"Disaffected youth" of a particular ideological bent. "Plot began in chat room," from the Toronto Star, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
...So when a shadowy group of disaffected urban youth began talking in an Internet chat room in the fall of 2004 espousing anti-Western views, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service was listening.The spy agency, and an alphabet soup of other security agencies across the continent, closely monitor such sites, where talk may sometimes turn to buildings and bombs and bringing global jihad home to North America, to Canada.
Often it's just that — talk — but when CSIS began monitoring the sites allegedly used by some of the 17 men and youths arrested on terrorism-related charges in a sweeping series of raids across the GTA Friday evening, the Canadian spy agency heard enough to remain interested, and increased surveillance of the group....
Four months after the surveillance began, two Americans, from the Atlanta, Ga., area, popped onto the radar.
Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee had been communicating by email with the Canadian group, investigators allege, and in March 2005 the two hopped on a Greyhound bus, paying $280 (U.S.) for two round-trip tickets to Toronto, where, according to U.S. court documents, they were to meet with "like-minded Islamists."
"According to Ahmed ... they met regularly with at least three subjects of an FBI international terrorism investigation," the court documents allege, and discussed "strategic locations in the United States suitable for a terrorist strike."...
For neighbours of the 10 men and five juveniles who appeared in Brampton court Saturday — Yasin Abdi Mohamed and Ali Dirie, in prison in Kingston, did not appear — the arrests and charges came mostly as a shock.
They talked of quiet men, religious men, who played basketball and went to school and looked for jobs, of an elder who mentored younger men, but mostly, of men who kept to themselves, coming and going silently to and from their homes in Mississauga and Toronto.
The new recruting tool, internet chat rooms for jihad.
The new recruting tool, internet chat rooms for jihad.
Most Muslims are familiar with the principles of Islam that will justify lying in situations where they sense the need to do so. Among these are:
War is deception.
The necessities justify the forbidden.
If faced by two evils, choose the lesser of the two.
These principles are derived from passages found in the Quran and the Hadith.
In the Quran, Allah, allegedly, says:
" Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful." Surah 5:89
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/lying.shtml
O.T.
Scruton at Open Democracy:
The trouble with Islam, the European Union - and Francis Fukuyama
Fukuyama's master, Kojève, (Aleksandr Vladimirovich Kozhevnikov) provided the intellectual framework (perhaps via Allan Bloom) for Fukuyama's now-rather-ridiculous-looking End of History. He gets rough handling:
The essay also touches on Ibn Khaldun and Giambattista Vico and discusses the thought that liberal-democracy may not be a universal and inevitable path for all human societies, as some historicists (and perhaps some presidents) have assumed, but a development intrinsic to Christian culture.
Ahh the computer, the tool of the devil, or allah all one in the same.
"Religious men..." sounds good until you realize that their "religion" is Terror, Death and War, or as it is commonly called, Islam.
The Bin Laden and terrorist reading of the Quran is incorrect.
I explore it from an Islamic Legal Perspective Here:
http://eteraz.org/?p=205
All Western based terrorists are disingenously relying on verse 9:5 of the Quran.
"All Western based terrorists are disingenously relying on verse 9:5 of the Quran."
Ah, if only it were a matter of one solitary verse. You take us for utter fools, eh eteraz?
Of course not, but that's the primary verse that Bin Laden relied on in 1998. Over time (since I don't live in a cave), I will address all of the verses in that fatwa, as well as the (incorrect) citations in the Zarqawi letters. You need to stop being so confrontational.
From eteraz's link:
"Yet simple occupation does not make Americans polytheists — whose populatin, army and leaders are largely comprised of Christians and Jews (neither of which group the Quran considers “polytheists”)."
Most Christians are Trinitarians; Trinitarians are polytheists according to Islam.
The Quran refers to Christians and Jews as "People of the Book" not as "mushrikun" (polytheists) so both your and the al-Qaeda reading of the Quran (while the same as each other) is incorrect.
Pakis call Mississauga, "Muslimssauga". I live in Toronto and hate to go there, there are somalis, arabs, and Pakis living on welfare with each family having 4-5 kids. There are mosques every where you look. They have 2 MP's from MuslimSSAUGA. One MP, Omar Alghabra even called "Victory for Islam" when he won Liberal nomination. He replaced Caroline Parish who called Americans "Bastards"
Bin Laden's group is one of thousands of groups and cells of jihadists. As this site here Jihad Watch has shown for the last three years, our threat is not emanating mainly from al Qaeda, but from a more amorphous ocean of currents drawing on Islam.
Canada (or any European nation): failure of the Welfare State.
eteraz, there are plenty of verses in the Koran to justify and mandate terror(ism) against "People of the Book" as well.
The Koran is not consistent; it is filled with self-contradictions -- among which is that Christians are guilty of Shirk and therefore as bad as polytheists, even though they are "People of the Book". Trying to clean up the Koran is a hopeless, ridiculous endeavor -- and dangerous, too, because it perpetuates the lie that there can be a moderate Islam. It needs to be outlawed, as it provides sufficient fodder for hatred of non-Muslims and for the perennial project of conquering the world which began with Mohammed's personal eschatological psychopathology.
The amorphous ocean draws its legitimacy from somewhere. They don't just come into existence immacuately. There are spiritual and intellectual trends they follow. I have attempted to demonstrate that one of the foremost progenitors of such horrible trends are people who have completely misconstrued, in this case, at least one directive from the Quran, not to mention, put legal reasoning and flipped its on its head.
