The message of Islamic apologists such as Khaled Abou El Fadl, who maintain that Islam does not actually prescribe the execution of apostates, has not gotten through to the mobs in Afghanistan still howling for Abdul Rahman's blood. Now why is that? I'd like to see Khaled Abou El Fadl answer that question.
From AP, with thanks to JE:
KABUL, Afghanistan - An Afghan man who had faced the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity quickly vanished Tuesday after he was released from prison, apparently out of fear for his life with Muslim clerics still demanding his death....On Monday, hundreds of clerics, students and others chanting "Death to Christians!" marched through the northern Afghan city of Mazar-e-Sharif to protest the court decision Sunday to dismiss the case. Several Muslim clerics threatened to incite Afghans to kill Rahman if he is freed, saying that he is clearly guilty of apostasy and deserves to die.
"Abdul Rahman must be killed. Islam demands it," said senior Cleric Faiez Mohammed, from the nearby northern city of Kunduz. "The Christian foreigners occupying Afghanistan are attacking our religion."
I put this into an earlier thread but its worth reposting here. Here is something from the FreeMoslem Coalition, a group who advocateed strongly for Rehman...
Free Muslims Coalition Applauds Decision to Release Abdul Rahman; Demands Further Constitutional and Legislative Change
By Thomas Haidon, Cheif Legal Advisor, Free Muslim Coalition
The Free Muslim Coalition is appalled by the decision of the Afghani Attorney General to prosecute Abdul Rahman, under the opaque article 130 of the Afghani constitution, which permits the Attorney-General to bring prosecutions that fall outside the criminal code, in accordance with "Hanafi (a school of Islamic legal thought) jurisprudence". Mr Rahman has been charged under article 130, for "attacking Islam", through his conversion to Christianity from Islam. According to Judge Alhaj Ansarullah Mawlawy Zada, who will be trying the case, Mr Rahman faces the prospect of death by hanging.
The determination to prosecute and any subsequent punishment is in clear violation of the laws of the Qur'an, Islamic jurisprudence and Afghanistan's obligations pursuant to international human rights law. FMC appeals to the Afghan Attorney General and President, Hamid Karzai to immediately drop all charges against Mr Rahman, make provision for his immediate release, and provide him and his family with adequate protection from state and non-state actors. In addition, Afghanistan should repeal article 130 and any other legislative provision that violates the fundamental freedoms of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Afghanistan is a signatory to.
The Qur'an
The Qur'an guarantees freedom of religion and conscience. It prescribes no earthly punishment for a Muslim who effectively leaves Islam for another religion. The Qur'an makes the following, authoritative proclamations:
There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient. [2:256]
Say, ‘O you who disbelieve! I don't worship what you worship. Nor do you worship what I worship. And I'm not worshipping what you worship. Nor are you worshipping what I worship. To you is your religion and to me is my religion.' [109:1-6]
So remind. You are only a reminder. You are not a dictator over them. He who turns away and disbelieves, God will punish him with a great punishment. Certainly to us is their return. Then certainly upon us is their reckoning. [88:21-26]
Say, "I have solid proof from my Lord, and you have rejected it. I do not control the retribution you challenge me to bring. Judgment belongs with GOD alone. He narrates the truth, and He is the best judge." [6:57]
The implication of these verses is that while an individual who leaves Islam may face punishment from God in the afterlife, they are immune from punishment in life. Furthermore, the Qur'an proclaims that Jews and Christians are accorded the protected status of ahl-al kitab or People of the Book:
"Believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabaeans -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does what is right -- shall be rewarded by their Lord; they have nothing to fear or to regret." [2:62]
The jurisprudence to which the Afghani law is based on, does not arise from the Qur'an, but from traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). These specific traditions, are general in nature, and do not provide adequate guidance in the case of Mr Rahman, particularly in light of the countless traditions which espouse the mercy of the Prophet. Furthermore, the two particular hadith from which form the penalty of death for apostasy is based upon, when read from a contextualist perspective, show that apostasy at the time of the Prophet Muhammad was coupled with seditious and treasonous acts against the Islamic state. During this time period, the Islamic state faced a number of non-Muslim enemies. In our view, application of these particular traditions (as well as traditions of a similar nature that can be interpreted to violate the human rights of Muslim and non Muslim peoples) in the modern Muslim world is misguided, particularly in light of the obligations of Muslim countries to protect universal human rights.
However, application of these laws without concurrent, clear evidence of seditious or treasonous conduct would place Mr Rahman outside the scope of the offence under traditional Islamic jurisprudence. From all indicators, Mr Rahman is a model citizen, who is involved in the preservation of life and care of the ill. In this regard FMC invokes the Islamic jurisprudential doctrine of "Amaan", or "safe conduct" which provides protection and immunity to non-Muslims. Such a declaration is valid when the non-Muslim in question has not committed acts of or analogous to sedition or treason. A similar declaration has been made by a Muslim organisation in Kabul.
Domestic and International Human Rights Law
The prosecution of Mr Rahman contravenes the Afghani constitution, which guarantees the freedom of religion and conscience and international human rights standards, specifically the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ICCPR.
Article 7 of the Afghan Constitution
Article 7 of the draft Afghani Constitution declares: "the state shall abide by the UN Charter, international treaties, international conventions that Afghanistan has signed, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Afghanistan is a signatory to the ICCPR, a treaty to which Afghanistan is legally bound to follow.
ICCPR
Article 18 enshrines the freedom of thought, conscience and religion: "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and that "this right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice". According to the Human Rights Committee's General Comment 22, this necessitates that the freedom to ‘have or to adopt' a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views, as well as the right to retain one's religion or belief". The Comment elucidates further that the "the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to their religious beliefs to recant their religion or belief or to convert" is prohibited.
Clearly, from the view of the Qur'an and international human rights law, the prosecution of Mr Rahman is illegal. FMC stands in solidarity with Mr Rahman, and reiterates that charges against him be rescinded, he is released and that he be provided with adequate protection. Further, the Afghani constitution should be amended to provide specific protection for individuals in Mr Rahman's situation. Sadly, application of the penalty of death for the "crime" of apostasy is not limited to Afghanistan, but occurs in other Muslim countries.
Further FMC invokes the doctrine of Amaan, and orders the government of Afghanistan to protect him from harm. Failure to meet this obligation, according to Islamic jurisprudence is haram.
FMC will petition the government of Afghanistan, and if necessary submit an amicus curie brief on behalf of Mr Rahman to the Afghani court. FMC would also be willing to present oral submissions to that court.
The Free Muslim Coalition (FMC) applauds the decision of the Afghan Supreme Court to
withdraw charges against Abdul Rahman who was charged with "attacking Islam" for
converting to Christianity. The Afghan government must however ensure Mr. Rahman and his
family's safety or provide him with safe passage to a country which can. Furthermore,
the release of Mr. Rahman must be complemented by constitutional and legislative change
to ensure that the freedom of religion and conscience are preserved, and that no further
prosecutions for apostasy can occur again.
According to Sami El-Behiri, co-founder and Vice President of FMC, the freedom to choose
ones own religion is sacrosanct and must be respected: "When it comes to faith only God
can judge people. Religion is a direct relationship between the person and God and at
the end God will evaluate this relationship".
"Any decision to prosecute violates the freedoms of religion and consciousness
guaranteed by the Quran, Islamic jurisprudence, and international human rights law,"
says Thomas Haidon, chief legal advisor to FMC.
"Article 7 of the Afghan Constitution proclaims that Afghanistan will honor the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and treaties it accedes to. As a signatory to the
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, Afghanistan is legally obliged to
uphold the right of the individual to choose -- and change -- their own religion as set
forth in article 18. Prosecution, as well as any subsequent punishment, places
Afghanistan in violation of international law."
Confirming the Quran's religious freedom guarantees, Islamic scholar, Professor Khaleel
Mohammed, cites several verses, including "There shall be no compulsion in religion: the
right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and
believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer,
Omniscient. [2:256]"
Speaking of Islamic apologists, I found this guy to be particularly infuriating (http://www.planetirf.blogspot.com/) - in that in his article which purports to argue misuse of sharia law in Abdul's case, he actually spends most of his time highlighting the human rights abuses of his own Australian government and the American Guantanamo Bay/Abu Grahib issue.
Someone was unimpressed by the diversionary tactic. Another completely lapped it up and said:
"In both cases, the law is an ass. And I say that anyone who supports Karzai or Howard is a donkey. They are just as bad as each other."
Howard, the Australian Prime Minister, at worst misrepresented Muslims throwing their children overboard in order to gain entry into Australia (they sank their own boat, thereby putting their own children at risk, but multi-cultis don't appreciate nuances like that), and has a policy of detaining asylum seekers until we can be clear they are indeed refugees. Some people think that's 'just as bad' as wanting to tear apart a man for his religious belief.
