerous passages of Islamic tradition and law. Nonetheless, the fact that warfare against unbelievers is not a twisting of Islam, but the Islamic mainstream, and is repeatedly affirmed in the Qur’an, Hadith, example of Muhammad, and rulings of every school of Islamic jurisprudence, still does not make every Muslim a terrorist.
You are completely ignorant of everything. You don't know a single word about Usul-e-Tafseer, but, claim to understand the Holy Qur`an. I am 1000000000% sure that you will be completely ignorant of Usul-e-Hadith, Usul-e-Fiqh, Fiqh, Hadith literature, etc. You are just making flimsy claims and thats it!
>>> One is that because the Qur’an is in difficult, classical Arabic, and must be read and recited during Muslim prayers in that language only, a surprisingly large number of those who identify themselves as Muslims actually have scant acquaintance with what it actually says.
Look at your face in the mirror. You are also in one of them. Also, please read the section "Misconceptions about Tafseer" in this article:-
http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/Quran_Majid/intro_to_tafsir.html
>>> A Pakistani Muslim once proudly told me that he had memorized large sections of the Qur’an, and planned one day to buy a translation so that he could find out exactly what it was saying. Such instances are common to a degree that may surprise most non-Muslims.
You are right, but, this is because understanding the Holy Qur`an is not very easy. Firstly, it is a collective obligation and everyone does not need to understand it; a sufficient number of scholars of Qur`an in an area can perform this duty. Secondly, tafseer of Qur`an is not such a joke, which you have made it. Firstly, there are 6666 ayats; then, there are thousands and thousands of hadith and for them, there are several rules; hadith themselves are classified into many types on four different basis; then, there a lot of sayings of the companions and the successors; then, Arabic is not such an easy language. If everyone has to understand this amount of knowledge, he will be over-burdened, therefore, a sufficient number of scholars understand the Qur`an. They usually spread this knowledge through madrassas. If anyone has a problem, he can ask those scholars and they will give an edict (fatwa).
>>> The challenge for genuinely peaceful Muslims today is to confront this fact, rather then deny it as Islamic apologists in the West so often do, and try to formulate strategies for a large-scale rejection of literalism in the Islamic community in America and worldwide, so that Muslims can coexist peacefully as equals with non-Muslims without the continuing recrudescence of this supremacist impulse.
This shows your hatred for muslims and Islam. You are ignorant of Islam; you don't understand Islam yourself and spreading misconceptions. Your main argument is citing ayats from the Qur`an, when you don't know the rules to understand them. You are a misguided, ignorant, guy who neither understands Islam, nor anything related to it.
Below the article I found this:-
>>> Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law...
Do you even know who is a scholar? There are several pre-requesities for someone to be a scholar:-
(1) He must have Isnad (chain of teaching) going back to the Prophet SAW... do you have Isnad? If yes, can you state it please?
(2) He must get Ijazah (permission) from existing Mustanad (with Isnad) scholars... do you have been given Ijazah by some scholar?
(3) He must fear Allah... you are not even a muslim.
(4) He must act upon his teachings... you don't do this also.
(5) He must have obtained knowledge from the mouth of scholars and not from books; lest, he may misinterpret the words... which scholar taught you?
Suffice to say that you are not a scholar, but, a misguided and ignorant lay-man, who claims to be a scholar.
Take care...
Good bye.
___
Reply to it, rather than making baseless claims...
I'm afraid that Dhimmitude will give me an attitude.
Let's hope it doesn't happen.
So here we have Abdul, mates. Abdul is here to educate all of us shonks about Islam.
He asks for dialogue, yet starts off his post with 'hey idiots'.
Listen Abdul, you floating in the sea brown eyed mullet, you are trying to defend the indefensible, mate.
Baseless claims you say? It's in the Koran, dopey.
Take a gander around you. Muslims are out of control. Make all the excuses you feel you need to make, it will do no good for you. Muslims have shown the world their true colors. Your Koran is not holy, it is dirty.
You stand no chance against Robert Spencer. You are out of your league, amateur.
You can't even win debates with jihad watch readers, let alone Mr. Spencer.