That amorphous ocean is a jungle; it would take someone 100 years to disentangle all the snaking roots and choking ivy and deadly thorns and beguiling flowers of toxic Islam. Any such project, however, is not seeing the forest -- or jungle -- for the trees: the forest, or jungle, is the overarching project to transfigure this imperfect world and put it under the supremacist rule of an Islam that is hostile to human rights at best, mass-murderous and officially enslaving at worst. This project, this jungle, began with seeds planted by that man all good Muslims regard as that "perfect man" -- General Mohammed, leader of the Eschatological Army to conquer the world and put it under supremacist Islamic law so that the world would be ready to be ended apocalyptically by God. No thanks. Your little project to divert attention from this is asinine, and dangerously misleading.
We need to hear the view of eteraz. I'm all ears.
I would like to hear what can be done about apostates please. Can they be allowed to live as equals of Muslims under the law? And women, can they be allowed to live as equals to Muslim men under the law? And non-believers, polytheists, Christians, Jews, atheists, Ahmadis, Bahais, can they all live as equals to Muslim men under the law? Can a Muslim swear an oath of allegiance to a non-Muslim nation such as to Canada, USA, UK, Japan, China, Australia, Argentina, France, Spain, etc.? Can a Muslim accept the rule of parliamentary law, i.e., sovereignty of the people? What about freedom of speech? Is the freedom to commit blasphemy a fundamental human right, i.e., freedom of conscience? Can a true Muslim EVER accept these principles, the very foundation of most non-Muslim democratic political economies? Can a true Muslim accept the entire UN Declaration on Human Rights?
J'ecoute.
Television: you get the idea of the perfection from Muhammad from the same place that fundamentalist Muslims get it -- nowhere.
You see, the Quran itself states that Muhammad was *only* a man, and the Quran itself points out Muhammad's mistakes. As such, the view that Muhammad was perfect is seriously flawed (although I concur that a large number of Muslims believe this, that is, respectfully, incorrect). In the 30th Juz, the Quran admonishes Muhammad for his anger. In a hadith narration Muhammad concedes that he has no idea what to do in a certain planning session. In the 29th Juz, the Quran tells Muhammad to stop being such a skeptic. if Muhammad was perfect why this, and the forty other documented cases where the Quran corrects Muhammad?
The only true faith in God's sight is Islam.
Q 3:19
eteraz do you understand what that one line means?
Hulegu,
Apostates: a reading of the Quran reveals that the only person the Quran gives the authority to kill an apostate is Muhammad. After him, no one is granted permission to attack a person for changing their religion. [Personally, as a Muslim, I don't like the idea that Muhammad killed converts; however, what I do like is that the Quran limits such killing to him]. In light of the Quran, all those who call for the murder of apostates today, are usurping the position of Muhammad in Islam (which Muslims aren't allowed to do). Further, the Quran states no EARTHLY punishment for an apostate. In other words, a Muslim can believe an apostate will go to hell, but does not create a rule allowing the apostate to be killed. Not only that, but the Quran also disavows taking law into your own hands. That, in itself is referred to as "fasad fil ardh" is one of the the most punishable offenses in Islam: crucifixion. All those Pakistani and Egyptian Muslims today clamoring for apostasy are misguided and need to be educated about their religion.
As far as oaths to non-Muslim nations go: there is nothing which prohibits this. In my eyes, the real problem isn't those that don't make oaths, but those sleeper cells who make oaths but then break them by turning into terrorists. That's not good Muslim behavior. That is lying. Lying is one of the most punishable sins in Islam. The Quran often states "therein [hell] is the abode of the liars. If a Muslim comes to America and takes the oath of entry and break that oath, he is a liar and belongs in hell.
As to democracy: there is nothing in the Muslim texts setting forth any one particular form of government. Muslims have always adopted forms of government whereever they have lived. The Arab Abbassids had no political theory of their own, so they adopted Persian despotism. The Moorish Muslims had no political theory of their own, so they adopted Iberian Sultanic Federalism. The point is: there is nothing "Islamic" about tyranny or un-Islamic about democracy. There are many Muslim democracies today: Turkey, Tunisia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, and Pakistan (when it isn't under martial law: the latter two have both elected female prime ministers). I think Muslim nations have a long way to go before they get rid of their tyrannical leaders but once they do, they can more than adequately take on democracy. These are not my views. I share them with the American Enterprise Institute.
The problem today isn't that there aren't enough good Muslim ideas about Islam; it is that these good ideas are always being drowned out by bad ideas and useless noise.
I ask your help in spreading the word.
"To you your religion and to me mine" Quran Juz 30th.
Quoting verses without rhyme or reason doesn't get you anywhere.
It's what Bin Laden does. No rhyme. No reason.
Islam is the problem.....hammer with facts....pound the myth......Flood them words from the dirty book of war.
I feel sorry for you....you and people like you will be the first ones to fall when Islam is unleashed....All I have to say to you...have a great day!
There's no rhyme or reason to any of this muslim garbage. Americans and Canadians are free to worship as they please, the British and Aussies too. It appears that islam, and olny islam is the problem.One day people will wake up. Maybe it wont bee too late.