Western self-critique has reached the point where it's completely lost perspective.
In order to give fair and balanced treatment to the Muslim contention that Rahaman must be killed, I thought it useful to the readers of this site to see what Mufti Ibrahim Desai says is the logic behind killing an apostate. In a prior question of Immam Desai found at http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=7676
Immam Desai was specifically asked:
"How come an apostate is killed in Islamic Shariah but there's no compulsion upon other non-Muslims in the State?"
The mufti responds in his fatwa:
"There are two categories of people mentioned: an apostate and an original non-Muslim. The injunctions of the Shari’ah as supported by the Qur’aan and Hadith that is applicable to both of them differs. In other words, both of them do not fall under the same category.
The first one is an apostate or renegade, i.e. a Muslim person who has turned away from Islam and the second are those who are non-Muslims originally. The law for the first group of people, i.e. renegade is that firstly Islam will be presented once again to him and if he has any doubts or queries then these should be cleared out and he will be given a respite of 3 days. If he accepts Islam again, then fine otherwise he will be killed. This is substantiated by the noble Hadith of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) wherein he explicitly mentions, ‘Whosoever changes his Deen, then kill him’. This only apply to the males. A female renegade will not be killed, rather kept imprisoned until she accepts Islam.
As for the second group, when the Muslims conquer a non-Muslim land, they will first invite those people to Islam because of the narration of ibn Abbaas (Radhiallaahu Anhu), ‘No nation should be fought with until they are called to Islam.’ If the accept, then Muslims will not fight with them. And if they refuse, then they will be asked to pay Jizya (tax), if they refuse, this, then only will the Muslims fight them. This is also substantiated by Qur’aan, ‘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 (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizya (tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.’ (Surah Tawbah Aayat29).
and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best"
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
For myself, I think cross-posting to newsboards is a bad habit. But thank you for your concern that we see this, David.
However, I really think you need to be aware that the opinion expressed here, even if it be sincere, is very much a minority one. I suggest you see what Andrew Bostom says about the matter here. There is also a even fuller and highly scholarly account by Ibn Warraq that was posted at this very site some time ago - you could undoubtedlty find it by googling for it.
David
These press releases are hardly "crowning achievements". The detailed substance of our views have been rejected by most Muslim organisations.
We stand by our position, but as aptly stated above our view is unfortunately a minority view, so no need to crack open that bottle of champagne just yet.
Wa salam
Thomas Haidon
"apparently out of fear for his life with Muslim clerics still demanding his death.... "
...religion of peace; religion of peace; islam is the religion of peace.
Heck, if I keep chanting it over and over again; maybe it will come true? Or, at least I'll brainwash myself into believing it.
...religion of peace; religion of peace; islam is THE religion of peace.
I wouldn't be surprised if this guy's already dead.
A new book from the Social Affairs Unit:
From Rushdie to 7/7: The Radicalisation of Islam in Britain, by Anthony McRoy.
I've no idea whether the book is any good, what line the author takes, or even who he is. But, for what it's worth, here is the announcement:
http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000851.php
Melanie Phillips also has a new book due out:
Londonistan.
It's interesting to see two new books on the situation in the UK. My feeling is that the electorate over there may very soon decide that it has been deceived by the government, the political class in general, and the media. And it may very well want to punish the government for having closed its eyes to the threat for so long. I don't think the current administration will get another term.
I think things are moving and are getting past the point at which European or American governments can continue to deceive themselves or the public. Robert's two items below on Denis Prager and Meir Amit ably make the point that there is a very real threat, and pretending it's not there is just not good enough.
David Craig--would you be residing in the 20th state?
Mr Haidon, I appreciate your frank assessment of the effect and influence your statement has. Best of luck in your efforts, we all stand to gain by them if they ever gain traction.
"Abdul Rahman must be killed. Islam demands it," said senior Cleric Faiez Mohammed
I think that it is odd that a "senior Cleric" doesn't know that his "religion" is one of peace and tolerance.
You would think that a "senior Cleric" would have a better grasp of his own religion. Clearly he hasn't been receiving the State Dept memos.
But I am not worried I am sure CAIR is on the phone right straightening this "senior Cleric" out.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HC28Df01.html
The message ....has not gotten through to the mobs in Afghanistan still howling for Abdul Rahman's blood. Now why is that?
The answer is that Islam is a religion of intolerance. BTW, it has actually been proved therapeutic to say: "Islam is a religion of intolerance." Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, Moslems and even atheists are saying that repeating the phrase "Islam is a religion of intolerance" is therapeutic.
In fact, the monks in Tibet are chanting it and the chant "Islam is a religion of intolerance" echoes and reverberates through the monestaries there. They say the chant is like a more specific intonation of "ohm," and according to the monks chanting "Islam is a religion of intolerance" brings great peace.
"Islam is a religion of intolerance...Islam is a religion of intolerance...Islam is a religion of intolerance...Islam is a religion of intolerance..."
Even skeptics are being persuaded....
Quote - ...hundreds of clerics, students and others chanting "Death to Christians!" ... "Abdul Rahman must be killed. Islam demands it," said senior Cleric Faiez Mohammed... Unquote
And I really thought that islam was the "religion or peace" (sarcasm dripping down the screen) - but I guess it is really the "cult of pieces"
There's been some sort of mistake. The "Death to Christians" chant actually occured in Hollywood and on university campuses.
The Free Muslim Coalition consists of a half-dozen people. Thomas Haidon, who used to post here quite often, is aware of how small the group is. His posting above expresses some doubts, and hints at still others, about the organization.
After his repeated expressions of doubts and soul-searching, and his obvious disagreement with so much that is central, not tangential, to Islam, one wonders what it is that makes him continue to call himself a Muslim, for his Islam, at this point, is really his own private Islam, a mythical Islam, an Islam that he wishes existed and that others agreed with but the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira beg to differ, and so do a billion Believers, judging by their attitudes, demonstrated by both words and by silence. Or if their attitudes are different, but they are fearful of expressing them, that too tells us something important about Islam. One would have thought that at this point the only coherent thing to do would be for Haidon to call himself a "Muslim-for-identification-purposes" Muslim who still, for whatever reason -- embarrassment, fear of retaliation (once you are lured in, you cannot easily get out) -- feels compelled to pretend he is a Muslim .
He is not impressed, apparently, with the very Free Muslim Coalition that issues a statement identifying him, Tom Haidon, as their legal advisor. What's going on here? And what is the Free Muslim Coalition, if not a vehicle for the promotion, or self-promotion, of Kamal Nawash, who has political ambitions, who no doubt solicits and receives funds for this impressive-sounding Free Muslim Coalition, but who managed to turn out, at a ballyhooed "Muslim Rally Against Terrorism" last year a mere two dozen people, most of them non-Muslims. Why take this seriously?
Why should one pay attention to a group that is so small as to be nearly mythical, and that appears to exist mainly for the sake of its self-appointed leader?
It would be curious to find out what prevents Tom Haidon from leaving Islam, from making a break over the north wall, while the warden isn't looking. Or is the warden always looking?
The Beauty of this story, like so many others coming forward now, such as the cartoon fury are getting wings so that western societies can begin to see the true face of Islam.
The term "The religion of peace" coined by a Muslim who had the ear of the President on 9-11 rings more and more hollow with every passing day. The MSM can no longer hold the dam back from bursting with the truth about fundamental Islam any more. The Bush haters will have to eventually wake up to what their real enemy is.
Any enemy driven by a fully encompassing totalitarian ideology that hates freedom,denegrates women, practices antisemitism against all religions that are not Muslim and kills in the name of Allah who ever forsakes their religion.
We fought a war to liberate this country from the Talaban, but has anything really changed? No just the faces and the names only.
They are undeserving of our support, let them fall back into the wasteland of the tenth century, let us move on to support those who appreciate and respect western freedoms and culture.
Let's see,,,,hundreds of clerics..Hmmmm. Here in LA thats not much of a protest. Try 500,000 illegal immigrants and their supporters march on city hall last Saturday. We sold out our country for cheap: burgers, lawn mowing, crop picking, and domestic work, over crowded schools, and closed emergency rooms. With motor voter, most of those guys are voting. Its over, game, set, match.
I hate to think how many OTM's are here in Osama's 5th column. Our new idea of Homeland Security is amnesty and "guest" workers. Good luck to the rest of you in the rest of the country.