Maybe you should call the Council of Islamic Relationships in Washington. They'll listen to you, and maybeeven put you on their board.
For now, piss off, mate.
Amen to that unbridled
Bravo to the Frenchmen who were brave enough to protest the demonstration in the video.
People of France stand up and be counted save your wonderful culture, vote in the next election and expel all Muslims from France!
Just France, El Cid?
May we go a step further and include all of Europe and North America?
They're a real drain...
Listen Abdul, you floating in the sea brown eyed mullet, you are trying to defend the indefensible, mate---Unbridled
It's useless to argue with muslims and dhimmis; their capacity for rational discourse is extremely inhibited by anger and ignorance. No matter how much indisputable evidence is presented to prove the intrinsic barbarity of Islam, they reflexively attack the messenger. Muslims preach one sermon for Western audiences and the opposite for muslims. Doesn't Abdul realize that we can read the translated sermons that rabid mullahs and imams preach in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, etc? How would he explain their interpretations of jihad and the heinous content of the Qur'an?
Nice try Abdul, but the message of Islam is quite clear and it does not bode well for kafirs and infidels. Your putative "religion" is a medieval death cult and it doesn't take a bonafide muslim "scholar" to interpret that. One does not have to be a muslim or an Islamic scholar to possess the cognitive resources required to understand the imperialistic, supremacist, blood-thirsty, intolerant doctrine of Islam. Islam is a doctrine of perpetual war and hate, and the ummah is a "nation" of resentful, envious, bellicose zombies mired in a time warp and seething with a collective inferiority complex.
The infantile and orchestrated muslim response to a few innocuous cartoons, four months after they were printed, fully exposes the desperation of the muslim masses for recognition, relevance, and supremacy. Predictably, muslims resort to the time-honored Islamic practice of mindless violence and wanton destruction in an attempt to impose gratuitous "respect" for Islam, the same techniques that earned it the contempt it so richly deserves.
Another succinct and cogent article from Mr. Watson. Thanks for including me, D.C.
"These cartoon riots may well go down as one of the most self-defeating events in a long list of self-defeating events in Islamic history."
In a sane world, that would be so...
First of all, I am sorry for using bad language in my last comment. Don't associate it towards Islam; It was my personal fault...
"Invite to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better. Truly, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from His Path, and He is the Best Aware of those who are guided." [16:125]
"And insult not those whom they (non-muslims) worship besides Allah, lest they insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge. Thus We have made fairseeming to each people its own doings; then to their Lord is their return and He shall then inform them of all that they used to do." [6:108]
Now, coming to the cartoon issue... The Editor of Jyllands-Posten, Carsten Juste, was offered cartoons of Prophet Jesus Christ (May Peace Be Upon Him) on April, 2003, but he refused to publish them because it might hurt the feelings of the Christians. But, he published all 12 cartoons of Muhammad (May Peace Be Upon Him) without any hesitation. Then, he gave permission to other newspapers to publish the same cartoons. Wow! Amazing! The Foreign Editor of Jyllands-Posten, Jan Lund, in his "Guardian" interview said that he was sorry for hurting the feelings of the muslims, but, not for publishing the cartoons. The same is the opinion of the Norway government and all others. They are sorry for hurting the feelings of muslims, but, on the other hand, they say that newspapers do have freedom for publishing such things. In other words, I am sorry that your father was killed, but, I am not sorry for shooting at him. Isn't that interesting!
The inequality of this world is seen in many incidents. The West talks about Gender Equality when it couldn't even swallow human equality. In Britain, back in 1989, Muslims fired a case against Salmond Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses", but, it was observed by the court that the laws regarding blasphemy are only for Christianity, not for Islam. Then, Omega 2001 and Wine Publishing Press published Dr. Anis Shorrosh's "Al-Furqan Al-Haq" or "The True Furqan" which was a big blasphemy against Islam. This product is still being sold at the Amazon Bookstore. Even a country like India, banned this devilish work, but, US & Israel are allowing to be published and sold. It is in its third print now! I and some other volunteers are doing research on this book. I, myself, found that in the 77 Surahs (Chapters) of this book, more than 1400 YES THAT IS MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED ABUSES to Islam, Muslims and the Prophet SAW. What could be more worse violation of Human Rights than this! and still this product is in its Third Print and sold at a big bookstore like Amazon. Interesting!
