In "Analogy of Zidane and the Muslim Ummah," Farhad Khadim at Iviews.com (thanks to Fjordman) see the World Cup championship soccer match between Italy and France as an analogy for the global jihad:
It was then that it occurred to me that what I had just witnessed was a microcosm of the Muslim Ummah, played out in a soccer field before the eyes of the whole world. For me Zidane was the Muslim Ummah, with past glory and achievement crowning his forehead, leading his people to victory, achievement and a respectable place among nations. His opponents were bent on striking him down, and one in particular, Materrazi was an embodiment of the monstrous powers who are bent on occupying, provoking and stereotyping the Muslim Ummah.And like the Ummah today, the provocation was too much for him. He snapped and did something uncharacteristic because he felt victimized. Perhaps he was called a "dirty terrorist" as some report, or his sister or mother were called by some degrading name as others report. Whatever it was, he lost all sense of where he was, his legacy, his future and the difference he could have made to the game, and fell victim to the deliberate provocative assaults on his person.
I see his reaction as analogous to the protests, flag burnings and other emotional outbursts committed by Muslims against others who may have deliberately provoked them.
Yes, everyone knows that calling people terrorists makes them become terrorists.
Like Zidane, we shock the world when we do things uncharacteristic of our faith, and we betray those who see in us a ray of hope for civilization.
Or do you just act true to the example of Muhammad and the teachings of the various Islamic sects and schools of law? Watch for my next book, The Truth About Muhammad, coming October 9 from Regnery Publishing.
Like Zidane, the Muslim Ummah has suffered provocations and deliberate attempts to tarnish its image, despite great civilizational achievements for a millennium. And like Zidane, we snap when we cannot take it any more.Like Zidane's suffering of an alleged abuse, we also suffer the abuse of the desecration of our holy symbols, occupation of our lands, colonization, genocide and murder of innocent civilians. And like him, the temptation is to turn our back on history, our legacy of patience and restraint and to lash out without considering whether our actions are ethical or strategic. Kidnappings, bombing of innocent civilians, destruction of property after the cartoon episode are all images that have come to characterize the Ummah.
What, then, explains the centuries of jihad warfare carried out by the great Islamic empires of the past, when they had no conceivable provocation? Why did Muhammad travel to Tabuk to attack the Byzantines, though they had taken no notice of him? Why did the Muslim jihad warriors sweep through the Middle East and North Africa and into Europe in the early centuries of Islam, although the states they conquered had done nothing whatsoever to them?
What I find annoying is not that some people take this particular tack. It is, after all, very tempting for a certain personality. (My propblems - my peoples' problems - are cause by other people - who just so happen to be living freely and prosperously, while I and my people languish - and can only be solve when other people change their behavior.)
What annoys me is the widespread receptivity that message has among people who enjoy the benefits of a civilization that has thrived and prospered in no small part because it AVOIDS the self-pity, nostalgia, victimization, and self-destructive violence of the contemporary, backward, repressive and religously ILLIBERAL Arab/Islamic world.
Any European or American started talking like this and he/she would rightly be accused of flirting with fascism or at least apologizing for it.
But when the Non-Westerners do it, they are indulged, coddled, patted on the head.
I sincerely believe that many liberals (Leftists) simply do not expect any more from Non-Western peoples. The soft bigotry of low expectaions.
O.T.
There is a good round up at the following link on the shenanigans at the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office covered earlier at the Daily Ablution, as reported on here a few threads back.
Why Is The British Government Protecting This Islamist?
Why indeed? Let us remember:
And, indeed:
The FCO seems to be piling inquity on inquity:
Ah, there speaks the man from the FCO - let's disguise what is going on from the public, eh?
Just how deep does all this run?
And does anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together still think it was a good idea to allow mass-migration of Muslims to the West? Hardly.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,426531,00.html
Zidane's Mom: 'I Want Materazzi's Balls on a Platter'
French soccer star Zinedine Zidane has spoken out about the red card incident in the World Cup final saying he head-butted Marco Materazzi after the Italian defender repeatedly insulted his mother and sister. Now Zidane's mother has joined the argument: she wants revenge.
It seems one person at least agrees with Zidane's refusal to apologize to Materazzi: Zidane's own mother, Malika. English tabloid The Mirror quotes Malika -- who is recovering from illness -- as telling friends: "I am utterly disgusted by what I have heard. I praise my son for defending his family's honour."
"No one should be subjected to such foul insults on or off the football pitch and I don't care if it was a World Cup Final. I have nothing but contempt for Materazzi and, if what he said is true, then I want his balls on a platter."
"It was then that it occurred to me that what I had just witnessed was a microcosm of the Muslim Ummah, played out in a soccer field before the eyes of the whole world."
It's true. People of the Ummah need to wear boxing gloves on their heads because they don't use their heads for reason. A Muslim using his head to punch a person is a microcosm of the larger Muslim Ummah-in Darfur, in Israel, in India, etc., etc., etc....
"...Zidane was the Muslim Ummah, with past glory and achievement crowning his forehead...
No. Zidane in fact has a past history of losing his temper, headbutting an opponent and losing the game for his team. Family honour has nothing to do with his behaviour. Muslim entitlement does, nothing more profound than that.
And just for a laugh, here is the Zidane head-butting game. Funniest thing I've seen in ages!
http://www.footymax.com/zidane.htm
"Like Zidane's suffering of an alleged abuse, we also suffer the abuse of the desecration of our holy symbols, occupation of our lands, colonization, genocide (as in Darfur?) and murder of innocent civilians."
One thing that constantly surfaces in the Muslim mind is what psychologists call projection. Muslims very often accuse non-Muslims of the very thing they do. It is a mind-set that is almost immune from scientific-objective logic or self-criticism.
These muslims have selected memories, they only remember what happens to them, never what they did to other non-muslims. last night l listened on the radio the Syrian ambassader to the US, all he kept crying about the abuse that Israel was doing onto the poor people of Lebanon, little did he remember only last year when thousands of Lebanese shouted on the streets out with Syrians!
Zidane is a non practising Muslim. I doubt very much he was influenced by anything other than normal anger at whatever was said to him. That's not to condone his behaviour.
I'm not a psychologist but I am fascinated with how people think-what goes on inside their heads. I think this habit of projection (which appears common with very many Muslims) is linked to their wiiful lack of self-criticism and a rejection of scientific logic. It's not a problem of intelligence-it's a problem of the will. I think it's rooted in some deep fear of objective reality. It's really a kind of collective mental illness. Anyway, that's my analysis..
Dr. Frank
this is so annoying.
Zidane isnt even a "practising Muslim" - i.e. in other words, he was born Muslim, but is now either an agnostic , atheist, or just doesnt give a shit about religion.
That Italian wanker said something about his sister AND mother, not once - but THREE times.
Ok, Zidane shouldnt have done it - but the guy lost his cool, as anyone in that situation would.
(bear in mind folks - the amount of adrenalin that would be in your body during a world cup final would be somewhat higher than normal!)
This is the most pathetic excuse for Muslim violence I've ever seen. Does this give a permission slip for every muslim whose felt wronged to go around head butting people? Or even worse?
Just as Zidane should have done, the muslims need to recall the old saying "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me". Perhaps if Zidane had done that, he could have finished the game, perhaps scoring a goal. If not that, he could have participated in the penalty kick phase and not beamed one off the goal post. Perhaps if Muslims do that, there wouldn't be so much violence in the world. Maybe there wouldn't be so much "victimhood" where Muslims use it to their advantage, with pathetic excuses like this one.
Oh, and just remember. France lost. Just as the Muslims will do.
These muslims have selected memories, they only remember what happens to them, never what they did to other non-muslims.: Lulu
Exactly! And the only reason these dolts get away with making their asinine comments is because very few non-muslims challenge them. In fact, many on the left actually buy into this crap (pardon my french). The list of atrocities committed by muslims against non-muslims (and, for that matter, muslims on other muslims) outshadows by far any real or perceived persecution that muslims may have suffered at the hands of non-muslims. But this sort of blame game is nothing new in Islam, it started way back when Muhhammad himself terrorized the Arab population at the flimsiest of pretexts. These blatherings by muslims are nothing more than an impotent rage at their own empty selves, incapable of achieving anything meaningful in any field whether it be science, architecture, arts or technology.