"White House chief of staff Andy Card has resigned and will be replaced by budget director Joshua Bolten, President Bush announced Tuesday amid growing calls for a White House shakeup and Republican concern about Bush's tumbling poll ratings."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/28/bush.shakeup.ap/index.html
The Free Muslim Coalition: Furthermore, the Qur'an proclaims that Jews and Christians are accorded the protected status of ahl-al kitab or People of the Book:
If the people who are considered ahl-al kitab by Muslims are treated the way of Mr. Rahman, one can only wonder at the treatment to be meted out to those who are not considered ahl-al kitab, i.e. the dreaded 'idol worshippers' such as Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists etc.
I'm with patriot on this. I hope the special forces were waiting at the gate for his release.
I hope he's well.
Getting out of town was the right thing to do, if he actually got out of town. How do you get released from jail in Afghanistan? They just push you out a side door, into a crowd of well-wishers? Do they take you to the border and drop you off, into a crowd of well-wishers? Just how did Rahman 'vanish'? I dont think we will ever see or hear from him again. ..
"Rahman must be killed, islam demands it," so said cleric mo. "The Christian foreigners occuping afghanistan, are attacking our religion." He's totaly right. Just the other day, I (being a Christian) spit on an islamofascist. (disclaimer,)KIDDING!
“The Qur’an guarantees” to be consistently inconsistent!
Well, there is nothing fear, as long as Moslems don’t consider you a “wrongdoer”, good luck on that.
PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers. 002.193
PICKTHAL: They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then can do aught against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? Allah's is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He createth what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things. 005.017
In one verse we are lumped in with believers, then I guess a little later, Allah changed his mind! Nothing to fear indeed.
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.005.051
YUSUFALI: And those of the People of the Book who aided them - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners. 033.026
YUSUFALI: It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah's: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself: for Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things). 008.017
YUSUFALI: Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly): they will never frustrate (them). 008.059
YUSUFALI: Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly. 008.060
YUSUFALI: O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding. 008.065
Judgement belongs to God alone, but then it wasn’t you who shot them, it was Allah! It wasn’t you who blew them up, it was Allah!
That lovely “protected” status, as if I should be thankful to Allah for mercifully granting me second class citizenship.
Ironically all of us infidels need protection from this impulsive Allah and his “Islamic protectors”.
Welcome to the consistently inconsistent “Noble” Qur’an.
"Furthermore, the Qur'an proclaims that Jews and Christians are accorded the protected status of ahl-al kitab or People of the Book..."
-- from the statement of the Free Muslim Coalition above
"Protected status" -- yes, "protected" from the Muslims themselves. Allowed to live, unlike those who were not declared to be ahl al-kitab, but to live as dhimmis. By failing to spell this out, perhaps the 5-6 people who have lent their names to this grand-sounding "Free Muslim Coalition" may think they will somehow call into existence millions of Muslims who will all agree to misinterpret, simultaneously, for their own sakes in the first place (if they live in the Lands of the Infidels, and wish to protect their own position), what the status of non-Muslims under Islam is supposed to be, and for most of the 1350 years of Islam's history, has been.
This kind of statement will not only not convince Muslims. In that regard, it is useless. What it will do, however, is help to keep a large number of Infidels unwary, wishing to believe that there is a great deal of variety within Islam, that there is a reformist ferment (a non-existent ferment), and that any day now we shall have that grand reformation and transfiguration of Islam, that will make all things come right. So we needn't be alarmists; we needn't worry. The Muslim "moderates" will take care of the "immmoderate" Muslims. We just have to keep shoveling money and all kinds of support into the waitinig maws of those "reformists" and those who, while not Muslims, have seen how the "moderate Muslims is the solution" idea can help them, too, pray still more grant money from the foundations. It's a soothing idea, a plausible idea.
What foundation is going to support someone who says that his project is to figure out ways to force Muslims to make the connection between the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of their societies and Islam itself? Not, at this point, conceivable. So the support goes to the text-less "reformers" and the "moderate Muslims are the solution" promoters.
Nothing has changed in Afghanistan. The "law & order authorities" did nothing to protect Abdul Rahman, and they probably told the bloodthirsty mob where they could pick him up upon his release. We dropped the ball too, because our armed forces could have been ordered to take custody of him, but we didn't.
What are we doing there? Nothing has changed. Tyranny and death still reign in Afghanistan. The deadly syndrome of islam infests the land, unabated.
Thomas Haidon and David Craig,
On one level I cannot fault an effort to do good. Unfortunately, trying to use the Islamic texts to argue for this man's (Rahman's) safety isn't going to work. They can get him for apostacy and if that doesn't work they can execute him for sedition, war against God, corruption on earth, or any number of trumped up charges revealed by the man who said he had been gifted with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings. If that doesn't work for them, they'll release him before security can be arranged and he'll be killed by an ordinary Afghan. (The Koran instructs Muslims not to follow any laws except Allah's). And if a vigilante jihadist does kill him, there is no penalty in Islam for killing an apostate. This whole thing is a matter of interpretation, and the hard-liners simply have more support from the texts on this one.
Why not avoid the whole interpretation problem and focus on appealing to separation of religion and state? Argue for Islam as a personal matter of belief/worship and get it out of the state's affairs. Afghanistan's constitution is still transitional. It is subject to change. We need to use international pressure to force these changes (and they are major) and reduce the political and legal role of Islam. If we don't, justice will always be in the hands of powerful people who consult those "shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings."
I don't want to get into a technical debate here about all those verses, but surely you realize that most of them are either abrogated, or have a different meaning when more of the text is included, or do not pertain with any force to the issue of abandoning Islam? Here is an article by MA Khan on apostacy
http://www.islam-watch.org/MA_Khan/AfghanApostate.htm
and some extensive notes that I've added.
http://islamwatch.forumup.in/viewtopic.php?t=246&mforum=islamwatch
You claim in the Free Muslims letter above that there are only two traditions pertaining to the killing of apostates and that both of these involved additional crimes (treason, sedition). I'd be interested to see the evidence to support that those executed had done anything other than simply "abandon Islam". I also question the claim that these policies were historically-bound. Here is a report which seems to apply for all time (it refers to the future) and to my knowledge the apostates mentioned have not done anything other than abandon Islam.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 808 (also Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64):
Narrated 'Ali:
I relate the traditions of Allah's Apostle to you for I would rather fall from the sky than attribute something to him falsely. But when I tell you a thing which is between you and me, then no doubt, war is guile. I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "In the last days of this world there will appear some young foolish people who will use (in their claim) the best speech of all people (i.e. the Qur'an) and they will abandon Islam as an arrow going through the game. Their belief will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have practically no belief), so wherever you meet them, kill them, for he who kills them shall get a reward on the Day of Resurrection."
If you reject these reports, then there is plenty of material in the Koran that is cited in my suggested links.
"On Monday, hundreds of clerics, students and others chanting "Death to Christians!" marched..."
Imagine if, after their embassies were burned, hundreds of Danish clergy, students and others had marched chanting "Death to Muslims" or, after the riots, hundreds of French priests, students etc. or Americans after September 11, had demanded "Death to Muslims"...
How fast the outcry and condemnation of Islamophobia would permeate the Western elites and fall from the lips of Bush, Rice, Blair and others.
So, where is the outcry against Christophobia by Karzai, Musharraf and other Muslim leaders?
I guess we'll hear their apologies soon... and... then again... monkeys might fly out my butt!
In the UK you get the sign posters saying that Bush is the Terrorist.
Totally ignoring the state of Afghanistan under the Taliban, and all the trenches in Iraq, dug by Uday, Saddam's son.
The big argument is that Osama was not in Iraq - therefore we should not have attacked it. But a group calling themselves al Qaeda just took down some of the tallest buildings in the world. What would that have inspired others to do? Like Saddam Hussein who wanted to attack the US, if we would have left him in charge of his country, already no respecter of international norms, what would he have stewed in that pot? What chemical combinations would have been created between himself and a radical alliance?
We had to prevent the chances of this. We have to accept that our freedom depends also on others respecting it - either as friends or alliances or through military deterrent.
That is what Bush is doing.
Yes, Bush uses force, but it is the outcome, which defines his actions from that of the terrorist.
After setting up Afghanistan - we are all trying to save the life of one man - who the Islamic world would have turned their back on.
What Bush does understand is the fundamentals - the right of self determination - and this is what most in the Islamic world don’t have a clue about.
They should call Bush ‘Cyrus the Great’ – when he took over countries in and around Persia – they thanked and welcomed him, because he was a fair.
The Muslims should remember Cyrus, he wrote the first charter of human rights for that very region – which seems to have been forgotten in time.