FROM ALI SINA......Muhammad wrote a book? Raihan says, “Muhammad wrote a book.” I do not know how Raihan invent such lies. We do not see that Muhammad ever wrote a book. The modern Koran was written at least 20 years after Muhammad’s death under Omar instructions. Before that there were many versions of the Koran that appeared after Muhammad’s death. None of those, too, were written by Muhammad. Also, the modern Koran was written after dozens of the famous memorizers of his so-called revelations were killed in the aggressive war of the Muslims during the first few years after Muhammad’s death. Indeed, we did not see any indication that Muhammad was ever interested in putting his mumbo-jumbo (alleged revelations) into a book, neither did Allah ever reminded Muhammad to do so. After Muhammad got himself firmly established in Medina through extermination of the Banu Quraiza tribe, he had 4-5 years to concentrate peacefully on putting his revelations into book. But he did never try that. Against that, Hitler was not only close in almost every characteristic of Muhammad, but Hitler also wrote two books, the second one left unpublished. And remind you, despite the disagreement with his message, Hitler’s book Mein Kampf is not like the Koran – the latter being full of inconsistencies, contradictions, illegibility, absurdities, repetitions and what not. Yes, Koran is one of the most bizarre books in the history of mankind.
Miraculous Koran? And yes, there is nothing miraculous (what is miracle anyway?) about the Koran, since there is nothing miraculous in Mein Kampf. However, it could be called miraculous (meaning outstanding) in terms of inconsistencies, absurdities, repetitions and contradictions etc.
Muhammad copied Koran from Bible/Torah? I do not know where Mr. Raihan read that
http://www.islam-watch.org/MA_Khan/Raihan/AliSina3.htm
Hammer and pound. I guess when in doubt, turn into a gorilla.
Not much can shock me anymore....except people with 20-20 vision when given the facts here and the dirty koran itself.....still can't see....that is shocking!
eteraz....How much you want to bet...the killers of these kids were Quoting verses without rhyme or reason...these were young kids with dreams...now they are a body count...yes...I hate that dirty book!....Gunmen kill 11 Iraqi students, kidnap transport workers
Gunmen killed at least 11 college students after stopping a bus in Baghdad and kidnapped up to 50 transport company employees in the Iraqi capital on Monday, Interior Ministry sources said. (Reuters)
http://www.ynetnews.com/home/0,7340,L-3083,00.html
Assalamau - Laikum all,
I congratulate your services for the progress they made on this. For the life of me ...I cannot understand where these peoples are coming from. Canada will be Islamic in 30 years anyway...through natural means...what a bunch of losers..oh well...Allah Talah knows best.
Chat-rooms are obviously regulated...as I'm sure that this site is ....not only by your services but "others too", so you always have to be careful.
Back to teh thread....There has been some debate over whether a book had been written by Muhammed or not?
I think not ....Mohd would have passed his considerable knowledge to his closest followers ..to be learned "by heart"...a practice that is still followed today.
Whatever you may think about him.. Mohd was a genius....not certain about the last prophet but a genius anyway.
Only 60 odd years to set up a religion ...so little time with all bending his ear.
Allah..would send his office messenger... the angel Gibreel with surah after surah...he had to learn, assimilate & relay this to the troops, others would bend his ear on war plans (defence mainly)...then there was the task to feed & clothe the womens & childrens of the soldiers killed on both sides. He showed genuine interest in this.
In the process he had to get married near enough 20 times ...& not forgetting when he had to agree with Allah at the Al-Quisa how many times muslims should pray a day.
Getting advice from Moses, Abharam, Jesus on the way up to 7th heaven. After agreement ....there was all the processes, protocols & procedures to teach...the myriad of questions to answer....and in between he had to eat and when time permitted --procreate.
So now you tell me.....when was he going to get time to write a book....he never learned to write & delegation was too hard for such sacred information.
This kina reminds me of the time when Saddam wanted to write his memoirs. He asked his secretary to find a "speedwriter" but after much searching....he got given a laptop.
In a fit of rage he said..."Good Allah!!! what do you expect me to do with this?...
I need a speedwriter...Don't you know that I am a really good dictator".
Toyko Rose Naseem...Mohammad meet an angel...of that I have no doubt..............11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
11:15 Therefore [it is] no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. 2 Corinthians 11:14-15
eteraz, I empathize with you. I don't know what to think about the Muslim religion right now, suffice it to say that those who practice it are increasingly scaring the hell out of me. It seems that you are one of the nicer ones but I am concerned with how there is a dangerous element to the religion and I don't know how we will ever deal with it.
I seriously think that the first thing we need to do is cut off immagration from countries that have a high concentration of people who wish to see harm done to the US and other Western nations, but beyond that what can we do? Even if Islam isn't a threat there are Muslims who are, who won't assimilate and who seem hell bent on causing madness where ever they go.
"Getting advice from Moses, Abharam, Jesus on the way up to 7th heaven. After agreement ...."
Alright Naseem. the you are so full of crap that it is coming through your fingers. Pleeeeze, tell me what teachings of Christ's did Mohamm learn and incorporate into the Quran???.
As for eteraz who said, "You need to stop being so confrontational."
We'll stop being confrontational when Mohammedans stop killing, bombing and raping for the sake of Isalm.
7th heaven... lol naseem.. The best way to lose all is to cling with desperation to that which cannot possibly be sustained literally.
Naseem, do you honestly think that Canada will be Islamic in 30 years?
What gives you an idea like that? First, we can all agree that God is the supreme, perfect being, right?
Yet, believers in the Qur'an, have the mindset that Muhammad received a message from God so that God could correct his past messages and their interpretations?
If this were true, and God's message were in need of clarification, then why would Muhammad be taking advice from Jesus and Moses on his way to "7th Heaven"?
If you actually read the Qur'an, not only is it loaded with violent commands, it is full of contradictions.