Nice analogy. Let's bring it to its conclusion and kick the muslims out of the game.
Done.
Over with.
You no longer get to play.
No soup for you!
Perfect nonsense.
It is not Muslims nor Islam that has been under assault. It is the Muslims who have driven Hindus out of Pakistan and Bangladesh by the millions, who have attacked and murdered Christians over the past two decades in Sudan, and in Nigeria before, during, and after the Biafra War, and all over Indonesia, where in 2003 alone thousands of churches were destroyed. And it is Muslims who attacked the Maronites and other Christians, murdering many in the ways we all know -- see Damur, and ask why the massacre there is so little known except to Maronites -- in Lebanon, or who, at a steady low level, make life difficult, and in some places intolerable, for Copts in Egypt. It is Muslims who have attacked inoffensive Buddhist monks, schoolteachers, and farmers in southern Thailand, who have attacked Christian villagers in southern Philippines.
In Western Europe, who is being attacked? Whose laws and customs and understandings are being destroyed? Whose freedom of speech in Denmark, and in Holland, are being curtailed by death threats, and even by murder, of people who dared to express a truth or truths about Islam? Whose laicity, a principle of the state, is being attacked in France? Who is it in Italy who demands that crucifixes be removed everywhere, who plot to poison water supplies in a main city, who speak of destroying a fresco that depicts Muhammad, who would, if they could, ban Dante for his remarks on Muhammad, who take over churches and vandalize them, who have issued death threats against Oriana Fallaci and Magdi Allam? Who is it who engineered the dismissal of Will Cummins from his British Council job? Who is it who insists that Islam be celebrated everywhere, from the British Museum to a gathering on Shakespeare (now we are told that Othello was a Muslim, instead of someone who smote the Muslims; now we are told that Shakespeare himself was a Muslim; now we are told that Islam and the United Kingdom go way, way back, back into the mists of woad-painted time). Who is it -- is it Vietnamese, is it Chinese, is it Hindus, is it Andean Indians, it is black African Christians from West or East or South Africa -- who is it who cannot fit in anywhere, who causes disruption and expense and disturbance everywhere, and a palpable rise in physical insecurity?
Is this to be ignored? Are we not to read the Qur'an and the Hadith? Should we not find out what Muhammad was all about? Should we find out, or choose to ignore, 1350 years of Jihad-conquest? Should we find out how non-Muslims were everywhere treated according to the Sharia or Holy Law of Islam, or should we continue to avoid finding out?
Should we study all this, or should we be satisfied with the notion that poor, noble, misundrstood Islam, goaded beyond measure, by those vicious Infidels who have been taunting, taunting, taunting it, finally just had to butt a head, or two? Or should we look at those decapitation videos, the ones proudly put up as recruiting posters, and study the ways of taqiyya-and-tu-quoque, and consider the man who wrote that offensive and intolerable piece of transparent apologetics above to be toiling, as he so obviously is, in the vineyards -- the only vineyards Islam considers licit -- of Jihad, the same Jihad, with the same goals, as those who use violence. His Jihad differs only in his choice of weapon, his choice of most effective instrument.
What Farhad Khadim is saying is simply that Muslims don't have themselves under control. Maybe he is right.
After all, the reasen for women to be veiled is the opinion that men don't have their sexual impulses under control. Maybe he is right, speaking for his ilk.
However, when in Civilization, you have to behave or to bear the consequences (Zidane does bear the consequences, by the way.)
From the article:
"...the Muslim Ummah has suffered provocations and deliberate attempts to tarnish its image..."
They've done a fine job, all by themselves, of tarnishing Islam's image.
The current Gaza/Israel/Lebanon crisis is another example of that.
Hugh-
I'm on to something re this projection stuff (including the often charged "set-up" from Muslims-as in London). It's rooted in a willful denial of objective reality. Man the pigs fly and the elephants lay eggs in this kind of mind. As someone once said, "Hell is a place without reason". Only utter defeat will bring them to reason. It's a Greek Tragedy-stay tuned for the final act which is foreordained by their achilles-heel-head problem re objective reality and self-criticism.
Submission is indeed footbinding for the head-and that's sad...
http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/images/bndfeet2.gif
From the Lying Farhad Khadim: "...deliberate attempts to tarnish its (Islam's)image, despite great civilizational achievements for a millennium."
Now that is big, fat, bald faced lie. The kind that only a Mohammedan can utter.
"Zidane was the Muslim Ummah, with past glory and achievement crowning his forehead, leading his .."
What glory ? What achievements ? Of multiple genocides of all non muslims ?
"despite great civilizational achievements for a millennium."
The only achievements muslims have had since the inception of islam is the destruction of civilization.
"we also suffer the abuse of the desecration of our holy symbols, occupation of our lands, colonization, genocide and "
When was the last time a Cross or an Om was allowed in any islamic country, specially the UAE. Occupation of our lands, indeed. There are more islamic countries in the world than there are any other, in fact I can not off hand say if any country other than the Vatican is based on religion. And where is a genocide of muslim population going on. Will pay too see it.
Brilliant logic of muslim mind solves a complex problem yet again. A sunni, on his way to meet his 72, blew himself up along with a shia 'cleric'. So, it was only natural for the shias to arrive at the conclusion that pizza hut was responsible.
"Angry Shi'ites rampage in Karachi"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071500340.html
A translation of all the victimization B.S. of this Khadim guy: "Let us conquer and subjugate you peacefully, otherwise we'll do it violently". And he has the gall to suggest that we have to take it, that "infidels" are to blame: "I see his reaction as analogous to the protests, flag burnings and other emotional outbursts committed by Muslims against others who may have deliberately provoked them."
I tell you guys, I know a lot of infidels who are this close of having an "emotional outburst" themselves. It may be the only way to halt this disease.
There's no evidence that Zidane's headbutt has anything to do with Islam or the psychology of Muslims, though Farhad Khadim would like to spin it as such (everything is about Islam and Muslims, don't you know?)...this tells us about Khadim, not Zidane...so the remainder of my post is OT
Zidane's headbutt is simply a case of an undisciplined, selfish, childish act, no matter what the Italian player (allegedly) said or didn't say. I'm surprised that more people are not mentioning this. It amazes me how people on all sides are making excuses for Zidane. What he did was assinine, pure and simple. Unfortunately, there are 'trash-talkers' in every major sport, and not letting them get under your skin is a basic mental skill of any player. But the hot-heads who can't handle it are easy marks for the opposing team, and the hot-heads often do something stupid to cause their own team to lose.
If the Italian player really did say something about Zidane's mother and/or sister, this was unlikely intended as an insult of them but rather a ploy, specifically targeting Zidane as a psychologically weak/undisciplined player. And Zidane proved himself, once again, to be undisciplined. If you are an athlete and your team depends on you, you need to be able to channel your emotions into winning the game. If you decide to retaliate and cost your team a penalty (i.e., provide an opportunity that gives the opposing team to defeat you), you are putting your own ego ahead of your team.
(Besides, even if Zidane's excuse is that he had to defend his family's honour, and he insisted on responding physically, he could have done a lot better than headbutting a guy in the chest. He could have waited until after the game to fight him one-on-one).
This wimp Zidane would not last two minutes in an NBA trash talk game, would he?
http://www.allahfish.com
Never under estimate the power of scribble
As for ZZ, two words... SUCKED IN!!
arjun.sevak-
So true. So sad. Words are almost inadaquate in trying to make sense of this kind of non-thinking. No judicial temperment or scientific method is permitted to be part of their mind...it's amazing..
arjun.sevak-
To be more specific: No judicial temperment or scientific method is permitted to be part of their mind with regard yo their belief-system.