The Cyrus Cylinder
“The declaration is widely regarded as the "first charter of human rights", it includes the call for the abolition of slavery worldwide and for the freedom of choice of profession, it also declares that the Persian Empire freely lets the people practice there own religious beliefs all concepts were unusual for the time.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Cylinder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great
I read on Michelle Malkin's site that Abdul left the jail in the company of his family, the same family that turned him in for his conversion. Not good. He is in a catch-22. If he surfaces in another country with asylum to let the world see he's okay (and give the islamic world the proverbial finger), he will continue to be hunted. If he is never seen again, the world couldn't hold his escape from all aspects of islam as a triumph for freedom. On a sad note, if he is killed, I think islamists would parade his defiled body around.
Maybe there is some hope.
God speed, Abdul.
Hey guys I'm Amit (22) from Israel, nice to finally comment here after reading this great resource for knowledge and enlightenment about the world as it is today...
I'll do my best to contribute the debates here which I find fascinating (excuse my English and possible spelling mistakes:).
it actually reminds me the debates in Ynet hebrew news site talk backs, only in English.
about the Dhimmah status - its another aparatus of Islamic war against Dar-El-Harb as you probably know. Of course the muslim paraphrasing of it as "protected Status" is rediculous - the reality of it is of state and law-based mechanism not even cunningly disguised, to slowly "suck the life" out of native non-muslim populations, be it in an Islamic country or otherwise (europe for instance).
There is just a delay factor until the killing of the dhimmi in order to preserve thier lives, in case they are needed for slavery, marriage, sexual abuse, money, information etc.
Declaring a dhimmah status on anything or anyone is possible and recommended for any muslim - man or a woman.
Welcome to the site, Amit.
Pass it along to eveyone you know.
Shalom, (is that the correct usage?)
No_Mooselimbs
thanks mooselimbs... Shalom is good. also "Bye" in spoken hebrew (hehe).
I think most of us (jews,Israely) are learning all about Islam from everyday life, and certainly debates similar to those in JW is a part of it - in the street with friends, family dinners in Shabat, and the evening news.
Still there's alot more to do in this almost life and death field of knowledge - know your enemy and all that...
anyway I've converted atlist 5 lasy dopehead students like moi to JW and LGF.... :-)
Way to go, Amit. If only each of us could 'convert' five 'dhimmi-witted' people to JW/DW we would be well on our way to addressing the threat (on all of us) from Islam. BTW did you know that Amit is also a Hindu name (means 'endless' in Sanskrit)?
I welcome you too, Amit. You are literally on the battle-front of the war against tyrannical islam, and I hope you are encouraged by this blog's message. I'm certainly glad it's here.
The meretriciousness of Khaled Abou el Fadl comes from his deliberate focus on the Qur'an. Even if one were to accept his carefully hedged phrasing, about how the Qur'an does not explicitly call for apostates to be killed, that leaves out a good deal. It leaves out the importance of the Hadith. It leaves out the killing, as recorded in the Sira, of people who had followed Muhammad, and then had stopped following him, and as a result were killed. It leaves out the fact that the Sunna (which is derived from the contents of the Hadith -- the deeds, sayings, even the silences, of Muhammad -- and the Sira, the details of Muhammad's life, which offer a model of exemplary conduct, for Muhammad is uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil.
Promoting this phony facade, and preventing Infidels from acquiring a real understanding of Islam (by listing "Books You Should Not Read" and putting on that list Joseph Schacht, Ibn Warraq, and many other scholars of Islam), is Khaled Abou El Fadl's method. Google "Khaled Abou el Fadl" and "scholar of the house" and "Jihad Watch" for more on this model apologist.
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2006/03/29/us.deplores.jolo.bombing.arroyo.orders.probe.html
completely vanished...
maybe it's the rapture.
this gives the lie to the whole "no compulsion of religion" thing. i understand this all started as part of a child custody fight. does anyone know what became of his kids?
john
http://www.attackcartoons.com
Amit...First of all welcome to the website that tells all how peaceful Islam really is!
Question..What is the tone in Israel at the moment of the whacko in Iran? Is your military ready to wipe the scum off the face of the Earth yet?
If the Washington Post is finally waking up, there just might be hope for us yet.
Way to go WP, it's about time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/27/AR2006032701299.html
There is a small related story at the Sydney Morning Herald:
Laws our business, says Afghan envoy
Afghan Ambassador Mohammad Anwar Anwarzai insists that the death sentence for apostasy is in accordance with Islamic law and wants Howard and Blair to keep this issue separate from their military and financial assistance.
Dilemma: If we leave Afghans free to practise their religious faith and that faith enshrines the death sentence for apostasy, are we not thereby aiding and abetting religious intolerance?
"We just have to keep shoveling money and all kinds of support into the waitinig maws of those "reformists" and those who, while not Muslims, have seen how the "moderate Muslims is the solution" idea can help them, too, pray still more grant money from the foundations. It's a soothing idea, a plausible idea."
Hugh:
why not just continue ask intelligent, insightful questions about what the realities of reform really are, and how moderates plan to implement them? Delicate probes so finely composed that they can't help but transmit from lip to lip?
this kind of donation would greatly benefit Muslims who are serious about working against jihad, while cutting off financial support for lip-service reformers. Robert already donates more than questions with his actual suggestions on the main site.
hey guys - sorry for not posting back, just coming back from voting (its election day today)...
Razdan - No I didn't but it's nice to know. And "endless" is an impressive meaning - way to go Hindus... BTW in Hebrew the word Amity means solidarity, a colleague, and a good friend :-).
thanks Yohan - the message, I think, is most of all of clear and healthy reasonable thinking and judging of world affairs.
hey sciliano - in Israel usually we take these things lightly when some Islamic leader start to babble things, cause we are so used to it. It happened numerous times before, same dog breath in our face, but heck - you can't blame a dog for being a canine....
And sadly but naturally - our "home security" policy is very limited by international interests (mainly coming from EU UK USA) and not freely conducted.
Also - we have crappy politicians as well and our (minority however) own apologists and appeasers, molded in the pattern of European and American multi culturalists. It's a virus - and guess what - they also tend to dwell in Academia and Israeli MSM.
The problem with that Free Muslims Coalition statement posted by David Craig lies somewhat buried, with this assertion:
"During this time period, the Islamic state faced a number of non-Muslim enemies. In our view, application of these particular traditions (as well as traditions of a similar nature that can be interpreted to violate the human rights of Muslim and non Muslim peoples) in the modern Muslim world is misguided, particularly in light of the obligations of Muslim countries to protect universal human rights."
By making this assertion, the Free Muslims Coalition is formally justifying the self-defense of Islam as a political entity that transcends nation-states and whose safety may be threatened by vague dangers posed by non-believers. Why was the "Islamic state" of the days of Mohammed faced with a number of non-Muslim "enemies"? The Free Muslims Coalition does not clarify what other historians argue -- namely, that those "enemies" were people fighting back against, or simply refusing to submit to, offensively expanding Muslims who were attacking non-Muslims simply out of a divinely mandated pothos to expand and conquer territory for God in order to usher in the last days.
The Free Muslims Coalition, by allowing this open-ended loophole, offer no way of refuting Muslims who continue to perceive "enemies" all around them trying to subvert Islam, justifying any number of "defensive" measures.
Notice also the Free Muslims Coalition's use of the term "Islamic state" to describe Mohammed's coalition of Muslims as it expanded militarily to gain more and more territory. The Free Muslims Coalition is implicitly accepting the traditional fusion of religion and state by using this phrase.
The Free Muslims Coalition also implicitly accepts this designation for worldwide Islam today: it is an "Islamic state" or "nation" that transcends all other nation-states, and fuses the political, legal, military and religious spheres of existence. That is the problem that has to be deconstructed, not reaffirmed, as the Free Muslims Coalition is doing. Until the Free Muslims Coalition formally renounces the principle of the self-defense of Islam (and entrusts self-defense in the hands of secular authorities), everything else that organization says will simply have the effect of perpetuating the problem of Islam as it demonstrates its inability to assimilate into the modern world.
From Arizona post:
"Afghan Ambassador Mohammad Anwar Anwarzai insists that the death sentence for apostasy is in accordance with Islamic law and wants Howard and Blair to keep this issue separate from their military and financial assistance."
So, when we defeated Germany, would it have been ok if the Nazis stayed in power and their ambassador said "the death sentence for Jews is in accordance with Nazi law and we want Truman and Churchill to keep this issue separate from their rebuilding efforts.
They are still the enemy. Their ideology is the enemy. Their jihad is the enemy. Their Imams are the enemy. Their actions are the enemy. Their laws are the enemy. Sharia is the enemy. Their constitution is the enemy. Nice job George.
Religion of Peace my arse.
Islam NFR
No Fun Religion
And it could kill you too.
