From Reuters:
VIENNA, April 9 - European imams meeting in Vienna have pledged to work harder to prove that Islam is compatible with democracy and that the majority of Muslims living in the West support human rights, free speech and pluralism.More than 130 prayer leaders from across the continent, whose meeting was sponsored by Austria as current European Union president, agreed Islamic theologians in Europe must do more to establish that their faith does not clash with Western values...
The declaration urged Muslim theologians in Europe to point out chapter and verse how Islam fits with Western values.
"Theological arguments have a good chance of leading to lasting changes in attitudes," it said. "These should be seen as part of the solution and fostered in public discussion."
Unfortunately, the actual theological arguments these Imams claim to make are strangely missing from this report.
Among practical steps they sought were Islamic arguments against immigrants isolating themselves in self-made ghettos, refusing to integrate or rejecting the separation of church and state in Western democracies.Imams should also show that violations of women's rights -- through forced marriages, female circumcision and "honour killings" -- were rooted in traditions from outside Europe and not justified by Islam, they said...
But once again the theological arguments backing up this claim are missing. Where are they?
Where are they?
One Enlightenment short of any possible progress in this regard. And scores of death threats aren't helping advance the ball.
All together now...(2:256) Let there be no compulsion in religion....(5:32) he who slayeth any one, unless it be a person guilty if manslaughter , or of spreading disorder in the land, shall be as though he had slain all mankind;but that he who saves a life , shall be as though he had saved all mankind alive
I bet those are wheeled out.
Brownie points to those who point out the 3 counter arguments to (2:256) and what's missing from (5:32)
Certainly the theological arguments are relevant (to Muslims) but shouldn't we give them a break? (Assuming sincerity.) And be pleased with some small progress? Why the importance of the "theological" arguments? Are you suggesting that they have set themselve an impossible task?
I guess you lose me on this one -- it seems like you might be asking for more than is realistic: for Moslems to totally deny their own heritage. I have not read the Koran etc etc but are you actually suggesting that there is NO redeeming value in it? And that the only way out is for Moslems to reject it totally? Not simply selectively? But a total rejection?
Raw, yes that's what a lot of us are saying. If Islam was a private matter between an individual and his God, then few would mind. But it is more a political idealogy that is hell bent on dominating the world and is completely intolerant of non Muslims.
The Koran is filled with verse after verse that advocates violence and intolerance. If you wasnt a specific example, do a google search on Mohammed, Medina, Jews, Massacre and you will find an example of Mohammed's cold blooded murders that would have shamed Hitler's Einzatzgruppen. It gets a mention in Chapter 33 of the Koran as well.
Raw Data: I have dear Muslim friends, and I am the person who has most often opposed talk of mass deportation and Benes Decrees. And I have to tell you: yes, they have to. Single Muslims may be reformable, but Islam is not, and it is clear and easy to see that whole generations of tolerant, secular, civilized Muslims may suddenly produce a crop of rebellious extremists in the next generation - purely because the religion encourages those attitudes. Islam is the equivalent of an unexploded bomb in the home. Sooner or later, it will go off.
Raw Data
I have not read the Koran etc etc but are you actually suggesting that there is NO redeeming value in it?
Until you actually read it you will probably assume, as I did, a certain universality among all the world's "great religions." There's a famous book devoted to that very theme, and Islam is notably absent. There's a clue for you.
Rather than making an absolutist statement in the negative, or overstating the positive, why don't you devote a couple hours to actually reading the book? Only your life, and the life of your progeny, may depend on it, so no rush.
The Qur'an contains 114 suras. Some of them take five minutes or much less. Pay particular attention to Sura Nine, which many Muslims argue abrogates (replaces) the earlier suras.
Qur'an
If you've never read the entire bible, read it side-by-side with the Qur'an. It's an eye opener.
If you do read the Koran, read it in the correct Sura order (i.e. not start to finish). It is not chronological.
The qur'an is a war manual. To quote another source, who will remain nameless...."Islam is a caustic blend of regurgitated paganism and twisted Bible stories. Muhammad, its lone prophet, conceived his religion solely to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money. He was a terrorist."
OK. Thanks. This is rather shocking and I hope you won't mind my saying but it sounds rather "alarmist" -- of course maybe it should be!
I just glanced at Sura 9 and it's tough to get through; I find religious texts boring -- all of them -- and difficult to follow. But yes, Mohammed does come across as rather narrow-minded and bigoted.