Don't forget the phobias: Xenophobe and 'Islamophobe'.
MATERAZZI-ZIDANE: RAGE IN ALGERIA, ITALY IS XENOPHOBE
Ummah News Links
A chicken in a Kazakh village has laid an egg with the word "Allah" inscribed on its shell... Oh this is too much, no amuont of education is going to turn these 'mosbots' around...
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1021712006
Maybe Zindane thought that if injured the Italian player, Italy would have to play a man short because they couldn't bring in a sub.
Nomatter how one speculates (maybe this and maybe that), the fact is, Zidane committed a serious foul, for which he was appropriately reprimanded. That is a simple fact of the incident in the esteemed world of sports. That Zidane cauld not be a sportsman(inspite of his famed repute) is his own undoing.
Appropriately, France lost and they can thank their reputed and esteemed un-sportsman for that.
One thing that constantly surfaces in the Muslim mind is what psychologists call projection. Muslims very often accuse non-Muslims of the very thing they do. It is a mind-set that is almost immune from scientific-objective logic or self-criticism.
Posted by: Frank at July 15, 2006 10:20 AM
Which, Frank, means that Muslims are beyond reason. It is that simple.
This is just plan silly, an act of poor sportspersonship used to justify jihadi violence. This honor business is a joke. Muslims get with the 21st century!
Much to do about a event that in the end is nothing, other than his team lost.
Zidane is a non practising Muslim. I doubt very much he was influenced by anything other than normal anger at whatever was said to him. That's not to condone his behaviour.
Posted by: Celsius at July 15, 2006 10:34 AM
Sorry, Celsius, but that is neither here, nor there.
God help us all, because our idiotic politicians and lawmakers sure aren't doing it, and even far too many of our fellow citizens are so brainwashed that they can't see what's happening right in front of their blinded eyes!
Posted by: americaningermany at July 15, 2006 01:03 PM
I share your concern, grief, anger and frustration. Politicians are selling their electorate out at the altar of a stinking vote. These 'sell-outs' need to pay. As for brain-washed fools, as they say, 'there is a sucker born every minute'. And each sucker is as dangerous. They need to be ignored at the least, shamd from there on..
"our legacy of patience and restraint"
Oh that's rich!
1400 years of bloodshed, that's one hell of a legacy.
Zidane head-butted the other player because he was having a go at him. Nothing to do with religion, the west or anything else, just football. Any other time they would have been hammering him for playing the infidel's game of footie. Maybe someone coud say the same thing about Wayne Rooney.
Ok, Zidane shouldnt have done it - but the guy lost his cool, as anyone in that situation would.
(bear in mind folks - the amount of adrenalin that would be in your body during a world cup final would be somewhat higher than normal!)
Posted by: archduke at July 15, 2006 10:36 AM
NO! Zidane's action cannot be condoned, nor explained away. As a senior player and a captain, he is expected to know better. A simple complain lodged with the refree on the field should have done it. Then, Zidane would have left in glory and France would have won. The sportsmanship is bigger than the sport, which is bigger than any player, much less his 'adrenalin'.
You see, the head is first a thinking organ, then, a butting one..........
As far as I know, Zidane is a Berber and therefore hardly sympathetic towards Arabs.
In a previous match against Saudi Arabia he stamped on an opposing player, much to the delight of the Berbers in the crowd who cheered him on.
I imagine he experiences a degree of cognitive dissonance when identified as a Muslim.
Libbysmom - that headbutting game is brilliant.
Love all and hate none.
Mere talk of peace will avail you naught.
Mere talk of God and religion will not take you far.
Bring out all of the latent powers of your being
And reveal the full magnificence of your immortal self.
Be surcharged with peace and joy
And scatter them whatever you are…
This is your mission, to serve the people…
(From the final sermon of the sufi saint Khwaja Mu’inuddin Chisti RA)
Love all and hate none.
Mere talk of peace will avail you naught.
Mere talk of God and religion will not take you far.
Bring out all of the latent powers of your being
And reveal the full magnificence of your immortal self.
Be surcharged with peace and joy
And scatter them whatever you are…
This is your mission, to serve the people…
(From the final sermon of the sufi saint Khwaja Mu’inuddin Chisti RA)
Wait for the fatwa against Materazzi.
There is no relationship between islam and what he did, in my opinion. This just doesn't make much of a sense - you see soccer players fighting all the time, it's not just muslims who act violently on the field. This kind of article makes this website look silly. There are much more obvious things about muslims you can find to discuss!
If the author of that article gets offened that easily by what was said to Zidane, he would be crying to mommy every night if he ever got on a Highschool Football field, never mind collegiate or pro ball! Seems like an insecure "little" man to me....
Perun:
"This kind of article makes this website look silly."
You seem not to have noticed the fact that the equation of Zindane with the Islamic world was made by the Muslim writer Farhad Khadim, not by anyone here.
The point of posting it actually has nothing to do with Zindane at all. It has to do with the jihadist mentality of projection, displacement of responsibility, and blaming of the victim.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
PEACEnLOVE-
AmericaninGermany is right.
"The real fringe group within Islam is neither al Qaeda nor any other Muslim group but rather the Sufis, who preach love between God and humanity, uphold principles of strict asceticism, and live in quiet meditation among monastic settings. The Sufis, who represent less than 5% of Islam, have been subjected to centuries of violent persecution and brutal oppression from their fellow Muslims."-from The Dunces of Doomsday, page 20, by Paul L. Williams.
PEACEnLOVE, you are not being honest if you are attempting to make it appear that that which is the exception is the rule.
Lest we forget, ANY competitive championship sporting event contains a degree of phychological warfare(something that Arab/Muslims certainly are aware of and practice); so a little trash-talking is to be expected. This is designed to throw anyone off their game, especially a team captain. He should know better. Any topic is fair game for insult.(see NFL, NHL, NBA, Polo, etc...)
That is why there is a channel for grievances ie, referees.
Italy could not have, in their wildest dreams, envisioned such a surprising and satisfactory turn of events. This Khadim is right about one thing: the outcome of the match will fit his analogy.
It's a shame because from what I know the Sufis have been revered as the greatesty amond Islamic scholars and leaders ever since the emergence of Islam.
And NO ONE knows Islam or the meaning of the Koran better than the Sufis. They practice Islam's highest form.
About sufis.
sheik gilani, a sufi pakistani,
lover of al qaeda,
held in greatest regard
by shia and sunni,
considers it fard
for all who are able
to become a jihadi.
. . . and once again,
for our favorite sufi . . .
To Stephen Schwartz
Does your pir keep you whirling, turning,
bowing, chanting, repeating the name allah
til fana obliterates your rational mind
until reason flees and frees you
from all those rules and regulations
imposed on all those baser men
imprisoned in the box of islam?
Show me the sufi love of your allah.
Show me his kindness and compassion,
his love for All Creatures Great and Small,
through the ages, One and All.
Tell me, meccan, about your perfect prophet.
In your sacred books I read that
he was a pedophile, murderer and thief,
a lusty power-monger tribal chief.
You say this was only the custom of the time,
while other of your medinan brothers say,
"No,this is the way it must always be, allah said so."
Is this the pattern you seek to imitate?
Is this this the pattern to which you aspire,
nihilism, the kiss of death,
the death not only the ego,
but also of your sacred foe?
Ecstatic states can never take the place
of a universal, unitary ethic, oh no.
So keep turning and whirling
in your dance of duality
led by the sufi shadow sheiks
who draw the line in the sand
and stand in its name, islam.
Posted by: Frank at July 15, 2006 10:20 AM
Re: Which, Frank, means that Muslims are beyond reason. It is that simple.
Alert-Too many Muslims are in the twilight zone when it comes to reason. If Sufis were the rule rather than the exception in Islam we would probably not be posting here. But we are posting here, Alert.