Of course, we should never expect a sheep such as yourself to ever admit anything like that.
You really do make yourself look to be very much an imbecile with your comments. They contradict each other, just like the Qur'an's verses contradict themselves.
There's a good chance that Muhammad is not in heaven. It is more likely that he is fastened to a rotisserie down in Satan's kitchen, with an apple in his mouth, hoping that Hitler will come by and give him a sip of water.
Naseem,
After having no computer for a few days, in the shop for an upgrading in operation systems, it is quite a suprise to read your commentary. Do you think that Canada is going to be Muslim in 30 years after the past weekend's bust of that terror ring of 17 members? Get real!
They join a chat room not to share interests in sport, music, film, art, history, literature, or love, no, -and not to further creative projects or to unite their strength in some life-affirming idea, -no.
But, like a human form of a scorpion, they collect together to plan mass-murder.
And the chatroom becomes their pit.
Hell is a pit, as well.
Time to get them offline -and in hades.
(Man-made, if necessary.)
I do not believe anymore that it is the koran that is behind all of this. I bet none of those under aged kids read the Koran or gave a crap about what the versus mean. They did what they did because they are a bunch of self-absorbed cultural supremacists who want to blow things up just to feel important about who thy are as muslims. For them, violence against the Christian/Jewish world is a form of cultural identity. The Koran could say, Thou Shall Not Blow Up Government Buildings in Canada, and those kids would have done it anyway.
So this comes back to what I said before. This whole thing with islam and arabs is a race/culture thing. Islam is an anti-social culture of dirty little miscreants with no intuitive sense of right and wrong and little in the way of a conscience. Look how they treat animals. Nothing in the Koran about that. It's just the way they are.
Koran, Moran, Smoran, it is all meaningless.
You can take away their Koran and they will continue to produce kids that will grow up to hate non-muslims, behave cruelly to women, animals, and children. You can in fact, convert them to Christianity, and they will still have a disproportionately high crime rate.
You can take away Mohammad, take away the Koran, take away Islam, and these people, if left to their own devices, will create another “islam” to replace it. It is in their genes. That is why it matters not if they are 40 or 15, if they are poor or rich, if they are born and raised in Iran, or born and raised in Canada, or if they actually studied the Koran or actually did not, if they went to mosque or did not - they all end up having the same mind set. Why? Because it is
their culture that makes them like that.
Their culture was like that long before the Koran, Mohammad and his islam cult came around. This is a war not between religions but between a primitive, vengeful, childish culture, and the rest of the modern world. Religion is just a facade here. Their book is just an excuse.
"The Koran, you see, commands me to kill the infidel. I'm just following devine scripture."
Translation:
"The Koran is my excuse, my moral crutch, for taking a dump on the white, Christian world which I despise."
Just as some people in the inner cities vandalize cars, spray graffiti, abuse welfare, and rob and rape, the muslim world does the same thing on a global scale. Religion is a red herring to explain this kind of behavior. It is the culture and race that produces it that is rotten.
Hypothetically: Convert all the muslims to Christianity. Do you think you will have a well-behaved, civilized, compassionate, industrious, hardworking group of 1.2 billion people? Not. What you will have is the same percentage on welfare, the same percentage being angry, sullen, vindictive citizens, and their crime rate will be disproportionately large, compared to other cultures in the same society. Religion can not save these people. Democracy can not save these people. Civilization can not save these people. The people are just rotten.
Do not forget that Islam, is a product of the people. People produce their own culture. The Good or bad of it depends on the people. An apple does not grow from an plum seed. If a plum is produced, it means it is a plum tree. And it was a plum tree before Mohammad got there. You can take away Islam, but you can not away the bad that produced islam. The bad remains. For that, there is no cure. No religion can cure that.
Take away Islam and you may cut down on the terrorism somewhat, but you will not cut down on the cruelty, the violence, the misogyny, the backward ways, the politics, the resentment of the prosperous west and the anger and violence that this resentment produces, the filthy environment, the sloppy dress, the unkept appearance, or the pea-green hummus. That is cultural. And it is a culture much older than islam.
Naseem, I think I have you figured out. Froll, aren't you?
"I do not believe anymore that it is the koran that is behind all of this. I bet none of those under aged kids read the Koran or gave a crap about what the versus mean."
I'd say you are half right: most violent Muslims probably have little serious exposure to the letter of the Koran. But: the Koran's message of hatred and divinely mandated military supremacy against all Muslims has percolated like a general, amorphous gas, into Islamic culture in a variety of ways, through a variety of sociological mediums.
somethingaboutislam,
I'm surprised you would say this about the Koran not being important, given Robert's tireless efforts to present the evidence that the Koran (and Hadith, Sira, and Islamic jurisprudence) is very important. I do agree that cultural traditions are a factor, but "Television" has made the important point that those cultural traditions are informed by adherence to the Koran. Also, certain traditions from pre-Islamic Arabic culture have found their way into Islamic doctrine. But I've spent more time than I care to admit studying the Koran, Hadith, and Sira, as well as multiple tafsirs and even some Islamic jurisprudence, and it seems clear to me that the jihadists are playing their role nearly exactly as Islam specifies.