Btw, that Quran (linked to above) is at USC, which I had assumed as a fairly serious academic institution. But the way the Quran is framed on those pages seems NOT to be academic but rather overtly religious and taking the text seriously as a factual "truth." The section on "Misconceptions" seems noteworthy in that regard.
This is just an exercise in ketman - systematic concealment of doctrine. They know darn well it is incompatible. And if there are Muslims in the West who do "support human rights, free speech and pluralism" - I don't, in fact, see much evidence of any actively "supporting" these things, whether or not they object to them, but let that pass - then that is not owing to anything in the nature of Islam but rather owing to their being rather nominal Muslims.
In other words, please all go back to sleep - until the penetration of Islam gets beyond the point at which it can effectively be opposed and Muslims can get on with introducing sharia, firebombing synagogues and churches, and whatnot.
I think as well as reading the texts it is important to get some idea of the significance of this in the round. This is where something like V. S. Naipaul's Among the Believers is so good. I just finished reading it and I couldn't recommend it enough.
It's travel writing and far from boring. You really begin to see in concrete terms, across a range of different people's social experiences, where a mentality stuck on the idea of texts as "the truth" and "all that's needful" leads. And the temptation of such an approach to people disrupted by "modernity" or simmering with resentment becomes clear.
It is shocking, truly shocking, that this book, by a brilliant Nobel-Prize winning writer, was published in 1982, and policy makers evidently did not read it, so could not drawn the lessons that emerge with startling clarity from its pages. It's not a political book, and not meant to be. It's travel writing and an exercise - an undeceived but not unsympathetic exercise - in understanding the countries and people that this very sensitive and intelligent traveller goes to. But the lessons were there to be drawn.
The pathos of the journey! He speaks to one closed mind after another and when he comes across a real man (Suryadi in Indonesia), a man without rancour and prepared to think for himself, the man is in the process of losing his once bright and attractive daughter to Islam.
Raw Data -
You can find many moving and universal sentiments expressed in Mein Kampf (out of context perhaps). If you look for them.
Raw Data,
This site has ten translations plus alliterated Arabic text.
http://quranbrowser.com/
The most accurate is Hilali-Khan, but the most readable is perhaps Shakir. You can basically read through the Koran by clicking "next ten verses" etc., as you go through. To get the general historical context, click on the asterisk* below the verse number.
It is not possible to make too much sense out of what the Koran says without tafsir (commentary, explanation). This is mainly because the terms often have a different meaning than what is implied by the English translation. For example, in 2:191-2:193, the words "persecution" or "oppression" are used, but actually the word is "fitnah" and in that case means disbelief, polytheism, presence of disbelievers, opposition to Islam, turning away from Islam, etc. Here is an example of a site with tafsir for the whole Koran. Scroll down and on the left side click on al-Jalalayn or Ibn Abbas.
http://www.altafsir.com/TafseerQuran.asp
Ibn Kathir's tafsir is probably the best because it links up the Koranic verses with the relevant hadith, but the Ibn Kathir website isn't always working.
This site classifies Different passages in the Koran
(also see skepticsannotatedbible/quran)
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
A related-- and possibly more alarming, -- story at Yahoo News (from AP):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060408/ap_on_re_eu/europe_islam_s_integration
The title is "Imams Hunt for European Muslim Identity." There are many ways to take that, as well as the other buzzword in the article, the "Theology of Integration."
This is nothing more than proselytizing, "befriending" Europeans and drawing up a list of "common values" in preparation to make the case that all Judeo-Christian values are subsumed under, and somehow completed by Islam, and thus, no one should mind the same thing happening to their entire society: After all, Andalucía was such a swell place... *cringe*
Lies, damned lies, statistics... and Islam.
Raw Data
Robert has recommended The Koran with parellel Arabic text by N.J. Dawood, The book can usually be found in a Barnes and Noble. You may also be able to go online and order it through www.penguinclassics.com as well.
Archimedes wrote: "terms [in the Koran] often have a different meaning than what is implied by the English translation. For example, in 2:191-2:193, the words "persecution" or "oppression" are used, but actually the word is "fitnah" and in that case means disbelief, polytheism, presence of disbelievers, opposition to Islam, turning away from Islam, etc."
I think a reasonable rule of thumb would be that anything perceived by Muslims to be contrary to Islam on any level and in any form is automatically linked to "threats", "persecution", "opposition", "offense", "hostility", "treason", and "war".