This shows that the West couldn't swallow equality of muslims. Furthermore, the Danish government claims that it is a "democractic" right i.e. freedom of speech of the newspaper. WoW! What a democratic right which violates the European Union's Human Right declarations. The Section 266b of the Danish Criminal Code reads:
"Any person who, publicly or with the intention of wider dissemination, makes a statement or imparts other information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religion, or sexual inclination shall be liable to a fine or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding 2 years."
Section 140 reads as follows:-
"Those who publicly mock or insult the doctrines or worship of any religious community that is legal in this country, will be punished by a fine or incarceration for up to 4 month."
Wow! Quite interesting, Eh... Democratic right?!
In the same way, the Norwegian government also made a similar excuse for the newspaper, that the newspaper cannot be compelled... Section 142 of the Norwegian Penal Code reads as follows:-
""who publicly insults or in an offensive manner shows contempt for any religious creed...or for the doctrines or worship of any religious community lawfully existing here."
This shows the mentality of the West. The West itself has shown its extremism and fundamentalism and infact, the coverage of this issue, by this website i.e. Jihad Watch, is even adding spices!
Mr. Sentinel has labelled my arguments as lacking a "rational" aspect... Gr8!
This website itself is spreading a lot of hatred against Islam. You are insulting the doctrine of Jihad, when there is nothing bad in it. I gave a long comment before in which I discussed this issue...
Other brothers are insulting Islam and muslims in various ways... On guy said: "How many burnt virgins will one get in hell..." Some else said: "There are no prophecies in the Koran..." Did the Prophet Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) told you to insult other religions?
The Europe has shown its meaniness in many ways... 50 years ago they killed hundreds of thousands of Jews... In 1990s, in Bousnia Herzegovnia, it showed its meaniness... I read a few incidents which occured there in a magazine:
(1) The abdomen of some pregenant women were busted open and after taking out everything, was sewed by thread and needle!
(2) Fathers were naked and sons were compelled to chew private parts of their fathers!!! Yuck!!!
(3) Children were killed and their parents were compelled to drink their blood!
(4) The heads of some people were cut off from their bodies and then, some christians were "playing footballs" with these heads!
(5) In the city of "Grad", 70 people were burnt to death!
(6) Orthodox christians destroyed no less than 70 mosques!
(7) According to a newspaper report of 30th Oct. 1992, in 6 months, 10,000 muslims were killed!
(8) One day 8,000 muslims died, on which, they was a grand festival in the church!
(9) One boy was ordered to commit adultery with the dead body of her mother!
(10) Sarajhuka Institute of Islamic Research was burnt which contained more than 1.5 million books and articles of Islam and Muslims.
(11) From some of the graves, three layers of dead bodies were recovered!
And there will be thousands of other such incidents which European christians must have done... "By their fruits shall they be identified..." The West is clearly being identified by their deeds. I, swear by God, you won't be happy on the Day of Resurrection!
Now, coming to the South Asian history... The British estalished a company "East India Company" and then, illegally gained foothold in the Subcontinent. They, then, very cleverly arrested the Mughal Emperor and sent him to Burma. After the 1857 revolt, many events took place... A few are listed below:-
(1) 51,200 ulema (scholars) were hanged with trees!
(2) For several days, muslims were killed openly.
(3) Some of the dead bodies, were sewed into the bodies of pigs...
(4) Some of the dead bodies were burnt...
(5) Some dead bodies were fitted in cannons and blasted off!
(6) The Jam`ai Mosque of Dehli was converted into a weapons depot!
(7) 24 prince were hanged on the same day in Dehli!
(8) Dehli was evacuated of Muslims... their properties and belongings were destroyed... their life was endangered...
Suffice to say that the West has shown its reality quite a number of times!