Don't just take our words for it, though. Read Robert's _The P.I.G. to Islam_; Bat Ye'or's _Dhimmitude_, and Andrew Bostom's _The Legacy of Jihad_. The connection between the doctrine and the current practice is very strong, as these sources show. And as Robert has stated many times, communal obligatory jihad against non-Muslims (who refuse da'wa and who are not protected by temporary truce with Muslims) is still (today) officially accepted by all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence. The killing of apostates, gays and lesbians, adulterers (and those guilty of some other kinds of illegal sexual intercourse--e.g., Muslim women having sex with or marrying a non-Muslim man), blasphemers, those guilty of "sedition" (e.g., including non-violent political dissidents, outspoken critics of Islam, reformers of Islam) is based firmly on Koranic principles and Hadith, and is enshrined in Islamic laws. I have putting together an argument demonstrating all of these points here
http://www.islam-watch.org/Archemedez/KillingInKoran.htm
A well-documented case that Islam was founded upon terror, plunder, slave-trade, etc., can be found here http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/RootsTerrorism0.htm
Even, after all of this, you still believe that Islamic mayhem is due to the cultural traditions more than the doctrines, it is still necessary to be able to make a case against the thesis of Robert, Andrew Bostom, Bat Ye'or, et al., and indeed, against the interpretation of today's Islamic mainstream orthodoxy (e.g., Qaradawi). That would be a formidable task, unfortunately, because the Islamic texts overwhelmingly support the most hard-line interpretations and traditions.
...and just to be clear, I don't believe it is an argument of traditions versus doctrines, but a question of how much the traditions (current practices and policies of mainstream Islam) adhere to doctrines. My view is close that of Robert; that the influence of the doctrine is strong.
Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com at June 5, 2006 05:29 PM
“Apostates: a reading of the Quran reveals that the only person the Quran gives the authority to kill an apostate is Muhammad.”
The Koran itself does not restrict this practice to Mohammad, nor does it prohibit Muslims from killing non-Muslims, including apostates (specifically those who, in apostatizing publicly, decisively, and permanently, have entered the broad category of non-Muslims). There are, however, plenty of statements in the Koran that (according to multiple tafsirs) put the crime of apostasy into the category of mischief (fasad), and the range of penalties for that, depending on the severity of transgression, includes execution, dismemberment (of the hand and foot), or banishment from the society (expulsion or prison). Apostates have broken their covent, their oaths with Allah and therefore are guilty of the worst category of crime for which the death penalty is given. This, the belief that apostates must be executed, is the view of mainstream Islam today. Reformists who wish to remove this harsh penalty against apostates have had no significant impact on Islamic orthodoxy in the past 1400 years.
I should add that, although I would welcome your response, you really should be arguing with the world’s most influential Muslims in power, who maintain the status quo, and whose lives have been devoted to the study of the Islamic texts, e.g., http://www.islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2006/04/article01c.shtml I am merely reporting on what they believe about the Islamic texts.
“After him, no one is granted permission to attack a person for changing their religion. [Personally, as a Muslim, I don't like the idea that Muhammad killed converts; however, what I do like is that the Quran limits such killing to him]. In light of the Quran, all those who call for the murder of apostates today, are usurping the position of Muhammad in Islam (which Muslims aren't allowed to do).”
It’s irrelevant what you like, unless you have power to sway Islamic orthodoxy. Either your beliefs can be supported sufficiently by the Koran to make life and death decisions, or they cannot. The Koran is too ambiguous and too inconsistent to be of any use whatsoever as a legal guide, particularly in life-or-death matters. There are no statements in the Koran that limit the administration of the death penalty for crimes such as apostasy and blasphemy to the prophet Mohammad. It is not difficult to find verses that state that Mohammad is merely a messenger and it is up to believers to implement his message on earth. (Again, these are inconsistent with other verses which state that Mohammad is laying down Allah’s laws). One way or another, the Koran’s “Allah” puts Islamic laws into the hands of the believers on earth, and demands as an external manifestation (proof) of faith their willingness to execute His divine commandments on earth. Verses such as 2:251, 57:25, 9:14, 8:17, 47:4, 47:31, and 22:38-45 support this view. I should add that these are not merely my personal opinions (my personal opinion is that the Koran is deeply immoral and nonsensical), but are based on the readings of Islamically-respected Koranic scholars (Ibn Kathir, the authors of the Jalalayn and Ibn Abbas tafsirs, et al). Also, Islamic orthodoxy today (and throughout history) does not recognize mosque/state divisions, but rather the law must be Allah’s, sharia must be implemented on earth to check the mischief of disbelief and disbelievers, etc. I have examined this issue here http://www.islam-watch.org/Archemedez/KillingInKoran.htm
“Further, the Quran states no EARTHLY punishment for an apostate. In other words, a Muslim can believe an apostate will go to hell, but does not create a rule allowing the apostate to be killed.”
That’s misleading, especially in light of 2:251, which assigns believers the task of checking mischief on earth. Verses 4:88-93, among others, demand an earthly penalty for apostasy, and specifically prohibit the killing of those who repent and return to Islam, i.e., it is forbidden to kill a believer intentionally (though there are even exceptions to this). What you are referring to is simple apostasy, as opposed to apostasy with some other complicating factor, such as alleged treason (which many claim is a complicating factor in 4:88-91). To obtain the context of 4:88-93, we need to turn to the Hadith, and there we find that, in many other contexts, there are general orders to kill simple apostates. Nevertheless, even if treason were a decisive factor, because the Koran states that disbelief is the worst crime, it is irrelevant what the other factors such a treason were. They are insignificant compared to the crime of disbelief (and maintaining that state of disbelief) after believing. In 4:89, apostates/renegades are not to be killed if they return to Islam. That is, the alleged treason would be forgiven. This shows that the decisive factor is publicly-pledged faith in Islam, not treason. Also, verses of jihad such as 9:5, 8:39, and 2:193 make it clear that belief in Islam is the decisive factor in whether or not a person or group of people is to be killed in battle. If they accept Islam, they are spared. In principle, this is consistent with the policy viz apostates: If they repent, spare them; but if they don’t repent, kill them.