As long as there are non-Muslims in the world (particularly powerful and successful non-Muslim regions), the Muslim will feel his world to be beseiged and under threat.
Assalamau-Alaikum and hello
By linking the best from each side (like I have above) all peoples can be skillfully reasoned with....like the legs of a millipede-so many but without interference.
Together we shall be like lips & teeth - hard & soft (islam & west) rubbing together without hurting each other.
Remember peoples are not high & low. When valued for what is valued in them ...everyone is valuable.
peace & see you soon!
Raw Data mentions the the Ten Misconceptions About Islam page posted by the Muslim Student Association at the University of Southern California. Yes, Raw Data, USC is a serious university, one of the academically premier universities of California and of the nation.. It is very enlightening to see what the MSA writes to counter misconceptions about Islam:
The opening two paragraphs of the MSA thesis already puts Islam in contraposition to the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which forms the basis for our seperation of Church and State.
Is it a misconception that Islam is incompatible with democracy? Let's again see what the MSA has to say about liberal, pluralistic, securalist democracy.
In the U.S. Declaration of Independence it states inalienable rights are granted to men by the Creator, that to secure these rights governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. From the quoted text above, we see Islam as brought to us by the MSA as being the polar opposite of this proposition of the Declaration of Independence. Americans (of any faith or no faith) loyal to the Constitution of the United States believe inalienable rights come from the Creator and are vested in the individual, such that these rights that can not be abridged by government. Muslims believe the Creator to be the source of law itself, and governments can not obey the will of the people since that is disobedience to the Creator. Also, the self evident truth of equality of men does not hold true in the Shari'ah, which states that Islam is to dominate and force the non-Muslim into willful submission (Koran 9:29).
Is Islam peace? Even the MSA says this is the number one misconception.
There you have it, from Muslims themselves, educated Muslims at one of the finest universities in the U.S.
Raw data
It has also been noted that the Qur’an cannot be understood with reading the hadith (traditions and sayings of Mohammad) also. The hadith can also be found at USC.
I believe it will put the Qur’an in the correct context. It is how Mohammad the best of all men practiced Islam, and sets the example that Moslems are to follow.
If you find reading the text to be boring, perhaps doing a simple word search on words like “Jew”, “slay”, “kill” ect, can be a very good start, do these searches in both the Qur’an and hadith, then find go to MEMRI and see how these ideas are put into practice. But be forewarned, the contradictions abound in everything they say and everything they do.
The problem with the Muslim conception of laws being derived directly from the Creator (Allah) is not that it would be a bad thing for laws to be derived directly from God. Logically, even an atheist would agree that, if God existed (defined logically as a supremely good being), then laws should be directly emanating from God.
No, the problem with the Muslim conception of divine laws is a problem the West has learned through many painful centuries of discussion, argument, strife and even wars: all supposedly divine laws by necessity must go through a human mediation, in one way or another. The Islamic conceit that their Sharia is directly divine is simply incorrect: Sharia is what men claim is divine, with no direct proof to offer to substantiate this claim; and it is a claim that Muslims wish to force upon others.
Furthermore, the world presents a quandary of multiple sources of divine laws, since there are many different religions, and, ipso facto, many different Gods. The best solution to this quandary has been developed over time by the West, particularly with the American genius behind its Constitution and its delicate balance between an amorphous civil religion on the one hand, and an institutionally secular state that opens the way for increasingly locating the source of laws in the people (democracy in this sense is not a static event, but a dynamic process; it took some time for the genius of the Founding Fathers to unfold further into Abraham Lincoln's epiphany of a "nation, under God... that government of the people, by the people, for the people...").
Although clerics constantly maintain that honour killings aren't islamic (if this is so why haven't they managed to stamp out the phenomenon in the course of 1400 years, and why does it happen in muslim cultures as diverse as Arabia and Turkey, having said that, from what I can gather it doesn't seem to be prevalent in Indonesia and Malaysia) I have heard Muslim feminists cite both 5.32 and 17.33 as justification. I heard the latter quoted very recently by a Turkish woman on a German talk-show, when the imam went into the usual spiel of honour killing 'not being islamic.'
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=17&tAyahNo=33&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0
17.33
And do not slay the soul [whose life] God has made inviolable, except with due cause.
The usual islamic twist in the tail.