Without looking at your own face, you raise finger on our doctrine of Jihad. We reigned Spain for so many years, but, now it is filled with Christians. If we wanted, we could have converted everyone to muslim by force. Mughals reigned South Asia for so many years, but, they did not force everyone to become muslim...
Thomas Caryle, the famous historian, observes in his book "Heros and Hero Worship": 'The
sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can.'
Islam has spread on the East Coast of Africa; which forces went there to convert people forcefully to muslims? Indonesia contain the maximum number of muslims... Which Muslim army went to Malaysia and Indonesia? Similarly, there are 14 Million Arab Coptic Christians i.e. christians since generations... why did Muslims leave them, if they used the sword?
Suffice to say what De Lacy O'Leary observes in his book "Islam at the cross-road", page 8, 'History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated.'
Infact, Meriam Webster Dictionary tells us that the word 'fundamentalism' was originally used for an American Protestant Movement that arose in the earlier part of the 20th century!
You accuse Islam that it permits polygamy, but, don't fail to see that women population outnumber male population... In the USA, women outnumber men by 7.8 million. New York alone has one million more females as compared to the number of males, and of the male population of New York one-third are gays i.e sodomites. The U.S.A as a whole has more than twenty-five million gays. This means that these people do not wish to marry women. Great Britain has four million more females as compared to males. Germany has five million more females as compared to males. Russia has nine million more females than males.
If every man got married to one woman, there would still be more than thirty million females in U.S.A who would not be able to get husbands (considering that America has twenty five million gays). There would be more than four million females in Great Britain, 5 million females in Germany and nine million females in Russia alone who would not be able to find a husband.
Suppose my sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in USA, or suppose your sister (God Forbid) happens to be one of the unmarried women in USA. The only two options remaining for her are that she either marries a man who already has a wife or becomes public property. There is no other option. All those who are modest will opt for the first.
Furthermore, in Western society, it is common for a man to have mistresses and/or multiple extra-marital affairs, in which case, the woman leads a disgraceful, unprotected life. Infact, on average, every american has 8 sexual partners... The same society, however, cannot accept a man having more than one wife, in which women retain their honourable, dignified position in society and lead a protected life.
You accuse Islam that it keeps women behind a veil, but, fail to see the consequences of a veil-less society like America. The sexologist, Alfred Kinsey, clearly unveiled the horrible picture of the American culture.
You say that you unveil women for liberalism, but, this is a meaningless argument, thanks to the actions of the French government. If you were really preaching liberty of women, you would have given the liberty to cover heads or uncover them, but, the French government forced them to uncover their heads, which shows that their intentions are only seeing women naked... more like nudism.
You say that we are against Gender Equality. First of all, you ignore what your own scriptures say... then, you talk about Equality. Equality means two things are 100% same, so that they can be replaced by each other. Male and female are different in so many aspects; thus it is meaningless to talk about equality.
However, the Qur`an preaches equity. Give duties to genders, according to their abilities, and then, give them rights, according to their duties.
You object that according to the Shar`iah, women will inherit one-half that inherited by men. But, you fail to understand the Islamic system, which puts absolutely no economic duty no the female. You also ignore the fact that 'Maher' is given by husbands to wives at the time of marriage, but, you don't object here that why is 'Maher' being given when the woman has no economic responsibility; she does not have to spend money on her residence, food, shelter, cloth, etc. Thus this Maher compensates for the inheritance rule. The man has to give Maher and the woman has to receive and in this way, the half-inheritance rule is compensated for. You look only at one side of the picture, but, are oblivious of what is on the other side!
Suffice to say friends, REFRAIN FROM BASELESS INSULT OF ISLAM & MUSLIMS, PLEASE!
Also, one last thing to remember: NO ONE HAS YET ANSWERED MY ARGUMENTS!
ONE LAST COMMENT: SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS WITH PROOFS. You are just keep on saying that Islam is bad, but, don't give any proof of it from the Qur`an or the Sunnah...
Also, I had a "first time experience" on this website, thats why I became emotional and used the word 'idiots'. Sorry for that, but, at least someone come forward and put me some arguments from the Quran and Sunnah.