“Not only that, but the Quran also disavows taking law into your own hands. That, in itself is referred to as "fasad fil ardh" is one of the the most punishable offenses in Islam: crucifixion.”
Nonsense. The killing is only unjust, or in the broad category of mischief/corruption on earth (fasad fil-ardh), if it goes against the Koran and the prophet’s orders. There is no penalty in Islam for killing an apostate. Indeed, if an order is contrary to the Koran and accepted hadith, it is a Muslim’s duty to disobey it (except for temporary tactic reasons to further the cause of Islam).
“All those Pakistani and Egyptian Muslims today clamoring for apostasy are misguided and need to be educated about their religion.”
Then your task is to “educate” them, not to confuse non-Muslims about Islam. (Caution: If you try to educate them, they may kill you!). Most non-Muslims have no idea that you are talking about your own private vision of Islam (wherein apostates should not be killed), instead of the reality of what is accepted by mainstream Islam today (wherein apostates must be killed).
“As far as oaths to non-Muslim nations go: there is nothing which prohibits this.
There’s nothing that prohibits Muslims from using temporary truces and alliances for tactical reasons. The jihadists’ use of U.S. support in Afghanistan is a classic example of this. Once the Americans had outlived their usefulness, they became the next target.
“In my eyes, the real problem isn't those that don't make oaths, but those sleeper cells who make oaths but then break them by turning into terrorists. That's not good Muslim behavior. That is lying. Lying is one of the most punishable sins in Islam. The Quran often states "therein [hell] is the abode of the liars. If a Muslim comes to America and takes the oath of entry and break that oath, he is a liar and belongs in hell.”
This is again misleading. You won’t convince many at this site of that, because most people here are aware of the practices of taqiyah and kitman. Indeed, it would be foolish for any party at war to reveal its true plans to the enemy. Mohammd himself said “War is deceit” in both of the sahih Hadiths, and permitted the use of deception in the Cause of Allah (e.g., the assassination of Kab bin Ashraf). The only question is whether the practice is justified in Islamic terms. Muslims’ loyalties are with Islam and the ummah, not with any so-called ignorant and mischievous non-Muslim nations and peoples.
“As to democracy: there is nothing in the Muslim texts setting forth any one particular form of government.
It has to follow Allah’s laws. “Allah” legislates jihad against non-Muslims until all religion is for Allah (8:39, 2:193). That’s all any non-Muslim needs to know, but you and others are trying to remove the danger symbol from the label instead of removing the toxins from the container.
“Muslims have always adopted forms of government whereever they have lived.
As a temporary measure in preparation for setting up sharia and extracting jizya from dhimmis and zakat from converts. There is no Muslim group anywhere in the world that fully accepts non-Muslim laws and customs. Islam is an externalized “religion”; it is politics, law, and militarism. If it was merely a personal affair between Muslims and their deity, we could close down all sites such as JW, islam-watch, faithfreedom, etc., and we could save billions of man-hours, billions of dollars, and millions of lives, and solve all kinds of human rights problems. But alas, this “faith” in Islam requires an enormous amount of externalization and imposition, hence the problems.
“The Arab Abbassids had no political theory of their own, so they adopted Persian despotism. The Moorish Muslims had no political theory of their own, so they adopted Iberian Sultanic Federalism. The point is: there is nothing "Islamic" about tyranny or un-Islamic about democracy. There are many Muslim democracies today: Turkey, Tunisia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, and Pakistan (when it isn't under martial law: the latter two have both elected female prime ministers). I think Muslim nations have a long way to go before they get rid of their tyrannical leaders but once they do, they can more than adequately take on democracy.”
There’s nothing un-Islamic about tyranny (define tyranny by non-Muslims statndards and yes, Islam is tyrannical), and there’s very little that is Islamic about democracy (beyond simple consensus on certain issues; but democracy as it is understood in the west is not merely voting but assumes the existence of a rational process of debate, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, equality of law-abiding citizens in the eyes of the law be they women or men, religious or non-religious, etc. All of these factors are compromised in Islam)
“These are not my views. I share them with the American Enterprise Institute.”
But they most definitely are your views. If you are expressing views such as those above, you should distinguish between your views and the views of mainstream Islamic orthodoxy. For example, when you say that the Koran does not permit the killing of apostates, you need to state that this is your own view, not the view of mainstream Islam, nor even of most Muslims. Otherwise you are lulling them into a false sense of security by failing to acknowledge the problems in real Islam as it actuall exists today.
“The problem today isn't that there aren't enough good Muslim ideas about Islam; it is that these good ideas are always being drowned out by bad ideas and useless noise.
I ask your help in spreading the word.”
Muslims generally cannot bring themselves to admit that there is a problem, any problem, within Islam itself. They believe Islam is perfect and therefore any problems are from outside, from non-Muslims, or from people deviating from Islam. In this respect, most moderate Muslims and extremist jihadists and sharia-enthusiasts are in full agreement. Unless you acknowledge the problems in Islam itself, admit that there are problems in the Koran and Sunnah, I don’t see that we are on the same team. We’re trying to wake people up, and you’re trying to put them to sleep with assurances that carry practically no weight in the Islamic world.