What is the University of Southern California doing promoting rape, theft, murder, misogyny, slavery, and hatred?
The feds should yank the school's tax-free status.
Naseem:
Fine, Naseem. You mentioned your fear of "hellfire" in an earlier post. If you would like to be reasoned with, then please answer this question for me:
"Do you believe that hell is located somewhere - under the surface of the Earth, for example? Or do you believe that it is outside space and time?"
'Fitna' as in 5.32 also has sexual overtones.
The contemporary sociologist Halim Barakat comments that in the Arab world in general, “the prevailing religious ideology considers women to be a source of evil, anarchy [fitna] and trickery or deception [kaid]” (Barakat 1985:32). Throughout Egyptian society, one finds the expression of a pervasive gender ideology that perceives women as posing extreme danger for men
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/egypt.html
Raw Data .. hope I'm not overloading your system here .. but another source for learning the awful truth about the totalitarian nature of Islam is this book: "Sexuality in Islam" by Islamic 'scholar' Abdelwahab Bouhdiba. This book was not originally intended for infidel eyes (any more than the koran) .. as such, it gives an unvarnished view of the core values (and incredibly ritualistic to the point of obsessive compulsive rules that keep the core values intact) of Islam.
Unhidden and in fact boldly stated is the statement that Islamic life depends on fundamental male supremacy. Of course, it then goes on with the usual lies about how especially well women are treated (!). However, with the full admission of male supremacy - everything that follows has the equivalent moral validity that the Grand Wizard of the KKK would have concerning people of color, Jews or Catholics. The sexual conduct of Muslims is anti-life, most basically.
The book is available from Amazon .. I had mixed feelings about this guy profiting from the sale .. but the information is invaluable.
Yojimbo asks "Do you believe that hell is located somewhere - under the surface of the Earth, for example? Or do you believe that it is outside space and time?"
My dear Yojimbo...you ask a question I have asked myself many times.
Yes I believe 100% that hell is located somewhere...but I know not where?
Why is it to be feared? Because not following the ways fo Islam can lead you there....not for one lifetme ...but forever.
Is there such a price that one can pay for ...for eternal hellfire.
In Jehunum your body is perfected each night ..ready to put into the hellfire the next day...the only thing that remains is your memory of what it was like yesterday...and knowing the absolute certainty of feeling it the next day and the next.
Contrast this to Jannat , heaven.
Koran 13:35
This is the paradise which the righteous have been promised: it is watered by running streams..
Koran 3:198
As for those that fear their Lord, theirs shall be gardens watered by running streams in which they will abide for ever, and a goodly welcome from God...
Koran 47:15
Here is a Parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised. In it are...rivers of wine...
Koran 13:35
This is the paradise which the righteous have been promised.. eternal are its fruits, and eternal are its shades..
Koran 22:23
As for those who have faith and who do good work, God will admit them to gardens watered by running streams. They shall be decked with pearls and bracelets of gold, and arrayed in garments of silk.
And yes, I have wondered ..doubted whether these are enticements only to do Allah's bidding.
I do believe that SOME verses of the Koran are not true ...but the Majority of them are.
So yes I believe...and follow the peaceful bits of Islam.
It's not clear whether that is a "yes", a "no", or an "I don't know" to the thought that it might be "outside space and time".
And whatever appears to be said there:
"Yes I believe 100% that hell is located somewhere"
Is possibly, but not certainly, contradicted by what is said in the penultimate sentence:
"I do believe that SOME verses of the Koran are not true"
I don't see that reasoning is possible on such an erratic basis.
NASEEM: "I do believe that SOME verses of the Koran are not true ...but the Majority of them are."
Don't walk into your local mosque during Friday's prayers and announce this to the congregation.
Peoples,
I am trying to portary what I feel, believe & know (and also what I don't know).
Do you know where hell is.....have you been there ? What answers do you have...would you give irrational answers too.
DON'T assume that muslims are irrational by default...that's bullcrap.
What you ask is based on faith....there are no precise answers here ...don't try the "there is no logic with muslims"
I do believe that SOME verses of the Koran are
not true ...but the Majority of them are.
Posted by: Naseem at April 9, 2006 04:00 PM
. What mohd. did by marrying Aisha at 6 & consummating at 9 was nothing short of disgusting.