Amit, You have my sincere apologies for any problems my country's government (UK) has caused your people.
Anyone interested in EU-UK-USA tensions may want to take a look at this link:
JSF – "no decisions have been taken".
It's an issue that worries me, because it is part of a larger attempt to pull the UK away from the "Anglosphere" (USA-UK-Australia - and also, perhaps, India) and further into the EU. There are serious worries about "technology leakage" here.
Has a "fatwa" been issued?
We should have just torn the place apart and left.
Same goes for Iraq.
Its like I have said
"You can lead a donkey to water, you can even hold its head under the water. But all thats going to do wear you out and piss off the Jackass."
First off to Mr. Craig, you are sorely wrong and misinformed about Islam. Those verses you posted were abrogated by Later Verses by Muhammad. In Islam a man must be killed if he changes his religion:
Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have KILLED THEM ACCORDING TO THE STATEMENT OF ALLAH'S APOSTLE, 'WHOEVER CHANGED HIS ISLAMIC RELIGION, THEN KILL HIM.'"
Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58:
Narrated Abu Burda:
Abu Musa said, "I came to the Prophet along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash'ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah's Apostle was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet said, 'O Abu Musa (O 'Abdullah bin Qais!).' I said, 'By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.' As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, 'We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or 'Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'" The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "HE WAS A JEW AND BECAME A MUSLIM AND THEN REVERTED BACK TO JUDAISM." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down TILL HE HAS BEEN KILLED. THIS IS THE JUDGMENT OF ALLAH AND HIS APOSTLE (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'"
This shows that Islam doesn't really respect human life despite western propoganda. True Islam demands that you die after accepting and rejecting it. Wouldn't it be more appropriate for God to deal with this person by giving him or her a chance to see that rejecting Islam is detrimental and therefore reembrace it? No.
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." S. 2:62
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." S. 5:69
There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Tâghût {1} and believes in Allâh, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allâh is All-Hearer, All-Knower. S. 2:256
Muslims have attempted to use this abrogated verses to promote the idea of Islam being tolerant of Christianity and Judaism. One way Muslims attempt to reconcile these passages with those that say men of other faiths such as Christianity and Judaism will enter Paradise is through the science of abrogation. According to this Islamic doctrine, Allah revealed certain verses only to be canceled out later by other verses. This is known as nasikh wa mansukh, "the abrogating and the abrogated." Typical of such a view is the following commentary by Muslim translators Hillali-Khan:
"... (V. 2:62) This Verse, (and Verse 5:69) mentioned in the Qur'an should not be misinterpreted by the reader as mentioned by Ibn Abbas... (T. At-Tabari Vol. I, P. 323) that the order of this Verse was canceled by the Verse 3:85... [i.e. after the coming of Prophet Muhammad... on the earth, no other religion except Islam, will be accepted from anyone." (Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D. Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Interpretation of the Meaning of The Noble Quran In the English Language, A Summarized Version of At-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir with comments from Sahih Al-Bukhari, p. 15, f. 2)
And,
"This verse (V. 5:69) and (V. 2:62) should not be misinterpreted by the readers as mentioned by Ibn Abbas (T. At-Tabari, Vol. P. 323) that the order of this Verse was canceled by the (V. 3:85). And after the coming of the Prophet Muhammad... no other religion except Islam will be accepted from anyone." (Ibid, 183, f.)
As you can see, the tolerant verses have been canceled out and are no longer valid.
The Religion before God is Islam (submission to His Will): Nor did the People of the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the Signs of God, God is swift in calling to account. S. 3:19
If anyone desires a religion OTHER THAN ISLAM (submission to God), NEVER WILL IT BE ACCEPTED OF HIM; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good). S. 3:85
According to these passages, no other religion is acceptable to God besides Islam. If this is so, then how can the Quran claim that Christians, Sabians and Jews who do good and believe in the last day shall enter Paradise seeing that they do not believe in the religion of Islam? They can’t enter paradise, and they go to hell as Muhammad himself said in this authentic Hadith tradition:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
During the lifetime of the Prophet some people said, : O Allah's Apostle! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" The Prophet said, "Yes; do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun at midday when it is bright and there is no cloud in the sky?" They replied, "No." He said, "Do you have any difficulty in seeing the moon on a full moon night when it is bright and there is no cloud in the sky?" They replied, "No." The Prophet said, "(Similarly) you will have no difficulty in seeing Allah on the Day of Resurrection as you have no difficulty in seeing either of them. On the Day of Resurrection, a call-maker will announce, "Let every nation follow that which they used to worship." THEN NONE OF THOSE WHO USED TO WORSHIP ANYTHING OTHER THAN ALLAH like idols AND OTHER DEITIES but will fall in Hell (Fire), till there will remain none but those who used to worship Allah, both those who were obedient (i.e. good) and those who were disobedient (i.e. bad) and the remaining party of the people of the Scripture. THEN THE JEWS will be called upon and it will be said to them, 'Who do you use to worship?' They will say, 'We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'YOU ARE LIARS, FOR ALLAH HAS NEVER TAKEN ANYONE AS A WIFE OR A SON. What do you want now?' They will say, 'O our Lord! We are thirsty, so give us something to drink.' They will be directed and addressed thus, 'Will you drink,' whereupon THEY WILL BE GATHERED UNTO HELL (FIRE) which will look like a mirage whose different sides will be destroying each other. Then they will fall into the Fire. AFTERWARDS THE CHRISTIANS WILL BE CALLED upon and it will be said to them, 'Who do you use to worship?' THEY WILL SAY, 'WE USED TO WORSHIP JESUS, THE SON OF ALLAH.' It will be said to them, 'YOU ARE LIARS, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son,' Then it will be SAID TO THEM, 'What do you want?' They will say what the FORMER PEOPLE have said. Then, when there remain (in the gathering) NONE BUT THOSE WHO USED TO WORSHIP ALLAH (ALONE, the real Lord of the Worlds) WHETHER THEY WERE OBEDIENT OR DISOBEDIENT. Then (Allah) the Lord of the worlds will come to them in a shape nearest to the picture they had in their minds about Him. It will be said, 'What are you waiting for?' Every nation have followed what they used to worship.' They will reply, 'We left the people in the world when we were in great need of them and we did not take them as friends. Now we are waiting for our Lord Whom we used to worship.' Allah will say, 'I am your Lord.' They will say twice or thrice, 'We do not worship any besides Allah.' " (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 105)
As you can clearly see, Christians and Jews go to hell particularly for believing in the Son of God according to Muhammad and Islam.
Narrated 'Aisha and 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas:
When the last moment of the life of Allah's Apostle came he started putting his 'Khamisa' on his face and when he felt hot and short of breath he took it off his face and said, "MAY ALLAH CURSE THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets." The Prophet was warning (Muslims) of what those had done. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 427)
While in the Quran we find this:
And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. THEY IMITATE THE SAYING OF THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE OF OLD. ALLAH (HIMSELF) FIGHTETH AGAINST THEM (Arabic: qaatalahumu llahu anna yu'fakoona-- Literally-May Allah KILL THEM). HOW PERVERSE ARE THEY! S. 9:30
As you can see, the tolerant verses were abrogated and Muslims are commanded to kill Christians if they converted from Islam. Learn the Quran and not just rely on Muslim propagandists!
Archimedes:
the frontpage of the Islam-watch website contains, right on the bottom corner, lies a bright-red "Islamist Corner" with following "Call to jihad":
http://www.islam-watch.org/Others/JihadCall.htm?
The text of this article contains makes the same inflammatory statements found on jihadi websites round the world. the article finishes with:
"As a first step each Muslim who receives this call to jihad is asked to make copies and distribute them widely to their Muslim brothers and sisters. Every Muslim in the world must hear this call."
This site is claiming to be founded by ex-Muslims?
who are opposed to jihad? so this is posted in bright red on the front page of their website, where it's most likely to be seen???? the only thing that's positive about the message is that it calls for mental, as opposed to violent, jihad.
The article states:
" We must know who and what is the enemy. It is important to realize that not all things of the Western world and not all people from Western culture are evil. There are many good things offered through Western knowledge, technology and medicine. There are many good people in Western nations trying to live right lives. These things and these people are not our enemy; they also are victims of Western secular materialism".
yet it still calls for jihad, and is posted on their front page of the website, without an ounce of criticism or contextual debate from the editors. So if you refer Muslims to this site you are basically helping the authors of that article to propogate the meme of jihad.
Archimedes, please think carefully about that's what you want to do or not.
I sincerely do not think the world needs a jihad-to-the-death of "Islam" vs. "Western secular values", even if the battle is only mental, and metaphorical. I am puzzled as to why "ex-Muslims" would put such a call on their site.