Robert Spencer cited verses of the Quran, but, I have answered that!
Please bring forward some solid proof for why you think that Islam is so bad?
Another thing I want to tell you. I came here with the intention of removing your doubts; I am not here for fighting... If you feel I have written something offensive, then I am sorry... But, please do tell what doubts do you have about Islam... also, justify them please; just saying that Islam is bad is not a solution...
Balid--I mean Abdull:
First, let me thank you for the following statement:
"The U.S.A as a whole has more than twenty-five million gays. This means that these people do not wish to marry women."
If you had not clued me in to that fact, I might have spent the rest of my life wondering about the definition of "gay."
Thanks also for letting me know that before I got married, I was considered public property-- Guess that explains all the graffiti on my ass.
Also, could you tell me which Islamic country would be best for me (a woman) to live in? Would it be Pakistan where I could go to prison for BEING raped? Would it be Saudi Arabia, where it is better to die in a fire rather then let men see my uncovered head? Would it have been in Afghanistan where I could not be educated or work? Sorry, but if these are supposed to be the selling points of Islam for women, I think you need a new ad agency.
Oh Abdul, do we really have to waste time going over the Koran again. We know the verses probably better than you do. Look at the world. Where there are Muslims, there is, or has been, or soon will be.....trouble.
All of the world's conflicts, minus Haiti, involve Muslims. Now go away, little boy, you're bothering us. We have work to do, and don't have time to shit around with a clueless apologist like you.
If you think Islam is peaceful, that's your right. But the evidence is stacked against that.
Now troll off.
Mr Abdul,
Who has the proper interpretation of the Qur'an?
Was the prophet preannounced as Jesus Christ was?
Can we trust that an angel would give a man a book in a cave?
If so, can't anyone claim that God gave them a book?
Why do I never hear Muslims talking about the teachings of Jesus?
Why are Muslims quiet when the Lord Jesus is ridiculed more harshly than a prophet?
Did the prophet perform miracles as Jesus did?
Did he live by the traditional teaching of Christianity and Judaism?
Why do Muslims kill othewr Muslims and destroy their brothers Qur'ans in mosques?
Why is it okay for Muslims to ban Christian teachings in Muslims countries but Christians not to ban Islamic teachings in theirs?
Why is your interpretation of the Qur'an better than mine?
Why do friends of mine who are Arabic Islamic converts to Catholicism say they lived in constant fear under Islam?
Why is the Qur'ans teaching's digressive and cruder than Christianity and Judaism?
Have you ever read the New Testament Scriptures?
Have you ever read the Old Testament Scriptures?
Why are they so more profound than the Qur'an?
Muslims need to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Until then you will have no peace.
Mr. Abdul Rehman I have read most of your rantings on this site and felt to clarify some things as it seems that you are unable to separate fact from fiction when it comes to Islam and the west. While you only see goodness in Islam you only see badness in everything that is not Islam. This lack of self-criticalness is one of the reasons why so many people on this site can find fodder to throw at you and your fellow Muslims. You also complain that no one has responded to your posts so here it goes. For everyone else I am sorry if I sound as if I am ranting. To the editor, sorry if this runs long, it is my first post ever.
Firstly in answer to some of your (Abdul's) questions as posted on 2,/13/ 2006 at 11:26pm.
For #1 neither the whole populations of Israel nor Palestine are terrorists. You are pooling both into one group when each side is made up of many views and parties. Israelis as a nation may be aggressors when it came to occupying territories against international judgment but it is the many Palestine factions that use "Terrorist attacks" indiscriminately that target civilians with disregard for human life, including their own. Also Israel as a nation has never announced nor advocated the total elimination of Palestine or the Palestinian people, while Palestine has advocated just such things continually and now has elected leaders who continue to demand the destruction of Israel.
For #2 we know who was involved in 9/11 and not only do we have proof of the terrorists’ training and video footage of them from the airport security cameras and ext. but we also have your fellow Muslims taking responsibility for 9/11 by declaring they ordered it and giving evidence to support that fact.