Posted by: Naseem at March 18, 2006 07:17 PM
come naseem,how many more"revelations"are you havein about uncle mo?Your slowly waking up,keep it up and maybe you'll join the human race yet
DON'T assume that muslims are irrational by default...that's bullcrap.
calm down,dam.Why so diffensive naseem,did you just come to another conclusion about islam you didnt like again?
There is no "precise" answer to:
How can there not be? It is a question about your own beliefs, which you must have knowledge of. I don't mind whether you say that you believe:
(a) it is located somewhere; or
(b) it is not located anywhere - it is outside space and time; or
(c) you are unable to say.
Frankly, I was staggered that you did not give a clear response - I hadn't expected that.
The answer is "a":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Michigan
Naseem,
I'm pleased to see that your views are somewhat more flexible than those of some of your brethren.
Perhaps you reject even more Koranic verses than you realize? (I'm not trying to be mischievous, just genuinely curious).
Naseem: "Remember peoples are not high & low."
58:20 Lo! those who oppose Allah and His messenger, they will be among the lowest.
95:4. Verily, We created man of the best stature (mould),
95:5. Then We reduced him to the lowest of the low,
95:6. Save those who believe (in Islamic Monotheism) and do righteous deeds, then they shall have a reward without end (Paradise).
[Note who remains lowest, by clear implication. Also note that Allah does not accept the good works of the disbelievers]
Naseem:"When valued for what is valued in them ...everyone is valuable."
8:22-23. Verily! The worst of (moving) living creatures with Allah are the deaf and the dumb, those who understand not (i.e. the disbelievers).
Had Allah known of any good in them, He would indeed have made them listen, and even if He had made them listen, they would but have turned away, averse (to the truth).
[I.e., there is no good in the disbelievers who refuse Islam]
Naseem:"I do believe that SOME verses of the Koran are not true ...but the Majority of them are."
2:2 "This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; it is a guidance for the righteous,"
Islam and the West just cannot get alone, sorry to have to say that.
Silvester,
Thanks for that link. Re: "fitnah", the term used in 5:32-33 is "fasad" (fasadan, fasadin), which means mischief or corruption, but it is similar in meaning to fitnah. Basically anything that violates the Koranic laws or principles is fasad.
Therefore illegal sexual intercourse is considered one of the crimes in the huge category of fasad, and it is still a crime in some Islamic countries today. (If you search "corruption on earth" + "death penalty" you will see some examples of the range of crimes).
According to multiple tafsir, disbelief/polytheism/idolatry itself is in the category of fasad.
Ibn Abbas, 5:32.
(For that) because Cain wrongfully killed Abel (cause We decreed for the Children of Israel) in the Torah (that whosoever killeth a human being for other than man slaughter) i.e. premeditatedly (or corruption in the earth) or because of idolatry, (it shall be as if be had killed all mankind) Hell will be decreed for him for premeditatedly and wrongfully killing a human being, as though he killed all mankind, (and whoso saveth the life of one) whoever abstains from killing a person, (it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind) Paradise will be decreed for him for sparing one soul, as though he spared the lives of all mankind. (Our messengers came unto them) i.e. the Children of Israel (of old with clear proofs) with commands, prohibitions and signs, (but afterwards lo! many of them) the Children of Israel (became) after the messengers (prodigals in the earth) ascribing partners to Allah.
Al-Jalalayn, 5:32.
Because of that, which Cain did, We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever slays a soul for other than a soul, slain, or for, other than, corruption, committed, in the land, in the way of unbelief, fornication or waylaying and the like, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoever saves the life of one, by refraining from slaying, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind - Ibn 'Abbās said [that the above is meant] in the sense of violating and protecting its [a soul's] sanctity [respectively]. Our messengers have already come to them, that is, to the Children of Israel, with clear proofs, miracles, but after that many of them still commit excesses in the land, overstepping the bounds through disbelief, killing and the like.
Ibn Kathir, 5:32
Human Beings Should Respect the Sanctity of Other Human Beings
Allah says, because the son of Adam killed his brother in transgression and aggression,
(We ordained for the Children of Israel...) meaning, We legislated for them and informed them,
(that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) The Ayah states, whoever kills a soul without justification -- such as in retaliation for murder or for causing mischief on earth -- will be as if he has killed all mankind, because there is no difference between one life and another.