Zidane was born a muslim but is now an athiest who is married to a Christian. He also has Christian children. I don't think this has anything to do with Islam. Otherwise, he wouldn't have stomped the muslim player from Saudi Arabia. I think this has to do with an arrogant player with too much money and a temper problem.
PEACE N' LOVE-
True Sufis were and are dangerous apostates to Islam and their core teachings predate Islam. A good example are the Bektashis of Albania who hid Christian Agape and ecstatic teachings within their order after the Muslim conquest.
I have personally met Sufi Sheikhs in my travels in the 1970's who transcended Islam - rare, but they did exist. One I knew of Iran was long ago murdered by the government.
Zathras, I've been thinking about that too. Just say all muslims leave western countries tommorrow. Would their concepts of "honour" etc still exist? Would Westerners adopt the idea of killing sisters who "dishonoured the family"? The connection between the mafia and Islam has been written about at Dhimmiwatch, and is at the archives on April 2004.
Will we end up the same way that Sicilians did from having muslims on their land?
It's Jihadwatch, 20 April 2004.
And NO ONE knows Islam or the meaning of the Koran better than the Sufis. They practice Islam's highest form.
Posted by: PEACEnLOVE at July 15, 2006 03:07 PM
There is no "highest form" of Islam; it is a lowly, demonic gutter cult subdivided into various sects, all of which originiated in the depths of Hell.
If the Sufis "know" the Qur'an and its majestic, albeit, mysterious "meaning" better than all other muslims, that is hardly a compliment unless they have figured out a way to reject its intolerant hatred and murderous violence, which they joyously embrace. If it's peace and love you seek, you won't find it in any form of Islam.
Am I missing something? Zidane lost his cool and head-butted Materazzi over a few words; whatever Materazzi said it is not worth taking yourself out of the game. Only twelve year old boys react like Zidane did. It was a brilliant move by Matterazzi. Similar things happen in US (real) football, the "offended" player reacts and costs his team 15 yards. Real men do not act like that. This is not about Islam this about pampered children, a lot like NBA players.
But being an American Football (Real Football) Fan, I couldn't care less even if Zidane lit the fuse on a bomb he had in his jock strap. Soccer Is BOOOOOOOORING!
Sufis all work in the framework of Islam. Most of the verses people use to justify a violent Islam refer no to the outer battle against our human brothers but our inner devils who block us from God or Allah.
Islam preaches what all of the greatest religions (Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism) about there being a greater Reality beyond this world and the human's ability to reach that Reality.
It was never about killing the "infidels" because Sufis know that the true infidels are within ourselves.
Final word re Israel's lousy public relations-
In an earlier post I noted that the ultimate danger Israel faces is very similar to the actual genocide Arabs are engaged in with regard to the mostly African peoples of Darfur. I think that Israel has a great opportunity in this current crisis to link the two issues. Israel can put pressure on her enemies, relieve the suffering of the Africans in Darfur and recapture the moral high-ground that has been taken by Arab propaganda that paints Israel as a bully. Further, I think humanitarian aid (air-lifting food, medicine, etc) to the Africans should be considered by the people and government of Israel.
Frankly, I think Israel's public relations has been a disaster and it has allowed her enemies to win the perception war. Israel is just as much an underdog as the poor misfortunates in Darfur. The only difference is that Israel has the means to fight back so it does not suffer the same fate.
All kinds of Sufis preached the Jihad, and still do. The naive notion, expressed immediately above, that Sufis must necessarily mean only the poetry of Rumi, whirling dervishes, and even Hesse's "Siddhartha" (nothing to do with \Sufis, but it sounds right), Summer of Love raising its beflowered head and giving the Peace sign.
Those who read Rumi and get interested in what they think of as Sufi Islam may assume that Jihad has nothing to do with any of this. But it isn't true. Jihad is a central, not tangential, duty, of all Muslims, and 1350 years of history can be offered in evidence. The anthology "The Legacy of Jihad" offers passages from the Qur'an and Hadith, excerpts from the most important Muslim writers on Islam (including that Sufi, al-Ghazali, and articles by the most important Western scholars of Islam.
What more evidence does one need?
lol, the jihad the Sufis are taking about is the JIhad-al_Nafs, or the Greater Jihad against the rebels within ourselves. I have read the poetry and writings of so many Sufis and rarely did I ever see them mention jihad as war against non-Muslims.
Jihad to free our own souls is the Greater Jihad and it is derived from a saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him), where upon returning from a battle he told his companions "We are coming from the lower Jihad to the greater Jihad" and commented that the greater jihad is against the nafs our animalistic behaviors within ourselves.
You are right, Jihad-al-Nafs is a central duty of Muslims, but the Jihad you are referring to isn't.
For clarification: http://www.uga.edu/islam/sufismstruggle.html
Having lived and worked in Sudan, I have seen the very close relationship of Sufism and Jihad. In Khartoum North, the Sufi's aided and sheltered bin Laden when he was there. His closest relationships were with Sufi leaders. Many Muslims in Sudan, believe that bin Laden is in fact Sufi, as was known to adopt some of there practices, like "giving" al-Fatiha to the dead.
On 11 September 2003, during my first gullible week in Sudan, I went to a Sufi mosque believing that, unlike the other Masjids celebrating 9/11, they would not be. Instead, when I arrived before salat they were chanting for bin Laden, and for victory against the United States and Israel.
Sufism is not the innocous entity that people believe it to be. People like Schwartz, are either too ignorant or too clever to openly admit it.
bin Laden is a billionaire, Sufis on the other hand are known for living in extreme poverty. They have let go of this world and are not attracted by anything in it. They only seek God and all humans have the same desire.
No wonder Rumi's poetry shot to the top in America. Americans crave spirituality too.
Asalamu aleykum PEACEnLOVE
You wrote
They have let go of this world and are not attracted by anything in it. They only seek God and all humans have the same desire.
Really? While you may be right about some Sufi's, the two million Sufi's in Sudan would vehemently disagree with you.
Get a clue.
Walaikum Salam
I didn't mean to attack your argument and I apologize if I did. I have never been to Sudan nor do I know the Muslims there but I do know that any Sufi (no matter where he or she is) is sent to guide humanity, not destroy us.
It goes against the commnand in the Quran where if "you kill one human it is if you killed all of humanity" and "if you save a human it is as if you saved all of humanity".
And i'm not even sure there are 2 million Sufis worldwide let alone in Sudan. It is not a group which you can easily declare yourself a part of.
AA
The ayat you have cited (Qur'an 5:32) (which is by the way incomplete)is one of the most oft cited verses in the Qur'an and is used by apologists in this deen. It reads:
For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.
This is one of the most oft cited ayat in the Qur'an. You have ommitted the most important part "or corruption in the earth". What exactly does corruption mean? Some Muslims have actually used this verse to justify 9/11 and countless other terror attacks.
In Sudan, there are approximately 2 million Muslims who identify with at least some Sufi practices. THe numbers have increased dramatically, since some in Sudan claim he followed Sufi practices. Sufi's in Egypt are similar and many now identify with Ikwan Islamiyya (MB).
A good article on sufism by Andrew Bostom:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4495
"Presently, a Sufi Naqshbandi leader , Shamil Basayev, who envisions himself to be in the mold of legendary 19th century Naqshbandi North Caucasus jihadists, such as his namesake Imam Shamil, plays a key role in the ongoing Chechen jihad against the post-Soviet Russian government. Basayev, it should be noted, not only appears to have Caliphate dreams , he orchestrated the brutal Beslan massacre of at least 331 schoolchildren in North Ossetia, September 3, 2004.
...
'Sufism is not a sect, nor is it a heretical or schismatic movement; it is an integral part of orthodox Islam. [emphasis added] Western analysts in particular are prone to lose sight of this fact, frequently alluding to Sufism instead as something foreign to Islam, indeed something aberrant…the heritage of Sufism [includes] not only in its cultural, intellectual and mystical aspects, but also…its militant holy war [i.e., jihad] tradition, symbolized by the Caucasian Naqshbandiya' "
I was just looking for this link thanks.