If it were that straightforward, why is it that legions of wanna-be Islam reformers have failed to supress the "extremists"? You state that Muslims aren't allowed to usurp such powers, but completely ignore the influences of the ahadith. Also, where in the Quran is there an unabrogated verse that disavows (sic) taking law into your own hands? If these are offences punishable by crucifixion (sic), why don't we see plenty of al Qaeda, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, Lashkar e Toiba et al combatants being crucified by the 80% of peace-loving Muslims that the taqiyya artists are ever so ready to remind us of? Is it sura 5:32?
No can do. We aren't, and don't plan on becoming Muslims, Naseem's rants above notwithstanding. If Muslims can't understand Islam, it's not our job to help them do it. The most humane of us will help them out of it, and then help them understand ours, while the less generous ones among us will eliminate those of them who remain a threat.Besides, why is there that pressure on us to understand Islam? There is no such pressure on any of us collectively to understand Judaism, or Buddhism, or any other religion for that matter. Every day, I'm under no pressure to understand Christianity, and there aren't hordes of Christians taking us out on the grounds that some of us aren't. No Jew or Buddhist has to tell me that his religion is one of peace. Nor do I have to tell anybody that Hinduism has plenty of good ideas that are drowned out by the bad ones. Nor do Sikhs, their kirpans notwithstanding, go around beheading people.
Actually, given all the literature that exists out of Islam (the only post Mohammed advances that the Arabs have ever made in literature have been the Quran, Ahadith, Sira, Tafseer and similar Islamic commentary. In short, all Arabic literature since Mohammed has been Islam, Islam, Islam, Islam and Islam.), the problem is not that Muslims don't understand Islam; the problem is that they understand it only too well. Those with a conscience (which is there despite Islam) have either quietly or openly apostatized, while those without it have stayed on, and either practice taqqiya with Infidels, or engage in open warfare.
TV is right. You won't find too many customers of your taqiyya art around here.
eteraz,
"I explore it from an Islamic Legal Perspective Here:http://eteraz.org/?p=205 All Western based terrorists are disingenously relying on verse 9:5 of the Quran. Posted by: eteraz.wordpress.com [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 5, 2006 04:23 PM"
What Islamic legal perspective? The article is your personal opinion and that of one other.
BTW, if your argument is that 9:5 must be read with a hyper-specific contextual interpretation (i.e., that it only applies to the specific battle that was to happen between the Muslims and the Meccans), then what is to stop anyone from asking you to apply that principle consistently and leave the Koran and Sunnah where they belong: In 7th century Arabia?
You also skip the question of why, in that context, Mohammad (Allah) ever believed it to be appropriate to lay down a "convert to Islam or die" proposition in 9:5; also see 9:29 which permits Muslim to impose the "accept Islam, or dhimmitude, or face death" "options" for Christians and Jews, who are called kafirun--disbelievers. This shows that Islam is inherently a corrupt religion, in any age.
In fact, the Koran itself says that Allah's laws do not change (33:60-62).
Infidel Pride, I think with folks like eteraz and Thomas Haidon, we see a subcategory of Muslims who are practicing taqiyya on themselves.
Archimedes,
"also see 9:29 which permits Muslim to impose the "accept Islam, or dhimmitude, or face death" "options" for Christians and Jews, who are called kafirun--disbelievers."
But as eteraz reminds us, those kafirun have the pleasing label of "People of the Book", so that makes their conversion under pain of humiliating, debilitating dhimmitude, or death, okay.
Not to condone vigilante violence (although I'm no longer completely sure why not), but one good thing to come out of it would be to give Muslims in their home countries the impressions that Westerners really are bigoted against Muslims, despite protestations to the contrary. If this serves to dissuade many of them from coming over, then this violence, justified or not, would have served a greater purpose.
The reason vigilante violence is not acceptable is because it does not stop at smashing windows, at least not in the U.K. Here is an example of a vigilante attack on a relation of Rageh Omar a famous T.V correspondant:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2199873,00.html
The poor guy had chunks carved out of his body and his throat cut, though he survived.
This type of attack is extremely rare however because the vast majority of Brits find it abhorrent and bend over backwards to accommodate Muslims in every way.
Archimedes, the connection between the Koran and the behavior of muslims is not one of cause, but one of effect. One can make a case for a connection, but is the Koran the cause of the behavior, or simply just a symptom of it?
I purport that the Koran is a symptom of the culture. Logic dictates that the Koran was produced by the culture, so the culture came first, then the Koran. Only a fundamentally corrupt culture cold produce such a holy book, and revere it as such for 1350 years. Create such a book in a western society and it would be scoffed at. Create such a book in their culture, and they embrace it. Why? There's the rub.
So yes, muslims may commit their atrocities and say "The Koran made me do it", but my argument is that they would have done it anyway in some form under some other guise.
somethingaboutislam,
kuran was not a product of culture. It contains the atrocities of a madman. There are people who were converted at swordpoint throughout the history of islam. These people belonged to different cultures. They were Jews, Christians, Persians, Hindus, all. Those that could escape, escaped. Those that could not, became rabid zombies. kuran was the work of a single madman. And we don't even know which culture he belonged to. He made his own culture, the culture of terror, called islam.
Arjun, the rantings of one madman can not enslave an entire people if they reject it. Remember, that one man on his own is just one man. On his own, Hitler was nothing. It was the germans that made him powerful. It took the machinations of millions of people to give him that power. As a raving lunatic on the street, he is nothing. The same lunatic on our streets, stays a lunatic on the streets. He doesn't become head of the country. The germans made him powerful because they liked his message. So the germans produced Hitler. And they got their reward for that.