(and if anyone saved a life...) by preventing its blood from being shed and believing in its sanctity, then all people will have been saved from him, so,
(it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) Al-A`mash and others said that Abu Salih said that Abu Hurayrah said, "I entered on `Uthman when he was under siege in his house and said, `I came to give you my support. Now, it is good to fight (defending you) O Leader of the Faithful!' He said, `O Abu Hurayrah! Does it please you that you kill all people, including me' I said, `No.' He said, `If you kill one man, it is as if you killed all people. Therefore, go back with my permission for you to leave. May you receive your reward and be saved from burden.' So I went back and did not fight.''' `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said, "It is as Allah has stated,
(if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) Saving life in this case occurs by not killing a soul that Allah has forbidden. So this is the meaning of saving the life of all mankind, for whoever forbids killing a soul without justification, the lives of all people will be saved from him.'' Similar was said by Mujahid;
(And if anyone saved a life...) means, he refrains from killing a soul. Al-`Awfi reported that Ibn `Abbas said that Allah's statement,
(it would be as if he killed all mankind. .) means, "Whoever kills one soul that Allah has forbidden killing, is just like he who kills all mankind.'' Sa`id bin Jubayr said, "He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding the blood of one Muslim, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people.'' In addition, Ibn Jurayj said that Al-A`raj said that Mujahid commented on the Ayah,
(it would be as if he killed all mankind,) "He who kills a believing soul intentionally, Allah makes the Fire of Hell his abode, He will become angry with him, and curse him, and has prepared a tremendous punishment for him, equal to if he had killed all people, his punishment will still be the same.'' Ibn Jurayj said that Mujahid said that the Ayah,
(and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) means, "He who does not kill anyone, then the lives of people are safe from him.''
Warning Those who Commit Mischief
Allah said,
(And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with Al-Bayyinat,) meaning, clear evidences, signs and proofs,
(even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits in the land!) This Ayah chastises and criticizes those who commit the prohibitions, after knowing that they are prohibited from indulging in them. The Jews of Al-Madinah, such as Banu Qurayzah, An-Nadir and Qaynuqa`, used to fight along with either Khazraj or Aws, when war would erupt between them during the time of Jahiliyyah. When these wars would end, the Jews would ransom those who were captured and pay the blood money for those who were killed. Allah criticized them for this practice in Surat Al-Baqarah,
(And (remember) when We took your covenant (saying): Shed not your (people's) blood, nor turn out your own people from their dwellings. Then, (this) you ratified and (to this) you bear witness. After this, it is you who kill one another and drive out a party of your own from their homes, assist (their enemies) against them, in sin and transgression. And if they come to you as captives, you ransom them, although their expulsion was forbidden to you. Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment. And Allah is not unaware of what you do.) [2:84-85]
Naseem-
Glad to help you localize Hades:
Hell is anywhere Islam reigns supreme.
Since it is human hubris raised to eternal law.
Any religion that gains earthly power becomes demonic.
It is the oldest, hardest truth in mankind's spiritual reality.
Do a search on MOLOCH, QUETZECOATL, BAAL, etc.
(Earlier monickers of the same idea as ALLAH.)
The sooner we admit our humility before reality, the less madness, terror, bloodshed and carnage will result.
As Lao Tzu put it:
"Humans are born soft and supple but become stiff when deceased; plants begin pliant and fresh but turn brittle when cut [from their source]. Thus, whoever is inflexible is a disciple of death... The hard will be broken; the pliant will prevail."
The main problem I see with Islam compared to other religions is Jihad and the current popular Wahabbist export from Saudi. That it is permissable through Jihad to bring about a World-wide Ummah.
However I do find it disturbing that people use Koran, Hadiths & Sunnahs to attack Muslims.
The same could be said of the Talmud/Torah to attack the Jews.
Both have subject matter that people will find offensive. Throughout history Christians have found the Talmud particularly offensive because of what it says about Jesus.
Moth other religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism &Sikhism are also incompatible with Western liberal democracy.
The big difference between the above and Islam is that a significant minority of Muslims have recently adopted the more extreme Wahhabist version.
While Wahabbism has always been lurking in the background throughout Islamic history. I believe that Western Demcracy and the Interent has allowed it to flurish.
While most of the Ummah would like to see Kuffirs convert to Islam, and have Islam rule over the World.
I think we should distinguish between Muslims who wish to do this peacefully & those who seek violence. As the peaceful ones are no different to Christian missionaries.