If you have a Gmail account please look at this page and pg.83 right after it:
http://books.google.com/books?id=8grB4SKJrXsC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&vq=ali&dq=Islam+%26+World+Peace&sig=scHJgsmYBM6j1z4BRF1BWCog43o
It tells a beautiful story about the fourth Caliph of Islam and himself a Sufi, Ali RA.
Notice the Quran says if you "save the life of a human being it is as if you saved the life of all of humanity" thus placing the superiority of saving a life and helping others live above killing (even if it is justified by the person's "corruption".
Sufism, while firmly grounded in Islam, accepts all religions who accept God as is indicated by the fact that Rumi himself had disciples from all religions and how Bawa Muhayadeen (www.bmf.org) did the same.
PeaceNLove,
Re: Greater Jihad. Interpret it as you will, however, it is based on a weak hadith (not "sahih"), and, even if it was generally accepted, Mohammad never preached pacificism as a permanent or long-term strategy.
Re 5:32. Haidon is right. See this.
"Most of the verses people use to justify a violent Islam refer no to the outer battle against our human brothers but our inner devils who block us from God or Allah."--PeaceNLove
Very funny, PeaceNLove.
2:286. "...give us victory over the disbelieving people.”
Yes, clearly, for 1382 years Muslims have misinterpreted the word "people," whereas this refers to inner tendencies. Glad that you are here to straighten that one out for us.
8:67 It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
It's easy to see how non-Sufis could have misunderstood "slaughter," given that the true meaning has to do with controlling those nasty inner desires. And the "captives"? Oh, those are just captive emotions and thoughts.
Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Ibn Ishaq made the same mistake.
2:251. “...And if Allah did not check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief...”
Non-Sufis have misunderstood this, thinking that people means people, whereas actually people refers to inner tendencies---the Muslim tendencies are used to keep the non-Muslim tendencies in check.
9:5 "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due [zakat], then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
It's all about inner tendencies, and payment of the mandatory zakat is a symbolic inner process.
53:39. "...man can have nothing but what he does (good or bad)..."
...within the safe confines of his own inner self.
8:60. “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.”
"Them" refers to nasty thoughts only. These are very nasty thoughts, so nasty, in fact, that external equipment, horses, and manpower is needed to remove them.
4:144 "Believers, do not choose the unbelievers rather than the faithful as your friends. Would you give Allah a clear proof against yourselves?"
This means don't be friendly to thoughts of disbelief.
Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2498:
Narrated Anas ibn Malik:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Use your property, your persons and your tongues in striving against the polytheists.
...in your imagination only.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 392:
Narrated Abu Huraira: While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."
All references to safety, real estate, selling, etc., are metaphors for the struggle to capture regions of one's own soul for Allah.
57:25. “Indeed We have sent Our Messengers with clear proofs, and revealed with them the Scripture and the Balance (justice) that mankind may keep up justice. And We brought forth iron wherein is mighty power (in matters of war), as well as many benefits for mankind, that Allah may test who it is that will help Him (His religion), and His Messengers in the unseen. Verily, Allah is All-Strong, All-Mighty.”
Iron, along with other minerals, vitamins, and trace elements, is needed for inner cerebral war against disbelief.
9:14. Fight against them so that Allâh will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people,"
…fight against them (sinful thoughts) and Allah will punish them by your (metaphorical) hands.
4:77 Hast thou not seen those unto whom it was said: Withhold your hands*, establish worship and pay the poordue, but when fighting was prescribed for them behold! a party of them fear mankind even as their fear of Allah or with greater fear, and say: Our Lord! Why hast Thou ordained fighting for us?* If only Thou wouldst give us respite yet a while! Say (unto them, O Muhammad): The comfort of this world is scant; the Hereafter will be better for him who wardeth off (evil); and ye will not be wronged the down upon a date-stone."
*metaphorical.
5:33. “The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.”
Allah's inner spiritual killing, torture, amputations, and expulsions.
17:16. And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its folk who live at ease, and afterward they commit abomination therein, and so the Word (of doom) hath effect for it, and we annihilate it with complete annihilation.
21:14. They cried: "Woe to us! Certainly! We have been Zalimun (polytheists, wrong-doers and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah, etc.)." 21:15. And that cry of theirs ceased not, till We made them as a field that is reaped, extinct (dead).”
...Allah carried out multiple genocides against sinful inner desires.
47:31. “And surely, We shall try you till We test those who strive hard (for the Cause of Allah) and the patient ones, and We shall test your facts (i.e. the one who is a liar, and the one who is truthful).”
...inner facts and tests only.
3:140. If a wound (and killing) has touched you, be sure a similar wound (and killing) has touched the others. And so are the days (good and not so good), We give to men by turns, that Allah may test those who believe, and that He may take martyrs from among you. And Allah likes not the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers). 3:141. And that Allah may test (or purify) the believers (from sins) and destroy the disbelievers.
3:142. Do you think that you will enter Paradise before Allah tests those of you who fought (in His Cause) and (also) tests those who are As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.)? 3:143. You did indeed wish for death (AshShahadah - martyrdom) before you met it. Now you have seen it openly with your own eyes.
…more wounds to and destruction of disbelieving thoughts, more inner tests, inner death, etc.
33:60. “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease (evil desire for adultery, etc.), and those who spread false news among the people in AlMadinah, cease not, We shall certainly let you overpower them, then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbours but a little while. 33:61. Accursed, wherever found, they shall be seized and killed with a (terrible) slaughter. 33:62. That was the Way of Allah in the case of those who passed away of old, and you will not find any change in the Way of Allah.”
...the punishment for the inner demon-like hypocrites, adulterers/lechers, and alarmists in that region of the soul known as Medina.
3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allah, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers). 3:152. And Allah did indeed fulfil His Promise to you when you were killing them (your enemy) with His Permission; until (the moment) you lost your courage and fell to disputing about the order, and disobeyed after He showed you (of the booty) which you love. Among you are some that desire this world and some that desire the Hereafter. Then He made you flee from them (your enemy), that He might test you. But surely, He forgave you, and Allah is Most Gracious to the believers.
...cast terror into the hearts of evil thoughts, killing bad thoughts by permission of Allah, inner disputes, spiritual booty, etc.
4:34. "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are Qanitat*, and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard. As to those women on whose part you see ill conduct, admonish them, and abandon them in their beds, and beat them, but if they return to obedience, do not seek a means against them. Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great."
This means, beat your inner wife, if you fear rebellion from her.
4:24. "Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you-"
Allah grants permission for you to have sex with your inner war captive or slave girl.
65:4. “If you are in doubt concerning those of your wives who have ceased menstruating, know that their waiting period shall be three months. The same shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated…”
This describes some rules for divorcing imaginary wives, including imaginary wives that are too young to menstruate.
16:71. “And Allah has preferred some of you above others in wealth and properties. Then, those who are preferred will by no means hand over their wealth and properties to those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, so that they may be equal with them in respect thereof. Do they then deny the Favour of Allah?”
Allah has preferred it that some thoughts are richer and own more mental space than others, and these thoughts should not turn anything over to the slave thoughts, otherwise they would be denying Allah's favouring the freedom and prosperity of some thoughts over others.
Thanks for the reply. If you could possible read the following commentary regarding verse 8:67 I would appreciate it:
Aqa Mahdi Puya says:
For the first portion of the verse refer to verse 4 of Muhammad-the enemy soldiers should be killed while the battle is in progress but as soon as they are thoroughly subdued, killing should be stopped. After that they can be held as captives, either to be set free after taking ransom or letting those go free who cannot pay ransom. In both the verses yuthkhina does not mean slaughtered but thoroughly subdued. It is the command of Allah to fight with unyielding courage until the enemy is thoroughly subdued.
In verse 7 it is stated that the Muslims desired to capture the caravan carrying merchandise instead of going to fight the Makkan army.