For #3 America attacked not Afghanistan but the Taliban who were occupying Afghanistan against the will the people of Afghanistan. Not only were many Afghanis fighting the Taliban but many Afghanis had been asking for American aid before 9/11. It took 9/11 for America to hear their complaints about their life under the Taliban. So yes it was good to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban.
For #4; from what I understand aid was requested from those who were about to be invaded by the Russians, whether or not they had declared jihad yet.
For #5; If it is true that American planes did in fact drop bombs on the village of Damadola it would be bad. It is also bad that the border lands of Pakistan are safe havens for so many terrorist that the coalition forces are searching for. Coalition forces continually clash with militants who use Pakistan as a sanctuary. Pakistan does little to rid its borders of these individuals who would use villagers such as those in Damadola as human shields. So part of the responsibility for the deaths in that village belongs on the shoulders of the Pakistanis. If your harbor a criminal in your house you should not be surprised if you get hurt.
#6; I have no idea what point of your rambling on about here.
#7; NO. The idea that no Israelis or Jews died or suffered in 9/11 is propaganda exposed by Jew-hating nations such as coincidently most of the Middle East. The Israel-9/11 connection has been endorsed and continued by such news papers as al-jazeera. And you state “REFRAIN FROM BASELESS INSULT OF ISLAM & MUSLIMS, PLEASE!” you just committed just such an act. The reason that individuals from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and Lebanon died in 9/11 is because they were the hijackers who plowed the planes into the trade centers. The reason that you people try to direct us toward Israel is to leads us away from your peoples’ own involvement and the refusal to recognize your countrymen’s actions. How blasphemous is it to see your people holding pep rallies and cheering while the towers burned? How do you think it portrays Islam when at the death of 3,000 people your people are caught on camera chanting God is great, Long live Islam at the idea of 3,000 murdered people?
I think that was it for your questions on that post so I will now respond to your posting on Feb. 14 2006.
In regard to your Qoutes from religious text. "And insult not those whom they (non-muslims) worship besides Allah, lest they insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge.” How do you think the Muslim world fairs when it routinely insults Jews, Christians and other religious peoples and calls for their total destruction? In fact these religions; Judaism and Christianity worship the same god as you and yet your fellow Muslims see no problem with calling for their heads, burning of their churches and synagogues, repeatedly insulting them in cartoons in your Arabic newspapers, berating them on your loudspeakers when you call people to the Mosques, preach violence against them during each daily prayer and murdering them wholesale. Is it a wonder why the Western world is leery of your continual statements that you are a peaceful religion when you do not even attempt to follow the few peaceful scriptures that are found in the “Holy” text?!
The “report” about the editor not printing Christian cartoons because they might hurt the Christian faith is unfunded hearsay. The “report” was publicized by the anti-Christian Guardian paper and by many Muslim newspapers to foment even more hostilities toward the Danish paper. Also he did not give permission for other papers to print the cartoons they did so either to support free speech or to show their country what the hub-bub was about. They did it so that people could see what you Muslims were angry about and to make up their minds for themselves. In free countries people are allowed to make up their own ideas, they are not told what to think or gathered up and ordered to riot.
“Muslims fired a case against Salmond Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses", but, it was observed by the court that the laws regarding blasphemy are only for Christianity, not for Islam.”
In regards to this quote the publication of The Satanic Verses in September 1988 caused immediate controversy in the Islamic world due to its depiction of the prophet Muhammad. India banned the book on October 5; South Africa banned it on November 24; and Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, Bangladesh, Sudan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Qatar followed within weeks. On January 14, 1989 the novel was the subject of a book burning event in Bradford, England. On February 14, 1989, a fatwa requiring Rushdie's execution was proclaimed on Radio Tehran by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran, calling the book "blasphemous against Islam." Khomeini indicated that it was the responsibility of all "zealous Muslims" to execute Rushdie and the publishers who were aware of its concepts. Even today Iran has rejected requests to withdraw the fatwa on the basis that only the person who issued it may withdraw it. Would you consider the demand of killing someone over a book as firing “a case” against them? You prejudged an individual(s) guilty without trial and demanded the death penalty!