However I do find it disturbing that people use Koran, Hadiths & Sunnahs to attack Muslims. - Alex
What we're going after is an ideology: The only reason the Islamic texts are at issue is that Muslims are using them to wage a worldwide campaign to convert or subjugate nonbelievers.
I think we should distinguish between Muslims who wish to do this peacefully & those who seek violence. As the peaceful ones are no different to Christian missionaries.
They most certainly are different; Islam is "to dominate and not be dominated." The religions it will "tolerate" (more on that momentarily) are Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Mandeanism. Everything else must be eradicated outright.
As for the supposedly "tolerated/protected" faiths, they are not allowed to seek converts under Muslim rule, build new churches, or display crosses or other non-Islamic religious symbols. They must pay a tax-- I don't know that there is any set rate for that, just the whims of whoever is at the wheel.
Very different from Christian missionaries, or any other kind.
I was discussing their methodology rather than the end results.
I don't believe Islamic Terrorism or the the peaceful Muslims are going to achieve in their goal of having a Worldwide Ummah.
This the big difference between Islam and other religions.
The whole problem is interpretation of these verses by different Imams. The Koran is full of contradictions and the Sunnah & Hadiths complicate it further.
'Alex' sez:
"...Moth other religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism &Sikhism are also incompatible with Western liberal democracy..."
My goodness, where have you been all my life? When was the last time a Buddhist blew up a subway-station, when did a Hindu blow up a bus, when did a Sikh try to bring about world domination by a cult that demands submission to 'Allah', to either forcibly convert, pay the Jiziya or die?
You better learn a bit more about the subject matter before making such statements here, Alex!
It's not only that Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Taoists, Confucianists, and all the various flavors of "animists" (polytheists) throughout the world are not exploding, beheading and waging war for directly textual religious principles -- it is also that members of these various non-Muslim religions are not doing such outrageous mischief across national borders, in various locations around the globe, with a trans-national consciousness of identity in a religious family that transcends all national boundaries and all national and international laws, with a definite sense of a goal of world domination as prescribed by their #1 man of all time: Mohammed, who got his orders straight from God Himself.
Alex, either wake up all the way, or go back to sleep. We don't have enough money here to pay for nursing staff to take care of somnambulists.
I can give you a map of Hell
http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~morrisom/hell_map.html
Exactly where this is I am not sure , my GPS does not know where it is either.
for those who already know they are going there, but do not know how bad they've been a quick quiz to test which part you'll end up in.
http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-test.mv
Try it its fun !
In a Question Time programme on BBC, the Saudi ambassador to the UK categorically stated that democracy was incompatible with islam. One has to credit him for speaking the truth. Same goes for Hamza, Bakri, Qaradawi, etc. They are telling us the truth about islam but we, or atleast the MSM and the politicos, are going to lap up the lies from these imams in Vienna.
Celsius
As you noted, the koran and the Hadiths are full of violence - violence sanctioned by allah on Infidels, particularly Jews, and of a kind that would make Hitler blush.
Now if all this were just mere words in a book that was read by muslims in a metaphorical sense, and played no part in their lives, I would have no qualms about the koran or the Hadiths. Unfortunately and sadly, it is not so.
----------------------------
If you have come not come across this, it is well worth a read
Message from a Time Traveller
http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message.htm
It is SF from a period when the European Calliphate has been established etc. I won't go any further.
via LGF.
Alex-
Unless you want to further the ends of a planetary despotism, based on 7th century misogynistic/patriarchal superstitions, start taking the body count piling up from this cult's implementation of its terrorist dogmas deadly seriously.
They're really not kidding.
And, with the potency of modern weaponry, it won't take more than 1% of the Islamic faithful to wreak carnage on Earth that would make Genghis Khan's head spin.
If the Muslims merely proselytized 'peacefully'- in favor of everyone but them living in ghettoized serfdom (or, if non-"People of the Book", surrendering to extermination quietly like naive Dachau Jews), they wouldn't have a snowcone's chance in hell of getting anywhere with this unsavory cult. (Would you submit to their arrogant, intolerant piffle posing as the word of "God"?)
So they MUST resort to mafia-style "protection racket" schemes to further the Ummah's influence. ("You wouldn't want anything to happen to your nice little family, or your dog, now would you?")
Comparing Islam to religions which are not committed to a global theocratic tyranny based on the proclamations of a pedophile warlord is fallaciously disingenuous. Or grossly uninformed.
Which might it be?