Taking ransom from those who can pay it is allowed, but to say that yuthkhina means "killing" is to forge a lie against Allah. Some of the companions who were always afraid to fight the enemy in the battlefield wanted to kill them when they were held as helpless captives.
I am not trying to spread disinformation and if it comes across as that then forgive me. The Quran is a unique book in the fact that you will get from it what you approach it with. I find people who go to it and all they come away with is violence and the justification of hatred and destruction.
And then non-Muslims who read the Quran find peace and love and just because of the Quran they revert to Islam.
The great Sufi sain Khwaha Chisti RA also said,
"A friend of God must have affection like the Sun. When the sun rises, it is beneficial to all irrespective of whether they are Muslim, Christian, or Hindu.
A friend of God must be generous like a river. We all get water from the river to quench our thirst. It does not discriminate whether we are good or bad or whether we are a relation or a stranger.
A friend of God must display the hospitality like the earth. We are raised and cradled in its lap, and yet it is always under our feet."
I am not trying to spread disinformation and if it comes across as that then forgive me. The Quran is a unique book in the fact that you will get from it what you approach it with. I find people who go to it and all they come away with is violence and the justification of hatred and destruction.
And then non-Muslims who read the Quran find peace and love and just because of the Quran they revert to Islam.
The great Sufi saint Khwajha Chisti RA also said,
"A friend of God must have affection like the Sun. When the sun rises, it is beneficial to all irrespective of whether they are Muslim, Christian, or Hindu.
A friend of God must be generous like a river. We all get water from the river to quench our thirst. It does not discriminate whether we are good or bad or whether we are a relation or a stranger.
A friend of God must display the hospitality like the earth. We are raised and cradled in its lap, and yet it is always under our feet."
"PEACEnLOVE",
I'm curious if you have done the following:
Write identical blatherings about islam as "peaceful inner struggle" to muslim websites, such as islamicity or islamonline...Just copy and paste what you have written here.
...what responses have you gotten?
Please provide examples of this.
If you haven't, I suggest that you do. And see. And then share those responses here.
Bigcatgirl13106, you actually used the word "sportspersonship."
Pleeeeze explain yourself.
If I am spreading propaganda it is only a Propaganda of PEACE and LOVE. If you dislike such talk please seperate yourself from it.
I am sure you have throughly researched Islam and critically analyzed it's every principle and teachin looking for any ane every fault and expounding upon it. Numerous people have done so throughout history.
But the fact remains, million wake up every day to read the morning prayer because they find peace in it. Millions fast in the month of Ramadan to feel what the POOR and UNDERPRIVELEGED feel. Millions go to Hajj every year and among them from hundreds of countries all united in the greatest display of human unity. Millions give the mandatory Zakat to help the poor.
You claim Islam is evil and yet for 1400 years it has only spread. Conversions are increasing in America every day. explain WHY???
misinformation? are they tricked into thinking Islam is peace? are they forced into accepting? have they not read the very Quran which you claim is diabolical and found truth therein?
Please think about this. I know you are in safe terroitory on jihadwatch but I dare you go out this friday to a local mosque near you and listen the Friday Speech and then tell me what you heard.
We are all HUMANS- stop belittling one over another.
Hugh is absolutely right about sufism.
"In the chapter(A Call For India's Rebirth) "Sufis and Militance," Frawley observes the "gullibility" of Hindus to Sufism, "even if it hides the same old fundamentalism and militance Hindus oppose. They will bow down at the grave of a Sufi saint without inquiring about what made the particular person holy. In a number of instances it was his slaughter of the infidels that was responsible for his sanctity, including the ancestors of these self-same Hindus." This chapter is replete with citations to Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi's "A History of Sufism in India," a compendious 2-volume work of scholarship. Sample citation: A prominent sufi of the Suhrawardi order, Saiyid Nuruddin Mubarak of the thirteenth century exhortation of Muslim rulers to "make every effort to disgrace and humiliate Hindus. They should not tolerate the sight of Hindus, and in particular they should exterminate the Brahmans, who are the leaders of heretics and the disseminators of heresy."
About the supposed tolerance of the Sufis, Frawley notes: ". . .even great Sufi poets like Attar and Sanai wrote in praise of Sultan Mahmud's destruction of Somnath as a great victory of Islam over idolatory. ... Some earlier teachers, like the great Persian poet Rumi, were used by Sufi orders as a mystical support for their more militant agendas, just as St. Francis of Assisi, a gentle and saintly figure, was used by the more militant Catholic Church to improve its image." Frawley warns: "One should not think Sufi militance was an affair of the Middle ages and has been given up in modern times. Today there is an effort by Sufis to appear more liberal, not only in India but in the West, but if we look deeply this is often a public relations ploy. Ask such Sufis to criticize traditional Islamic militance. Ask them to honor the use of images in religious worship. Ask them to criticize traditional Islamic law with its cruel anti-blasphemy and anti-apostasy rules. Let their answer be your guide."
If islam is spreading in America, it's because their using if for the fertilizer that it is, deep pig squat. Too bad theirs not a hajj padj every day old moe would kill himself off in a couple years.
Mister Peace and Love...
If I were to tell you that the shoes of the people stink, at the entrance of the mosque. What would you tell me?
Brilliant suggestion. If 'Peace&Love' is genuine, and not on a taqiyya mission, he should do exactly what you suggest above.
Well, peace and love, when you hear the jihad against the civilized world during your Friday prayers, do you object to the sermon? Do you tell your cleric he is WRONG to preach violence against the country that is supporting you and probably him? Do you STAND UP against the other muslims who want to kill infidels and blow up stuff and tell them they are WRONG?
If you are a woman, do you wear the tent? Do you do it willingly in a free society? Do you see a problem with wearing it? Do you agree with FGM? Do you feel it's ok to be beaten? For your husband to have many wives?
PEACEnLOVE®
What about the list of najis things?
Will you admit that we are considered najis by muslims?
Anyone who has read a detailed account of events at the Siege of Malta or the fall of Constantinople is struck by the presence of the dervishes at the most ferocious moments of the fighting: when infantry launched an assault on a breach in enemy fortifications in the days of blackpowder battles, the first wave was often massacred: you hear accounnts of moats being filled with corpses. The dervishes seem to have made a speciality of being on the spot to urge these 'forlorn hopes' forward to certain death.
PeaceNLove,
The Puya commentary is consistent with the straightforward reading of 8:67: Make a wide slaughter before taking any captives. That's what the verse says, that's what Puya and other commentators say it says, that's what Ishaq says (even more graphically, see my previous post), and that's what nearly 1400 years of Islamic terror say. In context, the verse is talking about instilling terror by unleashing a wide, ferocious slaughter in which the bodies of the disbelievers are mutilated and put on display, dismembered, thrown down wells, etc. See also 8:57. When Puya plays around with the word "subdued" for 8:67, this is of no consequence whatsoever. The verse is talking about warfare, an attack by the Muslims. They killed, slaughtered many people, and shocked the Quraysh. Subdued by making a wide slaughter. To say otherwise is to invent a lie against Allah.
Next, you refer to 47:4. (Are you actually implying that you accept abrogation? That would be something---a PeaceNLove Muslim who also accepts abrogation! If so, come out and say so. No doubt you are familiar with Sura 9?!). 47:4 is actually just as bad or worse than 8:67, because in 47:4 the Koran clearly states that Allah could punish the disbelievers directly, himself, but instead he uses the believers to destroy disbelievers; it's all a test of faith. There is no requirement that the Muslim ruler has to spare anyone; that is a matter of personal discretion wherein the ruler decides what he thinks is in the best interests of Islam. Let them go, keep them captive, ransom them, take them as slaves and sell them, take them as dhimmis, or put them to the sword--all of these options may be used depending on the circumstances and the whims of the Muslim rulers.
Mohammad and his Muslims' attack on the Quraysh guards is the equivalent of attacking a modern defensive army or police force. Mohammad and his men were criminals engaged in plunder, extortion, terrorism, slave-trade, etc. See this
BTW, I note that you have shifted away from the 'inner struggle' defence. Didn't you say these violent verses were all about inner struggle? I also noted that you avoided every other verse I cited.