Welcome Amit!
I receive daily e-mail's from Israel National News, and this mornings headlines stated that the "Knesset had a record low turnout", so I'm pleased to hear to voted. Any word on who has won?
Greetings all
Hugh
I am just curious as to why, everytime I make a posting, you feel the need to engage in a personal attack. My posting was completely innocous, yet you want to again classify me as a confused young man who had no idea what he was going into. Again, as I have attempted to explain to you before, I came into Islam with my eyes fully wide open. I was aware of all of the difficulties. And for the record, I am a devout Muslim, not merely a "Muslim for identification purposes only". If I did not believe, I would leave Islam. For all intents and purposes I am a "constructive" apostate and guilty of what Qaradawi would call intellectual apostasy.
Your further comments about FMC are unfortunately true. We get a great deal of press from Fox news, etc, but at the end of the day our Muslim membership is laughable.
Archimedes
Really good question. I struggled with this. In the context of Rahman, in order to be persuasive we need to use Islamic law (as weak as our argument is). Reformers are failing today, partially because we are not strategic enough and shoot ourselves in the foot. OF course, the only way forward is the complete separation of Islam from the state, ie marginalising Islam to the person.
I am familiar with Nansakh. I do not subscribe to it. I think Mohammed al Ghazali's view on abrogation is instructive
http://www.geocities.com/forpeoplewhothink/Topics/Abrogation_in_the_Quran.html.
(And I don't adoctae everything he says by the way!) Abrogation is another man made concept, just like the Sunnah. I of course acknowledge as I have before this si a minority view. But it nonethless is a view that keeps me Muslim.
Regards
TH
This Haidon character needs to pen a comprensive manifesto addressing all points. Cherrypicking will not do with such a vital, important issue as this. Haidon and the organization he belongs to are not to be taken seriously until all questions and misgivings are addressed in a satisfactory manner.
From this "Haidon character"
You don't need to advise me as a Muslim, who is often considered an apostate for the views I hold, how serious of an issue this is. Some of us live it every day, sticking our necks on the line while you sit on your ass behind the computer all day.
Our view of the matter is simple, and again a minority view. We believe the Qur'an is the pure source of Islam. The hadith collection of the Sunnis came into their final nearly 200 years after the Prophet. The so called compilers of hadith had no way of knowing if the hadith actually came from the narrator or not. Instead , they relied on either oral and written reports. As for the use of reason, there is very little or none. Some hadith exhibit an utter disregard for reason and blatant contradiction to the Quran itself. Furthermore, hadeeth collections have so many classifications by so many scholars, it's impossible to accept any hadeeth, since even Sahih al-bukhari , 'the second most correct book after the Book of Allah' according to sunnis are found with hadith which have been reclassified.
Apsostasy is a clear example of this. While we are a secular group, we believe that in order for the death penalty to be effected for apostasy, an act of apostasy must be coupled with treason or sedition. Keep in mind that during the Prophet's time, when people left Islam, this often meant that they were also joining and actually physically fighting alongside Islam's enemies. To argue otherwise is to reject the Qur'an.
And as far as nasakh or abrogation goes, it is hardly settled law. Read the article I cited above.
Muslims for centuries have viewed the Qur'an in Sunnah sunglasses, not the other way around. Muslims have followed the words of men, not Allah. Contextualist Qur'anic exegesis without the use of the man made Muslim tradition, will help resolve these issues. The man made apostasy laws however make these prinicples nearly impossible to promulgate however.
Regards
TH
Jehana,
Islam-Watch is a good site. That jihadist article there is rather like the examples Robert presents on this site from the hate mail bag. It doesn't represent the views of the site (please read the site's mission statement and look at their op-eds). The site focusses on criticism of hard-line Islam. They do publish, some articles by some progressive reformist-minded Muslims, but the focus is on articles by ex-Muslims.
Thomas,
"Reformers are failing today, partially because we are not strategic enough and shoot ourselves in the foot."
I believe reformers need to simply try to get into positions of power--teachers, Islamic university administrators, jurists, clerics, political leaders. Some amount of argumentation is needed, but until reformers actually occupy these positions in significant numbers, we won't see changes.
Re: Focussing on Islamic law, one can certainly attempt the arguments which you are using, but I believe it is dangerous territory because as long as the Koran is used, there remains a strong case for execution for simple apostacy.
I think in the short term it may be easier to get changes in the Afghan constitution which is still in provisional or transitional state. What better time to get those changes than now? If this apostacy case doesn't force the issue, what will?
Re Abrogation (2:106, 16:101)
In interpreting the Koran, even if we put aside the issue of abrogation, the reader is still faced with essentially the same problem: How to reconcile and make sense out of all of those different verses. For example, how does one reconcile 2:256 with 49:14-17 (below), and so on, without truly stretching the meaning of 'no compulsion'? (not to mention 9:5--'convert or die' is the policy!). To reconcile such differences requires a certain amount of inventiveness, a certain amount of licence on the reader's part. For all practical purposes, the reader must engage in some partial abrogations (i.e., adjustmets to favour one interpretation over the other) to try and extract a consistent message.
49:14 The wandering Arabs say: We believe. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Ye believe not, but rather say "We submit," for the faith hath not yet entered into your hearts. Yet, if ye obey Allah and His messenger, He will not withhold from you aught of (the reward of) your deeds. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
49:15 The (true) believers are those only who believe in Allah and His messenger and afterward doubt not, but strive with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah. Such are the sincere.
49:16 Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Would ye teach Allah your religion, when Allah knoweth all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, and Allah is Aware of all things ?
49:17 They make it a favour unto thee (Muhammad) that they have surrendered (unto Him). Say: Deem not your Surrender a favour unto me; but Allah doth confer a favour on you, inasmuch as He hath led you to the Faith, if ye are earnest.
Haidon
"You don't need to advise me as a Muslim, who is often considered an apostate for the views I hold, how serious of an issue this is. Some of us live it every day, sticking our necks on the line while you sit on your ass behind the computer all day."
That doesn't mean you are doing productive things. It evidently doesn't mean you are doing things that will convince us Infidel skeptics. What would be a nice first step is to address all the points that disturb us, not just a few cherrypicked points.
"Our view of the matter is simple, and again a minority view. We believe the Qur'an is the pure source of Islam."
This doesn't address the problems the Koran itself has, which we (on Jihad Watch and elsewhere) have cited many, many times, with no satisfactory responses from any Muslims, moderates, reformists, or otherwise.
"The hadith collection of the Sunnis came into their final nearly 200 years after the Prophet. The so called compilers of hadith had no way of knowing if the hadith actually came from the narrator or not. Instead , they relied on either oral and written reports. As for the use of reason, there is very little or none. Some hadith exhibit an utter disregard for reason and blatant contradiction to the Quran itself. Furthermore, hadeeth collections have so many classifications by so many scholars, it's impossible to accept any hadeeth..."
Good luck convincing the majority of Muslims out there to abandon the hadiths, and then to accept a bowdlerized Koran that has to be humiliated by submitting to the modern West's views on human rights, the separation of church & state, the privatization of religion, and the dignity of skepticism and self-criticism.
"even Sahih al-bukhari , 'the second most correct book after the Book of Allah' according to sunnis "
I think that al-Kortobi is #1 in the Sunni world. But that's beside the point that an Islam without the hadiths is not only unrealistic and practically speaking untenable, but in addition still too disturbing to us informed Infidels.
"While we are a secular group, we believe that in order for the death penalty to be effected for apostasy, an act of apostasy must be coupled with treason or sedition."
This is unacceptable in the modern world. No religion should be allowed to formulate, justify and enforce "treason" and "sedition". That should be only, utterly and strictly in the hands of secular authorities. Period. End of story. If you try to defend such a concept otherwise, you are out of the pale. Good night, and good luck in your minority twilight wilderness ostracized by both the majority Muslims and the modern West.
patriot2: Some verses of the Holy Koran are more perfect than others. :)
Thomas -
You may be hardpressed to find a sympathetic ear towards your views of Islam here on JW.
The name "Jihad Watch" should tell you something about the kind of feedback you're going to get form those who visit this site. 911 changed EVERYTHING about the way the world views Islam; so I'm afraid the burden-of-proof that Islam is "peaceful" weighs heavenly in your minority corner. Good luck!
And please try to be a little more sympathetic yourself!
Archimedes
You are right using usul al fiqh to fight Islamists is dangerous territory, but necessary.
The changes in the Afghan Constitution are necessary, especially the article which states that no law shall be inconsistent with shariah. This provision just renders everything meaningless.