I know I'm late getting back to this, but like South Park's Cartman and "Come Sail Away" by Styx, I can't leave it unfinished. ;)
I was discussing their methodology rather than the end results. - Alex
You still think the methodology for the spread of Islam is the same as that of other religious "missionaries?" They do share some practices: Charity work, publishing literature, traveling to remote areas, even knocking on doors. If this were the end of activity, and global domination under Sharia was not the goal of their undertakings, that would be another story. But it's not.
This the big difference between Islam and other religions.
It sure is.
The whole problem is interpretation of these verses by different Imams. The Koran is full of contradictions and the Sunnah & Hadiths complicate it further.
Cigarettes are full of contradictions. You light one up, you feel great, you look like the Marlboro man; it perks you up when you're down and calms you down when you're nervous, and they used to say you can smoke menthols for relief when you have a cold.
There's also that cancer thing. And emphysema, dental problems, smelling like a bus, and so on. "Contradictions" aside, using them as directed is lethal.
DON'T assume that muslims are irrational by default...that's bullcrap.
Posted by Naseem
Naseem, muslims are inherently irrational; is that better? Islamic insanity is inbred; mental and physical defects are inevitable when people engage in constant incest and intermarriage.
No need for you to worry, you're not a muslim. Look at your passport if you don't believe me.
Please read these posts to see what the islamic meaning of 'peace', 'corruption' and 'waging war' is (with full reference to islamic sites with islamic definitions):
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=54965#54965
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=448=#448
In short:
When people don't believe in Mohammed's message, don't believe in the Quran, speak out against Islam etc. they are already guilty of 'corruption' and 'waging war' and are thus allowed to get islamically maimed or killed.
And Islam wants 'peace', yes, but this is an 'islamic peace', this is different from our non-islamic understanding of peace.... in Islam true global peace can only be achieved when the whole world is following Mo's/Allah's orders....
Hell is located beneath a large black building in Mecca.
DP111-
Thanks for the Dan Simmons link.
Chilling.
The search for the missing link?
Wow, this Muslim made it to Dante's purgatory!
that's one up on Saladin.......
It is SF from a period when the European Calliphate has been established etc. I won't go any further.
via LGF.
Posted by: DP111 at April 9, 2006 09:33 PM
That essay gave me the coldest chills I 've had in a while! Our future prophesied? If eyes don't open, attitudes don't change, and heads don't pop out of the sand, that hideous nightmare is the future. 100 years of war---what a horrible, horrible prospect. Even if the beastly UN finally dies a belated death, who could celebrate?
First of all let me give a caveat that I started reading on this subject about a year ago, and I am probably way behind the curve here. But, could someone please explain to me why this (Islam) is not questioned about being a religion. I have read the Quran a number of times and most of it seems to deal with public and foriegn policies (primarily militant) with a lot of praises to Allah thrown in. Based on that is it a religion because someone claims it as such? By that regard Communism could be called a religious belief. Maybe part of the problem with this whole issue is that we are trying to deal with a 'religion' when we should be dealing with an agressive foriegn policy. There are a lot of resources I haven't even started to read yet, so any responses would be appreciated.
Myst
Naseem;
Truth be told, I like you and I'm going to help you out on the question about hell.
First off, if you go to a Greek Lexicon and look up the word Hell, the word originally meant "grave," not a burning torment, or a place of punishment. Now the word hell in the Hebrew is "sheol." Like the word soul, both words have been twisted to mean something entirely different. In leuw of this revelation, the actual location of hell is below the earth, in the earth. Hell is the grave.
This sheads light on John the Revelator's prophecy,
"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is he second death.
15. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."
Revelation 20:14-15.
According to this writ of scripture, the lake of fire is the place of eternal punishment and damnation, not hell (the grave.)
But then you'd know this if you read the Bible.
Naseem;
Truth be told, I like you and I'm going to help you out on the question about hell.
First off, if you go to a Greek Lexicon and look up the word Hell, the word originally meant "grave," not a burning torment, or a place of punishment. Now the word hell in the Hebrew is "sheol." Like the word soul, both words have been twisted to mean something entirely different. In leuw of this revelation, the actual location of hell is below the earth, in the earth. Hell is the grave.
This sheads light on John the Revelator's prophecy,
"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."
Revelation 20:14-15.
According to this writ of scripture, the lake of fire is the place of eternal punishment and damnation, not hell (the grave.)
But then you'd know this if you read the Bible.