Peace and Love, I wish you were free to leave islam. But you'd probably be murdered if you tried to leave it. Without that freedom, of course you will feel the need to make any excuses to justify your beliefs.
Perhaps you even believe the lies you are telling us here, that somehow you can read that Mohammed slept with captive women and it wasn't rape, that he slept with a 9 year old girl, and he's still a 'perfect man' whose example should be followed, that wife-beating, punitive amputations, stonings etc are acceptable.
But you can't fool us.
Say what you must, but Islam has always been the world's greatest religions and the only major religion which is actually growing.
You recieve your information from extremely biased sites and books and magazines, etc. They tell you what to think about Islam. They tell you how you should feel about Muslims, about the hijab, about women.
WOmen rights were nonexistant before Islam. After Islam they could own property, initiate divorce, hold a job, and be respected members of society.
Look, I obviously can't change your minds if they are already set in stone regarding Islam. But I tell you to have an open-minded look at ANYTHING. Do not come forward with assumptions of others. Look at it for yourself.
You see Muhammad (PBUH) as a dictator and war-mongerer and yet he helped the poor and the orphans, never lived like a kind, would go hungry for days at a time, and would ask the people to be kind and merciful. WHen vicotious in Mecca he killed no one and asked them all to be set free.
Today, secretly go read a book about Islam which presents an unbiased view. Go, I won't tell anyone and everyone wlse on jihadwatch won't think bad of you.
It is impossible for a religion like Islam to continuously grow if it has nothing to offer.
PEACE and LOVE for all :-)
Lili,
Thank you for looking out for me and caring for me. That is what all humans must do for others. But, in my opinion, Islam is a great religion from which I find meaning and truth. Plus what would I leave Islam for- atheism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judiaism????
PEACE and LOVE for all
Posted by: PEACEnLOVE [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 16, 2006 12:13 PM
PeaceNLove,
From your perspective, if you are sincere, you are wasting your time here. As other posters have pointed out, you should be trying to convince mainstream Muslims that Islam is a religion of peace. We are justified in being suspicious that you are preaching to us and not your fellow Muslims.
You need to be honest and frank about the problems within Islam, instead of trying to cover them up. The Battle of Badr was an all-out blood bath waged by Mohammad and his criminal followers, against an army that was sent to defend a caravan against raiders like Mohammad. Muslims were in some cases fighting for the first time against their own family members, such was the psychological grip of Mohammad's cult, and what do you do? You come on here and try to fuss over the word "subdued" vs "slaughter", even though neither word choice changes the fact that people were killed in a ferocious manner and put on display to terrorize non-Muslims, and it was all ordered by "Allah". You ignored the meaning and context of verse 8:67, and did not even bother to address any of the other verses that I cited. Muslims' failure to address points is nothing new to me.
"Say what you must, but Islam has always been the world's greatest religions and the only major religion which is actually growing."
A large (i.e., populous) religion is not necessarily great. Most Muslims are raised as such from the time they are very young children, who, at that age, do not have the mental capacity to reject a religion or evaluate it critically. Once Muslims reach adulthood, they are not permitted to leave the religion. If they do, there will be penalties, up to an including death. (The official sharia penalty according to all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence today, is death).
You recieve your information from extremely biased sites and books and magazines, etc. They tell you what to think about Islam. They tell you how you should feel about Muslims, about the hijab, about women.
Nonsense. Our opinion comes from having read the Koran, Hadith, and Sira; Islamic law; Islamic history; and present-day Muslim behaviour and attitudes. It seems clear to me that you've read maybe a bit of Koran and some Sufi poetry. You've not read the full Koran, haven't read tafsirs, nor hadith, not Sira, nor Islamic Law, nor Islamic histroy. Come back when you've read these sources.
We also see countless Muslim apologists come onto this site and others and lie to us about what the Koran says or doesn't say---and there are only a few Muslims who are frank and honest about the problems (you met one of the honest guys, Haidon, above). I would not consider you honest after what you tried to pull with verse 8:67--a verse whose context was war, killing. We challenge you or anyone else to refute any article posted on this site, Islam-Watch, Faithfreedom, etc.
WOmen rights were nonexistant before Islam. After Islam they could own property, initiate divorce, hold a job, and be respected members of society.
Look, I obviously can't change your minds if they are already set in stone regarding Islam. But I tell you to have an open-minded look at ANYTHING. Do not come forward with assumptions of others. Look at it for yourself.
More nonsense. I initially believed that Islam was a religion like Christianity and Judaism...and then as events like 9/11, 3/11, etc., unfolded I decided to check whether this 'religion of peace' mantra was true. As I read the Koran I realized that this religion of peace mantra was one of the biggest jokes/lies ever told in the history of humankind.
To be open-minded means to ask questions, to be critical, skeptical, to base one's conclusions on evidence. I think most people at this site base their opinions about Islam on Islamic texts and history and present-day Muslim actions (reported at this site but also in the mainstream media) that are based on those texts. You have absolute faith in Islam even though you have no evidence that Allah exists.
A standard Muslim tactic is to claim that there is something wrong with the disbeliever/critic of Islam. Islam is perfect (5:3) and cannot be doubted (2:2). Like the Koran, you claim that our minds or perceptual capabilities are inadequate; we are ignorant and biased, you say, like the Koran says. You cannot acknowledge the problems in Islam and the Koran, and you are unable to mount any legitimate defence (thus you resort to ad hominem, calling us ignorant and biased, yet you are unable or unwilling to defend Islam on its merits---that should tell you something).
You see Muhammad (PBUH) as a dictator and war-mongerer and yet he helped the poor and the orphans, never lived like a kind, would go hungry for days at a time, and would ask the people to be kind and merciful. WHen vicotious in Mecca he killed no one and asked them all to be set free.
His alleged (we have no proof of it except stroies) help, kindness, and mercy were almost entirely directed toward Muslims, or for the purposes of Islamizing non-Muslims (converting them or at least bringing them under Muslim rule). The Koran otherwise forbids Muslims to help non-Muslims (28:86), but Muslims are permitted to receive help from non-Muslims.
The Islamic texts tell us he was a dictator, terrorist, genocidalist/ethnic cleanser, torturer, rapist, pedophile, highway robber, slave-owner, wife-beater, liar, and so on. Of course, all of this, including Mohammad himself, could be pure fiction. We are only going by what the Islamic texts, and we are criticizing the predominant Muslim belief. (The vast majority of Muslims think Mohammad existed). The Islamic texts describe Mohammad as a dictator who launched numerous raids and wars of aggression in the name of religion. To obey Mohammad is to obey Allah (4:80); everyone must obey Muhammad (3:32, 3:132, 4:13, 4:59, 4:69, 5:92, 8:1-2, 8:20, 8:46, 9:71, 24:47, 24:52-56, 33:33, 47:33, 49:14, 58:13, 59:7)
and...
4:115. "If anyone opposes the Messenger even after guidance has been plainly conveyed to him, and follows a path other than that becoming to men of Faith, We shall leave him in the path he has chosen, and land him in Hell,- what an evil refuge!"
...and as I cited above, Mohammad/Allah orders Muslims to deliver punishment on Earth against the disbelievers.
Today, secretly go read a book about Islam which presents an unbiased view. Go, I won't tell anyone and everyone wlse on jihadwatch won't think bad of you.
LOL! Unbiased view? I note that you do not provide an example of an unbiased view of the Koran. I've already told you, most people here have read the whole Koran itself or enough of it to get the main idea. You seem to be suggesting that reading apologetic works would give a less biased view of Islam than reading the Koran, and other original Islamic sources like the Hadith and Sira, classic tafsirs such as Ibn Kathir and the Jalalayn, and so on.
It is impossible for a religion like Islam to continuously grow if it has nothing to offer.