Also about the books that are blasphemous about Islam, the writing of books is covered under freedom of speech even if you do not like what they say, just as many books against Christianity and Judaism are also covered under freedom of speech and sold on Amazon (some of which are written by Muslims). You have the right to buy it and do research or not to buy it and not to read it. That is your freedom. You have a right to choose! Human rights are directed toward the human body not to the material YOU freely choose to read. If someone chained you down and forced you to read such books then that would be a violation of your human rights, but no one has. You are reading material that makes you angry by your own choosing. Also talking about equality toward religions, what about the numerous text, cartoons, broadcasts, ext. that Muslim clerics, book writers, and leaders constantly put out about Christianity, Judaism, and other “infidel non-muslims”? Why do you feel that you can create such inflammatory images and ideas about these “others” and yet do not even look critically at your own religion or allow it from others? That is why Islam and many Muslims are being called Hypocrites!
More over if the Danish paper said be-head the Muslims, burn their embassies, kill them all (like Muslims worldwide are stating) then that would fall under Section 266b of the Danish Criminal Code but printing images in a local paper does not. Also in the description “any person who publicly or with the intention of wider dissemination, makes a statement or imparts information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religion, or sexual inclination shall be liable to a fine or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding 2 years” wouldn’t that be the description of the Radical Muslim cleric who disseminated the cartoons along with some of his own creations to the Muslim world, who made statements about the origins and reasons behind the cartoons, and who has imparted information by which a group; Danes and westerns are threatened, insulted, and degraded on account of their race and nationality? I am thinking that many in the Muslim world from the Danish Cleric to the leaders who promote the riots can be charged under that description.
"Those who publicly mock or insult the doctrines or worship of any religious community that is legal in this country, will be punished by a fine or incarceration for up to 4 month."
They did not insult the DOCTRINES or the WORSHIP of the religious community they drew caricatures of Mohamed. For someone who’s religion rules against the worship of false idols (idoltry) you seem to focus a lot of your energies on supporting, defending, following and worshiping a man (Mohamed) and not in the submission of/to god. Also if god is omnipotent and all powerful I think God can take care of whatever bothers the almighty. God does not require being defended by mere mortals. You quoted that yourself; “Truly, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from His Path, and He is the Best Aware of those who are guided."
The responses that you gave for the 1990 Bousnia Herzegovnia affair was very one sided since crimes against humanity were perpetrated by both sides of the conflict! While many forms of torture had been implemented in concentration camps by the Serb nationalists "Chetniks" that were used on the mostly Muslim population of Bosnia, the Bosniak-dominated central government (i.e. Muslim) allowed Mujaheddin (holy warriors) to carry on fightings against Serbs and Croats during which many atrocities against the Serbs and Croats were committed. Furthermore, Bosniaks also held prisoners in concentration camps such as Celebici. The ethinic cleansing of non-Muslims resulted in most of the areas being "cleared" of Serbs and Croats. Vast areas that were predominantly Serb and Croat areas have been ethnically cleansed. Once again you see only what you want to see of your religion and its people.
“We reigned over parts of what is now Spain”, yes and before you came it was predominantly Christian, so you were occupiers, the same as you cry the west is in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also forced conversion to Islam was practiced during the Muslim occupation of Spanish lands, so was slavery and murder of non-Muslims.
“Mughals reigned South Asia for so many years, but, they did not force everyone to become muslim...” Did not force everyone? While they actually did try to, they also killed many people as well, and made slaves of those who did not convert to Islam and they also practiced genocide against the native polytheistic peoples. Hence you can’t convert everyone if you kill some and need others as slaves!
In your so-called defense of Polygamy you have made a few errors. I list them below.
1.You forget that homosexuality is not solely a male thing and so some of those thirty million (?!) women are quite happy not getting married.
2.You also assume that all women are only occupied with marriage and child bearing as if that is the end all of their lives you forget of course the fact that many people, male and female do not wish to marry.
3.Also your argument that a woman has only two options “to marry an already married man or become public property” is ridiculous, where do you come from that a woman has only two choices?! In a free country like America women have many choices.