Yes the Quran is still problematic. This requires new tafsir developed by people who matter. What sort of exegetical approaches could we use to reconcile the verses you cite? I'm not sure. But I suspect that it must involve in separating messages to mankind from those directives to the Prophet and understanding the historical context. Also, Meccan and medinan verses as you know have a completely different historical context, one is violent and one is less so.
To date, no scholars havereally attempted a project aimed at this. It is my hope that the religious leadershiop of FMC could begin to do this. To gain any credibility however in the Muslim world this approach must be developed by someone trained in the classical rules. We need a credible scholar to be able to do this. There are a couple, but they seem unwilling to do this. Why is the important question.
Television
Again, we are secular, we believe in absolute separation of mosque and state. I was not defending Islamic law, I was trying to interpret Islamic law in order to find a way of freedom for MR Rahman. In interceding on behalf of Mr Rahman it was necessary to use Islamic law.
And as far as rejecting hadith, it is quite simple. It is not revelation. Islam prides itself on being pure revelational truth. Clearly hadith are just collections of stories written down 200 years after the Prophet died. It should be a matter of common sense that when compared to the Qur'an, the hadith should have minimal if any relevance. But, scholars rule Islam. They make the laws. For centuries, anyone who uses itjihad (independent legal reasoning) in rendering legal opinions has been castigated and some have been killed, because the door is apparently closed on itjihad.
Thanks so much for telling me what Jihad Watch is about champ. For your information I have been a staunch supporter of this site and its work for a couple of years now. But again thanks.
Thanks also for telling me about the impact of 9/11... I had no idea. FYI, I lost friends from Morgan Stanley on that day, so I don't need the reminder.
I'm not looking for a sympathetic ear. I don't want people to relent in their criticism of Islam, it should be criticised. Islam, if it ever changes, will only do so under relenting pressure. My engagement in this discussion arose, when someone quoted a press release that I was involved in.
Haidon,
You seemed to contradict yourself, in a comment you made to Archimedes -- "Yes the Quran is still problematic. This requires new tafsir developed by people who matter..."
-- then to me: "And as far as rejecting hadith, it is quite simple. It is not revelation. Islam prides itself on being pure revelational truth. Clearly hadith are just collections of stories written down 200 years after the Prophet died. It should be a matter of common sense that when compared to the Qur'an, the hadith should have minimal if any relevance."
Why should Mr. Haidon's personal tafsir as implied in your comment to Archimedes be any less "minimal" in relevance than those by such august and learned religious scholars as ibn-Katheer, Bukhari, al-Kortobi, etc. etc. etc.?
As for your protestations that "we are secular, we believe in absolute separation of mosque and state", I ask you point-blank: do you believe that the concepts of "treason" and "sedition" should be legally relevant in the purview of religion, or should not be legally relevant in the purview of religion? Do you believe that physically violent self-defense should be in the realm of religion, or should rather be only in the realm of the secular state and its law enforcement personnel under secular laws?
Separating mosque and state is all fine and dandy, but the proof of the pudding is just where you cut the cake (to mix metaphors).
From Michelle Malkin's blog:
"ABDUL RAHMAN: SAFE FOR NOW"
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004865.htm
Greetings Television
You wrote:
Why should Mr. Haidon's personal tafsir as implied in your comment to Archimedes be any less "minimal" in relevance than those by such august and learned religious scholars as ibn-Katheer, Bukhari, al-Kortobi, etc. etc. etc.?
I might be a bit lost here , but I'll try.
Tafsir is the exegesis/commentary of the Qur'an (ie putting the Qur'an into some sort of a "moderate" context if one exists), and I don't think your analogy works. The problem I have with the books of Bukhari and the others, is that they may not (and I hope they are not) genuine. Hadith were written down TWO HUNDERED YEARS after the Prophet died. It is not revelation, yet Muslims perceive a dulaity between Quran and Sunnah.
But a tafsir is diiferent, it can provide modern insight into the Quran. Hadith simply cannot. (I might have missed the point of your question, I think)
A new tafsir by people who matter (moderate Islamic scholars)
You wrote:
Do you believe that the concepts of "treason" and "sedition" should be legally relevant in the purview of religion, or should not be legally relevant in the purview of religion? Do you believe that physically violent self-defense should be in the realm of religion, or should rather be only in the realm of the secular state and its law enforcement personnel under secular laws?
No. I do not. As a secular Muslim, Islam should have no official or unoffical role in government and must uphold international human right instruments. But keep in mind that any state, secular or not, has laws on the books that punish actual treason or sedition including the United States and other Western powers. Of course, treason and sedition in the US have toatlly different meanings than in Musliom countries. In Muslim countries treason and sedition merely constitutes "defaming Islam" or what they call fitnah. So within the context of Islam, or the Muslim state, I do not support executions. But let's be realistic here, while a Muslim state is not a valid government in my view, it is a government. If a person actually committed an act of treason (the US or Western definition), one would be hard pressed to tell that government they could not punish someone who commits it. But this has nothing to do with apostasy.
What you are really asking, is do I find the exercise of Jihad acceptable? I do not. If there were a group of indivuiduals however who lacked state protection, as is the case of Sudanese Christians/animists, or Muslims in Bosnia, I would support their right to defend themselves within the limits of international law and applicable international humanitarian law (ie no terrorism). But this has nothing to do with religion.
Cheers
Thomas -
I apologize for any misunderstandings I had concerning your views, and I'm sorry you lost friends from Morgan Stanley. That must've been very difficult.
Thanks for the apology. But no worries. You did'nt know.
Cheers
TH
Haidon,
Thanks for responding. My point about the hadiths is two-fold:
1) by what rationale do you suppose a moderate's modern commentary that makes the Koran secular-friendly and comports itself to non-Muslim Western values is any more accurate and faithful to the Koran than those commentaries by Bukhari, Katheer, Kortobi, etc.?
2) the sociological dominance in Islamic societies of the traditional hadiths overwhelms any new commentaries and guides that might come along; it seems incredibly unlikely that new ones -- particularly secular-friendly ones -- could supplant the old, given the state of Muslim culture on intellectual and psychological levels.
As for treason and religion:
You wrote: "any state, secular or not, has laws on the books that punish actual treason or sedition including the United States and other Western powers."
It's curious you feel the need to mention this unremarkable fact. We are not talking about states. Islam is not, contrary to that statement by the Free Muslims Coalition quoted above, a "nation". Therefore, Islam should not be allowed to have any laws pertaining to treason, sedition or crimes punishable by any corporal or economic means (other than denying a purely religious stipend due to an imam or something like that), etc.
"let's be realistic here, while a Muslim state is not a valid government in my view, it is a government. If a person actually committed an act of treason (the US or Western definition), one would be hard pressed to tell that government they could not punish someone who commits it. But this has nothing to do with apostasy."
My point is that it's high time the world outlawed this abuse of church-state separation which only Islam continues to perpetrate. No other religion is formed into states with governments and police, for God's sakes; and no other religion has state laws and police that punish religious "crimes"! This is an outrageous abomination in the 21st century and has to stop! There are many "realistic" things that are not to be tolerated, and which are outlawed, and while they may continue to be practiced, we continue to limit them and try to stamp them out.
"If there were a group of indivuiduals however who lacked state protection, as is the case of Sudanese Christians/animists, or Muslims in Bosnia, I would support their right to defend themselves within the limits of international law and applicable international humanitarian law (ie no terrorism). But this has nothing to do with religion."
Yes, and their self-defense should never be framed in terms of religion: but Bosnian Muslims do frame it, formally and explicitly and fully, in terms of religion, while Sudanese Christians/animists (nor any other persecuted groups who happen to be of some non-Muslim religion) don't, except in vaguely poetic ways.
Thomas, hello, I'm another New Zealander. I think you are taking the only path someone who wants to remain a muslim but is secular and democratic can take: trying to change the way islam is interpreted. I can see tha
I listened to your radio 2ZB interview and commend your free-speech stance on the cartoons. Did you ever get on National Radio? That's what I usually listen to, and all the interviews I heard there were pathetically appeasing.
I'm trying to inform more of my friends about the dangers of islamism, but hesitate to refer them to this site because of the sometimes very right-wing posts that would put them off. Any other sites you can suggest?
I've recently written to Wayne Mapp (who prides himself on being anti-PC) and Phil Goff re the cartoons, and have only had pro-appeasement blather back. Are there any NZ politicians it's actually worth lobbying re islamism?
Kia ora Lili
Good to see a kiwi here. Thanks for the feedback. I have been on national radio a couple of times as well. I had an interview debating Javed Khan a few weeks ago with Linda Clark.
I have a meeting with Dr Richard Worth in a couple of days to discuss these issues as well. I am really keen to impart the lack of backbone to our conter terror legislation (Terrorism Suppression Act 2002).