False. Good or bad, Islam is rigged to self-perpetuate. Islam grows and expands by (a) high birth rates among Muslims relative to other religious or non-religious groups, (b) the fact that most Muslims raise their children as Muslims and do not give them a choice in religion, (c) Muslims are threatened with death and other forms of punishment if they leave the religion, (d) Muslims are forbidden to criticize Islam (if they do, they face death), and (e) the spread of Islam globally has been aided most significantly by violent imperialism in the past, and this spread is being conducted today with the help of Islamist petrodollars (funding of building of Mosques all over the globe) and seriously flawed immigration policies in the west and elsewhere.
Islam cannot survive on its own merits because they are insufficient. (I use "merits" on a western definition). If people were allowed to leave Islam or criticize Islam openly, without threat or penalty, we would see the death of most of Islam within 2 or 3 generations. The late Khomeni admitted as much. You will note that today people are free to leave Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, atheism and agnosticism---or any number of new age religions that have sprung up over the past several decades---without penalty. Yet we see, for example, that the number of Christians world-wide exceeds the number of Muslims; and the number of atheists/agnostics is on the rise. Although there are not many Zoroastrians, they are the fastest growing religion.
Islam can thrive, though, in the same way that organized crime can thrive. A large element of Islam can be classified most accurately as organized crime. The apostasy and blasphemy laws, the "honour" code, the emphasis on deception and plunder/theft/extortion, the approval of rape and slavery, spousal abuse, the traitorous and seditious stance toward non-Muslim governments and societies, the near-universal hostility toward those not in the group (non-Muslims), etc., all point to canonical Islam as a criminal organization. (I'm not talking about moderate progressive Muslims here; I'm talking about those who actually follow the Koran closely and who follow, and wish to impose, Islamic law). It seems the world will always have evil people, people who thrive by exploiting, oppressing, preying upon, and hating others. These people, if they are not already followers of classic Islamic law, will be especially attracted to classical, canonical, mainstream (i.e., not reformed) Islam.
Peacenlove, you say women got their rights because of ole mo. Didn't mo marry a woman with her OWN business? Didn't she ALREADY have rights to OWN her business? Didn't she keep ole mo in line during their 25 year marriage? He didn't get his haram of women until AFTER she died. He didn't get to marry and rape a nine year old girl until AFTER his first wife died.
I think you muslims have it backwards, as usual. Until mo's FIRST wife died, women HAD rights.
Ryan: I also don't think that Zidane's head-butting incident had anything to do with Islam. A lot of North Africans in France are irreligious, and that diaspora has also been a wedge for Christian evangelism to North Africa. BTW and OT, someone of Algerian origin posted on Daniel Pipes' website not long ago to say that thousands of his countrymen were fed up with Islam and becoming Christians.
freewoman,
thanks for replying. if you wish to actually see how woman are treated in the Muslim world why don't you go there yourself and find out? we have nothing to hide and everythoing is transparent. it would be better you see the truth rather than sit here and have others tell you propaganda.
and just look around yourself where women are becoming more sexual objects than humans, wearing skimpier clothes as if they only have a body and no mind. when the nuns are modesty you praise them and when muslim women shoe to be the same you hate them, why the hypocrisy???
No thanks, peace and love, no third world country for me. To me, wearing a burka is like wearing a bikini at my age. Ain't gonna happen.
I've seen the stoning videos. I've seen the beheading photos. I've seen the videos that had to be sneaked out showing the horrible conditions muslim women have to live in.
Yes, there was a time I could have been considered a sex object. But I was NEVER considered to be a breeder. And unlike muslim women, I have all my parts intact.
As far as nuns go, I'm not Catholic, but I presume it is because they are very religious. In islam, women are put into burkas because the males don't control themselves and the burka is due to an ideology instead of a religion.
Freewoman- Most Muslim women do not wear the "tent" (burka or niqab).
PeaceNLove
You wrote
if you wish to actually see how woman are treated in the Muslim world why don't you go there yourself and find out? we have nothing to hide and everythoing is transparent. it would be better you see the truth rather than sit here and have others tell you propaganda.
I have lived in the Muslim world and can tell you that Muslim women generally live as second class citizens in accordance with the strict and unanimously accepetd interpretations of fiqh. In Sudan and Palestine I have seen Muslims women severely beaten. Women have little if any individual rights. What counts in Muslim countries is the rights of the collective.
PeaceNLove you have critcised the above posters and men like Robert for espousing propaganda. Keep in mind, Robert makes no judgment himself in his books. He relies solely on Islamic sources. Therefore is you criticse Robert, you must also criticse AlQur'an, hadith, Sirah and fiqh.
I implore you to begin thinking critically about our faith. Ask hard questions, seek answers and you will see the problems before us. Until then you will be part of the problem.
jazak allahu khairan
Infidel Pride,
"Brilliant" is excessive, but thank you for the compliment. That "take the islam-is-a-religion-of-peace-jihad-is-a-peaceful-inner-struggle to your fellow muslims" response should be one of our ("infidel") first responses, rather than one of the last.
"PEACEnLOVE" is blathering on and on as part of his/her da'wa (i.e. call to islam) mission, at least as much as taqiyya (dissimulation), although, as well, these two muslim phenomena do often mesh together. My impression, however, is that "PEACEnLOVE" sincerely believes much of the foolishness it shares here, which is why I see it as da'wa, rather than taqiyya/kitman. Same goes for the confused naseem and the idiotic mohideen ibramsha.
This was a preety big deal because the politically correct press and the european press made endless excuses for Zidane. The French were particularly fawning over their thug hero. The French were terrified that the suburbs would start blazing as French muslims would strike oiut at any slight to Zidane. Marco Materazzi was smeared by the global press and false stories were printed about his commenst and lip reading. The media was more concerned about Marco's comments than Zidane's assault. The cries of racism went up the incredibly politically correct Europe. The Italian team were called cheats.
The real point was Zidane was furious because Italy is impossible to score on thanks to incredible defenders like Cannavaro and Buffon. The horrible media has a double standard and you saw a lot of Dhimmni by Europeans, French and the press over this incident. If Materazzi had assaulted Zidane - he would be in jail not.
"thanks for replying. if you wish to actually see how woman are treated in the Muslim world why don't you go there yourself and find out? we have nothing to hide and everythoing is transparent. it would be better you see the truth rather than sit here and have others tell you propaganda. "
hey follower of the death cult, explain me this. I worked in a place where they had free computer and language classes for immigrants and the girl who had to recruit students was from Tunis AND muslim. When I asked her why with all the muslim immigration the classes were full of muslim MEN and the only women were from south america, china etc she told me "muslim women ARE SCARED to go outside the house for something like a class to learn something". This happens in a modern european country. You stupid fool. if they behave like that in EUROPE, imagine what's life in some third world country.
Gorniak, this is why I believe peaceandlove lives in a free country. NOT in the middle east. A free country still allows muslim women rights. I think peaceandlove needs to live overseas before preaching to us.
peacenlove sounds like a convert to islam. Still in the glowing stage, but will soon be in the "glowering stage" when the truth about islam dawns.
"we have nothing to hide and everythoing is transparent."
Burkas aren't too transparent.
"Why did the Muslim jihad warriors sweep through the Middle East and North Africa and into Europe in the early centuries of Islam, although the states they conquered had done nothing whatsoever to them?"
Look, I'm not here to defend Islam. But I take issue with the above statement.
Why did Aexander the Great sweep across eastward across Asia like he did with his armies? Why did the Mongols sweep westward across Asia on a path of destruction? Why did the Muslim jihad warriors sweep through the Middle East and North Africa and into Euurop in the early centures of Islam... Why did Imperial England attempt to colonize the entire globe???
Why? Because that is what empires of the past did. The Muslims weren't the first and they certainly weren't the last.
That certain followers of Islam have not shed this mentality of the past whereas their Christian counterparts have is a problem. A big problem. But ancient Empires were all about "unjustified" conquests and the Muslims were no exception to that.