4.In many societies, not just western societies, it is common for a man to have mistresses. In fact it is well documented that Muslim men, even with multiple wives, still have mistresses and participate in affairs. This fact comes from Muslim women themselves who are fighting for their rights, AS DECLARED IN THE KORAN (Quran).
5.Every American has 8 sexual partners is not only an outdated fact but forgets that some of those Americans are WOMEN.
6.Your ratios that you use to defend polygamy also are skewed, you used total numbers with out looking at those numbers. Those total numbers include the elderly which historically are predominantly women. If you look at the numbers of the reproductive population they have a tendency to average out in ratio between males and females (give or take the loss of that gay man or woman).
7.Your statement that polygamy allows “women to retain their honorable, dignified position in society and lead a protected life” is laughable, no where in the polygamy practicing Muslim countries is women’s honor, dignity, or protection well thought of or protected under polygamy. Child marriages, at-the-instant divorces, honor killings, forced removal of children from their mothers, abuse upon abuse. Look at any website where Muslim women are fighting for their rights AS DECLARED IN THE KORAN and you will see that those countries that most aggressively defend polygamy also are the ones with the highest human rights violations against women!
8.Finally you seem to be unclear of your own religion; the Koran, at least the older copies I have seen before Islamist began to reinterpret the passages, has many passages advising against polygamy and many rules that must be followed before even the notion of polygamy can be taken up. The “pro-polygamy at-any cost” rantings come mostly from Hadiths written by people who were tribalist before being converted and continued to be tribalist after being converted, thus their hadiths that support tribal customs such as polygamy directly undermine the Koranic teachings from God (Allah).
As for the veil issue the Koran talks about a women covering her ornaments and protecting her modesty. The “veil” which you are defending and which the “west” accuses Islam of keeping women behind is both a tribal remnant left over from before Islam came to be and also a means to control, dominate and subject a good portion of the society by Islamist and Despots. If you look at a time when Islam was strong and had strong leaders women did not cover, head to toe, in the modern Hajib. The modern scarf came about when confident rulers were replaced with illegitimate despots (often religious) who needed to suppress the people in order to stay in control (i.e. Taliban in Afghanistan).
O.K. then you also badly misunderstood the term “equality” in American language. For one, America is more than just Christian so “we” did not ignore what “our” scriptures said then talk about equality and secondly, America has a separation of church and state thus allowing equality to be discussed by whomever no matter what any ones’ religion says. Also while men and women are different in many ways, equality in America (also known as equity) means that people regardless of gender, race, age, denomination, or sexual orientation have the right to reach their greatest potential, to strive, to succeed or to fail, to have a chance to prove their worth. Gender Equity, Gender Equality, or Gender Egalitarianism is the belief in the equality of the gender or the sexes to be recognized for those potentials. This philosophy believes that people, male and female, be given rights and duties according to their abilities, regardless of their gender. The Quran assumes the abilities of individuals based solely on their gender and then pigeon holes them with gender-based “rights”. So you see America gives the person regardless of gender, the right to prove their abilities and then be given duties matching those abilities, while the Quran prejudges a person based on gender then notifies them of their abilities and then assigns them rights.
Finally, your depiction of Maher and inheritance is rather rosy in comparison to what actually happens in the real Islamic world. For starters, in order for Maher to compensate for the inheritance rule the two most be of equal value, I doubt that the average Muslim man gives the women the amount of her lost half of inheritance. Also there are no rules as to what a man gives as a Maher, he could give her a ring from a Cracker Jack-box and she would have to accept it. Also you are forgetting that the Islamic system puts no economic duty on the female because it sees no economic value in her. How else can a father forcibly marry his daughters to men thrice their age without regret?
Suffice it to say “friend” I hope I have answered some of your arguments. I also would hope you’d take those rose tinted glasses off and stop seeing your religion and your countries in some altered state and take a real good look at how Islam is actually being practiced here in the real world.
this is an interpretation that is very disturbing yet not unbelievable....ummm i think this might be the real truth!
sorry the link did'nt go thru
http://www.gayegypt.com/archivesonly.html