I would have though Wayne Mapp would have listened. Goff's appeasement is unsurprising. I am doing some work at Vic Law Faculty with a couple of professors and have appearsed before the Foriegn Affairs Trade and Defence Select Committee to talk about the inadequacies of our legislation.
Richard Worth and Dr Lockwood Smith, Tim Groser (who is Muslim by the way) is definitely worth lobbying. Anyone in NZ First is worth lobbying too, like Ron Mark. I have had discussions with Ashrof Choudhary, whom I respect, but he is really no better that the others.
I would suggest that you do put your mates onto this site, despite the comments. There are not really many others worth looking at that arent run by right wing lunatics. I also like Daniel Pipes website www.danielpipes.org. Ibn Waraq's group has an excellent site at http://www.secularislam.org/, although it may be a bit outdated. And of course, I have to put a plug in for the Free Muslim Coalition website (www.freemuslims.org).
Cheers
Thomas
Thanks Thomas. For your info re Wayne Mapp, I post my letter and his reply here. Sorry if this is a bit lengthy, but I do think it's important to show the world how vague a response I got to my very specific questions. Mr Goff, to whom I sent the same questions, has not responded to them. Dr Mapp's phrase "If you know your exercise of freedom of speech is likely to cause riots and deaths in other countries" (my emphasis) I find particularly shocking. Blame the victim.
"Dear ....
I hope you received my earlier reply, with the article from my website.
I will answer your latest e-mail in general terms.
Clearly New Zealand has freedom of speech, and ultimately no-one is going to stop people publishing the cartoons, or indeed other things. Freedom of speech does not mean that people who publish things that may cause disharmony are immune from criticism. Therefore, I am perfectly entitled to say that publishing the cartoons (especially the bomb in the turban) was a foolish action that would lead to disharmony. That is actually exercising my freedom of speech.
Muslims in New Zealand have to recognise the reality they live in a free society, but they are perfectly entitled to express their displeasure by reasonable protest (as occurred in New Zealand). They, of course, can’t use violence to stop publication of material they disagree with.
There is an international dimension to all of this. If you know your exercise of freedom of speech is likely to cause riots and deaths in other countries (even if it is a completely over the top reaction) do you still want to do it? Or at least don’t be surprised if others (such as myself) comment on the wisdom of the action.
Wayne Mapp
Sent: Tuesday, 21 March 2006 1:07 p.m.
To: 'Wayne Mapps Office'
Subject: Islamism, Freedom of Speech and Political Correctness
Dear Dr Mapp
I have received the following statement from Mr. Goff (replying for the Prime Minister) to my concern about New Zealanders being asked to submit, voluntarily, to sharia law about depictions of Muhammad:
'New Zealanders must use judgement at all times about what to say and not to say in the interests of better understanding and mutual respect'. You will note the word ‘must’– clearly Mr. Goff does not wish people to exercise their freedom of speech, and on issues where your opinion does not match his as well as it does regarding the cartoons, you might find this of concern.
The whole matter is a perfect example of the dangers of political correctness. You stated on your website “The whole point of the secular state is that it does not prefer any one religion or belief. To do so discriminates against all other beliefs.” Consider the contradiction between not preferring any one religion or belief and these two statements of yours: “Clearly, Muslims are very sensitive about these issues – judging by the protests they are clearly more so than other religions.” and “There is little to be gained by inflaming the situation further or by provoking reaction even if we know the reactions are going to be excessive.” So we are to accept that muslims are more sensitive (read: more dangerous) than the followers of other religions and that New Zealanders need to take special care not to offend them. This does discriminate against all other beliefs, including atheism.
Restricting criticism of Islam (including cartoons) is a step towards Islamism. The trend towards Islamism in Europe is unmistakable: for instance 40% of UK muslims want sharia law introduced in 'predominantly muslim parts of the country': (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/61480B70-88BC-48EA-997B-9D24ABD29218.htm). Through immigration and demographics, Islam could become Europe’s main religion, bringing Islamism with it. Therefore, non-muslims worldwide are right to be concerned about the possible loss of their hard-won traditional freedoms.
You ask “How many think it is reasonable for us to gratuitously insult other people, even though we have the right to do so?” When our basic freedom of speech is threatened through violence, it does become important to exercise that right. It is not gratuitous to do so. That was the reason for the original and subsequent publication of the cartoons.
A truly moderate muslim who is a New Zealand spokesman for the Free Muslims Coalition, Thomas Haidon, takes a secular point of view on the matter. In a Newstalk ZB interview he clearly stated that the cartoons were newsworthy and were rightly published (http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=89145). I would strongly recommend that when politicians communicate with local muslims, only those who accept a secular state can truly be called ‘moderate’.
I am now asking you and Mr. Goff the following questions. Since the sensitivities of local muslims must not be offended, please give New Zealanders (including muslims), exact guidelines about what constitutes ‘insult’ or ‘offence’ and must be avoided, and what ‘moderate muslim’ means to you. I will inform the media of your answers, so that they know what they should avoid publishing:
A member of the Labour party clearly condones sharia law and the killing of homosexuals and adulterers in Islamic countries (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10334250). Is he what you consider a 'moderate muslim'? Or is a ‘moderate muslim’ only a secular person such as Mr Haidon of the Free Muslims Coalition, who did not object to the publication? From what type of muslim should New Zealanders take their guidance?
Do you believe that sharia law is incompatible with human rights? Having asked New Zealanders to submit to sharia law regarding the depiction of Muhammad, how much further will you allow this to go? Will you be allowing muslim offence levels to restrict women's choice of clothing? Gay people's freedoms? Jewish people’s safety? These are not arbitrary questions – these things are happening in Europe.
Do you believe that muslim immigrants and residents need to be made aware that sharia law will never be introduced in NZ? Or are you certain that muslim immigrants to NZ accept human rights, secularism and NZ law?
I am deeply offended by the sexist, anti-‘infidel’ and violence-promoting passages in the Koran (some passages in the bible and torah are offensive too, but not as currently applied). What do you say about the offence to ‘infidels’ and women by the koran, since you believe the cartoons should not have been published because of the offence caused? It is no use to say that these are historical passages, since they are clearly used today to justify violence and sexism. It is also no use to say that ‘infidels’ and women needn’t read the koran, as muslims needn’t have viewed the cartoons.
Mr Goff states that New Zealanders 'must use judgement at all times about what to say and not to say in the interests of better understanding and mutual respect'. Exactly what kind of depiction must not be made – each of the following options is represented by some muslims:
No picture of any living being (i.e. most western art)? This attitude is represented in the useful site 'AskImam': “Pictures are forbidden in Islam. Those who take pictures will be sinful. Your duty is to stop it. If after telling them they still desist, then you are not responsible for their actions. However, you should also advise them and tell them what they are doing is wrong and they need to respect the laws of Allah and respect our feelings on the matter." (http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=95b3241e5c08becd081b5d70d688ccce)
No pictures of any prophet or religious figure (i.e. much of christian art, and the exploded Buddha statues)?
No pictures at all of Muhammad, even respectful ones (i.e. including some muslim art which depicts Muhammad)? Here are examples of Islamic depictions of Muhammad: http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/ .
No 'disrespectful' depiction of Muhammad, while respectful ones would be acceptable? (Note that some of the cartoons were not disrespectful.)
No dishonest depiction of Muhammad, whereas critical but honest ones would be acceptable in the name of open debate. This could include showing him with his 9 year old wife Aisha, killing people in battle, or, symbolically, with a bomb in his turban for inspiring suicide-bombings?
I look forward to your considered views on this. In international terms, clarifying our stance for secularism and democracy is essential.
Yours sincerely, ....
That Mapp guy is quoted as saying: “How many think it is reasonable for us to gratuitously insult other people, even though we have the right to do so?”
Whether it's reasonable or not to gratuitously insult "other people" in general is beside the point. How dense is he?
The point which Mapp seems to miss is two-fold:
1) Our culture is based upon the virtue of the freedom to be unreasonable and gratuitously insulting, not upon the virtue of being unreasonable and gratuitously insulting. This freedom will obviously entail (as our culture continues to live and breathe and change as a free organism not statically bound by doctrinaire and apodictic Truths) growths of behavior that many of us may find unpleasant.
2) There are some concepts and practices that are sufficiently ludicrous, silly, irrational, repellant and dangerous that they reasonably warrant ridicule and insult -- particularly when their sanctity is taken deadly seriously by their believers. Islamic culture is filled with such ludicrous, silly, irrational, repellant and dangerous concepts and practices.
ON Topic: On the Afghan apostate, Ibn Warraq will be surfacing on KSFO next Monday to discuss this issue
http://www.ksfo.com/guests.asp