The same story with the arabs. They produced mohammad and made him powerful, and keep him as a revered figure.
I could write a book like that and I would be laughed at. Write a book like that amongst arab people, and they embrace it without debate. The Koran was produced by the culture and embraced by the culture. And to this day, that culture loves that book.
Those converted at swordpoint, are not actually converted. They are just playing along not to get killed. Those people don't go and commit atrocities. When the Pakis commit atrocities, it is because the arab culture has supplanted their native indian culture.
Naseem, there are enough non muslim immigrants coming into Canada who have lived under the yoke of muslim, and they will not allow muslims to control one percent of Canada. and Naseem watch your side among your own people as more Muslims kill Muslims.
somethingaboutislam,
I would say it is causal both ways. I certainly agree that Islam was founded by a bunch of terrorist thugs*, but I would also agree with arjun that Mohammad's group was quite different from the prevailing culture.
*http://www.islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/RootsTerrorism0.htm
Anyways, regarding the causation issue, let's take these "disaffected youth" for example.
Scenario A: The kids get angered by the fact that "their people" are being assailed by the westernized people. Then they get more involved with the Islamic texts. The texts give them numerous justifications for their anger, increasing it, polarizing believer vs disbeliever; and the texts give instruction to fight those who are oppressing Muslims; and of course they are impressionable and buy the whole story about virgins in paradise, etc.
Scenario B: The kids learn the Koran from an early age, learn to discriminate against non-Muslims, think of the non-Muslims as the enemy etc., and then become exposed to information about Muslims "brothers" being killed abroad...
I suspect either of these scenarios would lead to the same result, when combined with a social group that is interested in violent retaliation--terror attack. (Of course, what actually happens is a combination of A and B).
I conceptualize the interaction between the Islamic texts (I) and the social group's perspective (S) as on-going process that takes place in the brain of the developing terrorist.
S-I-S-S-I-S-I-I-I-S-I-S-S-... and so on.
There is probably a lot of self-selecting of information (especially on the internet), as well as self-selecting of peers in these groups, such the the motivations and preferences of the individual would bias the selction of information and peers. In turn, the influence of the peers and the Islamic doctrinal information would influence the motivations and preferences of the individual. I visualize it as a complex interactive process between all of these factors.
Archimedes (and to some extent the other commentator who replied),
Thank you for your very well researched responses.
I fully concur with you, that the Muslim reformers need to relate to, and figure out things, in the Muslim mind. That is almost elementary, but its absolutely true.
I don't much come on Jihad Watch or other similar websites or even interact much with people like Spenser because he does not need a dialogue with me.
Personally, I know full well where the work needs to be done. Nietzsche once said that the hardest thing to do is to stick to what you're doing because there will be many who will come along and throw a hundred reasons for why you should stop your mission (the Gay Science). I think that's a very astute observation. I find far too many self-proclaimed reformists engaging in fixing Western awareness of Islam instead of engaging Islam. For example, instead of challenging closed-mindedness and traditionalism on the blogs, they will, instead only chime in when something anti-West gets said. I don't like that, personally (I have a few such commentators).
Anyhow, you kept saying that what I have said is simply my opinion. Well, it is my interpretation of the Shariah, yes. However, it is also the interpretation of the Shariah of the most popular Islam website (as determined by Muslims) on the web. Sure, it's just a website, but it's still important. Anyhow, I have started a problematic quran verses section on my site, and all those citations you made earlier (which the TERRORISTS use to their end), will be explained. I am but a small fish in the pond, but I do my part. I ask that you spread the word, because believe it or not, you also have a role to play in this thing called Islamic Reform, please see my open letter to reformist Muslims on my site (its about people like you).
Finally, if you comment here I probably won't get it. I only accidentally came back today. As I said, I only occassionally come by sites like these (which are more about non-Muslims talking to non-Muslims about fundamentalist Islam.
AE.
One last thing: I took a hyperlink to your longer comment above (and saved it). I probably won't get around to answering it any time soon but I might use it as a springboard for some ideas. Do not be offended. I simply believe that engaging the Muslim community comes before engaging the non-Muslim, because that's where the greater headway needs to be made. Thanks.
somethingaboutislam,
The problem with your thesis is that, had there been no Koran and no Mohammed to galvanize Arabs into an Islam, there would be no dangers now, nor most likely over the past many centuries -- since Arabs without the galvanizing force of Islam would be so backward, corrupt and internally chaotic they would never have gotten out of the desert and would have long ago been conquered by others.
Television, I agree that the Mohammad gave them a licence to be the idiots they are today. My assertion is that even without that licence, they would still be idiots. And when I say idiots, I mean violent, backward, and prone to ideological extremism. Indeed, I assert that if Mohammad had not come along and inspired the koran, some other mohammad would have come along sooner or later and done the same thing with the exact same results. Only a culture ripe for that dynamic, will produce such a phenomenom and accept it.
The fact that they still ruthlessly subscribe to this idiot manifesto 1300 years later, is testimony to the inherent extremism in their cultural makeup. Other cultures, more advanced cultures, would have tossed such ideology aside after a few hundreds years, if they ever accepted it at all.
The Koran didn't produce the people. The people produced the Koran. And they like the product. Take it away, leave and come back in a few hundred years, and they will have made another one to replace it.